Is this benchmark score right?

[Slammy1]

My 9700Pro scores 16% higher than the 9700Pro (84%). That's default.

 

[rachaelsdad]

I just benched my 9500 128 NP and not modded. I was at 100% the 4400 was at 104% the 4200 at 86% and the 9700 Pro was at 74%.

Really impressively accurate results. I also tried it with and without and OC and nothing changed except the results came up immediatley. Since it is a Mad Onion mark I would really wonder about the validity and its usefullness.

But it is nice knowing that my 9500NP beat the 9700 Pro by over 25%,

 

[modedepe]

Having an ie window open in 2d does not equal running a benchmark. That is why there is no change when you overclock, mod your card, whatever. All it does is look at the specs of your system. I think it takes into account your cpu etc and determines how much you would benefit from a different video card based on 01 scores.

 

[Reliant]

I'm 14% higher than the 9700 pro

 

[SilverBack]

24% faster than the 9700
(9800 Pro )

 

[Corporate Thug]

LOL, my 9800 pro is at 100% and the ti4400 is at 177%. yet the 9700 pro is only 125% and the 4600 is 98%. thus, ti4400 is hte fastest card in the world, then 9700 pro, then the ti4200. and the ti4600 is slower than a 4200,4400,ti500, and 8500

Bull Sh*t

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Ruroni
I don't think this site really benches anything. I got the same exact result twice, even though once I did it at stock speeds and once I did it Overclocked. I think this just bassicly finds out what Video card you have, and then just gives you the performance according to how it SHOULD perform in comparison to other cards.

All percentages are pretty much the same for all cards of the same make. I think you're better of DL'ing and using either Aquamark 3 or 3dmark03.

Personally I prefer auqamark because it lets you put your results on their site for free, whereas you have to buy futuremark's 3dmark03 to post it.

Here's my aquamark score

This is all I see:

An error has occured.
Please try again.
If this error persits, please contact support.

Error Message:
The user, that has made this measurement, has set it to be private. If you know him, you can tell him to set it to "public" on his overview page.

 

[Johnbear007]

Thats just stupid, because it obviously must not take processor speed into account very well.

There is no way a TI 4200 is beating out a 9700 PRO and thats what it shors for me

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: Regs
Uh wth! I have a 9800np and this thing says a GF Ti 500 will improve performance by 12% .

Bull Shite

I had basically the exact same resuluts as you on my 9800 non-pro also. 10% slower than a GF3 my arse!!!

Here's some funny breakdowns of my test (sorry for the lack of pic hosting):

Me (Rad9800 non-pro): 100% (duh)
GF4 Ti4400 172%
GF4 Ti4200 141%
Rad 9700Pro 120%
Rad 8500 118%
GF3 Ti500 110%
Parhelia 91%
Rad 9000Pro 89%
GF3 89%
GF4 Ti4600 89%
(this is where the test loses all credibilty whatsoever, besides the fact that I'm below everything else)

 

[hjo3]

How can you ppl complain about not having pic hosting? There are at least two free hosting sites that tons of AT'ers use; pics.bbzzdd.com and fox302.com. Just register... all you need is a valid email address.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Huh, I have a 5900 Ultra, and the 9700 PRO would be only 67% of mine. Strange.

 

[us3rnotfound]

Originally posted by: csaddict

Originally posted by: dquan97
I went to Maximum PC's website, where they have a "video card tester." Since I have recently upgraded to a FX 5200, I thought my scores would be up there. pic

Is this truthful? How did you do?

I wouldn't think of the FX5200 as an upgrade.

LOL

Maybe this benchmark is realistic; that seems about right.

EDIT: Maybe not. The MX is 102%