my x800 xt (oced to PE) scored lower than my 6800GT (oced to ultra)!

chinkgai

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
3,904
0
71
on the exact same system, my gt which was running at 420/1140 (past ultra speeds) got the following:

3dmark03 - 12800ish
3dmark05 - 5400ish

and my x800 xt running at 531/1140 got the following:

3dmark03 - 12000ish
3dmark05 - 5800ish

why is it lower in 03 and not in 05? is it the drivers? im using beta 8.07 ati drivers and 66.81 for the nvidia.

i know the 05 score is more accurate on raw card speed, but why is 03 lower is my question.

thanks.
 

OnEMoReTrY

Senior member
Jul 1, 2004
520
0
0
03 is more CPU intensive, the XT PE requires quite a bit of power to drive its full potential, what is your cpu? I'm sure your being cpu limited as 03 is 2 years old and running 1024*768
 

Pete

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,953
0
0
AFAIK, the 6800's architecture is better suited to 3DM03 (pixel shaders are more math-intensive), and the X800 to 3DM05 (pixel shaders more texture-intensive, and a punishing vertex shader load).

But you're comparing a 6800U to a X800XT, and you think 800pts is worth worrying over? It's statistically insignificant in relation to 12,000.
 

gururu

Platinum Member
Jul 16, 2002
2,402
0
0
don't you remember all the nVidia driver optimizations for 03? Probably something to do with that. but who knows, 05 is superior
 

chinkgai

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
3,904
0
71
thanks for the answer guys

onemoretry: im on an axp-m @ 2.4 ghz on 1 gig of mushkin ram at 200 fsb 2-2-2 timings on an nf7-s rev 2

pete: im not "worried", i just wanted to know why. the first part of ur response answers why and i thank you for that. what i was worried about was my drivers, since they are beta and i wasnt sure if they were the best available at the moment. do you have any idea if they are or not? thanks!
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
Also note your pretty high GT overclock - you get significant % overclocks on both the core and memory from stock (20%/14%) versus a pretty insignificant o/c on the XT (2%/2%).

Your GT should be neck and neck with the XT with those clocks.

I think both Pete and gururu bring up interesting points.
 

Marsumane

Golden Member
Mar 9, 2004
1,171
0
0
Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Also note your pretty high GT overclock - you get significant % overclocks on both the core and memory from stock (20%/14%) versus a pretty insignificant o/c on the XT (2%/2%).

Your GT should be neck and neck with the XT with those clocks.

I think both Pete and gururu bring up interesting points.

More so Pete then Guru. I mean both nv and ati have optimizations to a degree in their drivers. Its just that the nv3x was the series that had the heavy optimizations that far exceeded the level of ati's in '03 and not the new nv4x archetecture.

So i'm leaning more towards the vertex shading part of '05 being heavier then in '03 being your main culprit.
 

chinkgai

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2001
3,904
0
71
is all this something more mature drivers will improve on on the ATI side or is it purely card architecture
 

jiffylube1024

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
7,430
0
71
I don't think future ATI drivers will be focused on improving 3dmark03 performance. Check game performance for a better indication of the cards' true capabilities.