Post your AquaMark3 CPU scores here!

[DAPUNISHER]

I ran it with the Det's 44.71's and my CPU score was 4578

I ran it with the 51.75's and my CPU score was 8192 WTF? So the drivers manipulate the CPU score? BTW, there's a very easily noticable IQ difference between the 44.71's and 51.75's that it does not require PS7.0 or careful scruntiny to find

Edit:
compare URL 51.75's



compare URL 44.71's

 

[THUGSROOK]

45.23 drivers | FX5900 @ 470x950 | Win98se | 2.4b @ 3372mhz 187fsb

43.7 fps | 43,699 score (GFX= 5601, CPU= 9942)

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That's a great score considering the quality of the drivers you used Thugs! :beer:

 

[THUGSROOK]

thx DP!

how come you aint using the 45s?

 

[KillaBong]

GFX 6276
CPU 7609
44438

 

[Krueger81]

Catalyst 3.7 I believe ( Which ever the newest ones are)

CPU Score: 7115
GFX Score: 5631

AquaMark Score 40349


Ati Radeon 9800 Pro
ABIT NF7-S Rev 2
AMD XP2500+@3200+ @200 FSB @ 1.7v
1 GB PC3200 Winbond


Am I doing anything wrong?

Phil

 

[ahfung]

Krueger81, nothing wrong with your rig. Aqua is Intel's new pet, the most biased benchmark for video I've seen.

 

[bunker]

GFX score: 4710
CPU score: 5421

AquaMark score: 32845

AMD xp 2600 @ 2700 (140 fsb)
Radeon 9700 pro

Something's holding me back though, similar rigs on their site are 6-7k higher (overall score)

 

[Megatomic]

Worst scores yet?

9,009,250 Tri/sec
29.93 fps
GFX = 3669
CPU = 8112

Overall score = 29,927

NF7-S Rev. 2.0 BIOS18
Barton 2500+ @ 3200+ @ 200MHz FSB
1GB DDR @ 200MHz FSB 2-2-2-8
Radeon 9600 Pro @ 450MHz/351MHz(702MHz DDR) CAT3.7

 

[sman789]

AquamarkScore: 30286
p4c @ 3.0

gfx 3579
cou 9834

 

[4x4expy]

GFX 5754
CPU 7790

Aquamark score : 42023


9700pro
NF7-s
1700+ @ 2.4ghz

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
thx DP!

how come you aint using the 45s?

That's a good question, I think I'll cure that later today

originally posted by: bunker
Something's holding me back though, similar rigs on their site are 6-7k higher (overall score)

Probably the same thing I experienced, drivers. The 51.75's turn out nice AquaMark scores and that's about it :disgust: They look like crap, caused browser lock-ups with multiple windows open, and were obviously leaked for the sole purpose of jacking up scores on this bench :evil:

 

[jpetermann]

My score was 46,817

9800 pro, not overclocked. 2.4c @ 280 fsb, OCZ 4000EL at 1:1.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: pastorjay
My score was 46,817

9800 pro, not overclocked. 2.4c @ 280 fsb, OCZ 4000EL at 1:1.

Very nice! and as if my 2500+@2.43ghz 422FSB synch with a 5800ultra scoring 49,000+ on that benchmark is valid against PJ's HT enabled 3.36ghz *which it's optomized for* 1.12 ghzFSB with a 9800pro

nVidia is using more smoke&mirrors than David Copperfield

 

[eva2000]

9800NP @ 459/716 = 54,469

AquaMark Score: 54469
AquaMark CPU Score: 11413
AquaMark GFX Score: 7155
Average FramesPS: 54.470
Average TrianglesPS: 16396 K


Currently ranked #24 for 9800 series and #34 for entire ARC

Guess by tomorrow I'll be way down the ladder LOL

 

[KoolHonda]

AquaMark Score: 46060 (CPU: 10359, GFX: 5922) FPS: 46.06 TPS: 13864 K

 

[Glenn]

Aquamark 35,283
CPU 10,511
GFX 4,239

IC7 2.4 @ 3.0 250 fsb mem @ 200/800
Saphire 9500np with driver hack, not overclocked and using stock bios.

Seems like it should be higher in looking at above numbers?

Glenn

 

[Ronin]

5900 Ultra 45.23
5900 Ultra 44.61

Radeon 9800 Pro marks to follow shortly.

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
thx DP!

how come you aint using the 45s?

That's a good question, I think I'll cure that later today

originally posted by: bunker
Something's holding me back though, similar rigs on their site are 6-7k higher (overall score)

Probably the same thing I experienced, drivers. The 51.75's turn out nice AquaMark scores and that's about it :disgust: They look like crap, caused browser lock-ups with multiple windows open, and were obviously leaked for the sole purpose of jacking up scores on this bench :evil:

That's got to be about the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. nVidia actually stated that the leaked drivers weren't ready for the public, and THAT is why people are having problems with them.

 

[THUGSROOK]

NV cards are slower. why?
they arent REAL DX9 cards.
most of the DX instructions are done by the drivers cause the hardware isnt 100% DX9 compliant.

what does this mean?
this means that every DX9 game that comes out will need to be tweaked with new drivers in order to get pretty much anything out of it.

 

[Ronin]

Radeon 9800 Pro 3.7 Cat
Radeon 9800 Pro 3.6 Cat

 

[DAPUNISHER]

That's got to be about the stupidest thing I've heard in a long time. nVidia actually stated that the leaked drivers weren't ready for the public, and THAT is why people are having problems with them.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion My opinion is that your sir are utterly naive if you believe everything nVidia says at this point Perhaps you can explain why the driver leak so closely co-incided with the benchmarks? I'm well aware of what nVidia stated and I stand by my comment since you offer no plausible counter-aurgument to the assertion beyond blind faith in the statements of a company known to desseminate disinformation and use shady tactics of late

 

[Ronin]

Naive? If you understood my relationship with ATi and nVidia (yes, I have a close relationship with both manufacturers), then you would understand that your comments seem quite ignorant to me. I actually spoke to my nVidia rep, and found out exactly why the drivers are the way they are, and why they were never intended to see the light of day.

If you don't believe that I do, click here:

Look at my post date

You'll notice that the date that the scores were submitted were before E3, which means they were prerelease, which means that handy little card in that benchmark was an engineering sample.

Perhaps you should consider not everyone has to run a rockin hardware website like Anandtech to work with hardware developers.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Your working relationship with nVidia doese not negate the fact that the drivers leaked at precisely the perfect moment to influence scores in Aquamark3, if anything it undermines your position by making it appear as though you have an agenda the average gamer does not And just how do you come to the determination that the rep is not spewing whatever propaganda he is being told/paid to? Besides, you are under an NDA so you couldn't say either way if it was an intentional leak even if you knew

In the end, the timing, the influence on the benchmarks, and the recent tactics make the situation highly suspect and if most will not believe the official statements made by nVidia themselves, then why would they believe you when you offer 2nd hand data from the same source.

Now that's not to say nVidia is the one behind the leak but the performance increase at the expense of IQ combined with the all the other previous points could certainly influence people to believe they are, so calling my speculation the stupidest thing you've heard in a long time just make you an elitist asshole because you have inside info others do not but seem to expect them to have :disgust:

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
NV cards are slower. why?
they arent REAL DX9 cards.
most of the DX instructions are done by the drivers cause the hardware isnt 100% DX9 compliant.

what does this mean?
this means that every DX9 game that comes out will need to be tweaked with new drivers in order to get pretty much anything out of it.

I believe that was nVidia's plan as they keep touting their "highly programmable architecture"