What in the world is up with Nvidia?!?!

[Firejava]

I wonder were I can get the approved Nvidia Drivers for 3DMARK05

http://www.futuremark.com/community/drivers/?approved

 

[Rage187]

try www.guru3d.com

 

[Gamingphreek]

I already tried them... there forums are down... and they do not have the 66.51's. :-( i really would like to get them though.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well i overclocked to 450 x792 and got 1192 as my score. Im gonna OC my chip to my normal benchmarking speed and see how it goes. time to max everything out!

-Kevin

 

[Rage187]

from 66.51's to 66.70's netted 600 more in 05.

43xx-49xx

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well obviously CPU speed has absolutely no effect because im running at 2.23 right now with AGP bus at 67... Graphics card at 450x800, FSB at 210, and CAS at 2.5 and my score somehow went down to 1121 :-\. Dunno how but it did. So i guess 5900XT's max score is 1200. Not too shabby considering it rose 300points. And we still have the new drivers, this could be OK.

-Kevin

 

[Gamingphreek]

Originally posted by: Rage187
from 66.51's to 66.70's netted 600 more in 05.

43xx-49xx

So pick any of those drivers and i should be doing a bit better. What about ATI how are their new drivers doing... any improvements.

-Kevin

 

[ronnn]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Its getting the crap beat out of it in "3DMark05". Not in current games. Have no fear.

No kidding! If Nvidia and Ati really wanted old gen to do well, they would find a way. So who wins new gen? (as if it really matters) Will be interesting to see which sites flip flop and start to use 3dmark in reviews.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
I mean a 256bit card, a card clocked significantly higher, i card with much higher fill rate, a card with SO MUCH more memory bandwidth, and a card with 256mb of RAM is getting is arse handed to it by a card with 128bit memory, much less bandwidth, significantly lower clockspeed, 128mb of RAM, much lower fillrate etc.

-Kevin

The 9600xt has a higher clockspeed than the 5900xt, 500mhz vs 400mhz. Top that off with the poor shader performance and unless you are bandwidth limited the 9600xt will win out easly. Unfortunatly, most people who said that in the past simply got dismissed as biased ati fanboys.

 

[gururu]

i wouldn't worry about your card until you find a game you really love...but can't play.

 

[reever]

Originally posted by: ronnn

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Its getting the crap beat out of it in "3DMark05". Not in current games. Have no fear.

No kidding! If Nvidia and Ati really wanted old gen to do well, they would find a way.

It's too late to find a way. How many driver revisions did Nvidia go through to get FX's on par with R3xx, especially with shading? 10? 20? After that many tries you should realize it just isn't possible or worth trying anymore

 

[BFG10K]

How in gods name do every single FX card lose to the 9600XT.

These forums have been littered with posts for the last eighteen months illustrating how much the NV3x sucks donkey balls for shaders.

 

[thegimp03]

dang, that's too bad. still happy with my 9600xt.

 

[Zebo]

Looks to me like NV4x sucks too from tech report.

http://techreport.com/etc/2004...mark05/3dm-overall.gif

 

[Gamingphreek]

Well Xbit is the revers or shows them with the NV4x winning or on par. Guess we will have to wait for AT

-Kevin

 

[Zebo]

Tech report is the bomb dude...better than anands recent mishaps...their just lucky thier forum tech sucks or I would be posting there instead of bugging you people.

 

[BenSkywalker]

These forums have been littered with posts for the last eighteen months illustrating how much the NV3x sucks donkey balls for shaders.

Even quite a bit worse then the R3x0 parts which is saying a lot(the R3x0 parts are unuseable with any real shader load already- I can almost hit 10FPS with my R9800Pro ). It's completely and utterly useless with heavy shader loads(the R3x0) to completely utterly and totally useless with heavy shader loads(the NV3X).

I wouldn't be looking to the FM approved driver status to mean anything either for those considering it. They are so obscenely slanted that they needed a request from ATi to remove an ATi driver with serious known rendering isssues from the approved list. At least ATi stood up to them and put a stop to it(4.8 Cats for those wondering) although it does display the amount of faith you can put in to FM.

 

[Gamingphreek]

Still a whole helluva lot better than 3

I wish Nvidia would come out with a AGP 6600Gt so i can get one of those for 200. Sell my card for like 150 and get one of those for another 50$ that would be very good.

-Kevin

 

[Marsumane]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Well Xbit is the revers or shows them with the NV4x winning or on par. Guess we will have to wait for AT

-Kevin

Actually the reason is for different drivers. ATI released drivers specifically to take advantage of 3dmark and raised their top cards by around 15-20%. I suspect it may have something to do w/ catalyst ai (i think it was in those newer drivers) and its general optimizations (NOT app specific cuz they said they wouldnt do that for 3dmark) and maybe a few others. ATI is hurting for a good win and needed people to think that the nv4x archetecture isnt as good in some situations (like nv did w/ doom 3). So basically i call it a tie and say its a driver war and who cares cuz its just 3dmark and buy the cheaper card.

 

[Genx87]

This thread is rather amusing.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Even quite a bit worse then the R3x0 parts which is saying a lot(the R3x0 parts are unuseable with any real shader load already- I can almost hit 10FPS with my R9800Pro ). It's completely and utterly useless with heavy shader loads(the R3x0) to completely utterly and totally useless with heavy shader loads(the NV3X).

Omg, an old part with lower clockspeeds half the pipelines of newer chips can't keep up in a benchmark made to stress the latest graphics cards? What the hell was Ati trying to pull!?! Then there is my xt-pe that can't even break 30fps in any of the tests, I suppose it is trash too, eh? :roll:

Originally posted by: Marsumane


Actually the reason is for different drivers. ATI released drivers specifically to take advantage of 3dmark and raised their top cards by around 15-20%. I suspect it may have something to do w/ catalyst ai (i think it was in those newer drivers) and its general optimizations (NOT app specific cuz they said they wouldnt do that for 3dmark) and maybe a few others. ATI is hurting for a good win and needed people to think that the nv4x archetecture isnt as good in some situations (like nv did w/ doom 3). So basically i call it a tie and say its a driver war and who cares cuz its just 3dmark and buy the cheaper card.

Is that how it is? Could you please explain why Ati's pci-express cards don't need the new drivers to get their high scores then?

 

[BenSkywalker]

Omg, an old part with lower clockspeeds half the pipelines of newer chips can't keep up in a benchmark made to stress the latest graphics cards? What the hell was Ati trying to pull!?! Then there is my xt-pe that can't even break 30fps in any of the tests, I suppose it is trash too, eh?

Nothing currently available is remotely close to good at running a heavy shader load. Nothing. To me reading about the shader performance differences between the current offering is a lot like reading an argument about which is faster, a '79 Chevette or a '79 Pinto. They all suck, up to and including the 6800Ultra and the x800XTPE.

 

[daveybrat]

I love how much people worry about 3Dmark scores. I too have the MSI 5900XT card and i'm still perfectly happy with it. It plays everything from Call of Duty at max settings to Doom3 at 1024x768.
My upgrading philosophy is that i won't upgrade until the games i love start to get choppy at 1024x768.
Don't worry so much about 3Dmark, it's a nice tool, but it shouldn't be the determining factor in your life. Be happy with the card you have now and wait till next year to buy a better card.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Omg, an old part with lower clockspeeds half the pipelines of newer chips can't keep up in a benchmark made to stress the latest graphics cards? What the hell was Ati trying to pull!?! Then there is my xt-pe that can't even break 30fps in any of the tests, I suppose it is trash too, eh?

Nothing currently available is remotely close to good at running a heavy shader load. Nothing. To me reading about the shader performance differences between the current offering is a lot like reading an argument about which is faster, a '79 Chevette or a '79 Pinto. They all suck, up to and including the 6800Ultra and the x800XTPE.

Yet, to conetnue your analogy; we are in '79 and want to drive while the fast cars we have are the your "'79 Chevette or a '79 Pinto." Put simply, your "heavy shader load" is as subjective as it gets, the fact is we have shader bound games and more coming out and the cards that push those shaders better are more suited for such gaming situations.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Yet, to conetnue your analogy; we are in '79 and want to drive while the fast cars we have are the your "'79 Chevette or a '79 Pinto." Put simply, your "heavy shader load" is as subjective as it gets, the fact is we have shader bound games and more coming out and the cards that push those shaders better are more suited for such gaming situations.

And the shader limited effects are pretty summarily slammed as 'poorly coded' outside of water and reflective/refractive metal. Every game that has made anything resembling decent shader useage has been blasted as extremely poorly coded by those *in the know* that talk about how great certain parts are for shaders. How many titles are shader limited right now? I can think of a small handful and even then almost half of them are as fast, or quite close, on nV3x hardware as they are on R3x0. The shader hype so far has been just that.