What up with these 6800 vanilla 3dmark scores

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: FFactory0x
really
How about apature size. Its set to 128right now
shouldn't make much if any difference . . .

the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . . ;)
(compared with the best of the last gen or it's bigger bros)
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
67
91
That's what, 40% faster than the average 9800pro? If that's bone stock, I'd say that's pretty good. I guess 40% faster than the fastest card in the world of a few months ago isn't "that fast" to some people, but for most it's very fast, especially for the $$$. What did you pay for your 9800 pro again apoppin? LOL please don't tell me I don't care. <walks away laughing>
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: railer
That's what, 40% faster than the average 9800pro? If that's bone stock, I'd say that's pretty good. I guess 40% faster than the fastest card in the world of a few months ago isn't "that fast" to some people, but for most it's very fast, especially for the $$$. What did you pay for your 9800 pro again apoppin? LOL please don't tell me I don't care. <walks away laughing>
wtf are you talking about? . . . what does what i paid for it over 2 months ago have to DO with ANYthing? :p
. . . anyway, $223, when the 6800GT was unavailable - and my 9800XT gets ~6600 in 3DMark'03; the 6800 ia ~ 25% faster in this test

what's in YOUR rig, anyway?

where'd you come up with your 40% BS "guess" figure? . . . on the 'low-end', eVGA says the 6800 is at least a full +12% faster than the 9800xt. :p

:roll:


and i did say it is "not fast" COMPARED with the best of the old gen or the GT or ultra - THEY're fast. :p
(quite a few reviewers agree)

:roll:
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Aleksandar
Pic.
and apoppin yeah go and turn this in a nother nvidia vs ati tread
why?

the OP asked about his score - it seems he was disappointed - my reply was that it is WELL in-line with similar systems with 6800 gpu.

The 6800 is a FINE videocard . . . the BEST bang for buck at ~$300 . . . but please don't OVER estimate it's performance. ;)
 

RacerX

Senior member
Oct 22, 1999
873
0
0
Apoppin here are some numbers for you to crunch

3dMark03: 10180
3dMark03 (1600x1200): 6353
3dMark03 (1280x1024 4XAA): 5325
3dMark01: 21,213
Aquamark: 59,328
Doom3 timedemo1 1024 High: 84.5fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1280 High: 70.2fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1600 High: 56.1fps
Halo (1024 everything on): 88.55fps
Halo (1280 everything on): 65.39fps
Halo (1600 everything on): 49.34fps

Those scores are from a 6800 (vanilla) Chaintech [2.2ghz cpu]
I am guessing your score of 6600 is max out overclock because I have never seen a 9800 model score that high otherwise. Well my card in the scores above is running 375/880 and isn't even close to pinned (it can go 20mhz higher on both core/memory).
my card ran me $286 shipped over a month ago.

Your card isn't even in the same zip code. My 1600 scores = your 1024 scores
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: RacerX
Apoppin here are some numbers for you to crunch

3dMark03: 10180
3dMark03 (1600x1200): 6353
3dMark03 (1280x1024 4XAA): 5325
3dMark01: 21,213
Aquamark: 59,328
Doom3 timedemo1 1024 High: 84.5fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1280 High: 70.2fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1600 High: 56.1fps
Halo (1024 everything on): 88.55fps
Halo (1280 everything on): 65.39fps
Halo (1600 everything on): 49.34fps

Those scores are from a 6800 (vanilla) Chaintech [2.2ghz cpu]
I am guessing your score of 6600 is max out overclock because I have never seen a 9800 model score that high otherwise. Well my card in the scores above is running 375/880 and isn't even close to pinned (it can go 20mhz higher on both core/memory).
my card ran me $286 shipped over a month ago.

Your card isn't even in the same zip code. My 1600 scores = your 1024 scores
i don't get your point . . .

?

NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800 . . . certainly not me . .. NOwhere and NEVER in my posts have i said this . . . i have CONSISTENTLY recommended the 6800standard as the best bang-4-buck ~$300. ;)

(and i STILL recommend the 9800pro as the best card under $200)

Where do you see i went wrong? i call it as i see it.

my 9800 is an XT and is not O/C'd (except by Overdrive) . . . i also got it over TWO months ago when the 6800GT was UNavailable (the card i was planning to get).
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: RacerX
Apoppin here are some numbers for you to crunch

3dMark03: 10180
3dMark03 (1600x1200): 6353
3dMark03 (1280x1024 4XAA): 5325
3dMark01: 21,213
Aquamark: 59,328
Doom3 timedemo1 1024 High: 84.5fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1280 High: 70.2fps
Doom3 timedemo1 1600 High: 56.1fps
Halo (1024 everything on): 88.55fps
Halo (1280 everything on): 65.39fps
Halo (1600 everything on): 49.34fps

Those scores are from a 6800 (vanilla) Chaintech [2.2ghz cpu]
I am guessing your score of 6600 is max out overclock because I have never seen a 9800 model score that high otherwise. Well my card in the scores above is running 375/880 and isn't even close to pinned (it can go 20mhz higher on both core/memory).
my card ran me $286 shipped over a month ago.

Your card isn't even in the same zip code. My 1600 scores = your 1024 scores
i don't get your point . . .

?

NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800 . . . certainly not me . .. NOwhere and NEVER in my posts have i said this


Originally posted by: apoppin
the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . .
(compared with the best of the last gen

LLOOOLLL
 

railer

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2000
1,552
67
91
<....still laughinng>

Apoppin, I don't think you're REALLY this dense, but when you say things like: "the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . ." it makes you look like a complete idiot. Just say "those scores are about right", and end it at that. Get it? See how easy it is not to be an asshat? And actually, the more I look at benchmarks, I'd say the 6800 isn't 40% faster than the 9800xt, it's more like 50% faster....LOL!!!!!

<......shakes head, laughs, and walks away>
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: railer
<....still laughinng>

Apoppin, I don't think you're REALLY this dense, but when you say things like: "the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . ." it makes you look like a complete idiot. Just say "those scores are about right", and end it at that. Get it? See how easy it is not to be an asshat? And actually, the more I look at benchmarks, I'd say the 6800 isn't 40% faster than the 9800xt, it's more like 50% faster....LOL!!!!!

<......shakes head, laughs, and walks away>
look moron, don't try to tell me "how" to post. Just cause you are too retarded to understand what i am saying, doesn't mean there is no validity to my posts.

i really don't know about "easy" . . . you are a complete asshat without trying, i guess. :p

:roll:
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: RacerX
Apoppin here are some numbers for you to crunch

. . .

Your card isn't even in the same zip code. My 1600 scores = your 1024 scores
i don't get your point . . .

?

NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800 . . . certainly not me . .. NOwhere and NEVER in my posts have i said this


Originally posted by: apoppin
the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . .
(compared with the best of the last gen

LLOOOLLL
WHY don't you quote it ALL:

the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . .
(compared with the best of the last gen or it's bigger bros)

we are talking specifically about 3dmark'03 (and '01) . . . his 6800 is NOT as fast as the OP evidently expected.

;)

get a clue

:roll:
 

lament

Senior member
Feb 17, 2004
345
0
0
apoppin:

your original statement of..

the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . .(compared with the best of the last gen or it's bigger bros)

translates to "last gen's cards are faster than the 6800"
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: lament
apoppin:

your original statement of..

the 6800 really isn't that fast . . . .(compared with the best of the last gen or it's bigger bros)

translates to "last gen's cards are faster than the 6800"
in your mind and a few others, perhaps.

Now that i have spent SEVERAL posts EXPLAINING exactly what i meant, WHY do you CONTINUE to have a problem with it?
 

lament

Senior member
Feb 17, 2004
345
0
0
i'm just trying to help you understand that what you're thinking and what you're saying are 2 different things.

in your mind and a few others, perhaps.

not perhaps - in everyone's mind, because that's what you said - three times:

the first time i already mentioned above.

the second:
and i did say it is "not fast" COMPARED with the best of the old gen or the GT or ultra - THEY're fast.

which means "the 6800 isn't as fast as the old gen cards, the GT and the Ultra."

while the latter is true, the former is not.

and

NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800

this also says the 9800 is faster than the 6800. take out the "not" and the 6800 becomes faster than the 9800.

and that is why you're being misunderstood.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: lament
i'm just trying to help you understand that what you're thinking and what you're saying are 2 different things.

in your mind and a few others, perhaps.

not perhaps - in everyone's mind, because that's what you said - three times:

the first time i already mentioned above.

the second:
and i did say it is "not fast" COMPARED with the best of the old gen or the GT or ultra - THEY're fast.

which means "the 6800 isn't as fast as the old gen cards, the GT and the Ultra."

while the latter is true, the former is not.

and

NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800

this also says the 9800 is faster than the 6800. take out the "not" and the 6800 becomes faster than the 9800.

and that is why you're being misunderstood.
Don't you tell me what i "meant". You are the confused one.

if you take the CONTEXT together with my statements, i'd be easier to understand. And after i EXPLAIN it - and my INTENTION is finally CLEAR, please STFU (edit: not "you" - lament, you claim you are trying to help). Thanks.

. . . and this one doesn't even need context: NO one in their right mind is gonna argue that the 6800 is not noticeably/significantly faster than the 9800 Only a moron would take out the "not" and try to argue with what i didn't say . . . "not" is there for a "reason". :)

edit: it IS true that i don't always state exactly what i mean or that some things need clarification. I think that applies to MOST of the posters here. Time is short, i am in MANY topics and sometimes things don't get said exactly right.

Instead of jumping on me - try asking for clarification. If i am wrong, i will admit it. If i am misunderstood, i try to explain it. But if someone calls me a moron, i reply "in kind".
 

lament

Senior member
Feb 17, 2004
345
0
0
here's my point: your grammar is incorrect, and it negates what you're tying to say. you don't believe it is - and that's fine. but it's true. :)