:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Colossus
https://www.sharkyforums.com/
Printable View
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Colossus
https://www.sharkyforums.com/
Blah, I dont mean benchmarking as that means crap in terms of gaming performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by eshbach
But how is it in games?
If anyone cares to benchmark old cards :P Here is what I discovered...
A64 3500+ @ stock -- ATI 9800Pro @ stock -- Corsair PC3500 512MBx2 2-3-3-7 (Stock timing) -- Windows 2000SP4 -- DX8.1
Catalyst 5.01 -- 22,417
Catalyst 5.02 -- 22,482
Catalyst 5.04 -- 22,319
Catalyst 5.06 -- 22,258
Catalyst 5.08 -- 22,055
Catalyst 5.11 -- 21,953
Catalyst 6.01 -- 22,057
I find it rather interesting and I was to lazy to try any others... But I remember there was this website that did a benchmark of quite a few Catalyst drivers and posted their benchmark score. I cant seem to locate that review. :/
best cats for 9800's are the 3.2's. always have been, always will be. they stop optimizing drivers for older cards after a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossus
in terms of gaming performance, my quake IV [H] benchmark result is 106.4 fps 1280x1024 4x16x. i'd say that's pretty good for 2.4ghz cpu and only 200mhz memory.
2k1 was up until recently doing that for my dual core. The only way I got it to publish was to check affinity and bind to 1 CPU. Installing the M$ hotfix and registry hack fixed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by eshbach
I scored better with 5.2 then with 3.2 in 2001.. Just incase your curious. Tried it last night...Quote:
Originally Posted by eshbach
Nice score in score in quake bro.
if you weren't running windows 2000 and dx 8.1 then 3.2 is probably not the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossus
but for a propper 2k1 run, i think it would still win. :)
Nooooooo! lol :p :D Good job on the score. I figured I'm in no position to even compete with you guys, but you just wait till I go for my 1st ever upgrade which won't be very soon but it'll happen one day. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
I did not realize so much progress has been made since the 6800GT/Ultras! Your running SM3.0 and support HDR. You would think the score would be better. Yet the newer cards are getting 2-3 times the scores in everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sex-Machine
Eric
It was Win2k and DX8.1 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by eshbach
True hey! I bought the card like 7 months ago when the 7800GTXs weren't even rumoured iirc. And look at what's happened now. I ought to upgrade lol!Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Update. Windows x64 got me a few more points for 2k1.
Benchmark: 3DMark 2001
CPU: A64 X2 4400+
Stock Speed of CPU: 2200Mhz
Overclocked speed of CPU: 2930Mhz
MotherBoard: DFI NF4 Ultra-d
Ram: 2GB OCZ PC4000 @ 293Mhz
Video Card: Sapphire X1800XT
Stock Core of Video: 625Mhz
Actual Core of Video: 779Mhz
Stock Mem of Video: 750Mhz
Actual Mem of Video: 882Mhz
Cooling Used: Swiftech 6002(CPU)/Maze4(GPU)
2k1 - 42038
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8891571
2k3 - 21741
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4579563
2k5 - 11540
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1772704
Updated! Those are some awesome numbers there dude!!! :eek: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Edit : BTW, guys, you can leave out the stock CPU/GPU core/mem speed and just list the OC'd clockspeed, that's all I'd need.;)
:eek: Wow, dude. I might have to try one of those wiz-bang X1900s myself! Awesome scores dude, keep up the good work :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Quote:
Originally Posted by OS-Wiz
his card was a x1800, or so it seems.
the x1900 does 12000 to 13000 in 05 STOCK :p