Printable View
So you score over 10,000 in sandra around 2.55????Quote:
Originally posted by icecube_of_death
I know, I'd say around 2.58GHz... Last time I checked 2.55 is Right between a 3.0C and 3.2C :)
btw: that's with HT enabled... I destroyed all stock P4Cs in sandra scores when they are not enabled ;)
But that is just Sandra.. what about a real benchmark like games? :)
seems like Intel cpus benefit less from higher fsb. a 2.4b to a 2.4c is less of a difference than running an amd xp cpu at 2.4GHz at 133fsb than upping to 200. maybe in that game id need 2.55GHz to match your cpu, but for 3dmark and other games its different. I wont match your 3.2 now that im only at 2.09GHz, heck I wont even match a stock xp3200(I would if I could do 220x10 which my nf7-s wont) a stock xp3200 barton is about as good as a 3.0c so id say mine would match a stock 2.8c. what benchmarks exactly compares an xp3200 barton to a 3.2c? I thought the barton was not far behind a 3.2c
edit: fsb matters much more, there may be some truth in needing 2.55Ghz to match a 3.2c if you use low fsb and crap ram on the amd platform! amd cpus dont scale well past 2GHz either so even if a 2.55 matched a 3.2c, a 2.09 would be only a few % behind :)
Wrong again dude...Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
seems like Intel cpus benefit less from higher fsb. a 2.4b to a 2.4c is less of a difference than running an amd xp cpu at 2.4GHz at 133fsb than upping to 200. maybe in that game id need 2.55GHz to match your cpu, but for 3dmark and other games its different. I wont match your 3.2 now that im only at 2.09GHz, heck I wont even match a stock xp3200(I would if I could do 220x10 which my nf7-s wont) a stock xp3200 barton is about as good as a 3.0c so id say mine would match a stock 2.8c. what benchmarks exactly compares an xp3200 barton to a 3.2c? I thought the barton was not far behind a 3.2c
You would need a lot more the 2.09 and how many freaking times do we need to tell you that 3DMarks is for kids? It has no relivance to gaming performance!!!!!!
Your CPU has to be around 2.6Ghz before it can even standup to a STOCK INTEL 3.2C Pound for Pound!!!! In games! NOT JUST THIS ONE!
a STOCK XP 3200 DOES NOT COMPETE with a 3.2c.. Sorry bro... Try again.
Maybe a 3.2Ghz (with 133FSB, but they never went that high, only to 3.06Ghz)...
At 2.09Ghz that you are at now.. You would match a 2.6c or so...
T-bird - I cannot believe you're still pimping your 4200 in the face of this game. You cannot compete with high end NVIDIA or ATI DX9 cards on Far Cry, or any other DX9 type game coming out soon. Open your eyes!
And since when is 15 fps playable? That's just stubborn. And whatever happened to "1024x768 is so 2000's"? I'm sure I'm not the only one who remembers that quote - it's in someone's sig.
You know what... I am going to be like TB...
*looks for his Viper 770 Ultra card*
Look I can pimp Far Cry at 1600x1200 @ 10 fpm
Woohoo!
I can play this game!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
Notice I said FPM, not FPS :D
I mean come on anything below 40 requires IQ adjustment.. I would say 30fps, but that can dip quite often.. I rather give a little more slack to allow for dipping...
Also anyone remember TB with Splinter Cell.... cough cough...
Hahahahaha, this quote shows Tbirds true gaming passion!! 3DMARK! He can even run it with AA/AF at 1600*1200.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
3dmark and other games its different.
Just accept it Tbird... ebay that card like you always do and buy a R9800. I have a Ti4200 and I can say that it is old. Running at stock even BF seems laggy at some instances! As for BigC kicking your ***, that is just too easy, and no your screens don't look perdy they look like crap!
i like p!ssed in my pants laughing so hard when reading the last couple of pages.
i seem to remember Tbird stating he could run 1600x1200 or even 2048 by whatever at max details, just like the newer cards. run???? not!!! skip and jiggle maybe, yes.
tbird, you could upgrade your cpu to the moon, but the newer cards rely so much more on the vid cards GPU to run smooth. yes, there will be somewhat of an improvement, but upgrading the vid card would make a major improvement.
maybe i am missing something here.
and i see nothing in your shots that prove your card renders details the same as a 9800pro.
face it, you are a Nividia fanboy through and through, admit it.
did ya get yer new card yet????
baldy
T-Bird, you've just been serioursly owned. 1024x768 looks as good as 1600x1200? You contradict yourself so many times its not funny. That's interesting IQ too...nowhere near Opstar's screenshot.
Anyway, have fun playing in that "so 2000s" resolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone looking for a new video card...you've seen the screenshots from T-Bird's system...you decide if you want a far inferior card to the 9800 Pro.
So what your saying is that you wouldn;t use AA and AF even if you could???Quote:
my IQ is just as good as anyones(minus aa)
Even if I could be bothered to crop as you suggest you still wouldn't accept it so what is the point.
In general weapons look worse in your shots as does the foliage. Water is also less realistic.
Look I'm not saying that your card is useless, and if you are happy playing with jaggies then cool. I'm just saying don't try to make out that the 4200 is an equivalent card to the 9800 at any res. AA and AF make such tremendous differences to image quality, and are basically accepted by most to be run as standard now a day. To say your card runs games at high IQ fine....except AA is a contradication in terms.
LOL!:D I can't believe this thread's grown to 14 pages with >200 posts!:eek: One thing about T'birdy's thread, it's seldom short or boring...:D Fire away guys, LOL!:D
Ya I scored around 10100 in sandra... I lost the screenshots though... forgot to backup those before formatting...Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
So you score over 10,000 in sandra around 2.55????
But that is just Sandra.. what about a real benchmark like games? :)
Not sure about real benchmarks because sandra and 3dmark are the 2 that I run most of the time... because of the stupid hype over 3dmark and IMO Sandra is pretty accurate, at least IMO
I remember benching with UT2k3, botmatch was around 58fps and flyby was around 145fps (or something like that, don't remember, it was like half a year ago) CPU was at 2.3ghz vid card at stock
Oh and Tbird, I'll post some of my own screenshots of far cry and see if the GF4Ti sucks in IQ or if its just yours.
I will not post the fps however, because:
1) my NF7-S bios is not fixed... on my KT333
2) running 12.5x166 instead of 11x219 on my abit
3) I don't overclock video card when I play games... strange but true...
So what I'm trying to say is, it's gonna lag like hell... I will admit
Fair point...and we still haven't heard anymore about the graphics card this thread was started for! It's not getting much of a welcome here oddly enough!Quote:
Originally posted by mikeysg
LOL!:D I can't believe this thread's grown to 14 pages with >200 posts!:eek: One thing about T'birdy's thread, it's seldom short or boring...:D Fire away guys, LOL!:D
John
Agreed. How's the new Ti4200 Tbird?:confused:
Sandra Arithmetic is actually pretty innaccurate as far as CPU performance is considered. It relies almost solely on CPU external frequency. It makes very little consideration for internal frequency (FSB) and cache.Quote:
Originally posted by icecube_of_death
Ya I scored around 10100 in sandra... I lost the screenshots though... forgot to backup those before formatting...
Not sure about real benchmarks because sandra and 3dmark are the 2 that I run most of the time... because of the stupid hype over 3dmark and IMO Sandra is pretty accurate, at least IMO
I remember benching with UT2k3, botmatch was around 58fps and flyby was around 145fps (or something like that, don't remember, it was like half a year ago) CPU was at 2.3ghz vid card at stock
Here's a 9600 something that owns T-bird's 4200 in 3DMark01. Of course, it's a little extreme. This is only because he touts his 4200 so much!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7595285
The guy whos putting that card up on his wall... u sir are a fat mess nerd. I mean the fact that i like electronics a bit even only a bit makes me feel geeky sometimes... but u will be a virgin for life, enjoy dieing alone.
People like u give people interested in tech a bad name.
I kind of agree and disagree with what you're saying. Yes I agree that it doesn't take the cache into consideration, however, it should not take FSB into account. After all this is a CPU benchmark, not a motherboard chipset benchmark. If it takes the FSB into consideration then the score will alter according to the overall system performance (memory bandwidth, FSB, CPU clocks, etc) therefore it'll not be a benchmark made solely for the CPUQuote:
Originally posted by adslegend
Sandra Arithmetic is actually pretty innaccurate as far as CPU performance is considered. It relies almost solely on CPU external frequency. It makes very little consideration for internal frequency (FSB) and cache.
But the FSB is an integral part of the CPU performance, albeit in more of a multimedia sense. 10x100 will find Pi to a million dp as fast as 5x200 as long the CPU is the limiting factor, but 5x200 is a much better performing CPU overall. I haven't done any benching myself, but I'm guessing a P4 2.4B would score very similarly to a 2.4C, which would you choose knowing other stuff about them?
edit- sp
I don't know... any experts to clarify this? :confused:
In terms of PURE arithmetic, the FSB makes absolutely no difference. A P4 @ 2Ghz, whether it has a 1Ghz or a 100mhz FSB would do pure calculation at exactly the same speed. Only when the memory subsystem comes into play will FSB make a difference. Then, the higher the FSB, the faster the CPU can load data from main memory, and the better the performance. Of course, this is assuming that your RAM can keep up.
wow I just played the far cry demo... and realized that it looked like crud :( I'll stick with my LineageII :D
Great to know.. I'd try the other thread.. ;)Quote:
Originally posted by icecube_of_death
wow I just played the far cry demo... and realized that it looked like crud :( I'll stick with my LineageII :D
You guys are so snobby. I wish I had a computer like tbirds that could get scores like that on 3dmark:p Mines is total weak sauce.
OMG!! LMAO:D you have a really good point thereQuote:
The guy whos putting that card up on his wall... u sir are a fat mess nerd. I mean the fact that i like electronics a bit even only a bit makes me feel geeky sometimes... but u will be a virgin for life, enjoy dieing alone.
You want "weak sauce"?
How about my:
P3 1Ghz
Ti4600
512mb PC133 SDram
:D