View Full Version : ASUS 7800 GTX "T.O.P." in SLI and Factory Overclocked

09-09-2005, 07:37 AM

You switched from a 3.4GHz P4 EE to a 2GHz Athlon 64. That's not really going to improve the CPU limitation problem, and you would have been much better off with a single-core CPU for benchmarking purposes. In real life, I'd take the 3800 over any single-core CPU any day, but for video card benchmarking it's wasteful (and I can't see why on Earth AMD would provide you with a CPU for a video card benchmark). That second core is doing nothing. However, this is fairly irrelevent since neither processor should limit you much in any games, even with a 7800GTX. It seems to have in Far Cry, but I bet overclocking it would do 3FPS or less in Doom 3. Half-Life 2 is a different story...

Are you sure vsync wasn't on in HL2? those we suspiciously low framerates for that card. My 6800GT/Barton@2.2GHz/768MB@400MHz DDR 2-3-3-7 system handles the game at 1280x960@85 with vsync on and all settings on the highest at the same framerates you were getting. You're results are also inconsistent with test results at other sites using inferior cards and sometimes inferior prcoessors, too. When you get 50FPS more in Doom 3, you know there's something wrong with the benchmark.

Speaking of Doom 3, wouldn't it make sense to max out AA and AF, on top of running it at Ultra quality, seeing as you're getting framerates well over 100?

Lastly, you really ought to stop using 3dMark entirely and start using Battlefield 2. The second-most played FPS out there (the original CS still holds #1) ought to be first on a list of games to be benchmarked, rather than a synthetic benchmark that has next to no relevance to any real-world gaming. There are certainly some other games that would be worth testing, too. RTS fans would enjoy Warhammer 40K Dawn of War and Rome Total War being tested, though one or both of them would likely be unstressed by SLId 7800GTXs. There are plenty of RPGs out there worth testing, as well. But really, BF2 is crucial and there's no reason you guys shouldn't be testing that.

09-09-2005, 08:01 AM
I have to disagree with you about using 3dmark, i think 3dmark doesn't relate to real world gaming, but it gives you a score that you can use to compare cards, so i think 3dmark should be kept.

09-09-2005, 04:35 PM
Well, I guess it makes sense in this particular test since they're just seeing what the speed increase of one particular card does. However, I am sick of TT tests which actually compare different GPUs in which half of the test is 3DMark and the other half is a few first-person shooters.

09-09-2005, 10:09 PM
I agree with Yawg. I can score really high on 3dmark because I have a great system, but when I play BF2 I'm only running an X700Pro overclocked with an ATI Arctic Silence ver.1 with NGO optimized drivers for 256 DDR3 and I still get choppy game play every now and then. I usually stay in 32 player servers and get relatively high framerates but when I join the spawn kill servers (64 players), if a lot of stuff happens it gets nasty. So real-time gaming has almost nothing to do with at least 3Dmark03, if not 05 as well.

And don't flame me for the X700. I know that's a reason I can't get amazing graphics and frames. It's a good budget card and overclocked and optimized it outperforms my Asus 6600GT. I'm just waiting to upgrade my board to a pci-e bus to upgrade to a nice video card.

09-10-2005, 05:17 PM
What is really high to you in 3dmark? Yea of course it doesn't measure real time gaming, cause that comes down to how well you tweaked your system and how well your cpu, ram and video card perform together. But most people, if not all use 3dmark to show and compare there computers, thats what TT is doing, they are using it to compare older cards to the new technology. But yawg is right, they should have more real time firstperson shooters as benchmarks.