Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 130

Thread: AquaMark3 scores




  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Using Nvidia's 44.03 drivers I get a score of 24,526 (any above that and I get a bad flickering on my tv capture prog, don't get it with the 51.75 drivers)
    And with the 51.75 drivers I get 41,671

    Now either they have made a massive improvement or there is a little bit of cheating going on!!!

    Mind you my eyesight aint that good so I can't tell any difference between the two :confused:

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    They perform optimizations without changing image quality, same way its done to make games run faster and look the same.

    It seems ATI was ready for it first, theirs already ran that fast.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Just scored 44,900 at daily settings:

    250 5:4
    Card stock

    I'll do a max run some other time...

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    They perform optimizations without changing image quality, same way its done to make games run faster and look the same.

    It seems ATI was ready for it first, theirs already ran that fast.
    Well that's not simply true. ATI cards just handle DX9 better than FX cards which simply must take DX8.1 (or 8.0) routes to perform reasonably. I'm not trying to start yet another NVidia vs. ATI war here, as I've owned a pile of NVidia products and I've been satisfied with every one of them, only the FX line blows as somethings gone terribly wrong with their DX9 implementations.

    CtrlAltDel

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CtrlAltDel
    Well that's not simply true. ATI cards just handle DX9 better than FX cards which simply must take DX8.1 (or 8.0) routes to perform reasonably. I'm not trying to start yet another NVidia vs. ATI war here, as I've owned a pile of NVidia products and I've been satisfied with every one of them, only the FX line blows as somethings gone terribly wrong with their DX9 implementations.

    CtrlAltDel
    Then explain to me my Aquamark score? It tests all the latest DX9 shaders...if you ask me that's pretty good for a baseline run....

    Read this thread....may be worth something.
    http://www.nvplanet.com/forums/index...t=0&#entry2553

    Aquamark 3 is supposed to be the benchmark that was going to make or break Nvidia and DX9 after the recent results with Half-Life 2. Looks like my NV35 passes with flying colors. :cool:

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    Then explain to me my Aquamark score? It tests all the latest DX9 shaders...if you ask me that's pretty good for a baseline run....
    What detonators were you using when you got that score? If you were using the 51.xx dets, it has already been discovered that the IQ with these drivers is actually lowered a lot, read NaRyan's post in this thread, first he got 24526 with the older drivers and then he suddenly got 41671 using the newer drivers. You seriously can't believe that that kind of improvement is done just by "optimizing without changing IQ". Besides, it has already been proved in numerous sites, that the 51.xx detonators do lower IQ, and I'm sure you've read it too and seen the numerous screenshots and captures etc, and I'm not talking about any biased fanboysites either, like for example rage3d.com or nvplanet.com.

    I respect your choice of Nvidia hardware over ATI hardware, you might gain some compatibility that way. What I'm really trying to say is just that the DX9 features of FX cards are not on par with ATIs 9600-9800 cards, namely the pixel shader 2.0. And the fact is, that if PS 2.0 comes to a crawl, you need to apply a PS 1.4 codepath to attain reasonable speed, and this results in loss of image quality. This is why I chose ATI hardware this time around even though I've favored Nvidia cards in the past. I'm not saying the FX is a ****ty card, it most certainly isn't, it's just somewhat flawed and I'm not trying to put down people who chose differently than I did.

    And I respect that you didn't get all medieval on me, as has happened many times when this subject has popped up, I prefer debating and discussion over "OMG taht card si teh suxx0rs" ranting.

    CtrlAltDel

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    It looked exactly the same to me, both times...

    There was just an enormous difference in speed.

    Also on the subject of IQ......I tested them in 3DMark01.....my score was down about 800 points, and guess what....all the tests have improved image quality, especially the Nature test. They look better than ever and I actually lost a good 30fps in Nature...

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Australia -> Victoria -> Melbourne
    Posts
    419

    Default

    P4 2.5 @ 2.6
    Radeon 9800 PRO @ Clock Speeds Using Catalyst 3.4 Drivers

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central Alberta , Canada
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Found a way to increase my score from 4036 to 7775 and it only cost me $550 (Canadian) to do it. All I had to do was change out my Compaq board for a Gigabyte P4 Titan GA-8S648FX(-L), my Duron 950 for a Celeron 2.0, my 448 MB of SDRAM for 512 of DDR, and replace my MX440 with a FX5200 8X 128MB DDR video card! Thinking I can prolly do a bit better once I get brave enough to overclock it all.
    Antec 900 case (4 120mm and 1 200mm lighted fans + UFO flashing light set + 2 12" and 1 6" Mutant Mods meteor lights) - Aerogate ll thermal controller - Asus M2N-e SLI - AMD 64 X2 AM2 6400+ - Corsair TX650 PSU - MSI 450GTS Cyclone OC - 2 X 2GB Patriot Extreme Performance PC2 6400 RAM - SATA 320 GB Seagate HD, SATA 300GB Maxtor HD and IDE 80 GB Samsung HD - Floppy Drive/Card Reader Combo - LG SuperMulti Lightscribe 18x DVD RW - Plextor PX-716A DVD r/rw - Windows 7 Home Premium 64

    Crude but Effective ... it is a way of life.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    175

    Default

    wow i havent ran it yet with my 44.03 dets, but with 51.75's i got 19,xxx....i forgot exactly what it was, 19 thousand something. i think once i roll back the drivers my score is gonna plummet since i only get 8000 on 3dmark2001se with 44.03 drivers and 8100 with 44.03 dets. we'll see...
    ASUS P4S800 motherboard
    P4 2.4ghz 800mhz fsb HT @ 2.84
    geiL 512 PC3200 RAM
    80GB 7200RPM HDD
    PowerColor Radeon 9600XT
    Sound Blaster Audigy 2
    Creative Inspire 6.1 6600 speakers
    Dell Sony P1110 21'' monitor

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •