Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 210

Thread: 3DMark05 Scores




  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    Quote Originally Posted by Amd_Lover2004
    OK now I cant seem to run this program it says when I press "Run Test" or "Start Test" or whatever it says cannot run pixelshader somthing or other and then I cant run the test.
    The exact wording is:

    "IDirect3DDevice9::CreatePixleShader failed: Invalid call (D3DERR_INVALIDCALL)"
    And it happens when I press Run 3DMark or Demo.
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,525

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    Quote Originally Posted by Amd_Lover2004
    The exact wording is:

    "IDirect3DDevice9::CreatePixleShader failed: Invalid call (D3DERR_INVALIDCALL)"
    And it happens when I press Run 3DMark or Demo.
    I'm not at all surprised by that seeing as you're only using a DX7 compatible video card.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    That would make sence thank you. Forgot about that little tidbit.
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    _
    Posts
    349

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    lol. 3dmark05 demo looks like a slideshow on my radeon 9600, 5fps. Even turning it down to 640x480 doesnt help

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    870

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    WOW... thats bad, try running through the tweaking guides. You probably have the newest catalist drivers right?
    My Current Rigs:
    Antec P180, OCZ Powerstream 520W, DFI nF4 SLI-DR Expert, AMD X2 4400 w/XP120(2.6GHz@1.45v), 2x1GB OCZ Platnium PC3200, BFG 7900GT@592/800(1.6), WD 250GB SATA, Maxtor 120GB IDE, LG DVD/CD Combo(black), Sony DRU-810 DL DVD Burner(black)
    3DMark01:25379, 3DMark03:19746
    3DMark05:9294, 3DMark06:5340

    Raidmax Cobra, Fortron PN-400W, ASUS A8N-E(nF4 Ultra), X2 3800 w/AMD heatpipe cooler, 2x 512MB Crucial Balistix, ATI X300, WD 250GB IDE, Samsung 16x DVD/RW

  6. #66

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    Quote Originally Posted by Yawgm0th
    I'd actually suggest you reinstall Windows entirely, though. RAID 0 is a waste of your second hard drive. It means virtually no performance improvement, and it wastes the entire drive. You don't have 160GB, you have 80GB.
    YawgmOth, I think you may be mistaken, RAID-0(should be AID since there is no redundancy) is known for it's low cost and speed improvement. The size is determined by the size of the smallest drive X number of drives, so two 80 gigs would equal 160 gigs. The stripe size determines how efficient the space is used, with a trade for performance. So RAID-0 with 128k stripe would be among the fastest RAID setups going.




    My '05 score with the free download has ranged from 2400 to 2800 with different system settings. It does vary, but mostly gives me 2550-2600 range

    System is as follows:
    P-4 2.6 512k OC to 3.0
    Asus P4T-E I850 chipset
    ATI AIW 9800 pro clocked to 430/360
    1.5gig PC-800 (RDRAM, don't know timings)

    The best results are using the latest ATI drivers, Omega drivers did not make any improvement as I tend to keep things pretty clean with my system. Also, the tweak guides may have been the cause of some sporadic behavior with my system, and did not make a noticeable improvement(again, I keep things clean anyway).

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    I was thinking of RAID 1 in terms of size, but as for speed it simply isn't worth it most of the time. One drive failure will mean the loss of the entire array, which is hardly worth the speed unless you do something like video or image editting or anything that needs a lot of drive bandwidth. It means almost nothing for loading times in games and other applications.

    The tweak guides shouldn't cause any misbehavior unless you follow the services.msc section. However, they will make little difference if you watch how many running processes you have and are GPU-limted anyway (which you are, for the most partm especially in 3DMark).

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    24

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    5466

  9. #69

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    I'm sure you'll agree that the hard drive is by far the slowest of the major CPU sub-systems and any increase in performance is weighted more heavily since it is bottleneck that sees frequent use.

    I suppose I am speaking from more of an enthusiasts perspective, but even with just 2 drives in RAID 0 I saw a night and day difference in just about everything I did. Windows loaded much faster, browsers popped up as soon as I hit the quick launch. I don't know of an application that does not load 1/3 to 1/2 times faster(photoshop, 3D MAX, premire, etc..) I noticed a larger improvement going to the 2 74gig raptors(from U2W SCSI) than I did when I upgraded my CPU from 1.8(2.0) to the 2.6(3.0).

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota, United States
    Posts
    4,543

    Default Re: 3DMark05 Scores

    Quote Originally Posted by matm347
    I'm sure you'll agree that the hard drive is by far the slowest of the major CPU sub-systems and any increase in performance is weighted more heavily since it is bottleneck that sees frequent use.
    No, the PCI bus itself is the largest bottleneck, but that should be next to completely fixed within the next few years, and the alternative's already available.

    It's true that a faster hardrive will mean improved boot times and even some loading times (hell, just search around for people who have installed Windows XP on flash memory cards and booted in just a few seconds), but they don't do much for most gaming. Load times of games are much more dependant on the amount and speed of RAM, the amount of the paging file (though the added speed helps here a litte), and the amount of video memory. For example, a system with a 768MB of RAM, a 7200RPM HDD, and a 256MB card will load "High-quality" Doom 3 levels a hell of a lot faster than a system with 512MB of RAM, a 128MB card, and as many high-speed RAID 0 drives as you can imagine, even if they're SATA (ie 10000RPM Raptors) or even SCSI.

    But this is all irrelevant, since it has abosolutely nothing to do with 3DMark05. I'm sure we'll all agree that hard drive has no impact and 3DMark scores (unless maybe you're using a 8GB drive with a small paging file, which might drop an average score by 100 points).

Page 7 of 21 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... 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
  •