Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 84

Thread: A7N8X Mult. settings




  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Originally posted by homeworld1031tx
    That is EXACTLY right. a P2 with a Radeon 9700 ***** slaped a P4 with a R9600. Off course at fist i didnt believe it, but it was Ace's Hardware so I was inclined to do so.
    Yes, 3dmark03 is 90% video card dependant.

    However, it is a whole different story when it comes to 3dmark01. I would have to say that the 2001 benchmark is much more CPU dependant than it is video card. I can use my own system as an example, I gained 2000+ points from CPU and only ~700 from overclocking video. Other people are seeing similar results.

    Now, since we were talking about 3dmark2001, I will point out that the 9700Pro scores about the same as the 5900, even though the 5900 easily outdoes it in games.

    Like I said, 3dmark isnt everything.

    Finally, I would like to leave you with a little link:
    http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProduc...103-394&depa=1

    :thumb:

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

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    311

    Default

    Huh, thats interesting. I didn't know they were being sold in the US. When i read the article in theinquirer about it, it only said that it was sold in Japan. Also, i think your right about 3DMark01SE being more CPU dependent then 03 is. However , I dont think that it is more CPU dependent then Video Card Dependent, because from my old system i got 4300, and on the new system i got a 6600. only about a 2300 Point difference for a massive system upgrade

    (Old system was 900 T-Bird/SY-K7VTA-B(VIA KT133)/512 MB PC133, rest off the stuff is the same as now)
    <font color=orange>AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton (166*11=1883MHz) -|- Asus A7N8X Deluxe Rev2.0 -|- Corsair XMS PC3200 512 MB RAM 2T-3-3-6 @DDR333 -|- Leadtek A250 TD GF4 TI 4400 300/630 -|- 40 Gig Quntaum Fireball AP+ -|- 52x Samsung CD-ROM Drive -|- SB Live Digital 5.1 -|- Antec SG case w/350 Watt Power-Up PSU</font>

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    I went from a stock run of 14,800 to 16,800 just from bumping my CPU from 2.4 to 3.0...

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

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    I went from a stock run of 14,800 to 16,800 just from bumping my CPU from 2.4 to 3.0...
    I thought you said 17,800? not 16,800.

    I'm not disagreeing with you about the significance of CPU power on '01 scores but you still can't compare systems with different graphics cards using this benchmark. The review and benchmark article on the P4 3.0/875 boards in MaximumPC yeilded similar results in 3DMark 2003, Quake3, and UT2K3 scores as well.

    I'm a gamer and my bottom line is 3DMark scores both '01 and '03 as well as FPS scores from popular games. I know that the best value of my hardware investment is in a high end graphics card. I bought my 9700Pro when it was top of the line last year and feel it was worth every penny. The 9800Pro and 5900FX are not a significant enough performance advancement to justify replacing an installed 9700Pro as far as I'm concerned despite knowing that I could exceed 18,000 and 6,000 in 3dMark '01 and '03 scores respectively with my system.

    Any serious gamer on a limited hardware budget would be better off building a system with a $200 mobo/CPU combo and a $400 graphics card then they would be with a $400 mobo/CPU and a $200 graphics card. In the end the guy with the faster graphics card wins the FPS contest!
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    16,800 was tested right after the jump to 3.0 to see the 2000 point increase.

    I should have typed 17,300* (not 17,800), this score was the highest score I can attain at the same settings. It all has to do with the way you run it. Bumping my card up and better cooling got me 18,117. That is my current high score but it is certainly capable of more.

    BTW, 9700 Pros score the same in 3dmark as 5900s...I see it all the time. So to me, I think it is a fair comparison when talking about 3dmark. The 5900 beats it easily in games though.

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

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    BTW my CPU and MB together were only $300 US...and card $350...so not that bad IMO.

    I know all about the importance of the video card, it will make or break a system no matter how fast the rest of it is. You don't need to explain this to me.

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

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    418

    Default

    My Mobo, Cpu and Video card were about $300 all together and it spits out #'s just behind your system.

    So the best bang for the buck and FPS is definetely with AMD.



    Chez

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Originally posted by Chezman29
    So the best bang for the buck and FPS is definetely with AMD.
    I think it's more than that. I'm not sure what others are getting with NForce-2 mobos, Bartons running at 11x200, 9700Pros, and twin Corsair 3200 sticks, but my guess is they would score similar to me at those specs.

    Those scores are noticabley higher than a P4 3.0/ 800MHz FSB on the fastest 875 mobo available using the same top quality RAM and the same vid card. Frankly I was shocked to find the top of the line Intel systems running that slow and wouldn't have believed it if it wasn't from a reliable source. I doupt the 3.2GHz version will be much faster.

    They also used the same version of Catalyst I was using which can make a difference.

    Pretty soon I'm sure we'll hear from people who have clocked these systems to see what they are capable of. Hopefully we'll hear how well the latest Athlon 3200 clocks also. Although I still think the 3200 would be a little too pricey to mess with at the moment.

    BTW Homeworld did you get that 2500+ running at 200MHz FSB yet??? We've been getting off topic again.
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    418

    Default

    After buying the Geil ram I have got, and the price difference between that and the other TOP rated ram out there, I am definetely swayed to the idea that names just don't cut it.
    I saved over $100 and am getting the same performance as Mushkin, TwinMos(the original ram I was looking at), and Corsair. It is amazing to see how close technology is now at this point in time.

    On the basis of the Barton 3000, and 3200. I REALLY don't think they are gonna pull of the O/C's comparable to the 2500+ and others in the lower range.
    I personally think the 3000/3200 are at the TOP of the Mhz spectrum and won't be able to O/C % to % if you know what I mean.
    Until they get the stressed silicon advancements and stuff I think this series is at its top.
    Ram is sort of there now as well. DDR2 isn't making the #'s and there really isn't anything coming out that is going to overtake the current specs.

    Although we have new busses coming, board architecheral changes and so many other advancements this is a precurious time in computers to see where it is going to end up in the next 9-18 months in my eyes.

    Chez

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chezman29
    My Mobo, Cpu and Video card were about 0 all together and it spits out #'s just behind your system.

    So the best bang for the buck and FPS is definetely with AMD.



    Chez
    Was that to me or someone else?

    :shrug:

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

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •