Post your 3dmark05 results

[Somniferum]

2326.

Does this seem awfully low to anyone else? Looking at The Tech Report's benchmarks, they have the 9800Pro scoring 2418, and the 9800XT (which is closer to my specs, considering clock speeds) scoring 2941!

Of course, they are using a much faster CPU, but I wouldn't expect a 9800Pro to be CPU-limited at 2.8 GHz.

Strange.

(AA/AF were set to Application Preference, naturally.)

 

[Avalon]

2118 3dmarks with my system at normal speeds of a FSB of 433mhz and my CPU running at ~2.4ghz
2105 3dmarks with my system underclocked to a FSB of 333mhz and my CPU ~1.83ghz

Well, it looks as if your system specs mean diddly squat in this test. This is purely a video test.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Anyone know when the Linux binaries will be released?

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Oh yeah, forgot to post mine 4904

spanks mine

you must beat me in the cpu scores due to that 1 mhz clockspeed advantage! you have nc or ch cpu?

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Between 3dmark05, HL2, and the recent release of an AGP x800 XT at reasonable prices ATI certainly seems to be gaining ground.

The XT will be a good buy if it ever becomes available in quantities to bring the prices down to or below its $450MSRP. The cheapest I could find a retail XT in stock is $530, while the GT is $350 right now at Outpost. If the price gap ever closes to within $50 or so it will arguably be a more attractive card than the GT, but not with the current street prices. Let's hope ATI can get a flood of these chips out before HL2 rolls around.

 

[Avalon]

The demo = :shocked:

 

[JBT]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Oh yeah, forgot to post mine 4904

spanks mine

you must beat me in the cpu scores due to that 1 mhz clockspeed advantage! you have nc or ch cpu?

From my initial testing of this the core speed really helps scores. My first run @ 400/1100 gets a score of 43XX with the older 65.xx drivers, updating to the 66.70's and OCing to 423/1140 really gets improves the score a lot 5375

Yes the demo is SWEET. This 3dmark kills 03 IMO.

 

[HaloEighty8]

5824 3DMarks

 

[NYHoustonman]

I'm getting an even 2200.

 

[VIAN]

3DMARK SCORE: 2514

CPU SCORE: 3925

 

[cjsketchy]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
2326.

Does this seem awfully low to anyone else? Looking at The Tech Report's benchmarks, they have the 9800Pro scoring 2418, and the 9800XT (which is closer to my specs, considering clock speeds) scoring 2941!

Of course, they are using a much faster CPU, but I wouldn't expect a 9800Pro to be CPU-limited at 2.8 GHz.

Strange.

(AA/AF were set to Application Preference, naturally.)

I almost got the exact same score as you... faster cpu (2.8C @ 3.3) but slower clocks on my 9800 (380/340). the 9800xt is probably benefitting from the 256mb of video memory and newer drivers (4.10 beta, I'm using 4.9)

 

[DarkKnight]

2261

9800np stock

Cat 4.9

 

[WobbleWobble]

128MB 9800 Pro flashed to XT
2500+ Athlon XP running at 2.4GHz
1GB PC3200

2642 3DMarks

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: HaloEighty8
5824 3DMarks

Damn. Really nice for stock speeds.

The XT will be a good buy if it ever becomes available in quantities to bring the prices down to or below its $450MSRP. The cheapest I could find a retail XT in stock is $530, while the GT is $350 right now at Outpost. If the price gap ever closes to within $50 or so it will arguably be a more attractive card than the GT, but not with the current street prices. Let's hope ATI can get a flood of these chips out before HL2 rolls around.

http://www.visiontek.com/x800xt.html

It's getting there.

 

[gil11542]

9700PRO

 

[DoobieOnline]

5136

doobie

 

[yezhou]

Ok I get low scores with my rig. I usually get between 37xx - 39xx, and my highest was 43xx.

My comp is:
--------------
Athlong FX-53 (2.4Ghz)
Asus A8V mobo
1 Gig Corsair Ram
BFG Geforce 6800 Ultra (425/1100)
WinXP Pro SP2 (with performance tweaks thanks to BlackViper.com)

I'm using ForceWare 61.77 drivers, and IQ setting at "Quality" under NVidia settings along with applicationcontrolled AA/AF. My timedemo for Doom 3 is up to par, same with 3DMark03 scores...also, when I look at my score in Details, I see that for both "Feature Tests" & "Batch Size Tests" all say N/A. Is that normal? I'm checking my temperatures, and nothing is overheating at all. I defragged, and had no other programs running. What could be the reason I'm getting low scores with 3DMark05? Thanks in advance!

 

[gururu]

3dmark score: 2090
CPU score: 2631

 

[gururu]

x-bit changed their tune once they got the new ATI drivers.... wow, never saw a site make such a drastic change in their conclusions.
x-bit

 

[tr1kstanc3]

3066 =0

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=21013

 

[naruto1988]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=21305

i was hoping for 3k but guess not. maybe catalyst 4.9 are better than the modified omegas.

 

[Manzelle]

5200 even!

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=21468

Not bad, not bad at all...

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: gururu
x-bit changed their tune once they got the new ATI drivers.... wow, never saw a site make such a drastic change in their conclusions.
x-bit

What did it say before? IT doesn't look like they modified the graphs.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: gururu
x-bit changed their tune once they got the new ATI drivers.... wow, never saw a site make such a drastic change in their conclusions.
x-bit

What did it say before? IT doesn't look like they modified the graphs.

they just added that last page with the updated drivers and they rearranged their conclusions. initially, they had put the 6800ultra in the first paragraph stating that the 6800 ultra was THE most future-proof card to have in light of its dominance in the benchmark. Now they put the x800 series in the first paragraph and the 6800ultra in the second paragraph. I wish I had the actual quotes, the change was pretty funny.

 

[HaloEighty8]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus

Originally posted by: HaloEighty8
5824 3DMarks

Damn. Really nice for stock speeds.



Thanks, I honestly didn't think I would get a score that decent for stock hardware.