Does 3dMark05 work w/ 9800Pro/128 MB cards?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Don't really wanna eat the HD space or bandwidth if 3dMark 2005 isn't
gonna run. Some posts on amdforums.com indicate that it crashes out
of memory on 9800 Pro/128 MB cards.
6 answers Last reply
More about does 3dmark05 work 9800pro cards
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 05:13:34 GMT, zmike6 <zmike6@*SPAMBLOCK*yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >Don't really wanna eat the HD space or bandwidth if 3dMark 2005 isn't
    >gonna run. Some posts on amdforums.com indicate that it crashes out
    >of memory on 9800 Pro/128 MB cards.

    It works (depressingly slowly) on my 128MB 9700 Pro.
    --
    Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
    Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
    please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
    Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Isn't that the truth!! These manufacturers crack me up trying to come up
    with benchmarks to make you think you have a slow system. Where is my
    credit card, I want MORE, MORE, MORE....

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    callsignviper wrote:

    Must go find that catalog where I saw that new motherboard with 16 CPU
    sockets, 32 GB Ram capability, and 4 video card slots. ;o))
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Yeah, they should come up with benchmarks that give everyone a really BIG
    score so we all can feel fuzzy inside.

    "Heywood Jablowme" <a@a.a> wrote in message
    news:ZIR6d.181292$3l3.89249@attbi_s03...
    > Isn't that the truth!! These manufacturers crack me up trying to come up
    > with benchmarks to make you think you have a slow system. Where is my
    > credit card, I want MORE, MORE, MORE....
    >
    > +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > callsignviper wrote:
    >
    > Must go find that catalog where I saw that new motherboard with 16 CPU
    > sockets, 32 GB Ram capability, and 4 video card slots. ;o))
    >
    >
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    On 9/30/2004 5:50 AM fish brightened our day with:

    >Yeah, they should come up with benchmarks that give everyone a really BIG
    >score so we all can feel fuzzy inside.
    >
    >
    >
    I really could care less about the scores, it just seems silly running
    any benchmark that yields 1.5 fps results. Especially when it's on a
    system that's incredibly common, 2.2 GHz AthlonXP - 1 Gb RAM - 9800 Pro
    - nForce2 Chipset. I know time marches on, but I'd like to think of my
    system as still a little bit above average, in the grand scheme of
    technological advance. 1.5 fps screams, "inadequate", when that's just
    not the case in reality. Doing some more checking, an Athlon64 and
    X800 XT PE yields 2.4 fps in the same test. I don't get it, the #1
    result for an ATI card yields results that I would deem just playable
    for a game, G1 35 fps, G2 22 fps, G3 38 fps. The result scores can be
    whatever they want, but shouldn't the fastest card with the fastest
    processor actually benchmark fast, more than just relatively fast.

    I'm sure the futuremark folks and all their partners have reasonable
    rationales for structuring there test this way, most of it has to do
    with convincing the buying public to upgrade their hardware.

    --
    "...forged but accurate."

    Steve ¤»Inglo«¤
    www.inglostadt.com
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    >
    > I'm sure the futuremark folks and all their partners have reasonable
    > rationales for structuring there test this way, most of it has to do
    > with convincing the buying public to upgrade their hardware.

    Yeah. Except that the reason to use 3DMark used to be to see how current/near future games will run
    like on your system. What they have done now is simply to show how high end graphical effects look
    on your system, which isnt the same thing at all. 3DMarks have become meaningless, other than to
    compare two sets of hardware.

    S
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    > I really could care less about the scores, it just seems silly running
    > any benchmark that yields 1.5 fps results. Especially when it's on a
    > system that's incredibly common, 2.2 GHz AthlonXP - 1 Gb RAM - 9800 Pro
    > - nForce2 Chipset. I know time marches on, but I'd like to think of my
    > system as still a little bit above average, in the grand scheme of
    > technological advance. 1.5 fps screams, "inadequate", when that's just
    > not the case in reality. Doing some more checking, an Athlon64 and
    > X800 XT PE yields 2.4 fps in the same test. I don't get it, the #1
    > result for an ATI card yields results that I would deem just playable

    The CPU tests are supposed to be extremely low. The video card is not
    used at all. I get 20fps, 13.2fps, 21.xfps, 2.2fps and 4.1fps in
    2005. My highest score so far is 4455. This machine should be good
    for 5k with the newer drivers and faster settings on the video card :)

    Eric
Ask a new question

Read More

Radeon Graphics