Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Tags:
  • Radeon
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 9:13:34 AM

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.

More about : 3dmark05 work 9800pro 128 cards

September 30, 2004 10:28:52 AM

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.
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 3:02:17 PM

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))
Related resources
September 30, 2004 4:50:07 PM

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))
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 7:29:15 PM

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
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 9:39:57 PM

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
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 5:51:14 PM

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
!