9800 Pro: UT benchmarks at Tom's not matching up

G

Guest

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

This makes me wonder if the reviewers at Tom's are really a bunch of
fire-panted liars.

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html

In the first test, they claim to run UT2004 at max detail, 1024x768x32, no
AA/AF and post a score of 116 fps for the 9800 Pro, on the map
AS-FallenCity. I got nowhere near this score. My average while walking
around the map was something in the 45 fps range. When I asked the reviewer
if he could supply the demo he was using, I never got a response. The way I
see it, they must have been using a flyby demo that basically stared at a
single wall the whole time. But even when I do that, I only get like 70 fps.
How they got anything close to 116 is beyond me.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased a 9800 Pro thinking that
100+ fps would be the norm in UT2004. Is that supposed to be the case? Is it
just my system or do you guys actually get numbers like that? Perhaps I am
CPU-limited by my XP3200+ (the test was done with a P4 3.2ghz), though I
don't think it should make THAT much of a difference? Or perhaps because
they were using 1gig of RAM while I am using 512, though my usage doesn't
exceed 430MB? I dunno, you tell me if I'm crazy or what.

Naturally, I am using all the latest drivers/software etc.
 
G

Guest

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

UT2004 is indeed very CPU limited. Of course, it never hurts the other
review sites (HardOCP, Anandtech, etc.)

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote in message
news:vOYdd.17148$nj.9686@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> This makes me wonder if the reviewers at Tom's are really a bunch of
> fire-panted liars.
>
> http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
>
> In the first test, they claim to run UT2004 at max detail, 1024x768x32, no
> AA/AF and post a score of 116 fps for the 9800 Pro, on the map
> AS-FallenCity. I got nowhere near this score. My average while walking
> around the map was something in the 45 fps range. When I asked the
reviewer
> if he could supply the demo he was using, I never got a response. The way
I
> see it, they must have been using a flyby demo that basically stared at a
> single wall the whole time. But even when I do that, I only get like 70
fps.
> How they got anything close to 116 is beyond me.
>
> I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased a 9800 Pro thinking
that
> 100+ fps would be the norm in UT2004. Is that supposed to be the case? Is
it
> just my system or do you guys actually get numbers like that? Perhaps I am
> CPU-limited by my XP3200+ (the test was done with a P4 3.2ghz), though I
> don't think it should make THAT much of a difference? Or perhaps because
> they were using 1gig of RAM while I am using 512, though my usage doesn't
> exceed 430MB? I dunno, you tell me if I'm crazy or what.
>
> Naturally, I am using all the latest drivers/software etc.
>
>
 
G

Guest

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

Er, realized my typo a few days after...

It should read: "Of course, it never hurts *to try* the other review sites
(HardOCP, Anandtech, etc.)"


--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"First of One" <daxinfx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fpednXIr1_LE4OXcRVn-vQ@rogers.com...
> UT2004 is indeed very CPU limited. Of course, it never hurts the other
> review sites (HardOCP, Anandtech, etc.)
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
>
> "Kevin C." <nomail@dot.com> wrote in message
> news:vOYdd.17148$nj.9686@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > This makes me wonder if the reviewers at Tom's are really a bunch of
> > fire-panted liars.
> >
> > http://graphics.tomshardware.com/graphic/20041004/vga_charts-05.html
> >
> > In the first test, they claim to run UT2004 at max detail, 1024x768x32,
no
> > AA/AF and post a score of 116 fps for the 9800 Pro, on the map
> > AS-FallenCity. I got nowhere near this score. My average while walking
> > around the map was something in the 45 fps range. When I asked the
> reviewer
> > if he could supply the demo he was using, I never got a response. The
way
> I
> > see it, they must have been using a flyby demo that basically stared at
a
> > single wall the whole time. But even when I do that, I only get like 70
> fps.
> > How they got anything close to 116 is beyond me.
> >
> > I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I purchased a 9800 Pro thinking
> that
> > 100+ fps would be the norm in UT2004. Is that supposed to be the case?
Is
> it
> > just my system or do you guys actually get numbers like that? Perhaps I
am
> > CPU-limited by my XP3200+ (the test was done with a P4 3.2ghz), though I
> > don't think it should make THAT much of a difference? Or perhaps because
> > they were using 1gig of RAM while I am using 512, though my usage
doesn't
> > exceed 430MB? I dunno, you tell me if I'm crazy or what.
> >
> > Naturally, I am using all the latest drivers/software etc.
> >
> >
>
>