source benchmarks

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

From: "carl" <carlgurgan@hotmail.com>
>I was wondering what sort of scores people were getting at the video stress
>test. I got 136.52fps.

My old computer : 4.3 FPS .
My new computer : 59.4 FPS .

59 might sound bad , but after getting FOUR , it's pretty nice .

Limnophile

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

"carl" <carlgurgan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqv9vl$ebc$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>I was wondering what sort of scores people were getting at the video stress
>test. I got 136.52fps.

186fps with:

Gainward Golden Sample Geforce 6800 Ultra
1280x1024
16xAF
4xAA
everything else on full
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 3.2GHz @ 3.8GHz
1GB Corsair PC3200 DDR

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

carl wrote:
> I was wondering what sort of scores people were getting at the video stress
> test. I got 136.52fps.
>
>
How are you supposed to get the figure from it?

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

thats good! must get an fx55 and see what happens to my score

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

"carl" <carlgurgan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cqvp3k$24h$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> thats good! must get an fx55 and see what happens to my score

Probably not much, the best thing to do if you want higher fps is to water cool
or like I did, phase change cool your graphics card and then overclock it to
within an inch of it's life. CPUs above 3Ghz P4 or 3000+ A64 don't make a huge
difference in games no matter what they are or what you do to them. I only
overclocked mine for photoshop. Then again if you squeezed 130 odd fps out of an
AthlonXP 1800 then perhaps an FX55 would help out a little.

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Limnophile wrote:
> My old computer : 4.3 FPS .
> My new computer : 59.4 FPS .
>
> 59 might sound bad , but after getting FOUR , it's pretty nice .
>
> Limnophile

LOL. Out of curiosity, what system you got?

--
This is 29, Acacia Road. And this is Eric, the schoolboy who leads an
exciting double life. For when Eric eats a banana, an amazing
transformation occurs. Eric is Bananaman.

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

carl wrote:
> I was wondering what sort of scores people were getting at the video
> stress test. I got 136.52fps.

Avg 86.44

9800Pro 128mb
Athlon XP 2800+ (@ about 2150MHz)
768MB 333Mhz DDR

--
damien clan .
@ mcbain com

there's no place like 127.0.0.1

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Athlon64 3500
XFX6800GT- with Arctic Cooler-oc'd to 415mhz, ram 1.13
Abit AV8 not oc'd (no time yet!)
Soundblaster Audigy2ZS
2GB GeIL Ultra DDR400
SATA Seagate 160gb RAID0

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

carl wrote:
> Athlon64 3500
> XFX6800GT- with Arctic Cooler-oc'd to 415mhz, ram 1.13
> Abit AV8 not oc'd (no time yet!)
> Soundblaster Audigy2ZS
> 2GB GeIL Ultra DDR400
> SATA Seagate 160gb RAID0

Good rig, you take your video seriously!

I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on this.

When I changed my HL video settings to the ones you posted, my fps dropped
to about 50  

--
damien clan .
@ mcbain com

there's no place like 127.0.0.1

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

Damien McBain wrote:
>
> carl wrote:
> > Athlon64 3500
> > XFX6800GT- with Arctic Cooler-oc'd to 415mhz, ram 1.13
> > Abit AV8 not oc'd (no time yet!)
> > Soundblaster Audigy2ZS
> > 2GB GeIL Ultra DDR400
> > SATA Seagate 160gb RAID0
>
> Good rig, you take your video seriously!
>
> I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on this.
>
> When I changed my HL video settings to the ones you posted, my fps dropped
> to about 50  
>
> --
> damien clan .
> @ mcbain com
>
> there's no place like 127.0.0.1

asus k8v se deluxe 754pin
ati 9800 pro AIW 378/338 sometimes OC'd to 391/350
A64 3200+ @ 206x11 = 2266
2x512 OCZ pc3200 platinumEL 2-3-2-5 1T
couple of maxtor 160 gig 8meg cache drives IDE

I get 117 with vid settings all maxed 4xAA 8XAF

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

re: I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on
this.

I think that we are all victims of the marketing department. The human eye
cannot see past 24fps (tv). But I'll admit I was impressed going from a 9700
Pro to a 6800GT.

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

carl wrote:
> re: I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on
> this.
>
> I think that we are all victims of the marketing department. The human eye
> cannot see past 24fps (tv). But I'll admit I was impressed going from a 9700
> Pro to a 6800GT.
>
>
it doesnt make a difference whether we can see it or not... the game
goes on your fps for a lot of stuff... such as bullets. a higher fps
will give u a (small) advantage

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:37:36 GMT, John Green <johngreen@notmail.com>
wrote:

>carl wrote:
>> re: I'm interested to know how the higher end ATI cards are performing on
>> this.
>>
>> I think that we are all victims of the marketing department. The human eye
>> cannot see past 24fps (tv). But I'll admit I was impressed going from a 9700
>> Pro to a 6800GT.
>>
>>
>it doesnt make a difference whether we can see it or not... the game
>goes on your fps for a lot of stuff... such as bullets. a higher fps
>will give u a (small) advantage

Yeah ... things will be simulated faster and better the higher the
frame rate goes. The pooter will be free to do other things if it
doesn't have to spend so much effort on the graphics and sound. Things
like weapon effects (ballistics), AI and network traffic.

And it'll be quicker taking the control inputs as well ... FPS's
aren't as good an example here as driving games and flight sims are
.... but if you have a flight sim that goes down to 4fps when it's busy
(from a nominal 30odd), then at 120kts landing speed, you're going
about 67 yards per second, so the control inputs only hit every 16-17
yards. Not much time for corrections.

Translating that across to the fps world and you get a faster frame
rate translating into a better ability to track moving targets as the
control inputs will be smoother.

I agree though - for sheer visuals, the human eye and brain don't
update that quickly.

Pete Lilleyman
alishas.dontspam.addict@blueyonder.co.getrid.uk
(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)