lets get the hard data

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7875849
11 answers Last reply
More about lets hard data
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Robert" <rvanss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:sr8vc.606246$Pk3.527620@pd7tw1no...
    > http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7875849
    >
    >

    Ah huh, and so........?

    Your really running Win Me????
    What the heck for? http://www.microsoft.com will soon not even be
    supporting it, if I remember right.
    It's just a matter of days now, sometime this month.
    And if my MSI Board supported 8x, I would be running not as far behind you
    as I am.
    Of which shows to me that my Geforce FX5200 does more then I thought it
    could do.
    I always did know this, the thing runs almost the same in my AMD only
    running 2 GHz as it
    does in my P4 running 3.3 GHz

    I guess GHz for GHz don't always mean anything. (Please note, my AMD board
    don't have 8x Support, in case you missed that fact.)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Robert wrote:
    > http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7875849

    Who cares? The only point of benchmarks is
    (a) Boasting rights (such as having the higest 3dmark01 score)
    (b) Comparing to bits of hardware in a review

    You clearly don't fall into group (a), and group (b) doesn't apply to
    newsgroups (unless you post comparing two bits of hardware).

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:xhhvc.13487$XI4.467963@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > Robert wrote:
    > > http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7875849
    >
    > Who cares? The only point of benchmarks is
    > (a) Boasting rights (such as having the higest 3dmark01 score)
    > (b) Comparing to bits of hardware in a review
    >
    > You clearly don't fall into group (a), and group (b) doesn't apply to
    > newsgroups (unless you post comparing two bits of hardware).
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
    >
    >
    :-)
    I Only really care about Memory & CPU Bandwidth to begin with.
    Why?
    With Results like these,,
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dstrausser33/index.html
    I also have a page on my Emu site just pointing out just the Memory
    Bandwidth.
    Or @ least mostly.
    http://www.emusega-forever.com/Sandra_Memory_Test_1.html
    Here's where you see a speed Dif, Encoding one small Video file.
    Lets make it one Min. Of totally uncompressed Video.

    With no filters @ all it takes about 1Min to encode 1Min.
    Each filter takes about another 5 or so Seconds.
    So if you have three extra filters, it might take close to 1:20 for 1Min. Of
    Video.
    In other words, I'm not looking to do so well in gaming, but am looking for
    speed in
    encoding & re-encoding video.
    You have a (AIW) Rob.
    When you use my AIW on a system like my P4 I don't loose a frame in a Video
    Capture.

    I Said something about this before on one of one of the Hardware. NG's
    Intel's are nice for speed for Video Encoding (TV Capture/Home Movies &
    Such.)
    Intel's are faster in the re-encoding processes, as well as running some
    of the programs
    to write the DVD's

    When it comes to Gaming, Intel just does not have it.
    My Geforce FX5200 Performs almost the same on both systems, but my AMD does
    not
    have 8X AGP Support, and my P4 does, hm.. So if my AMD had the support for
    8X, there's a
    Chance it would perform 2x what it already does.
    To get a better Idea of what I'm talking about, here's robs & my benchmarks
    side by side in plain text.
    Rather, a link to what I see compareing the two systems.
    http://www.emusega-forever.com/3DMark2001_Saved_Page.html
    There's a good chance his is running an 8XAGP Mode, mine is only running @
    4X
    So someone with the same setup, with 8X support will beat me.

    Need more info on what I know I need to run better?
    By now I do know what I would need to run a lot better, but I don't
    care!!!!!

    Denny. :-)
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    hey denny, I'm impressed. What is the stock designation of your cpu?
    I agree with your statement about fast encoding and stuff. When I had my
    2600 overclocked to 200 fsb, I could edit video like nobody's business. But
    because my hard drives were unstable during editing, splicing had to be done
    twice to get a proper product.(How I new my hard drives were unstable, hence
    a bad overclock) I have an 80 and 120 GB Western Digital ATA100 HDs. So It
    was no point in staying overclocked. Also didn't want any of my comuter
    programming projects being corrupted either. But if you get a good product
    being overclocked, then hats off to ya
    With my AIW, I can still record dvd quality video with out dropping frame
    rates at 8000 bits/sec, but I prefer to record and edit at 5000 as there is
    no apprciative drop in quality at this setting. Start to notice it at about
    4300. I edit with UleadStudio version 6 which came with my AIW 7500. I got
    Pinnicle Studio version 8 with the 9600 but the splicing it does is very
    poor.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Robert" <rvanss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:hTtvc.652958$Ig.262528@pd7tw2no...
    > hey denny, I'm impressed. What is the stock designation of your cpu?
    > I agree with your statement about fast encoding and stuff. When I had my
    > 2600 overclocked to 200 fsb, I could edit video like nobody's business.
    But
    > because my hard drives were unstable during editing, splicing had to be
    done
    > twice to get a proper product.(How I new my hard drives were unstable,
    hence
    > a bad overclock) I have an 80 and 120 GB Western Digital ATA100 HDs. So
    It
    > was no point in staying overclocked. Also didn't want any of my comuter
    > programming projects being corrupted either. But if you get a good product
    > being overclocked, then hats off to ya
    > With my AIW, I can still record dvd quality video with out dropping frame
    > rates at 8000 bits/sec, but I prefer to record and edit at 5000 as there
    is
    > no apprciative drop in quality at this setting. Start to notice it at
    about
    > 4300. I edit with UleadStudio version 6 which came with my AIW 7500. I got
    > Pinnicle Studio version 8 with the 9600 but the splicing it does is very
    > poor.
    >
    >
    Yes, most of the time I stay above 5000 or so too.
    5Mbits For dvd I use a mix when going from Divx to mpg2
    I found that you can get away with much less Bitrate when played back
    on most tv screens. I found most tv's cant go over 800 x 600, unless you
    have
    a HDTV or (HDTV) Plasma Screen. And you don't much notice the difference
    when you play them back.
    So I'll use 2800 or 2950 as my low bitrate in TMPGEnc Plus
    Then use somewhere around 3000 - 3100 For the medium bitrate.
    Then somewhere around 3200 - 3450 for Maxium Bitrate.
    Good bitrate for something thats over 2 hours long, but not so low, that it
    looks
    all that bad either.
    Still much better then SVCD
    If I was only doing a hour long home movie, I would use 8000 (8Mbit/s) Divx
    Then use about 5.6 or so for my max, and 4.2 for my minimum. and 3.5
    What you need to ask your self is,, How long is the video, and what is it
    for.
    If your just doing a copy of a movie, then you just want a bitrate that will
    just cut it.
    The size of the DVD That is.
    If your doing a recording of the kids, a bunch of home movies, then you want
    the better
    quality Bit for Bit.
    The other thing is this.
    720x480=345600 I don't remember how to figure this out, but I'm going to
    give it a try.
    3456.00 Drop the last Zeros, you want to use @ least this
    bitrate.
    A bitrate of 2000 or less, is where you will really notice the difference,
    so use no less then
    2500, if doing cartoon stuff, the bits per second change here too.
    But still no less then 2500, or you'll really notice.
    Take note, I get so close to the marker, without hitting it.
    This works most of the time.
    Multiply the two frame sizes, then move the decimal over two spots.
    480x480=230400 2304.00 Best bitrate, but you can use less.
    Just not by too much, a little more then 1000 and your still ok.
    352x240=84480 844.80 800 or 900..
    I think you can see how much I've used all this kind of stuff before.


    He, he..
    Updated to systems at one time, my bandwidth went bye bye.
    Win98 Updates will soon be bye bye too.
    Denny.. :-)
    Denny. :-)
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    Thanks Denny for sticken up for me. Its okay notritenteri I used to be a
    "dickwad", but I'm justa fella now...justa fella.
    Yes div x does produce excellent quality stuff, even at the low bitrates you
    mentioned. But its too much math for me.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "Robert" <rvanss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:O0Avc.618451$Pk3.43818@pd7tw1no...
    > Thanks Denny for sticken up for me. Its okay notritenteri I used to be a

    NP.. No Problem.

    > "dickwad", but I'm justa fella now...justa fella.
    > Yes div x does produce excellent quality stuff, even at the low bitrates
    you
    > mentioned. But its too much math for me.
    >
    >
    Too much math?
    All your doing is figuring out for what screen size it's going to look the
    best.
    Use your Windows Calculator, it's not hard to move a "." over a little bit.
    0000
    00.00 is all your doing.
    it's not like your doing something like.
    0000ff 0000f1 00 00 00 00 01 = 01
    hex code.
    everything works this way, otherwise ram wouldn't work.
    Sega roms work like this, & so does the 68000 MPU
    It all works out of Hex code.
    even basic...
    I have to go to sleep, a friend of mine needs help working on computers...
    Denny. :-)
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    nah your still a dickwad. I've been dealing with guys like you for 40 years.
    A dickwad changes about as often as a tiger changes its spots but thats OK.
    You have fun, the streets are probably a lot safer with you focused on your
    bus speeds.
    "Robert" <rvanss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:O0Avc.618451$Pk3.43818@pd7tw1no...
    > Thanks Denny for sticken up for me. Its okay notritenteri I used to be a
    > "dickwad", but I'm justa fella now...justa fella.
    > Yes div x does produce excellent quality stuff, even at the low bitrates
    you
    > mentioned. But its too much math for me.
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    "notritenoteri" such big , you still don't have your benchmarks published.
    whatsa matter..you scared... got something to hide? show your data or stick
    a sock in it, If you can't post anything but lame remarks, you've obviously
    got nothing better to offer.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    post my benchmarks???? Why would I want to do that? So you have a table of
    numbers. SOlved any real world problems yet? Got a solution to the salesman
    problem?
    go clock you ego little one.
    "Robert" <rvanss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:PkMvc.658535$oR5.392613@pd7tw3no...
    >
    > "notritenoteri" such big , you still don't have your benchmarks published.
    > whatsa matter..you scared... got something to hide? show your data or
    stick
    > a sock in it, If you can't post anything but lame remarks, you've
    obviously
    > got nothing better to offer.
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd (More info?)

    blah blah blah
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Overclocking Hardware