Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sapphire X1950 Pro AGP 3DMark scores

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Western Digital
  • Power Supplies
  • Sapphire
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 3, 2007 11:22:41 AM

Below are my results for Sapphire X1950 Pro AGP 512MB card running on my
P4 3.2C w/HT
IC7-MAX3
3GB PC 4000
36 GB Raptor
250 GB WD HD

3DMARK settings for both '05 and '06 are
1280X1024
AA - 4X
Filtering - Trilinear

3DMARK 05


3DMARK 06


Note: This card needs a min of 30A on the 12v rail. Check your power supply before ordering a X1950 AGP

edit for screen shot size

More about : sapphire x1950 pro agp 3dmark scores

January 3, 2007 5:04:12 PM

January 3, 2007 5:08:52 PM

Quote:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
Related resources
January 3, 2007 6:24:32 PM

mine has 22 amps and it runs fine, havnt had any problems with it.
January 4, 2007 4:33:40 AM

How about running with the defaults for 3D Marks 05 & 06, and posting back.

How are the temps with the Sapphire cooler?
January 4, 2007 9:42:24 AM

on default setting and at 1024x768

3dmark05 score of: 10020
3dmark06 score of: around 6000 (cant remember the exact number)


at 1280x1024

3dmark05 score of: 8815
3dmark06 score of: 5100




my system:

Core 2 duo E6600 @ stock
asrock 775dual vsta mobo
2Gb pc2700 memory(yes i know its old and slow, will upgrade when i have the money)
250gb seagate hdd
sapphire X1950 pro 512MB AGP card



The fan on the sapphire card can be very loud if at full speed. But so far while gaming and running these tests it runs at 40% speed and i can barely hear it. Iv never seen it hit 100% yet during gaming. My temp is usualy around 45-47 degrees at idel and 55-57 after about 3 hrs of gaming on games like FEAR set on max. Iv never tried setting the fan to 100% and then testing the temp. Will give it a go later.
January 5, 2007 12:00:12 AM

Thanks for this. 8)

Those are impressive scores & makes me think about the C2D more. :?
Temps are good.
Try stepping up the fan speed as the temps go up if you need to, using AtiTool. This way it goes up gradually, less noise.
Would really like to see some scores with systems similar to mine.
January 5, 2007 1:59:06 AM

Default 3DMARK 05 score = 6192


Default 3DMARK 06 score = 3561


The stock Sapphire cooler keeps the card at idle around 40C and after 1 hour playing Doom3 at full graphic settings the temps do not rise over 60C.
January 6, 2007 10:42:27 AM

I got my Sapphire X1950XTX at stock frequencies (GPU) and at 3DMark 2005 (1024x768) I got 13190 3D marks.
That is with Core 2 Duo 6600 3Ghz and Corsair Dominator 6400 at 1Ghz.
Before overclocking the CPU and the RAM I got 12268 3D marks.
January 6, 2007 11:18:00 AM

Hi! I am very interested in purchasing a X1950Pro AGP, but I have a question:
Which card is actually faster? The 512MB Version with 580MHz or the 256MB Version with 600MHz?

Thanks!
January 12, 2007 3:51:02 PM

anyone here use visiontek 1950 AGP? how do you find it. is there really a big difference in speed in games of 256MB to 512MB?



AP
January 12, 2007 4:56:49 PM

The extra money spent on the 512 version over the 256 version will only amount to a couple more FPS. There are only a couple of games that even start to take advantage of the extra memory.
January 12, 2007 5:03:27 PM

i agree with Kaotao, the 512 Mb will only give u a very marginal boost. only reason i took it was cause it was on a one week special price, and was the same price as the other 256 mb versions... :) 

Its gone up now back to the normal range.

Any way, this one is 256 but a very good card for that price. By the way this is a UK site...so i dont know about the US market: http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX...
January 12, 2007 5:12:19 PM

Quote:
Default 3DMARK 05 score = 6192


Default 3DMARK 06 score = 3561


The stock Sapphire cooler keeps the card at idle around 40C and after 1 hour playing Doom3 at full graphic settings the temps do not rise over 60C.


That seems low... my x850 netted me 7018 in 05. Do you have a comparison ling?
January 12, 2007 5:55:30 PM

Quote:
That seems low... my x850 netted me 7018 in 05. Do you have a comparison ling?


Exactly. 6192 at default 3DMark 05 settings is low considering that his CPU and memory are slightly better than mine:

He has a 3.2 GHz P4 vs. my 3.0 GHz P4
He has PC 4000 vs. my PC 3200
Not to mention that his Raptors are faster than my Barracudas

I am using an eGeForce 6800 Ultra AGP vs. his X1950 PRO AGP

and my 3DMark 05 score at default settings is something around 5650 points.

This is the second time I see really disappointing benchmark scores for X1950 PRO AGP (the first guy who posted here earlier had Aquamark 3 score of some 58,000 which is 6000 lower than mine).

I would expect to see default 3DMark 05 scores around high 8,000s - low 10,000; and Aquamark 3 in the vicinity of 80,000-90,000 by upgrading from a 6800 Ultra to X1950 PRO.

By the looks of it I can expect what? A 10% increase?

I remember when I was considering the Gainward Bliss 7800GS+ I consistently saw people posting scores (with PCs comparable to mine) of like close to 10,000 3DMark 05s....

Isn't X1950 PRO supposed to kind of eat the Bliss for breakfast?

According to THIS ARTICLE an X1950 PRO AGP should be at least 30% faster than a 6800 Ultra AGP (all else equal, of course).

Could anyone please tell me what is wrong with this picture?

Cleeve? It seems we need your expertise here.
January 12, 2007 9:32:36 PM

Did you select the last 2 tests?? cause in ur picture they havnt been selected :? :?

that may also be why your score is low. It should really be around the 8000-10000 mark


with my x1950 pro agp I get a score of 10000 in 3dmark05 and around 6000 in 3dmark06, plus a score of around 92-93,000 in aquamark3 (this is with a conroe E6600)
January 12, 2007 9:58:25 PM

question, what last 2 tests are you referring to? looking at the picture, aren't those the default test settings of the free version of 3DMark 05/06?

just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

9K-10K in 05 i think is really high, i have seen 3 people posting their 05 scores using 1950 AGP, it was mostly in the high 6K or low 7K.

for 06, scoores i saw were high 3K to low 4K.

AP
a b U Graphics card
January 12, 2007 10:23:09 PM

i have scored a little over 6000 in 05 and a 3200 in 06.
with my 68gt.

i would think that your ati card should score higher.

but then again futuremark is a synthetic benchie.
January 13, 2007 6:36:23 AM

Quote:
question, what last 2 tests are you referring to? looking at the picture, aren't those the default test settings of the free version of 3DMark 05/06?/quote]

haha lol, sorry, my mistake.

Still his score is pretty lowish. I ran the default test on 3dmark 05 and got 10035 points.
January 13, 2007 6:45:47 AM

Quote:
:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 

Sorry i took a bite. I was too hungry. :D 
January 16, 2007 2:31:42 PM

Quote:
I remember when I was considering the Gainward Bliss 7800GS+ I consistently saw people posting scores (with PCs comparable to mine) of like close to 10,000 3DMark 05s....

Isn't X1950 PRO supposed to kind of eat the Bliss for breakfast?

According to THIS ARTICLE an X1950 PRO AGP should be at least 30% faster than a 6800 Ultra AGP (all else equal, of course).

Could anyone please tell me what is wrong with this picture?


BUMPing this thread. I would really appreciate someone's analysis of this.
January 25, 2007 12:48:48 PM

Has anyone compared the performance of agp and pci-e versions of the x1950pro on the Asrock 775Dual-VSTA running a core 2 duo CPU?

AGP and pci-e versions of the 6800 ultra have similar performance on the 775Dual-VSTA. (see http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2814&p=3)

I am wondering if the 4x PCI-E on the Asrock will be a noticeable bottleneck with a GPU faster than the 6800Ultra.
January 25, 2007 1:28:55 PM

Quote:
That seems low... my x850 netted me 7018 in 05. Do you have a comparison ling?


Exactly. 6192 at default 3DMark 05 settings is low considering that his CPU and memory are slightly better than mine:

He has a 3.2 GHz P4 vs. my 3.0 GHz P4
He has PC 4000 vs. my PC 3200
Not to mention that his Raptors are faster than my Barracudas

I am using an eGeForce 6800 Ultra AGP vs. his X1950 PRO AGP

and my 3DMark 05 score at default settings is something around 5650 points.

This is the second time I see really disappointing benchmark scores for X1950 PRO AGP (the first guy who posted here earlier had Aquamark 3 score of some 58,000 which is 6000 lower than mine).

I would expect to see default 3DMark 05 scores around high 8,000s - low 10,000; and Aquamark 3 in the vicinity of 80,000-90,000 by upgrading from a 6800 Ultra to X1950 PRO.

By the looks of it I can expect what? A 10% increase?

I remember when I was considering the Gainward Bliss 7800GS+ I consistently saw people posting scores (with PCs comparable to mine) of like close to 10,000 3DMark 05s....

Isn't X1950 PRO supposed to kind of eat the Bliss for breakfast?

According to THIS ARTICLE an X1950 PRO AGP should be at least 30% faster than a 6800 Ultra AGP (all else equal, of course).

Could anyone please tell me what is wrong with this picture?

Cleeve? It seems we need your expertise here.

I get 8500+ with Athon 64 and X1950PRO AGP; and 6800+ with P4 3.2GHz... 3DMark05 heavily promotes A64 over P4.
February 9, 2007 8:07:57 PM

i have the same card and i get 14950 with 3dmark'03, 9366 with '05, 4174 with '06 and 74719 with aquamark3.

i have a A64 3200 oc'ed at 3800 ratings or 2.4Ghz. with 1Gb. pc3200 ram.
feeded by a OCZ 520watt PSU with 28A on t he 12V. rail.

have this card for a week now and havn't any problems with it so far :) 
February 9, 2007 8:22:06 PM

Have you tried to overclock your X1950? I have tried to use the ATI overclocking utility in the catylist center and everytime i change either the memory or the core the screen starts to flash. It very very werid.

i am starting to see the faults with keeping my P4 3.2C. It was a good CPU for its day but it has been been left behind. I am very impressed to see what the 1 generation newer CPUs are doing w/ this card.

The only saving grace is that i upgraded from a FX5700 ultra and compared to that card my X1950XT is like night and day. The PC is a joy to use again.
February 9, 2007 8:35:04 PM

nope i havn't tried to overclock it yet :) 
i can run most of the games F.E.A.R, starwars BFII, NFS Carbon, in high details, and verry happy for it :D 
so i guess i'll wait a bit to starting OC my card.

but theres gonna be some day i will OC it, i post feedback here when it gonna be so far :) 
February 9, 2007 10:50:01 PM

your probably gonna need a better cooler if u plan to oc. The single slot cooler wont cut it.
February 11, 2007 4:45:29 PM

I studied the forums here and at @anandtech and hardocp regarding the 1950Pro AGP. Based on the reported number of bad cards, one thing kind of stood out. The Visiontek had the fewest returns based on cards that developed artifacting problems, overheating, and cheap workmanship. True, some were reported as being returned but these were mostly because the card does not possess the temperature monitoring/reporting feature that overclockers seek. Other reasons for return were "a noisy fan" and subpar vision image using analog output on a CRT.

If you just want a stable, high quality card, Visiontec is a good choice. The problem is that you have to buy from a B&M store as NewEgg and ZZF don't seem to stock them, so expect to pay a rather high price plus tax. Because I don't overclock (if I decide to sell the card at some point on eBay, I want to be able to honestly report that the card has never been overclocked - helps sales) I decided on the Visiontec - got it at BB with a 12% off coupon. The card has a massive copper heatsinks on the front and back and seems well made. I can't complain about the build quality. It is an improvement over my BFG 7800GS and the card seems to operate extremely well in the XP Pro environment.

With regard to 256 vs 512 memory, it makes a difference in resolutions past 1600 x 1200...at this resolution or lower, you'll not see an appreciable difference.
February 17, 2007 2:16:01 AM

well i tried to overclock my card to test how far it goes.
i cant get the core above 625mhz. and the memory wont overclock at all, standard 702/1404, if i set it on 703 it turns back to 702, and if i try 704 it freezes instantly :o 
Tested with AtiTool 0.26, ATT and control center, nothing works to OC the ram.

how the hell cant i oc my ram a bit more ? :( 

other than that the card works perfect
February 17, 2007 9:22:02 AM

cause it has already been taken to its limits perhaps?

if anything you'd need a really good cooler to get more out of it.
February 17, 2007 12:58:42 PM

Quote:
well i tried to overclock my card to test how far it goes.
i cant get the core above 625mhz. and the memory wont overclock at all, standard 702/1404, if i set it on 703 it turns back to 702, and if i try 704 it freezes instantly :o 
Tested with AtiTool 0.26, ATT and control center, nothing works to OC the ram.

how the hell cant i oc my ram a bit more ? :( 

other than that the card works perfect


If you want to boost the memory, try increasing 7MHz at a time. (695 / 102 = ~6.8 = ~7MHz). 1MHz will crash the system. For the GPU, increments of 3MHz at a time. (594 / 175 =~ 3.3 =~ 3MHz).

I got these ratios by clicking "calculate" in ATI Tray Tools. My GPU is currently at 641 MHz stable. See my thread in the overclock section.
February 18, 2007 2:30:22 PM

well ive managed to overclock core and mem via control center, only strange thing is i can only OC my mem with control center when AtiTool is not running in tray, otherwise it crashes.

and whats also strange is when i overclock, if it is core only or mem only or both doesnt matter i get lower score/framerate in all bench programs, like 3dmark03, 05 ,06 and even futuremark3, but i get no artifacts.

whats the big deal here.
!