And with it comes all those magic drivers...
<A HREF="http://www.guru3d.com" target="_new">http://www.guru3d.com</A> <---good place to find a few mirrors and those magic drivers. I haven't run it yet (or finished dling it for that matter), but I can give you a few approximations for scores based off ORB:
X800XTpe: 5700;
6800U: 5100;
X800XT: 5100;
6800GT: 4700;
X800Pro: ????;
6800nu: ????;
9800XT: 2900;
9800Pro@XT speeds: 2700;
9800Pro: 2500;
9700Pro: 2100;
9550: 1200;
5900XT(?): 331(?).
Of note is that NONE of the available drivers that were tested are WHQL or FM approved....go figure. Also of note is that A64s fair *A LOT* better in this test...P4C/Es do alright, no word on P4B (I have one, so we shall see), AXPs get stomped on (didn't help that the only one was running a 9550 :tongue: ).
Anyway, I'm VERY suspicious of these new magic drivers from ATi (22% performance gain and only in '05?!?!?!?!), so I'll do my best to try to report on the probably floptimizations on ATi's part. Of course the best way to do this will be first person testing (I'll test Cat 4.9, Omega 4.9, Cat 4.91 and whatever that hotfix 8.07 is [just another name for 4.91, IIRC]). I'm limited to a 128MB 9800XT (a 256MB *might* be coming soon--will also test the affect of 256MB of RAM if that card ever comes), so the majority of the speed increase may only be observed in the X800 series. <font color=red>Anybody with an X800 wanna do some testing to see how BS these ATi drivers are??</font color=red>
The news that '05 will bring us will be more than: look how crappy some of our systems are. Rather, it'll show (like '03 did) the susceptibility of cheating of both ATi and nVidia in this round...this whole Cat A.I. thing is a little fishy, then add a 20+% performance gain on a BENCHMARK the day it comes out just makes me think that ATi learned a bit too much from nV last round.
Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
<A HREF="http://www.guru3d.com" target="_new">http://www.guru3d.com</A> <---good place to find a few mirrors and those magic drivers. I haven't run it yet (or finished dling it for that matter), but I can give you a few approximations for scores based off ORB:
X800XTpe: 5700;
6800U: 5100;
X800XT: 5100;
6800GT: 4700;
X800Pro: ????;
6800nu: ????;
9800XT: 2900;
9800Pro@XT speeds: 2700;
9800Pro: 2500;
9700Pro: 2100;
9550: 1200;
5900XT(?): 331(?).
Of note is that NONE of the available drivers that were tested are WHQL or FM approved....go figure. Also of note is that A64s fair *A LOT* better in this test...P4C/Es do alright, no word on P4B (I have one, so we shall see), AXPs get stomped on (didn't help that the only one was running a 9550 :tongue: ).
Anyway, I'm VERY suspicious of these new magic drivers from ATi (22% performance gain and only in '05?!?!?!?!), so I'll do my best to try to report on the probably floptimizations on ATi's part. Of course the best way to do this will be first person testing (I'll test Cat 4.9, Omega 4.9, Cat 4.91 and whatever that hotfix 8.07 is [just another name for 4.91, IIRC]). I'm limited to a 128MB 9800XT (a 256MB *might* be coming soon--will also test the affect of 256MB of RAM if that card ever comes), so the majority of the speed increase may only be observed in the X800 series. <font color=red>Anybody with an X800 wanna do some testing to see how BS these ATi drivers are??</font color=red>
The news that '05 will bring us will be more than: look how crappy some of our systems are. Rather, it'll show (like '03 did) the susceptibility of cheating of both ATi and nVidia in this round...this whole Cat A.I. thing is a little fishy, then add a 20+% performance gain on a BENCHMARK the day it comes out just makes me think that ATi learned a bit too much from nV last round.
Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram