3dmark scores

by **Bullhead** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:07 am

Shock, it's when you mount a 1U (rackmount) AMD cooler on the card, instead of some sissy-ass Crystal Orb

. Raged3d's got a sticky about heatsink's or something under the o/c'ing section, should have some pics. One of these days I'll borrow my buddy's dig camera and get some pics of this beast. Now if I could just get the Cajones to do the volt mods.........

by **Bullhead** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:57 am

Newest score = 6424 3Dmarks.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2306899

NOTE: I've changed the o/v on the card slightly, discovered artifacts at prior o/c (438.75/369). New clock is in sig....

by **Murgatroyd** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:00 am

A couple more days and I'll have my new rig... can't wait to benchmark that bad boy..

by **Bullhead** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:37 pm

Shock, here's the exact guide I used for doing it (although I removed the shim too, he doesn't).

http://my.execpc.com/~chris431/full.htm

by **shockwave203** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 4:11 pm

Originally posted by Bullhead
Shock, here's the exact guide I used for doing it (although I removed the shim too, he doesn't).

http://my.execpc.com/~chris431/full.htm

thanks for the guide;)

I have an extra heatsink from a P3 1Ghz CPU...I was thinking about putting it on, but I'm too scared that I'm going to flub something up.

Maybe I'll try putting it on my 9700np fist, just in case I screw up, then if all goes well, I can do it to the 9800.

by **LordShard** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:18 pm

I wouldn't use 3dmarks to test anything after that driver cheating incident with nvidia

by **shockwave203** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:46 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
I wouldn't use 3dmarks to test anything after that driver cheating incident with nvidia

there were optomizations in the drivers, which wasnt futuremark's fault. The last incident was when Nvidia reduced image quality to speed up frames to crank up the score. The drivers are clean...now

by **LordShard** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:55 pm

well as far as we know their clean. But even so the futuremark itself is most likely tailored to work better with nvidia. Oh well, I'll try a benchmark with it and see how close my 1.6Ghz duron board and 9700Pro comes up to you guys systems anyways just for laughs.

by **shockwave203** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:11 pm

futuremark isn't tailored to work better with Nvidia. if it was, ATI wouldn't be creaming Nvidia in every line of cards

by **LordShard** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:20 pm

You win

by **shockwave203** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:23 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
You win

well...I can see how people might think Nvidia and Futuremark are in bed together, since 3dmark is funded by Nvidia

by **LordShard** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:26 pm

That is what I was meaning earlier. But even if it is tailored for nvidia their crummy cards are still crummy cards and get worse scores than ATI cards

by **SKID MARK** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:01 pm

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10

I was 5808 not overclocked.

by **shockwave203** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:19 pm

Originally posted by SKID MARK
http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10

I was 5808 not overclocked.

that's a really good score for stock. if you overclock it a bit, you'll be over 6000 no problem.

at stock, mine ran 5400. OC'd i get 6300, so you have a huge margin for speed if you're willing to use it

by **LordShard** » Wed Mar 31, 2004 8:22 pm

I dunno what to make of those scores really.

I ran it on a 1.6Ghz duron on win98SE 512MB PC3200 ram, a 128MB 9700 Pro and a sounds blaster Live! 5.1

3dmark scores

Who is online