primesuspect said I got an even worse score on my desktop! Wtf gives!
8544
That's an AthXP overclocked to 1700mhz and a Sapphire Radeon 9000
Why why why?
Prime, I highly suspect that something is seriously skewed in AquaMark's rating of processors here... :banghead:
Maybe they received a little $$$bribey$$$ from Intel? :mad2:
I think you may be right.
* danball1976 thinks that it should become an invalid benchmarking program since it is biased towards Intel.
:shakehead Good lord. It's a brand new engine designed with DX9 extensions from the ground up. It's designed to stress your video adapter's pixel shader & vertex shading units to the maximum, not the CPU subsystem. I'd take the CPU ratings with a grain of salt, but an actual non-synthetic benchmark that shows real-world performance in a DX9 title is something noteworthy. It may support DX8 & DX7 hardware, but is geared more towards DX9 enabled hardware (specifically PS 2.0).
Prime: The Radeon 9000 does not support DX9 extensions. How can you expect to score great in a DX9 benchmark without a DX9 enabled card?
My beef with this benchmark, SimGuy, is the overrating of Intel.
The DX9 comment was just an observation on the relative weights of the results of the two generations of DX-supporting cards, and to me is more of a positive.
I'm inclined to just ignore the CPU scores altogether and focus exclusively on the GFX scores. I'm anxious to see exactly how much better my Radeon performs than the craptastic nVidia card in my secondary rig...
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited September 2003
The variation is scores is confusing. Take for example Leo's 27,826 and my 27,592. Compare the system specs. Any of his 2 systems can whoop mine (specs are in the link in my sig) but he only gets 234 points more.
I had a bunch of stuff running at the moment when I was running the benchmark.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited September 2003
Leonardo said
Actually, I'm running the Omega 2.4.74a drivers. Come to think of it, I've read somewhere that the Omegas supposedly render better quality, but that benchmarking scores fall. As far as the soft mod goes, Windows and 3DMark03 indicate the card to be a "9700 Pro". Hmm.
Updates for System No. 1:
Ditched the Omega 2.4.74a and installed Catalyst 3.7, score jumped nearly NEARLY 10,000 POINTS to 38,668. Uninstalled the Catalyst 3.7 and installed the newest Omega drivers - 2.4.78. Score was nearly the same as the 3.7s.
Oh yes - I could swear the Omega drivers render better quality graphics.
I'll post results from NF7-S/AMD 2800XP when I get a chance.
Wow. I want a System 2 with a Radeon at 330/310... Instead I've got a gF at 270/540(270)
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited September 2003
Leonardo said Updates for System No. 1:
Ditched the Omega 2.4.74a and installed Catalyst 3.7, score jumped nearly NEARLY 10,000 POINTS to 38,668. Uninstalled the Catalyst 3.7 and installed the newest Omega drivers - 2.4.78. Score was nearly the same as the 3.7s.
Oh yes - I could swear the Omega drivers render better quality graphics.
I changed to the latest Omega and I only got 1,279 more . But my card is only at 281/281 :o I need better cooling all around to go higher.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited September 2003
Blackhawk,
Before installing the latest Omega drivers (2.4.78, yes?) were you running Catalyst drivers? the Cats are good, but they can be a royal pain to completely remove. If though, you were using the Catalyst 3.7 previously, your new score probably is logical. There was not much difference in speed for me between Cat 3.7 and Omega ~78.
0
LeonardoWake up and smell the glaciersEagle River, AlaskaIcrontian
edited September 2003
AquaMark 3 should be understood as a good supplement to the range of benchmarking software out there. It definitely offers a good impression of different graphic cards' performances.
Oh well, read the pros and cons of this benchmarking program here .
0
BlackHawkBible music connoisseurThere's no place like 127.0.0.1Icrontian
edited September 2003
Leonardo said Blackhawk,
Before installing the latest Omega drivers (2.4.78, yes?) were you running Catalyst drivers? the Cats are good, but they can be a royal pain to completely remove. If though, you were using the Catalyst 3.7 previously, your new score probably is logical. There was not much difference in speed for me between Cat 3.7 and Omega ~78.
Well I gotta correct what I said before. I was using the Cat 3.7 and installed the Omega 2.4.78 and OC'ed the card a bit to 281/281 from like 263/263 (my card is underclocked by default ) so I don't really know what performance I got or loss with the Omega. Now I won't know for awhile since I reinstalled 2k3 cause I was bored :banghead:
GFX Score: 4,797
CPU Score: 5,713
Total Score: 33,763
Not too bad for my system, my CPU is a huge bottleneck right now Hopefully i can get a new CPU fairly soon so i can use the graphics card to its full potential. Heres my computers stats:
1700+ XP
9800 Pro
A7N8X Deluxe
I didn't do any special tweaking or anything, i could easily get another 2,000 points out the benchmark if i overclocked my CPU and GFX card a bit and then closed some of the running programs but i don't want to waste the time just to get a better benchmark score.
wow, am I doing something wrong or does my system suck or something? what be the deal.... I noticed everyone is getting MUCH higher scores than I. I restarted and set windows to not load any startup items when it restarted.
AthlonXP 2100+ at stock speed
Radeon 9700 Pro stock speed
768mb DDR (two sticks 2100, one stick 2700)
okay well yes something is wrong with that score. i was having a similar problem in 3dmark. real quick question, do you have an audigy installed? turns out creative's software was ****ing up my 3d performance, try turning that off.
both your CPU and GFX scores are very low for what you have, see what kind of results you get with 3dmark01 and 03, 01 gives an overall system performance # whereas 03 will reveal any GFX problems, as it almost only tests GFX (your card should get 5000, about dead on)
did you say thats with all processes closed? im not sure of the best way to troubleshoot where the fault lies. whenever i have a fugly bench score i troubleshoot using all the futuremark benches. pcmark can tell me if my memory / cpu / hd is performing under par, 3dmark03 can tell me if my gfx card is under par. thats just my method though.
as things stand, you might as well reformat if all processes are closed, cause i wouldn't go and blame it on bad hardware.
on second thought, before you do that, try reinstalling the latest catalysts
so I reinstalled the ATi control panel/catalysts, reDLed and installed DirectX 9.0b, found out my AGP was running at 4x, bumped it up to 8x, did nothing busted out the mobo manual, messed with some AGP stuff in there, to no avail, still pulling like 17k in Aquamark.... guess ill have to mess with it somemore tomorrow
Comments
:shakehead Good lord. It's a brand new engine designed with DX9 extensions from the ground up. It's designed to stress your video adapter's pixel shader & vertex shading units to the maximum, not the CPU subsystem. I'd take the CPU ratings with a grain of salt, but an actual non-synthetic benchmark that shows real-world performance in a DX9 title is something noteworthy. It may support DX8 & DX7 hardware, but is geared more towards DX9 enabled hardware (specifically PS 2.0).
Prime: The Radeon 9000 does not support DX9 extensions. How can you expect to score great in a DX9 benchmark without a DX9 enabled card?
Check out the link in my sig for specs.
FSB was @ 235 MHz (2.82 GHz CPU effectively).
Looks like you can scale quite nicely in this bench.
The DX9 comment was just an observation on the relative weights of the results of the two generations of DX-supporting cards, and to me is more of a positive.
I'm inclined to just ignore the CPU scores altogether and focus exclusively on the GFX scores. I'm anxious to see exactly how much better my Radeon performs than the craptastic nVidia card in my secondary rig...
i got 42200
512mb pc2700
radeon 9700 Pro
got a score of around 21000, but this is with AA and AF maxed in my windows display settings
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?runID=626718805
I had a bunch of stuff running at the moment when I was running the benchmark.
Updates for System No. 1:
Ditched the Omega 2.4.74a and installed Catalyst 3.7, score jumped nearly NEARLY 10,000 POINTS to 38,668. Uninstalled the Catalyst 3.7 and installed the newest Omega drivers - 2.4.78. Score was nearly the same as the 3.7s.
Oh yes - I could swear the Omega drivers render better quality graphics.
I'll post results from NF7-S/AMD 2800XP when I get a chance.
This system also experienced a much higher score after uninstalling the Omega 2.4.74 drivers, installing the Omega 2.4.78's.
Before installing the latest Omega drivers (2.4.78, yes?) were you running Catalyst drivers? the Cats are good, but they can be a royal pain to completely remove. If though, you were using the Catalyst 3.7 previously, your new score probably is logical. There was not much difference in speed for me between Cat 3.7 and Omega ~78.
Oh well, read the pros and cons of this benchmarking program here .
here are the results with less running in the background.
I know I can score higher, there are a few more things I can turn of and a few more I can turn up.
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?runID=749779978
Im right in there with others of simalar specs thou, so im happy. But id like to break 40k
XP2100 (1764mhz)
G4 Ti4600 (320-480)
512 PC2700
Frames/Sec: 33.76
GFX Score: 4,797
CPU Score: 5,713
Total Score: 33,763
Not too bad for my system, my CPU is a huge bottleneck right now
1700+ XP
9800 Pro
A7N8X Deluxe
I didn't do any special tweaking or anything, i could easily get another 2,000 points out the benchmark if i overclocked my CPU and GFX card a bit and then closed some of the running programs but i don't want to waste the time just to get a better benchmark score.
About what I got. 14k something. I dont feel so bad now. Its like everyone has a 9700 or 9800 something.
P4 2.4C overclocked to 2.7(225x12)
1.5GB ddr 400
9800pro not overclocked yet
WD Raptor 10k sata drive
Win xp Pro
GFX - 5,484
CPU - 7,494
__________
40,150
AthlonXP 2100+ at stock speed
Radeon 9700 Pro stock speed
768mb DDR (two sticks 2100, one stick 2700)
both your CPU and GFX scores are very low for what you have, see what kind of results you get with 3dmark01 and 03, 01 gives an overall system performance # whereas 03 will reveal any GFX problems, as it almost only tests GFX (your card should get 5000, about dead on)
as things stand, you might as well reformat if all processes are closed, cause i wouldn't go and blame it on bad hardware.
on second thought, before you do that, try reinstalling the latest catalysts