Yeah I noticed the same thing with Quadro's and games it's weird. My work computer has a 1 year old Quadro card that cost well over $1,000. It runs 3d apps well, but damn does it suck for games. I tried running farcry on it and all I got was grey shaded objects, no textures ! So it doesn't surprise me that your card scored shit on 3d mark. I guess Quadros are just specifically for 3d progs and not games although for the price you'd think they could do both.
Versello what do you mean? You have a pretty kick ass rig in your sig so I'm not sure why it would make your system run slow?
On my new rig, it flew through the first 3 tests which I assume used the gfx card as it was 1024 * 768 and looked great. Although the second batch of tests I assume were CPU driven as they looked 640 480 and like crap. Those on the other hand my system was getting like 1 - 2 fps, not really sure what the heck it was testing as usually the CPU tests on older 3d marks flew by with like 100's of fps.
Anyway even on my brand new system those tests chugged and ran like ass, is that what you're talking about?
This QuadroFX 500 is said by my friend (who is a big Maya user) to be equal to a GFX5200, but there is a whole new world of people that look at this type of card like a gamer would look at a 6800U or X800XT. This card in particular cost 200 bucks on newegg. That's the same as a 9800pro! wtf? I've gota find one of these type of people who would trade me. Anyone interested or know of a forum of 3Drendering guru's? Would ask that friend but he moved to Dallas and for some reason hasn't been online.
Check out CGTALK.com they are one of the most well respected places around. Check out the technical and hardware forum there, you might be able to find someone interested. It is weird though, I never fully understood what makes the Quadro line, and the ATI FireGL etc cards so much better performers for 3d apps. I assume they get rid of certain things used in games, and implement other certain things used only in 3d apps. But I never really understood it. I mean I forget what my work Quadro is, but I think it is a Quadro 900 or something like that, about 1.5 years old, cost over a thousand bucks at the time. I mean you look at the FIRE GL line from ATI and they are thousands too, but they dont run games worth a shit. I just don't really get the difference.
Quadro's and FireGL cards are better performers in 3D apps because they're fully OpenGL certified (it's not easy to be certified) and able to render 3D with much greater precision than a regular desktop video card (hence the slower speed).
Nice score Shorty and thanks for posting. I haven't been able to compare any of my benchmarks from my new computer with anyone yet, so I was never sure if my scores were normal. We have basically the same stuff, except I have a Athlon 64 3400. My score was in the 4800's as well. Nice to know my computer is at least working properly
Don't you guys worry about me, I'll catch up with the times one of these months, more likely 20-28 months, of course by that time they probably will have 3d07 out, but atleast I will be caught up.
But I might upgrade the video card the next time there is a big round of new cards for this computer.
well you beat me by 26 points, so I would guess that is how much better the ultra is compared to the non ultra. Do you really only have an XP 1700+ on your best rig? I'm just wondering because you still beat me even though mine is a 2.8 p4.
"Live and learn, and then get better-graphics." (next time)
2.8 ghz p4 northwood, (2X) 512mb Corsair cas 2 sticks, FX 5600, standard 7200 rpm hard drive, and the asus p4c800 e-deluxe motherboard. It was my first build, so I didn't go overboard on the graphics, plus when I got the stuff the best graphics card was the FX 5800 I believe, maybe the FX 5900 had just come out?
2.8 ghz p4 northwood, (2X) 512mb Corsair cas 2 sticks, FX 5600, standard 7200 rpm hard drive, and the asus p4c800 e-deluxe motherboard. It was my first build, so I didn't go overboard on the graphics, plus when I got the stuff the best graphics card was the FX 5800 I believe, maybe the FX 5900 had just come out?
when i got my 5600 ultra (leadtek) there was one card better, so this baby was smokin... outta my poket too, its hard when you dont have a job... it took almost a month to save up the 214+ 30 bucks shipping
the performance in 3D mark 2001 depends largely on your CPU these days... modern graphics cards make no difference anymore. I score 20,000 in 01, I overclocked my video card by about 15%, and saw literally no increase in my 01 score...
yeah, i basically use 01 and other cpu benchmarks inlcuding some prime95 to test stability...thats about it, i try not to do many Graphics benchmarks because of the crappy 5200 i have...but i might be getting a Gainward 5900xt soon...still not the best..but a helluva lot better than what i have, and it's not over 200 bucks lol...basically has the same performance as a 128mb 6800...according to the scores i have found, and reviews and such.
Comments
I swear my ti4400 is better than this thing!
Citrix?
Yeah I noticed the same thing with Quadro's and games it's weird. My work computer has a 1 year old Quadro card that cost well over $1,000. It runs 3d apps well, but damn does it suck for games. I tried running farcry on it and all I got was grey shaded objects, no textures ! So it doesn't surprise me that your card scored shit on 3d mark. I guess Quadros are just specifically for 3d progs and not games although for the price you'd think they could do both.
On my new rig, it flew through the first 3 tests which I assume used the gfx card as it was 1024 * 768 and looked great. Although the second batch of tests I assume were CPU driven as they looked 640 480 and like crap. Those on the other hand my system was getting like 1 - 2 fps, not really sure what the heck it was testing as usually the CPU tests on older 3d marks flew by with like 100's of fps.
Anyway even on my brand new system those tests chugged and ran like ass, is that what you're talking about?
This QuadroFX 500 is said by my friend (who is a big Maya user) to be equal to a GFX5200, but there is a whole new world of people that look at this type of card like a gamer would look at a 6800U or X800XT. This card in particular cost 200 bucks on newegg. That's the same as a 9800pro! wtf? I've gota find one of these type of people who would trade me. Anyone interested or know of a forum of 3Drendering guru's? Would ask that friend but he moved to Dallas and for some reason hasn't been online.
Check out CGTALK.com they are one of the most well respected places around. Check out the technical and hardware forum there, you might be able to find someone interested. It is weird though, I never fully understood what makes the Quadro line, and the ATI FireGL etc cards so much better performers for 3d apps. I assume they get rid of certain things used in games, and implement other certain things used only in 3d apps. But I never really understood it. I mean I forget what my work Quadro is, but I think it is a Quadro 900 or something like that, about 1.5 years old, cost over a thousand bucks at the time. I mean you look at the FIRE GL line from ATI and they are thousands too, but they dont run games worth a shit. I just don't really get the difference.
amazing stuff
A64 3200+ & 6800GT
But I might upgrade the video card the next time there is a big round of new cards for this computer.
"Live and learn, and then get better-graphics." (next time)
and whare is Zecter?
when i got my 5600 ultra (leadtek) there was one card better, so this baby was smokin... outta my poket too, its hard when you dont have a job... it took almost a month to save up the 214+ 30 bucks shipping
lol u did it on "2001" "2005" eats yor machine
heh got my 6800nu....not bad for the plain jane version.