StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Download it from their website http://www.futuremark.com/ or from any of your major game site

Its just under 300 megabytes and belive me
It WILL Humble thy computer
My current beast rig sitting at 3.3ghtz(OC) with a ATI x800 card and a gig of memory backed up by a solid Serial ATA drive pulled only

3672 Marks(At 1072x768)
Avarage framerates thoughout tests was 14.4 FPS
And yes its all very pretty

So a 400mhz pent2 with a 32mb Geforce2MX with 192mb PC100 will get, oh...


.000001FPS then?

Hopefully this version won't give out the bizzare results that 3DMark03 did (which would often give the same rating to a Pentium II and an Athlon 64, so long as they had the same graphics card)!

Ever since Futuremark began whoring out to hardware developers, 3DMark has been useless. 2001 was the last decent impartial benchmark to come out of that company.

3750 on my Athlon 64 3500+ and GeForce 6800GT. Sure is pretty to look at, especially the airship scene and the "chaingun" incident.

White Haven wrote:Ever since Futuremark began whoring out to hardware developers, 3DMark has been useless. 2001 was the last decent impartial benchmark to come out of that company.

Bullshit~ despite what you and Hardocp say, 3dm03 was a pretty accurate preview of the tech we have currently. Now we have many people getting FPS in the 10s and 20s with 3dm05, after Epic said the most they can get from the UE3 engine is 30 or so frames with the current godly hardware. Sounds about right considering how nice the tech looks.

The Kernel wrote:3750 on my Athlon 64 3500+ and GeForce 6800GT. Sure is pretty to look at, especially the airship scene and the "chaingun" incident.

Yes the chaingun was VERY pretty

Shinny....


Anyway to White Havan, considering we are pulling 3000's on "god boxes" of both Nvidia and ATI designs, and checking the website even extreme OC PIVs and Athlons(30% or greater OC) are only getting mid 4000s
I'd call this on surface impressions alone a good sythetic benchmark

(Those CPU Tests are brutal, its not pretty watching FPS in the 1-3 range)

Someone with an incredibly OC'ed X800XT scored 7726, better than what Nvidia got with SLI'd Ultras~ Can you say WTF?

Hamel wrote:Someone with an incredibly OC'ed X800XT scored 7726, better than what Nvidia got with SLI'd Ultras~ Can you say WTF?

HIGHLY unlikely. You simply CANNOT get 2x the performance of the highest end configs, even with heavy overclocking. Much more likely that this is a total fraud, it has certainly happened before.

The Kernel wrote:

Hamel wrote:Someone with an incredibly OC'ed X800XT scored 7726, better than what Nvidia got with SLI'd Ultras~ Can you say WTF?

HIGHLY unlikely. You simply CANNOT get 2x the performance of the highest end configs, even with heavy overclocking. Much more likely that this is a total fraud, it has certainly happened before.

And to bolster your point, some guy with a Ti4600 submitted a score that surpassed other peoples' with better cards, so it looks like you can play the system~~

Hamel wrote:Someone with an incredibly OC'ed X800XT scored 7726, better than what Nvidia got with SLI'd Ultras~ Can you say WTF?

Or its highly optimized. Sounds weird though, since NVidia usually has better drivers and is usually better for optimization.

Maybe it was OCed with liquid nitrogen and OCed to double or triple the usual level (like the 6 GHz P4)?

Praxis wrote:[Or its highly optimized. Sounds weird though, since NVidia usually has better drivers and is usually better for optimization.

Maybe it was OCed with liquid nitrogen and OCed to double or triple the usual level (like the 6 GHz P4)?

More likly the Cat AI helped serious optimizations, but very unlikly.

Also, on the cooling, you reach a point where you just can't get any more serious improvements, even the 6GHZ P4 didn't show massive benchs, far less then what you owuld expect, bandwidth, memory, and core design would affect the x800 alot.