3dm2k3 score: 106552....but the card is a mystery!

Discussion in 'General Graphics Cards Discussion' started by digitalwanderer, Apr 25, 2003.

Page 1 of 2
  1. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Colour Commentator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    5,619
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    digitalwanderer, Apr 25, 2003
    #1
  2. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #2
  3. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    problem is BWX that futuremark dont let you upload scores if the video card is not released. same thing happened with my 9800.
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #3
  4. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    What could that mean though? Like a custom (modded beyond recognition in bios or something) or yet - to - be released video card?

    Just wondering, I always have to be sceptical about "pictures" of anything-


    *edit- you must mean before the 9800 was released about your 9800 right?

    ---and if that is real, wtf kind of card will produce that score!?!? YIKES
     
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #4
  5. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    oh im not saying its real, I have my doubts.

    I put the image through photoshop 7 increased the score section text to a massive increase on % and applied severe sharpening on the image.

    [​IMG]

    As you can see I overlayed a semi transparent red bar (wihch will overprint over the text so you can see the difference in spacing. The bar is the exact same size between the numbers to see if it was doctored as to whether the person involved had done a good job on the spacing. The far left red bar shows the size I used.

    Well as we dont have any 10k scores yet its hard to tell what way the futuremark benchmark will handle the leading digit but to me there is a little too much space between the first and second digit. (its also a 1 so it might also be that factor)

    of course this isnt stating the benchmark is fake as I just stated we dont have any 10k benchies yet to compare spacing, but I have my doubts about it. good job though if it is doctored.
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #5
  6. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Colour Commentator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    5,619
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it's real.

    I don't think it's a faked screenie either, (damn it, I should have asked you first about it Zaradon...sorry, I flaked. :rolleyes: ), and I don't think it was submitted because I don't think whoever benched it wanted it known about yet. I'm leaning towards the 9800 MAXX theory due to some things MuFu said at nVnews. MuFu is an insider to a lot of secret info and has proved reliable and honest as hell in the past. (Not to mention he's one of them scary-smart types...GOOD combo! ;) )
     
    digitalwanderer, Apr 25, 2003
    #6
  7. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    That is very interesting with the spacing.

    I was just thinking if it takes a CPU running at 4.1 ghz and a 9800 pro at 533mhz core/ 423mhz mem. to produce a score of 7754, then a score of well over 10 thousand would take a CPU faster than currently available, 5 ghz? --- not to mention the speed of the video card. (I realize the CPU score doesn't have a direct affect on the overall score- I was just thinking it would take a faster cpu than we have right now to get 10,xxx- no matter what the video card- but that's just a guess)

    But who knows- I'm sure we'll be seeing those scores before too long.
     
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #7
  8. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    emm one thing though, in the pro version cant you run the tests at a low res?????

    I mean what about 320x200 wouldnt that break 10k on a powerful rig??
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #8
  9. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Veridian 3 ran a benchy to test this out with 2003.

    640*480 - 9700pro, AXP 2000+ all at stock- no aa/AF = 7k over 7000k so im sure a more powerful rig running at an even lower res would break 10k easy.


    sometimes the easiest things to miss are the most obvious eh?
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #9
  10. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    LOL, yup!


    hey, now it is gone!
     
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #10
  11. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    hehe

    as a little test I ran my 2600XP rig with the 9800 pro (my barton rig is apart atm, im messing with an abit nforce2 Rev2).

    so I ran 3mark2003 pro with the 9800 at stock levels, 640x480 here are my results.

    [​IMG]

    I just knew we would nail that sucker ;) the way its covering up the resolution was the key thing, but sometimes the most obvious things are missed ;)
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #11
  12. CATALYST maker

    CATALYST maker ATI driver guru

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    its a fake, but that score could be in theory easy to hit with "tweaked" drivers. 1 bit color precision, and no AA or AF processing with lots of backface culling can easily get that score. Of course the image would look like S**T but remember the key formula in graphics:

    PERFORMANCE is reversly correlated to IMAGE QUALITY.

    Butcher Image Quality you get higher performance. Or
    Enhance Image Quality you get lower performance....

    I thought you guys knew that.... :duh:
     
    CATALYST maker, Apr 25, 2003
    #12
  13. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    We just "assume" it is run at default settings, that is how the guy tricked people.

    Hmmm, it worked, kind of. :rolleyes:
     
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #13
  14. ErrorS

    ErrorS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Zardon, just to let you know about the spacing. 1s do have more space around it in whatever font photoshop uses.. it's the same way in your pic.

    -

    The guy had a pic showing it was in normal res, but removed it because it did look doctored. My guess is that he ran in a low res to get the high score, then doctored another pic to show us that he ran in high res, but doesnt show us the detailed results so we can compare them with the final score to see if they're accurate.
     
    ErrorS, Apr 25, 2003
    #14
  15. BWX

    BWX get out and ride

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,684
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    73
    How do you know WHY he removed it? did HE tell you or something? Hmm.............
     
    BWX, Apr 25, 2003
    #15
  16. HardwareHeaven

    HardwareHeaven Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    32,274
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    88
    thats why I mentioned it in my post about the 1s spacing ........ and anyway the picture is geniune it has nothing to do with photoshop ! ;)

    its simple, he just ran the test in a low res, nothing more to talk about !!!!!!
     
    HardwareHeaven, Apr 25, 2003
    #16
  17. ErrorS

    ErrorS New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    um... he said so in the nvnews thread this pic was posted in originally
     
    ErrorS, Apr 25, 2003
    #17
  18. The_Neon_Cowboy

    The_Neon_Cowboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Messages:
    16,076
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    73
    The_Neon_Cowboy, Apr 25, 2003
    #18
  19. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Colour Commentator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    5,619
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    digitalwanderer, Apr 25, 2003
    #19
  20. digitalwanderer

    digitalwanderer Colour Commentator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    5,619
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It wasn't, you're incorrect. ;)

    EDITED BITS: Damn it, I REALLY should have quoted you on that one! (BTW-I'll never tell. ;) )
     
    digitalwanderer, Apr 25, 2003
    #20
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

visited