Discussion in 'Overclocking, Benching & Modding' started by Stuart_Davidson, Aug 19, 2004.
Were these tests run with optimisations disabled on the nVidia board?
No optimization for ati cards!! You really believe in this? Offcourse it has optimaztion for ATI cards, which it also has for the nvidia card, and so f**** what?? Optimizations are good, as long as there are no IQ lose.
Gabell has also stated they have spent som time doing optimization for ati cards, not as much as on the nvidia cards, because the FX cards has some major problems, especially with FSAA.
And the benches doesn't lie.. doom 3 = nvidia game and hl2 = ati game.
if you read the first post in this thread you will find your awnser.
D'oh, didn't see that until about the 5th time of reading! I was assuming they were disabled considering the results on show here.
I'm sorry, but you are an idiot.
Well, ATI seems to have the advantage here. Hopefully Nvidia can get to work and pump out new drivers to significantly close the gap.
However, I have to point out something: there is something wrong with these benchmarks, folks. At 1280 X 960 with 4X AA and 8X AF, everything max, with the 6800Ultra, the Driverheaven graph shows the FPS at ~64. WTH? I tested the exact same configuration with my 6800GT clocked at exactly 6800Ultra levels, and the benchmark gives it 81. I've done that multiple times. And while 81 FPS still is a ways away from 95 FPS (w X800XTPE), it's not the 64 FPS that was in the graph. Why is there such a discrepency?
And I don't even have an FX53 Proc. I run on an overclocked (not even too much compared to what some people get) 2500+ XP.
And yes, Image settings are set to High Quality.
Woah this post is sure biased!!!!
ok riddle me this mister ati fanboy...
1600x1200 all settings high all reflections on 4x AF 6x AA run after run ~73-78fps on following system:
P IV 2.8c @ 3.37 250fsb OCZ 3700EB @ 250mhz 1:1
geforce 680oGT @ 420/1100. 61.77
This is the lamest bench i have ever seen... check your systems.
And you are?:hmm:
Those benchmarks seem to be off by a decent margin. I just got done running the benchmark a bunch of times and took the average of what I got. I am setting AA/AF from within the game via the advanced options menu and also turning on "Reflect All" as opposed to "Reflect World". (uber system with real 6800U and FX53 listed in parenthesis)
1280x960 noAA / Trilinear = 100fps
1280x960 4xAA / 8xAF = 84fps
1600x1200 noAA / Trilinear = 80fps
1600x1200 4xAA / 8xAF = 57fps
My system specs you ask?
DFI NFII LanParty Ultra 400
AMD Athlon 2600+ XP-M @ 2.4ghz (11x220)
2x512 Samsung PC3200 DDR
PNY GeForce 6800GT @ Ultra (400/1100)
And let me tell you, a FX53 beats the heck out of a 2.4ghz Athlon XP. DriverHeaven may have made some sort of mistake or. Whether it was intentional or not, who's to say.
(using 61.77's and Image Settings set to "Quality" so optimizations were on.)
Lets keep the thread nice and friendly people. No need to fight.
It definitely goes to show how different benchmarks can produce completely different results.
This benchmark doesn't paint the same picture.........
Sounds like you dont have reflect all on. Also CPU has little impact on the benchmarks at these settings...this seems to be a GPU limited test more than CPU.
Also there are quite a few factors that affect the performance of Source which i noticed in my testing however i am 100% sure that the results between the 2 cards on my system are comparable.
Probably also due to them using CS and me using Source with much more demanding environments. Also the Video Stress Test doesnt have a fps cap...i think CSS might... i'll check.
Yeah, there is something absolutley wrong with the 6800Ultra graphs. It just doesn't add up.
updated my thread a little bit. i did indeed turn on reflect all.
i also realize the only two posts i have are today but as you can see, i've been registered for almost a year. i don't understand the benchmarks at all and I've tried multiple times to replicate the performance you are seeing and I just can't get it to add up. i've trusted this site for fair benchmarking for some time but this does raise a little bit of concern.
Thats the OLD benchmark for CS Source.
That was a lot less taxing on the GPU, this once again isnt.
Im not surprised at all by the results, ok I am, but pleasantly surprised.
Uh, you must be a fanboy or something. I got at least a 180 fps on extreme quality. God, you are not doing these benchmarking currect. I have a Nvidia Geforce 6800 Ultra. Stop bullshitting nvidia and get it right. BTW, CS: S is awesome. You should be surprised with the results. I saw the exact same benchmark with same cards and the results was that ati and nvidia is identical. ALso this site is know to be the worst for benchmarking. Why do you rely on this site?
Actually if you visited this site regularly, you'd see that Veridian3 is not nearly biased enough to be clasified as a fanboy. Infact, the only time i've even questioned benchmarks posted on DriverHeaven is today. I honestly think something went wrong with this benchmark. Call me a conspiracy theorist but it just doesn't smell right. I don't think trying to bring this thread down to a "you're wrong idiot" is at all the right way to go about things. Does anyone else have some information (maybe some more personal benchmarks) that we can compare with?
Extreme quality.... funny beacuse there is no such thing as extreme quality in the source options :annoyed:
So i dont find your results trustworthy, if you don't even know the settings in the games.
Looks to me, a nvidia forum heard of these results and now they are all signing up in here, to cry about how eviiiiiil DH is and bla bla bla :x
btw. how do you test, i would really like to know this? net_graph 1 ?? :evil:
no no no i dont believe this....this is like wanking ....honestly....6800 shouldnt be that slow, coz other site showed different results LOL...
i just say a honest word..dont bash me plz
Separate names with a comma.