9800M-GTS beats 8800-GTX reality or bollocks talk?

true, but also hard to get that right shot of everything. and when you go to 1920x1200, you can nolonger see the screen...you would have to push it off the side and have everything else on the left side. (depend on choice)

but then you get the flip side of that.
more proccesses taking away from my beautiful score!!!...hahahahaha

which is not always true. i was running two copies of crysis in that picture and still got a high frame rate.

 

You are right, poor poor screen, having to display all of that at once!

Hah!, that is true, evil processes leeching your framerate, emergency!

Really?, nice, multi-tasking power!

 

Well this is what I get without any interference with any scores on my XPS M1730 SLI 8800m GTX overclocked to 600/1500/950. 1920x1200 DX10 High.

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 70.98s, Average FPS: 28.18
Min FPS: 16.83 at frame 154, Max FPS: 38.50 at frame 992
Average Tri/Sec: -18157364, Tri/Frame: -644374
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.42
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 61.17s, Average FPS: 32.69
Min FPS: 16.83 at frame 154, Max FPS: 42.14 at frame 86
Average Tri/Sec: -20909438, Tri/Frame: -639556
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.43
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 61.63s, Average FPS: 32.45
Min FPS: 16.83 at frame 154, Max FPS: 42.89 at frame 103
Average Tri/Sec: -20768026, Tri/Frame: -639959
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.43
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 61.86s, Average FPS: 32.33
Min FPS: 16.83 at frame 154, Max FPS: 43.19 at frame 65
Average Tri/Sec: -20736486, Tri/Frame: -641351
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.43
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

Now with all set to Very High DX10 1920x1200

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 99.01s, Average FPS: 20.20
Min FPS: 8.64 at frame 1143, Max FPS: 26.80 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -5911539, Tri/Frame: -292638
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.13
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 92.30s, Average FPS: 21.67
Min FPS: 8.64 at frame 1143, Max FPS: 26.80 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -6045148, Tri/Frame: -278994
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.29
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 92.30s, Average FPS: 21.67
Min FPS: 8.64 at frame 1143, Max FPS: 26.80 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -5980834, Tri/Frame: -276014
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.32
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 91.92s, Average FPS: 21.76
Min FPS: 8.64 at frame 1143, Max FPS: 26.80 at frame 990
Average Tri/Sec: -6053902, Tri/Frame: -278227
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -3.29
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

 

Nice scores, Magnus.

 

very nice indeed!

now what does it look like when you run just one card?


edit: and on a side note. just ran 2 test. one at 2.8 ghz and one at 1.8 ghz and do you know....the framerate is still the same. so im gonna have to say...no, cpu is NOT playing a big part in this PARTICULAR test.(1440x960) now crysis warhead is a different matter.....

 

Okay! Thanks for the info, john. ^.^

 

Single 8800m GTX SLI disabled DX10 High 1920x1200

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 104.05s, Average FPS: 19.22
Min FPS: 10.11 at frame 139, Max FPS: 24.77 at frame 982
Average Tri/Sec: -17361450, Tri/Frame: -903242
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 96.98s, Average FPS: 20.62
Min FPS: 10.11 at frame 139, Max FPS: 25.26 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -18363014, Tri/Frame: -890453
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.03
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 99.16s, Average FPS: 20.17
Min FPS: 10.11 at frame 139, Max FPS: 25.26 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -17963264, Tri/Frame: -890593
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.03
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 99.32s, Average FPS: 20.14
Min FPS: 10.11 at frame 139, Max FPS: 25.26 at frame 73
Average Tri/Sec: -17949942, Tri/Frame: -891359
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.03
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)

 

your welcome sir!

 

thank you sir!

yep, that new sager/clevo is looking better to me all the time. *LOL*
dual 8800m gtx's or 9800m gt's.....which way to go.....

 

Nice scores Magnus!

Hey johnksss, don't you get close to those numbers of Magnus with just one card? Just joking brother.

 

scores are dropping by the minute....*LOL*

say kobe, where all the 9800m gt & gtx's bench marks at? single cards?

 

Like what for instance?

Benchmarking is for crazy people like us, normal people just play the darn game. LOL!

BTW…what is your vantage score?

 

for crazy people like us, but of course!...*LOL*

http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyzer.action?resultId=413062&resultType=19

http://service.futuremark.com/resultAnalyzer.action?resultId=413745&resultType=19 not over clocked

 

Why do I get this message when trying to view any of your scores?

The result you are trying to view has been set private by the owner or deleted.

 

does it do it for the 11,115 score as well?

 

Yes it does.

 

Holy smoke!

Those extreme processors really flex their muscle!

20655 for CPU? Which test did you perform? I think mine was only like 5k or something.

 

that was before...yours should do better now.

go and enable physx.

you will need to download physx's 8.09 i think it is. this will enable physx on your gpu.

and the faster and more gpu's you have...the higher that score goes up.

 

I see...thanks for the tip!

Time for dinner, but I'll see you around johnksss!!!

 

for sure! have a good one.

 

Interesting.. so you're telling me my GTS doesnt smoke sli-GTXes? Bollocks! Just did clean vista install..will post my new scores when Crysis finishes installing. Likely in the morning

EDIT: I was kinda doubting myself..but it ran sooooo smoothe!

 

Anxious to see the results of your benchmark with the X9100 and the overclocked 9800m GTS, E-Wrecked, do not forget setting the same settings you will use in the benchmark in-game too! Otherwise, the scores will be those of the same resolution and settings you use in-game.

I wonder what I will get at 3DMark 06 with SLi Disabled and SLi Enabled once I get my NP9262 back from Sager and the cards are fixed, Q9450 @ Stock Speed + 8800m GTX @ Stock Speed and Q9450 @ Stock Speed + 8800m GTX SLi @ Stock Speeds... if my CPU Score alone was 3,850. (last time I ran 3DMark 06 before my laptop failed, I had Aero and some applications running out in the background, CPU Score should be higher.).

Edit: By the way, there was someone who broke your 3DMark 06 overclocked 9800m GTS record, with a single 8800m GTX with overclock, scoring 11,333 3DMarks, on a Sager NP5793:

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/6224/11333mh4.jpg

 

Who cares about any 3D Mark 06 score. What I said was one 9800m GTS does not beat 8800m GTX SLI. If you do then you beat my desktop 8800GTX Ultra overclocked and that would be something. Since I get what I posted 40 fps average with my 8800GTX at 1440x900 and my CPU overclocked to the same as yours, hell even overclocked to 3.33 GHz doesn´t yield me any much higher framerates and a GTX 280 got 46 fps average at DX10 at 1440x1050 and that was with a Quad Core.

Now that would mean you would beat a GTX 280 too then right, considering you got 35 fps average at 1920x1200. I would definitely like to see that since then any 8800m GTX SLI solution would be useless against the all so mighty 9800m GTS

But I am glad it runs smooth for you, I only had my doubts when I read 35 fps average at 1920x1200. Hmm if it would be so then I would like to see what you have in average fps with my config I use for my XPS M1730

 

big miss understanding magnus72. but all should be well now...

he did say "EDIT: I was kinda doubting myself,..but it ran sooooo smoothe!"

lets us know that he was feeling something was not as it should have been....

 

Yeah you are right big misunderstanding there. Of course if the game runs smooth. The game can feel smooth even at 24 fps if you have motion blur turned on. And it´s even smoother with some minor tweaks. Anyway glad it runs great for you.

 

So E-Wrecked finally decided to chime in?

Don’t worry man, you can’t take a video card that does 10FPS at default in Crysis all high 1900x1200 and expect to overclock it to do 35FPS. The most an overclocked card and CPU could bring up that score would be 5 to 8 FPS at best in such a resolution. Increasing it by 8 is a stretch, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. We were trying to give some accurate scores, to give someone that might want to see what they can expect a good idea on performance. A good thing johnksss also wants this, or we’ll be flooded by false information coming and going.

If my overclocked GPU and CPU do 38FPS in Crysis 1280x1040 all high DX10 mode, that is at least 11FPS more than johnksss with extreme CPU and heavenly overclocked GPU. Without CPU overclock, then 33FPS in the same resolution with 2.5GHz processor is still more than what johnksss is able to do with his. So to think a card with less shaders will all of a sudden beat a card with more shaders in an even higher resolution is going against common sense.

We can’t put up too much of an illusion, since I’m sure there are so many in this forum with both cards and can do the test for themselves.

@Magnus

Who cares about a 3dmark06 score? Have you checked this forum lately? If you have, then you would notice the many threads asking about 3dmark06 scores, so apparently many more care about it than you think. It’s the only thing we can use to compete with others, that gives us something other to do with our computers. Not only that, but it also helps in learning how to tweak things and how they work. I’ve learned more about the inners of my computer from futuremark, than any time just installing a game and playing it.

 

Actually what you can compete better in is in actual gaming benchmarks that shows the real world usage of the GPU´s instead of 3D Mark 06 that relies heavily on what kind of CPU you have. An extreme CPU or Quad Core gets a high boost in total score in 3D Mark 06. Games gives a much better view of how a certain GPU performs right?

But yes Kobe you are right most people do compare in 3D Mark 06. Personally I like real world benchmarks better i.e gaming.

For instance Johnksss has a higher 3D Mark 06 score than me at 1280x1024 but does his computer outperform mine in gaming? Not a chance. You see the higher CPU speed you have the higher you score in 3D Mark 06. On the other hand I have a higher score in 1920x1200 3D Mark 06 than his where the GPU´s is not so CPU limited as in lower resolutions such as 1280x1024.

 

Yay, 100th Post!

Hehe, I am glad the whole issue on the 9800m GTS has been finally cleared out, now people won't think that the 9800m GTS is a godly card that can even compete with some of the highest-ranking desktop graphics solutions from both Nvidia and ATI if overclocked just a little.

In my opinion, 3DMark Scores are an important part in the whole computer community, because they allow you to get a number that shows the "theoretical" performance your computer can get, so that you can compare different systems together without having to do a really intensive, long and exhaustive test on each of them.

In 3DMark, to measure the pure graphics performance, you can just leave the CPU score out and just care about the SM 2.0 and SM 3.0 / HDR scores, there is no blame on doing that, and I would not blame anyone if they did it with my 3DMark Scores, because my CPU itself can get up to 4,200 - 4,500 points by itself, a Quad Q9450.

I agree that Real-World benchmarking can be more accurate than synthetic benchmarks, but it requires a longer time to do, requires a further testing, and to certify a score fully, you need to record your whole benchmark run on "X" game.

The higher the resolution is, the more the CPU and GPU are put to work, so the framerates drop, the lower CPU Score you get, I agree.

The number of cores matters too.

 

Hey all.. I just got caught back up with the thread. johnksss reminded me that I need to run some new Crysis marks.. I'm at work right now, and my Crysis CD is at home. However, I'll make a point to run it tonight. With the new info provided by john, it's a lot easier to understand why my tests scored as high as they did. Then again, maybe this is just a rock solid machine..and those results will repeat themselves Ok, who am I kiddin? But, just wanna let y'all know I haven't dismissed ya!

 

Nah no problem E-wrecked If you get the same scores again then I am pretty amazed. But you have a solid notebook there and I love notebooks that competes with high end desktops out there

 

Alright then!, still anxious to see your results, E-Wrecked.

I agree, he has a solid notebook. So do I, Desktop Replacement Laptops are amazing and mind-blowing.

 

Yep desktop replacement laptops are amazing indeed. Many desktop people don´t know about what kind of performance these laptops can deliever. Most is pretty surprised when I even showed I competed with a single desktop ATI 4870 in some benchmarks with my 8800m GTX SLI

 

Hehe, I agree, I recall that on another site's forums, someone asked for "Laptops For Videogames", and most people answered too vaguely, but a person's post said "Laptops are not for videogames, they are for word processing and that is it.", hehe, I made a really big post proving him wrong, and now he wants me to take photographs of the laptop because it is "Mind Blowing" what it can do, another person was amazed too, but he said "Wow, your laptop is a desktop computer forced into a laptop chassis.", I laughed. Both were amazed by the NP9262's cooling system too. xP

Yeah, the 8800m GTX SLi is amazing, I agree that it can compete with a ATI HD 4870; in theoretical performance and specs the 8800m GTX SLi is almost equal to the Desktop GTX 280, except for the FLOPS.

 

True my 8800m GTX in SLI definitely beats my 8800 GTX desktop GPU.

 

Hehe, nice.

 

Looks like my 9800m GTS isn't a 9800m GTX SLI I opened Crysis, and set the resolution in game to match each test ran..also all settings were confirmed as HIGH. Then, ran the benchmark utility looped 3 times..also, not sure if anyone has noticed..but just below the Resolution settings with the utility, there is a "time of day" setting.. I found out that changes the time of day in the benchmark itself. I entered the number 18, 6:00 PM, and noticed there was little sun in the benchmark run.. Turns out that's time of day in the Crysis run Anyhow.. see results below:

10/5/2008 6:40:25 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 115.56s, Average FPS: 17.31
Min FPS: 12.40 at frame 1927, Max FPS: 20.17 at frame 87
Average Tri/Sec: -16295263, Tri/Frame: -941520
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.97
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 113.37s, Average FPS: 17.64
Min FPS: 12.40 at frame 1927, Max FPS: 20.17 at frame 87
Average Tri/Sec: -16404959, Tri/Frame: -929874
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.99
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 112.53s, Average FPS: 17.77
Min FPS: 11.70 at frame 188, Max FPS: 20.39 at frame 1756
Average Tri/Sec: -16539703, Tri/Frame: -930582
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.99
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/5/2008 6:40:25 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 17.705


10/5/2008 6:28:29 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1400x1050, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High ==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 75.14s, Average FPS: 26.62
Min FPS: 19.12 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 33.50 at frame 986
Average Tri/Sec: 27535620, Tri/Frame: 1034533
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.89
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 70.41s, Average FPS: 28.40
Min FPS: 19.12 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 33.95 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: 29719400, Tri/Frame: 1046284
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.88
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 70.59s, Average FPS: 28.33
Min FPS: 19.12 at frame 1953, Max FPS: 33.95 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: 29644146, Tri/Frame: 1046270
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.88
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/5/2008 6:28:29 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1400x1050 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 28.365


10/5/2008 6:59:28 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1280x1024, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 66.73s, Average FPS: 29.97
Min FPS: 21.55 at frame 158, Max FPS: 36.55 at frame 999
Average Tri/Sec: 29511052, Tri/Frame: 984676
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.93
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 63.08s, Average FPS: 31.71
Min FPS: 19.49 at frame 1942, Max FPS: 37.87 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: 31577408, Tri/Frame: 995941
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 63.15s, Average FPS: 31.67
Min FPS: 19.49 at frame 1942, Max FPS: 37.87 at frame 69
Average Tri/Sec: 31548792, Tri/Frame: 996172
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.92
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/5/2008 6:59:28 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 31.69


Sorry for making it all one post..just figured it makes it easier Anyhow, this is what I ended up with Not quite as impressive, eh? Still not too bad for a start..

 

now those scores pretty much matched mine with a 800mhz bus and x9000 cpu.with the x9100 pushing them a tad bit higher. nice scores E.

 

gracias john.. Im trying to find your runs, after the new info found..

 

Nice scores!

 

Thanks Aeris, maybe I missed it.. did you ever run any benches?

 

You are welcome; I have, but since I bought the laptop it had a problem with GPU downclocking (since it still played games right, I never really noticed it), they do not show the true power of the laptop, I will run some once I get my laptop back from Sager (currently sending it this thursday, supposedly it has a fried motherboard and it won't even POST).

Disfunctional Benchmark, only 1 card running at full speed, second one running at 200 MHz Core, 500 MHz Shader and 400 MHz Memory, running some processes in the background (slowed CPU down):

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/4546/capturemt8.jpg

 

here ya go. posted them in the other thread.

1900x1200

==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 120.72s, Average FPS: 16.57
Min FPS: 10.26 at frame 1930, Max FPS: 19.08 at frame 329
Average Tri/Sec: -15030013, Tri/Frame: -907190
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.01
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 114.89s, Average FPS: 17.41
Min FPS: 5.62 at frame 1935, Max FPS: 19.52 at frame 1760
Average Tri/Sec: -15577831, Tri/Frame: -894866
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.02
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 113.92s, Average FPS: 17.56
Min FPS: 5.62 at frame 1935, Max FPS: 19.52 at frame 1760
Average Tri/Sec: -15727768, Tri/Frame: -895852
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.02
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 113.86s, Average FPS: 17.57
Min FPS: 5.62 at frame 1935, Max FPS: 19.52 at frame 1760
Average Tri/Sec: -15746802, Tri/Frame: -896485
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -1.02
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)
==============================================================


1280x1024

TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 73.61s, Average FPS: 27.17
Min FPS: 15.76 at frame 152, Max FPS: 31.56 at frame 350
Average Tri/Sec: 27465760, Tri/Frame: 1010841
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.91
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 70.00s, Average FPS: 28.57
Min FPS: 15.76 at frame 152, Max FPS: 31.90 at frame 342
Average Tri/Sec: 29193070, Tri/Frame: 1021689
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 70.00s, Average FPS: 28.57
Min FPS: 15.76 at frame 152, Max FPS: 31.90 at frame 342
Average Tri/Sec: 29192104, Tri/Frame: 1021736
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
!TimeDemo Run 3 Finished.
Play Time: 70.01s, Average FPS: 28.57
Min FPS: 15.76 at frame 152, Max FPS: 31.90 at frame 342
Average Tri/Sec: 29195576, Tri/Frame: 1022030
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: 0.90
TimeDemo Play Ended, (4 Runs Performed)


both are over clocked scores.

 

very nice john! I just reran mine.. disabled motion blur in the Crysis game, using the slider. It bumped my FPS slightly..

10/5/2008 7:54:40 PM - Vista 64
Beginning Run #1 on Map-island, Demo-benchmark_gpu
DX10 1900x1200, AA=No AA, Vsync=Disabled, 32 bit test, FullScreen
Demo Loops=3, Time Of Day= 9
Global Game Quality: High
==============================================================
TimeDemo Play Started , (Total Frames: 2000, Recorded Time: 111.86s)
!TimeDemo Run 0 Finished.
Play Time: 109.58s, Average FPS: 18.25
Min FPS: 10.06 at frame 258, Max FPS: 21.14 at frame 346
Average Tri/Sec: -17194118, Tri/Frame: -942091
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.97
!TimeDemo Run 1 Finished.
Play Time: 107.64s, Average FPS: 18.58
Min FPS: 10.06 at frame 258, Max FPS: 21.35 at frame 1757
Average Tri/Sec: -17260094, Tri/Frame: -928957
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.99
!TimeDemo Run 2 Finished.
Play Time: 106.89s, Average FPS: 18.71
Min FPS: 10.06 at frame 258, Max FPS: 21.57 at frame 1746
Average Tri/Sec: -17416136, Tri/Frame: -930802
Recorded/Played Tris ratio: -0.98
TimeDemo Play Ended, (3 Runs Performed)
==============================================================

Completed All Tests

<><><><><><><><><><><><><>>--SUMMARY--<<><><><><><><><><><><><><>

10/5/2008 7:54:40 PM - Vista 64

Run #1- DX10 1900x1200 AA=No AA, 32 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Overall Average FPS: 18.645


EDIT: which other thread?

 

Well hell..for being half broken that's a very respectable score! I would love to see it when it's running full force!

 

yep, that was the best i could get...right before i boxed it back up and dropped it off at best buy. and i ran the like 20 times to be sure and i ran them at 2.26 ghz and at 1.8 ghz and they we're pretty dammn close but when i ran the game...that's when they sparated in scoring. meaning the x9000 kicked in while the lower speeds drop frames...

 

[email protected] 88GTX@600/1570/970 FSB 800/667


1280x1024 Overall Average 35.075



1400x1050 Overall Average 32.075



1680x1050 Overall Average 26.525



1900x1200 Overall Average 19.795

 

Non tweaked score is what we wanted, since we know what can happen when you start to tweak things, thanks!

 

i see ya upped them clocks a bit there pal....*LOL*

 

Yup!

Just think if I had of raised the first clock some.