Just got my K|N QX9300 Nagamaki

Then compare it to T9600 or something else. The point is that OCZ is only good with an overclocked CPU so it get high 3dmarks. Without it its like a car without its wheels. Pointless.

 

Umm.. the cpu scored 2700 on the e8400.. and 2000+ on the OCZ. That's a vast difference.. and if you want.. I'll run my system @ 3.0 GHz as well, and it will beat the crap outta that system you just posted marks on.

 

yep on marks, try an actual video game, like Crysis, FarCry2. I ve only posted 3dmarks to show how poorly the OCz does without an X processor

or if u want to play synthetic benchmarks lets try the vantage this time

 

ask magnus or eleron...they both have low grade outdated chips (no disrepect guys!)

 

out of interest, how does the 9262 do at 2.26GHz?

You should be able to restrict the processor speed through vista power management.

 

ill let you know in 10 minutes riko.

 

By Ewrecked
Well.. doesnt matter if it's an x proc or not..its the same speed running and our CPU scores are obviously similar..

edit: nice.. that didnt work.

 

hahahaha, i got a 10,971

 

can you see the pic? my screen says bandwidth exceeded.

that was a pain.

 

The OCZ with a QX9300 has been "beating the living ****" out of the sager np9262.

And you're the one who made the 3dmark06 comparison, then you say it isn't right, and tell us to use real games as benchmarks when the OCZ wins in 3D06

......

 

umm.. the x9100 has been beating the heck outta the qx9300, from what Ive been seeing.. or, from what I hear. I can't see GoG cause Im banned.

 

e: when you get a chance...can you run that over clocked and at 1920x1200. thanks buddy!

 

OCd @ 3.3?

this is where the OCZ lacks.. high res runs. I can already tell you that much. Anyhow, will do.

 

nope, i don't. that's why im asking ya buddy! no one else has ran one at 1920x1200 and im no about to google the internet.

 

By Ewrecked

Yeah.. not that great.

 

now there you go! nothing wrong with them scores there. we just need to compare them to hoops quad to see if there is any real difference at that res.

 

Rule 1 of f@nb01sm: when comparing A to B, always pick a much higher spec version of A and compare it to a lower spec version of B.

Interesting to note, that same review of the Sager also benchmarked UT3. I just ran fraps on UT3 and this is what I got:

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
4396, 88870, 27, 63, 51.015

on a P8600 (2.4ghz) playing Heatray. He got around 58 fps playing Heatray. Good to know that my useless notebook is only 7fps away from a 3ghz desktop processor + 2x 8800M GTX in Sli. I'm sure if I had an X9100, I would also be around that 60fps range, knowing how much the CPU influences UT3 in particular.

 

The np9262 in that test also had one more GB of RAM.

phail

 

Not trying to start any trouble but this is what I got with my rig,just putting it up to compare

 

ikas...how come i can't send you a pm?

 

You can't ?
how do I check if my PM is tuned on or off. crap, hold on will see whats up.

 

it's under edit options. in your user control panel.

 

hmm, I think ati still lose to nvidia in this gen gpu but take that in 4000 series. In the real game 3870cf can't beat 9800gt or gtx sli.
Do you have OCZ, qaz333?

 

OK johnksss it's on now, for some reason it was off, anyway fire away man.Your on my good side(for now ) and I put you on my buddy list
Alright getting late here on the east coast time for some shuteye.Cya

 

then why get one? if it isnt as good as other systems out there, why didnt you just get one of them?
was it due to the price?

 

it might be because he didn't want to wait on the 4000 series, but can upgrade to it when it comes. thus giving him the edge.... (speculation of course)

 

yeah I got this because of the price that I can't catch the sager and also like johnksss talk too

 

shhhh, i like my speculation better...

 

It's sweet in all (performance,design and wieght) but it's not superb

 

but wouldnt just waiting for the 4xxx series be cheaper? and theres 100% certain that the 4xxx series will work without some hardware upgrade

 

I think I can upgrade them by myself if RK allow me to that and not void warranty

 

Just to add a little bit of a spice in here, with an xps m1730 x9000 @ 3.4ghz and sli 8800m gtx @1280*1024, I got 14500. I guess it is not that bad over all. It is for sale on ebay for $2900. Cheaper than the quadcore equiped systems you guys have. And I will be playing with my whitebok with qx9300 next weekend. Guys, I'll need your help if we want to beat kn scores.

 

Hey E since you couldnt see it at GoG and mentioned it ain another thread here you go

http://home.elp.rr.com/bemaniradio/P3.jpg - Ashintars score

 

Ashintars score is very high because gpu oc'ed. I think he oc'ed in xp with ati tool or something and keep that speed to run in vista.

 

Yes it was jus tin refrence to E-wrecked mentioning he couldnt see GoG so thats why he still claimed the record. Not meant to be a flame fest or anything. Just so he could see it.

 

yep I don't mean you will start the flame fest I only explained about it

 

well here goes one you can all speculate over and ponder how it was done.

 

John you like the OCZ section an awful lot, why dont you trade in that **** huge 9262 and get one, since you spend al your time here =)

 

very nice score there john.. Im compressed. Err..impressed. you running stock GPU clocks?

 

had you showed the true potential of the nagamaki when you first got it. and if it had smashed the gt/gtx's at all test, then i might have one by now.

and your name is in quite a few forums your self hooper. at least 5 or so.

 

nah, don't be impress E. i put that up for them to figure out how it was done. when you don't show the full scope of your score...any one can say anything.

that score is flubbed.

 

Teh top of your 3dMark looks like it was running in XP or Some type of performance. I compared it to mine and it looks like yours had the old gray box as opposed to the Vista one.'


Meh who knows lol

ANyways Why would you post flubbed scores?

 

nope. if you look at the second picture it shows that it is in fact vista.

might as well post it since no one seems to want to save scores to futuremark.com for all to see. meaning the whole score with all the screens showing. or a valid link.

but hey...it's all good. posted that for a laugh or two

edit: but here is one of my real scores hooper...im gaining on ya friend.
http://service.futuremark.com/searc...0&hardwareshadows=-100&softwarefiltering=-100

 

Found a sweet download for benchmarking..includes benchmark for directx10.1 - Maybe this can level the playing field. Also, it's got some half decent music while the benchmark runs.. I ran @ 1280x1024 Directx10.1, full screen, all high settings. Was disappointed by the outcome though. It also supports dx9, dx10, and then of course..dx 10.1. hoop, wanna give it a run?

http://downloads.guru3d.com/Unigine-Tropics-1.1-DirectX-10.1-benchmark-download-2113.html

 

I don't think anyone flubbed scores. But from the looks of it, the GPU seems to be OC'd, telling from how the SM 2.0 and SM 3.0 scores increased while the CPU scores are pretty much the same for an OC'd X9100.

 

ichime, im sure you have 3dmark06.. run it with post-processing disabled, it's an option under the settings for your run. See what kinda HUGE gains you get outta it. I went from 14.9k with no OC to 15.7k.. Now, Im not gonna submit that, cause it's FAKE. Give it a run..then tell me why the person claiming a record doesnt have his submitted either.

BTW, you'll notice sm3.0 gets the largest gains.. *rubs chin*

 

If you check Ashintars score his sm2.0 is the same as from E-wrecked score but sm3.0 was boost up higher than E scores for 1300 points. May be E-wrecked right.

but E-wrecked, can you run 3dmark with off post processing and show the result?

 

His doesnt show up because they are unvalidated display drivers. Theres a score I just ran it ...enough said

 

very cool mhooper. but still lose to ashintars score (that may be flubbed score)