Futuremark: 3DMark06

ChrisRay said:
You might consider the 7800GTX score is an actually an SLI configuration.
ya duh.. but the 7800gt wasn't.
I thought with this talk of cpus counting a A64 X2 at 2.6 GHZ with a 1800xl might be a wee bit more than 200 points faster than a 2 ghz a64 with a 7800gt.
 
Reverend said:
What?!

I totally disagree with this decision, on account that 1024x768 is still the crucial rez where AA and AF come into play and that if FM wants a higher default, they should stick to 1280x960.

yeah, i thought it should be selectable for the free version at least between 1280x960 and 1280x1024, but it's no biggie, for over a year i was running my 19" CRT at 1280x1024 and didn't even realize that 1280x960 was the correct 4:3 ratio for my monitor, and to be honest, it made very little difference


radeonic2 said:
Sucks for people with 17" crts...
their eyes will be sore...
So how come the 1800xl scores so poorly(just a bit faster than a 7800gt despite having much more cpu power), and why is there compare urls out before the product?

the product has been launched in other parts of the world you know..........the entire globe is not on one timezone......and of course, there would be a few Pro users and employees, and beta testers, and reviewers that already have it, so it's not surprising, no more surprising than video card benchmarks being out before an NDA expires
 
radeonic2 said:
ya duh.. but the 7800gt wasn't.
I thought with this talk of cpus counting a A64 X2 at 2.6 GHZ with a 1800xl might be a wee bit more than 200 points faster than a 2 ghz a64 with a 7800gt.

logical conclusion = nvidia > ati in 3dmark06 :idea:
 
You'll soon find out that you get a 800-900 point increase just by moving to dual core. CPU does play a major role in the new 3DMark. And that X1800 score is low; even if it were an XL.
 
gravy said:
yeah, i thought it should be selectable for the free version at least between 1280x960 and 1280x1024, but it's no biggie, for over a year i was running my 19" CRT at 1280x1024 and didn't even realize that 1280x960 was the correct 4:3 ratio for my monitor, and to be honest, it made very little difference




the product has been launched in other parts of the world you know..........the entire globe is not on one timezone......and of course, there would be a few Pro users and employees, and beta testers, and reviewers that already have it, so it's not surprising, no more surprising than video card benchmarks being out before an NDA expires
There is no link to download on futuremark smartass.
tEd said:
logical conclusion = nvidia > ati in 3dmark06 :idea:
Not so fast...

Kombatant said:
You'll soon find out that you get a 800-900 point increase just by moving to dual core. CPU does play a major role in the new 3DMark. And that X1800 score is low; even if it were an XL.
 
the x1800 series score is with a dual core isn't it and the 7800gt without dual-core and even lower clocked

so if those 800-900 points are true we have to subtract them from the x1800 score to get comparable results to the 7800gt. Which would mean the system with the 7800gt is faster in 3dm06 than the system with a x1800
 
tEd said:
the x1800 series score is with a dual core isn't it and the 7800gt without dual-core and even lower clocked

so if those 800-900 points are true we have to subtract them from the x1800 score to get comparable results to the 7800gt. Which would mean the system with the 7800gt is faster in 3dm06 than the system with a x1800
...and that's why I said that the x1800 score is low. I could post screenshots, but even though I haven't signed anything for FM I respect the NDA :)
 
Reverend said:
What?!

I totally disagree with this decision, on account that 1024x768 is still the crucial rez where AA and AF come into play and that if FM wants a higher default, they should stick to 1280x960.
Its not an AA benchmark though.
 
Kombatant said:
...and that's why I said that the x1800 score is low. I could post screenshots, but even though I haven't signed anything for FM I respect the NDA :)

yes it's slow in comparison i can agree on that
 
Kombatant said:
...and that's why I said that the x1800 score is low. I could post screenshots, but even though I haven't signed anything for FM I respect the NDA :)

Yes, that seem s low, though the X1300 score can be perceived as impressive.

Anyway, these results indeed suggest Nvidia being better ... the 6800U has a higher score as the X850 PE, despite lacking 200 Mhz CPU frequency. I am very curious about the new 3Dmark. :)

(My X1800 XT is just about to arrive, man, what a day ! :D - yeah I know about 1900 XT, and don't care )
 
DudeMiester said:
Score one for nvidia!
Oh how so much has changed since the FX era...
No doubt nvidia will be pimping their across the board superiority :smile:
Perhaps we can rule heavy dynamic branching based on scores?
So ati's "SM3 done right" doesn't get a chance to stretch it's legs?
Since the in the shading dept. they only have totally superiority in dynamic branching otherwise they have much weaker raw pixel shading performance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kombatant said:
My hunch says "drivers" ;)

I was gonna post a comment about the drivers .. but didn't. Still it's been two months since the X1800XT came out. You'd think they would have the drivers sorted.

I was hoping to get a X1900XT .. but that might change to the G71 now.

US
 
Back
Top