3.10 slower than 3.9

  • Thread starter Thread starter KCB
  • Start date Start date
K

KCB

3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440

3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582

9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers
1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz

MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused
by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD
worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good.
 
I wish the driver writers would quit worring about FPS and benchmarks and
keep focused on image quality, compatability and stability. What good are a
few extra FPS if the system crashes or displays distorted textures? I guess
it's the benchmarks and FPS that are cited in reviews and that sells cards.

-Kent
 
KCB said:
3DMark2001 SE ---- 3.9 = 14580 3.10 = 14440

3DMark03 ---------- 3.9 = 4653 3.10 = 4582

9700 Pro - default settings for both drivers
1024*768*32 @ 85 MHz

MOH:AA had some weird texture problems in one map, but I think it was caused
by the mod that was running. Tried 4 other maps and all were OK. COD
worked perfectly, no glitches. Refresh override still works good.
Click to expand...

divide 14580 by 14440. Its not even one percent.
divide 4653 by 4582. Its only 1.5 percent.

i think this is well within the deviation for benchmarks.
 
You are referring to ~100 points difference. From what I've seen, that is
the margin of error/variaton, for those progs. +/- 100 points, in either,
is negligable.

-
KCB stood up at show-n-tell, in ezuEb.396698$Dw6.1247555@attbi_s02, and
said:
 
Strontium said:
You are referring to ~100 points difference. From what I've seen, that is
the margin of error/variaton, for those progs. +/- 100 points, in either,
is negligable.
Click to expand...

The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the
results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained
600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did
not* occur here.
 
-
KCB stood up at show-n-tell, in y5AEb.427323$275.1303279@attbi_s53, and
said:
The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and
the results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody
said he gained 600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely
making the point that *did not* occur here.
Click to expand...

And, I'm making the point that 100 points, whether repeatable or not, is not
worth spit. The benchmarks, you are using, are biased to begin with.
That's besides the point. A 100 point difference, plus or minus, is within
the tolerance level. If you want to judge the drivers, do it with your real
world use...unless, of course, that's all you do with your machine is run
biased, sponsored benchmarks...then have at it. 100 points, even then, is
still negligable.


<snip>
 
KCB said:
The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the
results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained
600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did
not* occur here.
Click to expand...

You're talking about a synthetic benchmark here, and a DX8 one as well. Run
some *real-world* benchmarks with *real* games and see how fast the drivers
are. 3dmark is made for people who are too lazy or ignorant of how to
benchmark their system properly.

K
 
I wish the driver writers would quit worring about FPS and benchmarks and
keep focused on image quality, compatability and stability. What good are a
few extra FPS if the system crashes or displays distorted textures? I guess
it's the benchmarks and FPS that are cited in reviews and that sells
Click to expand...
cards.

Yup. Nvidia set off that speed craziness when they were still fighting 3dfx,
because their image quality was miserable in comparison. Gamers took the
bait, and it became a major selling factor up to today. Actually I like the
way Ati handles this. They do aim for good IQ, but carefully enough not to
lose in the speed race. Objectively seen, everything above 60 FPS is a
waste. Unless the game is programmed sloppily, higher FPS become
unnoticeable. Any current card can achieve 60 FPS in any current game. And
also any current card has to drop below eventually in newer games. Yet even
30 FPS is still playable. Cards that are faster have a longer life, because
they drop below 60/30 later. Yet that isn't really in the interest of video
card companies, since they want to sell their newer models. But as long as
speed plays the major role it does, cards will have more speed than
necessary. Of course the companies make up for that with the insane prices
of their top end cards, because they won't sell a new card to buyers of
these for some time. I really don't think a Radeon 9800 XT is that much more
expensive to produce than a 9600 XT as the price suggests. But the 9600 will
require upgrading about a year earlier, so they can sell it much cheaper. I
have used my good old 3dfx Voodoo 5 5500 for full 3 years. An upgrade simply
wasn't necessary earlier. Up to UT 2003 it could handle every game at
playable FPS. Only now did I have to upgrade, because the V5 simply cannot
do DX 8.1/9 or anything higher than OpenGL 1.1. But still, 3 years of
service isn't bad at all, considering that there have been next to no driver
updates in all that time, except for a few fan-made ones.
 
What are you talking about? 3D Mark (all of them) are excellent games. I
play them all the time. ;-)

Brad
 
Word.

Stability and looks is IMHO more interesting than some xtra FPS. 3.10 works
great here. No probs at all.

9800PRO
P-4 2,6
1GB RAM
2X 120GB 7200 WD, 8MB
17" TFT
SB AUDIGY

/ C.
 
Word.
Stability and looks is IMHO more interesting than some xtra FPS. 3.10 works
great here. No probs at all.
9800PRO
P-4 2,6
1GB RAM
2X 120GB 7200 WD, 8MB
17" TFT
SB AUDIGY
Click to expand...

3.10 has sorted out any problems I have previously.
9800Pro, XP2600, 512Mb Ram
 
The margin may be small, but the fact is they are still slower, and the
results are repeatable. I've seen a post here where somebody said he gained
600 points by changing to the 3.10's. I'm merely making the point that *did
not* occur here.
Click to expand...

Who knows...? How many other programs do you have installed on your
PC? IM, scanner update, a M$ patch...

Don't worry about... but I guess you will.
 
Darthy said:
Who knows...? How many other programs do you have installed on your
PC? IM, scanner update, a M$ patch...

Don't worry about... but I guess you will.
Click to expand...

All you guys who took a big fit and got all defensive about this post still
seem to not understand that I was merely making the point that not everybody
is going to gain 600 points on their 3d mark scores by changing to the 3.10
drivers. Maybe I chose the wrong subject line or presented the subject
matter poorly. Or maybe, according to K, I'm just too lazy and ignorant!
All I meant by this was to counter the poster which stated that he made a
big jump in his score and everybody should switch to the 3.10 drivers. My
results indicated otherwise. I don't live or die based on 3dmark scores;
this is what the other post used for scoring so I stayed with the same.
Please forgive me for being so stupid and I'll re-consider any impulses I
have about posting here in the future.
 
All you guys who took a big fit and got all defensive about this post still
seem to not understand that I was merely making the point that not everybody
is going to gain 600 points on their 3d mark scores by changing to the 3.10
drivers. Maybe I chose the wrong subject line or presented the subject
matter poorly. Or maybe, according to K, I'm just too lazy and ignorant!
All I meant by this was to counter the poster which stated that he made a
big jump in his score and everybody should switch to the 3.10 drivers. My
results indicated otherwise. I don't live or die based on 3dmark scores;
this is what the other post used for scoring so I stayed with the same.
Please forgive me for being so stupid and I'll re-consider any impulses I
have about posting here in the future.
Click to expand...

Dude... I was just saying... other factors can effect your score...
different video cards may work better than others... But perhaps the
poster had issues with his 3.9 that were fixed, while yours was fine
to begin with.

Going to 3.10 drivers... I'm about the same, but its tricky as I went
from Win98se/3.9 > WinXP/3.10
 
Dont let a few numb nuts keep you away. The whole point of these groups is
to get a wider perspective and that eveyone can post thier view. Some
posters dont have very good people skills and go a bit overboard when they
don't agree.
 
Well, if OP can't handle having a heated (or not) discussion, OP shouldn't
be posting to a public forum. And, if other people not sharing a view or
debating is being 'numb-nutted', I think you've got some problems with
people skills, yourself.

-
Jim stood up at show-n-tell, in OHoFb.615736$Tr4.1598401@attbi_s03, and
said:
Dont let a few numb nuts keep you away. The whole point of these
groups is to get a wider perspective and that eveyone can post thier
view. Some posters dont have very good people skills and go a bit
overboard when they don't agree.
Click to expand...
<snip>
 
You need to join an anger management support group. and then get some booty.
You'll get those "people skills" back in no time.
 
"> Well, if OP can't handle having a heated (or not) discussion, OP
shouldn't
be posting to a public forum.
Click to expand...

A discussion would imply a two way dialog on the topic of the post. The
comments that I made were not concering any discusions posted hear but
rather personal attacks that were uncalled for.

And, if other people not sharing a view or
debating is being 'numb-nutted', I think you've got some problems with
people skills, yourself.
Click to expand...

Where did you get this from what I wrote ?
 
Indeed.

It would have been simpler and more mature if the guy stated: "Various
Benchmarks, like 3dmark####, do not dictate real ingame framerates." Or
something to that nature?

I myself have never used a benchmark other than real games.

Quake3 for my opengl benchmark, UT2003 for my D3D benchmark. I only take
note of Minimum Framerates, and over all Game smoothness of play, and of
course keep a sharp eye to detail - make sure they didn't comprimise visual
quality for my framerates and artifacting etc.

Been awhile for any new OGL games, maybe just Doom3, haven't played the War
FPSes.
 
Back
Top