benchmark software

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris
  • Start date Start date
C

chris

i want to test the speed of my video card - can someone recommend a
benchmarking program

i have tested it with dacris.

and dacris seems to indicate 2d is running at 550mb/s or more with just one
monitor, but when i activate and span my desktop over 2 monitors it drops to
aprox 100mb/s

the 3d test is the same with one or two monitors active.

my vid card is a RADEON 9250

any idea how i can use 2 monitoors without such a drop in performance -
other than installing a 2nd vid card

thanks
 
thanks but wouldnt run -

16 bit msdos subsystem
the ntvdm cpu has encounter an illegal instruction

it crashed and burned

my system is a athlon 64 - 2800
running xp home 32 bit version at the moment
1G mem
 
I just DL'd before posting and it worked fine on my P4 2.4, showing me how
slow the Geforce MX440 really is:-) This card is so bad that it told me it
would only run 1 of the 4 available tests. I'll take it home and try it out
on my P4 3.06HT with ATI 9700Pro. Should produce slightly better results.

I'll try it out this weekend on the hardware coming in, Athlon 64 3000+,
Geforce 6600GT. Sure hope I didn't make a compatibility mistake going with
AMD for my son's computer!!
 
Rod said:
I just DL'd before posting and it worked fine on my P4 2.4, showing me how
slow the Geforce MX440 really is:-) This card is so bad that it told me it
would only run 1 of the 4 available tests. I'll take it home and try it out
on my P4 3.06HT with ATI 9700Pro. Should produce slightly better results.
Click to expand...

Let me know how it goes
I'll try it out this weekend on the hardware coming in, Athlon 64 3000+,
Geforce 6600GT. Sure hope I didn't make a compatibility mistake going with
AMD for my son's computer!!
Click to expand...

i only use AMD - neer had a problem,

BTW i have just reinstalled the nvidia mainbord drivers and it seems to have
improved the performance
 
chris said:
Let me know how it goes
Click to expand...

Wow, just slight difference between the to machines and video cards (mainly
the video cards). The 2.4 with the Geforce MX440 would only run one of the
4 tests availalbe (because of the video card) and scored 218, pathetic. The
3.06 with 9700 Pro ran everything and scored (going by memory since I'm not
at that PC right now) around 5600+/-
i only use AMD - neer had a problem,

BTW i have just reinstalled the nvidia mainbord drivers and it seems to
have
improved the performance
Click to expand...

So did you get the program to work for you then? If not, on that same page
is 3DMark2001SE, pretty cool graphics in that one as well. Even as old as a
benchmark as that is the Geforce MX 440 still would run everything it had to
offer. I'm getting an idea that maybe the MX440 isn't a very good card:-)

I also found 3DMark 05, that made the high temp alarm ring on my 3.06, and
while it ran everything, it didn't do it very well. I'll hang on to that to
see how the AMD 3000+ runs, parts are supposed to arrive today.

Contact me offline, take out "_removeme_" from the above Email, I've got
something you might be interested in.
 
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:41:04 -0600, "Rod"


I'm getting an idea that maybe the MX440 isn't a very good card:-)
Click to expand...


Of course not, it was a budget card even when new. However,
3DMark 2003, 2005, arent' telling most of the story as they
simply demark for things the card can't do, since it's a DX7
part, not DX 8 or 9. To put it in perspective, it CAN run
Half Life 2, at the lower resolutions typical of a card
using early DDR or late SDR memory as that's just what it
was designed to be. Even when it was new it was smoked by
the higher end cards and was priced accordingly, but are
cards costing 15X really 15X faster in raw performance (no)
?
 
kony said:
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 08:41:04 -0600, "Rod"



Of course not, it was a budget card even when new. However,
3DMark 2003, 2005, arent' telling most of the story as they
simply demark for things the card can't do, since it's a DX7
part, not DX 8 or 9. To put it in perspective, it CAN run
Half Life 2, at the lower resolutions typical of a card
using early DDR or late SDR memory as that's just what it
was designed to be. Even when it was new it was smoked by
the higher end cards and was priced accordingly, but are
cards costing 15X really 15X faster in raw performance (no)
?
Click to expand...


One thing it won't play, and that's MOHPA. I found out that game doesn't
support the MX series chips.

It does play Doom3, on low setting, and not nearly smooth enough to make a
good game of it. I wouldn't want to try HL2 on it, even if it could play
it. I don't expect great things from it, it's over two years old now. I
was just surprised how lacking in performance that it really is, that and
that it couldn't play MOHPA (which is what got me into building a new system
for my son)

However, It's still a great card for QuakeIII
 
Both benchmarks run exceptionally well on the new AMD Athlon 3000+/Geforce
6600GT. The results far exceed that of my P4 3.06/ATI 9700 Pro.

I'll have to re run the 3DMark 03, I've misplaced my results. On the
3DMark 2001SE the AMD machine scored over 17100 while the Intel machine
scored 16110.
 
Both benchmarks run exceptionally well on the new AMD Athlon 3000+/Geforce
6600GT. The results far exceed that of my P4 3.06/ATI 9700 Pro.

I'll have to re run the 3DMark 03, I've misplaced my results. On the
3DMark 2001SE the AMD machine scored over 17100 while the Intel machine
scored 16110.
Click to expand...

wow, thats 5% difference ... is the difference between setups in real
life noticeable (playing games) ?
 
Spajky said:
wow, thats 5% difference ... is the difference between setups in real
life noticeable (playing games) ?
Click to expand...


Very noticeable. Playing the Doom3 Demo on both PCs is like night and day.
The P4/ATI plays it well in high settings at 1024x768, with minimal lag in
heavy action(if I hadn't played it on the Athlon in the same scenes, I
wouldn't have given much though to what lag there was). The Athlon/XFX
screams, no lag at all ultra high at 1280x1024.

Other than that, in the windows environment and other less demanding games,
I don't notice a thing.
 
Back
Top