Does 3dMark05 work w/ 9800Pro/128 MB cards?

  • Thread starter Thread starter zmike6
  • Start date Start date
Z

zmike6

Don't really wanna eat the HD space or bandwidth if 3dMark 2005 isn't
gonna run. Some posts on amdforums.com indicate that it crashes out
of memory on 9800 Pro/128 MB cards.
 
Don't really wanna eat the HD space or bandwidth if 3dMark 2005 isn't
gonna run. Some posts on amdforums.com indicate that it crashes out
of memory on 9800 Pro/128 MB cards.
Click to expand...

It works (depressingly slowly) on my 128MB 9700 Pro.
 
Don't really wanna eat the HD space or bandwidth if 3dMark 2005 isn't
gonna run. Some posts on amdforums.com indicate that it crashes out
of memory on 9800 Pro/128 MB cards.
Click to expand...
It runs, but do you really want to run a benchmark that yields results
like these:

Game Tests
GT1 - Return To Proxycon 10.6 fps
GT2 - Firefly Forest 7.0 fps
GT3 - Canyon Flight 12.6 fps

CPU Tests
CPU Test 1 1.5 fps
CPU Test 2 2.9 fps

That's with my stock clocked 9800 pro and 2.2 GHz AthlonXP, definite
e-penis shrinkage. Canyon Flight is pretty cool just to watch.

....but 1.5 fps on the CPU Test? Watching that, was an excruciating
experience.
 
Inglo said:
It runs, but do you really want to run a benchmark that yields results
like these:

Game Tests
GT1 - Return To Proxycon 10.6 fps
GT2 - Firefly Forest 7.0 fps
GT3 - Canyon Flight 12.6 fps

CPU Tests
CPU Test 1 1.5 fps
CPU Test 2 2.9 fps

That's with my stock clocked 9800 pro and 2.2 GHz AthlonXP, definite
e-penis shrinkage. Canyon Flight is pretty cool just to watch.
...but 1.5 fps on the CPU Test? Watching that, was an excruciating
experience.
Click to expand...

My system is very similar to yours and got almost identical results. ;((


Must go find that catalog where I saw that new motherboard with 16 CPU
sockets, 32 GB Ram capability, and 4 video card slots. ;o))


--
callsignviper


The truth is out there. You just have to look in the right places and ask
the right questions.
 
Isn't that the truth!! These manufacturers crack me up trying to come up
with benchmarks to make you think you have a slow system. Where is my
credit card, I want MORE, MORE, MORE....

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
callsignviper wrote:

Must go find that catalog where I saw that new motherboard with 16 CPU
sockets, 32 GB Ram capability, and 4 video card slots. ;o))
 
Yeah, they should come up with benchmarks that give everyone a really BIG
score so we all can feel fuzzy inside.
 
Yeah, they should come up with benchmarks that give everyone a really BIG
score so we all can feel fuzzy inside.
Click to expand...
I really could care less about the scores, it just seems silly running
any benchmark that yields 1.5 fps results. Especially when it's on a
system that's incredibly common, 2.2 GHz AthlonXP - 1 Gb RAM - 9800 Pro
- nForce2 Chipset. I know time marches on, but I'd like to think of my
system as still a little bit above average, in the grand scheme of
technological advance. 1.5 fps screams, "inadequate", when that's just
not the case in reality. Doing some more checking, an Athlon64 and
X800 XT PE yields 2.4 fps in the same test. I don't get it, the #1
result for an ATI card yields results that I would deem just playable
for a game, G1 35 fps, G2 22 fps, G3 38 fps. The result scores can be
whatever they want, but shouldn't the fastest card with the fastest
processor actually benchmark fast, more than just relatively fast.

I'm sure the futuremark folks and all their partners have reasonable
rationales for structuring there test this way, most of it has to do
with convincing the buying public to upgrade their hardware.
 
I'm sure the futuremark folks and all their partners have reasonable
rationales for structuring there test this way, most of it has to do
with convincing the buying public to upgrade their hardware.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Except that the reason to use 3DMark used to be to see how current/near future games will run
like on your system. What they have done now is simply to show how high end graphical effects look
on your system, which isnt the same thing at all. 3DMarks have become meaningless, other than to
compare two sets of hardware.

S
 
I really could care less about the scores, it just seems silly running
any benchmark that yields 1.5 fps results. Especially when it's on a
system that's incredibly common, 2.2 GHz AthlonXP - 1 Gb RAM - 9800 Pro
- nForce2 Chipset. I know time marches on, but I'd like to think of my
system as still a little bit above average, in the grand scheme of
technological advance. 1.5 fps screams, "inadequate", when that's just
not the case in reality. Doing some more checking, an Athlon64 and
X800 XT PE yields 2.4 fps in the same test. I don't get it, the #1
result for an ATI card yields results that I would deem just playable
Click to expand...

The CPU tests are supposed to be extremely low. The video card is not
used at all. I get 20fps, 13.2fps, 21.xfps, 2.2fps and 4.1fps in
2005. My highest score so far is 4455. This machine should be good
for 5k with the newer drivers and faster settings on the video card :)

Eric
 
Back
Top