Holy Crap! 6434 3DMk2003.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank Weston
  • Start date Start date
F

Frank Weston

I was playing around with my new Radeon 9800 Pro 128 and overclocked it
about 10%. 3DMk2003 score was 6434! To be honest, I don't see any
difference in game play because the card is already way beyond the
performance demands of any games I own. Actually the card makes some games
harder to play because it's more effective at weather effects like fog and
haze.

Is a 10 % overclock liable to cause problems? What's considered a safe
overclock for these cards?

Thanks
 
3DMk2003 score was 6434! To be honest, I don't see

That's a fantastic result. I only get under 5900 with my 9700p, and
that's with major overclocking on all components. What is your system?

rms
 
Those HT P4's really kick out the AMD's Grr, but seriously I wonder how the
GF 5900u compares in such a setup?
 
My last system was AMD, and for it's time it was pretty good. My next
system may well be AMD also, once the 64 bit processor is released. Right
now, Intel just happens to be on top of the heap. I think the competition
is good and I'm not particularly loyal to any brand. An overclocked Barton
2500+ would be about $200 cheaper than my CPU and would probably match a 3.0
Ghz P4.

I've also run NVidia video cards before, and I'm not ready to count them out
now. But, right now, ATI is king. I don't know how the GF 5900 would
compare, but I do think it's way more expensive and I have seen reviews that
claim it may be close, but certainly not better.
 
well, quite impressing...
but i like my system, too;)

1800xp@2138mhz (171x12.5); (costs ? 65,00));
epox 8k3a3+
hercules9700pro @ 380/720
cat 3.4
3dmark2003 5500
so, i guess between 9700pro (with 9800pro driver hack) and 9800pro there's
not much difference.


greetings

atlan
 
Your system is a great example of getting the most bang for the buck. 500
points on 3DMk2003 is certainly not worth the $300 that I'm sure you saved.

When I was putting together my new system I considered something exactly
like yours, but Newegg was out of stock on the epox 8k3a3+.
 
Nope, it won't.

The P4C is a whole lot faster then the Athlons. Look at the Sandra PR
ratings, their fairly accurate.

My last AMD system at 2400MHz (200fsb) with an NF2 board would rate as a
3200+ or higher. Its PR rating was about 3500'ish (if I remember correctly).
Thats quite a bit faster then a 2500+ Barton and we all know by now that the
bigger cache and higher AMD ratings is bullshit for the Barton.

My newest P4C at 2600Mhz was as snappy as the AMD at 2400Mhz and at 3320Mhz
(255fsb) with an i875 board its a whole lot faster then the 2400Mhz Athlon
ever was!! Its PR rating is closer to 4500 and I can believe it, easily.

I can't even begin to tell you how much faster the P4c is in ever respect.
SO much so that I will NOT go back to an AMD product for a very long time.
These i875 boards will do 300Mhz on their BUS, we just need better memory.
My next upgrade will be a P4c with a 9fab, that will happen just before the
new P5(?). I expect the last P4c/9fab will do 4GHz or more, that will be
something.
 
thanks...

but i wonder why i don't get more than 15500 3dmarks2001....;)

greetings

atlan
 
Hey, I'm with you. I'm presently an Intel fan, but aren't you the same guy
on the overclocking newslist who said that there wasn't that much speed
difference between your old AMD and your new Intel. Please don't make me do
a Goggle search for the precise quote.

While I don't think AMD can come out on top right now, I also don't think
there's that much real world difference in performance between the fastest
AMD system and the fastest Intel. As far as benchmarks go, pick the ones
you like. AMD wins some, Intel wins some. And, there's no debating that a
good AMD overclocker will cost hundreds less than Intel. An XP 1700+ and
mobo will run about $130 vs. a P4 3.0 and mobo for about $550. The
overclocked AMD will come pretty close to the stock Intel, and to some
people $410 bucks is meaningful.

I must have missed the news. When did we all decide that "bigger cache and
higher ratings are bullshit for Barton"? I've read many opinions that say
just the opposite.

My point: Put together the system that meets your needs and budget. Intel
may be the ultimate right now for people who have to have the best numbers,
but there's very little real world difference in performance. To be honest,
I don't see too much game play or video difference between my current
kick-ass Intel setup and my two year old AMD 2100+ setup. Maybe my games
are too old.

Finally: 255 FSB and 3.3 Ghz from a 2.6 processor? That's a pretty good
overclock, particularly if it's stable. Congratulations. What memory
divider? What's your memory bandwidth?
 
Well dont know about a FX5900 but my FX5800 Ultra with no overclocking paired
with a XP2400+ (Again not overclocked) gets me just over 5500 on 3dMark 2003.
 
Can't say why your 3DMk2001 is proportionately lower, but for reference, I
scored 18917 on 3Dmk2001 with the same setup that scored 5878 on 3Dmk2003.

15500/5500 = 2.818
18917/5878 = 3.218

Intuitively, one would assume that the ratios should be about the same. I
guess there's more to the 9800 than just a few cosmetic changes.
 
The P4C is a whole lot faster then the Athlons. Look at the Sandra PR
ratings, their fairly accurate.
Click to expand...

The first bit maybe, but Sandra is so far from being an accurate benchmark
of anything it's laughable.
 
I do think for the dollar difference an overclocked AMD 1700+ will run
close
enough to a P4 3.0 to make it a very good choice.
Click to expand...

Indeed. My oc'd 1700+, 10.5x230fsb, oc'd 9700pro, just slightly beats
a stock 3ghz 800fsb P4 + 9800pro in 3dmark2003. Obviously I had to work
hard on cooling and voltmods and experimenting to get this result, but hay
that's what's fun!

rms
 
The ole torque vs horsepower debate begins anew and nothin beats cubic
inches ;)

No overclocking in the world can add transistors to a CPU, OCing just adds
some RPM's down the back straight is all :-)

Mitch
 
Back
Top