How do you tell the difference between 9800pro and 9800pro se

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jason
  • Start date Start date
J

Jason

I just bought a gigabyte 9800pro and my 3dmark scores seem low, properties
say 9800pro(also says i have a secondary pci display????)
3dmark2003 5341
aquamark 35,341

System is
xp2400 (bus o/c from 133 to 166 multiplied up 2005)
512ddr Twinmos 333
MSI KT4V onboard sound
120gig 8m cache maxtor
Winxp sp1
Latest drivers off ati site

hope someone can help
 
Looks ok to me, especially the aquamark score. That's about what I get with
my 9800 non pro - flashed and running at pro speeds - on an Athlon 2800 with
1 gig of pc3200 ddr ram.

JK
 
Actually, I think that AM3 score looks very low. I get 34,900...I'm running
a 9700np !!! That person (and you!) should be getting somewhere in the area
of about 40,000+!

Especially, considering that the CPU and memory are decent.

People with 9800pro's (and decent processor/memory) have been, easily,
getting 42,000 aquamarks with that bench...

-
John Hall stood up at show-n-tell, in
[email protected], and said:
 
If I recall correctly, I'm getting around 38000 with 4xaa and 8xaf on. The
only place where it slows down is the big explosion.

JK
 
Ok. I, generally, run all benchmarks with driver settings down to bare
minimum. I can crack 26,000, with all turned up to full in D3D. Point is,
we need a baseline. Having various settings turned up, only confuses
things. What do you get, when you run with all D3D settings for 'fastest'?
I'm thinking you'll whip my ass, if you do it that way. It's a
baseline...it means nothing when we start adding AF and AA settings.

-
John Hall stood up at show-n-tell, in
pR6hb.57859$ko%[email protected], and said:
 
Yeah, I was running it at my preferred settings because I wanted to see how
my performance was with eye candy turned on. I must say that I wasn't
disappointed. I'll run it with settings at fastest and let you know.

JK
 
Ok, I ran the test and I'm getting 38565 with all setting turned down in
D3D. Interesting, it's not much different than with settings turned up.
Think I'll run it again with the settings turned up to see if there is a
diff.

JK
 
34252 with eye candy turned on, 4xaa and 8xaf. Everything is very smooth.
By the way, I downloaded the Call of Duty demo which requires a DirectX 9a
compatible video card and cannot get over how good the demo looks and how
smooth it runs on my 9800 flashed pro. Direct X9 sure raises the bar when
it comes to looks and performance, and the radeons are the way it should be
played right now.

JK
 
I guess that doesn't seem too off-keel. You pull about 4,000 more, than I
do, eye-candy or not.
-
John Hall stood up at show-n-tell, in
2hphb.63205$ko%[email protected], and said:
34252 with eye candy turned on, 4xaa and 8xaf. Everything is very
smooth. By the way, I downloaded the Call of Duty demo which requires
a DirectX 9a compatible video card and cannot get over how good the
demo looks and how smooth it runs on my 9800 flashed pro. Direct X9
sure raises the bar when it comes to looks and performance, and the
radeons are the way it should be played right now.

JK
Click to expand...
<snip>
 
Back
Top