p3 650 at 910 alpha cooled
p3bf
384 megs of pc100ram
prophet ddr 140/345
live xgamer
2940u2w
netgear nic
9.1 u2w lvd quantum
plextor wide
pioneer 6x slot scsi
super floppy LS 120
zip 250 usb
mid tower
20" sony
6091
Greg
AMD 4 ever! Wana step outside and Decide? PCabusers.net the upandcomming
If I only had a mobo... I'd throw together a system that would spank you guys' crap scores!! I have an ORIGINAL Pentium 60.. yep, the one with the bug... and I'd put it with a 1Mb Cirrus Logic vid card I've got in the bottom of a box, and coupled with a spare 4MB SIMM... you guys would be HOSED... I bet I could pull a 3DMark of 50....
Got my Asus 7700 Up N runnin today/ defaults, Including Video card defaults, ( NO OC YET ),
6364 at 1024/
What a difference, I will start Tweaking tomm, to see what I can get outta this card,I am just Happy it does my favorite fsb
P3 650 at 948
Asus 7700 GTS
256mb pc133 Mushkin
etc
------------------
Help me get this Boot outta my azz!!!!
[This message has been edited by Big Lar (edited 06-30-2000).]
i got a AMD 80486DX2 80MHz o/c'ed to 100MHz with a 1mb card, i could put in the 512k trident cards that i have layin around. come to think of it, my dad has an old 386 layin around in his closet. a friend brought over some old compaq 486 *i believe* this is what they are.
CPU Intel Pentium III 800 Mhz
(No damned SMP support. What about 'tomorrow's games', Mad Onion? T&L is the best and SMP is never going to happen?)
3D Accelerator 3dfx Voodoo5
(The reason why 3dmarks mean crap to me anymore. Unfair bias for T&L and against FSAA. For notes, my no FSAA and FSAAx2 scores differ by less than **50 points** FSAAx4 unfortunately lags at about 1/2 the original marks.)
This is FSAAx2:
3DMark Result 3481 3D marks
CPU Speed 192 CPU 3D marks
Game 1 - Helicopter - Low Detail 71.0 FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - Medium Detail 45.2 FPS
Game 1 - Helicopter - High Detail 18.1 FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Low Detail 86.3 FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - Medium Detail 44.2 FPS
Game 2 - Adventure - High Detail 25.4 FPS
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 316.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 592.2 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 3490 KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (4 Lights) 3125 KTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 2756 KTriangles/s
8MB Texture Rendering Speed 263.3 FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed 256.1 FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed 161.1 FPS
Screensaver kicked on as 64Mb was beginning, 3dmark died. I'm not here to start another GF2 vs. V5 flame, I'm just saying that V5 and GF2 are currently state of the art, and the perfect accelerator for two different groups. For the online fragfest Q3A guys, GF2 leaves all others far behind. For the 3d for the sake of great visuals people V5's 2X FSAA puts it head and shoulders above the competition. The bottom line is this: The V5 and GF2 are exceedingly close in a great number of categories, and real life T&L usage in games is not showing anywhere near the benefits 3dmark gets. I feel it is misleading to the potential customer to see a tweaked out V5 box managing only ~4000 marks while GF2 systems slam out 6000-7000 90% of the time. I agree that GF2 is faster, but almost twice as fast? Give me a break. Most benchmarks put GF2 and V5 withing a few fps of each other, with GF2 breaking away by 10 fps or more very rarely (never?). I bought my V5 for 50$ less than a GF2 and I'm happy with it. All I ask is that 3dmark de-weight the T&L scores, as they are badly misleading. please email wyrmfoe@icdc.com if you support this idea and would like to be included in a list I'm submitting to Mad Onion.
Reply With Quote
)
Bookmarks