Post Your Benchmark!

sheik124 · Mar 16, 2004

I hope this grows into one of those nice stickies
Anyways, here are my AquaMark 3 results on my AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512MB PC133 RAM, GeForce FX 5700 non-Ultra not-Overclocked, gonna post new results w/core at 440 and mem at 565

Aquamark 3 TriScore
GFX: 3204
CPU: 3632
Aqumark 3 Score: 22,228

Triangles/sec: 6691431
22.23 Average FPS

Nighty0 · Mar 16, 2004

Pentium 4 1.6Ghz (512kb L2), Inno3D GF FX5600 nonultra 256MB, 256MB Rambus, i850 chipset, WinXP SP1

Benchmark 2004-01-27 10-54-41
DRIVER: 6.14.10.5306
AquaMark Score: 16526 (CPU: 4140, GFX: 2063)
FPS: 16.53 TPS: 4974 K

Benchmark 2004-01-27 10-11-15
DRIVER: 6.14.10.5303
AquaMark Score: 16740 (CPU: 3936, GFX: 2126)
FPS: 16.74 TPS: 5039 K

No overclocked, using 3D settings (350/500)
Running AVG antivirus, BlackIce Firewall and Intel Active Monitor.....
I making new tests with 56.64 drivers...... posting soon........

vleespet · Mar 16, 2004

Radeon 9800pro at a pretty fast 3.0 ghz system with Cataclyst 4.3 (at original clocking speed):

36,325

fivefeet8 · Mar 16, 2004

Default Aquamark test:
1024x768
no AA
4xAF

GFX: 6894
CPU: 8325
13,749,406 Triangles/s
47.68 Fps average

Score: 47,677

Tagrineth · Mar 16, 2004

Someone link me the bench and I'll run it...

cooliscool · Mar 16, 2004

http://www.aquamark3.com/

I'll run the test later.

sheik124 · Mar 16, 2004

Nighty0 said:
I making new tests with 56.64 drivers...... posting soon........

i used those in the first place

, by the way, does anyone know how to flash my 5700 with a 5700U bios if its even possible

Tagrineth · Mar 16, 2004

General:
Name: Benchmark 2004-03-16 17-39-58
Processor:
Vendor: GenuineIntel
Name: Pentium(R) III processor
SpeedMHz: 797
Type: 0
Family: 6
Model: 8
Stepping: 3
Flags: 0x0383F9FF
Number: 1
HyperThreading: n/a
MemoryOS: 267698176
Graphics:
Description: RADEON 9700 PRO
Vendor: 4098
Device: 20036
SubSys: 135170
Revision: 0
CoreClock: 277
MemoryClock: 270
Driver: ati2dvag.dll
DriverVersion: 6.14.10.6414
VideoMemory: 134217728
TextureMemory: 181403648
OperatingSystem:
Version: Microsoft Windows XP
Type:
Build: Service Pack 1 2600
Run0:
DisplayWidth: 1024
DisplayHeight: 768
DisplayDepth: 32
AntialiasingMode: 0
AntialiasingQuality: 0
AnisotropicFiltering: 4
DetailLevel: 4
AvgFPS: 12.073363
MinFPS: 6.825956
MaxFPS: 32.640961
AvgFPSRender: 16.685991
AvgFPSSimulation: 43.674973
AvgTrianglesPerSecond: 3634470
MinTrianglesPerSecond: 500599
MaxTrianglesPerSecond: 18888795
AquamarkScoreRender: 1668
AquamarkScoreSimulation: 2183
AquamarkScore: 12073

Tagrineth · Mar 16, 2004

That's on my 9500 Pro with Catalyst 4.2, with AIM and KaZaA running, and Firefox and WinAMP loaded.

sheik124 · Mar 16, 2004

wow, 56.64 really suck balls, i liked the 56.5x more, rolling back.......

Nighty0 · Mar 17, 2004

sheik124 said:
wow, 56.64 really suck balls, i liked the 56.5x more, rolling back.......

is more slower, but have a lot of bug fixes.....

cooliscool · Mar 17, 2004

Runs like absolute ass on my GF4 MX 440 8X.

Min 1.5FPS. :\ I didn't even have the patience to finish the bench. Jeez, I need a new card.

My specs are: Intel Celeron Tualatin 1200@1745MHz, 145MHz FSB, 256KB L2 Cache | Jetway 694TAS Motherboard - Via Apollo 133T Chipset | 384MB PC-133@145MHz CAS 2-2-2 | Joytech nVidia GeForce4 MX 440 8X 64MB DDR | Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS USB | Windows XP Home w/ Service Pack 1

sheik124 · Mar 17, 2004

wow, the G4 MX 440 should run a *little* better than that, the benchmark ran like that on my S3 prosavage built into my KM133 chipset (i think its similar to Apollo 133 but for AMD instead, don't flame if i am wrong) and my card is only running at AGP 2X

cooliscool · Mar 17, 2004

Apperently not.. I'm certain it isn't my CPU.. my CPU is much better than Tagrineth's (yours and Night0's aswell

) and you guys got a respectable score.

/me wants a 9500+

LazerTag · Mar 17, 2004

General:
Name: Benchmark 2003-11-13 19-18-09

Processor:
Vendor: GenuineIntel
Name: Pentium(R) 4 processor
SpeedMHz: 2393
Type: 0
Family: 15
Model: 2
Stepping: 1
Flags: 0xBFEBFBFF
Number: 1
HyperThreading: activated and used
MemoryOS: 535818240

Graphics:
Description: RADEON 9600 SERIES
Vendor: 4098
Device: 16720
SubSys: 135170
Revision: 0
CoreClock: 398
MemoryClock: 297
Driver: ati2dvag.dll
DriverVersion: 6.14.10.6396
VideoMemory: 134217728
TextureMemory: 248512512

OperatingSystem:
Version: Microsoft Windows XP
Type:
Build: Service Pack 1 2600

Run0:
DisplayWidth: 1024
DisplayHeight: 768
DisplayDepth: 32
AntialiasingMode: 0
AntialiasingQuality: 0
AnisotropicFiltering: 4
DetailLevel: 4
AvgFPS: 26.169905
MinFPS: 6.306303
MaxFPS: 96.000000
AvgFPSRender: 31.421894
AvgFPSSimulation: 156.633148
AvgTrianglesPerSecond: 7877474
MinTrianglesPerSecond: 991038
MaxTrianglesPerSecond: 17748489
AquamarkScoreRender: 3141
AquamarkScoreSimulation: 7832
AquamarkScore: 26169

I may run this again sometime since this one is from back in November. My system has changed a bit since and may score higher.

Nighty0 · Mar 17, 2004

cooliscool said:
Apperently not.. I'm certain it isn't my CPU.. my CPU is much better than Tagrineth's (yours and Night0's aswell ) and you guys got a respectable score.

/me wants a 9500+

a celeron 1.2 is better than any P4??????
i have a P4 (Northwood) 1.6A, i can overclock to 2.4 if my mobo (intel genuine)
was able to modify clock speeds......

and

and 16k is a average score.......

/me wants a radeon 9800... =)

edit..... only 14k with 56.64 drivers...........

cooliscool · Mar 18, 2004

Nighty0 said:
a celeron 1.2 is better than any P4??????
i have a P4 (Northwood) 1.6A, i can overclock to 2.4 if my mobo (intel genuine)
was able to modify clock speeds...... and

and 16k is a average score.......

/me wants a radeon 9800... =)

edit..... only 14k with 56.64 drivers...........

Yep, my Tualatin most likely out performs your P4.. (it's running at 1745MHz btw.. at 1.2 it probably wouldn't) but not if you OC it to 2.4GHz.

sheik124 · Mar 18, 2004

the tualatins were *ALL* better than the original P4s, or at least i heard, but my Athlon XP 1600+ OWNZ you, it roxxors

cooliscool · Mar 18, 2004

sheik124 said:
the tualatins were *ALL* better than the original P4s, or at least i heard, but my Athlon XP 1600+ OWNZ you, it roxxors

Find a CPU only benchmark and compare me against you. I'm certain you won't OWNZ me.

Tagrineth · Mar 18, 2004

Another run, this time with no apps loaded at all (except ATi's tray icon).

General:
Name: Benchmark 2004-03-17 14-14-00
Processor:
Vendor: GenuineIntel
Name: Pentium(R) III processor
SpeedMHz: 797
Type: 0
Family: 6
Model: 8
Stepping: 3
Flags: 0x0383F9FF
Number: 1
HyperThreading: n/a
MemoryOS: 267698176
Graphics:
Description: RADEON 9700 PRO
Vendor: 4098
Device: 20036
SubSys: 135170
Revision: 0
CoreClock: 277
MemoryClock: 270
Driver: ati2dvag.dll
DriverVersion: 6.14.10.6414
VideoMemory: 134217728
TextureMemory: 181403648
OperatingSystem:
Version: Microsoft Windows XP
Type:
Build: Service Pack 1 2600
Run0:
DisplayWidth: 1024
DisplayHeight: 768
DisplayDepth: 32
AntialiasingMode: 0
AntialiasingQuality: 0
AnisotropicFiltering: 4
DetailLevel: 4
AvgFPS: 17.661385
MinFPS: 7.067209
MaxFPS: 47.992168
AvgFPSRender: 24.391624
AvgFPSSimulation: 64.004173
AvgTrianglesPerSecond: 5316644
MinTrianglesPerSecond: 611597
MaxTrianglesPerSecond: 22400136
AquamarkScoreRender: 2439
AquamarkScoreSimulation: 3201
AquamarkScore: 17661

Post Your Benchmark!

Emutalk Member

Gentoo n00b

The decent one

-= Clark Kent -X- =-

Dragony thingy

Nintendo Zealot

Emutalk Member

Dragony thingy

Dragony thingy

Emutalk Member

Gentoo n00b

Nintendo Zealot

Emutalk Member

Nintendo Zealot

Leap of Faith

Gentoo n00b

Nintendo Zealot

Emutalk Member

Nintendo Zealot

Dragony thingy