23324 point with 9800pro

[Spider]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8038745

this a good score

i think the is more in it though

core 460 mem 387

[EnJoY]

I got the same score on my Shuttle AN50R with A64 3200+ C0 @ (10x235) with my 9800 Pro clocked at 428/384.

So I think you need to work on getting your fsb up and doing a few tweaks.

[Geforce4ti4200]

thats because hes using winblows xp and probably worse ram timings than you. He still beat my 9800 pro though, grrrrrr I hate mine!

[Spider]

timings are 5-2-2-5 but i'm only using ltd 2 does that have anything to do with it?

[Spider]

where can i finde some tweaks?

[-=TriX=-]

have you tried the blackviper service tweaks yet?

http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm

I'm running WS2k3 and can get my system down to 6 running processes for benchmarking. Another thing that helps me is disabling any peripherals I will not need, i.e. sound, USB, Firwire port, etc...This is getting pretty extreme though and you may not want to go through all the trouble for a miniimal gain.

You can also run the benchmark in realtime priority mode netting you some more points, make sure nothing unecessary is running while you are benching. Also in your display properties set all the D3D settings to best performance.

You can run the benchmark in a different order to possibly get a better score i.e.

Drago Low
Lobby Low
Car High
Drago High
Lobby High
Nature
Car Low

Lastly, running the beta 3.8s and DX9C netted me a 700-800 point increase over dx9b and the omegas based onthe cat 3.7s. (system in reference a P4C and 9700)

good luck dude :up:

[WesM63]

Not bad, I'm scoring 22445 with only 2.2ghz and 440/360 clocks.

If your big on benching try win2000 and dx8.1 I gained 200marks with just making that change.

[EnJoY]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
thats because hes using winblows xp and probably worse ram timings than you. He still beat my 9800 pro though, grrrrrr I hate mine!

I use Win XP and I had the same timings on that system with my BH5.

Why do you make comments based on things you don't know? lol :P:

[Mini]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
thats because hes using winblows xp and probably worse ram timings than you. He still beat my 9800 pro though, grrrrrr I hate mine!

If you turn off all the services and tasks running in winXP then it uses JUST as much ram as a tweaked Win2000... WinXP doesnt blow??? I think it GREAT compared to the 5 year old win2000... Thats just outdated... Just because its better at benching because your lazy :D

Read the blackviper link... Do all the tweaks they have and XP will get MUCH more than win2000...

[Spider]

tnx for the help guys

[bldegle2]

forgive Tbird, he ONLY benches, nothing else, so win2000 is his choice for max runs of 3Dmark, EVERYDAY.

yes, i agree, WinXP is better, and really good if you run the Pro Corp edition, no registering with M$ required and unlimited hardware changes.

if you are running XP home, then daily switching of vid cards for 3dmark runs would require a call to M$ to reactivate every four changes or so, something Tbird is trying to avoid i am sure.

BTW, nice run with the 9800, gonna luv to see what mine gets with the a64 and the new DFI board that is presently on the horizon.

baldy

:slapass:

[mongoled]

Originally posted by Mini
If you turn off all the services and tasks running in winXP then it uses JUST as much ram as a tweaked Win2000... WinXP doesnt blow??? I think it GREAT compared to the 5 year old win2000... Thats just outdated... Just because its better at benching because your lazy :D

Read the blackviper link... Do all the tweaks they have and XP will get MUCH more than win2000...

Im sorry mini but this information is not correct, even diasbling all the services there is a distinct difference betweeen the performance of the two OS's. I dont know if SP2 has changed that, but for those of us who have tried to squeeze every last inch out of our systems this is common knowledge.

mong

[-=TriX=-]

any proof of these claims for either side of the issue, mong or mini?

Supporting evidence is usally a sound idea in a debate or when presenting your views on an issue

;)

[Geforce4ti4200]

Originally posted by mongoled
Im sorry mini but this information is not correct, even diasbling all the services there is a distinct difference betweeen the performance of the two OS's. I dont know if SP2 has changed that, but for those of us who have tried to squeeze every last inch out of our systems this is common knowledge.

mong


thank you. a tweaked winxp can match an untweaked 2k but then a tweaked 2k will just pull ahead again. bldegle2 likes xp for its features but this will slow down his 3dmark and gaming

[-=TriX=-]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
thank you. a tweaked winxp can match an untweaked 2k but then a tweaked 2k will just pull ahead again.

--------->


Supporting evidence is usally a sound idea in a debate or when presenting your views on an issue

It would do a lot of good around here if people starte backing their claims up w/ ome sort of legitimate support. The pointless biquering that goes on around here would b minimal if you all started doing this, but then it wouldn't be as entertaining for thos who sit back and enjoy the amusement...

:()

[Geforce4ti4200]

just search the orb, all the top scores were with win 2k, I think this speaks plenty. also compare a 2k score and an xp score with same cpu and gpu clocks and youll see the xp score is 300-500+ marks down! this goes especially for athlon xps

[Shade00]

Originally posted by Geforce4ti4200
also compare a 2k score and an xp score with same cpu and gpu clocks and youll see the xp score is 300-500+ marks down!

I'd like to see that. Same drivers, same clocks, everything. Untweaked or tweaked for both O/Ses.

[WesM63]

grr... i don't want to agree with ti4200, but its true, I gained 181marks by switching to 2000. I even used lower vid clocks on the 2000 run because it was extremly hot in my room! Same cpu clocks, same drivers, except i didn't install dx9 on the 2000machine.

Either way I gained 181marks with lower vid card clocks.

[dmon]

I think your score is a little low for 2500 mhz. Were you 1:1 ? Clawhammer or newcastle? Here's my 2400 run.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7552423

As far as the XP tweaks go they never gave me too much. What did help my score recently is DX 9c , the 4.9 driver and the A64 tweaker. I think I gained around 500 points.

[WesM63]

Compare them for yoursleves XP vs 2000

XP : http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8032257

2000:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8036809

My score after some team advice:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8039731

[Geforce4ti4200]

I told you! look at the HUGE gains in car and lobby with win 2k! were talking like 8fps here! If you had the same gpu clocks for win 2k as xp, youd be like 500 marks higher if not more! I keep telling people how winblows xp sucks and is way slower in games and 3dmark!

[WesM63]

Geforce,
You didn't tell me anything. If you look at the compares there are many things that could cause me to gain those marks. Just one of them begin win2000. Plus my xp install was old and bloated, the 2000 install was fresh. I was also using dx9 on xp and 8.1 on 2000.

True it did help, but it could by multiple things that helped.

[Geforce4ti4200]

look at the difference in car and lobby, that is not even close to margin of error

[r3b0rN]

i wanna see winxp vs win2000 identical setups in far cry, doom 3, unreal tournament 2004.

[Geforce4ti4200]

itll be slower just as it was slower in 3dmark cause winxp uses more cpu cycles

[craig588]

GF4 is right, I have done alot of testing. I didn't save the results, I figured people would belive me because the results seemed obvious, guess not.

I spent like a month learning every single tweak for Windows XP and then I did a fresh format of it and only had the bare minimum of things installed for 3dmark to run.

I did the same thing for Windows 2K. 2K was around 600 points faster with an average of 7FPS higher in every test.

[[XC]thewildblue]

Windows 2000 is faster for AMD chips and XP is faster for Intel.

Simple as that.

[-=TriX=-]

Originally posted by thewildblue
Windows 2000 is faster for AMD chips and XP is faster for Intel.

Simple as that.

where does windows server 2k3 fit in?

and thanks for the comparison wes

[craig588]

lol, I did my testing with a P4C.

[r3b0rN]

windows server 2003 is good for superpi/pifast.

[mongoled]

Originally posted by -=TriX=-
any proof of these claims for either side of the issue, mong or mini?

Supporting evidence is usally a sound idea in a debate or when presenting your views on an issue

;)

Trix while i fully agree with your thoughts that claims should be backed up with supporting evidence, the subject being discussed is old news for alot of members who frequent these forums.

Those of you who adhere otherwise should go out and do the stuff alot of us have done months ago and bring your own findings to the table.

Even geforce man knows this!! There is a plethora of information out there within the orb and other sources which backs up the 'claim' that 2000 is the faster OS with regards to 3dmark01.

Now if SP2/dx9.0c and a certain driver set has changed this I would gladly like to see evidence that XP is faster than 2000. Ofcourse the person presenting the evidence would need to be a member whom I believe is competent on providing sufficient controled test conditions.

As to where I stand, win2000 with dx8.1 and cat driver 3.1/3.5/3.6 is the combination for ATI card based on R3xx core irrespective of processor company. For other ati cores or nvidia cards I dont know but from what I have seen this is the case also (with regards to older generation).

You may probably be aware that as we add more denominators into the equation more possible questions need to be asked, hence my reasoning to STFU and not get futher drawn into a debate which for me is non-debatable at this present time

mong

[-=TriX=-]

Understood, sorry to be a pest, but not all of us are able or have the time to keep up with every intricate detail in the benchmarking domain. It would be nice to say the least if a collective source for all these nitpicks and findings were made.

I have had good results w/ DX9C/WS2k3/4.8 beta cats. I fail to see the justification in formatting, installing a new OS, installing apps, configuring the system just for a minimal game in one benchmark. But perhaps this is a sign that I am not as "xtreme" as some of you (:p), rather most likely that I do not have as much time or resources.

:)

Anyhow, I wonder what kind of progress the original poster has made.

[mongoled]

Sorry trix i just read my own post and in hindsight probably should have put a :) at the end of it. looks like im too serious

doh

Oh and we have seemed to have derailed this guys thread, whoops soz, would be cool for him to update the thread so peeps can see how hes getting on

:)

thats better

mong

[WesM63]

I found that XP-64 (for A64) is 1sec faster than XP in Superpi. (stock system both base installs)

Trix,
No problem, I had to find out for myself. Hence the results.

[LBJGH]

23085... nipping at your heals with 300mhz clock disadvantage. :p
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8020623


Originally posted by Spider
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8038745

this a good score

i think the is more in it though

core 460 mem 387