I found this over at Futuremark's site. This could very well be Photochopped, or not? Here is the original link to the site from which the screenshot came. http://news.mydrivers.com/pages/2004...1531_17315.htm
Printable View
I found this over at Futuremark's site. This could very well be Photochopped, or not? Here is the original link to the site from which the screenshot came. http://news.mydrivers.com/pages/2004...1531_17315.htm
Here's the screenie.....
Hard to tell, but I have a score just like that one on a 9800pro. It would be nice to see the individual scores and the system specs
You have a 12,000 score in 03 on a 9800pro?? Maybe on one of the individual tests, but surely not the composite score.....:stick:Quote:
Originally posted by pkrew
Hard to tell, but I have a score just like that one on a 9800pro. It would be nice to see the individual scores and the system specs
LOL, you can't get 12k on indiviual test. It was a glitch score, but that's my point there are several of those out there.
LMAO, I didn't mean 12,000 on an individual test. HeHe. I meant that you possible got a similar score on one of the tests like in the screenie.....
what's new > 12,962 http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...388#post417388 :)Quote:
Originally posted by Mrstickinit
I found this over at Futuremark's site. This could very well be Photochopped, or not? Here is the original link to the site from which the screenshot came. http://news.mydrivers.com/pages/2004...1531_17315.htm
That was a bugged nature score... the rest on here are all consistent...
I'm 80% sure that's photochopped, look at the 2 and the 5 in the 12,510 score in the big box on the right, the 2 looks a bit misplaced and so does the 5, they look a little too close to each other relative to the other numbers.
Yes, it can be photoshoped... but, ill wait for some trusty scores are out :)Quote:
Originally posted by Arkangyl
I'm 80% sure that's photochopped, look at the 2 and the 5 in the 12,510 score in the big box on the right, the 2 looks a bit misplaced and so does the 5, they look a little too close to each other relative to the other numbers.
I dont think that its a real score at all.
The GT1 at 450+ FPS just requires too much from the rest of the system - something like P4EE @6GHz might do it :D
Also how come the system info part of the 3dmark screen has been blocked there?
Also if you do the maths..
10008 x 1.25 = 12510
I think that someone just wanted to be a clever boy and faked a 'NV40 stock 3DMark03 run' - it "happend" to be excatly 25% above the current top hardware :D
Omg Macci nice find man... :)Quote:
Originally posted by macci
Also if you do the maths..
10008 x 1.25 = 12510
I think that someone just wanted to be a clever boy and faked a 'NV40 stock 3DMark03 run' - it "happend" to be excatly 25% above the current top hardware :D
how cpu intensive is game one anyway? wont a faster gpu still increase the fps in that first dx7 test?
Of course the GPU speed will give an improvement there but the score just doesn't make any sense. It seems that the GT1 is getting clearly the biggest boost here - and its a DX7 test (most system speed dependent)! :D
Here is what an average system (lets say 3.2GHz P4) w/ very highly clocked FX5950 would get:
GT1 = 260
GT2 = 64
GT3 = 52
GT4 = 56
Now here is what the 'NV40' gets - I'm assuming that its useing a normal CPU power as its supposed to be a stock clock score (so ~3.2G P4 system speed)
GT1 = 453FPS 74% boost over NV35!?
GT2 = 83FPS 30% boost
GT3 = 72FPS 38% boost
GT4 = 71FPS 27% boost
74% boost in the dx7/system speed test and only 27-38% extra speed in DX9 GPU dependent tests?
Doesn't make much sense does it?
Although I wouldn't normally argue with macci's analysis I have had a few beers this afternoon :D so would like to throw upQuote:
Originally posted by macci
Of course the GPU speed will give an improvement there but the score just doesn't make any sense. It seems that the GT1 is getting clearly the biggest boost here - and its a DX7 test (most system speed dependent)! :D
Here is what an average system (lets say 3.2GHz P4) w/ very highly clocked FX5950 would get:
GT1 = 260
GT2 = 64
GT3 = 52
GT4 = 56
Now here is what the 'NV40' gets - I'm assuming that its useing a normal CPU power as its supposed to be a stock clock score (so ~3.2G P4 system speed)
GT1 = 453FPS 74% boost over NV35!?
GT2 = 83FPS 30% boost
GT3 = 72FPS 38% boost
GT4 = 71FPS 27% boost
74% boost in the dx7/system speed test and only 27-38% extra speed in DX9 GPU dependent tests?
Doesn't make much sense does it?
1) Although the GT1 score does look AWOL as it is the only test that is cpu partially dependent, nvidia complained that GT1 was single textured ( mainly ) when it came out which did not suite their 4x2 cards. Now if 16x1 rumours are true then maybe it will be a lot better ?
2) What are the ratio's like ? Does the ratio of GT2 to GT3 to GT4 look ok ? If it does how did they accurately guess these ratio's but then go nuts on GT1, that would be a big mistake? If GT2 to GT3 to GT4 is rubbish then I subtract my first point.
Regards
Andy
The funny thing here is that EVERY GT result is pretty much exactly 25% higher than on my 10008 score (give or take 1%) :D
So basically it could be true IF:
A) hes running a 4.5GHz P4EE
B) the NV40 at stock speed is indeed exactly 25% faster than the R9800XT @657/471 in every Game Test
c) NVIDIA has really improved there DX7 speed :D
Yeah, maybe I am reading too much into this and they just decided to bench windows calculator to get the score :) !!!!! Given past history this is almost certainly the case. However ....Quote:
Originally posted by macci
The funny thing here is that EVERY GT result is pretty much exactly 25% higher than on my 10008 score (give or take 1%) :D
So basically it could be true IF:
A) hes running a 4.5GHz P4EE
B) the NV40 at stock speed is indeed exactly 25% faster than the R9800XT @657/471 in every Game Test
c) NVIDIA has really improved there DX7 speed :D
Playing it as true still though, if C is true then they did so at the cost for DX9 as his GT4 score is lower than his GT3 ( DX8 ) where as yours is higher ( as is FUGGERS and OPPS ) .
This would paint a picture of nv40 being vastly better in single texture DX7 games, OK in DX8 and needing some work on the drivers in DX9.
Whatever, I'm looking forward to 2001 and 03 scores come Tuesday to see what's what, if any of the major web sites are still using it ;)
Regards
Andy
Is this the real Screen shot that every site is talking about showing that the NV40 can do 12k in 03,,, or is this some screeny made up by someone after the rummor that the NV40 could do 12k?
OPP
They probably just changed the settings to a lower resolution or something to make it a higher score.
Could be, but the pic says 1024x768, but that could be edited too I guess.Quote:
Originally posted by Jrocket
They probably just changed the settings to a lower resolution or something to make it a higher score.
Who knows OPP.... As I said in my original post, I pulled this off of Futuremark's website last night and it could entirely be fake. macci makes an interesting point in the fact that the score is 25% faster than his, however, it very well be a correct score.Quote:
Originally posted by OPPAINTER
Is this the real Screen shot that every site is talking about showing that the NV40 can do 12k in 03,,, or is this some screeny made up by someone after the rummor that the NV40 could do 12k?
OPP
Has anyone gone to the Korean? website in the link I provided and translated? I see that there are comments on there about individual scores but cannot make out what they say.
nVidia may have pulled out all of the stops on this card folks. Maybe they are tired of ATI kicking their a$$es in the graphics war and have played a trump card. I guess we'll find out in a few hours.....
Let me ask this though. Over the last few days and weeks, we have seen all kinds of claims on what the NV40 may or may not be capable of, including clock speeds, pipelines, Pixel Shader counts, card layout, molex power connectors, etc. Where are all of the r380's specs? How come we're not hearing about ATI's latest and greatest? Yes, we have heard a few things about it, but only after a claim is brought forth about the NV40 in a refute attempt. Is ATI silently shaking in their boots about the NV40, or are they laughing behind the scenes knowing that their next offering will once again be the best and the brightest......?
I'm just thinking that if this is the screeny that the 12k rummor was started by then maybe the card isn't all that great,, if this is a fake screeny.
OPP
Quote:
Originally posted by OPPAINTER
I'm just thinking that if this is the screeny that the 12k rummor was started by then maybe the card isn't all that great,, if this is a fake screeny.
OPP
I dont believe that this is the screenie that started it OPP. The rumor was started after a story was posted at TheInquirer website that said the NV40 was pushing 12,535 3DMarks. Here is the link to that story http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15169
Lots of unkowns here, the 12 535 is the score nvidia were pushing around but nobody knows which driver set they were done with. If you use Futuremarks "good" 52.16 you lose 700 points going from 53.03 and that is with a 5700U where you are only scoring 5000 and not 12000, so depending on the driver set a real certified score might be 12.5k minus 1k , assuming 12k is accurate.
On the other hand the 60 series drivers might make it all back without optimisations ??? Who knows ?
And that is not taking into account Rivatuner which will make a big + on GT2, GT3 and GT4 .. so there are too many unknowns like I say, best to see what the first testers do and what driver set they are using.
What I am interested in is 3dmark2001 with this card, if it can be used with the "optimised" 44.03 drivers and it really is very very good in DX8 then nature is going to be massive.
The one thing you can say about nvidia is that there are plenty of driver permutations, that is why I love benching them so much.
:)
Regards
Andy
Its possible that the NV40 will pull a 12k stock but the score SHOULD NOT look like that one posted on this thread. GT1 should be lower and GT2-4 higher as those are more video speed dependent.
System speed (CPU/RAM) is the limiting factor in several parts of the GT1 so video speed boost will not make a huge improvement on that one.
Theoretical 20% boost in video card speed would give something like 20% boost in GT2-4 and 5% in GT1. in the 12.5k pic its just the opposite - and it makes no sense :D
I totally agree with macci. 450 in GT1 is pure BS.
Whoever faked this cant possible be a 3dmark bencher. Not a smart one anyway.
*cough*photoshop*cough*
I have to agree with macci and OPP on this one. It does look like the scores are out of wack and if it was a stock card on a stock system then why not show the system specs. Also I think that its usually the manufacturer who starts these rumors in the first place. If that's the case then IMHO this doesn't bode well for the NV40. The only reason for a manufacturer to start such a rumor is to highten attention to their product hoping to get as many as they can to buy it when it first hits the shelves, before a lot of the reviews come out and before their competition releases their product. This tells me that Nvidia thinks that the NV40 is going to be slower then the new ATIs. Otherwise they wouldn't have the need to start the rumor as the card would just sell itself
even if that score wasnt faked, who cares about fast dx7 performance, those dx9 fps arent looking too good, me thinks the r420 would own the nv40 in dx9 where it counts ;)
Well this card dosn't look promising, but we shall see in real benchies.
Soo photoshoped!
why would nvidia do this? i disagree, if their product isnt going to perform this well then they would not do this... you'll get a whole lot of people with there p4 3.2ee's buying these thinking they'll get over 12k stock and be VERY dissapointed... no this was not the workings of nvidia.
Considering that Nvidia didn't stamp their name to the screen shot they'd have complete deniability. That's the beauty of using a rumor such as this to gain attention to your product. When the guy with the EE is disapointed he only has himself to blame for believing the rumor in the first place
my 9700NP got around 10k in 3dm2k3....
running in 320x240 :lol:
Bah... Nvidia didnt do it. Bunch of reasons...biggest is that I dont think they would :D
They should also be smarter than this guys. Simply bump all scores 25% above Macci's? I think a video card company would be smart enough to pump up nature more etc.
Do you know how many people are going to see this pic before reviews hit? I dont think too many. I dont think I've seen it on the front page of anand, toms, or [H]. Mostly skeptical forum readers and hardware addicts will see it. Don't know. Im just the opposite of some people whom want to turn evrything into a conspiracy.
I do think it's fake - even if a highly OC'd 6800 ultra can do this. It's too sloppy. Your regular hack job by someone with nothing better to do.
I'd have to agree with that logic. I do think they'd made sure more people saw it and certainly would have made it mroe believible. I wouldn't put that past them or any manufacture however, which is why its best to take any of these kinds of rumor with a grain of salt and just wait and see.
Can you say nVidiots?
I dunno those 2 power connectors better be worth something or nVidia gonna get their arse handed to them on a platter...
`s
Maybe you guys like to look here :D
From the 3DMark2003 screens I have seen it looks like this could be the real deal.....
From what I can tell none of the scores posted on this thread are default 3DMark03 scores w/ NV40.
The first pic had about correct overall score but it was obviously faked pic as the game test results were all phucked up (GT1 way too high, 2-3 way too low).
The 14.8k @ NV40 launch is either a highly overclocked card or then the test is ran w/ 800x600 resolution.
I'm hoping that hexus might give game details for 03 when they get the review up.
The problem nowadays is a lot of sites don;t spend too much time on 03 because of the optimisation issues.
Hexus might ???
Regards
Andy
http://www.beyond3d.com/previews/nvi...index.php?p=18
Definitely 16 pipeline then, but heavily bandwidth limited.
Looks like RAM overclocking is going to pay big dividends as the gpu has enough PS and VS performance compared to nv30.
Regards
Andy
Finally full details from a default 6800Ultra run:
overall:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2...tra/3dmark.gif
GT1:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2.../3dm-game1.gif
GT2
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2.../3dm-game2.gif
GT3:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2.../3dm-game3.gif
GT4:
http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q2.../3dm-game4.gif
11853 - 301.0 - 94.8 - 78.0 - 64.0
Thanks Macci, interesting .. got a game by game for 2001 yet ?
Again we see a very nice DX8 result and a slightly low DX9. I'd like to see DX8 nature in 2001 :)
Regards
Andy
PS Without me looking is that an xbit or ixbt graph ?
If it then I have been browsing their site too much ..
Regards
Andy
not a bad score, will be interesting when they hit mainstream
another review:
Hardware Analysis :
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1708.4/
if someone would've have told me that NV40 would score 11,800 pts in 3dmark03 @ stock 400mhz/*300 memory about a month ago. I wouldn't believe it. This card is Nvidia's best card since the first Geforce series.
Think about it! STOCK
a stock Radeon 9800 XT is about half that much in 3dmark03.
-edited-
*i meant 600/1200 memory
Beyond3d's nv40 seems to have had 2ns 500/1000 memory and hexus.net seems to have had faster 600/1200 memory, one was overclocked and one was downclocked so that all boards could cope.
I would imagine that when retail boards are out there then 600/1200 will be the minimum.
Regards
Andy
nvidia have truly impressed me... the stock score for 03 is outrageous! :slobber: i still havnt read a review, just read all ur comments and the graphs etc.
Quote:
Originally posted by zakelwe
Beyond3d's nv40 seems to have had 2ns 500/1000 memory and hexus.net seems to have had faster 600/1200 memory, one was overclocked and one was downclocked so that all boards could cope.
I would imagine that when retail boards are out there then 600/1200 will be the minimum.
Regards
Andy
hes right and we may be seeing 13k stock with better drivers by the time cards come in stores, also thats with a bit of lodbias adjusting ;) but I hear rumors that the x800xt will have over 15k, perhaps 16k stock! :banana:
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see....