# Lightsmark 1.2 benchmark



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

malware said:


> A new 3D benchmark focusing on lighting effects and performance,  dubbed Lightsmark, has been released for free by Czech software author Stepan Hrbek. This OpenGL 2.0 optimized test runs a flyby scene featuring realtime global illumination, color bleeding, penumbra shadows and displays the average FPS as an end result. The Lightsmark 1.2 supports NVIDIA GeForce 5xxx, 6xxx, 7xxx, 8xxx (including GeForce Go) and AMD/ATI Radeon 9500-9800, Xxxx, X1xxx, HD2xxx (including Mobility Radeon) graphics cards as well as the professional FireGL and Quadro series.
> 
> *DOWNLOAD*
> 
> ...



US MIRROR
right out of the news section 



PLEASE RUN AT 1280X1024


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

SCORES

speedpc 8800GT @?/?, E6850@3.6ghz *629.8fps*
rangerone766 8800GT 740/1836/1015, E6750@3.88ghz *493.9fps*
Indy 8800GTX SLi @640/1500/1000, Q6600@3.83ghz *483.8fps*
Jarmin 8800GTX @648/?/1106, Q6600@3.8ghz *470.5fps*
Indy 8800GTX @625/1458/1050, Q6600@3.83ghz *459.9fps*
thebeephaha 8800Ultra @655/1125/1665, Q6600@3ghz *452.7fps*
wolf 8800GT 512mb @700/1750/1000, E4500@3.2ghz *435.5fps*
strick94u 8800GT 512mb @735/1040/?, E6600@3.3ghz *429.7fps*
Shurakai 8800GTX @585/1510/1010, E6420@3.2ghz *422.0fps*
{JNT}Raptor 8800GT @761/1802/950, AX2 5200+@3.05ghz *396.3fps*
Psychoholic 8800GTS 640mb @650/?/1000, C2Q ? @3.2ghz *388.1fps*
strick94u 2X8800GTS 640mb @660/?/1024, E6600@3.3ghz *378.0fps*
pbmaster 8800GTS 640mb @700/1623/940, AX2 6000+@3.3ghz *331.4*
trog100 HD3870 @855/1251, AX2 6000+@3.35ghz *321.4*
Cp 8800GTS 320mb @648/1008/1512, E4400@3.0ghz *260.2fps*
erocker 8800GTS 640mb @681/1577/1003, opty 170@3ghz *204.3*
FAXA 8800GTS 320mb @stock, E6300@3.15ghz *198.4fps*
DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E X1950XT @688/945, E6400@3.6ghz *166.7fps*
Lopez0101 HD2900XT @stock, Q6600@3.2ghz *137.9fps*
Da_Boss 8600GTS @775/1664/1025, E4300@3.03ghz *137.5fps*
Kursah X1950XTX @695/1008, E6300@3.5ghz *131.9fps*
Solaris17 8600GT @725/1600/710, AX2 3600+@3ghz *119.0fps*
trog100 X1900XTX @682/792,] AX2 6000+@3.35ghz *101.6fps*
AthlonX2 HD2600XT @950/1100,] AX2 3800+@3ghz *98.9fps*
OnBoard X1900XT @648/747, E4300@3ghz *92.9fps*
newtekie1 2X7600GT @690/895, E6600@3.38ghz *82.2fps*
sneekypeet 7600GT 780/915, opty 170@3ghz *80.3*
l33th41 HD2900XT @840/900, AX2 4800@2.7ghz *79.8fps*
PT HD2600XT @stock, E2180@? *76.1*
2slow X1950Pro @601/736, A64 3000@2.4ghz *74.7fps*
imperialreign X1950PRO @601/729, P4 524HT@3.8ghz *73.9fps*
Ghost101 HD2600XT @ 850/792, E6300@3.08ghz *70.3fps*
cdawall 7800GS @569/754, a64 3000+@2ghz *69.7fps*
regan1985 HD2600XT @?/?, AX2 3800@2.93ghz *53.4fps*
LiNKiN X850XT @520/540, opty 165@2.86ghz *43.4fps*
WarEagleAU X800GTO2 (modded to XT PE) @?/?, opty 165 @2.81ghz *33.8fps*
Behemoko X800PRO  @506/489, AXP3200+ @2.19ghz *33.8fps*
snuif09 7300GT  @400/266, Sempron 3400+ @2.25ghz *20.1fps****



*** denotes run@1024X768


----------



## Lopez0101 (Nov 10, 2007)

Well I just ran the benchmark and here is what I got HD2900XT Stock.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 10, 2007)

the download is taking FOREVER!!!!


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

hehehe check here soon to see a 9550 try this out!!


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 10, 2007)

god dude 4.1kbs 2hrs eta.....damn


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

use the torrent link, 25kbs download with 57min remaining and speeding up


----------



## panchoman (Nov 10, 2007)

getting 22.3 kbs via their website now. 36 percent eta 12 mins


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

US MIRROR


BEWARE requires .NET 2.0.50727

.NET download


----------



## Psychoholic (Nov 10, 2007)

313.4 Fps

8800gts 640 @ 650/2000


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

sitting pretty at 20 KBS, should be another 15 mins and ill have my score up here


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

use the us mirror took 5sec to DL with that




Psychoholic said:


> 313.4 Fps
> 
> 8800gts 640 @ 650/2000


pls post ss


----------



## mandelore (Nov 10, 2007)

wtf... 4k/s :shadedshu


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

torrent and US mirror the same, ill stick with the torrent


----------



## FAXA (Nov 10, 2007)

Stock speeds on all hardware, running apps: Xfire and AVG.

One strange thing I noticed was that the resolution didn't actually play much of a part in most of the scenes, only in one or two scenes where my FPS rocketed up to 1000+.


----------



## mandelore (Nov 10, 2007)

ahh better, well.. sort of.. 10 mins and its mine


----------



## ghost101 (Nov 10, 2007)

Whats penumbra shadows? Also, why does the frame rate go up with soft shadows after hard shadows?






1280*1024

HD2600XT @ 850/792 , E6300 @ 3.08Ghz

I downloaded at 500KB/s with the torrent.


----------



## mandelore (Nov 10, 2007)

cdawall said:


> use the us mirror took 5sec to DL with that
> pls post ss



Yeah, pls no quotes of your scores, frankly we will take em with a pinch O' cowpat, we need screenies! 

*goes back to play mask of the Betrayer, will post shortly


----------



## Jarman (Nov 10, 2007)

8800GTX, stock
q6600 @ 3.8


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

i tried installing it and i get this problem

"This instilation package could not be opened.contact the application vendor that this is a valid windows installer package"

as far as i knew it is


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 10, 2007)

Looks like Nvidia Rulz this one


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

@jarmin could i get a 1280X1024 run out of you jarmin so i can post it on the scores list?


----------



## Kursah (Nov 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Looks like Nvidia Rulz this one



I half expected it since NV dominates in Open GL, but it's all good. 

I'll download and see what my old x1950xtx can muster, I know it won't even be close to 8800GT/GTS/GTX, but I'm interested to see what I can get.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 10, 2007)

Kursah said:


> I half expected it since NV dominates in Open GL, but it's all good.
> 
> I'll download and see what my old x1950xtx can muster, I know it won't even be close to 8800GT/GTS/GTX, but I'm interested to see what I can get.



I think you will find thats it's very good, I am betting some of the high end DX9 cards will easily compete with mid ranged or even mid/high DX10 cards.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 10, 2007)

Kursah said:


> I half expected it since NV dominates in Open GL, but it's all good.
> 
> I'll download and see what my old x1950xtx can muster, I know it won't even be close to 8800GT/GTS/GTX, but I'm interested to see what I can get.



my 7800GS almost took down a HD2600XT maybe some ram tweaking and i will have him


----------



## Fuse-Wire (Nov 10, 2007)

still doesn't get down to why i cant install it on my system, its really styarting to get on my nerves


----------



## Kursah (Nov 10, 2007)

I was thinking instead of OC-ing my ddr4 on my card, trying to tweak the timings a bit. Haven't messed with it much, and I can OC it, but I really don't get TOO much of an increase to deal with the extra heat. Installing now, will report back shortly!


----------



## Jarman (Nov 10, 2007)

Q6600 @ 3.8 8800GTX, 648 GPU, 1106MHz mem






Q6600 @ 3.8 8800GTX, 648 GPU, 1106MHz mem


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 10, 2007)

i want in the list

8600GT 725/1600/710


----------



## Jarman (Nov 10, 2007)

fuse wire, did u download it with opera? if so u need to change the .exe to .msi as for some reason opera renames all msi files as exe :S


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 10, 2007)

5% OC - I'm sure I can get higher, though - I'll mess with it some more later, and give a better bench screenshot with CPU-Z and GPU-Z.



*Hey* => a thought - why don't we start an official OGL becnhmark compilation thread, and include these scores, the FUR benchmark, and GLeXcess1.2?


----------



## Kursah (Nov 10, 2007)

*Kursah's Results C2D/x1950xtx*

Alright folks here they are, nothing special, and definately nowhere close to the NV brawlers, but good enough for me...for now...

And what is with that song in the bench? Not really my style of tunes...I'd rather have no sound in a 3d bench IMO, but it's all good. Decent bench, and it's quick too! The first one is at 1280x1024 to compare to other users, the second one is at my LCD's native resolution and the res I also game at. 

EDIT: This was also with stock x1950xtx settings, no overclock at all. The rest of my system specs hold true to this bench run. No restart, downloaded, installed, minimized browser, paused winamp, and ran the thing. So I may have some more frames to gain, who knows, but this is what I'll submit for now!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 10, 2007)

3800 x2 @ 2.9ghz  2600XT gddr4 @ 940/2200

View attachment 10554


----------



## mandelore (Nov 10, 2007)

I guess a quad core makes the difference ^^, as im sure as hell NV aint owning by itself, especially with other OGL bencies saying otherwise


----------



## Jarman (Nov 10, 2007)

im running xp :S


----------



## L|NK|N (Nov 11, 2007)

Here's my contribution.


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2007)

jarman, what u get when u turn ur cpu freq down? coz the score im getting is very low, when my card is infact very highly clocked, I think it must have alot to do with ur cpu....

we need another quad with a similar card to test, plus even so, this is a lighting benchmark, I thought maybe it would show something else other than that. not that its anything to do with the results, just something other than lighting would be nice


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

i just set it to use only one core and results were the same






slightly better infact lol.  So the number of cores is making no difference.  Although the cpu is pretty nippy on 1 core


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

i'll try it at stock cpu in the morning for u  getting a bit late to be fiddling with the bios now


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2007)

well, i was refering to clock speed, not core useage....

at 2.8 ghz core, i get very very low score, so quite frankly atm I believe its down to your cpu frequency, prove me wrong, and then we need another to do the same b4 I take your results for real, sry, im just skeptical with such high results using a GTX
but, hey, then again, maybe Nvidia does the lighting shown in the benchy better, id like to see a newer ogl bench less focussed on one aspect, lighting, and show a more rounded bench like 3dmark


----------



## panchoman (Nov 11, 2007)

85 fps with an x1950pro @ stock.. its not even worthy of a ss


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

oh...well ye the MHz does make a difference...

if u look on their site:

Q: Lightsmark score depends also on CPU, right?
A: Yes, part of lighting equation is solved by CPU, because it is faster this way. It simulates the best use in real game.


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

Hey - before any scores are deemed "official", just thought I'd post this:







Don't count that score for me!!!

So, if any one is wanting to make sure that the scores are legitimate, we should include the log.txt file from the Lightsmark directory - it logs if it can't load any files for the bench.

edit> just mentioning cause it seems way to easy to cheat out this bench, and you know how some people can get over their scores :shadedshu - but, it took me less than 5min to snag a score like that, and it's not legitimate.


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

This is Lightsmark 2007 log. Check it if benchmark doesn't work properly.
Started: "C:\Program Files\Lightsmark 2007\bin\win32\fcss_sr.exe" 1280x1024 fullscreen
Penumbra quality: 8/8 on GeForce 8800 GTX/PCI/SSE2.
Loading Lightsmark2007.cfg...
  Loading objects/I_robot_female_hd.3ds...
  Loading scenes/wop_padattic/wop_padatticBB.ani...
  Loading scenes/wop_padattic/wop_padatticBB.bsp...
    Detection quality = auto->high.
  Loading music/Insist_HeyYou.mp3...
Finished, average fps = 470.53.


----------



## panchoman (Nov 11, 2007)

imperialreign said:


> Hey - before any scores are deemed "official", just thought I'd post this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how the F do you get that? my x1950pro at stock got 85


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

like I said - too easy to cheat (why I asked for that score to not be included, either!).

I removed the .mp3 file from the Lightsmark directory, as well as all the .jpg and .tgf from within the Scene directory.

but, the log.txt file logs that it can't load those files, even though the benchmark runs.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

Jarman said:


> oh...well ye the MHz does make a difference...
> 
> if u look on their site:
> 
> ...



its not as big as you would think look at my score there is no reason that my 7800GS should keep up with a HD2600XT which in every other bench slaughters this card! and he has a C2D @ 3ghz so i dont think it is really any massive change in performance but i will post some runs with my cpu at diff multis


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 11, 2007)

So it's a single core bench but depends very much on core speed?....I like the sound of that, may just download it tomorrow and do a run at 4.2Gig on the cpu!!


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

maybe just an nvidia favoured benchie then?


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

it could be, and it wouldn't be shocking, either.

but, in respect, the ATI's tend to run the FUR bench better than the nVidia's


edit> I just looked at the score listings on the first page . . . how in the f* did I beat out an HD2600?!


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2007)

imperialreign said:


> like I said - too easy to cheat (why I asked for that score to not be included, either!).
> 
> I removed the .mp3 file from the Lightsmark directory, as well as all the .jpg and .tgf from within the Scene directory.
> 
> but, the log.txt file logs that it can't load those files, even though the benchmark runs.



hmmm, bu then some1 could just alter their posted log file tbh, replace the could not be founds etc...

my cpu is @ 2.8 atm, and im getting 70 or less as my score. thats really way off imo, especially for a 2900xt running on the bench, nearly 900 core


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

> hmmm, bu then some1 could just alter their posted log file tbh, replace the could not be founds etc...



true, or someone else could lower the resoultion of the image files to obtain a more "reasonable" score, etc.

I guess we'll have to leave this one up to trust


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

bet it needs a high mem bandwidth? the X19XX cards and my 7800 both have 256bit bus vs the 2600 which has a 128bit bus and that makes the difference and if you look the 8600GT sint really shining either its coming close the the 2600XT cards which is what they compete with in all other benchmarks


----------



## Psychoholic (Nov 11, 2007)

cdawall said:


> use the us mirror took 5sec to DL with that
> 
> 
> 
> pls post ss




ok, ran it again.. higher this time, forgot to turn off folding in the background last time.


----------



## strick94u (Nov 11, 2007)

heres what mine doe
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




s


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

> bet it needs a high mem bandwidth? the X19XX cards and my 7800 both have 256bit bus vs the 2600 which has a 128bit bus and that makes the difference and if you look the 8600GT sint really shining either its coming close the the 2600XT cards which is what they compete with in all other benchmarks




I didn't realzie the 2600s were only using a 128b BUS   Odd for ATI to do something like that - makes me wonder, though, if the 2600 could potentially be flashed to utilize more


----------



## musek (Nov 11, 2007)

Stunning 18.1fps result on my pwnz0r rig.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

*CPU speed make no difference on score*


















i removed the oc on the GPU to make sure everything was fair and there would be now bad oc results. also the multi was changed in windows so no reboot or anything in between. pretty definative imho


----------



## Lopez0101 (Nov 11, 2007)

Here's another run, the first test also had my quad running @ 3.2Ghz, I just updated the system specs to reflect everything. 2900XT is still at Stock though.

EDIT: I just realized the multiplier was at 6x when I took the screen, lol.


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (Nov 11, 2007)

Heres Mine.......Did I mention I'm diggin the New Card?  lol


----------



## l33th41 (Nov 11, 2007)

x2 4800 @ 2.7
2900xt @ 840/900


----------



## ROE_HUNTER (Nov 11, 2007)

X2 6000+ @3.2GHz, 2900XT @828/900
79.6 avg fps.\

Yes this score sucks!


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2007)

x2 6000+ at 3350.. 1900xtx at 690/800.. benchmark at default settings.. 

a score of 99 fps.. pretty crap for ati cards it seems.. i have seen over 400 odd with nvidia cards.. also it runs way faster in xp than it does in vista..

trog


----------



## speedpc (Nov 11, 2007)

8800GT KO  in SLI


----------



## {JNT}Raptor (Nov 11, 2007)

Very Strange....did a reboot and ran It again.......Runs great on a clean reboot.


----------



## newconroer (Nov 11, 2007)

Again, I fail to see the point of these threads to compare scores, if everyone is submitting scores gained from modified components.

What the hell is the point if an OC Q and GTX beats an ATi card? It means squat.

Stock vs stock vs stock or don't bother.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Nov 11, 2007)

I'm pretty sure CPU plays more of a role than the dev of the program seems to think. People on AMD systems with 2900XT's are getting around 40FPS lower than my score on a Quad, OC'ed or not. Seems weird.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

this is an example of using paint to cheat your way to the top of a graph. There is no way for a 8800GT to win this it does not have the memory bandwidth to beat out an 8800GTX. Now first thing you will say is but its in SLi! Well this bench doesnt support SLi so there will be no gain. Now please do not cheat in this bench now and if you dont know WTF the honor system is dont post on this forum

cdawall=parnoid



Lopez0101 said:


> I'm pretty sure CPU plays more of a role than the dev of the program seems to think. People on AMD systems with 2900XT's are getting around 40FPS lower than my score on a Quad, OC'ed or not. Seems weird.



look at my post with my AMD changing the speeds


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

I'm sure BUS spedds have something to do with it too,

but, some scores do seem odd - although cdawall explained the deal with the 2600 score being lower than mine, still, dude's running a true dual core compared to my hyperthreading P4, I still think the 2600 shoulda scored higher than my setup.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

maybe its ram speeds


----------



## ghost101 (Nov 11, 2007)

imperialreign said:


> I'm sure BUS spedds have something to do with it too,
> 
> but, some scores do seem odd - although cdawall explained the deal with the 2600 score being lower than mine, still, dude's running a true dual core compared to my hyperthreading P4, I still think the 2600 shoulda scored higher than my setup.



Why is my supposed to be better than your x1950pro? The x1950pro tends to do better in a lot of benchmarks.


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

the P4's are major bottlenecks for the 1950's 

considering you're running a dual core processor, I'd figure it would do a lot better.

Maybe I'm just used to seeing my 1950 PRO/P4 combo towards the bottom of benchmark ratings


----------



## ghost101 (Nov 11, 2007)

Im pretty sure a p4 at 3.8ghz doesnt bottleneck an x1950pro.


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 11, 2007)

Not sure about that - this 524 CPU has an extremely high multiplier, and it's locked at x23 - so GHz speed isn't hard for me to obtain, but my BUS is still lower than where I want it at 167.  If I could, I'd run a much higher BUS with a lower multi, but . . . ARRGHHH!!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

but the thing is you have a C2D @3ghz and that should be able to push a HD2600XT past a X1950PRO and P4@3.8ghz combo easily







trog100 said:


> x2 6000+ at 3350.. 1900xtx at 690/800.. benchmark at default settings..
> 
> a score of 99 fps.. pretty crap for ati cards it seems.. i have seen over 400 odd with nvidia cards.. also it runs way faster in xp than it does in vista..
> 
> trog




could i get a SS pls


----------



## speedpc (Nov 11, 2007)

cdawall said:


> look at the way the numbers show up on your avg FPS notice how the 608 sinks into average FPS???? thats ground zero for paint
> 
> not to mention un;ess you on LN2 your not beating the scores im looking at on XS and you happen to be so it may be a glitch if it is i would like it if you could run again and if its only a glitch i would like to apoligize to you right now but if not dont post crap like that on this forum


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

ok im sry i guess once you break 500 it doesnt show right?

what clocks is you card/cpu at so i can add you to my last


SORRY and welcome to tpu


----------



## Ketxxx (Nov 11, 2007)

84FPS, with a shitstorm of stuff running in the background, old drivers and no restart.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

im going to get an insane score 

700mhz core/800mhz ram


----------



## insider (Nov 11, 2007)

91FPS with X1950Pro @702/715, opengl is always superior on nVidia cards due to better opengl drivers than ATI's driver set.


----------



## sneekypeet (Nov 11, 2007)

figured Id put mine in here as well.....


----------



## speedpc (Nov 11, 2007)

cdawall said:


> ok im sry i guess once you break 500 it doesnt show right?
> 
> what clocks is you card/cpu at so i can add you to my last
> 
> ...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

welcome to 1st place


----------



## speedpc (Nov 11, 2007)

cdawall said:


> welcome to 1st place




We Cool Now ???     Thanks


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

yes and im really sry if you delete your with the quote of my thing i can dump mine off here to and it will be like it didnt happen


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

mines edited to


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 11, 2007)

cda reran mine with cpu @ 3ghz and card at 950/1100

View attachment 10559


----------



## L|NK|N (Nov 11, 2007)

AthlonX2 said:


> cda reran mine with cpu @ 3ghz and card at 950/1100
> 
> View attachment 10559



Looks alot like a woofy score to me......cant break 100.....


----------



## cooler (Nov 11, 2007)

my card hd2600xt at 640x480 
fps 83.5

i got better fps playing oblivion and bioshock a 640x480


----------



## Kursah (Nov 11, 2007)

*Submission Part Deux*

Not much higher, but on a fresh restart, I have a beta custom bios I'm trying out. A 50mhz oc on GPU core, and 15mhz oc on gDDR4 (for now), but the fan speed parameters aren't working correctly atm, but still staying well within safe temp parameters. I have not adjusted memory timings or anything as of yet. I have gained approx 6fps. Here it is:






Also, at least for x1950xtx's, I've found GPU-z will only read the card's eeprom 2d/3d speeds, and increases from ATI Tool do not show up. Great utility though! More to come with possible memory timing tweak, or maybe I'll just OC...and atm I'm messing around with Vista (I have a secondary HDD that I am using for primary boot atm, trying out some tweaks, so far have been successful. Have not tried SP1 Beta..probably won't either).


----------



## Snipe343 (Nov 11, 2007)

i had 110.9 in 1024x768 fullscreen i would post a ss but i cant


----------



## thebeephaha (Nov 11, 2007)




----------



## Kursah (Nov 11, 2007)

Very nice scores on the NV side for sure! I'm kinda dissapointed to see my xtx so close to a 2900xt, but in the end we all know that NV has had OGL dominance for a while. Plus I'm impressed to see the 8800GT's scoring so well, a single 8800gt between gts 640's and Ultra's says a lot. And SLI GT's take the lead, that's crazy!

I may be able to only muster 131fps, which is nothing compared to 300, 400, or even 600+, but I'm still content with my results in comparison to other ATI results. Let's hope the 3850/3870's can muster some good performance for the future! I'm interested to see more results from all sorts of GPU's, keep em coming guys!


----------



## Lopez0101 (Nov 11, 2007)

I don't know. So apparently we've found the ATi renders furry donuts in OpenGL better than Nvidia yet Nvidia seems to dominate at rendering light compared to ATi. Hmmm. . .


----------



## erocker (Nov 11, 2007)

Here is my score:


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2007)

Lopez0101 said:


> I don't know. So apparently we've found the ATi renders furry donuts in OpenGL better than Nvidia yet Nvidia seems to dominate at rendering light compared to ATi. Hmmm. . .



not just furry doughnuts, there were other render benchies where the ATI cards smacked around the Nvidia cards, guess ATI win on render, Nvidia win on light.

But I find it VERY strange that the latest ATI card is beated by an older gen ATI card, coz I get a crap score, even tho i ran the test at 2.8ghz cpu, also im on vista if that matters


----------



## DOM (Nov 11, 2007)

mandelore said:


> not just furry doughnuts, there were other render benchies where the ATI cards smacked around the Nvidia cards, guess ATI win on render, Nvidia win on light.
> 
> But I find it VERY strange that the latest ATI card is beated by an older gen ATI card, coz I get a crap score, even tho i ran the test at 2.8ghz cpu, also im on vista if that matters


dont feel bad Kursah gets more then me and im at 3.6GHz 1125Mhz , 749.25/1062  

but one thing I dont like when you get your fps you can change the res to show a different one so its very easy to cheat im not saying anyone is but you can

and in not saying you are Kursah  cuz the N cards are getting some high scores


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 11, 2007)

Here's my score


----------



## Nex- (Nov 11, 2007)

Hello guys, 
I'm new here, and i'm from holland but i think this is a great site! My question is: How can i post a new thread forum or something like this? Sorry, my english is not that good, i'm only 16 years old and i'm not from the united states or something as you can see  
Can someone please help me? 
Thanks already...


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 11, 2007)

Nex- said:


> Hello guys,
> I'm new here, and i'm from holland but i think this is a great site! My question is: How can i post a new thread forum or something like this? Sorry, my english is not that good, i'm only 16 years old and i'm not from the united states or something as you can see
> Can someone please help me?
> Thanks already...



There's a new thread button in the top left corner of every section. Not that this was a right thread to ask it, or even right section


----------



## trog100 (Nov 11, 2007)

its a shame amd/ati seem to have lost the plot entirely..

trog


----------



## FAXA (Nov 11, 2007)

I hope more developers start using OpenGL, such as valve. I'd love to see OpenGL in the HL series.


----------



## Jarman (Nov 11, 2007)

The original half life engine was capable of running on open gl


----------



## WarEagleAU (Nov 11, 2007)

Alas poor Yorak, I knew him well Horatio. I didnt fare badly, but man, its time for me to upgrade.


----------



## regan1985 (Nov 11, 2007)

my upgrade from my x850xt really seems worth it lol

something isnt right i just checked other peoples scores i will redo it


----------



## AphexDreamer (Nov 11, 2007)

regan1985 said:


> my upgrade from my x850xt really seems worth it lol
> 
> something isnt right i just checked other peoples scores i will redo it



Dude this beanchie is heavily depedent on CPU power. The higher your CPU goes the higher score your going to get. With mycurrent setup I'm geting a score around the 80's which sucks cause I am seeing other people with worse cards then me scoring higher, but they all have higher clocked CPU's then me.


----------



## pbmaster (Nov 11, 2007)

This is with my CPU at 3.0 GHz and my vid card at 650/1505/900.


----------



## pbmaster (Nov 11, 2007)

This is with my CPU at 3.3 GHz(275 x 12) and vid card at 700/1623/940.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

all nice and updated 

post if i missed you our messed something up on your score


----------



## Kursah (Nov 11, 2007)

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E said:


> dont feel bad Kursah gets more then me and im at 3.6GHz 1125Mhz , 749.25/1062
> 
> but one thing I dont like when you get your fps you can change the res to show a different one so its very easy to cheat im not saying anyone is but you can and im not saying you are Kursah  cuz the N cards are getting some high scores



There should definately be a locked setup for this bench for official style records. And maybe they will in a future revision. I have no need for cheating on a bench since their importance to my gaming is none, just like a lot of you out there. I was kind of suprised that in my original post that 1440x900 was lower than 1280x1024, since 1440 has less pixels.

I'm also curious as to why some 2900's are scoring so close to me, or lower...even on a slower or less OC'd PC, the 2900 should pretty much stomp my card on every front. So maybe that says something about this bench, and considering all the high NV scores, maybe this bench should be taken with a grain of salt. In the end it's just another benchmark, and they shouldn't be taken too seriously IMO. Granted they're interesting and entertaining to see what can be mustered out of one's system, I think there's too much basis on them. Once a bench stops being entertaining, I stop running it. I still use AQ3 as my primary test benchmark for when trying out new OC's/Tweaks, but even that's getting rare lately. In the end if you can game and enjoy gaming on your rig, who cares what your score is?

I would like to see more ATI cards in on this bench, because I'm sure there are plenty out there that can knock me off of my 11th place overall, 2nd place ATI score!


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 11, 2007)

I'm really surprised at how well the 7600GT did, especially considering how people around here talk about how the 7 series sucked at OpenGL, how 12 ROPs isn't enough, and how 128-bit memory bus isn't enough.  Yet it is outperforming x1950Pros...


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

no one said the 7 sries sucked in ogl from what i could tell in everyother opengl bench we have the 7series kicks ass


----------



## mandelore (Nov 11, 2007)

what does indeed puzzle me, which makes me believe something is amiss with the bench itself is:

1) older gen ATI cards scoring higher than latest cards

2)heavy reliance on CPU power (this IS meant to be a ogl graphics bench)

3)compared to other OGL benchies, like the fur/ripple etc, reguardless of cpu power/clocks, the older to latest gen hardware scale their scores accordingly. Indicating reliance on the GPU processing power rather than CPU etc.

4) Well, just that this test aint that "secure" lol

5) Three other seperate ogl benchmarks previously used clearly show the scaling of power between the cards, in this bench it appears to be a free for all


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

mandelore said:


> what does indeed puzzle me, which makes me believe something is amiss with the bench itself is:
> 
> 1) older gen ATI cards scoring higher than latest cards
> 
> ...



1. that is confusing and true but only for the X1k series the X8XX ae bottom of the barrel in this

2. that is only true when you break 300fps they proved that on XS already sub 300fps you could be on a 1.6ghz sempron or a 4ghz quad core and score the same with the same graphics

3. the 7 series is VERY powerful on ogl and has shown that in EVERY ogl bench 

4. it needs to be fixed so that it crashes if you change the files that it uses

5. agreed, WTF is the 8800 series at the top for in everyother bench we see a HEAVY dominance with the HD2900s often destroying the 8800s but the other cards scale a little better in fur me and newteckie both sit around the HD2600s and 8600s the only cards that appear out of line are the 8800s, HD2900s and X1k cards

here is the score list out of fur the X1k cards do quite will in this to maybe its just that the 8600/HD2600s are no were near as ogl powerful as last gen top end cards?

edit:
Result table:

yogurt_21 ------------ HD2900XT ----------- 3492 
mandelore ------------ HD2900XT 1GB ------- 3396 
Bonerheimer_c -------- HD2900Pro 1GB ------ 3312 
Lopez0101 ------------ HD2900XT ----------- 3278 
AphexDreamer---------- HD2900Pro 1GB ------ 3186 
Lt_JWS --------------- HD2900XT ----------- 3140 
DRDNA ---------------- X1950XTX CF -------- 2960 
affinity0 ------------ HD2900XT 1GB ------- 2858 
{JNT}Raptor ---------- 8800GT 512MB ------- 2826 
mrsemi --------------- 8800Ultra ---------- 2556 
largon --------------- 8800GTS 320MB ------ 2475 
Lekamies ------------- 8800GTS 320MB ------ 2361 
newtekie1 ------------ 7900GT SLi --------- 2176 
Random Murderer ------ X1950Pro CF -------- 2106 
giorgos th. ---------- 8800GTS 640MB ------ 2018 
DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E - X1950XT ------------ 1979 
freakshow ------------ 8800GTS 640MB ------ 1950 
psychomage343 -------- 8800GTS ------------ 1813 
The Haunted ---------- X1900XT 512MB ------ 1756 
JousteR -------------- X1900XTX ----------- 1562 
anticlutch ----------- 8800GTS 320MB ------ 1537 
someguyfromhell ------ 8800GTS 640MB ------ 1478 
sneekypeet ----------- 7600GT SLi --------- 1421 
AthlonX2 ------------- HD2600XT ----------- 1342 
pt ------------------- HD2600XT ----------- 1310 
X800 ----------------- X1950Pro ----------- 1265 
newtekie1 ------------ 7900GT ------------- 1259 
Morgoth -------------- X1950Pro 512MB ----- 1253 
ghost101 ------------- HD2600XT ----------- 1235 
cooler --------------- HD2600XT 256MB ----- 1227 
imperialreign -------- X1950Pro 256MB ----- 1223 
oily_17 -------------- X1950Pro ----------- 1212 
newtekie1 ------------ 7600GT SLi --------- 1167 
woozers -------------- HD2600XT ----------- 1157 
magibeg -------------- HD2600XT ----------- 1136 
cdawall -------------- 7800GS ------------- 862 
newtekie1 ------------ 7600GT ------------- 741 
JC316 ---------------- 8600GTS ------------ 718 
von kain ------------- 7600GT ------------- 626 
regan1985 ------------ X850XT ------------- 629 
JrRacinFan ----------- 7600GS ------------- 436 
newtekie1 ------------ X1650Pro ----------- 429 
Xolair --------------- X1650Pro ----------- 400 
newtekie1 ------------ 7300LE ------------- 202 
regan1985 ------------ 7300GS ------------- 174 
AphexDreamer --------- X1300 -------------- 160
newtekie1 ------------ 7300LE ------------- 158 
kwchang007 ----------- Mobility X1400 ----- 143 
vnL ------------------ 9600XT ------------- 126 
newtekie1 ------------ X300SE ------------- 80


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 11, 2007)

cdawall said:


> no one said the 7 sries sucked in ogl from what i could tell in everyother opengl bench we have the 7series kicks ass



Yeah, your'e right.  I guess I was just remembering this post by you wrong, or I read it wrong at first.

I was thinking you said everything after G70(meaning G71/73).  My mistake, now that I go back to it I see you mean the G80 series sucks at opengl.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

o lol yeah post 7950 ogl support seems to have got the back burner to well DX10


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 11, 2007)

imperialreign said:


> I didn't realzie the 2600s were only using a 128b BUS   Odd for ATI to do something like that - makes me wonder, though, if the 2600 could potentially be flashed to utilize more



You cant flash for greater memory bandwidth cause it's just not there.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 11, 2007)

mandelore said:


> what does indeed puzzle me, which makes me believe something is amiss with the bench itself is:
> 
> 1) older gen ATI cards scoring higher than latest cards
> 
> ...




Because in some Open GL apps they prefer pixel pipelines rather than stream/shader processors and rastors engines?


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 11, 2007)

I've notice that this benchmark seems to have a memory leak or something.  Every time I run it, it gets progressively lower scores.  After I scored 82.2 I ran it again right away and scored a 78, then ran it again and go a 72, then again and it was down in the 62 range after a reboot it got back up to 82.



imperialreign said:


> I didn't realzie the 2600s were only using a 128b BUS   Odd for ATI to do something like that



Why it is odd?  ATI's mid-range cards have always had 128-bit busses, with a few rare exceptions.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 11, 2007)

it did the opposite when i did it when i did it with the cpu at varying speeds i ran it one after the other and it would randomly go up or down


----------



## giorgos th. (Nov 11, 2007)

Q6600 @ 3600mhz - 8800GT @ 771/1890/950


----------



## imperialreign (Nov 12, 2007)

> Why it is odd? ATI's mid-range cards have always had 128-bit busses, with a few rare exceptions.



I guess I just never payed it that much attention - ATI has always liked to be as efficient as possible with GPU mem.  IIRC, though, my other ATI cards have had higher BUSes, but it's ben a while since any of them were installed


----------



## fothsn (Nov 12, 2007)

Cant see how my HD2900XT @ 850/1000 is getting beat by lower spec cards  dosent add up this benchmark tbh,


----------



## Solaris17 (Nov 12, 2007)

got another 2.8 Ghz 8600GT after my recent mods at  725/1650/825 and screenie.


----------



## Lillebror (Nov 12, 2007)

I think its actualy a good score for a 1950pro card =)


----------



## OnBoard (Nov 12, 2007)

cdawall said:


> all nice and updated
> 
> post if i missed you our messed something up on your score



You spelled my nick onboard insted of OnBoard  Score is fine, but I'll take my GPU to the emparassing low OC and make a new one, would like to get that HD2900XT on top of me 

edit: x1900xt @ 648/747 . GPU-Z crashed my system with ATITool open, so no screen from it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 12, 2007)

Kursah said:


> There should definately be a locked setup for this bench for official style records. And maybe they will in a future revision. I have no need for cheating on a bench since their importance to my gaming is none, just like a lot of you out there. I was kind of suprised that in my original post that 1440x900 was lower than 1280x1024, since 1440 has less pixels.
> 
> I'm also curious as to why some 2900's are scoring so close to me, or lower...even on a slower or less OC'd PC, the 2900 should pretty much stomp my card on every front. So maybe that says something about this bench, and considering all the high NV scores, maybe this bench should be taken with a grain of salt. In the end it's just another benchmark, and they shouldn't be taken too seriously IMO. Granted they're interesting and entertaining to see what can be mustered out of one's system, I think there's too much basis on them. Once a bench stops being entertaining, I stop running it. I still use AQ3 as my primary test benchmark for when trying out new OC's/Tweaks, but even that's getting rare lately. In the end if you can game and enjoy gaming on your rig, who cares what your score is?
> 
> I would like to see more ATI cards in on this bench, because I'm sure there are plenty out there that can knock me off of my 11th place overall, 2nd place ATI score!



I am not puzzled by the fact that some faster DX10 cards are not performing any better than yours in this test.......OpenGL uses a different rendoring method to games based on  DX9 or 10, well any DX basically, for all those skeptics out there wondering about the validity of this test and how it's results seem to be erratic in comparison with each of your systems we have got to remember a couple of things, most (but not all) OpenGL rendering is software driven therefore that in iteself shows why higher clocked CPU's will perform better, where as most (but again not all) DX rendering is Hardware so the better the hardware (GPU) the faster in DX, in OpenGL the GPU plays less of a role as so much of the rendering is software therefore the CPU is handling it not the GPU.

OpenGL has been around a lot longer than DX (Microsofts own APi introduced in 1994) and therefore most of it's rendering methods will be based around older architecture which is more Pixel rather than shader based.  Not wanting to bore you with too many crap facts but here is a comparison between rendering processes in the two APi's, this will show you just what the differences are between the 2 and may explain why these results seem not to be reflected by the capabilites of say the 2900XT:

The first of the answers (yes/no) shows what OpenGl can/does....the 2nd shows DX:

Fixed-Function Vertex Blending	No	Yes
Programmable Vertex Blending	No	Yes
Parametric Curve Primitives	            Yes	Yes
Parametric Surface Primitives            Yes	Yes
Hierarchical Display Lists	            Yes	 No 
Two-sided Lighting	                         Yes	No
Point Size Rendering Attributes 	Yes	Yes
Line Width Rendering Attributes	Yes	No
Programmable Pixel Shading	             No 	Yes
Triadic Texture Blending Operations	No	Yes
Cube Environment Mapping	             No	Yes
Volume Textures	                         Yes	Yes
Multitexture Cascade	            No 	Yes
Texture Temporary Result Register     No	Yes
Mirror Texture Addressing	            No	Yes
Texture "Wrapping"	                         No	Yes
Range-Based Fog	                         No	Yes
Bump Mapping	                         No	Yes
Modulate 2X Texture Blend	            No	Yes
Modulate 4X Texture Blend	            No	Yes
Add Signed Texture Blend	            No	Yes
Hardware Independ Z Buffer Access  Yes	No 
Full-Screen Antialiasing	           Yes	Yes
Motion Blur	                        Yes	Yes
Depth of Field	                        Yes	Yes
Accumulation Buffers	           Yes	No 
Picking Support	                        Yes	No 
Multiple Monitor Support	            No	Yes
Stereo Rendering	                        Yes	No


Sorry to have bored you! but hopefully this will show you that there are large differences between the 2, we tend to generally judge our cards by DX performance and these differences go in some way to showing that "normal" rules dont necessarily apply to OpenGL rendering which is biased towards older rendering methods.


----------



## Shurakai (Nov 12, 2007)

Well i reckon i'll contribute, i love lightsmark, best thing about it is the whole freeware aspect 




Core2Duo E6420 @3.2ghz
POV 8800GTX @585/1510/1010(2020)


----------



## trog100 (Nov 14, 2007)

for what its worth i have just scored 213 with the new ati 3870 card.. this is way above any other ati card it seems..

i am having major problems getting a proper cat install with this new card.. i have no control center and no idea what the card is running at.. i also cant run any of the later 3dmarks.. basically stuff seems to be having problems recognizing the hardware.. at least in xp it does..

it also gives me 41616 in 3dmatk 2001 se.. but i dont have anything to compare it with..

trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 14, 2007)

trog100 said:


> for what its worth i have just scored 213 with the new ati 3870 card.. this is way above any other ati card it seems..
> 
> i am having major problems getting a proper cat install with this new card.. i have no control center and no idea what the card is running at.. i also cant run any of the later 3dmarks.. basically stuff seems to be having problems recognizing the hardware.. at least in xp it does..
> 
> ...



Fook Trog m8....where did U get that little baby from?  didnt think they were out yet?


----------



## trog100 (Nov 15, 2007)

seems the new card is better at some things than the old ones..






open gl performance increase.. perhaps..

trog


----------



## DOM (Nov 15, 2007)




----------



## pt (Nov 15, 2007)

you ain't gonna beat this hd2600xt down c 





XpertVision HD2600XT 256MB GDDR3 SONIC@ 800/800 (stock)
now go cry to ther corner


----------



## Da_Boss (Nov 15, 2007)

Heres my contribution....


----------



## cdawall (Nov 16, 2007)

updated finally sry for the delay been busy with school work


----------



## Indy (Nov 17, 2007)

What an awesome bench tool 
Nothing like competition, so here is my attempt!


----------



## jpierce55 (Nov 17, 2007)

You know what; my 1900 crossfire setup runs Aquamark at 108fps, runs 3dmark 06 with a top score of 9496, and hates this benchmark. It obviously is not a 1900 x-fire friendly benchmark . Only 73.1 fps. I wanted to do this for reference, in a couple of weeks my 3870 will be in, but I don't think this is a fair benchmark, it looks to cpu biased based on the scores posted.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 17, 2007)

jpierce55 said:


> You know what; my 1900 crossfire setup runs Aquamark at 108fps, runs 3dmark 06 with a top score of 9496, and hates this benchmark. It obviously is not a 1900 x-fire friendly benchmark . Only 73.1 fps. I wanted to do this for reference, in a couple of weeks my 3870 will be in, but I don't think this is a fair benchmark, it looks to cpu biased based on the scores posted.



any benchmark gets system boosted when the frame rates get high enough.. my 1900xtx on its own did score 101.. my 3870 scores 223 or something like that both on the same system..

your crossfire score dosnt make that much sense thow..

trog


----------



## rangerone766 (Nov 18, 2007)

not many 8800gt scores heres mine





By rangerone7669 at 2007-11-17
evga superclocked version@stock





By rangerone7669 at 2007-11-17
oc


----------



## Indy (Nov 18, 2007)

Just had to do some more tweaking, so this is about the peak for my current single GPU  game rig based on it's 24/7 settings + a few driver and overclocking tweaks!  As soon as I can install both cards in a new SLI mobo I'll be back for some more benching!  Note that during tests I found raising the CPU clock from 2.8GHz to 3.8GHz resulted in only a change of 26 FPS!!   Meanwhile....


----------



## Indy (Nov 18, 2007)

IMO neither disabling mp3 playback, severely overclocking the CPU or disabling cores has a negligible effect on the results of this benchmark!  Even the author advises (regarding the MP3) on his web site to simply turn the sound down if you don't like the music....


----------



## Indy (Nov 18, 2007)

Ok, so I've been doing some comparison benching on Vista 32 & XP 32 using two wildly different CPU speeds for some additional thoughts. For consistency only the cpu multi was reduced from x8 to x6, which left bus speeds consistent through all runs.. 






GPU STD = GPU Factory defaults
GPU OC = GPU overclocked as depicted below
Avg penumbra used as there was only one or two FPS difference between std and overclocked tests.
Note also the hammering the system receives under the Penumbra shadows test


----------



## Kursah (Nov 19, 2007)

You should fill out and check the box to show system specs. What is your system btw? Seems like a large difference between Vista and XP for sure!

I may have to toss in my XP Pro boot drive and run this bench. I am messing with vista (uuhhg) atm, and the score I have on the list is the score I attained in Vista. So I'm sure there's some untapped potential there, but I don't think 2x the score in my case considering other x1900xt/x1950xt scores submitted thus far.


----------



## Behemoko (Nov 19, 2007)

Well, here's what my POS x800 Pro can do.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Nov 21, 2007)

Guys, stop banging you head on this one if you have a ATI video card.  Reason:
-Opengl 2.0...Where is Opengl 2.1?
-*Software type:  	  Videocards - NVIDIA Forceware (Modified)*
Source
If this information is correct, it would explain why nvidia hardware does better.  Yes, it may "support" ati video cards but the above seems to suggest what is recommended.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 22, 2007)

it seem the new cat 7.11 drivers put the new ati 3870 card up there in nvidia land with this one..






quite a hefty increase from this one







trog


----------



## rangerone766 (Nov 22, 2007)

new score with my new watercooled q6600





By rangerone7669 at 2007-11-21


----------



## trog100 (Nov 23, 2007)

its getting there.. for an ATI card and AMD system that is..






trog


----------



## Tatty_One (Nov 23, 2007)

Nice Trog.....lets hope 7.12 is out before Xmas, thats where the real boost should hopefully be, might just open me box and install this weekend, gotta major system upgrade to do.


----------



## jpierce55 (Dec 1, 2007)

I guess my computer just does not like this benchmark, maybe the hard drive speed? Motherboard? The 3870 only hits 144fps! I am also running a slightly faster cpu. Fur turned 3257! I sure wonder what the deal is.


----------



## DOM (Dec 7, 2007)

CPU 3.6GHz

688/945 OC with CCC cant OC it in Vista


----------



## cdawall (Dec 9, 2007)

its finally updated if you see any errors tell me


----------



## strick94u (Dec 9, 2007)

new video card 8800 gt 735/1040


----------



## wolf (Jan 2, 2008)

C2D @ 3.2ghz + P5N32-E SLI + 2x1024 DDR2 @ 775 + 8800GT 700/1750/2000

nuff said, wiked score aye....8800gt rocks my socks







i now have a bios with those clocks on it, works better/easyer than a manual oc imo, although you obviosuly need to test manually first to see whats stable.

can i be put on the leaderboard plz plz??

nobody even think about calling cheat cos theres no way. 

wolf.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2008)

all nice and updated as aways post if i missed you


----------



## reverze (Jan 4, 2008)

Um...

I just got 80.4 FPS using version 1.3...

wtf?


----------



## trog100 (Jan 4, 2008)

i have odd results with this one.. when i installed the cat 7.11 drivers my score shot up from 220 to 320.. then a change of system pushed me up to 340-sh.. then i lost the benchmark and downloaded another copy and my score is now about 220-ish ??????

something weird going on with it..

trog


----------



## reverze (Jan 4, 2008)

Not so trustworthy then?...

I might give verision 1.2 a try and see what happens, cause I got around 150FPS on my x1950xt..


----------



## reverze (Jan 4, 2008)

Now I am getting 173.3 on version 1.2..

This benchmark is a crock of ....


----------



## Monkeywoman (Jan 4, 2008)

i just downloaded 1.3. on my system (at 1280x1024) i got average 101.1fps.....a little low isnt it?


----------



## reverze (Jan 4, 2008)

Yes, that is definitely low..

I used to get around 150FPS on my x1950xt.. ( On version 1.2 )

Now, ( On version 1.3 ) I get 80FPS with a HD3870...

Version 1.2 with my HD3870 I only get 173.3 while others manage to get in the high 200's to the low 300 area...

This benchmark has something screwy about it.. I would just uninstall it and forget that it even existed..


----------



## trog100 (Jan 4, 2008)

the earlier ati cards dont do very well in this one.. so its normal i would say..

trog


----------



## Monkeywoman (Jan 4, 2008)

no trog, its far from normal. i'll wait and see if 2.x will fix any of these problems, for now i'm in the same boat as reverze.


----------



## largon (Jan 4, 2008)

The chart would be more better if scores run with SLi/CF were marked as such.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 4, 2008)

C/F dosnt affect it.. not sure about S/L thow..

trog


----------



## trog100 (Jan 4, 2008)

Monkeywoman said:


> no trog, its far from normal. i'll wait and see if 2.x will fix any of these problems, for now i'm in the same boat as reverze.



for the record i scored about 101 with my overclocked 1900xtx.. amd 6000+ at 3.350 gig.. so i recon your score is normal... or at least as normal as mine was..

trog


----------



## VulkanBros (Jan 4, 2008)

155.9 

with X2 6000+ / 8800GTX - no oc


----------



## snuif09 (Jan 4, 2008)

i still only have an 15" lcd so no 1280x1024


----------



## Co_Op (Jan 4, 2008)




----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2008)

updated for you guys


----------



## largon (Jan 6, 2008)

largon 8800GT @ 864/2214/1053, Q6600 @ 3.6GHz *345.7fps*

Something's wrong here...


----------



## reverze (Jan 6, 2008)

largon said:


> Something's wrong here...



for sure...

glad i'm not the only one saying that.


----------



## DOM (Jan 6, 2008)

largon said:


> largon 8800GT @ 864/2214/1053, Q6600 @ 3.6GHz *345.7fps*
> 
> Something's wrong here...





reverze said:


> for sure...
> 
> glad i'm not the only one saying that.



Yep there is got new score 

DOM_ATI_X800XL_PCI-E X1950XT @743/1053, E6400@3.6ghz 211.3fps XP-PRO





@cdawall this needs to be closed and new one made with Lightsmark 1.3


----------



## trog100 (Jan 6, 2008)

i scored low 200s with the 3870 card.. loaded the cat 7.11 drivers.. my score shot up to low 300..

with cat 7.12 drivers and a new benchmark downloaded its back down to low 200s.. he he he

i tried going back to the 7.11 drivers nothing happened.. cant go back to the high scoring download cos i have lost it..

something is wrong for sure..

trog


----------



## molnart (Jan 6, 2008)

It's a know issue with the HDxxxx Radeon's



> Q: What's up with Radeon HD scores?
> A: They are lower because of driver issue, fix is in works.


----------



## DonGonzo (Jan 8, 2008)

*8600 Results*

Didn't see a lot of people posting results for any 8600s... likely because it's not a common card for "enthusiasts" or what have you- So here are my piddy-paddy results with my 8600GTS.







I don't think I can get any more out of it


----------



## Lillebror (Feb 10, 2008)

im wondering.. Why was i getting around 97fps with my x1950pro card, but only around 110 with my new 3870? has that happened to anyone before?


----------



## DOM (Feb 10, 2008)

Lillebror said:


> im wondering.. Why was i getting around 97fps with my x1950pro card, but only around 110 with my new 3870? has that happened to anyone before?



have you dl the latest one 1.3v in oct 2007 ?


----------



## Lillebror (Feb 10, 2008)

Yeah.. Its really really weird :S ive just done a full format of my computer and installed vista and stuff. And now i just ran it, and i only score 102.2 :s its just really really low


----------



## DOM (Feb 10, 2008)

stock card i get 120, oced 175 just now cpu ay 3520GHz


----------



## Dr. Spankenstein (Feb 10, 2008)

Do you have the "pretties" turned down in CCC? (Mipmap detail, AA, AF @ Cat A.I. to Standard?)


----------



## Lillebror (Feb 10, 2008)

Haha, i think i know why it dosent sound that much higher with the new card  the friend who bought my old card, just sended me a screenshot of his lightmark! And that metal girl thing, dosent get rendered! And i remember that when the thing is standing on that book and its showing you the diff shadows, i was getting like 90fps on my 1950pro, cause of the girl not rendering, and no shadows was casted 

Edit: everything is standing on performance, so wasent that


----------



## Indy (Mar 17, 2008)

*Still looking to break 500??*

I keep trying for that magic number of 500+ using the default 1280x1024 screen size and so far have been unsuccessful.  However attempting to do that I have at least beat my personal record!  Yeah!!


----------



## wolf (Mar 18, 2008)

im very close to that ......... 465 i think.....with a single 8800GT


----------



## 2slow (Jun 23, 2008)

Not bad for technology thats 3 years old---AGP and stock cooling.

But, then again this is making me realize its time to swap over to a pci-e setup.  I was thinking about dual core and keeping the AGP vid card but you guys scoring 400+ are making me jealous.

//chris
Athlon 3000+ 2.4 Mhz, 2gb, Asus Av8, Radeon X1950pro  601/736 stock cooling on all


----------



## cdawall (Jun 23, 2008)

looks like my old s754 newcastle rig


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 23, 2008)

2slow said:


> Not bad for technology thats 3 years old---AGP and stock cooling.



Sorry Chris, but that score is AWFUL for AGP. Try this:






http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=805064&postcount=4


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jun 23, 2008)

Here's what I got.  I loved the cheesy French rap tune in the background too 

EDIT: 2nd attemp, slightly higher overclock:


----------



## CrackerJack (Jun 23, 2008)




----------



## 2slow (Jun 23, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Sorry Chris, but that score is AWFUL for AGP. Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where is the rest of the info...cpu...gpu...?


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jun 23, 2008)

2slow said:


> Where is the rest of the info...cpu...gpu...?



I assume he's using his 3850 AGP as stated in system specs.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 23, 2008)

2slow. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK I GAVE YOU *AND THAT YOU QUOTED*  LOL. In that thread is full system specs, post #1.


----------



## 2slow (Jun 23, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> 2slow. PLEASE CLICK THE LINK I GAVE YOU *AND THAT YOU QUOTED*  LOL. In that thread is full system specs, post #1.



Im using a single core processor with pc3200 memory come on lets compare apples to apples  
Your comparing a 4cylinder to my lawn mower engine of course youll win


----------



## merkk (Jun 24, 2008)

Hi guys

 Cpu stock clock speed (2.5) video cards stock clock speed 1280x1024


----------



## merkk (Jun 24, 2008)

My 94 was done on 1.3


----------



## CrackerJack (Jun 24, 2008)

merkk said:


> My 94 was done on 1.3



with your same specs in your system specs?

3 crossfire cards?


----------



## merkk (Jun 24, 2008)

yupper that with the 3 video cards but i was reading in the thread that crossfire dose not 
work in this app. I dont know for sure frist time i ran it .


----------



## CrackerJack (Jun 24, 2008)

it work for me


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 24, 2008)

2slow said:


> Im using a single core processor with pc3200 memory come on lets compare apples to apples
> Your comparing a 4cylinder to my lawn mower engine of course youll win


I dont want to compare your apples with my bananas.  YOUR words indicated you'd reached the *end* of the AGP line. Not true. Stick in a HD 3850 and you will double your performance.  Lightmark is pretty much independent of CPU, so my monster quad vs. your little vespa shouldnt drive the result.

Unless you *need* a new top-of-the-line machine, you can get a performance kick upgrading your GPU without having to buy a whole new system and go through the full reinstall routine.


----------



## cdawall (Jun 24, 2008)

you dont have to do a full reinstall i have gone from my via s754 to an ATi AM2 to a AMD AM2+ on the same install 

also that X1950 is good in most games still today hell i was running crysis on my 7800GS


----------



## aCid888* (Jun 24, 2008)

look at my mighty score, i wonder if this is the lowest score with a 8800GT to date?!


----------



## revin (Jun 26, 2008)

Underclocked CPU, but O/C Bliss 670/1560


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 20, 2008)

is there a way to fix the fact that vista sux in the bench and xp completely pwns, i get double the score in xp then i do in vista, like it's horrible, it almost looks while you're doing the benchmark that the framerate is limted somehow?? is there a workaround for this


----------



## CrackerJack (Jul 20, 2008)

exodusprime1337 said:


> is there a way to fix the fact that vista sux in the bench and xp completely pwns, i get double the score in xp then i do in vista, like it's horrible, it almost looks while you're doing the benchmark that the framerate is limted somehow?? is there a workaround for this



are you using 1.2 or 1.3


----------



## oli_ramsay (Jul 20, 2008)

Doesn't seem to like ATi cards too much, a 4870 should pwn an 8800GT but not on this benchmark.






I'm using 1.3 BTW


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Jul 20, 2008)

i'm using 1.2, and i've tried 1.3 and the first edition but each one seems like it limits, in xp the very first scene yields like 500 fps in vista is stays lock at 87 the whole time


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 20, 2008)

LM v1.3 used. Dunno why I only get 208FPS. I guess my hybrid 3870 is bandwidth starved. Could be the drivers too.. can't wait for official Cats 8.7 based on beta results I've seen  meh, guess overall I don't care, been playing Crysis on v.high settings smooth as a babys bum 






ED - Apparently HD scores are driver related and "a fix is in works" for LM. So.. until the author of LM gets the fix right, no ATi HD series score will be accuratre.


----------



## johnspack (Jul 21, 2008)




----------



## 2slow (Jul 22, 2008)

Old ass system socket A 2400+ 768 of ram running at 266 not in dual channel agp 6600


----------



## Iceman0124 (Jul 27, 2008)

I only get 136 at 1680x1050 with a GTX260 FTW.....not sure what the problem is


----------



## Ketxxx (Jul 27, 2008)

2slow said:


> Old ass system socket A 2400+ 768 of ram running at 266 not in dual channel agp 6600



Ouch.. time to pimp that aged rig out


----------



## johnspack (Aug 5, 2008)

*New Lightsmark 2008 1.9 + 64bit support*

Another run on my 9800gtx using the new lightsmark in 64 bit mode,  I had to extract the folder to c: drive in order for it to work:


----------



## purecain (Aug 5, 2008)

@johnspack - i'm struggling to install the new version... i'm not familiar with file extensions... Lightsmark2008.1.9.tar.bz2


----------



## kyle2020 (Aug 5, 2008)

386 Average, 8800GT @ 750-1800-2100 / 5000+ BE @ 3Ghz

(Going to do some tuning now and have another go, will post more results soon)


----------



## cdawall (Aug 5, 2008)

working on updates but got called into work early


----------



## cdawall (Aug 5, 2008)

phenom@2.84ghz
3850@stock


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 5, 2008)

A run at everyday settings. I'll have to run it again later at benching clocks.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 5, 2008)

Purecain,  winrar will open the file.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 5, 2008)

Oh and all,  you have to left click on the graphic to open the advanced settings,  you should see what I have and be able to click on 64 bit!


----------



## johnspack (Aug 5, 2008)

Bizarre,  I left 64 bit unchecked, and with my new revised gpu clocks under xp64 I get:




strange little benchmark,  or else I got this thing tuned up!


----------



## DOM (Aug 5, 2008)




----------



## purecain (Aug 6, 2008)

4870 1st run...


----------



## johnspack (Aug 6, 2008)

Gotta be something you can tweak yet.. that card should beat mine....


----------



## EnergyFX (Aug 6, 2008)

SLi GTX280s


----------



## kyle2020 (Aug 6, 2008)

The guy running SLI GTX280's got like 90 more than the guy with a single 9800GTX and lower CPU specs. Interesting . . .


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 17, 2008)

Just did a run while i watched Xmen 3 and I got this score (pic below) with the current settings in my System Spec


----------



## Kursah (Aug 18, 2008)

I haven't ran this since 1.2 with my x1950xtx iirc, so I figured what the hell..I've been submitting GTX scores to other pages...still working on stabilizing my OC's and such as it is.

The first image here is in x64 mode, I'm running an EVGA FTW Bios with 80% fan mod so I have higher stock clocks which is what I game at, but for this bench I ran 745:1530 GPU:Shader and 1300 memory.






Here is the results running x86 mode...pretty close scores. Only lost about 3 points running x86 mode.


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 18, 2008)

Just ran Lightsmark 08 and got a huge jump in fps (see pic below) with the settings in my system specs


----------



## Kursah (Aug 18, 2008)

Nice work man! Those 9800's are powerful damn cards for sure! Just passed me right on by!


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 18, 2008)

I'm 5fps behind SLI 280GTXs (!!!!) with a single 9800GTX...this card has some nuts lol


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 18, 2008)

BUMP!!!!  update the scores list someone please!!??


----------



## cdawall (Aug 18, 2008)

i'm trying bunch of stuff to do though


----------



## Lillebror (Aug 18, 2008)

I dont get this! I get aroudn 117 with the computer in my specs! and i got 107 when i had a 3870! and thats on a fresh formated vista machine! i need a new cpu + motherboard :\ Cause i think the problem is there.


----------



## kyle2020 (Aug 18, 2008)

Id be 11th but no updates have happened to the scores 

Plus i have a Q6600 on the way soon so expect another update from me


----------



## cdawall (Aug 18, 2008)

im working on it!


----------



## erocker (Aug 18, 2008)

Staight to the top baby!

*Or is that bottom..


----------



## cdawall (Aug 18, 2008)

hey erocker want a lapped 3400+ s754 chip?


----------



## erocker (Aug 18, 2008)

Thanks but nah, this thing already has too much power!  I actually have a 3200+ just laying around somewhere..


----------



## deathvirus_me (Aug 18, 2008)

598.5 here  , proccy is a E6600 @ 3.2 GHz , and a 8800GT runnin' at 670/1675/1900  .. check my specs on the left ..


----------



## erocker (Aug 18, 2008)




----------



## DOM (Aug 19, 2008)




----------



## aCid888* (Aug 19, 2008)

Nice job with that 9600GSO, looks to be a very solid card 


And erocker, your 13.3fps avg blew me away, I've never seen a score so high!


----------



## Lillebror (Aug 19, 2008)

Why am i getting such a low score?! Its a fresh vista install with sp1


----------



## DOM (Aug 19, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> Nice job with that 9600GSO, looks to be a very solid card



thanks  its on water and only with 1.35v on the core its 24/7 tested it with looped 3DMark06 for like 8hr and played games its all thanks to largon PALiT 9600GSO voltage mods


----------



## kyle2020 (Aug 19, 2008)

Lillebror said:


> Why am i getting such a low score?! Its a fresh vista install with sp1



something deffinately not right there.


----------



## Lillebror (Aug 20, 2008)

kyle2020 said:


> something deffinately not right there.



Its just so weird! With my old setup with the 3870 i got 170fps! It can't be real 

And with my even older setup with a x1950pro, i got 90! i really think my cpu and motherboard is crapped up!


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 20, 2008)

Lillebror said:


> Its just so weird! With my old setup with the 3870 i got 170fps! It can't be real
> 
> And with my even older setup with a x1950pro, i got 90! i really think my cpu and motherboard is crapped up!



Sounds like the issue I had with my XFX 8800GT, memory was fubar and it did really really bad fps in this and sometimes crashed in game....same rig with a slight OC on the CPU (3.5GHz at the moment ) and a 9800GTX and I scored over 700fps avg....I would think about maybe RMAing your card....it wont cost a lot to send it back and if it works the benefits will be vast


----------



## Lillebror (Aug 20, 2008)

I never get crash's in games. I dont know why, but im really suspecting my cpu and my motherboard :s


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 20, 2008)

I really wouldnt be running an Intel P965+ chipset, there are lots better out there and it wouldnt be a shocker if that indeed was the issue with your 4870 not doing as well as it should..get a cheap P35 board or even the newer P4x ones...if you want something better look at X38 or once again the newer X4x boards...they will suit you well and you may even get some more speed from your E6400


----------



## Jeno (Aug 20, 2008)

r you guys running v2.0?


----------



## Lillebror (Aug 20, 2008)

aCid888* said:


> I really wouldnt be running an Intel P965+ chipset, there are lots better out there and it wouldnt be a shocker if that indeed was the issue with your 4870 not doing as well as it should..get a cheap P35 board or even the newer P4x ones...if you want something better look at X38 or once again the newer X4x boards...they will suit you well and you may even get some more speed from your E6400



I was thinking about waiting for nehelem.. But maybe i should just get one of the new quads and move to ddr3.


----------



## DOM (Aug 20, 2008)

Jeno said:


> r you guys running v2.0?



I am


----------



## DOM (Aug 20, 2008)

Lillebror said:


> I was thinking about waiting for nehelem.. But maybe i should just get one of the new quads and move to ddr3.



I should be getting a HD4850 some time soon or next month hope it works good on my mobo


----------



## lukankata (Aug 20, 2008)

I have a 4870 and i get 545 fps. I saw in the previous pages that a 9600GSO gets over 600. It's a bit strange. I also saw that a 9800GTX gets over 700. I'm using the latest lightsmark version. That's very odd cuz 4870 is above these two cards as in performance level especially in OpenGL applications such as this one.


----------



## DOM (Aug 20, 2008)

lukankata said:


> I have a 4870 and i get 545 fps. I saw in the previous pages that a 9600GSO gets over 600. It's a bit strange. I also saw that a 9800GTX gets over 700. I'm using the latest lightsmark version. That's very odd cuz 4870 is above these two cards as in performance level especially in OpenGL applications such as this one.



LOL thats was my card its volt moded  GPU-Z Validation  its a 50% OC on the Core and Shaders and 38% on the Memory


----------



## lukankata (Aug 20, 2008)

Is the test multi-threaded? In plain - does it take advantage of the number of cores it runs at?


----------



## DOM (Aug 20, 2008)

lukankata said:


> Is the test multi-threaded? In plain - does it take advantage of the number of cores it runs at?



well it seems to just use one core very lil usage by the other 3


----------



## rick22 (Aug 26, 2008)

The cpu was at 4277.3 not what it shows in the picture


----------



## aCid888* (Aug 26, 2008)

My 9800GTX rocks 707fps avg in this, a 4870 should be better but I'm seeing a lot of times that it just cant keep up when it should in reality be blowing this card out the water...oh well..I guess that goes to show the 'newest and best' isn't always so great lol


----------



## aCid888* (Sep 16, 2008)

BUMP!!!  

Still needing them updates..any chance of it??


----------



## Indy (Sep 16, 2008)

Well, until the author updates the software to secure the bench results particularly the resolution drop down window..  I see little point in posting the results of our hard work and use the results as a reference fo myself only..   While no one is suspected of cheating knowing that it is possible to cheat,  kinda puts a whole new scrutiny on results...   I accidentally stumbled upon this  method after running a bench at one resolution but indicate that it may have been run at another..  shown below a benchmark run at one resolution alongside the same result indicating another resolution


----------



## DOM (Sep 16, 2008)

download the 2.0v here


----------



## johnspack (Sep 17, 2008)

Just playing,  but here's  v2.0 @ 1920x1200 (before intel upgrade so I can keep track)


----------



## jpierce55 (Oct 26, 2008)

E8200@3.9ghz not 2.9 like shown.
Visiontek 3870@ 891/1224.
100% stable run!


----------



## bubje (Oct 26, 2008)

here´s mine
 E8400@3.6
 HD 4870 2d 500/300 3d 825/950


----------



## blobster21 (Oct 26, 2008)

Q9650 @ 4ghz + single XFX GF280gtx zde9 edition


----------



## Flyordie (Oct 27, 2008)

Corrupted my FS, removed Video Drivers, killed the chipset drivers also... CPU driver was also corrupted.

Installed Lightsmark 2008. Fudged everything up. Just installed, restarted and upon restart everything had gone to crap.
"Installing PCI to PCI Bridge"
"Error; File System Corruption Detected, Some files may not be usable while repairing"
"No ATI Video Card Detected"
"Installing Ethernet Adapter.."
You name it, it probably installed it upon that restart.


----------



## chuck216 (Nov 1, 2008)

Here's mine.... rather pathetic but then again I have a low quality videocard

I decided to try the run at 3.2 Ghz on processor and Videocard @ 750/550.
Results are below


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Nov 1, 2008)

Flyordie said:


> Corrupted my FS, removed Video Drivers, killed the chipset drivers also... CPU driver was also corrupted.
> 
> Installed Lightsmark 2008. Fudged everything up. Just installed, restarted and upon restart everything had gone to crap.
> "Installing PCI to PCI Bridge"
> ...



are you saying that this has to do with installing lightsmark?? i've never had an issue and i've installed this 100 plus times.  sorry to hear that?


----------



## cdawall (Nov 1, 2008)

lol i really need to update this thing


----------



## 95Viper (Nov 1, 2008)

View attachment 19833


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 2, 2008)

cdawall said:


> lol i really need to update this thing



Yeah, that would be productive.


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 5, 2008)

*BUMP FOR AN UPDATE AND MORE SCORES TO BE POSTED WITH NEWER CARDS!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 5, 2008)

should we run v2.0? or 1.2 ?

here's a slightly above stock hd4850. v2.0


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 6, 2008)

You should be running v2.0, as to my knowledge its the newest one.

How did you only manage 548fps avg with a 4850 yet I get 707fps with my 9800GTX+ and a lower CPU/RAM clock speed??  Strange things once again! lol


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 6, 2008)

if I had to guess, it would be due to the same issue that plagues my furmark scores..CCC doesnt allow full graphics use in benchmarks? maybe if I changed the exe. file name?


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 6, 2008)

That would work   give it a go and rename it to something else


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 6, 2008)

ah, well I tried it and it didnt work. disabled adaptive aa and gained 2 fps.. I am using like 8.8 catalyst, maybe i'll try 8.10


----------



## Binge (Nov 6, 2008)

Radeon cards do horribly at this test.  My 4870x2 got a 470.2


----------



## Borba72 (Nov 8, 2008)

8800 GTS @stock
Core2Duo E6750 2.66GHz @stock


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 8, 2008)

A very solid score for everything at stock, Borba 

Congrats on your 4th post!


----------



## Kursah (Nov 9, 2008)

Wow it's been a long time since I've posted here! Figured I'd give this a run...this is just opening and running, did not turn music off or set for x64 mode. Seemed to do ok, nothing amazing I'm sure! I'll have to browse the pages and see how the score fares. Not a big deal, the card runs good, the new 86 OC's decently and runs cool.


----------



## aCid888* (Nov 9, 2008)

Give me time to get my E6750 system replace by my new E8400 setup and I'm sure my 9800GTX can manage another 20fps, as I got 707 before 

I really am shocked at the newer cards..they just don't seem to do it in this test....the AMD/ATI cards just perform so poorly, while the newer 260/280GTX cards don't do a lot better than my 9800GTX+ :O


----------



## NapalmV5 (Nov 11, 2008)

q9650 @ 4.8ghz


----------



## NapalmV5 (Nov 22, 2008)

blobster21 said:


> Q9650 @ 4ghz + single XFX GF280gtx zde9 edition


----------



## NinkobEi (Nov 22, 2008)

nice score with the 4870.. factory overclocked? which brand is it


----------



## NapalmV5 (Nov 22, 2008)

thanks.. 750/900 sapphire @ powercolor bios


----------



## Binge (Nov 23, 2008)

GTX260 OCed w/my Q9550 @ 3.4ghz


----------



## Binge (Dec 2, 2008)




----------



## Fitseries3 (Dec 2, 2008)

um... here....

cpu at 3.6ghz


----------



## crtecha (Dec 8, 2008)

any ideas on how I can get better stats?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Dec 8, 2008)

crtecha said:


> any ideas on how I can get better stats?



better video card. maybe set your driver settings different(don't know how to with ATI its been too long) overclock the card more


----------



## crtecha (Dec 8, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> better video card. maybe set your driver settings different(don't know how to with ATI its been too long) overclock the card more





Thanks I think I may try to overclock it somemore.  I would like to get a new card.  But I live in Michigan and guess what?  Im getting laid off.  So hey im gonna get this baby going.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Dec 8, 2008)

crtecha said:


> Thanks I think I may try to overclock it somemore.  I would like to get a new card.  But I live in Michigan and guess what?  Im getting laid off.  So hey im gonna get this baby going.



if you can't overclock it to where you want there is alway my favorite thing.... VOLTMOD  I don't recommend it if you can't afford to risk killing the card


----------



## crtecha (Dec 8, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> if you can't overclock it to where you want there is alway my favorite thing.... VOLTMOD  I don't recommend it if you can't afford to risk killing the card




I will defiantly look into it.  I'll be back after the 1st of the year worst case is I have to use my on board for a minute.  I got the card for $60 soo once I know what im doing ill go for it

Thank again.


----------



## NapalmV5 (Jan 16, 2009)

q9650 @ 4.5ghz


----------



## JC316 (Jan 16, 2009)

399.2
9600GSO stock
E5200@3.75GHZ


----------



## cdawall (Jan 16, 2009)

need to update this...will get on it soon


----------



## JC316 (Jan 18, 2009)

cdawall said:


> need to update this...will get on it soon



Believe me when I tell you that you don't want to get behind, it's a pain in the ass. Took me a good 3 hours to update that Overclocking index.


----------



## sweeper (Jan 24, 2009)




----------



## Altered (Jan 24, 2009)

All default X 1950XTX settings in Crossfire 3.6 on my E6750. Is this about right?


----------



## sweeper (Jan 24, 2009)

Damn.... I figured you would score atleast 400FPS or in that area? 2 x1950XTX's with an E6750 Conroe? Hmmmm...... wonder if it's the x1950's? But who am I to talk, I'm old school with my Pentium 4 system. LOL.


----------



## Binge (Jan 24, 2009)

ATi cards do terribly on this bench.  I wouldn't know though, never owed a 1900XTX


----------



## Altered (Jan 24, 2009)

I was wondering if the Bandwidth on my second card is right. It only shows 38GB/s while the Master card shows 63.9GB/s.   ???? Not sure that has anything to do with my low score or not.


----------



## 3dsage (Jan 24, 2009)

Heres what a 6800 Ultra can do
Core 470 Mem 1350.


----------



## Flyordie (Feb 2, 2009)

Oh and yes, it will do 750Mhz. ;-) Just don't feel like killing my HD4850... one that actually clocks friggin AWESOME!


----------



## sweeper (Feb 2, 2009)

:shadedshu


----------



## Binge (Feb 2, 2009)

sweeper said:


> :shadedshu



please tell us what card you used and your clocks next time.


----------



## sweeper (Feb 3, 2009)

Here:


----------



## sweeper (Feb 7, 2009)

Same specs as above only fresh install of Windows XP SP3 and 9.1 Hotfix Drivers.


----------



## NapalmV5 (Feb 11, 2009)

evga gtx280 ftw vs evga gtx285 ssc - max overclock @ stock coolers/1.23vcore

actual clocks: 756core/1512shader/1296mem vs 756core/1764shader/1512mem


----------



## lemonadesoda (Feb 12, 2009)

^^Napalm.

Not much of a difference then (3.5% improvement) on a mem and shader clock increase of over 15%.

Could you run this test again using IDENTICAL clocks and IDENTICAL drivers? Let's see if there are BIOS tweaks on the later 285 BIOS that give it an uplift.


----------



## NapalmV5 (Feb 12, 2009)

181.20/181.22  same performance

evga gtx280 ftw vs zotac gtx285 amp

precision clocks:  756core/1512shader/1296mem









my evga 285 ssc is heavily modded since then ^ im gonna run it @ same clocks and if its more than 5-10 fps diff ill post it but theres no diff between 280/285 exept 285 clocks higher shader/mem


----------



## NapalmV5 (Feb 13, 2009)

i was wrong about 181.20/181.22 same performance - post #311 revised

15+ fps higher on the 285 @ 181.20
15+ fps higher on the 280 @ 181.22

280/285 equal @ 181.22


----------



## 3dsage (Mar 16, 2009)

8800GT@stock speeds

488


----------

