Geforce FX Benchmarks

skastel · Nov 20, 2002, 06:21 PM

ok so in the release presentation they give us a few benchmarks, unfourtunately they don't elaborate as to what the rest of the system they're running is, but lets give a comparison a shot eh?
All these are with 4xAA and 8XAF, 1280x1024x32
3dMarks2001 Nature scene:40.6 FPS <16.2 for Ti4600>
UT2003 Asbestos HQ: 108.4 FPS <39.3 for Ti4600>
Doom3 HQ: 49.8 FPS <20.9 for Ti4600>

Can somone with a 9700 Pro and some time on their hands post some comparison scores? I really want to see if the GF/FX can/does compare to the reigning champ.

Kelsenellenelvian · Nov 20, 2002, 10:21 PM

Holy SH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alistair · Nov 20, 2002, 10:45 PM

got a friend to run the test.... 8x Aniso, 4x FSAA

Athlon XP 2100+
Radeon 9700 Pro default speeds

Nature: 48.3

UberLord · Nov 20, 2002, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alistair
got a friend to run the test.... 8x Aniso, 4x FSAA

Athlon XP 2100+
Radeon 9700 Pro default speeds

Nature: 48.3

HOLY PARHELIA BATMAN!

My Parhelia scores 37 fps with FAA x16 and x2 aniso (drivers won't allow for greater than x2 aniso

)

But that's on my P4 2.53

Vampyromaniac · Nov 21, 2002, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by skastel
unfourtunately they don't elaborate as to what the rest of the system they're running is, . . .

The system they used is a 3 GHz Pentium 4 with 512MB RAM running Windows XP.

sporkpimp · Nov 21, 2002, 03:15 AM

ZING!

*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*

Which is to say, I'm pretending that the score won't go up 20% when by the time its released. It's my way of validating my 9700 purchase ;D

reno · Nov 21, 2002, 03:42 PM

Those Radeon numbers seem a bit high.

And anyway, that's nvidia's 8x Aniostropic, which I believe is 64-tap Anisotropic...which is different than ATI's..

And wasn't that with 4xS AA on the FX?

Alistair · Nov 21, 2002, 07:31 PM

the numbers for teh Radeon are real and the drivers were untweaked for performance. He was using the 6228 drivers with DirectX 9 and FSAA was on quality

means96 · Nov 26, 2002, 03:22 AM

I have a standard G-Force 3 = less than a ti4600 and Nature = 27 fps

See my 3D Mark results

Here

I'm thinking that maybe some of the numbers given are skewed - since my G-force 3 gives almost twice the fps than the above claim for a G-Force 4 card.

Just seems suspicious is all

Alistair · Nov 26, 2002, 03:58 AM

you weren't using FSAA and you used a different resolution thats why your numbers are higher.

DriveEuro · Nov 26, 2002, 04:25 AM

Yeah means, those numbers are with FSAA enabled and in 1280x1024 resolution

means96 · Nov 26, 2002, 03:11 PM

I have an ASUS 8200 G-
Force 3. FSAA is off for this card and there is no switch to turn it on

reno · Nov 26, 2002, 03:22 PM

You need to enable coolbits, download nvidia Hardpage and it's easy as one click.

The numbers do seem to fall in line, and can anyone else here even fathom playing doom 3 at almost 50 frames per second...at 1280x1024...4x Antialiasing...and 8x Anisotropic filter? I mean, holy CRAP! I can barely hit 20 fps without AA and aniso at 800x600! JEEBUS!

sporkpimp · Nov 27, 2002, 12:41 AM

I topped out at 10 FPS for some reason... no doubt some random incompatibility.

Nov 20, 2002, 06:21 PM	#1
skastel Massive Happiness Join Date: May 2002 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 238 Rep Power: 0	Geforce FX Benchmarks ok so in the release presentation they give us a few benchmarks, unfourtunately they don't elaborate as to what the rest of the system they're running is, but lets give a comparison a shot eh? All these are with 4xAA and 8XAF, 1280x1024x32 3dMarks2001 Nature scene:40.6 FPS <16.2 for Ti4600> UT2003 Asbestos HQ: 108.4 FPS <39.3 for Ti4600> Doom3 HQ: 49.8 FPS <20.9 for Ti4600> Can somone with a 9700 Pro and some time on their hands post some comparison scores? I really want to see if the GF/FX can/does compare to the reigning champ. __________________ Barton 2800+ @ 1998Mhz (12x166) Radeon 9700 Pro ASUS A7N 1 GB Corsair Low Latency PC3200 (2-2-2-5) SBLive! 5.1 WD 80GB JB Samsung DVD 16x+/12x-/2.4x Dual Layer Lite-On CD-R/RW 48x12x48x

Nov 20, 2002, 10:21 PM	#2
Kelsenellenelvian Master of my own Destiny Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: EverDawn Kingdom,TruEarth Posts: 1,394 Rep Power: 0	Holy SH!T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! __________________ [color=#0000ff] Download Windows Post-Install Wizard v4.3.8 and WPI Lite v1.2 Here [/color][color=red][color=blue][/color][/color]

Nov 20, 2002, 10:45 PM	#3
Alistair Spoos Join Date: May 2002 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 435 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	got a friend to run the test.... 8x Aniso, 4x FSAA Athlon XP 2100+ Radeon 9700 Pro default speeds Nature: 48.3 __________________ - Alistair

Nov 21, 2002, 03:15 AM	#6
sporkpimp DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CA, USA Posts: 90 Rep Power: 0	Hrm... ZING! ++++++++++++++* Which is to say, I'm pretending that the score won't go up 20% when by the time its released. It's my way of validating my 9700 purchase ;D

Nov 21, 2002, 03:42 PM	#7
reno Painlord of Ichor Join Date: May 2002 Location: bloinkin! Posts: 1,610 Rep Power: 0	vch Those Radeon numbers seem a bit high. And anyway, that's nvidia's 8x Aniostropic, which I believe is 64-tap Anisotropic...which is different than ATI's.. And wasn't that with 4xS AA on the FX?

Nov 21, 2002, 07:31 PM	#8
Alistair Spoos Join Date: May 2002 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 435 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	the numbers for teh Radeon are real and the drivers were untweaked for performance. He was using the 6228 drivers with DirectX 9 and FSAA was on quality __________________ - Alistair

Nov 26, 2002, 03:22 AM	#9
means96 HardwareHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 76 Rep Power: 0	I have a standard G-Force 3 = less than a ti4600 and Nature = 27 fps See my 3D Mark results Here I'm thinking that maybe some of the numbers given are skewed - since my G-force 3 gives almost twice the fps than the above claim for a G-Force 4 card. Just seems suspicious is all

Nov 26, 2002, 03:58 AM	#10
Alistair Spoos Join Date: May 2002 Location: State College, PA, USA Posts: 435 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	you weren't using FSAA and you used a different resolution thats why your numbers are higher. __________________ - Alistair

Nov 26, 2002, 04:25 AM	#11
DriveEuro HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gurnee Illinois Posts: 4,677 Rep Power: 0	Yeah means, those numbers are with FSAA enabled and in 1280x1024 resolution __________________ [color=orange]ASUS P4P800 Deluxe [color=black]-[/color] 2.4C --> 3300mhz [color=black]-[/color] Mushkin PC3200 at 220 5-2-2-2 (cpu limited) [color=black]-[/color] BBAti 9800Pro at 430/375 [/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]01[/color] [color=black]3[/color][color=gray]D[/color]M[color=black]a[/color][color=gray]r[/color]k[color=yellow]03[/color] 16001200 12801024

Nov 26, 2002, 03:11 PM	#12
means96 HardwareHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 76 Rep Power: 0	fsaa I have an ASUS 8200 G- Force 3. FSAA is off for this card and there is no switch to turn it on

Nov 26, 2002, 03:22 PM	#13
reno Painlord of Ichor Join Date: May 2002 Location: bloinkin! Posts: 1,610 Rep Power: 0	vhdfc You need to enable coolbits, download nvidia Hardpage and it's easy as one click. The numbers do seem to fall in line, and can anyone else here even fathom playing doom 3 at almost 50 frames per second...at 1280x1024...4x Antialiasing...and 8x Anisotropic filter? I mean, holy CRAP! I can barely hit 20 fps without AA and aniso at 800x600! JEEBUS!

Nov 27, 2002, 12:41 AM	#14
sporkpimp DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: CA, USA Posts: 90 Rep Power: 0	I feel your pain I topped out at 10 FPS for some reason... no doubt some random incompatibility.