Discussion in 'Overclocking, Benching & Modding' started by HardwareHeaven, May 25, 2003.
lol... is that good or bad?
I would have thought it was pretty much impossible, unless its one of nvidias "famous" low IQ benching drivers or some kind of glitch.
an overclocked 9800 XT (a much faster card) at 450-460 core and 400 ram, scores around 6600-6800 in that test.
well that was with the 56.55 dets <- these are unofficial i think
and this is with the 53.03 dets
and this is 53.06 dets
actually from what im seeing, your 01 score with that graphics card is right, its all the rest of them (barring pcmark02) appear seriously messed up.
lol maybe i just got a weird card from MSI
maybe this ?
You are not going to get any awards here for cheating.
hmm.... very odd
looking at you 2003 scores
NOTE: This project has not been run with Futuremark approved drivers, or the status of the drivers can not be determined. The accuracy of the results can not be guaranteed. For more information on how to get a valid and comparable result, please refer to this page.
not to mention 52.16 are the last aproved benchmarking drivers
Graphics Chipset NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Driver Name NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Driver Version 220.127.116.11
Driver Status Non WHQL - Not FM Approved
Video Memory 256 MB
Core Clock 301 MHz
Memory Clock 983 MHz
yet you description says MSI GeForce Fx 5900 Ultra 256mb DDR (508/984 Det 53.06)
something is defonately wrong here...
Program Version 3DMark03 Revision 4 Build 0
oh looky the magor cheat version, the one that nvida got thier chops busted over becouse of what 30% cheat?, why aren't you useing build 340? hmm :hmm: ?
i dont cheat what would be the point in that? how can i prove im not cheating and i am using build 340!
Yeah Neon. I pointed those out to Zardon. The Build 0 and the note about unauthorized drivers.
ok before this turns into an argument, id like to say perhaps downloader didnt do this intentionally, but I will say those scores arent right. quite a few people have already noticed it. from the 3dmark03 score of over 7000 which is genuinely impossible at your clocks. this is why FM patched the application. if you run those again with the newest build it should drop to a more reasonable and honest level.
The aquamark score isnt correct. there are some threads, one I just showed you on the aquamark forums which details bugs with those cards.
your 3dmark01 and pcmark02 scores look fine.
Then you shouldn't have any troubles
loading the 340 patch then....
and download the 52.16
re run and post your scores for us k?
ok ill do that but benching takes me a while so your gonna have to wait a bit
even tho you have possible bugged scores on the other good job on your pcmark scores they were pretty n ice @ 3.2
2.8ghz 800 fsb overclocked to 3.2ghz on air using coolermaster pro aerocool (non jet version) i think i should be getting more on my mem tho its 1024mb dual chan OCZ pc 4200 EL cost me Â£350 and i dont even think im gonna use its full potential!
all these are dets 52.16
doing others now
btw i dont know why it still says build 0 i patched it to 340 when i started patching it said i already had it installed but in reinstalled anyway so just as you know i have build 340!
17810 a bit higher than my old one
just 3dmark left wow the IQ on these 52.16 dets suck
using the 52.16 dets, anything else?
scores much more accurate now almost 1000 points drop in 3dmark03 - nvidia bleh !! just the bugged am3 one isnt right, but looking good !
Down1oader, do the 3dmark2001 bench with 40.52 drivers, youll get 20k...with some tweaking even more. Trust me. ForceWare are very bad for 3dmark 2001.
btw. why do you, Zardon, think that his 17500k in 3dmark 2001 are good (average) score ?! I mean i have 15k with my ti4200 ( I dont know how to cheat on this, sorry ) why wouldn't he get 20k with fx5900 ?! Here's link to my score: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7645228
When I said "good" I meant more realistic than the others.
Separate names with a comma.