|
|||||||
| Notices |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
May 15, 2003, 08:24 PM
|
#1 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 83
 |
3.2 vs 3.4 benchmarks = mixed results
I ran some of benchmarks with Cat 3.2's and then with the new 3.4's using a program called Benchmall which automatically runs series of benchmarks via benchmark programs and games. The 3.2's were faster on some and the 3.4's were faster on others like 3d mark 01 and 03 Here are my results:
The Cat 3.2 benchmarks Benchmark session result Operating System: Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 Processor: Intel(R) XEON(TM) CPU 2.00GHz (4 CPUs) Memory: 1024MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0a (4.09.0000.0901) Card name: RADEON 9700 PRO Driver Version: 6.14.0001.6307 (English) Detailed info dir: C:\Program Files\BenchEmAll\result\2003.05.15.08.04.14.\ ----------------------------------------------------------- Unreal II: The Awakening 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 Average: 62.52 Unreal 829, 33.44 Min, 88.10 Max, 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- 3DMark03 800 x 600 not selected 1024 x 768 4482 3DMarks 1280 x 1024 not selected 1600 x 1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- ChameleonMark 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 glass= 281.544 fps, real= 273.309 fps, shiny= 281.544 fps, Average= 278.799 fps. 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- 3DMark2001 SE Pro 3DMark Score 11281 ----------------------------------------------------------- Serious Sam SE ver 1.07 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 Without excessive peaks: 6556 frames in 92.9 seconds => 70.6 FPS average. 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- Unreal Tournament 2003 800x600 not selected 1024x768 flyby - 145.383663 botmatch - 48.992224 1280x960 not selected 1280x1024 not selected 1600x1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- Quake III Arena 800x600 not selected 1024x768 3.5 seconds: 357.6 fps 1280x1024 not selected 1600x1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- Vulpine GLmark by I-D Media AG Command line: -benchmark -fullscreen -advanced -s3tc -highdetail -res 1024 768 -colorbits 32 -texturebits 32 Average fps : 64.0 The Cat 3.4 benchmarks Benchmark session result Operating System: Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1 Processor: Intel(R) XEON(TM) CPU 2.00GHz (4 CPUs) Memory: 1024MB RAM DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0a (4.09.0000.0901) Card name: RADEON 9700 PRO Driver Version: 6.14.0010.6343 (English) Detailed info dir: C:\Program Files\BenchEmAll\result\2003.05.15.17.56.51.\ ----------------------------------------------------------- Unreal II: The Awakening 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 Average: 60.21 Unreal 829, 32.12 Min, 85.45 Max, 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- 3DMark03 800 x 600 not selected 1024 x 768 4802 3DMarks 1280 x 1024 not selected 1600 x 1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- ChameleonMark 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 glass= 290.01 fps, real= 277.108 fps, shiny= 294.581 fps, Average= 287.233 fps. 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- 3DMark2001 SE Pro 3DMark Score 11381 ----------------------------------------------------------- Serious Sam SE ver 1.07 800x600 not selected. 1024x768 Without excessive peaks: 6491 frames in 93.5 seconds => 69.4 FPS average. 1280x1024 not selected. 1600x1200 not selected. ----------------------------------------------------------- Unreal Tournament 2003 800x600 not selected 1024x768 flyby - 144.475742 botmatch - 48.750301 1280x960 not selected 1280x1024 not selected 1600x1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- Quake III Arena 800x600 not selected 1024x768 3.5 seconds: 357.8 fps 1280x1024 not selected 1600x1200 not selected ----------------------------------------------------------- Vulpine GLmark by I-D Media AG Command line: -benchmark -fullscreen -advanced -s3tc -highdetail -res 1024 768 -colorbits 32 -texturebits 32 Average fps : 64.1 |
|
|
|
May 15, 2003, 08:48 PM
|
#2 |
|
To Have and to Hold
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ontario
Posts: 545
|
Ive seen a decent jump with these drivers.
My 3dmark03 scores went up about 400 points. 3Dmark03 wasnt a HUGE increase tho. THe biggest thing ive found with these, is that the games run a hell of a lot SMOOOOOTHER. FPS have gone up generally, but, the smoothness i found was more noticeable. I also like the new features and options with the colour tabs and all. |
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2003, 01:33 AM
|
#3 | |
|
ATI guru
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 29
|
Re: 3.2 vs 3.4 benchmarks = mixed results
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2003, 01:01 PM
|
#4 | |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 83
|
Re: Re: 3.2 vs 3.4 benchmarks = mixed results
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2003, 01:47 PM
|
#5 | |
|
ATI driver guru
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: ATI, Canada
Posts: 743
|
Re: Re: Re: 3.2 vs 3.4 benchmarks = mixed results
Quote:
 turn on AA when you benchmark you can do this in almost every single app and benchmark (3dmark, etc) |
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2003, 02:24 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Colour Commentator
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Highland, IN USA
Posts: 5,619
|
I'm sorry, but......ROFLMFAO~~~~~~~~~
Quote:
(No offense to ya intended Socio, I'm just in a giggle-mood.  ) |
|
|
|
|
|
May 16, 2003, 03:47 PM
|
#7 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 83
|
Oh! Duh! Ok!
 I was thinking there was some special AA benchmark program that I did not know about. I will run some benchmarks with AA cranked up, the first set of benchmarks were using default settings with AA set to App Pref. |
|
|
|
