|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wrench
Joined: 07 Apr 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:27 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Any one quoting Tom's Hardware should be beaten to death with a dead trout. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Gord wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
| I definitely agree with your quality of Korea's tech. stuff. Though, If you put a 7900 GTX made by forsa or evertop up against my BFG 7900 GTX, well, I gurantee my card will blow those two out of the water. Remember, my argument lies with top end stuff, not just "good stuff". I am talking about crem de la crem stuff. Back to point: |
Generally graphic card chipsets all come from the same place. A stock 650mHz 7900 will run identically regardless of the branding of the card itself. Where branding comes in is with the secondary features they've added because they all buy the 7900 chipset from nVidea.
For example, the ASUS 1600XT and 1950 cards I use at my place allow me to point any machine to any other machine and display a realtime video feed of what they are doing. Useful for tournaments and whatnot. But this feature cost me $10 more than the same 1600XT and 1950 cards from another manufacturer who went plain-Jane with the exact same performance.
BFG's primary feature is they do stock overclocking out of the box which has already been tested. So a BFG 7900 GTX OC runs at 670mHz instead of the standard 650mHz. If you took any other 7900 GTX card from any other manufactuer and overclocked it to 670mHz, the benchmarks would be identical. |
Hi Gord,
I understand what you are saying, but, I have proven what you are saying wrong already. Does someone have the link to my performance test vs. Tom's Hardware? Both were Nvidia processors, but, mine mopped the floor with theirs.
Remember, it is like saying, "the same 350HP engine will run the same as another. Not true because some little things in the engine can make a world of a difference.  |
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=78580&highlight=benchmarks
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/02/12/the_amd_squeeze/page6.html
What I notice is that they're using a stock speed card and yours is overclocked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
I see your screenshots at 1280*960. I see you getting 70 fps. On the tomshardware link, from what I can see, it looks like they get 69fps at the same resolution. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
I see your screenshots at 1280*960. I see you getting 70 fps. On the tomshardware link, from what I can see, it looks like they get 69fps at the same resolution. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. |
Correct, but look at the specs of his rig. vs. mine. His is far superior, yet, mine out performs his.
Here are mine:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz
Intel D975XBXLKR ATX Motherboard
BFG GeForce 7900GTX
OCZ EL Dual Channel 2048MB PC 5400 DDR 667MHz
Pit'lins compared to his. and yet, mine is much stronger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
I see your screenshots at 1280*960. I see you getting 70 fps. On the tomshardware link, from what I can see, it looks like they get 69fps at the same resolution. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. |
Correct, but look at the specs of his rig. vs. mine. His is far superior, yet, mine out performs his.
Here are mine:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz
Intel D975XBXLKR ATX Motherboard
BFG GeForce 7900GTX
OCZ EL Dual Channel 2048MB PC 5400 DDR 667MHz
Pit'lins compared to his. and yet, mine is much stronger. |
I don't know what I'm missing. It looks (to me) like you scored one fps higher. But, your card is OC'ed and the one on the Tom's page is not, which, in a test of video capabilities, seems significant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
I see your screenshots at 1280*960. I see you getting 70 fps. On the tomshardware link, from what I can see, it looks like they get 69fps at the same resolution. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. |
Correct, but look at the specs of his rig. vs. mine. His is far superior, yet, mine out performs his.
Here are mine:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz
Intel D975XBXLKR ATX Motherboard
BFG GeForce 7900GTX
OCZ EL Dual Channel 2048MB PC 5400 DDR 667MHz
Pit'lins compared to his. and yet, mine is much stronger. |
I don't know what I'm missing. It looks (to me) like you scored one fps higher. But, your card is OC'ed and the one on the Tom's page is not, which, in a test of video capabilities, seems significant. |
My Bad thundarr, here, I will break it down:
Tom's Hardware's Specs:
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe
2.93 GHz, 1,066 MHz FSB, 32 kB+32 kB L1 , 4 MB L2
RAM Corsair 2x 1024 MB DDR2 @ 800 MHz (CL5-5-5-15)
Hard Drive Western Digital Raptor, WD1500ADFD
150 GB, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA150
Same card as mine
Then, look at my specs. Now, his PC should be pushing more than mine (his processor, memory, and HD speed are much better than mine), yet, I perform better overall. Remember, the FPS is affected by the video card AND all of the other components. He should be pushing at least 80FPS with that rig, not 69. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperHero
Joined: 10 Dec 2003
Location: Superhero Hideout
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
another hijacked thread in tech  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SuperHero wrote: |
| another hijacked thread in tech |
hehe. Sup Superhero? hahaha. My bad. Thundarr and I did not mean to hijack the dudes' thread.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thank you thundarr. Yes, on page 2 of the first link:
"The only real difference was in the frame rate distribution. I got 98% rather than 96% above 40fps. If you refer to Tom's specs: he hits 48fps while mine is hitting 70 fps on average."
Now, an overclock of about 20hz will not increase the frame rate by 22fps. No way. Again, just another example of how no two GPU's are exactly the same. Created in the image of equality, they lay far from the creator's intent.
|
I see your screenshots at 1280*960. I see you getting 70 fps. On the tomshardware link, from what I can see, it looks like they get 69fps at the same resolution. Doesn't seem like a big difference to me. |
Correct, but look at the specs of his rig. vs. mine. His is far superior, yet, mine out performs his.
Here are mine:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz
Intel D975XBXLKR ATX Motherboard
BFG GeForce 7900GTX
OCZ EL Dual Channel 2048MB PC 5400 DDR 667MHz
Pit'lins compared to his. and yet, mine is much stronger. |
I don't know what I'm missing. It looks (to me) like you scored one fps higher. But, your card is OC'ed and the one on the Tom's page is not, which, in a test of video capabilities, seems significant. |
My Bad thundarr, here, I will break it down:
Tom's Hardware's Specs:
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 Conroe
2.93 GHz, 1,066 MHz FSB, 32 kB+32 kB L1 , 4 MB L2
RAM Corsair 2x 1024 MB DDR2 @ 800 MHz (CL5-5-5-15)
Hard Drive Western Digital Raptor, WD1500ADFD
150 GB, 10,000 rpm, 16 MB cache, SATA150
Same card as mine
Then, look at my specs. Now, his PC should be pushing more than mine (his processor, memory, and HD speed are much better than mine), yet, I perform better overall. Remember, the FPS is affected by the video card AND all of the other components. He should be pushing at least 80FPS with that rig, not 69. |
Only if those components represent bottlenecks. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the HD is probably irrelevant, since the game probably loads completely into memory. So that's one. Next, is memory and cpu. However, as I mentioned, and as you can see on several other benchmark sites, that particular test does not seem to be CPU limited, which pretty much means the only significant difference is the graphics card.
Check other reviews if you don't believe me. 70 fps (plus or minus about 2) seems to be what every other site gets with that card a(and at that resolution) with a decent cpu.
This system:
| Quote: |
Processor Athlon 64 FX-60
Motherboard and chipset ASUS A8N32 SLI Deluxe
Memory 2 x 1GBMB Corsair XMS DDR400 (CAS 2-2-2-5)
Hard drive Seagate 7200.7 160GB SATA Drive
Optical drive ATAPI DVD-ROM Drive
Audio Sound Blaster Audigy 2
Operating system Windows XP Professional with SP2 |
Scores 70 to 72 with two different 7900GTX cards.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1950883,00.asp
And anyway, the original claim was that your system scored 22fps higher, when in fact it was 1, which more than likely was due to having a slightly faster graphics card.
Edit: from that site
| Quote: |
| At these graphics-bound settings, the eVGA board finally starts eking out narrow leads over the Verto |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thundarr,
Wouldn't it be crazy for me to say that a pentium class D processor at 3ghz will perform the "same" as my core 2 duo @ 2.4ghz?
Yes, it would. My core 2 duo would mop the floor with that class D processor. Furthermore, the game would run much slower and would pull lower framerates regardless of the video card.
The video card is the most important feature, but not the only one. That is my position in the argument. The 2.93 core 2 duo, the slightly faster ram, and the 10,000rpm drive compared to my 7200rpm should be pulling slightly faster specs than mine. But, in this case, mine is killing Tom's hardware i.e. my computer is pulling, consistently, better numbers when in theory it shouldn't. How, I don't know. I am pulling out larger fps and larger ratios.
That's all.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thundarr,
Wouldn't it be crazy for me to say that a pentium class D processor at 3ghz will perform the "same" as my core 2 duo @ 2.4ghz?
Yes, it would. My core 2 duo would mop the floor with that class D processor. Furthermore, the game would run much slower and would pull lower framerates regardless of the video card.
The video card is the most important feature, but not the only one. That is my position in the argument. The 2.93 core 2 duo, the slightly faster ram, and the 10,000rpm drive compared to my 7200rpm should be pulling slightly faster specs than mine. But, in this case, mine is killing Tom's hardware i.e. my computer is pulling, consistently, better numbers when in theory it shouldn't. How, I don't know. I am pulling out larger fps and larger ratios.
That's all. |
Are you familiar with the term bottleneck? If the CPU is not a limiting factor, note I said "if", and if the memory is not the limiting factor, and if the hard drive is not the limiting factor, THEN the only thing that matters is the speed of your video card. And this is what appears to be the case.
This system, which actually has less ram, but a faster processor, also scores 70fps. I think we're seeing a pattern here.
| Quote: |
Intel Dual Core Reference System:
Processors: Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz)
Memory: 2 x 512-MB Corsair CM2X512-8500
Motherboard: Intel D975XBX
Motherboard chip set: Intel 975X
NVIDIA reference drivers: ForceWare 93.71
ATI reference drivers: Catalyst 6.10
Hard-Drive: Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB
IDE Interface: Serial ATA-150
CD/DVD: AOpen 5232 Combo Drive
Power Supply: Enermax EG651P-VE-24P 550W EPS12V
DirectX 9.0c (August 2006)
Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2 |
http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/videocards/article.php/3211_3648136__6
Face it, you got a better score solely on the basis of a 20mHz overclock.
Last edited by Thunndarr on Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cubanlord
Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Location: In Japan!
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| cubanlord wrote: |
Thundarr,
Wouldn't it be crazy for me to say that a pentium class D processor at 3ghz will perform the "same" as my core 2 duo @ 2.4ghz?
Yes, it would. My core 2 duo would mop the floor with that class D processor. Furthermore, the game would run much slower and would pull lower framerates regardless of the video card.
The video card is the most important feature, but not the only one. That is my position in the argument. The 2.93 core 2 duo, the slightly faster ram, and the 10,000rpm drive compared to my 7200rpm should be pulling slightly faster specs than mine. But, in this case, mine is killing Tom's hardware i.e. my computer is pulling, consistently, better numbers when in theory it shouldn't. How, I don't know. I am pulling out larger fps and larger ratios.
That's all. |
Are you familiar with the term bottleneck? |
No Sir, not in the context of technology. What does it mean? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
splok
Joined: 30 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
perfect example of a bottleneck with the 8800 that I just bought... I got home, popped in the card and only got a marginal increase in performance in the app that I'm focusing on atm (Vanguard, which is somewhat insane on hardware). My cpu was pretty much maxing out already, so throwing more vid card at it didn't make much of a difference. The cpu was non-overclocked, so I bumped it up as far as I could without needing to up the voltage, and my fps saw a huge jump. It was just a case of the cpu hitting its limit FAR before the new card could.
Also, I decided to just upgrade the entire system this weekend, so to whoever was asking for the name of the place that I've bought my machines through, its Hankuk Inwhoe Inc. ph#702-2251~3 (I assume that ~3 is an extention, but I'm not sure... its what's written on the card).
and since I brought up vanguard, in case anyone has been looking at it, it runs decently on a amd3000+/7900gt/2g, but pretty great on a lightly overclocked c2d6300/8800gts/2g. Now if I can just get the thing oc'd to 3k (like I see everyone saying is "easy" >< ), then the pretty great will likely move to really great. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
