Aquamark3 The Reality Benchmark

[Quotidian---]

i'm thinking the results are f'd..

p4 2.4 800mhz
ati RADEON 9800 pro 128
512 ddr pc2700 ram

no oc'ing at all for this test..

17,772

.....

 

[indocomplexity]

ATHLON XP 1700 +

RADEON 9500 NON PRO MODDED TO RADEON 9700 PRO (373MHz/310.5MHz)

512 MB DDR RAM



SCORE: 27500

 

[bizzy420]

1 AquaMark Score: 39446 (CPU: 8839, GFX: 5076)


p4 2.4c
9700non pro
abit is7

 

[Rubeus]

Asus P4P800 Dlx
Intel 2.4C OC'ed to 3060 mhz
512 pc3200 @ 400 mhz
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro

Gfx: 5664
CPU: 8448

Total: 42,430 Marks.

-Rubeus

 

[dawdler]

Argh! I buckled under the pressure. Just had to check it out. Got 34k with my 9700 Pro.

But I still dont call it true DX9 in terms of fancy graphics... Out of the 39 shaders being used, 4 are classed DX9. Its no wonder the FX can barely keep up

Then again, maybe HL2 will be the same... But if MS praise them, I hope its actually using DX9 shaders when benchmarking DX9 performance.

 

[Shocky]

System is,
p4 2 ghz
512 ram
Geforce 4 4600

My results from the Aqua Mark test are as follows:

Graphics: 1,733
CPU: 4,785
around 10,000 marks

Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to the massive weakness that is present somewhere in my system. I was hoping this machine would be at least decent in running games, but so far it has turned out to be a pretty much worthless.


My video card drivers are up to date, the only thing I have not done is flash-updating the bios to its updated version. But I seriously doubt that alone could be giving me these horrid results I get when I play games. Think its the gf4 that is the weakness? I know they are no longer top of the line, but the results I get with it in most games leaves alot to be desired.

Anyone have any idea's?

And this picture pretty much exemplifies my anguish..

 

[TAZ]

I can't believe people are still rambling on about this benchmark... it's not a good benchmark at all and shouldn't be considered a test of your computers graphical power.. Shesh... anyone with over 30000 has got to be thinking it's awesome while people with sub 20000 scores will perform just about as good with the next gen of games. I scored 25000 on my first test and 30000 on my second.. almost identical setup , so it's not a good test at all.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

i don't even understand why pple bother with benchmarks in general.. i mean, really it doesn't mean anything cept for the fact that it performed that particular benchmark at xxx scores..


playing games, running applications is a more accurate test.. pple put too much weight into benchmarks.


btw, TAZ please check ur pm box when u have a chance

 

[Jasco]

Anyone tried overclocking the 2700+ with a A7N8X mother board?

 

[Punzz]

10,722 on

GF4 Ti4200
AMD 1800+
512 DRR (2100)

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Dr. Freeman
i don't even understand why pple bother with benchmarks in general.. i mean, really it doesn't mean anything cept for the fact that it performed that particular benchmark at xxx scores..


playing games, running applications is a more accurate test.. pple put too much weight into benchmarks.


btw, TAZ please check ur pm box when u have a chance

This is a game, the computer is just playing it. Shocking isnt it

 

[west]

hmm

22100 points

AMD XP 1900+
GF4 Ti4200
512 ddr

 

[Profit]

Originally posted by Quotidian---
i'm thinking the results are f'd..

p4 2.4 800mhz
ati RADEON 9800 pro 128
512 ddr pc2700 ram

no oc'ing at all for this test..

17,772

.....

Hi, I had a similar score until I realised I'd forgot to install the Intel Application Accelerator and Inf Files (Both from Intel site)

Then went to the control panel and set AGP Fast Writes on - this time it stayed on, instead of turning off after a reboot.

Score went from 15,000 ro 38,000

v. Happy now

Edit:
Of course this is if you have Intel chipset on your mobo,

here are the links

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/download.asp?url=/4857/eng/iaa23_enu.exe&ProductID=663

http://www.intel.com/design/software/drivers/platform/inf.htm

 

[droper]

this is bullshit benchmark the ultra 5900 do way better then the 9800 and we all know thats nonesense. The benchmark is not dx9 performance or quality test.


AquaMark Score: 35156 (CPU: 6480, GFX: 4857) FPS: 35.16


CPU: AMD Athlon(tm)
CR: 2229 MHz
SRAM: 512 MB
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
GFX: RADEON 9500 PRO / 9700 (Omega 2.4.78) CM: 351 / 324 MHz VRAM: 128 MB DRIVER: 6.14.10.6378
TPS: 10583 K
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High

 

[Shocky]

Originally posted by droper
this is bullshit benchmark the ultra 5900 do way better then the 9800 and we all know thats nonesense. The benchmark is not dx9 performance or quality test.

*hands over flame-retardent suit*

 

[droper]

Originally posted by Shocky
*hands over flame-retardent suit*

Its your money not mine.

 

[Profit]

As a follow up to my comments about having to install the intel chipset drivers, I am not sure if it was just one or the combination of both that allowed me to switch the Fastwrites on, all I know is that after installing them, the Fastwrites option stayed on "on" after a reboot.

P4 2.7 [533]
ASUS P4PE
1 GB [333]
ATI 9800 Pro [256] 3.7

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?runID=138972211

 

[Quotidian---]

Originally posted by Profit
Hi, I had a similar score until I realised I'd forgot to install the Intel Application Accelerator and Inf Files (Both from Intel site)

Then went to the control panel and set AGP Fast Writes on - this time it stayed on, instead of turning off after a reboot.

Score went from 15,000 ro 38,000

v. Happy now

Edit:
Of course this is if you have Intel chipset on your mobo,

here are the links

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/download.asp?url=/4857/eng/iaa23_enu.exe&ProductID=663

http://www.intel.com/design/software/drivers/platform/inf.htm

it says i need a supported chipset where i try to download... i have a p4 2.4

don't nkow.. i jsut need fast writes on correct?

 

[Quotidian---]

this is dumb

i have a p4 2.4 i can easily oc to 2.8 and a 9800 and i'm getting less scores than my friend with a g4200 p4 2.8.... I run Americas Army at a steady 60fps.. with eax and everything cranked and AA AF..

but i can't get AGP fast writes on.. i have it set at 8x which my mobo supports.. but none of those dl's say they are compatible with my chip set, not even the progs. to determine my chip set are working...

so i'm lost, wtf.

 

[Profit]

Do you know what motherboard you have?

All I did was download the files for XP and installed them - if they don't install, then I can only guess you have another chipset like MSI etc.

Did you system come with a driver CD, perhaps there are drivers that you can install.

Worth spending so time to get those fastwrites on.

Profit

 

[Gunner]

29,000

Lowest fps: 9 when massive overdraw or sumthin' (the huge explosion...)
Highest fps: 80 at some point I can't remember

4000 points for GFX and 5000 for CPU. I am kind of disappointed, I will try tweaking or maybe OC the card when DX9 games start popping out.

 

[Cikala]

27,973

Dual athlon 2200's
1GB PC2100 DDR
Radeon 9800 pro(128mb)

 

[NucHaz]

45,407

Barton 2500+ @ 200x12 (2.4ghz)
9800 pro @ 441core, 380 mem
1gb pc3200 XMS (corsair)

http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?runID=437220446

 

[Guest]

44,893 marks. 2.8 ghz, radeon 9700 pro. 512megs.

 

[Quotidian---]

^ ^ ^ see!!! i have a 9800 512 megs and i'm getting scores of 17,000

WTF!!!

 

[nsxownzme]

Why aM I only getting 20,000??? Help someone..

AMD Athlon 2800+
9800 PRO 128MB
1,536MB DDR 333

 

[Quotidian---]

SEE He has it to!!!!

 

[TAZ]

Because the benchmark is a piece of crap nsxownzme.. don't worry, your computer is good...

Run 3dmarks 2003 and then tell your scores and if they are lower then 5000 then there might be a problem

 

[Gunner]

This benchmark is not a piece of crap. If you're getting lower scores than you should than there is a problem with your cpu, you need to update mobo drivers, gfx drivers, flash the bios, the usual you know.

 

[TAZ]

Umm.. it is a piece of crap.. I know alot about computers, and build them in my spare time.. I ran the benchmark, got something like 25000 .. did a couple tweaks and got 30000... nothing major...

I did the same thing with 3dmarks 2003 and barely noticed a difference and it would be what I expected...

This benchmark is to cpu intensive and doesn't do well at benchmarking your graphics card in the scores. A 1.8ghz to 2.0 ghz jump of over 5000 points is just wrong as a 1.8 ghz can play games just about as good as a 2.0 ghz cpu.

So if I got a score of 25000 with my nonclocked AMD 2500+ Radeon Pro , and a score of over 30000 with it clocked to 2.0 ghz then it relies to much on Cpu because the difference in fps is minimal when it comes to games. I have done this test over and over with other benchmarks and seen less difference then this junky one.

And my computer is always up to date. All my computers are always up to date.

 

[nsxownzme]

Originally posted by TAZ
Because the benchmark is a piece of crap nsxownzme.. don't worry, your computer is good...

Run 3dmarks 2003 and then tell your scores and if they are lower then 5000 then there might be a problem

I got 6047 3DMarks on 03..!

 

[Quotidian---]

i get 5093 on 3dmark03....

 

[nsxownzme]

Originally posted by )[eVo]( Para
This benchmark is not a piece of crap. If you're getting lower scores than you should than there is a problem with your cpu, you need to update mobo drivers, gfx drivers, flash the bios, the usual you know.

It's ALL up to date, though.

 

[TAZ]

Exactly my point.. a score of over 6000 in 3dmarks 2003 is what you should expect nscownzme with your rig...

I just ran the test at 2.2 ghz and scored 36770 , so from 1.84 to 2.2 i jumped 12,000 aqua scores.. whatever.

I imagine if you have a 3ghz you would score over 45000 as this program is to dependent on the speed of your cpu. A 2.0ghz cpu will run games fine with a good grfx card, so don't take this benchmarks scores as a base of how they will play games at all.

 

[Quotidian---]

i get 5000 flat in 3dmark03...

p4 2.4 ati radeon 9800 pro.. something is wrong. i need fast writes on. but they won't turn on.

 

[BlumenKohl]

You should be getting at least 5500 with a 9800 pro on 3DMark03...

 

[TAZ]

Quotidian it sounds like you may have to much stuff running in the background, or maybe you have AA or AF turned on during the tests.. Sometimes I noticed that the catalyst drivers don't turn off AA and AF when you do it manually til after your computer reboots or you try it again.

And I am not sure about your fastwrites as I don't know your mobo.. your bios should have an option to turn on fastwrites , but most newer mobos have this on by default. Depending on how much you know about computers I will try and help you, PM me as this is totally off topic

 

[Gordon'sFreeman]

i got 36,130 points

P4 3.06Ghz
Hercules Prophet 9700 pro
512 PC800 RDRAM

avg fps - 35.6

 

[Tork]

Athlon 2400 @ 2201MHz
Corsair XMS 512 185FSB
Radeon 9700 Pro @ 385/344

AquaMark Score: 41096
AquaMark CPU Score: 7041
AquaMark GFX Score: 5802
Average FramesPS: 41.096
Average TrianglesPS: 12371 K
Average PixelPS: n/a

dont forget to configure your direct3d panel

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by Gordon'sFreeman
i got 36,130 points

P4 3.06Ghz
Hercules Prophet 9700 pro
512 PC800 RDRAM

avg fps - 35.6

Kind of odd score... I got 35k points, and that's on a lowly 2400+/9700 Pro...

Maybe it isnt as CPU dependant as I thought... Still doesnt matter, it aint true DX9, never will be.