Athlon 64 3200+ benchmarks!

[speeduk]

You expect 3dmark 2001se to be able to detect A64 mobos????
It says my epox 8RDA3+ board (nforce 2 ultra) is just an nforce mobo and doesnt even pick up the manufacturer. And yes I have the latest version. Does this mean that my score is invalid?

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6936722" target="_new"> My rig </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1150155" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[SJJM]

MSI has their signature in their mother boards. All the boards I have from MSI have shown up on 3dmark and pcmark. Even my asus's broads. This just seems kinda fishy to me, seeing the other benchmarks on the fx, this one seem to be a bit high.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> 😎

 

[speeduk]

Yeah but this is not the FX, its the SINGLE channel memory and LOWER latency version. Some guy I met in another forum gave me the specs of the way these cpus work in relation to their on board memory controller. The single channel A64 has a much lower latency than the FX, and in some apps like 3dmark 2001, this matters just as much than pure bandwith. Overclocking the FSB while keeping these super low latencies gives a huge percentage increase in performance.

I can remember seeing a single channel 1.8 gig opteron getting 16700 3dmarks with a 9700pro stock with just 166mhz FSB and cl2.5 memory. Now with an extra 200mhz cpu speed + 33mhz fsb and CL2 memory + 9800pro, a score of upto 20,000 becomes realistic, and with a 9800pro clocked over 500/390 alone would add 2,800 + to that score and the higher fsb + extra cpu speed while keeping the memory @ cl2 would add at least 1,000 to the score knowing how sensitive 3dmark is to even a normal xp's fsb increase.

Just my thoughts...

And on the mobo recognition issue. I have no idea whats going on there.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6936722" target="_new"> My rig </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1150155" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)

 

[SJJM]

Thanks for the info on the cpu. I am liking this a64 more and more I see. To bad he did not do a 3dmark03 test. I would rather see newer benchmarks instead of older test. Also why did he not do one on pcmark or sandra? I would of like to see the result for those test too.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> 😎

 

[Solstice]

Yeah I want to see more Benchies, 3dmark2001 is outdated.
But alas the guy said the main tester is in the process, so we should hear soon.

The Rig
2.4c @ 3.0
OCZ pc3500
Asus P4C800-E
4 Maxtor 250gig serial ata drives
Enermax 465watt
Viewsonic 17" tft
ATI 9800Pro @ stock

 

[eden]

I would never believe anyone who claimed 24K.
It's FAR from attainable in today's systems. Unless he lowered all possibly resolution settings, and lowered his card's Quality settings to Performance.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

 

[Brian]

Kids, grow up. You can be weary of the findings, but instantly labeling Quad's work as fake only missleads the average joe who comes on these forums seeking advice.

Bottom line, everyone will see in a couple of weeks, so I'd be careful what you post.

 

[eden]

Even if it existed, it only proves 3dMark 2001 as NOT TRUSTABLE!

3dM 2001 is notorious for being so CPU sensitive while its actual goal is to determine overall GRAPHICS SUBSYSTEM performance.

Now, the highest score on a normal high-end setup, is 17K. The 3200+ (Barton) achieves about 16000. Now how can a CPU 2GHZ less, but with a mem controller, actually do 24000 is truly asking for proof from other sites. I am not saying it's a lie, but I am far from ever convinced. It's like if I told you I got a sample of the new Radeon 10000 and it does 10 000 points in 3dMark 03. Hardly possibly believable yet.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>

 

[TheShooter]

Your post does not even add up. The guy says he was using a MSI KT800. In 3d mark it shows that it was using a ms-6207 which I can not fine on ms web site.

In the compare it says ms-6702, and it is on MSI's website:

<A HREF="http://www.msicomputer.com/product/detail_spec/product_detail.asp?model=MS-6702" target="_new">http://www.msicomputer.com/product/detail_spec/product_detail.asp?model=MS-6702</A>

 

[Hallowed]

Even if it existed, it only proves 3dMark 2001 as NOT TRUSTABLE!

3dM 2001 is notorious for being so CPU sensitive while its actual goal is to determine overall GRAPHICS SUBSYSTEM performance.

Now, the highest score on a normal high-end setup, is 17K. The 3200+ (Barton) achieves about 16000. Now how can a CPU 2GHZ less, but with a mem controller, actually do 24000 is truly asking for proof from other sites. I am not saying it's a lie, but I am far from ever convinced. It's like if I told you I got a sample of the new Radeon 10000 and it does 10 000 points in 3dMark 03. Hardly possibly believable yet.

Ok, lots of misinformation here.

3DMark 2001 is CPU sensitive because it is not merely a GPU benchmark but one as a direct synthetic in measuring gaming performance. This is where 3DMark 03 fails as it is entirely GPU bound.

Quads score is legit. I suggest you check out the original thread which answers many questions here. Some facts for you:

1. The MSI MS-6702 is a real board but unreleased as of yet.
2. Its a Socket 754 Athlon 3200+ operating @ 10x200.
3. The Radeon 9800Pro is cooled via phase-change and is operating in the vicinity of 530 / 400 in terms of clockspeed, far higher than default (380 / 340).

It scored 20,700 default, roughly 900 points above a Pentium 4 3.2's capability.

Eden, I suggest you check the ORB (Futuremarks Online Result Browser) before you claim 24,000 is impossible, as 26,000 has been achieved already. A Barton 3200+ will score 18,300 default with a 9800Pro, FYI.

In regards to issues of 'trust':

You will have to understand that t-break.com is more trusted than Toms, as are most independents. THG is known as an Intel-biased site for reasons valid and invalid. Noone forgot about the Photochopped P4 '3.6' and thats not going to change. Only [H]ardOCP has a worse reputation than THG.

 

[TknD]

It's FAR from attainable in today's systems.

I believe we're talking about <b>tomorrow's</b> system not today's system.

Don't misinterpret, I'm just pointing out that A64 has not been released yet, but obviously is in production and physically real.

 

[Brian]

Hallowed, you said what I wanted to but couldn't put into words elequently. *applause*

 

[Solstice]

Agreed. Lets wait and see what the chip does when its released.

What I don't get is everyone trashing the benchmark, I hope AMD puts out a killer chip, that will put the pressure on Intel, Lower prices, better products all around. I hope we start to get some competition. Stop the pissing contests its pointless in an industry that cycles every 6 months.

The Rig
2.4c @ 3.0
OCZ pc3500
Asus P4C800-E
4 Maxtor 250gig serial ata drives
Enermax 465watt
Viewsonic 17" tft
ATI 9800Pro @ stock

 

[eden]

A Barton 3200+ will score 18,300 default with a 9800Pro, FYI.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-14.html" target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030811/dual_xeon-14.html</A>

I don't think you were right in saying default 18 300.

THG is known as an Intel-biased site for reasons valid and invalid.

I really hope this isn't coming from opposing site adversity. For a good while, THG has been labelled AMD biased, you're one of the first I hear who says otherwise.

This is where 3DMark 03 fails as it is entirely GPU bound.

The goal is to measure GPU performance and it does that right. We can argue this here but the Graphics Forum is more adequate, as you will get a more general opinion. IMO and to many, it's best if it WAS GPU bound.


All right, for the sake of being open-minded, I'll wait. The 2.2GHZ Athlon 64 FX better score a straight 24000, no more no less. If it doesn't, then I see you'll be much less credible to most here. If it DOES score this unbelievably high score due to a higher core IPC (take a 2.2GHZ AXP vs a ~20% higher IPC 2.2GHZ A64), I'll concede and even act a forum buffoon being all nuts over this performance. But that doesn't dictate real life performance. 3dMark 01 is all too low on credibility. Look at how the Ti4600 scores so close to a 9700PRO when the 9700PRO spanks it in real games.

Bah, no harm done, I'll wait!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>