ATi have just been caught cheating.

entium · May 25, 2004

I'll see if I can get one up later on today

entium · May 25, 2004

wow talk about bad english hehe

ChipDeath · May 25, 2004

As a matter of fact, I'll stick my neck out and call bull$hit on you at this point. If you can provide proof, my apologies of course.

I have to say I'm with you there. (on both points, of course). But the numbers just don't seem to add up. ~9K I could probably believe, but 10.5 just seems too high.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744

cleeve · May 25, 2004

I did a quick project compare on Futuremark's database:

Seems the fastest recorded 3dMark03 score with a 9800XT is 10,008.
This is, however, running 657/936... the core running 100mhz faster than entium claimed he was running his 9800xt's core to reach ~10,500.

All of the scores above 9200 have the XT's core running at over 600 Mhz.

The highest score with a core at 550 (entium's claimed core speed), was about 8700.

The lowest score in the 8000 range (which entium claimed to reach stock) was 8001. This was reached with a 9800XT running at 555/868... not quite stock speeds.

Entium, at this point I feel quite confident in saying that you are full of $hit. Please prove me wrong with a link to your system's score.

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

http://forums.devhardware.com/archive/t-15077

Take a look at this another person trying to do 10k with a 9800xt. I'm not the only one

oh yeah keep going down on that post, people have do it with the 9700 too

cleeve · May 25, 2004

I'm not saying it's not possible.

What I'm saying is, you didn't personally do it, you're misrepresenting the amount of overclock necessary to get over 10k because you want to belittle the X800 PRO for some reason, and you're lying to the board when you say you did it.

Basically, I'm calling you out. I'm saying you're a liar.

I invite you to prove otherwise.

(P.S. The guys in that thread that are claiming to have a 700+ Mhz 9700 PRO are being *sarcastic*. Read carefully.)

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

I hear ya I will post my soon, just have to figure out where to post the damn thing lol

entium · May 25, 2004

Its not just the graphics card being tested, my test bed system has alot of nice enhancments too.

cleeve · May 25, 2004

You are a software developer/videocard hardware buff with a 9800XT reference board and you don't know how to post a 3dMark score?

Good god, man. I call you out!

If you are a video hardware buff then you also know that 3dMark03 basically ignores the rest of your system for all intents and purposes. You could have a Pentium 8000 and you wouldn't get 8k with a stock 9800XT.
That's just the way 3dMark03 works.

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

ChipDeath · May 25, 2004

He did know how to post a 2001SE score though - maybe that's confusing him, he's getting the two mixed up.

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744

entium · May 25, 2004

Not really when memory page flipping occurs its also a system thing.

Alirght I was wrong, this was my first overclock and benchmarking with Futuremark, wast to angry to see it was at 800x600, my mistake, I'm only getting 8,700 at 1024x786

sorry guys about all that.

ChipDeath · May 25, 2004

that's a bit more believable

---
Epox 8RDA+ rev1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @205x11 (~2.26Ghz), 1.575Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL 2-2-2-4
Sapphire 9800Pro 420/744

cleeve · May 25, 2004

Apology accepted, if you post your 3dMark link to the 8700 score you got.

Otherwise, I'm afraid I can't accept that apology...

And yes, page flipping does have a bearing on video performance, but like I said... all & all, it's the videocard's chipset and frequencies that determines 3dMark scores.
A stock 9800 PRO will still get ~5000 on a 1.2Ghz Athlon, and a 9600XT will still get ~3500 on a Pentium 4 3.0Ghz.

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

LOL damn still having trouble posting it getting a too many users limit:/.

GeneticWeapon · May 25, 2004

What a freaking liiiiiaaaaaaaaaarr.....

<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new">3DMark03</A>

entium · May 25, 2004

dude I aplogized I made a mistake, you can't even seen through your own [-peep-] so I sugguest you keep your mouth shut ok!

Can't do the math, can't deny the math that I spelled out for you, so ya pick up on a mistake which I acknowledge, go for it GW, very mature

"some people are born to be loosers, others just choose to be"......anon

entium · May 25, 2004

LOL do you want me to post the math up since you seem to have "selective" memory,

Must something like ATI's adaptive filtering........

cleeve · May 25, 2004

While I do appreciate and heartily hand you kudos for the fact that you have admitted your mistake, I do find it troubling that you have not provided your 3dMark score by now, entium.

I would like to believe you but I have to say it's difficult to attribute credibility when you have not yet provided a link to your 8700 score.

Without any actual proof it's just as possible that you realized that the 10k score you claimed was too high and decided to claim a lower score, thusly alleviating suspicion without actually having to prove your claims.

Because of this I ask you, please provide your 3dMark compare link so we all can see you genuinely possess the hardware you claim to, and are not some 12-year old Nvidiot kid with nothing better to do than prod a bunch of techies...

Am I being unreasonable? I will be the first to apologize when proof is provided.

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

Cleeve I'm tryin

at the moment I got a lot of work, I'll try to get it up again later today

entium · May 25, 2004

in the mean time here is someone else that got 8007

Graphics Chipset ATI RADEON 9800 XT

Driver Name RADEON 9800 XT

Driver Version 6.14.10.6422

Driver Status WHQL - FM Approved

Video Memory 256 MB

Core Clock 524 MHz

Memory Clock 416 MHz

cleeve · May 25, 2004

Yeah, there's quite a few in the 8000 range.

Alright Entium, benefit of the doubt will be given for a short time. We're all busy and we all have things to do, but I don't think expecting it in a day or two would be unreasonable.

I have to admit, at first I was wondering if you were simply waiting for someone else to get a score of ~8700 so you could link to their run and save face...

... but as far as I can see, only your dev board has hit 1100 on the memory as you've claimed to, nobody else has come close, so it should be easy to verify if it's actually your score or not.

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

opps here is the link

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2187294

entium · May 25, 2004

then again I have monstor water cooller and doubled the volts hehe, not going to try it again, the thing was humming like 308 engine lol (ram also being water cooled)

cleeve · May 25, 2004

What do you mean, you aren't you going to try again?

Are you saying you're not going to bench it again?

________________
Radeon 9700 PRO (o/c 333/343)
AthlonXP ~2600+ (2400+ @ 2145 Mhz)
3dMark03: 4,876

entium · May 25, 2004

I'll try a couple more times, but with the volts this thing is pushing, I could fry the entire comp, first time overclocker not to comfortable with it, everytime I try to post it up I have to do the entire benchmark over :/

ATi have just been caught cheating.

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Illustrious

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Distinguished

Illustrious

Distinguished

Share this page