- Feb 20, 2003
- 1,476
- 0
- 19,280
I dont believe those benchmark numbers for 3dmark2001se are at all valid. And the reason is this.>
The 3200 barton on the same test platform as every other processor scores 16,100 on a 5900ultra. My barton at 2.2ghz/200mhz fsb (3200) with similar settings in bios and a much slower (in DX8 and this test especially) 9700pro at default clocks, scored 16,100 3dmarks, also the same score as tom gave for the 3200xp and 9700pro a bit earlier on. So basically they are showing that the 5900 using the det45's is no faster than a 9700pro using the catalyst 3.4's.
Now every single review I have seen of the 5900ultra has it scoring within the 9800pro's range and with the det 45's it beats it in this test.
Just by these strange results alone, I find the whole review inconsintent with what 99% of every other web site says. I don't give a flying fubar who bribes who. But these results are questionable. They even give the 59000ultra the specs of a 9700pro. I think they have their numbers mixed up here.
Click <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-20.html" target="_new"> HERE </A> and browse to the 5900's specs.
MSI FX5900U-VTD256
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Memory: 128 MB DDR-SDRAM
Memory Clock: 620 MHz (256 Bit)
Chip Clock: 325 MHz
The same specs as a 9700pro? OK if you say so....
So the 3200 barton scores the same as what it would do on a 9700pro. It is also logical to assume that the 3.2c would get a score similar to what it would on a 9700pro, giving that the setup remains the same.
Hard ocp actually used a 9700pro and the 3200 barton scored 16,400 according to them using an identical setup (ecxept that toms used the superior 5900ultra but it scored lower) and the 3.2c scored 17,000 using the 875 motherboard, a little low yes but tom showed the 3.2c scoring 17,200 on a similar setup and in this review it scores exactly the same it did on the 9700pro.
The facts are there, look at old reviews and new ones and figure it all out.
Its obvious that the 5900ultra wasn't used in most of these tests, because if it was, then the 5900ultra is no faster than a 9700pro in direct x 8 games too?????? Even though all the reviews have it beating the 9700pro no matter what setup was used in this test.
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
The 3200 barton on the same test platform as every other processor scores 16,100 on a 5900ultra. My barton at 2.2ghz/200mhz fsb (3200) with similar settings in bios and a much slower (in DX8 and this test especially) 9700pro at default clocks, scored 16,100 3dmarks, also the same score as tom gave for the 3200xp and 9700pro a bit earlier on. So basically they are showing that the 5900 using the det45's is no faster than a 9700pro using the catalyst 3.4's.
Now every single review I have seen of the 5900ultra has it scoring within the 9800pro's range and with the det 45's it beats it in this test.
Just by these strange results alone, I find the whole review inconsintent with what 99% of every other web site says. I don't give a flying fubar who bribes who. But these results are questionable. They even give the 59000ultra the specs of a 9700pro. I think they have their numbers mixed up here.
Click <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/athlon_64-20.html" target="_new"> HERE </A> and browse to the 5900's specs.
MSI FX5900U-VTD256
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 Ultra
Memory: 128 MB DDR-SDRAM
Memory Clock: 620 MHz (256 Bit)
Chip Clock: 325 MHz
The same specs as a 9700pro? OK if you say so....
So the 3200 barton scores the same as what it would do on a 9700pro. It is also logical to assume that the 3.2c would get a score similar to what it would on a 9700pro, giving that the setup remains the same.
Hard ocp actually used a 9700pro and the 3200 barton scored 16,400 according to them using an identical setup (ecxept that toms used the superior 5900ultra but it scored lower) and the 3.2c scored 17,000 using the 875 motherboard, a little low yes but tom showed the 3.2c scoring 17,200 on a similar setup and in this review it scores exactly the same it did on the 9700pro.
The facts are there, look at old reviews and new ones and figure it all out.
Its obvious that the 5900ultra wasn't used in most of these tests, because if it was, then the 5900ultra is no faster than a 9700pro in direct x 8 games too?????? Even though all the reviews have it beating the 9700pro no matter what setup was used in this test.
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7000747" target="_new"> 3D-2001 </A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1284380" target="_new"> 3D-03 </A>
<font color=red> 120% overclocker </font color=red> (cheapskate)
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7013108" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram