*** The 100% Complete 3DMark05 Forceware Comparison ***

Eshelmen said:
ok just saying because they gave me a 400 point lead over my last benchmark the other day.
Click to expand...

Yep, which is just what I've been seeing myself if someone is running anything older then the 66.51's.
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Yep, which is just what I've been seeing myself if someone is running anything older then the 66.51's.
Click to expand...


Hey cornelious,

What score do you get when running with the specs in your sig? on 66.70?
 
btf said:
After looking at the "post your 3dmark05 score" thread most people with high scores were running 66.70 drivers. Which your results seem to also show.

I first ran it with 61.77 drivers. I got something like 4800 points. Installed the 66.70's and went up to 5500. I was hoping to get near 6000 with my system but oh well it's just 3dmark...
Click to expand...


OK, this is what I am talking about...it almost seems my card...is broken. Or something. On a FRESH install of XP, installed the chipset drivers, then the vid drivers 66.70.

With everything to performance I can only muster 4400's....that's it! And I have an A64 running 2.5ghz!!! I realize this does not always translate to in game speed, but man I should not be 800-1000 points low compared to an almost identical rig....

WTF is going on here... :rolleyes: :)

Either something on my card is borked, or I am missing something glaringly obvious...
 
It's in his first post...He updates the scores with the Drivers he used...

66.70: 5,129
 
TheRapture said:
OK, this is what I am talking about...it almost seems my card...is broken. Or something. On a FRESH install of XP, installed the chipset drivers, then the vid drivers 66.70.

With everything to performance I can only muster 4400's....that's it! And I have an A64 running 2.5ghz!!! I realize this does not always translate to in game speed, but man I should not be 800-1000 points low compared to an almost identical rig....

WTF is going on here... :rolleyes: :)

Either something on my card is borked, or I am missing something glaringly obvious...
Click to expand...


Power supply?
 
3l3m3nt said:
It's in his first post...He updates the scores with the Drivers he used...

66.70: 5,129
Click to expand...

That's running stock... I want to know what he gets with 450/1300
 
TheRapture said:
OK, this is what I am talking about...it almost seems my card...is broken. Or something. On a FRESH install of XP, installed the chipset drivers, then the vid drivers 66.70.

With everything to performance I can only muster 4400's....that's it! And I have an A64 running 2.5ghz!!! I realize this does not always translate to in game speed, but man I should not be 800-1000 points low compared to an almost identical rig....

WTF is going on here... :rolleyes: :)

Either something on my card is borked, or I am missing something glaringly obvious...
Click to expand...

Not sure, your score does seem off though. Is the problem just in 3dmark05 or is your score low with 3dmark03 and other benchmarks?
 
quicksilverXP said:
Power supply?
Click to expand...

Ram?
Motherboard?
Hard drive?

lotta posibilities...installed the latest Direct X 9.0c....install motherboard drivers?
 
What score do you get when running with the specs in your sig? on 66.70?
Click to expand...

The last time I ran 3DMark05 on my sig system with those clocks I was on the 66.51 driveres.....so I might be able to make a run for 6k.....but it's kinda iffy at this point. I'm gonna focus on getting the "database" finished before I start playing with my own system.

It's in his first post...He updates the scores with the Drivers he used...
Click to expand...

Yes, but those scores are at 3.5GHz and the GT at 400/1100.....not my sig clocks or timings. at 3.69GHz with the GT at 440/1200 I got just short of 5,800 or so.....but I'm not really worrying about my own scores until I've got this testing all done.

That's running stock... I want to know what he gets with 450/1300
Click to expand...

It wasn't quite stock.....it was at 250fsb 1:1 for a 3.5GHz clock on the CPU, 2.5-4-4-7 timings on the memory, and the GT only clocked at 400/1100......which is how all the tests are being run. I'll sit down after I've got all this testing done to play with my rig, but I will NOT be running any tests at any more then 440 core. The reason for this is because of all the PS/VS effects, HDR Lighting, and Dynamic Shadows, 3DMark05 seems to be ridiculously sensitive to video card overclocking. 450MHz on my core doesn't even artifact in Doom3, but it goes kinda nuts in 3DMark05 and eventually just locks up about halfway through Proxycon. I'll see how far I can push my system without going TOO far....because along with the core, the memory also starts artifacting a fair bit at 1300 in 2k5....unlike any other benchmark or game I own. I'm actually kinda happy that it's so sensitive, because that just means that if I go by 3DMark05 when I'm testing my clocks for artifacts I'll know for SURE that it'll be "clean" in all other games and tests I'll be running.

Not sure, your score does seem off though. Is the problem just in 3dmark05 or is your score low with 3dmark03 and other benchmarks?
Click to expand...

That's actually just what I was about to say.....try some other benchmarks like 3DMark03 and Aquamark3 and I'll let you know how you "fit in" with those ones, cus it might just be an isolated incident.....never know.
 
Well, I ran through with the 66.29's and they're actually right up there with the 66.51's in terms of score, which is good to see.

I also did that Single Channel testing with 1GB and 512MB of system ram installed, just to see what kind of effect it'd have.

Alright, here it is:

65.76 /w 1GB Dual Channel: 4,492
65.76 /w 1GB Single Channel: 4,451
65.76 /w 512MB Single Channel: 4,475

Alright, before you start asking questions, yes.....I did redo the tests more then once, and the numbers aren't lying.....it did actually bench higher with 512MB of memory then it did with 1GB, interesting. Sadly I don't have 2x256MB sticks of my PC4000EL to see if this "trend" stays consistent with Dual Channel setups, but common sense would say that anyone with 512MB of ram shouldn't worry about having their 3DMark05 scores handicapped at all. ;)

Also, I did try running it once with 4xAA+8xAF enabled.....but it seems that the Forceware drivers do NOT over-ride 3DMark05's AA settings, which default to "off" if you're using the free version. It did however successfully enable 8xAF.....and here are THOSE results:

65.76 no AA/AF: 4,492
65.76 /w 8xAF: 3,962

The texture quality was actually QUITE apparent, especially in GT3, but I'm gonna have to look at picking up a key for 3DMark05 to see how much 4xAA hits the score....I'm actually kinda scared to see how bad it's gonna chug. :p

EDIT: For now I'm going to leave these results right here, but when I finish up the rest of my testing I will make two seperate graphs to display this info in the first post to make it a little more accessable.

That's it for now though, I've gotta leave for work in a half hour, but I'll be back about 9.5 hours from now to get rollin' again. :cool:
 
A note about the above results, the tests were run on my sig system with my 2.8C clocked at 3.5GHz (250fsb 1:1) with my PC4000 at 2.5-4-4-7, and the 6800GT running at official Ultra clocks of 400/1100...unless otherwise noted. Since some of the newer drivers include the ability to enable or disable a number of filtering optimizations I have left each and every one of them disabled during my testing, to try and level the playing field when I'm comparing some older Forceware releases. Also, I should have mentioned it earlier, but the mipmap detail is set to High Quality for each test, and nothing else (driver related) has been altered.

Cya soon. :cool:[/QUOTE]

Offical 6800 ultra clocks are 425/1100 :) (all currently shipped ones are marked for those speeds)
 
Hey Corny got any Bawls left?
When do you think you'll post a graph?
Still think you should be voted President or Sainthood or something [H]ard :D
Thanks
 
and why are you doing this ? lol who cares if a older driver runs 3dmark05 1% faster hehe you must have alot of free time on your hands.
 
Shane said:
and why are you doing this ? lol who cares if a older driver runs 3dmark05 1% faster hehe you must have alot of free time on your hands.
Click to expand...

Who cares if you can drive your car .1 seconds faster in the quarter? A lot of people, and a lot of people pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to do so. It's like getting a stock dyno, installing a new part and redynoing to see what it did. He's giving us different numbers based on an identical setup with the only change being the drivers.

I commend him for giving back to the community instead of being the typical internet forum browser who is just looking for information for himself. I care thank you and so do a lot of other people- if you don't then don't read the thread. Didn't your mom ever tell you if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all?
 
How about skipping a few and posting the 61.76 results (WHQL drivers) since many people are using those (myself included)
 
Thank you all for your feedback, and for those of you who are supporting me in this.....or at least understand why I'm doing it. I'm doing this partially because I love the play with stuff like this and I AM a benchmark whore at heart.....but mostly it IS to give back to the forums.....because it is here that I first got interested in overclocking.....and I self tought myself literally everything I know today about computers....mainly from hanging around here day after day. :)

For the question about the graphs.....I'll post it/them up when I'm completely finished the testing....until then I'll continue to update the first post.

I dont necessarily want to do them in order, and I might start skipping around to do the 61.77's and some older sets too.....just to get a bit of a mix in the results.

see you all soon, I'm gonna do a few things around the house and then get back on the testing. I still plan to have the graph ready this weekend, as I've got all day saturday off work. ;) :D
 
The Batman said:
Also, I think you skipped the 66.02s.
Click to expand...

I'd appreciate a direct link to the 66.02's if you could....any place I find a reference to them, the download link takes me to the 66.00 drivers....which I already have. It might just be a mixup, but I'd like to get my hands on the 02's if they exist.
 
In reference to the first page of inquirey on which drivers would do the best, I'd bet 66.70's or the 65.76's.
 
oozish said:
In reference to the first page of inquirey on which drivers would do the best, I'd bet 66.70's or the 65.76's.
Click to expand...

Well so far it is teh 66.70's that are pumpin' out the nicest scores.....and dude, the 65.76's aren't even close.....they scored over 600 points lower then the 66.70's.
 
Are you just replacing drivers by uninstalling or doing a norton ghost load after every test?

I'd wonder if there'd be a difference
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Well so far it is teh 66.70's that are pumpin' out the nicest scores.....and dude, the 65.76's aren't even close.....they scored over 600 points lower then the 66.70's.
Click to expand...

wonder if Omega could get a few more points out of the 66.70 hmm...
 
cornelious0_0 said:
Well so far it is teh 66.70's that are pumpin' out the nicest scores.....and dude, the 65.76's aren't even close.....they scored over 600 points lower then the 66.70's.
Click to expand...

ya, u know, I was thinking ogl performance between those two. What i like about the 66.70's is the same or better OGL performance and obviously as you are proving ALOT better d3d/shader performance.

btw, thanks for your work this is a real service to us Driver Junkies.

:D
 
Emret said:
Are you just replacing drivers by uninstalling or doing a norton ghost load after every test?

I'd wonder if there'd be a difference
Click to expand...

I'm doing an uninstall, then booting into safe mode and running driver cleaner a few times to clear any remaining system files that you can't remove while in XP traditionally.....silly ol' file protection. :p

btw, thanks for your work this is a real service to us Driver Junkies.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm one of them, no problem.

EDIT: Well, I was thinking I was gonna switch up the order and jump straight to the 61.77's.....seeing as a LOT of ppl are still running those drivers, as they're what's actually posted on Nvidia's site. Then I started thinking....ah....why not, lets just keep going, and get TO the 61.77's...so, I'm now half done testing....and I'll be able to get another half dozen or so drivers done tomorrow morning easily. :)
 
Huh strange.... I got 4495 with 65.76, 3.0c stock, gt stock @ 350/1000. That's the same as your system overclocked.
 
particle9 said:
Huh strange.... I got 4495 with 65.76, 3.0c stock, gt stock @ 350/1000. That's the same as your system overclocked.
Click to expand...

Are you using any tweaks to get that kind of a score? Just curious cause that seems high for a stock GT
 
I'm getting 4400 with the 61.76,
so it looks like I should get 5100-5200 with the 66.70's.

I wish they would come out with some WHQL'd 66.xx

I dont like upgrading drivers for a 3dMark score or Doom3, then break one of my other games functionality.

EDIT: DOH, in the 5 minutes, from when started typing this post (and got interupted by phone) my request has been answered! WHQL'd 66.xx drivers!
 
I noticed a 200 point gain from upgrading from the 61.77's to the 66.70's.
 
btf said:
Are you using any tweaks to get that kind of a score? Just curious cause that seems high for a stock GT
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought it was pretty damn high too. Not using anything that I would consider a tweak. I did a clean system install, refused to install SP2 again, ran registrymechanic, that was about it.

I can't think of anything else I did that was out of the ordinary.

I'll try and run another test tonight. It was painful watching it though, like 1-2 fps a lot of the time and the cpu tests forget about it.
 
66.72 just got 50 points less then the 66.70, went from 5500 to 5450 ultra at stock
 
rancor said:
66.72 just got 50 points less then the 66.70, went from 5500 to 5450 ultra at stock
Click to expand...

Thats not a bad sacrifice for stability. IF it is more stable and universal than the non WHQL's. I' ve only had a hand full of problems in the past with non-WHQL, but then again I've had a couple of problems with WHQL'd drivers too.

But in general I stick to the WHQL for everyday use, and sometimes I'll try the non-W for a few benchmark runs to see what all the hype is about, if they're great.
 
chrisf6969 said:
Thats not a bad sacrifice for stability. IF it is more stable and universal than the non WHQL's. I' ve only had a hand full of problems in the past with non-WHQL, but then again I've had a couple of problems with WHQL'd drivers too.

But in general I stick to the WHQL for everyday use, and sometimes I'll try the non-W for a few benchmark runs to see what all the hype is about, if they're great.
Click to expand...

Aren't the official Nvidia 61.77 non WHQL?
 
Wow, I just can't win can I? I go to bed after doing another 7 tests, wake up, and there's another driver release. :rolleyes:

Ah well, I guess I'll give the 66.72's a shot and then do another 5 or so in addition to them right away.....and there'll probly be another couple driver releases in the next day or two with my luck. :p
 
Update: I am currently downloading the 3DMark05 v1.10 "hotfix" to see how it effects my scores. I'm quite curious to see what this exploit might be, and/or if it has anything to do with ATI's "hotfix" for their drivers.....dunno.

I'm gonna be installing the v1.10 update on my main partition first to see how much it effects my score, and I'll let you guys know.

I will not be updating to v1.10 for any or/the remainder of the Forceware comparisons, because I'm not looking forward to starting over, well.....not unless the v1.10 has a large impact on my score when I give it a shot.

I'll letcha know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top