OZONE 3D SOFT SHADOWS BENCH

Teaf · 11 Jul 2007 at 17:56

No no, not assuning people of cheating, it was more a case of thinking that the 97.92 drivers had something in them that made this test get results a lot higher than other driver revisions did

Like a mistake in the driver.

killer_uk · 11 Jul 2007 at 17:58

SOLDNER-MOFO64 said:
Oh...so you're too good for my NUCLEARUS thread huh....huh? lol

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17738811

no worries mate......to be honest I think I need to goto TOP-LISTERS ANONYMOUS

Hehe, didn't even know that one existed! Good work on that one as well

SOLDNER-MOFO64 · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:03

flibby said:
No no, not assuning people of cheating, it was more a case of thinking that the 97.92 drivers had something in them that made this test get results a lot higher than other driver revisions did Like a mistake in the driver.

I suppose that's entirely possibly. I couldn't really comment though as I've heard nothing to substantiate it.

It's also a possibility that later revisions haven't had certain aspects optimised aswell as this earlier build.

Talkie_Toaster · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:15

Heres mine HIS X1900XT at stock.

Firegod · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:17

Hmm. Mine is low methinks. :confused:

TheOtherOption · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:25

x1900xt @ stock

SOLDNER-MOFO64 · 11 Jul 2007 at 18:41

updated guys...thanx for submitting

Jleo · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:06

xx...........1474 | Jleo| 7900GT | XP SP2 | http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9689184&postcount=48

@MikeHunt79 any lower and the radar would've completely missed you

Tom|Nbk · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:25

art1cfox · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:43

Card at stock 2996

Scougar · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:46

Your score seems low tom. Any idea why? (As I got 29xx at standard and upto 32xx overclocked with my 1950xt)

Matthew

killer_uk · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:48

Scougar said:
Your score seems low tom. Any idea why? (As I got 29xx at standard and upto 32xx overclocked with my 1950xt)

Matthew

I'd love to know how your card is beating 8800GTSs. Surely you should be getting performance similar to that of the X1900XT done by Mav? :confused:

EDIT: Saying that though, other X1900XTs are beating Mavs test by a large margin....what the hell is going on with the scores?

Scougar · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:52

Hang on.. just checking thread for mav's...

Yup.. mavs is well low compared to mine!! But he says he can't see shadows, so maybe he has a problematic driver or something?

Matthew

Down1oader · 11 Jul 2007 at 19:59

SOLDNER-MOFO64 said:
Not really sure mate, I nabbed it off another forum a while back, someone else had it, I just added the Saltire

yeah, I let it sleep while I tested last time

ASUS EN8800GTS 640MB to the rescue.......6k will fall to this card.....lots of tweaks left, some headroom too

hrm im only getting 3800 marks with 633/996mhz clocks on my gtx with 158.45 drivers. How on earth do you get 5k?
http://surana.adsl24.co.uk/images/PC/oczone1.JPG

Scougar · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:00

using older 'iffy' drivers lol

Matthew

killer_uk · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:02

This test seems really flawed, I mean X1950s beating 8800GTSs and 2900XTs? Very strange. :confused:

Columbo · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:12

Tom|Nbk · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:12

ManCuBuS said:

:/

Teaf · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:13

I'm not getting any shadows in this benchmark, kinda odd (2900XT).

neo-omega · 11 Jul 2007 at 20:13

gfx at stock and processor at 2522 MHz