ATI 2 Nvidia

[Kezmo]

To people that have recently swapped card manufacturer

Is there still need to format your p.c when going from ATI to Nvidai or visa versa ?
Maybe getting a nvidia card next week and dont want to format if i can help it ( current install is 1-2months old and id rather be playing VG ), thinking a good driver cleaner pro blast and reg clean would do it .

 

[Darkwave]

I didn't even registry clean when I went from ATI to Nvidia today, just ran the ATI uninstall.

 

[Kezmo]

I didn't even registry clean when I went from ATI to Nvidia today, just ran the ATI uninstall.

Cool, have u had chance to benchmark yet, do your scores look ok ?

 

[toxic]

same here...uninstalled all ATI stuff used drivercleaner to search for anything left over....installed NVidia drivers....Oc'd card and got 12000 3dMark2006 points

 

[Darkwave]

Cool, have u had chance to benchmark yet, do your scores look ok ?

First run netted me 8755 in 3D Mark 06, which I am highly impressed with. I'm going to be OCing my new card and OCing my CPU more as soon as possible, and doing a bench from a fresh install, so I should see a very large increase.

I think my scores look fine for having not even run Driver Cleaner, can't see any sort of problem.

 

[Kezmo]

Cheers guys.

 

[FatRakoon]

I have just put a 6600GT into my #3 PC to replace the x1600 and I quickly ran AquaMark3 and it gave me 56K... The same as the x1600 gives me?

This then tells me that the 6600GT is only about the same speed as an x1600???

Surely not?

The x800 gives me 70k and the x850 give me 85k and I thought the 6600GT was about on par with the x800 TBH?

I have not gone through the system yet to clean out any ATI remains nor have I run any ATI cleaner so that may change.

ATI UNINSTALL TOOL does a fairly good job these days.

 

[snowdog]

I have just put a 6600GT into my #3 PC to replace the x1600 and I quickly ran AquaMark3 and it gave me 56K... The same as the x1600 gives me?

This then tells me that the 6600GT is only about the same speed as an x1600???

Surely not?

The x800 gives me 70k and the x850 give me 85k and I thought the 6600GT was about on par with the x800 TBH?

The x800 beats most 6800 cards (i think), im 100% sure tho a x700 beats a normall 6600 by 20% in frames per second , the ati cards are heavier cards as nvidia's ones, nvidia's are mroe future proof usually tho ( for example i have sm3.0 on my geforce while games start appearing that need it...)

However, from aquascores i dunno anything, can you run a 3dmark 05 test perhaps, will show better if card is running ok...


On topic: No, i've had like over 20 of cards on my current setup, both agp and pci-e, both ati and nvidia...

 

[FatRakoon]

I prefer to use AquaMark over 3DMark because unlike 3DMark, it gives a much more realistic figure...

I mean, 3DMark is very heavily CPU reliant.

Lets say for example, you have GFX CARD "X" and you run it on a Duron 1000 and you get 1000 marks... Well, if you take that GFX Card "X" to a top of the line dual core mega monster, and run AquaMark again... The results will be very close to what they are on the duron.

Slight lie there, but try it and you will see what I mean... Even though it does do both CPU and GPU scores, it is much more sensible results than 3DMark. Hell in 3DMark you run it on a PC you get 10K and if oyu run it again 10 minutes later, you could have anything like 8K or 12K - its rubbish.

So, AquaMark for me every time, because the results I have had with any given card will be the same results no matter what PC I test it on.

x700 = 6600 basic.

Dont have a plain 6600 but I do have an x700... That is about 37K in Aquamark, so thats slower than a 9800Pro, however games feel the same, and its not unless you can display the FPS that you might see any difference?

End of the day, Im just more annoyed with myself that I was expecting the 6600GT to be better than it was, and yet, even mroe annoyed because I already have an AGP one and I should have just used a bit of common sense and looked at my notes before I bought this one.

 

[toxic]

I prefer to use AquaMark over 3DMark because unlike 3DMark, it gives a much more realistic figure...

I mean, 3DMark is very heavily CPU reliant.

Lets say for example, you have GFX CARD "X" and you run it on a Duron 1000 and you get 1000 marks... Well, if you take that GFX Card "X" to a top of the line dual core mega monster, and run AquaMark again... The results will be very close to what they are on the duron.

Slight lie there, but try it and you will see what I mean... Even though it does do both CPU and GPU scores, it is much more sensible results than 3DMark. Hell in 3DMark you run it on a PC you get 10K and if oyu run it again 10 minutes later, you could have anything like 8K or 12K - its rubbish.

So, AquaMark for me every time, because the results I have had with any given card will be the same results no matter what PC I test it on.

x700 = 6600 basic.

Dont have a plain 6600 but I do have an x700... That is about 37K in Aquamark, so thats slower than a 9800Pro, however games feel the same, and its not unless you can display the FPS that you might see any difference?

End of the day, Im just more annoyed with myself that I was expecting the 6600GT to be better than it was, and yet, even mroe annoyed because I already have an AGP one and I should have just used a bit of common sense and looked at my notes before I bought this one.

I think you meant GPU reliant...and you are correct. If you got a good GPU and a decnt CPU..the you will get a good score.

I used to use 3DMark 2001 as a way of benchmarking my sytsem....as this is very sensitive to both CPU, memeory and GPU speed. After this came 3D Mark 2003 and that was mainly based again on the graphics card you had in your system. Futuremark should have kept things the way they were...a real test of full system performance.
Hmmm...might be worth insatlling 2001 again and seeing what i get with a conroe at 3.5Ghz and a Oc'd 8800GTX. The last timne I used that I was on a AMD XP Barton and a 9800pro

 

[FatRakoon]

Nah, I sitll use the old Benches like 2000 ( If it runs ) and 2001 etc...I just dont take their scores seriously anymore... Have not done so for a few years now...

But, anyway, that way you get a much better feel as to how much your systems have progressed since before...

I mean, I remember with 2000 I was happy to hit 1K FFS!

Now, my lowest gard is about 17K and I think thats on a TI4200 ( God, I love that card ) and it gives me a more real marker to know how much system A runs when compared to system B.

Plus, I cant be bothered to wait half the time for 3DM03 / 05 or 06 to actually turn around and tell me how bad my system is

AquaMark3 is the one I have used for a fair while now and its perhaps the most reliable of them all, and the most believable.

 

[melbourne720]

Hmmm...might be worth insatlling 2001 again and seeing what i get with a conroe at 3.5Ghz and a Oc'd 8800GTX. The last timne I used that I was on a AMD XP Barton and a 9800pro

I got 45k in 2001 with everything at stock