OZONE 3D SOFT SHADOWS BENCH

Stabhappy · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:00

I agree with you to some extent, but seriously, benchmarks have always been ways of comparing hardware and settings, right? How can you compare hardware when weaker hardware synthetically performs better?

Also, I just realised my GPU was clocked lower (I formatted not long ago) scoring a very attractive (when compared to other nVidia cards) 4.7k. Still, I'll be sticking with 3dMark series- it's still synthetic but its a little closer to realistic values from what you could see in games.

If there was a more mainstream way of benchmarking (perhaps a few runs of several game maps, a bit like 3dMark but from distributors - like the crysis timedemo, then a ut3 timedemo etc) i'd obviously use that, as I'm sure would many others.

It's not that I'm getting all up in arms about it, it's just what's the point in even bothering with this program if every card gets a bias (to some degree) score?

gurusan · 27 Dec 2007 at 01:04

True, it can be a bit misleading, but at the same time individual synthetic benchmarks give us more of a clear idea on what the card is good at and what it's not good at.

But yeah, game benchmarks are the best...after all....that's why we bought the cards right? Perhaps someone should start a UT3 timedemo thread...that would be interesting...as I don't know of a CoD4 timedemo program

Trixxy · 27 Dec 2007 at 02:18

This benchmark is a lot more useless than 3DMark though, I almost doubled my score just by using an ancient driver.

TheMorningStar · 27 Dec 2007 at 03:51

eesh yeah.. doesnt like the x800xt at all. maybe it needs ps3 as it states 6*** series nvidia and x1*** series ati. shame that, not tryed 3D benchmarking in like 2 years.

Scougar · 27 Dec 2007 at 07:15

Made a slight mistake. Was at 2.41 Ghz on previous post and not 2.61Ghz. Now at 2.61Ghz (Pretty much max overclock on this board), with 796/1269 and got 6072 with 7.12 drivers (+crysis hot fix lol).

Not too shabby for a motherboard with only 4x pci-e and the downstream pipeline disabled lol.

Matthew

Kanifee · 27 Dec 2007 at 12:11

here is an update with my 8800gt and a better clock on my cpu.

juno_first · 27 Dec 2007 at 12:57

I've had enough of these non dx10 tests.
They make my rig look crap! 3519 on a quad/8800gtx ffs
Roll on 3dmark08...
on vista64

Scougar · 27 Dec 2007 at 13:47

lol.... luckily not many people take the slightest interest in this benchmark when deciding what card to buy

Matthew

AndyOcUK · 21 Jan 2008 at 23:59

juno_first said:
I've had enough of these non dx10 tests.
They make my rig look crap! 3519 on a quad/8800gtx ffs
Roll on 3dmark08...
on vista64

Agreed

topdog555 · 22 Jan 2008 at 00:51

Graphics card: 8800GTS 512mb
OS: Windows XP SP3
CPU: Athlon 64 6400+
Score: 4968

Steves_pc · 22 Jan 2008 at 02:03

Seeing as it's not the usual 3d06 i thought i'd give it a whirl.

no idea why it didnt get the drivers? anyway it's an x1900xt-x on the 2.11 cats at stock speed.

Scougar · 22 Jan 2008 at 11:04

Some real nice scores on this benchie

Hmm... still not been brave enough to try the pencil mod to o/c my 3870 more yet (need a multi-meter first). So gotta beat gurusan though!

Matthew

Azza · 8 Apr 2008 at 01:28

Soft Shadows - stock

Soft Shadows - 800mhz core, 1100mhz mem, 2000mhz shaders

grudas · 8 Apr 2008 at 02:10

Cpu and card at stock.

Curio · 8 Apr 2008 at 03:47

For what it's worth - 2433 with spec in sig

ZoomZ · 8 Apr 2008 at 06:09

spookywillow · 8 Apr 2008 at 08:52

ZoomZ · 8 Apr 2008 at 14:06

Im beginning to wonder if this bench was made by some AMD guys .

I wonder why AMD setups are doing so well in this benchmark :rolleyes:

Wiggins · 8 Apr 2008 at 15:22

I would push it more but not until my Thermalright V2 has landed

RavenXXX2 · 8 Apr 2008 at 15:26

Bench definitely has some ATI optimization in it, mind you that's all they seem to be good at these days, benchmarks.