Pointless getting 8800***!! What games?!

LoadsaMoney · 23 Nov 2006 at 21:37

JAKUS said:
Why, Most everybody else has drivers for Vista

Yeah for Vista, not Dx10.

easyrider · 23 Nov 2006 at 21:37

kibble said:
I find this fascinating and you are clearly a strong candidate for medical research when you take into consideration the fact that anything over 72fps is undetectable to the human eye. Fact.

I was wondering when this pathetic excuse for an arguement would rear its ugly little head.

Grasping at straws springs to mind.

If you knew what you were talking about its the miniumum framerate that counts.

kibble · 23 Nov 2006 at 21:44

easyrider said:
I was wondering when this pathetic excuse for an arguement would rear its ugly little head.

Grasping at straws springs to mind.

If you knew what you were talking about its the miniumum framerate that counts.

It's not a pathetic excuse for an argument, firstly because I'm not even making an argument of it! He said he needs a "stupidly high frame rate" to enjoy games properly. He doesn't. He needs a maximum of 72, and a minimum of let's say 60 to be comfortable. I was addressing his specific statement you doofus, which I thought quoting him would clearly suggest. Evidently not. I'm well aware that the minimum frame rate is what counts.

ReeceKB · 23 Nov 2006 at 21:45

TheGunslinger said:
...**shudder** I just said the words 'PC' and 'world' in the same sentance (spits on floor and turns round three times to eleviate the curse of that god forsaken shop)

LOL

LEUVEN · 23 Nov 2006 at 22:21

kibble said:
It's not a pathetic excuse for an argument, firstly because I'm not even making an argument of it! He said he needs a "stupidly high frame rate" to enjoy games properly. He doesn't. He needs a maximum of 72, and a minimum of let's say 60 to be comfortable. I was addressing his specific statement you doofus, which I thought quoting him would clearly suggest. Evidently not. I'm well aware that the minimum frame rate is what counts.

How do you know he needs a maximum FPS of 72?

What if he's running at 85Hz with v-sync on, will he still need 72 FPS?

:rolleyes:

Jakus · 23 Nov 2006 at 22:23

You do need more than a few extra FPS in the Bank for when your in large detailed scene and the Big Boy comes around the corner unleashing all sorts of hell and distruction...

kibble · 23 Nov 2006 at 22:27

LEUVEN said:
How do you know he needs a maximum FPS of 72?
What if he's running at 85Hz with v-sync on, will he still need 72 FPS?

Jeez, this has been blown WAY out of proportion! I was simply making a point that the human eye cannot detect more than 72fps, yet he was implying that he needed a lot more than that to be happy. That's it. Stop confusing yourselves by thinking I was saying anything more than that! :rolleyes:

It's just interesting to know that if you're getting 150fps in a game, all those extra frames are not being picked up by your eye. I'm NOT saying that it's a bad thing to have that many frames though. Minimum frame rate is what counts after all.

Jakus · 23 Nov 2006 at 22:30

LoadsaMoney said:
Yeah for Vista, not Dx10.

You saying DX10 is different in all the releases of Vista ?

Well well, I read DX10 was not finalised a while back that's a bit worrying for people with 8800's if the whole thing is in flux still !

Rroff · 24 Nov 2006 at 01:39

fornowagain said:
Hardly, I don't think I've ever seen one get past 13k 06 including serious cooling, volt mods and a 5GHz cpu. 16k in 06? Can't blame him for that response. Must be a world record, any links?

I just noticed that coz I'm using a widescreen display its using a lower resolution for benchmarking (1280x800) so results aren't directly comparable I guess to the default 1280x1024 - unfortunatly I can't change that with the free edition.

As my scores are approx 25% higher than expected and 1280x1024 is about 22% higher screen estate I'm also guessing 3D Marks 06 doesn't adjust for the resolution difference :| gay.

silversurfer · 24 Nov 2006 at 01:57

Jet pilots can observe differences upto 400fps apparently, the games we play dont map out that degree of accuracy so it would still be a waste. A constant 60fps at top res would be nice

fornowagain · 24 Nov 2006 at 02:02

Rroff said:
I just noticed that coz I'm using a widescreen display its using a lower resolution for benchmarking (1280x800) so results aren't directly comparable I guess to the default 1280x1024 - unfortunatly I can't change that with the free edition.

As my scores are approx 25% higher than expected and 1280x1024 is about 22% higher screen estate I'm also guessing 3D Marks 06 doesn't adjust for the resolution difference :| gay.

Mkay, what where the scores individually? The SM2, HDR/SM3 and CPU elements are not calculated for a total linearly.

Rroff · 24 Nov 2006 at 02:41

On my current settings, with the CPU at stock I'm getting 4961 for SM3 and 5034 for SM2 and 2094 for the CPU.

Thing is I would consider those scores low (from the links) for a 7950GX2 at those clock settings... theres been people posting 13-14K in 06 in some of the forums I frequent without going to those lengths to cool the boards and generally without breaking much above 700MHz... my board does around 11K on modest overclocking and just under 16K on suicide runs so I don't think it would be impossible to get 16+K stable with water cooling + volt mod.

possibly the boards don't like running at silly low temps... maybe if they brought the temps back up towards 40C then they'd see much higher scores.

fornowagain · 24 Nov 2006 at 03:00

Rroff said:
On my current settings, with the CPU at stock I'm getting 4961 for SM3 and 5034 for SM2 and 2094 for the CPU.

Thing is I would consider those scores low (from the links) for a 7950GX2 at those clock settings... theres been people posting 13-14K in 06 in some of the forums I frequent without going to those lengths to cool the boards and generally without breaking much above 700MHz...

possibly the boards don't like running at silly low temps... maybe if they brought the temps back up towards 40C then they'd see much higher scores.

The highest GX2 score on the orb is 12809, that's with clocks 775/1640. A C2D at 4698 Mhz. Plenty more around, I've yet to see any higher without sub zero water, phase, DI or LN2.

What clocks is yours? The score you gave of 10343, scales to 9437 at the higher res. Its good for a stock cpu, I wouldn't be concerned with that.

Your wasting your time comparing at low resolutions to the default. It doesn't scale. Maybe an 05 would be more indicative for you at the lower res? No way will a GX2 get to 16k in 06, that's SLi 8800GTX territory. World record single was like 16357 for about 10mins, 8800GTX 850 core on cascades score about that.

Rroff · 24 Nov 2006 at 03:07

That was with a 650 core, getting purple patterns in windows atm at 700 or above, which I wasn't getting before, hope I'm not killing the board.

EDIT: I can get the core upto 750 (max on the scale) without it failing internal testing - however there is some artifacting in windows after the test completes... no other GPU I've ever tested will get past internal testing within 100MHz of the max on the scale.

Dying to voltmod this board... but don't really want an 8800 atm (should I kill it) - hearing too many horror stories.

fornowagain · 24 Nov 2006 at 03:11

Rroff said:
That was with a 650 core, getting purple patterns in windows atm at 700 or above, which I wasn't getting before, hope I'm not killing the board.

My GX2 setup was pretty quick, 10.25K 06 was at 600/1600 and a 3.6GHz. 650 gets maybe 11K. Default res of course. I would point out on the same system my GTX scores 12.5K in 06

ORB top 11 said:
11. 12809 *Overklokk* Sub Zero Norway WR with 7950 GX2

Rroff · 24 Nov 2006 at 03:22

I'm 100% confident that with volt mod + water this board could do more than 16357...

The default vcore is 1.25 (not 1.3 as I believe most are)

fornowagain · 24 Nov 2006 at 03:34

Rroff said:
I'm 100% confident that with volt mod + water this board could do more than 16357...

The default vcore is 1.25 (not 1.3 as I believe most are)

Why don't you just get/show a score that's actually relevant with what you have? Run it at the correct res and then see how confident you are

Boogle · 24 Nov 2006 at 08:34

kibble said:
I find this fascinating and you are clearly a strong candidate for medical research when you take into consideration the fact that anything over 72fps is undetectable to the human eye. Fact.

Don't go there. I can show you studies that cover ranges from 30fps all the way to over 100fps. Quite simply the eyes don't work on a frame-by-frame basis, making any 'fps' value a complete waste of time. Its down to each person, everyone is different. If you're saying that there is a static FPS for every single person, you're also saying by extension that everyone has the exact same reaction times, as well as a whole boat load of other assumptions.

easyrider · 24 Nov 2006 at 09:28

kibble said:
Jeez, this has been blown WAY out of proportion! .

No,

You were trying to be smart and its backfired on you.

Coming out with:

kibble said:
I find this fascinating and you are clearly a strong candidate for medical research when you take into consideration the fact that anything over 72fps is undetectable to the human eye. Fact.

Has made you look a fool my friend.The statement has been quashed well and truly.So i would suggest having a good think before you want to make fun out of other people's posts.

Naffa · 24 Nov 2006 at 10:12

8800GTX > *