• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

X1950 pro AGP - it was going well

Intel chipset drivers, does that actually include the agp chipset drivers?

Also agp apperature size should be about 128 which is the norm. Also make sure its running in agp mode do at run, dxdiag and check agp is workin ok. Also make sure its on 8x agp.

Also reseat the card, maybe not sat properly or somit or somit on the connectors?

Make sure the 6 pin power thing is attached to card and make sure enough juice from the psu.

--

One last thing, try if poss using in another computer see if its the card that is faulty or the computer. Also see if their is a incompatability by looking on your motherboards website forums, see if anyone else has problems on your mb. Check if bios update is available, it may help. Try using no pci slot cards or keep trying diff combos as in take for example sound card from slot 3 to slot 5. Incase it is a conflict there.
 
Last edited:
Ummn, installed any kind of control software?

Because your probably running at high quality with some AA and AF...

Install ATi Tray Tools. Make sure you untick the I2C box. and don't disable the services when it asks you.
 
Hmm according to 3dmark score page your mb can only do up to 4x agp rate. Now i doubt the 4x instead of 8x agp would cause such low score but it might be a part of a reason why its so low ** score.
 
AGP is maximum of 4x

WRT to the AGP drivers the The Intel Chipset Software Installation Utility provides _functionality_ for AGP and USB

Have tried using the double molex connector and running a 6 pin direct from the power supply

Mobo BIOS is latest available

The only cards in the PC now are the Radeon and a Promise raid card and I have moved the latter

ATI tool reported no AA or AF and I set the performance to high

Just about to chuck the towel in and order a 7800 GS+ :(
 
dmsims said:
AGP is maximum of 4x
Click to expand...


Errr no
8x


Tbh thats why i think your score is so low, since originally the card was made for 16X, was probably hard enough for ati to make it perform good on agp8x, agp4x is ( i think) definatly too slow for such a heavy (performance) card...
 
Last edited:
dmsims said:
Have tried using the double molex connector and running a 6 pin direct from the power supply
Click to expand...

Tryed? You mean you didnt before? It is a must to use use both molex connectors on the card. If you dont it will perform poor and also cause problems like crashes etc.

--

Also still woundering if its the psu etc, so can you try in a mates pc with better psu etc if possible?

--

Also lets try a bit of a test if another x1950pro user on agp will help you test this. Ask the other user to forcably run his card in 4x agp like using the bios method so his card is droped from 8x agp to 4x agp. Then ask him to benchmark using same what you have used software wise. Id be interested to know exactly what performance difference the card performs at given 4x vs 8x agp rates.
 
Last edited:
When I say tried I meant changing from the double Molex to a PCIE 6 pin type cable

No change of another PC to test I'm afraid

The idea about benching 4x and 8x is excellent: anyone ?

TIA
 
Btw found a bencmark that shows 6000ish score in 3dmark 05. :(

http://www.hartware.de/review_668_5.html

Its in german but the tables are easy to follow.

--

Im woundering if the 10k scores are only for pci-e versions. If so i would really like a thread that benchmarks pci-e version compared to a 8x agp version. I would love to see the scores to see if the pci-e bandwidth indeed helps or not.
 
SkeeterPSA said:
Btw found a bencmark that shows 6000ish score in 3dmark 05. :(

http://www.hartware.de/review_668_5.html

Its in german but the tables are easy to follow.

--

Im woundering if the 10k scores are only for pci-e versions. If so i would really like a thread that benchmarks pci-e version compared to a 8x agp version. I would love to see the scores to see if the pci-e bandwidth indeed helps or not.
Click to expand...


Odd tho as that mainboard has full agp8x + pro support, so why the low score?
 
Has anyone tried the 1950pro agp on the 939 dual sata board ? Im interested in what the score differences would be to the pci-e version on the same board.
 
Abstract benchmark are useless to check the bus bandwidth, because if you run and dual core and have more memeory will be better.
But with this utility of 93KB ArchMark you can know the bandwidth, for an x1950Pro is about 46Gb/s and 6600Gpix/s fill rate.
There are other benchmarks, but this two dependent of the bus setting (4x or 8x).
This utility does not benchmark CPU,RAM,HD, just the videocard, that's why is great for troubleshoot.
 
Interesting post the results are below. Nothing I have done has altered the 3D05 score much apart from 2 things:

Changing the processor speed
Different drivers (6.11 is best)

So for my system the card is performing "normally"

The only real question left is what difference AGP 8x would make

Thanks again to all that have replied

Driver: Radeon X1950 Pro x86/SSE2 v2.0.6174 WinXP Release
1024x768 @ unknown refresh rate (assuming 85Hz)
Flushing commands, no buffer swaps
Fillrate

* 32 bits
o Mode: R8G8B8A8 Z24 S8
o 6.619 GPix/s color only
o 6.788 GPix/s z only
o 4.878 GPix/s color and z
o 3.826 GPix/s z tested (pass), color and z
o 94.274 GPix/s discardable by LEQUAL depth test
o 94.526 GPix/s discardable by GEQUAL depth test
o 6.782 GPix/s discardable by EQUAL depth test
o 6.792 GPix/s stencil writes
o 6.793 GPix/s discardable by EQUAL stencil test
o stencil test passed
+ 6.043 GPix/s pure stencil updates
+ 6.045 GPix/s z fail (LEQUAL), stencil update
+ z test passed (LEQUAL)
# 6.044 GPix/s stencil update
# 6.044 GPix/s stencil update, z update
# 6.617 GPix/s color replace
# 4.878 GPix/s z update, color replace
# 3.836 GPix/s stencil update, color replace
# 3.831 GPix/s stencil update, z update, color replace
* 16 bits
o Mode: R5G6B5A0 Z16 S0
o 6.777 GPix/s color only
o 6.790 GPix/s z only
o 6.354 GPix/s color and z
o 4.704 GPix/s z tested (pass), color and z
o 94.463 GPix/s discardable by LEQUAL depth test
o 92.381 GPix/s discardable by GEQUAL depth test
o 6.779 GPix/s discardable by EQUAL depth test

Bandwidth
Mode: R8G8B8A8 Z24 S8

* available to buffer clears
o 47.462 GB/s all buffers
o 25.427 GB/s color only
o 169.518 GB/s depth and stencil
o 126.822 GB/s depth only
o 5.821 GB/s stencil only
* 43.746 GB/s worst case draw bandwidth
* 267.387 MB/s burned by the RAMDAC
* 44.014 GB/s estimated physical bandwidth
 
I have just done the same as you and replaced my BFG 6800GT with a Sapphire x1950ProAGP

My system is as follows:-

Asus P4P800
Intel P4 Northwood 2.4GHz running at 3.2GHz
2x512MB OCZ 4400 running 1:1
Sapphire x1950pro AGP runing stock speeds.

Using the 6.12 Cats.

For AGP8X 3dMark05 = 6874
AGP4X 3dMark05 = 6877

So looks like no difference.

With X1950 Pro clocked at 621/1572

1024x768 3dMark05 = 6857
1600x1200 3dMark05 = 6372
1600x1200 4AA, 16xAnisotropic = 5899

Looks like the CPU is the limiting factor as the 3dMark didn't move even when the card was overclocked.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that - another myth busted on AGP performance (in this context)

I also tried overclocking the card and it made no difference

My best score for 3d05 was 6300 (ORB is playing up again!)
 
An update

Installed a new motherboard (ASROCK 775Dual-VSTA) and a E6600 C2D

Put X1950Pro in AGP and after another XP install put the 6.12 drivers on.

Card has run perfectly

First 3d05 score without any alterations - 9506

let the tweaking begin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom