|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 20, 2006 23:41:34 GMT 10
Im planning on upgrading very soon. Within the next few months, I plan on creating some sort of incredible super computer with the power of... meh, I won't go into it now. (Although I will say I refuse to use Logitech as any part of it. My second logitech headset has just lost sound in the left side for no reason. I dont think these lasted 3 months. The other ones lasted less.) The point of this post is the following: 3dMark06. Now I KNEW I'd get pounded and destroyed by it. Especially since I halved my RAM just the other day and now have only 256MB. But for laughs, I did it anyway. And here, for your pleasure, are the results. If you haven't used 3dMark before, not a lot of that will mean much to you. But just trust me... 300 is BAD. That's a third of the score I got with my onboard graphics card with the 3dMark of 2 versions ago. Anyway, to give you a better idea... how bout some frames per second to see how great my PC performed... Oh. DEAR.
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Jan 21, 2006 13:06:21 GMT 10
First of all you punce.
Im surprised you could even manage 324. Does this have PS1.4 tests, i think they're up to 1.4 now, the latest series of cards anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 21, 2006 17:06:05 GMT 10
As I said, I knew I'd get owned by the test. I wasn't trying to prove anything.
PS1.4? What are you talking about? Pixel Shading?
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Jan 21, 2006 19:28:26 GMT 10
yeah
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 22, 2006 13:56:59 GMT 10
Only get that stuff if you pay for a fancier test. In other words, if you download it from LimeWire or something and not the actual source.
|
|
|
Post by LeFtBehinD on Jan 22, 2006 14:36:33 GMT 10
They've always included those tests, thats the whole point of doing it.
|
|
|
Post by neVyn on Jan 23, 2006 10:09:24 GMT 10
and you probably shouldnt compare scores from 3dmark 06 to any of the older versions. saying 300 is a third of wat you got with onboard video using 3d mark from 2 versions ago doesnt actually mean your card is worse... your onboard video probably wouldnt even get 300 in 3dmark 06
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 23, 2006 11:51:23 GMT 10
Im fully aware of that. But it does mean that to the standards of like 3-4 years ago, my computer has gone downhill with a much improved card.
Obviously the tests in each version become much more demanding, and I'm not saying my current system is WORSE than with the onboard graphics.
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Jan 25, 2006 9:47:12 GMT 10
thats pathetic
|
|
|
Post by acid on Jan 25, 2006 11:04:47 GMT 10
lol nice input
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 25, 2006 13:16:33 GMT 10
It sure is. Why are you others not posting your own scores, to show how you guys went?
|
|
|
Post by acid on Jan 25, 2006 14:27:32 GMT 10
cbf
|
|
|
Post by neVyn on Jan 25, 2006 15:07:02 GMT 10
i cant be bothered downloading the program... i didnt even bother getting 3dmark 05
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Jan 25, 2006 17:26:49 GMT 10
Well then, you'll have to be content knowing that my score is the best out of everyone on these forums...
...
...
|
|
|
Post by acid on Jan 25, 2006 18:26:21 GMT 10
meh fine....
|
|
|
Post by -Vi2- Canadian on Jan 26, 2006 12:49:49 GMT 10
It sure is. Why are you others not posting your own scores, to show how you guys went? cause i dunno that my laptop would run 3dmark... ill post when i get home
|
|
|
Post by Scruffy Dog on Apr 3, 2006 21:53:51 GMT 10
Just thought I'd post here as a comparison...
|
|