My Athlon 1400 has finally arrived, ran some games on it, along with 3DMark01

Abit KG7-Raid
Athlon 1400 (266Mhz FSB)
1GB Corsair XMS Platinum DDR
Voodoo 5500 with latest official drivers
SB Audigy (SB0160)
Windows 2000

just to compare the results with the Tyan 400 + 1Ghz coppermine were at 1601. How much of that increase is simply the CPU vs the GPU being maxed out I don't know.

got a Creative Annihilator Pro 32MB card (Geforce256 DDR) for £1 , and decided to try it out for a bit in the same Athlon 1400 machine as above , to see how it competes with the Voodoo 5500.

Drivers used were 30.82

I would have to assume the higher score is probably due to the DX7 functionality the Geforce256 has, when I tested Quake3 , the timedemo got 64fps compared to 77 on the V5500 at the same settings, Nevermind Glide games like UT99 where the V5500 got 74 in the cityintro demo , while the GF256 DDR got 40.5 at the same res & detail level in D3D . Even in Max Payne the GF256 was about 20fps slower when using hardware T&L.

have to wonder why the benchmarks at various review sites showed the GF256 DDR beating the Voodoo in most situations, Weaker CPUs maybe? bad drivers?

Darkman wrote:

got a Creative Annihilator Pro 32MB card (Geforce256 DDR) for £1 , and decided to try it out for a bit in the same Athlon 1400 m […]
Show full quote

got a Creative Annihilator Pro 32MB card (Geforce256 DDR) for £1 , and decided to try it out for a bit in the same Athlon 1400 machine as above , to see how it competes with the Voodoo 5500.

Drivers used were 30.82

<image snip>

I would have to assume the higher score is probably due to the DX7 functionality the Geforce256 has, when I tested Quake3 , the timedemo got 64fps compared to 77 on the V5500 at the same settings, Nevermind Glide games like UT99 where the V5500 got 74 in the cityintro demo , while the GF256 DDR got 40.5 at the same res & detail level in D3D . Even in Max Payne the GF256 was about 20fps slower when using hardware T&L.

have to wonder why the benchmarks at various review sites showed the GF256 DDR beating the Voodoo in most situations, Weaker CPUs maybe? bad drivers?

It's been a common practice for a great number of years that manufacturers send specialized versions of drivers along with their review samples to various test labs around the world when testing their new cards for displaying comparisons on the internet. They hand-tweak these drivers to make the various cards run faster in certain tests so people looking to these websites will think their cards are faster and then go buy them. Even when the companies know that the retail product with retail drivers will not perform anywhere near as well as they did in the versions sent to test labs. This is still done today even with today's modern video cards.

The "GOOD" test labs will throw out included drivers and use retail drivers off the websites at the time of testing. Not all test folks will do this. I don't know exactly how it works, perhaps maybe some sites have to sign legal agreements to use the provided drivers.. I don't really know. But it's been common place in the industry for years. Most people know better than to follow review sites and buy based on their results.

The one I usually refer to for performance is "Passmark Performance Test", which is a private run thing where individuals on their own computers test their own cards (presumably with reference drivers), and then we can find their submissions via online database in the program and add them together. And also everyone runs the exact same program, and the same test. We can also see cpu and hardware they used for testing.. and then match it up so all tests have the same hardware at the same speed, etc. I haven't looked before, but I might go check if they have voodoo5 and older cards in there.

Alternatively we can use their website where they display an overall average of all global submissions and perform a weighted average and then graph it. So it's not swayed by one individual result, and has a rank of all cards.

EDIT: I went and looked inside Passmark Performance Test and the baselines that let us search online for other submissions, there's people that have put in submissions back to the Pentium III and Geforce FX series. Also some AMD AthlonXP and Duron results are in there. Folks can just use that and if you "select baseline" it puts it in a nifty colored graph you can look at, and run it on your current system and then compare how yours does verses others.

Latest 3DMark01 run with my sig rig running 700/2MB Xeons. Drivers are Omega 56.72

Unfortunately it seems these are not liking running overclocked, my box has locked up multiple times during further benching. Will probably run at 100Mhz stock just to see if this is actually the case. I'll probably revert to the 1MB chips if it is.

Pentium D 950 @ 4800 MHz
Geforce GTX 285

Not that bad for a CPU from late 2005 😀

Nice score for a Netburst.
My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. 😀

havli wrote:

Nice score for a Netburst. My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. :) […]
Show full quote

Nice score for a Netburst.
My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. 😀

Nice! You're really encouraging me to get a 1MB 939 opteron for my 939 rig now, even more so than I already wanted.

I have a 2.61 ghz overclocked 512KB chip and a 9800GT and it only gets 37k in 2001se right now.

havli wrote:

Nice score for a Netburst.
My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. 😀

Nice score!

Here is a nice Athlon X2 score, AM2 but still 0.09 micron K8 😀

Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3450 MHz

Skyscraper wrote:

Nice score! […]
Show full quote

havli wrote:

Nice score for a Netburst.
My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. 😀

Nice score!

Here is a nice Athlon X2 score, AM2 but still 0.09 micron K8 😀

Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3450 MHz
<snip>

Your image is too large and gets cut off on both sides on my screen. Maybe try making it a little smaller for the forums?

kithylin wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

Nice score! […]
Show full quote

havli wrote:

Nice score for a Netburst.
My overclocked A64 3700+ (San Diego) is a little bit slower. 😀

Nice score!

Here is a nice Athlon X2 score, AM2 but still 0.09 micron K8 😀

Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3450 MHz
<snip>

Your image is too large and gets cut off on both sides on my screen. Maybe try making it a little smaller for the forums?

Im sticking to 1024*768 like most people here but I avoid using larger images than that.

You simply have to "load more"

Skyscraper wrote:

Im sticking to 1024*768 like most people here but I avoid using larger images than that.

You simply have to "load more"

Ah.. I guess nevermind, I was looking on my amd 939 machine with a 1280x1024 screen and can't see most of it. I should get a bigger screen for this thing then I suppose. 😲

kithylin wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

Im sticking to 1024*768 like most people here but I avoid using larger images than that.

You simply have to "load more"

Ah.. I guess nevermind, I was looking on my amd 939 machine with a 1280x1024 screen and can't see most of it. I should get a bigger screen for this thing then I suppose. 😲

I totally understand the too large image thing.

The way I see it 1024*768 cant be considered very large today and it is the smallest size you can take benchmark screenshots and get all information into the picture at once.
If you resize said 1024*768 image to 800*600 it gets hard to read the text in CPU-Z, if you use thumbs you cant compare one image to another by scrolling.

Soon all 1280*xxx LCDs will have died and this problem will be history... or it wont for people will post images fit for their 4k screens...

Decided to go on and benchmark my 939 machine I've been working on lately, and post it for you guys, since we're all posting our AMD systems lately.

This one's actually a 1.6 ghz chip originally, running on stock volts @ 2.6 ghz with a fairly high HT-Link speed, with dual-channel DDR-524 and a single 9800 GT.

I decided to go for 800x600 and you can just click on the image for full size view if you like.

Nice!

This forum should get the "auto resize to fit" function going, then I could scroll and compare and you could click for a large image at the same time.

Skyscraper wrote:

Nice!

This forum should get the "auto resize to fit" function going, then I could scroll and compare and you could click for a large image at the same time.

I actually had a GTX-260 in this machine for a little while, but it wouldn't come up with a single mark higher than this.. maybe like +50 points, so I think this thing's cpu limited for now. I have my eyes on getting a 2.8 Ghz 1MB opteron for it and see if I can get it up in the 3.6 - 3.8 range or something. Probably be several months for that.

I also tried a second 9800GT in SLI (SLI system) but it actually yeilds -4k less marks so.. just need to wait for a better CPU for it to get much more out of this system.

kithylin wrote:

I actually had a GTX-260 in this machine for a little while, but it wouldn't come up with a single mark higher than this.. maybe like +50 points, so I think this thing's cpu limited for now. I have my eyes on getting a 2.8 Ghz 1MB opteron for it and see if I can get it up in the 3.6 - 3.8 range or something. Probably be several months for that.

I also tried a second 9800GT in SLI (SLI system) but it actually yeilds -4k less marks so.. just need to wait for a better CPU for it to get much more out of this system.

That is a lottery. Only very few batches did over 3600 Mhz and even during the best weeks not all chips did over 3400 MHz.
A cheap San Diego 3700+ (2200 Mhz, 1mb) should not be more than a few Euro and have a very good chanse of hitting 3000-3100 MHz.

Edit

If you live in the US this seems like a good deal. Free shipping.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Athlon-64-3700-1M … =item3f44144991
Or even cheaper
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-ATHLON-64-3700-2- … =item4d296fe5a7

Skyscraper wrote:

Nice score! Here is a nice Athlon X2 score, AM2 but still 0.09 micron K8 :) Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3450 MHz --screenshot-- […]
Show full quote

Nice score!
Here is a nice Athlon X2 score, AM2 but still 0.09 micron K8 😀
Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3450 MHz
--screenshot--

A64 X2 at 3,45 GHz, impressive! And 50k score is very nice, too. 😀
Too bad the 3DMark 01 doesn't benefit from more CPU cores. I could fire up my dual Opteron 280 rig - four K8 cores. 😎

havli wrote:

A64 X2 at 3,45 GHz, impressive! And 50k score is very nice, too. 😀
Too bad the 3DMark 01 doesn't benefit from more CPU cores. I could fire up my dual Opteron 280 rig - four K8 cores. 😎

thanks!

My dual socket 940 board only supports 130 nm single cores 😒

We do not have a 3dmark 2006 thread but this is not too bad either.
The voltage is of course higher than CPU-Z let you believe but its under 1.5V and air cooled (and not by a dust buster).

Skyscraper wrote:

That is a lottery. Only very few batches did over 3600 Mhz and even during the best weeks not all chips did over 3400 MHz. A ch […]
Show full quote

That is a lottery. Only very few batches did over 3600 Mhz and even during the best weeks not all chips did over 3400 MHz.
A cheap San Diego 3700+ (2200 Mhz, 1mb) should not be more than a few Euro and have a very good chanse of hitting 3000-3100 MHz.

Edit

If you live in the US this seems like a good deal. Free shipping.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-Athlon-64-3700-1M … =item3f44144991
Or even cheaper
http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMD-ATHLON-64-3700-2- … =item4d296fe5a7

Thanks.. but even with the lotto those chips.. would barely hope to reach 2.7 - 2.8 ghz on their own, and certainly won't get any where near 3 ghz (I already have several of those and I've tried). I rather just spend the money and get one that comes already clocked at 2.8, at least it's not far to 3.0 which should be easy.. anything above that would be the gamble part. Even if it doesn't clock very well, at least it will run at 2.8, which is great for what I want that machine for. In general if anything is going to overclock very high at all, it's always the higher binned chips that manage it.

kithylin wrote:

Thanks.. but even with the lotto those chips.. would barely hope to reach 2.7 - 2.8 GHz on their own, and certainly won't get any where near 3 GHz (I already have several of those and I've tried). I rather just spend the money and get one that comes already clocked at 2.8, at least it's not far to 3.0 which should be easy.. anything above that would be the gamble part. Even if it doesn't clock very well, at least it will run at 2.8, which is great for what I want that machine for. In general if anything is going to overclock very high at all, it's always the higher binned chips that manage it.

Well its always a gamble, I own two San Diego 3700+, one clocks to ~3050 or so using air the other ~2950.
I do also own two FX 55, one Clawhammer and one San Diego. The San Diego one clocks to ~3000.

Buying a single core Opteron 154 2.8 GHz do guarantee that you will reach 3.0 just as buying a FX 57 would but they are often expensive.
Perhaps you could find the Opteron 156 3.0 GHz, even if expensive I'm confident all of them will clock to 3.2 at stock voltage.

The motherboard play an important role. The Asus A8N32-SLI or one of the DFI boards should reach the highest clocks.