South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
Not that I give these guys any legit creedence, I posted this more out of general interest/debate, what about their figures do you find so out of kilter?Ha Ha those numbers are so wrong its bordering on Sad. It's lies I tell you, all lies.
@ 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF ?you had with the 8800GTS scoring around 19000 in 05?
Lets assume they tested on an FX-62 at worst. At stock speeds here are my 3DM05 numbers
=================
AMD FX-62 (2.8GHz) : 12,397
Intel X6800 (2.93GHz) 12,697
QX6700 (From 505) : 11,039! ohmy.gif (With a Quad Core right :/)
3DMark06
=======
QX6700 (from 505) :6368
FX-62: 7184
X6800: 7383
Actually they claim a QX6700 overclocked to 3.2 GHz. ShockG I assume all your figures were done at 1600x1200 4xAA 16xAF (as they claim to have done) and not the defaults of 3DM 05 & 06?Isn't it strange FX-62 is much much faster than their QX6700 by almost 1K points in 06 and more than 1.2K points in 05
Ya, then their figures are looking rather low ... and therefore dubious. Not long now to find out the real story from reputable sources.Yes all done at 1600x1200 4xAA and 16XAF.
Well. according to the INQ (Fud factory) R600 has delayed yet again and will see the light of day in March. :/
Well. according to the INQ (Fud factory) R600 has delayed yet again and will see the light of day in March. :/