Quote from r4ptor :

But how?

234 would be an awesome score! Mine was 74....

Lawl i am only 100 points behind an Nvidia 295.

New score with newer gfx driver.

Quote :

# Score: 8367 o3Marks
# Submitted @ July 26 2009, 3:19 pm

# App Version: oZone3D.Net_FurMark_v1.7.0_Build_Jul 3 2009_at_09:19:42

# Renderer: ATI Radeon HD 4770
# Number of Active GPUs: 2
# Graphics Drivers: Catalyst 09.7 - 8.632-090702a-084684C-ATI 7-2-2009
# GPU Temperatures (start/end):43°C / 65°C

# Bench Duration: 60 sec.
# Resolution: 1280 x 1024
# MSAA samples: 0
# Window Mode: fullscreen

# CPU: AMD Phenomtm 9850 Quad-Core Processor
# CPU Speed: 3009 MHz
# Operating System: Windows Server 2007 ver.6.1 build 7100 No Service Pack

lol

Quote :

• Score: 257 o3Marks
  
• Submitted by fuse @ July 26 2009, 4:21 pm
  
• App Version: oZone3D.Net_FurMark_v1.7.0_Build_Jul 3 2009_at_09:19:42
  
• Renderer: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3400 Series
  
• Number of Active GPUs: 1
  
• Graphics Drivers: Catalyst 09.5 Beta - 8.612-090428a-080273E-ATI 4-28-2009
  
• GPU Temperatures (start/end): not available - Feature of FurMark 1.6.0+
  
• Bench Duration: 60 sec.
  
• Resolution: 1280 x 800
  
• MSAA samples: 0
  
• Window Mode: fullscreen
  
• CPU: AMD Turiontm X2 Ultra Dual-Core Mobile ZM-80
  
• CPU Speed: 2108 MHz
  
• Operating System: Windows Server 2007 ver.6.1 build 7100 No Service Pack <-- win7 x64

• Score: 2985 o3Marks
  
• Submitted by stu @ July 26 2009, 4:26 pm
  
• App Version: oZone3D.Net_FurMark_v1.7.0_Build_Jul 3 2009_at_09:19:42
  
• Renderer: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS 512
  
• Number of Active GPUs: 1
  
• Graphics Drivers: 8.15.11.8618 6-10-2009
  
• GPU Temperatures (start/end):62°C / 81°C
  
• Bench Duration: 60 sec.
  
• Resolution: 1280 x 1024
  
• MSAA samples: 0
  
• Window Mode: fullscreen
  
• CPU: IntelR CoreTM2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
  
• CPU Speed: 3600 MHz
  
• Operating System: Windows Vista ver.6.0 build 6002 Service Pack 2
  

PS- how does someone get over 50000 with a Geforce 8800 GT???

Quote from Electrik Kar :

PS- how does someone get over 50000 with a Geforce 8800 GT???

In fact, i have no idea. Maybe its just about your 8800GT

Quote from floodan :

• Score: one million
  

Congratulations! You win The Internet!

Quote from hazaky :

Really? Hope this helps

Yes . It helped.

Quote :

Score: 2586 o3Marks
Submitted by Velociround @ July 27 2009, 1:54 am

App Version: oZone3D.Net_FurMark_v1.7.0_Build_Jul 3 2009_at_09:19:42

Renderer: NVIDIA G92-200
Number of Active GPUs: 1
Graphics Drivers: 8.15.11.9038 7-14-2009
GPU Temperatures (start/end):46°C / 56°C

Bench Duration: 60 sec.
Resolution: 1280 x 1024
MSAA samples: 0
Window Mode: fullscreen

CPU: PentiumR Dual-Core CPU E5200 @ 2.50GHz
CPU Speed: 2500 MHz
Operating System: Windows Server 2007 ver.6.1 build 7100 No Service Pack

http://www.ozone3d.net/benchma ... 8637555f1b09832ecd9e92d57

Wow, it really heats up the graphics card! I checked the GPU temperatures before starting, it was 39°C. I did a quick test but forgot to save the results, and had to run it again. My graphics card had never went any higher than 45°C, even after hours playing any game (GTA IV, Crysis, doesn't matter which game), but now, after two quick tests, it went up to 56°C! :scared:
Maybe it needs some cleaning as well, it's starting to get too much dust .

Edit: Come on people, we all need to run the benchmark at the exact same settings in order to compare our results... if some people run in a different resolution or add up some MSAA, we just can't compare the scores! I just opened the program and ran it as it was, I didn't change anything.

Now on native monitor resolution:

Quote :

Score: 2452 o3Marks
Submitted by Velociround @ July 27 2009, 2:08 am

App Version: oZone3D.Net_FurMark_v1.7.0_Build_Jul 3 2009_at_09:19:42

Renderer: NVIDIA G92-200
Number of Active GPUs: 1
Graphics Drivers: 8.15.11.9038 7-14-2009
GPU Temperatures (start/end):44°C / 55°C

Bench Duration: 60 sec.
Resolution: 1680 x 1050
MSAA samples: 0
Window Mode: fullscreen

CPU: PentiumR Dual-Core CPU E5200 @ 2.50GHz
CPU Speed: 2500 MHz
Operating System: Windows Server 2007 ver.6.1 build 7100 No Service Pack

http://www.ozone3d.net/benchma ... 0df328194150bd9ae8aa45ee4

Quote from Velociround :

Edit: come on people, we all need to run the benchmark at the exact same settings in order to compare our results... if some people run in a different resolution or add up some MSAA, we just can't compare the scores! I just opened the program and ran it as it was, I didn't change anything.

Meh. Synthetic benchmarks are pretty pointless at everything except ePenis competitions. The only really worthwhile benchmarks are those that are comprised of tasks that are representative of what people actually use their PCs for. Benchmarks like SPEC include real world tests (like creating/extracting archives, compressing video data, speech recognition) rather than just running something to determine how many triangles your PC can render per second.

Quote from amp88 :

Meh. Synthetic benchmarks are pretty pointless at everything except ePenis competitions. The only really worthwhile benchmarks are those that are comprised of tasks that are representative of what people actually use their PCs for. Benchmarks like SPEC include real world tests (like creating/extracting archives, compressing video data, speech recognition) rather than just running something to determine how many triangles your PC can render per second.

Well your telling us to run some benchmark that is nothing todo with testing gaming performance but more of the side of video/sound editing.

Quote from rc10racer :

Well your telling us to run some benchmark that is nothing todo with testing gaming performance but more of the side of video/sound editing.

If you run this FurMark benchmark then you know how quickly your PC can run a game that involves looking at a rotating furry doughnut. What you don't know is how your PC is going to run your favourite games.

Now at this point you're probably going to say "Oh, but FurMark is just representative of drawing the same types of polygons you see in a game, so it must be a good guide for gaming". It will give you an idea, but the only way you can get a good value for comparison is if your favourite games actually have an inbuilt benchmarking tool.

Far Cry 2, for example, has a fantastic inbuilt benchmark that uses the real game engine to provide a set of results where you really can compare results across different machines or across different parts in the same machine. However, in this case the Far Cry benchmarker isn't really a synthetic benchmarking tool because it uses the real game engine. Synthetic benchmarks (like this FurMark, 3d Mark, Super PI etc) aren't good for comparisons because they don't really represent real world tasks you do with your machine.

Additionally manufacturers can tune their drivers with specific optimisations to improve their score in a popular benchmark but those optimisations will not be applicable in real world applications. This is a very interesting book which describes lots of things to do with all steps of performance, and here's a small excerpt which details what I mean above:

Quote :

One C compiler appears to include optimizations targeted just for Dhrystone. If the proper option flag is set at compile time, the compiler turns the portion of the C version of this benchmark that copies a variable-length string of bytes (terminated by an end-of-string symbol) into a loop that transfers a fixed number of words. The compiler also assumes that the source and destination of the string is word-aligned in memory. Although an estimated 99.70% to 99.98% of typical string copies could not use this optimization, this single change can make a 20% to 30% improvement in Dhrystone’s overall performance.

So any company who wants to boost their performance figures can do things like this to create unrealistic optimisations which improve their score but do nothing to help the real performance of their hardware when it's running code that can't be optimised in the same way.

Fun successfully wrung out of thread. We can all go to bed now.

Quote from amp88 :

If you run this FurMark benchmark...

It's still fun though, especially when enough ppl uses such tools. I've done benchmarks in 3DMark as well for same reason, but at the end of the day I don't value such benchmarks as much as real world apps.

In my case I prefer to do my tests in the apps and games I use. I still have LFS Patch W because I've been using replays from that for benchmarking whenever I upgraded hardware. I defo need to jump ship to "start over" with recent version of LFS, to get more realistic/optimized results though - but these tests are ofcause not comparable with others, since they are unique to me.

I also don't like reviews with hardcore and up to date games being used exclusively to benchmark performance, because more than often (too many IMO) those reviews doesn't tell about how a GPU performs under normal conditions.

Forinstance, my 8800 GTS did an OK job panning 10k images using latest version of ACDsee. But my GTX 295 is being choppy about it. Overall it's smoother at pushing 2D around, but this just gets interrupted too much. It was worse when I tried the first few drivers. Could still be a driver thing. Could be the software (some have claimed the board performs a lot better on 64 bit because you can then have more mem available to you) - but would have been nice if reviewers did casual usage tests as well. They may not be as exciting but screw that. GTX 295 doesn't come cheap and ppl are too quick to jump onboard the FPS boat yelling, omg a gazillion FPS \o/

The irony here is that I didn't solely purchase GTX 295 because of hardcore gaming, but because of my large monitor. I want smoothness when working in PS, dragging stuff, panning etc etc., but so far it hasn't really been impressive on the 2D area. I would probably have stayed with the 8800 if I had known about this back then

Quote from r4ptor :

It's still fun though, especially when enough ppl uses such tools. I've done benchmarks in 3DMark as well for same reason, but at the end of the day I don't value such benchmarks as much as real world apps.

Yeah, I still posted a couple of machines in this thread but it's just a bit of fun more than a serious test. That's all I was trying to say.

I agree with you about the way hardware reviewers test things being unrealistic too. More often now they do include real world applications, but a lot still just use synthetic stuff and use the results without telling the audience about synthetic vs real world benchmarking.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Fun successfully wrung out of thread. We can all go to bed now.

Quote from Velociround :

My graphics card had never went any higher than 45°C, even after hours playing any game (GTA IV, Crysis, doesn't matter which game), but now, after two quick tests, it went up to 56°C! :scared:
Maybe it needs some cleaning as well, it's starting to get too much dust .

56°C ... No worries, its more safer temp u would ever think of

Dust, clean it. Dust is death for the fans in ur PC.