PizzaMan

So I finally got 3Dmark99 to work in XP, but it's not working right. 3Dmark2000 is acting wierd in XP to. Scoring great in W7, but in XP the entire test runs in about 30 secs and gives me this score. I guess this is what happens when you drop support for your old products. Don't think I'm going to play this one. Just to much trouble trying to get the benches to run properly.

Yea, didn't work. EDIT: Tried x86 and x64 XP. Copied the _Setup.dll to 99max folder. Not working

Can't get 99max to work on XP. DX6.1 is for Windows 98. Got me a copy of 98, but just noticed nVidia doesn't have any 98 drivers...

I'm confused. I thought global points were already bonus points for getting close to WR level? Why not just increase the currant global scaling algorithm? EDIT: nvm, just realized the age of this thread...

Yea, that's a sad card. Does it have a high VID?

Great CPU clocks you have there. What happened to the GPU, forget to V'mod it?

Thx Trans am. The extra modding(caps and inductor) had little effect on this card. If I had more time I would have done an external power source. The PCI power was really hindering this card. Didn't really expect that after clocking the 5450 like a dream on the PCI wattage. Most the extra points came from hours of testing and tweaking before actually benching the card.

Worked really hard to brake the 70K mark. Took a second dice session to get it done.

What Massman said. We did research before purchasing our cards. We learned during the 5450 competition that memory bandwidth is a key factor with these low-end GPUs. Almost bought the Giga cards, but we realized they had the crap Hynix memory modules and decided to go with the XFX with 1.85v Samsung's even though it had a weaker single phase GPU vs Giga's dual phase. Why does the 03' stage end an hour before the 01' and Heaven stages?

10 10 10 10 10.... Some little screaming GPUs we got here.

1Ghz core on Heaven. Nice!!!

You said you think it throttled down? When this card throttles, it throttles to the 2D or 3D clocks set in BIOS. It doesn't clock down to 813/832.

I'm not the only one who has had this issue, so I'm guessing it's power delivery. More voltage just caused problems. 1.33v seemed to be the sweet spot.

Just couldn't get 03' to do 1Ghz core.

What time zone does this end in on the 30th?

Card modded and benching around 1Ghz. Can't touch FTW 420's Heaven score.

It being a team competition, I'm guessing that as newer submissions from a team come in the older(slower) submissions drop from the contest or do we need to wait on a final team score before submitting?

Ahh, this sucks. It should be a wPrime entry.

Great chip! Can't wait to see some 3D's

I really have mixed opinions on this matter. I like the sound of having leagues, but we don't want to push manufacturer involvement away. The more involved manufacturers become the more they will be building hardware tailored to our wants and needs at the retail level. The issue with ES hardware is a tough one, but at the same time, just because an ES might be topdog today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow. I personally have no problem with ES hardware so long as it is eventually released to the retail level with same specs. Once you start getting ES hardware that is never intended for retail market lineup, then you have an issue. Peeps taking golds with ES's is cool, so long as down the road the same spec'd hardware is available to everyone with the wallet to purchase it. Then there's the NDA, hardware and software issue. Manufacturers sharing NDA IC info, modding hardware and software with some that others don't have access to. Gives an unfair advantage. I do what I can to share as much info across the web to benchers, but I can't post everything publicly w/o worrying about backing NDA or manufacturer trust. Last thing I want is to get sued over something silly or get the cold shoulder from a manufacturer, which has already started to happen. Not pointing any fingers, but I recently inquired about purchasing some 'juiced' hardware for modding from a manufacturer, got a couple responses, they seemed willing to help me out, then all of a sudden, quit replying. So....there's a lot of stuff going on behind the senses that makes things unfair for others. Like I said, I have no problem with manufacturers getting involved, but the info shared should be accessible to everyone, not just a select few. The problem goes much farther then just hardware.

You don't need any kind of verification for cooling. The OC its self should be enough to tell a difference. If you see someone claiming to benchmark a CPU at 6Ghz on water or air, you know they're lying. If someone submits something questionable, request a system pic. If you worry to much about if something is 'cheatable' or not, you'll never be able to make any changes. There will always be someone out there willing to lie, cheat, and steal. Doesn't mater how well you think the rules are played out, people will find a way around it. It's like the whole hardware sharing rule. How is that enforceable? How was that ruled as a 'not so cheatable' action that could enforced? I find it would be easier to tell if someone is lying about cooling than it is tell if someone is using shared hardware. Your 'so cheatable' point seems null to me.

I like the idea of amateurs striving and benching their brains out to earn the right to be a pro. The pro league shouldn't be limited to just 'manufacture sponsored' benchers either, but all 'manufacture sponsored' submissions should be in the pro league. Pro's should be able to submit as amateur if they are not currently benching with sponsored hardware. I also think all LN2 submissions should be considered pro. So this kind of leans me towards El Gappo's post. Maybe instead of pro vs amateurs, we have cooling solutions vs each other. Air is air, regardless if it's chilled or not. Same for water, chilled/ambient same class. Yes, people will cheat. This is unfortunate. Let their consonance hold them. So maybe a triple point system, hardware, global, & cooling. Then give ES's a drop down box with a choice between 'retail' and 'ES', so they are not scored against retail hardware. This would make ES points lower, but they would still be good purchases for WRs. Just some thoughts. I'm still a little mixed about all this. It's not an easy problem with an easy solution.

Make an ES class with its own points. Just don't grade them in the same class as non-ES models. I think this would be the easiest sollution for the ES question. I agree, if it exsist, bench and record it.

Bingo, it's not ES chips that are the problem. Manufacturer sponsoring is the issue. It shouldn't be allowed. Manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to give a select few 'juiced' hardware, pinout and datasheet information that's NDA and can't be found anywhere. Seeing some pretty swifty stuff from manufacturers. Not going to point any fingers. Voting to disallow ES's for points on the baises that's it's Intel's property and 'sharing' hardware is against HWbot rules. Thus, they have never been legitimate entries to begin with. I have ES enteries and stand to lose points over this. It's more about the principles of it.

OK, that makes sense. TYVM