ATI Rage 128 Pro doubtfull results

[trodas]

During preparation for super-slow runs, I took my ATI Rage 128 Pro card and run some tests. I was a bit concerned, how the card could reach results like 21 447, 14 078 and 13 128 marks in 3DMark 99:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/2496046_stermy57_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_14078_marks'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2496046_stermy57_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_14078_marks

http://hwbot.org/submission/2349966_havli_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_13128_marks'>http://hwbot.org/submission/2349966_havli_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_13128_marks

 

So my main question was - could physically the card handle it? It is possible to draw the game scenes at such high framerates to get so high results? After all, mine Rage 128 Pro can do w/o overclocking only 3 351 marks on default clocks: http://hwbot.org/submission/2937935_ Even when supported by 3.4GHz X6800 CPU.

 

So, exhibit no. 1 - Rage 128 Pro at 118/140MHz do 3351 marks and 30.1 and 37.8 fps in game tests respectively:

 

Is this normal? It is. Exhibit no. 2 - Rage 128 Pro doing 3DMark 99 bench on video:

As you can see, around 30fps is normal result for stock Rage 128 Pro clocks. 2673 marks.

 

So I was confronted from a bit shockingly high results - 3351 marks I have and next person (havli) is having 13128 marks. That is about 10 000 marks more. Could these poins stack so quickly when overclocked? We see!

 

Exhibit no. 3 - Rage 128 Pro at 150/165MHz do 4984 marks and 47.8 and 52.1 fps in game tests respectively:

 

Exhibit no. 4 - Rage 128 Pro at 150/170MHz do 5020 marks and 48.1 and 52.5 fps in game tests respectively:

 

Please note that the performance scale with clocks up rather consistently. My Rage 128 Pro are (at these hot days) showing some little glitches in the image at the end of game 2 test, so maybe there are some errors that impair a bit on the speed. All in all, 150MHz for core is the maximum I could get out of the not modified card (except previous user stock some crazy heatsink on it, that it is).

 

**************************************************

 

Now let's go to muddy watters there.

 

Fake no. 1 - Rage 128 Pro at 155/166MHz do 13128 marks and 150.3 and 117.6 fps in game tests respectively:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2349966_havli_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_13128_marks

 

Points to consider:

- second game test is always and consistently faster, NOT slower

- 150/170MHz do 48.1/52.5fps, but this 155/166MHz do 150.3/117.6fps?!

- on the screenshot, the selected tests are not visible, hidden by the windows - is not that grounds for invalid test all by itself?

 

 

 

Fake no. 2 - Rage 128 Pro at 177/190MHz do 14078 marks and 162 and 124.5 fps in game tests respectively:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2496046_stermy57_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_14078_marks

 

Points to consider:

- second game test is always and consistently faster, NOT slower

- 150/170MHz do 48.1/52.5fps, but this 177/190MHz do 162/124.5fps?!

 

 

 

Fake no. 3 - Rage 128 Pro at 125/143MHz do 21447 marks and 254.8 and 185.2 fps in game tests respectively:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_drswizz_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_21447_marks

 

Points to consider:

- second game test is always and consistently faster, NOT slower

- 150/170MHz do 48.1/52.5fps, but this 124/143MHz do 254.8/185.2fps?!

- the tests selected include the filrates and textu rerendering speed, however in the resulting details are these tests shown as not run (N/A), so obviously some doctoring of the screenshot take place

 

 

**************************************************

 

Now lets compare a good result from not cheating overclocker:

 

Rage 128 Pro at 160/180MHz do 4756 marks and 47.9 and 47.3 fps in game tests respectively:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2381644_skyline_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_4756_marks

 

Points to consider:

- second game test is slower, but within the margin for error

- 150/170MHz do 48.1/52.5fps, so 160/180MHz can do 47.9/47.3fps easily

- he use the Pro version (registred), unlike all the fakers before

- he show the GPU-Z screenshot, unlike all the fakers and I can confirm, that GPU-Z does not show actuall clock... (witch is why I made second screens with Powerstrip)

- tests witch he choosed not to run won't run, unlike some fakers above

 

 

 

So, on czech forum(s) I heard havli boast and gloat on others, trying to beat his scores, speaking that thanks to his "tweaks", he is unbeatable (he said it specifically to 3DMark 2001 score(s) ):

http://pctforum.tyden.cz/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=202370&start=220

https://translate.google.com/#cs/en/Doc%3A%20ten%20quad%20hlavne%20preto%20ze%20chcem%20zautocit%20na%20Havliho%20rekord%20s%20X8x0XT%20PE%20%3Atwisted%3A%20a%20tiez%20preto%20ze%20je%20to%20Eng.%20sample.%20Inak%20tam%20dam%20bud%20tu%20X6800%20alebo%20E6700%2C%20podla%20stastia%20v%20aukcii.%0A%0A%2F%2Fje%20to%20nejaky%20starsi%203DMark%2C%20takze%20to%20CPU%20by%20tam%20mohlo%20pomoct%2C%20havli%20to%20robil%20na%20Phenome%20II%0A%0AJestli%20chces%20prekonat%20muj%20rekord%20v%203DMarku%2001%2C%20tak%20to%20budes%20mit%20hoodne%20tezky.%20%3Atwisted%3A%20http%3A%2F%2Fhwbot.org%2Fsubmission%2F2314592_hav%20...%206799_marks%0A%0AJe%20to%20totiz%20muj%20nejoblibenejsi%20benchmark%20a%20mam%20zmaknutych%20vetsinu%20tweaku.%20A%20to%20jeste%20tohle%20skore%20vyse%20neni%20uplne%20nejlepsi%2C%20co%20se%20da%20dosahnout%20-%20jsou%20tam%20rezervy.%0A%0AJinak%20co%20se%20tyce%20legacy%20benchmarku%2C%20tak%20ctyrjadro%20ma%20prinos%20jen%20v%203DM06%20%28a%20to%20vesmes%20jen%20v%20CPU%20testu%29%2C%20starsi%20jsou%20single-thread...%20takze%20tam%20dvoujadro%20bohate%20staci.

 

So that leave us two possibilities:

 

1 - he (and the two others there) is cheating - not a big problem to run the tests with other GFX card and pass it as Rage 128 Pro, IMHO

 

2 - he (and the two others there) is using tweaks that boost the Rage 128 Pro speed up to the sky and that make these scores invalid, because they are no longer represent best hardware speed (like Skyline's results, 160/180MHz is damn impressive for Rage 128 Pro... even with replaced caps and peltier cooling I cannot hope for something like that, IMHO), but the baddest tweaks, that could be considered cheats, even if they did not meddle with the 3DMark 99 code directly... witch I doubt, because there is no way Rage 128 Pro can do 254fps in any kind of 3D action

 

...but maybe I will be proved wrong completely?

[havli]

Turn off vsync

And a little advice - stop accusing others of cheating. You still have much to learn about proper old-school benchmarking.

Edited August 3, 2015 by havli

[trodas]

Funny guy. Of course I have set Vsync off in the ATI panel settings If I don't, there will be just 15, 30 and 60fps results on the screen... and much lower score. Already learned that 3DMark99 like to use Vsync Now tell us, how there can be so huge difference between very similary clocked cards... because if you just throw some BS around, like "just turn off Vsync", then that is nowhere near to explain away these vastly different results.

Either the ATI Rage 128 Pro is much more powerfull card that it show in all other benches, or you are cheated badly and boldly. Witch it is?

[xxbassplayerxx]

I benched my 6600 GT last week and got a miserably low score compared to everyone else as well. There are definitely some tweaks to learn. VSYNC is one of them, for sure. I think the benchmark may have its own VSYNC setting as well. Haven't gotten around to tweaking it yet.

 

The others are definitely not cheating.

[Christian Ney]

Could it be that those results were made back in the day where a certain "bug" was considered a "tweak" by many?

[havli]

Funny guy. Of course I have set Vsync off in the ATI panel settings If I don't, there will be just 15, 30 and 60fps results on the screen...

No offence... but as I said - you need to learn much about effective benchmarking. You really thing vsync = 15 / 30 / 60 fps? And that vsync checkbox off in ATi CP = 100% sure disabled vsync? This is real world, things doesn't always work as expected here.

 

Christian Ney:

Well I'm sure I didn't take advantage of that "tweak". 10k+ score on Rage 128 Pro is easy to get and no questionable methods are required for it. For example http://hw-museum.cz/benchmark-2-2.php - I did this back in 2009... before I even registered on HWBOT, no overclocking, no tweaks, and still 12k score on a 128 Pro.

[Stermy57]

No offence... but as I said - you need to learn much about effective benchmarking. You really thing vsync = 15 / 30 / 60 fps? And that vsync checkbox off in ATi CP = 100% sure disabled vsync? This is real world, things doesn't always work as expected here.

 

Christian Ney:

Well I'm sure I didn't take advantage of that "tweak". 10k+ score on Rage 128 Pro is easy to get and no questionable methods are required for it. For example http://hw-museum.cz/benchmark-2-2.php - I did this back in 2009... before I even registered on HWBOT, no overclocking, no tweaks, and still 12k score on a 128 Pro.

 

These situation are common today

No offence trodas but old school ( fortunately) is not like modern platform ( set voltage change multi and go to xtu)

Like havli said before ATI Rage driver are terrible...

Not all settings does always work as expected

[xxbassplayerxx]

I didn't submit mine because it was so obviously not competitive but I got 10K with a 6600 GT and 4770K at 6GHz. Look what I was competing against: http://hwbot.org/benchmark/3dmark_99_max/rankings?hardwareTypeId=videocard_220&cores=1#start=0#interval=20

 

77K with a lesser CPU and only a slightly larger OC on GPU... definitely some tweaks to learn. No one is "cheating", they just know more about the benchmark than we do. Time to drill down and learn the tricks of the trade.

[Mr.Scott]

There are quite a few for 3D01.

I see nothing out of line on any of those subs.

Please refrain from using the C word. It just makes people angry and defensive.

[trodas]

I see nothing out of line on any of those subs.

 

I hope you are joking, right? Or you did not read my post or even check the scores yourself, right?

 

...

 

Okay, let's start point by point - take only the highest score:

 

http://hwbot.org/submission/2248070_

 

Please answer questions:

 

1 - do you see that the Fill Rate and Texture Rendering Speed benchmarks are choosed to run? (Yes/No)

 

2 - do you see that the Fill Rate and Texture Rendering Speed benchmarks did indeed run? (Yes/No)

 

3 - do you see that the card clocks is claimed to be stock 125/143MHz? (Yes/No)

 

4 - do you really seriously want to suggest, that ATI Rage 128 PRO can do 254.8fps? (Yes/No)

 

5 - can you show one repeatable example and verificable, where ATI Rage 128 PRO users could at stock get 254.8fps in 3D game rendering? (Yes/No)

 

...

 

Just think about the sheer number of pixels and the rate at witch this card render pixels.

 

...

 

Or okay... I can help you a little bit. Anadtech once reviewed ATI Rage Fury MAXX card. That card have two Rage 128 PRO core chips, where reference boards are clocked to 125/143MHz - just as the chip claimed that do 254.8fps.

 

The reviewed sample have clocks 135/155MHz!

 

And the fastest FPS it reached was 93.8fps in 640x480x16 in Descent 3 demo: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ati-rage-fury-maxx-review,156-10.html

 

Now Descent 3 is fastest, because it is simpliest. (Shogo get only 68.1fps, Q3 62.3fps) The number of polygons and very short visibility range (tunnels) is very low, witch is why the framerate is very fast. I remember playing it's port on Amiga with Virge 3D graphic card... relatively smooothly. See there how simple Descent 3 is:

 

Futhermore, these "max. 90fps in 640x480x16 with twice GPU cores" results are consistent with other reviews of the Fury Maxx, for example:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/438/8

 

...

 

So I would suggest - to these, who want to defend these impossibly high framerates - recording a small video out of such framerates, allegedly reached using ATI Rage 128 PRO.

 

...

 

To not sound all that negative, I have confirmed, that on Win2k the 3DMarks is getting notably more points that on WinXP (3DMark01 goes from 1189 marks (stock) to 1412 (stock, but W2k used)) - but 3DMark 2000 fail to start on W2k SP4 - and also that WinXP drivers somewhat claims that they hold-on to the "Vsync off" option (and they showing really more frames during most part of the tests), while on Win2k is the Vsync locked-in, no regardless of driver settings.

D3D Overrider did not help as well, as Riva Tuner to unlock this mystery, so I starting to doubt that w/o patching the executable one can disable the Vsync on Win2k. It does not even ract to setting the 800x600 res. to 120Hz refresh, keeping 60Hz all the time

Edited August 6, 2015 by trodas

[Mr.Scott]

The score is only based on the game tests. You don't have to run the other tests to get a score.

Tweaks will get you more FPS.

You just don't understand how the bench works or how to tweak it. It doesn't mean because I do I'm a cheat, (or anybody else for that matter).

[trodas]

So, you brilliantly avoid answering any questions of mine What is the point of debating, then?

 

 

The score is only based on the game tests. You don't have to run the other tests to get a score.

 

That is not my point and I hope you noticed that. My point is, that the screenshot is not consistent. One window claim that tests will run, other window show that tests did not run.

That it is.

 

Tweaks will get you more FPS.

 

Sure. They can turn Rage 128 PRO into Radeon 9600 XT :D

 

...

 

Once again - show me getting 254.8fps on stock clocked Rage 128 PRO, pretty please with suggar on top!

 

You just don't understand how the bench works

 

Neither you do, because you failed to answer few simple questions. Are you affraid of something?

 

or how to tweak it.

 

I not tweaked anything yet. I use benches to bench hardware, not cheats. And once again I encourage you to show me, how do you made R 9600 XT from Rage 128 PRO

Because that is need to render the Game 1 race test at everage 255fps I cannot wait to see it!

 

It doesn't mean because I do I'm a cheat, (or anybody else for that matter).

 

I was never checking on your scores, so I cannot tell. But - once again - you have a real golden oportunity to show us, what you can!

 

Stock ATI Rage 128 PRO. First around 30fps, as normal in Game 1 on Rage 128 PRO. Then apply your tweaks and we should see 255fps in Game 1 test of 3DMark 99 on same hardware, if no-one is cheated there. Go!

Edited August 6, 2015 by trodas

[Stermy57]

Trodas sorry but now it's too much no offense but

First point:

When I went to overclock and benchmarks world I studied a lot.

I read a lot about platforms history and architecture only to understand problems or issues

So, if I were you, I would be more calm

You don't have experience and you can't write in this way

You have to study a lot, in my free time I spend a lot of time to find driver, information from overclockers that have more experience than me.

 

Second point:

Do you know anything about efficient problems of ATI Rage driver?

I think no... The Rage MAXX was an experiment! It's a great card but it have a lot of performance problem. It was the first dual gpu on the same pcb.

You can't compare old review with this situation

Because they used old platform like ( early 462 thunderbird] or 370 [coppermine tualatin] or sometimes even slot 1-A

Anyway there is a big difference between "overclockers world" and "gaming articles"

 

Third point:

3DMark99 and 2000 need a good OS (Win98) and is not easy to find the right settings

At the end is very hard to find a good driver version for Rage series

I'm sure that you have downloaded the last driver from AMD sure right?

You have to search better! Some older version... The problem is that some ftp server are down

 

Well if this is not sufficient, I can do a video I have no problem!

It's a good choice for me to try to take the first place because this time I will run it with an Athlon 64 4000+@3.6 Orleans and my AsRock AM2NF3-VSTA ( I hope to find the best win98's nForce driver)

See you soon

Edited August 7, 2015 by Stermy57

[xxbassplayerxx]

Trodas, go read up on PCMark '05 and then tell me tweaks can't make your score 100x higher. Older benchmarks are much easier to tweak and get crazy different scores... just look at 3D '01 in Windows 7 vs Windows XP. Tons of examples... In 3D '01 you can also run the game tests one at a time which can explain the "to test" window showing different items than the results. I bet 99 is just like that.

[trodas]

Stermy57 -

Trodas sorry but now it's too much no offense but

 

No offense taken. Just explain me, how stock ATI Rage 128 PRO get to 255fps in 800x600x16, when there is no test or game ever recorded in history that can prove this.

Best was max 92fps in Descent... so, how that can be?

 

In same test, 6800 GT does 500fps. So in essence you are telling me, that ATI Rage 128 PRO can on stock do half the vectoring and texturing power of 6800 GT?

 

Come on

 

First point: When I went to overclock and benchmarks world I studied a lot. I read a lot about platforms history and architecture only to understand problems or issues.

 

I view benchmarks as means to evaluate and compare computers speed. Not as tweakable programs, that can be tweaked to get better results w/o any reall hardware improvement.

 

Perhaps that is where we differ?

 

So, if I were you, I would be more calm

 

I'm calm, unlike the cause where my best efforts on lowest Aquamark score ever is ruited because of wrapper bugs, this thread does not angers me. It makes me laugh

255fps, ATI Rage 128 PRO - LOL

 

You don't have experience and you can't write in this way

 

I have enought experience with hardware, starting back in 1990. Amiga 500 since summer 1991, etc.

And you want to tell me, what I can or cannot write? Get a grip of reality, mate If I see something wrong, I will say it.

 

Prove me wrong, show me continuous video pan between PC running ATI Rage 128 PRO and then start 3DMark 99 and show me 255fps on stock Rage 128 PRO card and I rest my case.

 

Unless you do it, then I maintain that the card cannot physically do more that about 40fps stock in 800x600x16.

 

You have to study a lot, in my free time I spend a lot of time to find driver, information from overclockers that have more experience than me.

 

So the point is to find a bugged driver that show impossible fps? And you call this benchmarking? Is this why none of the questionable scores show a GPU-Z screen at all?

 

Second point: Do you know anything about efficient problems of ATI Rage driver?

 

Don't you think that Core 2 Duo 3.4GHz X6800 can overcome the effectivity problems in the driver?

 

I think no...

 

But sure you can tell me all about it Or you cannot?

 

The Rage MAXX was an experiment!

 

...and? I just took that card as example of same stock clocks, as DrSwizz claims that his ATI Rage 128 PRO have.

 

It's a great card but it have a lot of performance problem. It was the first dual gpu on the same pcb.

 

Like that can change the fact, that no-one can get on stock ATI Rage 128 PRO 255fps in any fullscreen 800x600x16 3D test with contains more that 5 polygons, lol.

 

You can't compare old review with this situation

 

Well, since your "argument" is that my scores does not count, because I'm not experienced enought, then I took reviews from the most experienced peoples around the world and quess what!

No-one cross even 100fps - and that is for 640x480x16 ! :celebration:

 

Because they used old platform like ( early 462 thunderbird] or 370 [coppermine tualatin] or sometimes even slot 1-A

 

...aaah, here we go again. Tualating is more that enought to saturate the Rage card, my friend But once again, I too much stronger CPU into the game and the difference was - non.

Therefore you are wrong and I'm right.

 

Anyway there is a big difference between "overclockers world" and "gaming articles"

 

That is mute point. DrSwiss claimed stock Rage do 255fps. 800x600x16. I fail to find more that 92fps in 640x480x16. Hence it does not look plausible to me, that any other explaination that cheating is possible to make 255fps.

(254.8fps, to be precise)

 

Third point: 3DMark99 and 2000 need a good OS (Win98) and is not easy to find the right settings

 

...witch is why you made your score on Win2k :D :D

http://img.hwbot.org/u40311/image_id_1111447.jpeg

 

At the end is very hard to find a good driver version for Rage series

I'm sure that you have downloaded the last driver from AMD sure right?

You have to search better! Some older version... The problem is that some ftp server are down

 

Yea, sure. Nail that 40 to 255fps difference to just a "different driver" that - luckily for you - I cannot obtain. Brilliant!

I bet that if you give me PM with link to driver you used, the difference will be under 5fps in the result. Care to try?

 

Well if this is not sufficient, I can do a video I have no problem!

 

I cannot wait to see it in action I will gladly apologize for my lack of knowledge how to tweak 3DMark 99 (or, more precisely, how to forcibly disable Vsync, witch could give what? 20, 30% more performace?), yet I still maintain that tweaking benches defeat the purpose of benches.

 

It's a good choice for me to try to take the first place because this time I will run it with an Athlon 64 4000+@3.6 Orleans and my AsRock AM2NF3-VSTA ( I hope to find the best win98's nForce driver) See you soon

 

Go on, take the 1st spot, if you show us how you do it. ATM it is only a week, so I wait

 

 

 

xxbassplayerxx -

Trodas, go read up on PCMark '05 and then tell me tweaks can't make your score 100x higher.

 

I never read about any tweaks yet and it is likely that I stop bench when I know, how things can be fooled...

But 100x higher... that is likely an exaggeration, is not it?

 

Older benchmarks are much easier to tweak and get crazy different scores...

 

Yea, but we are not talking about the scores at all. You are mistaken. I talk about the impossibility of ATI Rage 128 PRO on stock clock to drawn 255fps 800x600x16 Game 1 test of 3DMark 99.

If this is physically possible, then ATI Rage 128 PRO must have half the 6800 GT speed...

 

just look at 3D '01 in Windows 7 vs Windows XP.

 

3DMark 01 give +400 points when run under Win2k that with WinXP for ATI Rage 128 PRO. So not 1100-something, but a 1400-something.

True. Never tried with Win7... should I?

 

Tons of examples... In 3D '01 you can also run the game tests one at a time which can explain the "to test" window showing different items than the results. I bet 99 is just like that.

 

Yes, the 3DMark 99 is likely to run more happy on W2k. Is even possible that using just SP2 or even stock Win2k might yield better results.

But within some margins.

What my primary argument is, that there are "valid" score that claims 255fps is possible using "stock" clocked 125/143MHz ATI Rage 128 PRO.

 

I might be only amateur at best overclocker, but there is limits of what hardware and and cannot do. 255fps is clearly outside the milits of this old card. I maintain that it will be hard to - after overclocking - reach over 60fps from the card.

[TerraRaptor]

Trodas, rage has a filltate of 250mpx/s (2 tmu x 125mhz). That means it can fill in 813 frames each second. So you are not right saying it's not possible to have more than 92fps. 255frames is believable for me as the card has an ability for that.

[Stermy57]

Trodas sorry but I'm lazy and now i have to go to Naples later maybe tomorrow I will reply all your question.

You have to wait for the video because I'm using only air cooling system and these days are too hot!

 

Anyway even this http://hwbot.org/submission/2489480_stermy57_3dmark2001_se_rage_128_pro_2413_marks

and this http://hwbot.org/submission/2496045_stermy57_3dmark2000_rage_128_pro_3640_marks

Are cheated?

If I were you, I would think that maybe you have done bad scores (you reached 1400 points only because I said to you to try win2000)

I will not tell you my informations about rage driver efficient because you are going on Hwbot writing everywhere that 3 cheaters can do what they want

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=142426

http://forum.hwbot.org/showthread.php?t=141740&page=2

 

Keep calm man

Edited August 15, 2015 by Stermy57

[gradus]

I think its some bad run with no textures or somthing like that. bcz of driver or big overclock.

 

Need to run 99mark on same win and same drivers, if score will be 10000-20000 then ok. if not, all this scores cheat = ban.

 

 

PS but i think this scores 100% cheated

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ati-rage-fury-maxx-review,156-15.html

Edited August 15, 2015 by gradus

[havli]

How about this?

 

 

Pentium 4 3.06 GHz

Rage 128 Pro 32MB

512 MB DDR

Asus P4S333

Windows 98 SE + some random Ati drivers

 

Clearly all textures are in place, so no bugged run. I can run 3DMark like this all day and it will always score +/- 12k at default clocks. Is this proof good enough?

[Mr.Scott]

Never had a doubt.

Nice desktop pic.

[Stermy57]

How about this?

 

 

Pentium 4 3.06 GHz

Rage 128 Pro 32MB

512 MB DDR

Asus P4S333

Windows 98 SE + some random Ati drivers

 

Clearly all textures are in place, so no bugged run. I can run 3DMark like this all day and it will always score +/- 12k at default clocks. Is this proof good enough?

 

Nice one havli

I hope that is good enough

I will do it even with my system

[trodas]

havli -

How about this?

Pentium 4 3.06 GHz

Rage 128 Pro 32MB

512 MB DDR

Asus P4S333

Windows 98 SE + some random Ati drivers

Clearly all textures are in place, so no bugged run. I can run 3DMark like this all day and it will always score +/- 12k at default clocks. Is this proof good enough?

 

Impressive. So a 140.9fps on Game 1 and 105.6fps on Game 2 is possible on default 118/140MHz clocks, when run under Win98 (they are not even SE... ).

(the only difference is the 32MB of videoram, mine card have only 16MB... could that hurt the scores so bad?)

 

Therefore your score of 13195 marks are valid and I apologize for not believing that this is possible and I suspected that you must have cheated somehow. My bad. It seems 140.9fps on stock is possible.

 

I still have a little problem with the score, because the score claim to be 13128 marks:

http://hwbot.org/submission/2349966_havli_3dmark_99_max_rage_128_pro_13128_marks

...and on the screenshot it is 13195 marks You probably made a typo and lower your score by accident?

 

Second question is about the "random drivers." Is there are reason, why no-one ever use GPU-Z in all the higher, questionable, scores?

 

 

****

 

Yes, I still maintain that there are questionable scores, because what you proved was, that 141fps is possible. Not 255fps on stock, as the top score claim!

(there is huge difference between 141 and 255fps... but maybe Stermy57 could send you link to the "magic" drivers and we see 255fps? Or anything higher, included Stermy57 162fps is cheat? ... but since between 141fps stock and 162fps overclocked is just a small margin, then I think that Stermy57 score migth be valid too and only one cheater is there - that one, that claims that 255fps is possible on stock ATI Rage 128 PRO, witch I did not believe it is. Or you do? Could someone answer me on this question alone? We now see, that I was wrong and 60fps is not top speed on the card, 141fps is possible... I will recheck that under Win98 when the GPUPI run ends )

Edited August 16, 2015 by trodas

[Stermy57]

Stermy57

No offense taken. Just explain me, how stock ATI Rage 128 PRO get to 255fps in 800x600x16, when there is no test or game ever recorded in history that can prove this.

Best was max 92fps in Descent... so, how that can be?

 

In same test, 6800 GT does 500fps. So in essence you are telling me, that ATI Rage 128 PRO can on stock do half the vectoring and texturing power of 6800 GT?

 

Come on

First point DrSwizz has done 255fps in game 1, I will try do reach it but i don't know if i will succeed.

You said that you have experience ( i'm not the best i'm an overclockers like others, i have no power to say to anyone if they are good or not, i look only my business) but you have to be more lowly and like i said before there is a big difference between "gaming/review articles" and "overclocking world" you can't compare them.

 

 

I view benchmarks as means to evaluate and compare computers speed. Not as tweakable programs, that can be tweaked to get better results w/o any reall hardware improvement.

 

Perhaps that is where we differ?

You are too know-all this is the problem, you are writing everywere around hwbot forum about "cheaters" but before talking about this why you don't think that maybe you have to improve your skills?

 

 

I'm calm, unlike the cause where my best efforts on lowest Aquamark score ever is ruited because of wrapper bugs, this thread does not angers me. It makes me laugh

255fps, ATI Rage 128 PRO - LOL

I don't think your are calm in fact you are writing everywere around hwbot forum about "cheaters" even when nobody have asked to you something

 

 

I have enought experience with hardware, starting back in 1990. Amiga 500 since summer 1991, etc.

And you want to tell me, what I can or cannot write? Get a grip of reality, mate If I see something wrong, I will say it.

You have written words that i have never wrote, i only say that your questions seams to be that you haven't enough experience.

 

 

So the point is to find a bugged driver that show impossible fps? And you call this benchmarking? Is this why none of the questionable scores show a GPU-Z screen at all?

You are inceredible man... you said before that you have experience since 1990 but if you are a good overclocker like you wrote, you don't have to ask this question because GPU-Z doesn't run on Windows 98 so i used Rivatuner (but only in this situation) that can be used, read HWBot rules!

http://hwbot.org/news/4243_application_27_rules/

 

 

 

Don't you think that Core 2 Duo 3.4GHz X6800 can overcome the effectivity problems in the driver?

If you are a good overclocker like you wrote, you don't have to ask

in your opinion driver problems can be solved by a simple cpu power?

an old AMD advertising said: Power is nothing without control

So...

 

 

But sure you can tell me all about it Or you cannot?

To you? I don't think so

 

 

Well, since your "argument" is that my scores does not count, because I'm not experienced enought, then I took reviews from the most experienced peoples around the world and quess what!

No-one cross even 100fps - and that is for 640x480x16 ! :celebration:

I have never wrote that your score doesn't count because you have enough experience but the problem is that you have to be more humility but you prefer to write that we are cheaters...

 

 

 

...aaah, here we go again. Tualating is more that enought to saturate the Rage card, my friend But once again, I too much stronger CPU into the game and the difference was - non.

Therefore you are wrong and I'm right.

Even in this sentence you looks like that you have to study a lot.

Overclocking is different! if you to use an ATI Rage 128 Pro for retrogaming world a Tualatin platform will be enough but during benchmarks you will need more power

 

 

 

 

...witch is why you made your score on Win2k :D :D

http://img.hwbot.org/u40311/image_id_1111447.jpeg

I used Win98

 

 

 

Yea, sure. Nail that 40 to 255fps difference to just a "different driver" that - luckily for you - I cannot obtain. Brilliant!

I bet that if you give me PM with link to driver you used, the difference will be under 5fps in the result. Care to try?

There is no written rule so i don't want to share to you this information.

I have never written that with my incredible driver you reach incredible fps!

To do a good score is important to use a good OS realese, OS tweaking, register tweaks, good mainboard driver and good GPU driver.

If you add all these points; you will have a good score

I fight even for 1fps during my bench!

Edited August 16, 2015 by Stermy57

[Mr.Scott]

You're wasting your breath Stermy.

Don't buy in to the trolling.

[Stermy57]

You're wasting your breath Stermy.

Don't buy in to the trolling.

 

I'm agree with you Mr.Scott

The problem is that i hate people who insistent and they don't think that maybe there are in wrong