Took the time to install and run the old 3DMark benchmarks on the new 
computer.

2001 = 37000
2003 = 41000
2005 = 15700
2006 = 12117

Basically, it runs the 2001 benchmarks (after they complain about not 
having 128meg of RAM) at something like 700+ fps, the 2006 benchmarks at 
something like 120+ fps. In any case, far faster than the display can 
refresh.

Even on the "pure CPU" part, where it doesn't take advantage of the 
card's abilities, it runs something like 15 to 20 fps.

My current machine runs only some of the 2001 tests, and the 2003 tests 
(with the pirates invading the space station) runs about 5 seconds a 
frame, compared to 300 frames per second on the new machine.

I really should go and stick it on the big-screen TV, and just remote 
into it for actual work time. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Basically, it runs the 2001 benchmarks (after they complain about not 
> having 128meg of RAM) at something like 700+ fps, the 2006 benchmarks at 
> something like 120+ fps. In any case, far faster than the display can 
> refresh.
> 
> Even on the "pure CPU" part, where it doesn't take advantage of the 
> card's abilities, it runs something like 15 to 20 fps.
> 
> My current machine runs only some of the 2001 tests, and the 2003 tests 
> (with the pirates invading the space station) runs about 5 seconds a 
> frame, compared to 300 frames per second on the new machine.

Ah yes - Battle for Proxycon or something. I still remember running that 
on my GeForce 6600 and watching it cry like a little girl. Not quite 5 
seconds per frame - more like 1--3 FPS.

My GeForce 7900GT eats it like candy though. But if there's one thing we 
computer nerds know, it's that no matter how much compute power you 
have, there are always new and more realistic ways to drain it! >:-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message