Originally Posted by MarkPayton
After I posted my note I went back and read the top post in this thread and wondered how CGW came up with such a low score. I'm not familiar with 3DMark2003 (my current machine is to weak to even run it!), but the reviewer said the test was run at 1024x768 and had 4x antialiasing and 8x aniso-filtering on. I'm not sure whether switching to those settings would change your score- could you enlighten us?
I'm just getting familiar with 3DMark2003 myself, so just as a quick & dirty test, I ran 3DMark2003 with stock settings, 2x for AA & 2x for ANISO (set to Application Preference in the ATI control panel) to get my score. CGW's test may be more realistic of how the card would be configured for detail as opposed to pure frame-rate optimization. I'm not much of a gamer so I'm learning the significance of these benchmarks as I go along. Tonight I'll run with their settings to compare..
More relevent for my needs is pure rendering/processing power for 3D modeling and Image processing apps, and for this I benchmarked with CineBench2003 (cinebench.com) my results can be found at:http://188.8.131.52/temp/m675xl/CineBench011704.gif
This is also my first experience with HT and CineBench showed that the difference between a render in single CPU mode (no HT) vs. HT on to activate the virtual 2nd processor was significant; it shaved an already fast 94sec render down to 70secs! Considering a 10sec animation at 30fps, that's about a 2hr savings in render time!!!
My CineBench results can be compared with the results from the TechEdge G4/675 shootout:http://homepage.mac.com/techedgeezin...s_apple-pb.htm
M675XL | 3.2HT | 512MB PC2700 | ATI 9600 128MB | WirelessG | DVD-RW