"Can't we all just get along!"
I own a 5600 card to tell you the truth I could care less about geting 100 fps any game considering that the refresh of my LCD 61hz. To me that means 39 of those frames I can see and might as well not be there. I run my games like jedi academy, bf1942, Quake 3, Ut2k4, CS, etc at either 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768 and us that extra power antialias & anisotropic filter. Half the time I forget to turn the filters on. Quite frankly if I can play the game with no lag then I'm in heaven way beyond my old AMD 1700xp with a Geforce 2 MX 32mb. And playing on an LCD there is no point to having such a high frame rate. Hell anything over 30 is better than tv, unless your in Europe than its 25. I never seem to whine to Sony why the hell my TV won't get better FPS.
From what I understand of 3dmark03 is that it doesn't even come close to simulating a game it just creates a utility for showing of DX shaders. Now some of the test are pretty awsome to see what hardware can do, but I have yet to see a game come out with the detail of Nature Test. Not to say that it won't happen but it can't be an accurate representation of gaming when it is beyond most of todays games.
All I really want to say is why burn out you hardware to increase scores that really aren't worth time it took to run the test, with the money I dumped in my lappy I want it to last for long time, geez my first car cost $30 bucks less than this thing.
One last note, If someone uses the regestry to disable DX shaders than that is altering that game/test to perform differently than designed to. The whole point of 3dmark is to test those shader capabilities, Hell I bet I could get twice the scores by using DX7 shaders instead of DX9 on the nature test, but it sure as hell wouldn't render the same.
To Helidude, If you trully got those scores cool for you, I have alot of respect for anybody who tech savy to mod a computer. I don't think it's right, however, to bog down the court system with frivolous suits, we have enough as it is.