haha, intel based what??

Might be that GL Excess didn't like my dual PIII 1GHz setup....

Stig

You just need to run the Detonator 50 drivers. The quality is a bit lower, but the frame rates much increased. Demonstrated in the attached screen capture of the Dawn demo.


Bruno

Juvenile, but funny.

Yeah, that made me laugh out loud.

Interestingly, the real Dawn demo refuses to run on my system. I think perhaps because it's not Windows XP. Even though their little SDK (cg.dll) doesn't say anything about XP being a requirement, I get a page fault in cg.dll when trying to run any of their recent demos.

How's this for bad timing. Damn you Valve. HL2 is 3 days late.

My new PC at work:

Heh, I hadn't thought about this test for my work machine:


(sorry about the colors. I only have Paint on this PC. it's not very good with GIFs)

New system. This one has the advantage over the Shuttle of just fitting into a backpack and including a screen. It's a Dell plastic brick, err, Inspiron 9100.

This one is from my brand new home system, Falcon Northwest Fragbox 2.

Is my new system running too slow ?




I didn't expect the X300SE to be the fastest 3D card in the world, but I am surprised that my system seems to be very slow in the Doom 3 demo and the benchmarks that I have tried.

The x300/x600 both use a newer variant of the chips used on the Radeon 9600 line. With the x300, it is basicially a PCI-e version of the Radeon 9550, an oddly slower card released by ATI recently.

It seems in the video card arena, $200 is still around the price point you need to pay to be able to play the more modern games. The PCIe cards that fit that range would be the NVidia 6600 GT or the Radeon x700. Benchmarks ont hese cards against the other PCIe boards is here. It seems very few sites even looked at the x300 much.

Still, there must be something not right. I've got a 9700 AIW but a much slower system than he does, and my score is nearly three times as high. I would have thought the X300 would at the very least be better than my card, and that coupled with a better system it would give him far better scores than I got.

Nope. The 9700(R300) is a very good chip for what it cost and wasn't designed to do much beyond push pixels very quickly. The heat and power pull was the highest ATi shipped at the time, but was still a one slot solution. The x300 (RV370) is on the other hand a chip built more for low power/heat mobile use (most RV products turn into mobile solutions as well).

The low end of a new product line is rarley better then what the near high end was in the last generation. For example, it took on average a Radeon 9500 or above to beat the Radeon 8500. In most cases, the 9000/9100/9200 cards were noticibly slower then the 8500.

Hey, good to know! I don't like the AIW part of my card, so if I upgrade sometime soon, I may get the non-AIW 9700.

Ah, that's even better:

Showoff.

Close, but not quite... (Dual 6800GT's in SLI)

OK, how does one get these results? When I run the demo, it just runs the demo. I don't see how to get the timings.

Don't run the demo. Run the benchmark.