On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:50, Luuk Paulussen wrote: > Although, the guy who made the post has only made one post on the > forum, so I wouldn't put to much faith in him. I would expect the > score to be much higher... > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 23:17:38 +0000, Caleb Sawtell > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:19, Luuk Paulussen wrote: > > > This link shows somebody getting similar speeds (same card) with a > > > reply that the result is fine. > > > http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=ad13ddb1c8153c306463d6 > > >2b76 a97665&p=339920#post339920 > > > > That means I was totaly ripped off with this card :'(
<snip> Caleb, what are the spec's of your machine? Is it possible that the frame rate you're getting is limited by something else, like CPU speed? And what size is your glxgears window? Perhaps your version starts with a different default resolution to people you're comparing to? For high frame rates and high performance cards, glxgears probably isn't an appropriate benchmark :-) I'm not familiar with your card, but it probably has a whole bunch of features that glxgears doesn't take advantage of, even if it's raw polygon-drawing-speed isn't quite up there. A more appropriate benchmark might be to use something like Quake 3 (if you have it) in "timedemo mode" to test your FPS. Cheers, Gareth
