On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 02:41, Gareth Williams wrote: > 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=ad13ddb1c8153c306463 > > > >d6 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?
er AMD Athlon xp 2500+ barton 512 MB ram (dual channel) um 40 gig hard drive (don't think that matters but its going on here anyway) 8x agp thats about it dunno I think its the default resolution.. > > 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. ah ok > > A more appropriate benchmark might be to use something like Quake 3 (if you > have it) in "timedemo mode" to test your FPS. how do I put it in "timedemo mode"? > > Cheers, > Gareth
