3d Benchmarking - Page 5

MattH · February 17, 2004, 20:23

to quote tassadar:

Quote:

pwned!

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 21:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
I just went and...acquired...PCMark04 Pro to run the HDD benchie on my drives. Mind you, I haven't defragged in months...

Boo, I want to see all those scores!

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 21:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
How did I get a 486MHz Radeon 9800 Pro, you might ask?

The answer is, quite simply, awesome custom cooling.

Yes, that is two heatsinks each as large as the card with a plasma heatpipe connecting the two and a large fan mounted on top. The kicker? The thing's 20dB.

Did you remove the stock cooling?

More pics of that please!

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 21:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Yeah I'm trying to pull up some numbers now to compare. Basically it looks like two standard SATA drives in a RAID0 array are only slightly behind a solitary 74GB Raptor. 2 36GB Raptors in a RAID0 array are faster than the solitary 74GB by some margin.

And 2 74 raptors in raid 0 will waste anything on the planet.

BTW the 74 is ultra quiet, some kind of special bearings. I considered 2 36s in raid 0, but did not like the odds of 2x crash and burn. Plus one drive generates less heat. I originally was going to put a 120 GB Sata drive in this system, but then said WTF.

Maybe I should order another one so I can toast Asher's score. Actually not worth it, but I do like the boyz 9800 mods.

Spaced Cowboy · February 17, 2004, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Haha! Ownage!

Beat this, suckers.

Yes, you read that right.

But that is 51940 Canadian....I forgot the exchange rate...What is that is the US?

Asher · February 17, 2004, 21:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Did you remove the stock cooling?

More pics of that please!

Yeah, the stock cooling is noisier and rather crappy.

Here is the card with the stock cooling.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 21:26

Stock cooling removed.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 21:27

Side view.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 21:28

Another angle.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 21:29

And a closeup.

Asher · February 17, 2004, 22:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
And 2 74 raptors in raid 0 will waste anything on the planet.

I doubt they'd waste a single 15K rpm Atlas, not to mention in a RAID.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 05:44

SC what's your HD score on PCMark?

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 10:34

It was like 6184 or something like that.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 10:39

From Tom's:

Summary: Brilliant Image

After a brief look at the benchmark results it's obvious that WD pulled out all the stops with the Raptor. Until now, anything above 70 MB/s was indisputably SCSI territory, and Raptor was a poacher.

It will surely want to do the same with the price, although we dare not hope for record low prices. After all, it is a professional hard drive, not a product where the manufacturer can afford to cut corners.

Quite different from Seagate's Barracuda 7200.7 - unlike the Raptor it is intended for the man in the street and is very affordable. It passed the tests without a murmur, ensuring the Barracuda a continued reputation as the subjectively quietest ATA drive with 7,200 rpm. Even from this point of view, its performance data are convincing. With 12.7 ms average access time, it remains unbeaten except by the Hitachi 7K250. It looks even better in the application benchmarks of the Winbench 99 2.0: This is its strongest suit.

It will be interesting to see how performance develops when command queuing becomes more available. In several areas, that could reshuffle the deck. Basically, however, we expect a considerable gain in performance.

One should not draw a direct comparison between the drives; the intended areas of application are too different. However, here is our summary of the two: each cuts a brilliant figure in its own area of use. The 7200.7 in Desktop PCs, thanks to its high performance level and the impossibly low noise level. We can safely advise the Seagate 7200.7 for anyone who prizes a system that is as quiet as possible.

The same goes for the Raptor in server or workstation environments: If it has to go fast, there's no alternative for serial ATA. The WD740 leaves its sister, the WD360, in the dust, and garners the title of fastest ATA drive for itself. The noise level, drastically lowered by the fluid dynamic bearing, is an advantage prized by computer fans who prefer to use this type of drive as the system hard drive.

Although I agree with Asher that the 15k SCSI are faster.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 11:24

Asher, do you think the video card cooler is worth 40$. Looks like you have the Zalman ZM80C-HP heat sink with the ZM-OP1 fan.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 13:34

Thanks for that info SC. I think I have decided that when I upgrade I'll get 2 of the 80GB Barracuda's and use them in a RAID 0 array. I can't find many people who are comparing the single 74GB Raptor to such a setup but those who do suggest that the performance is close. This is backed up by the similarity between your and Asher's PCMark HD tests.

I don't think there is any point upgrading and not using RAID 0. I don't want to do that with the smaller drives, and £350 for 2 74GB Raptors is too rich for my blood.

£110 for 2 Barracuda's that will perform at a similar level (to the solitary Raptor) when in a RAID 0 array looks a steal in comparison.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 14:00

Again, I wasn't geared totally for speed. Case temp and 2x failure rate were bigger contributors to my path. Plus, I never filled up my old 30G drive so I did not need a lot of size.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 15:06

Yeah I hear ya. I have a 80GB drive I can use to backup any essential stuff whilst using the RAID 0 array. Plus my case has great cooling. I think that's the most suitable way forward for me.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 15:14

Btw I tweaked some stuff.

Asus a7n8x Deluxe
Athlon XP (Barton) 2600+ @ 182*11.5=2.1Ghz
Radeon 9800 Pro @ 400/350 (no I don't have one of those fancy coolers

)
1 GB PC3200 RAM @ 182Mhz

Aquamark: 41,479
3dMark03: 5,779

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 16:34

Sorry, had problems DLing aquamark. Will try to get it soon. Did you get a chance to run PCMark04?

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 16:37

No.........it's on my list.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 16:54

Dammit 'Poly.

Asher · February 18, 2004, 17:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Asher, do you think the video card cooler is worth 40$. Looks like you have the Zalman ZM80C-HP heat sink with the ZM-OP1 fan.

I think it is, it's virtually noiseless and cools exceptionally well.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Did you get a chance to run PCMark04?

General/overall: 3848
CPU: 3613
Memory: 2461
Graphics: 4966
HD: 4238

I can't compare this online since it somehow thinks my version is not entirely legitimate.

So SC, if your 5000+ score is correct overall, what accounts for the vast difference? My drive is the only real weak point.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 19:04

Apparently it is not the only one.

PCMarks 5067
CPU 5007
Mem 4724
Graphics 4160
HDD 5959

Also, my scores seem to vary depending on time of day. I do remember getting 6100+ on the HDD score before I OC'd. I think that I can tweak my mem some more (more headroom on PC3700), but I'll need to be placing an order for a custom heatsink for my video card.

Hey Asher, did you go with the stock CPU cooler...or?

(And no comments about the Canadian numbers...weak!)

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 19:20

Well I'm not sure what to make of it............my scores are in line with similar systems I found online. It seems strange to me that your RAM and CPU win so markedly.

I wonder what your 3dMark03 and Aquamark scores are.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 19:30

Well, I'm at home and ran it again. Same set-up as last time, except my pc has been on for hours.

PCMarks 5089
CPU 5070
Mem 4743
Graphics 4154
HDD 5999

The cpu score is being helped by the fact that I'm running a 3.0p4 at 3.3G, this seems to help the mem performance as well. My bud upgraded a 2.6 to a 3.2 and his mem score shot up over 1000 points (above 5k), but he has his latencies set to 2-2-2-5. I'm running 2.5-3-3-7, but I'm oc'd. That is my stock memory setting. He bought mem that performs better at 3200 and I bought mem that performs better on the oc.

Oh BTW, his system still does not top my total PCMark score, but not by much <100. I got him on CPU and hard drive. I seriously need to figure out what is up with this video card. Should be way higher.

Oh I have 3dmark03...let me check that one.

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 19:38

Your video score should be closer to 5000.

Spaced Cowboy · February 18, 2004, 19:49

The 3d marks score is only 5780???

DrSpike · February 18, 2004, 19:55

Mine is 5,779 using the normal (not Pro unlocked) tests.