• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

3DMark05 of 14,642 R520 Unconfirmed Test

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Status
Not open for further replies.
NinjaZX6R said:
I'll second that. Am I the only suspicious one here?

-Collin-
Click to expand...

Nope, I am too. I don't think anyone here will believe that score until you offer us some solid proof. No offense, but you really need more to back it up than just word of mouth. I'm not calling you a fraud or anything, but we need proof.
 
It won't be long until we can be sure. There will be silicon release and testing. Certainly if you read the title of this thread you can imply that this is not a verified testing. Verified meaning multiple models tested in different labs and then quantified. Thus anyone sharing belief or disbelief is premature and they have not either read or have misunderstood the title of this thread.

That being said, it is nice to see the increases that "could" be forthcoming.

R
 
ropey

It won't be long until we can be sure. There will be silicon release and testing. Certainly if you read the title of this thread you can imply that this is not a verified testing. Verified meaning multiple models tested in different labs and then quantified. Thus anyone sharing belief or disbelief is premature and they have not either read or have misunderstood the title of this thread.

That being said, it is nice to see the increases that "could" be forthcoming.

R
Click to expand...

Very well said.


My disbelief is not directed at this questionable photograph, rather at all of the speculation and "leaked information" about a video card that has not been physically seen, and which for all we know does not even exist yet in the physical sense.

If you read all of the threads like this one about R520, you will notice that despite the questionable nature of all the "leaked information" (questionable screenshots, ambiguous specifications, benchmark result guesstimates, etc.), many many people take it very very seriously and fully believe the unproven, and unreferenced information.

This upsets me a great deal. This community is an information-based community, and is highly prone to alarmist hysteria as a result of rumours. I am not against speculation, but I am against the enhancement of already highly questionable information. The integrity of our information-based community relies on integrity in the people who post information. It also relies on people who are willing to ask questions and persue the answers.

This is my opinion.

I feel that the quote in my above post (#19) justifies this opinion.
 
and you would think that someone who benched a pre-release core would be just as excited to show us a huge bench as they would an actual picture of the card.

I think the translation really sums it up right here, lol:
but or sent in R520 to move the 3DMark05 test result truncation chart, to slightly arranged demonstrates this card the ultra strong strength:
Click to expand...
 
Or its not reading properly
Click to expand...

this is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard. Every single manufacture has an id given to them. Some have more than one. There is no possible way that 3d mark is misreading this. If anyone would liek to test this google for a utility called pci scan, this information is also in some bioses and tools like ati tool adn riva tuner would also most likely give you this information. Its called a manufacturer id and a device id is also given to each product. It is a fake pure and simple. A card being misread through this device Id would be like and Intel chip coming up in cpu-z as an Authentic AMD. I can't believe that you Sent would actually think of this as a plausible explanation. On the other hand I expect it from Oc550.

Hes right its not reading properly. Even if one were to call this fake, it doesnt matter since the real score would be close to that anyway. Itll be 24 pipes with a 32 pipe verson "soon" depending how much a threat nvidia is, not much at the moment. I have a hard time believing those clocks, its either overclocked or best case scinerio for engineering sample but the actual card is probably gonna be like 650 core, 800 ram because I heard alot about them using 1.25ns(1.20?) ram, this amounts to 800MHz. I am hearing the following prices:

$500-24 pipes and 256mb ram
$700-24 pipes and 512mb ram
$700-32 pipes and 256mb ram
$999-32 pipes and 512mb ram
Click to expand...

Again more rapant speculation with no proof. just like the information that this thread is based upon. But I'm sure you won't respond here you'll jsut disapear then post the exact same thing 2 days later or at one of the other 4 forums you copy and paste your posts into
/end rant
 
felinusz said:
This upsets me a great deal. This community is an information-based community, and is highly prone to alarmist hysteria as a result of rumours. I am not against speculation, but I am against the enhancement of already highly questionable information. The integrity of our information-based community relies on integrity in the people who post information. It also relies on people who are willing to ask questions and persue the answers.
Click to expand...
It is too bad that you find yourself being upset on the net with regards to information verified or unverified. Information is a good thing, whether one chooses to add their own bias or not.

Use it, don't lose it. :)

R
 
ropey said:
It is too bad that you find yourself being upset on the net with regards to information verified or unverified. Information is a good thing, whether one chooses to add their own bias or not.

Use it, don't lose it. :)

R
Click to expand...

this is not information. you used a random screenshot of a bugged sli run to try and prove speculated specs of an upcoming line of video cards we don't know anything about.
 
WTF is up with overclocker and his insane statements? He doesnt have any credibility.

I mean, he said he would be able to use his ti4200 til 2006 and it was fast as any 5950U or 9800XT.
 
I posted a website and picture of that website that showed a possible early testing of silicon.

And yes, it is information. Unverified and unproveable, yet still information. Not a random screenshot either. It comes from a website in China and IS possible whether or not you say it is or isn't. You are the one who is biased, not me. I entertain both possibilities. You do not.

Have you ever heard of "contempt prior to investigation"? If one is unable to investigate then one holds the information until better data is brought about. You have no proofs of otherwise yet you hold this data in contempt. You are the one that is at a scientific loss, not me.

crimedog said:
this is not information. you used a random screenshot of a bugged sli run to try and prove speculated specs of an upcoming line of video cards we don't know anything about.
Click to expand...
You have already in your infinite wisdom decided that this is an "bugged sli run". You do this without proof. You speculate more than I do and your speculation is done with contempt where mine is done with a view of "possibility".

R
 
It is a fake, the screen shot you posted clearly says nvidia 6800 ultra video card. If it was an Ati video card they would be sued by Nvidia for using their manufacturer Id and Device ID. If it was an ATi card it might come up as unknown ATI card or simply unknown but there is no way it would ever come up as an Nvidia 6800 Ultra GPU. This would violate Nvidia trademarks as I belive the manufacturer Id is protected under patent and copyright law. Has anyone ever seen a card or cpu come up as a manufacturer other than the one that made the card? It is possible that futuremark does not use the device or manufacturer Id since ATI and NVidia are not the only companies using their chips. However it would detect through some other method such as a bios version or other unique ID. I'm certainly not doubting that the r520 will be fast and may indeed post scores close to or as good as this, however this is not even remotely decent information, its completely false and misleading.
 
snvpa said:
It is a fake, the screen shot you posted clearly says nvidia 6800 ultra video card. however this is not even remotely decent information, its completely false and misleading.
Click to expand...
test%20blown.jpg


Here is a blowup of the picture. The blowup is done with photozoom pro. You say clearly it is an 6800 and I say that you can in no way say that this is clearly anything. You are in point of fact stating that which you can not in any way prove. Thus what you say is mere opinion, no more no less...

You are making observations without real proof and as anyone who looks at this blowup or goes to the site and clicks on the picture for a larger version will and does see that your words are foolish when stated as you do for fact that this is clearly a 6800. You say it is false and misleading. I say you can not prove what you say thus again, mere supposition couched as fact.

EDIT: Read the threads title.

R
 
Last edited:
yeah, it don't think it clearly says anything. And if it said "6800" the last two characters would both look the same. one seems much smaller. I think the score would be plausible. And if he made up the score, he would just as easily could change what the system specs were.
 
ropey said:
You have already in your infinite wisdom decided that this is an "bugged sli run". You do this without proof. You speculate more than I do and your speculation is done with contempt where mine is done with a view of "possibility".
Click to expand...

how in the world am i speculating more than you? 14k has been broken with ultras in sli, 512mb ultras EXIST, and bugged runs happen all the time. r520 is nothing more than a gleam on oc550's keyboard.

Had you just posted the screen shot, like was done at all the other sites who posted it, i wouldn't have it in for you. instead it's r520 is 17% faster than sli and 2.5 times faster than x850 with a list of "specifications?" what a joke.

edit: this is what it looks like to me. do you see ati x900?
 

Attachments

  • comparison.JPG
    comparison.JPG
    15.6 KB · Views: 92
Last edited:
Violator said:
Isn't this the one where the date translates to April 1st and the title was 'Phoolish'.

Pretty sure it is......
Click to expand...
you got it

this has been talked about on another 3 forums i visit.
The score is real though, it was done with dual sli 6800s and the picture was deliberatly taken to one side so bluring out the specs wasnt so obvious.
and as you say the translation was April 1st

the reported spec of an R520 has 512 ram and up to 2.4ghz gpu so it would score a wee bit more than that
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back