Saturday, August 25th 2007

Kinc and Shamino Break the 3D Mark 2006 World Record - Score 27,039 Points

After being robbed during the Games Convention, Kinc and Shamino have returned to their everyday life and started benching again with Mushkin, ATI and ASUS. The result is another broken world record. Kinc and Shamino are back to the top of the 3DMark 06 Hall of Fame with a personal record of 27,039 3D marks achieved with Shamino's QX6850 at 5119MHz(3DMark stable) on an ASUS Blitz Extreme, Mushkin's new DDR3-1333 memories and a pair of ASUS Radeon HD 2900 XT video cards overclocked to 1175/950MHz. The processor and the video cards were cooled by Shamino's Dragonpot, which in other terms mean liquid nitrogen. Here's the Futuremark ORB verification link.Source: XtremeSystems
Add your own comment

41 Comments on Kinc and Shamino Break the 3D Mark 2006 World Record - Score 27,039 Points

#1
SK-1
The battle continues.
Posted on Reply
#2
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
nice though this seems to show something... WR with 2900s not 8800s :D
Posted on Reply
#3
kwchang007
Again...here we go. A weeks worth of news between Kinc and Shamino and their 2900's and 8800's.
Posted on Reply
#4
WarEagleAU
Bird of Prey
its taken a little while for ATI to get up there, but its living proof that the 2900 xt is no laughing matter.
Posted on Reply
#5
yogurt_21
actually if you check the last 2900xt record against the last 8800ultra record, the 2900's were outperforming the 8800's, it was the cpu that made the record. and this one is by a good margin, a whole 400pts (whereas the 8800ultra rig beat the 2900's by a mere 50pts)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2574448
26008
2.0 10224
3.0 11875
cpu 7813

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2551377
25972
2.0 10413
3.0 11850
cpu 7540


now we get a look at the 2900's still wining even with kingpins cpu out performing kinc and shaminos.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2835078
27039
2.0 11273
3.0 12088
cpu 7619

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=2799693
26623
2.0 10683
3.0 11836
cpu 8148

so really the 8800's can't compete with the 2900's in 3dmark 05 or 06. and that's not the worst part, the 8800's used for the record cost 70% more than the 2900's used for the test.
Posted on Reply
#8
Weer
by: WarEagleAU
its taken a little while for ATI to get up there, but its living proof that the 2900 xt is no laughing matter.
In that it's only good for synthetic benchmarks?
It does good with 3DMark06 because it's an old program that uses less complex and more parllel shading.
Posted on Reply
#9

Barely old when most games ain't even that demanding compared to the benchmark, but yes synthetic benchmarks don't give you the real picture about actual in game performance.
Posted on Edit | Reply
#11
DRDNA
:toast::toast:here here:toast::toast:
:roll: BOOYAKA :roll:
Posted on Reply
#12
Wile E
Power User
by: Weer
In that it's only good for synthetic benchmarks?
It does good with 3DMark06 because it's an old program that uses less complex and more parllel shading.
And with the latest drivers, it performs just as well in games.
Posted on Reply
#13
pt
not a suicide-bomber
by: Wile E
And with the latest drivers, it performs just as well in games.
hurray for nv crying in the corner!
Posted on Reply
#14
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
hell yes it is nice to see that ATI was used to break the record.
Posted on Reply
#15
KennyT772
Since the 2900's came out I've noticed one thing. 3dmark performance hasnt improved much, while gaming performance has greatly. What does that say you might ask? The drivers were optimised for 3dmark from the get go while everything else was shit. Good job ATI..my next card very well may be a 8800.
Posted on Reply
#16
yogurt_21
by: KennyT772
Since the 2900's came out I've noticed one thing. 3dmark performance hasnt improved much, while gaming performance has greatly. What does that say you might ask? The drivers were optimised for 3dmark from the get go while everything else was shit. Good job ATI..my next card very well may be a 8800.
wow thats a baseless remark, why sure ati optimised the 2900's for 3dmark and yet in the open of the firefly forest test in both 05 and 06 I get 0fps for about 3 second, then it jumps to 50. :wtf: and the canyon test is all jittery with jumpinf framrates.:wtf:

but sure the drivers are totally optimised for 3dmark. lol

don't go making speculations on things you know nothing of. I mean seriously I hate sounding like a boiken record, but it seems I have to repeat the above statement daily in threads. This forum is seeming to grow more towards baseless speculation and further and further from FACTS!
Posted on Reply
#17
Wile E
Power User
by: yogurt_21
wow thats a baseless remark, why sure ati optimised the 2900's for 3dmark and yet in the open of the firefly forest test in both 05 and 06 I get 0fps for about 3 second, then it jumps to 50. :wtf: and the canyon test is all jittery with jumpinf framrates.:wtf:

but sure the drivers are totally optimised for 3dmark. lol

don't go making speculations on things you know nothing of. I mean seriously I hate sounding like a boiken record, but it seems I have to repeat the above statement daily in threads. This forum is seeming to grow more towards baseless speculation and further and further from FACTS!
I have to agree with you 100%. I'll go one step further and add that 3DMark performance has, in fact, improved as the drivers mature.


Also, I thought I was the only one with those 06 problems. I was beginning to think I just had a crappy card. lol.
Posted on Reply
#18
KennyT772
Well when I read countless reports of compeditive scores on 3dmark with the 8800's while in actual game play the cards were not even close.


this


compared to


Go ahead and call me on it but you all know the 2900's were nothing what we expected them to be. We all know that when they were first released 3dmark was on par with the gtx's. For the most part gaming was on par with the gts's.

Also in my post I said much, of course performance is going to improve over time, but it sure as hell hasn't scaled the same as gaming performance since release.

At launch ATI only had 3dmark and a couple games optimized, mainly oblivion and other new games. At that same time nVidia had time to optimize everything, because they too at launch only had half the driver optimized. I'm not saying your card is crap and the 8800's are better just that the drivers were crap at launch and have developed greatly in gaming since then. I just find it very odd that a card is on par for records with another in only one set of programs so far, I haven't heard of any 2900's out pacing gtx's yet.
Posted on Reply
#19

Both ATI and nVidia spend ALOT of time optimizing their drivers for higher and higher 3DMark scores, it's no secret.

It's because they know most people (the uninformed mass) use the scores to assess how fast a card is in relation to another believing it equates to actual gaming performance, while in fact the reality is quite different, higher 3DMark scores sells more cards.
#20
driver66
Till next week? :shadedshu :wtf:
Posted on Reply
#21
p_o_s_pc
F@H&WCG addict
i don't have a problem with what they are doing considering i am a benchmark junky
Posted on Reply
#22
yogurt_21
by: KennyT772
Well when I read countless reports of compeditive scores on 3dmark with the 8800's while in actual game play the cards were not even close.


this


compared to


Go ahead and call me on it but you all know the 2900's were nothing what we expected them to be. We all know that when they were first released 3dmark was on par with the gtx's. For the most part gaming was on par with the gts's.

Also in my post I said much, of course performance is going to improve over time, but it sure as hell hasn't scaled the same as gaming performance since release.

At launch ATI only had 3dmark and a couple games optimized, mainly oblivion and other new games. At that same time nVidia had time to optimize everything, because they too at launch only had half the driver optimized. I'm not saying your card is crap and the 8800's are better just that the drivers were crap at launch and have developed greatly in gaming since then. I just find it very odd that a card is on par for records with another in only one set of programs so far, I haven't heard of any 2900's out pacing gtx's yet.
okay lets see there's alot wrong with that post so we'll have to start with the "benches" you posted.
issue 1: ummm that bench shows the 8800gtx beating an x1950xtx by only 6% whereas all the benches I've seen show the gtx crushing the x1950XTX
issue 2: that bench show the x1950gt beating the 2900xt, I've NEVER seen a bench that the gt even comes close to the 2900. much less the xtx.

issue 3: no source no citing, which means in laymans terms you've just plagiarised online, nice one.:nutkick:

issue 4: when I run 3dmark 05 with full 16x aa and 16x af at that res, I get 12900. yet overclocked with lower details the 2900 is shown as getting only slightly higher and the gtx the same.:wtf:

something tells me that bench list is as bogus as a used car sales pitch. could be bias, or could be those pesky little facts i was talking about earlier. lol

now heres the golden point you're making an ASUMPTION about a card you don't own and have never actually seen. and you're making it against another card which you also haven't owned or seen. you know what happens when you AssUMe right?
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
by: yogurt_21
okay lets see there's alot wrong with that post so we'll have to start with the "benches" you posted.
issue 1: ummm that bench shows the 8800gtx beating an x1950xtx by only 6% whereas all the benches I've seen show the gtx crushing the x1950XTX
issue 2: that bench show the x1950gt beating the 2900xt, I've NEVER seen a bench that the gt even comes close to the 2900. much less the xtx.

issue 3: no source no citing, which means in laymans terms you've just plagiarised online, nice one.:nutkick:

issue 4: when I run 3dmark 05 with full 16x aa and 16x af at that res, I get 12900. yet overclocked with lower details the 2900 is shown as getting only slightly higher and the gtx the same.:wtf:

something tells me that bench list is as bogus as a used car sales pitch. could be bias, or could be those pesky little facts i was talking about earlier. lol

now heres the golden point you're making an ASUMPTION about a card you don't own and have never actually seen. and you're making it against another card which you also haven't owned or seen. you know what happens when you AssUMe right?
Just a fyi, those are TPU's numbers from W1z's review after the NDA was lifted. That's also on launch drivers.

But still, I disagree with Kenny. I have first hand experience with the card. I bought mine the day it launched, and my 3DMark scores have improved with new drivers.
Posted on Reply
#24
driver66
JUST WAIT TILL NEXT WEEK LOL :shadedshu

they are both holding back!
Posted on Reply
#25
yogurt_21
http://www.vr-zone.com/print.php?i=4946
the above review was on the same driver as wizz and the same time.
farcry hasn't ever been that fond of the 2900xt, yet alone on premature drivers. so i guess that could make sense, the numbers are extremely odd to me as my 2900xt is way faster than my x1950xt in all the game I play. and also most reviews of far cry don't have the 2900 that bad.

http://www.techspot.com/review/52-asus-radeon-hd-2900xt/page4.html

but I guess it's all in the drivers and the latest reviews have better drivers.

point is if he remebered or researched, the x1800's didn't fare so hot in the begining either. I remeber not being able to play nearly any games on that card when it was first launched.

and not quoting the source and specificaly choosing benches is like taking sentances of a book out of context, they only mean anythign when paired with their original environment.

oh well I guess it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't have a real basis for their opinion. you can't convince a midget that they're a midget if their argument is that they're talller than all there midget freinds. lol
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment