The download from the tech site did me the same last night.
It is clean.
That is what I used in my v2.5 I posted earlier.
The security is tighter on downloads with IE9 and with its newer updates.
That was the third flagged download the last couple of weeks for me that I know were safe.
Mike
Last edited by Hopalong X; 16 Apr 2011 at 18:03.
Well here's my score after upgrading to Heaven 2.5......
Here's the one with version 2.2.....
BTW it's kind of hard to compare scores since people are using different resolutions. I think a standard res of 1280x1024 should be used to compare scores to one another. With that....
Note that all of these are using the same drivers. Cats 11.4 preview (the fist ones).
And yeah Mike you're right about the false positive IE9 gives :)
Sygnus
That is strange yours went down....but then the v2.5 was updated for the Nvid 500's and the ATI 6000's.
So I guess it is more accurate.???
Your 12xx X 10xx res makes sense except on wide screen.
My 1400x900 would be sort of comparable that I posted. So I don't feel bad with my 460's results.
I have read that games look better on equal monitors except if one is 2ms response time and another 5ms for example.
I always wondered how much if any the millisecond response time rating has on benchmarks?
I know resolution goes up frame rate drops. That makes sense it has to make a larger image.
It would make sense response time is lower for same resolution the frame rate would increase.
Not a big deal just a hmmm? curiosity moment.
Well I do have a 6000 series video card (6950). In fact I never used Heaven until I got my card as discussed here - Which ATI 6950?
Anyway I was so surprised to see the score go down that I restarted the computer and ran the test again.... only to get the same score, so..........
Ive gone threw and looked at some of my setting I see I have work to do to tweak this card and my mobo.
But this that said here is a base line with res at 1280x1024 using cat 11.3
Still have some work to do and to mess with the second bois on the card too.
You score is more in line with mine at that resolution as we both have 6950 2gig cards.
Now if everyone here used the same resolution (1280x1024) for comparision purposes we'd have a better idea of how our cards compare/should compare to one another.
Thanks for sharing.
More than I afford to waste :)
Newegg.com - ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card
But after all the constant frustration I had with my 5970, it's been worth every damn penny. What I've lost in raw FPS, I've made up for practically everywhere else. Overall, it's just a better gaming experience.
It's far smoother, far less glitchy and so damn quiet.
1280x1024
As for these benchmarks, they should be taken for what they are - a bit of fun.
@ smarteyeball, what'd you do with the 5970? Sell it? Just curious - (no I don't want it) :)
BTW the last time I paid that much for a card was in 2003 when I bought an ATI All in Wonder 9800Pro for 427.69
Anyway nice card and damn good numbers
@ IownAmoneyPit, same with you nice numbers.
Glad to see everyone using a standard we can compare to.
Thanks
And dang, my little ole 6950 is getting left in the dust
ran 'em again at 1280x1024
that one was with the basic settings as before..
this one's with everything in sight maxed to the hilt..
- not much difference..
- no need to worry about playing games at ultra-max..
- the native res of my monitor is 1600x900, so I assume it's more "efficient" at that setting
- at least the circles stay round and all that.. heh, heh..!! :)
Quote
