that's exactly same result as I have, about 22k 3dmarks
(but my install is two years old)

quake is no heavy benchmark any more

even serious sam 2 runs perfectly smooth at 1600*1200 *max detail * 6*aa (!) and 16*qual af...at 75-80 fps mean

then do the same with CoD :p

1280*1024 with 2*aa and 2xaf

20-30fps

max detail

:)


you'll need to run a custom demo benchmark, one that is more taxing

but cod ain't two years old!


and what you're saying is actually quite incorrect... i get over 100 fps mean on COD when playing 1280*1024 and 4*aa and 16 *af,max detail, four times more than what you say.

even hardocp on a standard 9800 xt and a p4 3.2 (being 350 mhz cpu and 85 mhz gpu-core/ 70 mhz gpumem slower then my rig) gets 85 fps mean on these settings COD. lickie

Stalingrad,
getting of the boat after it has been destroyed, looking up to the mountain= 20-30fps


not making it up, cpu is indeed a bit less, (2.4c + 1gb ram) but that doesn't count for 85 vs 20 fps :)

screenie

im guess that the engine wasnt designed to hand that high AA/AF and so no matter how fast your hardware is, the code can only process it all to a certain point before it lags

possible...