<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="HardwareAnalysis.Com" -->
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
    <channel rdf:about="">
        <title>Hardware Analysis - ehm .. what?</title>
        <description>Hardware Analysis Community Forums</description>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/</link>
        <image rdf:resource="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif" />
       <dc:date>2009-01-08T00:32:36-05:00</dc:date>
        <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125160"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125156"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125155"/>
                <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#0"/>
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    <image rdf:about="http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif">
        <title>Hardware Analysis</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/</link>
        <url>http://media.hardwareanalysis.com/halogo.gif</url>
    </image>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125160">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2004-04-14T11:54:26-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Sander Sassen</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: ehm .. what?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125160</link>
        <description>Okay, I stand corrected, I just doublechecked with the screenshots we always take from the benchmarks, just to rule these kind of things out. I must've misread a 4 for a 1 and entered that into the Excel sheet I use to make the graphs. I've uploaded the new graph and corrected the text to reflect the new score. Thanks for noticing guys, appreciate the feedback.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind regards,&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125156">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2004-04-14T11:42:42-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Rory Witham</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: ehm .. what?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125156</link>
        <description>hey?! i get more on my card! 21-24k i cant remember the exsact score</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125155">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2004-04-14T11:37:31-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Sander Sassen</dc:creator>
        <title>Re: ehm .. what?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#125155</link>
        <description>Wish I could, but I'm at the other side of the planet right now attending ATI' Editors Day event. But I can tell you that score is accurate. We use the latest Catalyst drivers and that's what it scored. If that score is off it might be because the new Catalysts enable a few DirectX 9.0 features that weren't enable before. I'll re-test when I get back into the office, but since we painstakingly check the accuracy of our findings there must be something else going on.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind regards,&lt;br /&gt;
</description>
    </item>
    <item rdf:about="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#0">
        <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
        <dc:date>2004-04-14T11:25:31-05:00</dc:date>
        <dc:creator>Marek Sedlar</dc:creator>
        <title>ehm .. what?</title>
        <link>http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/25252/#0</link>
        <description>19000 in Aquamark with 9800XT? sorry but i have 41000, you should test it again.</description>
    </item>
</rdf:RDF>
