3DMark03 *low* scores?

[nite]

Apologies if this is being discussed somewhere else already, but *I* didn't find :)

So, I have a AthlonXP 1900+, ASUS A7N8X Deluxe with 256Mb DDR333 and GF4Ti4200, running WinXP+SP1.

With 3DMark2003SE, I get a tad over 10000 3dmarks. I downloaded 3DMark03 and anxiously avaited the thing to finnish.... I was "a bit" disappointed. The first gametest run fine enough, I got about 75-90fps. The second and third dropped me to ground. about 1-5fps. what?

After the test finished, I was left staring at the score of a whopping 1100 3dmarks.

Is there something wrong, or is it supposed to be *that* slow? that you need R9700Pro or GF FX to get anything more than 10fps on the 2nd and 3rd gametests?

I tried using 42.01 and 42.86 detonators, both with and without any background processes, but it didn't move the score more than a few (1-4) 3dmarks.

If the "minimum requirements" for 3DMarko03 is a computer capable of 2500 3dmarks in 3DMark2003SE, I wonder that scores will that setup yield... 250 marks?

[eL_PuSHeR]

I guess you cannot directly compare older 3DMark scores with new ones, because it is a different benchmark. To be on the safe side, just compare your results (new) with another people's which have a similar setup as yours and also have new 3DMark 2003 installed.

[nite]

Yeah, I didn't expect 10000 3dmarks from '03, but I expected at least 15 to 20fps on the gametests, certainly not below 10fps. I'd say something like 2000-3000 3dmarks is what I expected, not 1000.

I would *very much* like to hear what other people with similiar setups can get from '03.

[StealthHawk]

yes, it is slow as a dog on non-DX9 hardware, because you can't complete GT4. the r9500 and r9700 cards also run GT2 and GT3 a lot faster. anyway, this is being discussed in the Benchmark Forum.

http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7222