Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > Benchmarking And Overclocking

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-12-03, 01:43 PM   #85
Falkentyne
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 70
Send a message via ICQ to Falkentyne Send a message via AIM to Falkentyne Send a message via Yahoo to Falkentyne
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NeilY
Ugh - I totally screwed-up - now I know why I was only getting 1156 score - I had manually set my Ti4600 last night to Quincunx AA for some Unreal 2 action.

Once I turned that off, my 3DMark03 score jumped to 1803. A bit more respectable.
Yeah, that'll do it for ya big time.....
Falkentyne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 02:28 PM   #86
Smokey
Team Rainbow
 
Smokey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: FRANCE
Posts: 2,273
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by deckard

This is the same situation for all prior versions of 3DMark. Our systems at the time really gagged but within a couple years we were eating it for lunch then, you guessed it, new version of 3DMark comes out and the cycle began anew.
Thats the problem, its not the same as all other versions of 3dmark, I have never ever had to run any benchmark or demo at 1FPS. When 3dmark2001 came out, I had an Athlon SlotA 700 + geforceDDR, and not once did anything go down to 1FPS in the 4 game tests, well 3 on my GFDDR.

The difference between a 1GHzPIII and a 3GHz P4 using the video card SHOULD be much grater, going from a 700 to 1800+ cpu for me in 3dmark2001 gave me like 4000+ points, in 3dmark2003 it gives you like 1000+
__________________
HTPC/Gaming
| Hiper Type R 580W PSU
| Intel Q9550 @ 4GHz | Gigabyte EP45 UD3R |4x 1024MB OCZ Reaper PC9200 DDR2 | Seagate 320GB/ Maxtor 320GB/ Maxtor 500GB HDD|Sapphire HD5850 | Creative SB X-Fi Titanium Pro | Harmon Kardon AVR135 reciever | Jamo S718 speakers | 42" Plasma 720p (lounge room)-Samsung P2450H (bedroom)
Smokey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 03:00 PM   #87
Im0n
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 23
Default

3 months ago i had a Gf 2 GTS 32mb card
and i got 2700 3dmark i 2001 bought a GF 4 4200 128mb card and got 6000 3dmark so what does that tell you .

Now if you have a GF card other then GF FX , you get low scores
if you have a ATI 9700 you get high scores so what , its like before you can run more tests and you get a higher score .

Now i got 1106 3dmark with my 1000 thunderbird 512mb 133 sdram GF 4 4200 .
Im0n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 03:28 PM   #88
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Smokey
Thats the problem, its not the same as all other versions of 3dmark, I have never ever had to run any benchmark or demo at 1FPS. When 3dmark2001 came out, I had an Athlon SlotA 700 + geforceDDR, and not once did anything go down to 1FPS in the 4 game tests, well 3 on my GFDDR.
Ditto... I ran 3dmark2001 on my P3 850/100 coppermine and I never had a single test drop down to 1-3fps. This ridiculous choppy mess is something new. I appreciate what the original poster was getting at and without a doubt as systems improve so will scores in this benchmark. But this one is real, real ugly (ugly=SLOW).

I'm not so sure we'll all be doing THAT much better with next year's hardware, or even the year after that. The way this thing performs on my system we'll need 10ghz P4's and Radeon 59000 pros before it runs truly smooth.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 04:02 PM   #89
Pafet
GeForce 7900GT
 
Pafet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 430
Default

seriously guys, don't you think this scores, although killing 6 month old vid cards, shows how much they evolved? I mean, it shows what can be done and what is going to be done. If you look at the first game scene from 3DMark2001 with the car thing, it actually compares to the UT2k3 graphics and if you got a chance to play it you know I am right. That bench showed me how poor performance my GF2MX had and made me buy my new 4200, and by that help games get closer to how they were supposed to look. Whoever bought R300 or going to buy GF FX knows it'll work with games like DOOM 3 on a decent frame rate.

So it doesnt really measures CPU right (I think, my score is about the same as other 1.4Ghz XP with R300) but it does give some kind of comparison. I also think that this guys dont just write a program and release it without knowing what they're talking about (sure know a hell of alot more than I do...).

anyways thats MHO.
Pafet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 04:14 PM   #90
AlexKN1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12
Default

I got 4700 on py P4 around @2.95GHz using Radeon 9700 Pro

I know I can get it to 5,000 with some overclocking to the video card but my mobo craps out and messes everything up...

but I am dissapointed not at the GF4 or the Radeon 9700, its that some benchmarks, i saw that not much effort was put in some things.. basically lazyness..some of the benches looked like crap..I was dissapointed to see even the best of all the Nature scene still not using a lot of DX9, i heard it uses a lot of stuff from DX8 and 8.1, if uses Pixel Shaders 2.0 then use them thru out the benchmark!! whats the point of not using them and using older ones if u know that the benchmark won't run anyway on older video cards...

that plane DX7 bench looked the best and it is a DX7 bench...
AlexKN1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:21 PM   #91
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

The WWII / B-17 / flight sim portion sure runs the best anyway... There are other parts of the benchmark that look real good but they run like crap.

I think the nature scene is a bit of a disappointment. Am I the only one that thinks it doesn't look much better than the nature scene in 3dmark2001? The water looks better, particularly the stream, but other than that... big deal.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:27 PM   #92
-=DVS=-
.:. Lafiel .:.
 
-=DVS=-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Outerspace
Posts: 3,009
Red face

Heh i got exacly 4500 with my system

But after seeing game demos of 3DMark03 my first thoughts are boo what a Peace Of Cr*p , i am ATI fan but realy Nvidia was right this benchmark not only looks bad but performs like turtle realy , Mother Nature was better looking demo , everything else is wanna be DOOM3 witch they are not even close and runs very badly

3mark 2k1 is alot better IMO
__________________
.:. Lian Li X500FX .:. i7 2600k .:. PNY GTX 680 .:. Corsair DDR3 8GB .:. Silverstone 800W PSU .:. Asus P8P67-M Pro .:. Crucial M4 SSD 512GB .:.
-=DVS=- is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 02-12-03, 05:34 PM   #93
Riptide
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 8,303
Default

IMHO, even 3dmark2000 still doesn't look all that bad. There are at least a couple scenes in that one that still look pretty good such as the ending scene w/the pool and the wave action.
Riptide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:46 PM   #94
zack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29
Default

The reason the ATI cards get around 5000 3d marks, and the GeForce 4 cards get around 1500 3d marks, is because the 4th "game" benchmark is disabled on the GF4 cards and below. So they basically score a 0 on this.

This doesn't mean ATI's cards are twice as powerful. Not even close...
zack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 05:52 PM   #95
Red Dog
Join Norml today!
 
Red Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 232
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by -=DVS=-
everything else is wanna be DOOM3 witch they are not even close and runs very badly
that sums it up very nicely.

I see nothing that exceeds doom3 alpha quality, the only difference I see is 3dm03 runs about as fast as a quadraplegic on ice.

another thing which bothers me is standard deviation becomes more of a factor when the average scores are so numericaly low.

with scores like 1800 points small differences are bound to be unobservable, like weighing a postal letter with a bath scale.
Red Dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-03, 06:31 PM   #96
zack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 29
Default

I get 1431 3D marks with a GF4 Ti 4400, Athlon XP 1800+, 512MB DDR @ 2*(133Mhz), Win XP.
zack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Official GeForce GTX 670 Review and Discussion Thread MikeC NVIDIA GeForce 600 Series 23 10-28-12 10:19 AM
Official nForce 2 Thread Matthyahuw CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 148 04-16-03 04:39 AM
Official Linux driver 1.0-3123 thread bammbamm808 NVIDIA Linux 126 12-05-02 06:21 PM
Official Grand Theft Auto 3 thread volt Gaming Central 6 08-01-02 07:04 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.