Discussion in 'Overclocking, Benching & Modding' started by WyreTheWolf, Feb 11, 2003.
1809, not truly pushing my card/system yet. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=77177
Got this from Beyond3D:
3DMark03 score =
(Game Test 1 frame-rate x 7.3) +
(Game Test 2 frame-rate x 37) +
(Game Test 3 frame-rate x 47.1) +
(Game Test 4 frame-rate x 38.7)
So I'm sure you can figure it out from there
Someone try to touch this with a Ti4200.... 1865 ....... THAT IS SICK! http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=85061
Well that is a pretty good score for a Ti4200. I'm quite sure that if I had the same hardware as you I would be able to surpass your 1867.
I just scored 1801 with a FSB of only 136MHz compared to your 200MHz and with an XP 1800+ (1567 MHz) compared to your XP2100+ (2200MHz)
The only thing that suck about my card (my opinion) is that I can't clock the GPU high as I would like. Granted, I am using stock cooling, but I have stuck an 80mm over the GPU and gotten no increase in mhz.
I managed another 2 points by clocking my CPU and FSB back to defaults so I now have 1803 as a score.
Other than the 2 items I previously mentioned our system specs are similar so I guess I should be happy with 1803.
Yeah, I agree. That's a decent score.. This new benchmark sucks ass cuz we used to get 5 digit number scores. Now we only get 1800.......
1972, Ti4200, not even maxing my oc, hehehe, ownage, http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=100505
3,200 9500 Pro, with a mere 256mb RAM and 1.4 Athlon http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=37830
What does it matter what you get in benchmarks? Your computer isn't suddenly performing badly in everything - its just performing badly in one program that isn't even a game! And its still putting up a damn good showing... so what does it matter?
It's 3Dmark.. it's the end all - be all of performance tests.
Well, Toshiro, the benchmark helps me to realize that my card wont last forever.
DaSnipe: ****, you can't compare your card to mine, you have 128mb. I can't keep up on thoes crazy ass intensive benches.
Well, no card lasts forever, really.
If so, then I'd still be gaming with my ATi VGA Wonder. =p
*memories of playing quake2 before getting a Rage Pro*
at times in the new 3dmark it would completely stop for a few seconds the resume. i have a gf4 ti4200 128meg card though which i know or have heard doesn't give that great a scores in this. the first drivers i tested were the 41.09, then the 42.01. i got nv errors which from what i've read in other forums to be a big problem with nvidia cards. the newest beta drivers out the 42.86 still freeze up where the others did, but instead of getting the nv error i get a message ever so often that shows in the even log while running 3dmark stating the pcibus process has started. weird. has anyone else out there with nvidia cards encountered this? i'm thinking of getting a new video card if this still happens. every forum i've come across just gets me more and more confused as to why i get the nv errors and such.
Very true DriveEuro, very true, though I think 3DMark03 was specifically designed to give everyone an inferiority complex about their hardware and try to get em to buy new stuff to get more marks even though theres nothing out there at all right now that would actually require that sort of horsepower...
True, but we are lead to believe that Quake 4, Duke Nukem Forever and DOOM III are gonna require a lot of horsepower.
"It's surprising that the Radeon 9700 Pro runs faster in the CPU Test 1, because in this kind of test, the graphics card should not play any role whatsoever. "
I found this and and intersting article @ tomshardware.com
So basically same sytem. Two diffrent cards an Geforce FX and an ati 9700 pro. test both you get higher cpu beching scores for useing an ati card. Even though the cpu tests are not supposed to be video card independant.
some other intersting quotes...
"These shaders don't only ensure bad results of PS 1.1 cards compared to those that support PS 1.4 (they need more passes for the effect) they are also hardly used in actual 3D games. Xbox can't run PS 1.4 code as well. Even more serious is that 3DMark03 test runs use different shader codes for different cards. This makes comparisons between different 3D-chips close to impossible. In 3D Mark 2001 SE, this was only the case with a special PS1.4 test. Now, however, all tests, including GT4 (Mother Nature), are actually no longer comparable to one another. It will be interesting to hear what Futuremark will officially say about this topic. "
"The portion of this algorithm labeled "Skin Object in Vertex Shader" is doing the exact same skinning calculation over and over for each object. In a scene with five lights, for example, each object gets re-skinned 11 times. This inefficiency is further amplified by the bloated algorithm that is used for stencil extrusion calculation. Rather than using the Doom method, 3DMark03 uses an approach that adds six times the number of vertices required for the extrusion. In our five light example, this is the equivalent of skinning each object 36 times! No game would ever do this."
What about using an 8500 and Ti4600? Does the ATi card still get the advantage?
EDIT: I'm only glazing through but to me they're looking at a 9700 Pro and GeForce FX 5800U? <SARCASM>Ever thought the CPU is having it's power drained by some 'unknown source' mebbe a umm................ sorry airplane passing over head... wait oh silly me I'm playing that mp3 from THG again :duh: </SARCASM>
Separate names with a comma.