Tom's Hardware: Topic 3DMark03 is out!
Tom's Hardware: Over 1.4 million members in 6 different countries available to answer all your high-tech questions.
Sign up now! Its free!
It's released as one may have noticed 
<A HREF="http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml" target="_new">http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml</A>
Tried it on my P4 2.4Ghz with 1Gb DDR333 an a GF4 Ti4600 on got a score of 1535. Damn, I was so used to my 12000+ 3DMark 2001 result
I'm now just wondering how many months must pass until the second and third gametest run smoothly at 50+ FPS...
Yeah I heard nothing but low points so far. I can't DL it now, my bandwidth limit is nearly crossed, I must wait until the 17th, curses!
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. 
I know, and if the bench does not have representative performance of current games, and rather stresses so much for little points, it needs some retooling.
Though when I recall, when 3dMark 2001 came out, best cards got about 4000 pts, until geForce 3s came in.
Problem is that current '03 has DX9 in it, and there are already DX9 cards, so technically DX9 cards should yeild well over 6000 points.
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
I cant oc in this benchmark more then a few MHZ or it bluescreans. Kinda crappy because i run my ti4200 card defaultly at 300/575 ,but it blue screans at that, stupided, there are no artifects when i run real games an it never freazes hmm. 
3d2k3--> 1580 with g4ti4200
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=14982
3d2k1--> 12k
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5485657
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/andrewwgoodwin/index.htm" target="_new">Computer Specs Updated</A>..<A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4899328" target="_new">3d mark 2k1 1249points</A>
Ive got another 51 minutes to wait before I can download it from Fileshack 
Im looking forward to a score of 1000 with my AXP 2200+ (1800 @ 144x12.5) and an overclocked GF4 Ti4200. O well, im looking forward to seeing what it looks like.
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5467618 " target="_new">Almost Breaking 12k!!</A>
I was disappointed with my score too. Oh well. My setup is p4 2.4, 512 PC-1066, 8IHXP2, Audigy and a R-9700 Pro. With all the settings and textures maxed out in the ATI control panel i got about 1656. With all the settings on default in the ATI control panel i got 4700. This is comparing to my 14000+ on 3DMark 2001. I love the demos, they are really sweet and run fine without AA and Aniso. It just sux because jaggies and blurries. When I lower texture quality and enable 4X AA and 8X Aniso it gets choppy, same with 2X aniso. Kinda sux. No more maxing out graphics.
Problem is, it stresses to a point we're wondering if it represents at all current and upcoming DX9 games.
If it's any telling of performance of them, at under 10FPS, then I'd say to the game dev: The hell with you and your low performing game!
If the R9700PRO cannot handle the upcoming games so smoothly, it's gonna be a scary while people.
Hopefully Doom III is a stresser but that shows how proper coding makes excellent graphics and effects with some very nice frame rates on older cards.
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
Remember that the CPU in this program is barely gonna make a difference. Your card is probably starting to show its weakness. I got 870 Marks with 2 users open in Windows XP while downloading, on an AthlonXP 1.4GHZ, 512MB DDR, and a Ti200. I would expect a bit more with little opened, but overall, it's pretty much expected.
I do think it could've been more optimized though, however the sound test with the plane war was awesome, and the demo as well. Anyone else could not run the demos after the first? I'd only get a screen with one color switching, and 3d Mark written on the top right. I wonder if it just won't process this much, due to the addition of sound in those very strainy tests, 2 and 3.
And did anyone check to see if the second test was using Doom III's engine?
It sure sounded so similar. But I doubt it for the sole reason that Carmack stated he was optimizing a lot, and I expect performance to be much higher with id's excellent graphics programmers.
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
Tom's has a new thing on 3d mark. It's purposefully made to use an unoptimized method. BTW, my epenis is bigger than urs 
. I wuv my system, 2 years and it's still worth something.
"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti
I believe the overall score is actually being truthful to real life.
The Ti4600 does get a score about twice my Ti200, while an R300 is 5 times that. In reality it is also this powerful when no AA or Aniso is used.
However reading that article on THG about 3d Mark03, I just wonder and hope that it isn't the end for FutureMark's business. Maybe they can work on making same engine tests next time, and perhaps bundle real game tests as well. (rather than launch each game by itself, and get the console commands ready for a demotest)
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
ti cards suck in the test, but thats no wonder.
and eveyone crying that they had over 10000 marks before, and now they have much less.. think, dudes, its just numbers.. they could've set it to 10000 at your system settings as well, but whats the gain? now we wanna break 10000 in this test..
i remember how 3dmark01 ran on my system when it was out
btw, i have something between 3 and 4 thousand points.. while i normally only have 8000 points on 3dmark01.. my cpu, but espencially the mainboard (-settings) are terrible currently, so i loose very much in this. but the radeon9700pro performs well nontheless..
"take a look around" - limp bizkit
www.google.com
Woah! Since my system only pulls 3500 3D Marks2001, I'm anticipating MAYBE 800 from my GeForce2Pro and 1.2ghz P3... lol. I never worried about my penis size. I always knew it was small 
----------------------------------------------------
?! <--- indicates clueless excitement.
You should learn to anticipate 10 times worse whenever you expect something 
!
Expect much much less friend. My Ti200 on a 1.4GHZ AthlonXP CPU only gets me 870 points.
Try that with non-DirectX 8 hardware, and you can dream on!
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
Is it me or does it make any sense that the disparity between an R9500PRO and an R9700PRO is over 1000 points?
It's bit mixed up IMO.
And yeah, CPU has a much lower role now in the test. It proves as well, that companies should STOP HIRING MONKEYS to program, and get games like Aquanox and benchmarks like 3dMark 03 which know how to friggin take the load off the CPU and let cards do their full time job! CPU intensive work should be for AI and AI only.
Let them 800MHZ PIII owners still enjoy their systems without the need of a spanking 3.06GHZ P4 to play Commanche 4!
--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
Sponsored links
Ad
They won a badge
Join us in greeting them
- 01:00 pathasse won the Spy badge
- 01:00 majora28 won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 sodaant won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 freezed1 won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 FreyjasChosen won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 mooglinux won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 pathasse won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 smalltime0 won the Freshman badge
- 01:00 mpassell won the Uniformed badge
- 01:00 srbruno won the Freshman badge