Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Is this a good 3DMark 2003 score?

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
June 26, 2003 4:56:57 AM

5482? Is this a good score? or bad? What is considered today's average score?

More about : good 3dmark 2003 score

June 26, 2003 7:52:09 AM

what are ur specs
June 26, 2003 8:36:31 AM

I get about 5600 at stock speeds.
My sys:
2700+
a7n8x
2x256mb corsair xms 3500 (sync with fsb, i.e. 333)
9800 Pro

OCd i get 6600.

Thats with cat. 3.4s.

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Willamette_Sucks on 06/26/03 04:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
June 28, 2003 2:32:51 PM

Post deleted by Tranzmission
June 28, 2003 2:41:02 PM

You know, that is what truly gets me about this benchmarking. you can get great scores providing you shut down 2/3rds of your system to aquire it.

why does everyone put stock on a benchmark that requires you to shut off your sound to squeeze out a mark that you would use on a game? ie the sound?

as long as your game plays smoothly, and you have fun beating on tkers
isnt that the whole point to the purchase?

that truly just gets away with me on this whole benchmark thing.
I"unlike thomas and the rest of you" like to hear ppl's guts explode when im nearby them. i would worry less on the benchmark and more on your ablity to kick my butt in the real world."which wouldnt happen anyways. but there you go :) "
June 28, 2003 5:18:40 PM

it's good, considering all the video cards exist in the market now
I got only 1400, what do you expect?
June 29, 2003 2:16:16 AM

I hope you all appreciate your scores, I got 172 in 3dMark03. System specs in bio

<i>Royal Fusileres, Company C</i>
June 29, 2003 3:23:38 AM

I dont know what 3DMark is and probably will never use it. If the graphics look kick butt to you thats all that counts. I find myself still using a ATI Rage Pro to play some games online. Dont know the scores but it works to my liking, and costs a heck of a lot less. I say use it until it dies. If you want to upgrade check out someone elses system first hand and then decide, stats and opinions only get you so far.
June 29, 2003 3:26:24 AM

172? Is the mx a dx7 card? I thought it was, but now someone will probably shoot me for asking. :)  I get 1048 with my R8500, but my system blows.

Athlon 1800+@1.15ghz
512 SDRam
R8500 @275,275 (stock speeds)
100mhz fsb.
June 29, 2003 3:38:39 AM

Yep, every Geforce with "MX" in it's name is a DX7 card.

------------------
Radeon 9500 w/256 bit memory bus @ 367/310
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3439
June 29, 2003 5:28:35 AM

What's wrong with your XP1800+? why runs at 100Mhz FSB?
June 30, 2003 1:05:59 AM

I think his Palit GF4 MX440 came with 64 bit memory (Palit loves 64 bit DDR). It makes an MX440 an ~MX420. This is the reason for such low score. MX440's always score very low in 3DMark2003, but for this exceptional low score his MX440 with 64 bit memory is the most possibly guilty.

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>
June 30, 2003 1:14:19 AM

If you installed the Patch for 03 you should not be getting such high score anymore. Check THG and other sources.

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 1:19:06 AM

ya scott rage pro all the way!!
I got one and i can play most dx 7 games although i am dying to upgrade...gonna stick it out till january tho...
June 30, 2003 2:12:02 AM

Quote:
What's wrong with your XP1800+? why runs at 100Mhz FSB?

You have no idea how much I wish I knew. It crashes when I run at 133mhz fsb. I've been trying to get it to work for the past 7 months with no luck.
June 30, 2003 2:52:54 AM

Oh yeah!
Indeed. Which is weird when you think about it. If they disabled it in the 330 patch, then why really remove them in the drivers as well if they ain't workin' no more?

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 2:53:53 AM

Man that means you're running it at, gulp, 1150MHZ!

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 4:21:29 AM

I do have the 330 patch, and the Cat. 3.5s, which also removes the optimizations.
But ATI's optimizations only increased performance about 2%.
Performance did go down a little. I got 5606 w/cat 3.4s/320 patch, and like 5578 with the 330 patch and 3.5s.

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Willamette_sucks on 06/30/03 00:22 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 30, 2003 4:23:12 AM

did you ever try that cpu on the other mobo? or try other CPU on that mobo?
June 30, 2003 3:29:58 PM

HMmm that still sounds far from the new result most get with even higher ended systems.
I do feel you may not be using the best settings. Either that or your system is so empty of programs that you don't even have a Notepad service!

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
June 30, 2003 10:58:29 PM

My cpu is at 200*12 (2400mhz), 5-2-2-2...???

Texture settings in the ATI control panel are set to max.
I am using Rage 3d Tweak, but nothing that would lower quality. In fact I think I have achieved neraly identical scores w/o Rage 3d Tweak, I leave it on for UT2k3 and stuff (there are some nice options).

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
July 1, 2003 2:22:45 AM

Ah well if it's THAT overclocked, then I can understand where the points come from!

--
I am my own competition. -VJK
!