is this normal?

ZerO · Jul 9, 2003

Hi, I wanted to see if I'm getting good fps for my system on the quake 3 arena demo. Right now I'm getting 196 fps on the demo with a Geforce 3 ti500 64mb, Pentium4 2.8ghz, 512 mb of ram, a Sound blaster Audigy, and Windows xp. I also have my settings set to quality, and I have both anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering off. I browsed through an article(the november 7th, 2001 Radeon 8500 vs. ti500 - Overclocked graphics article)with an athlon 1.333 ghz processor as the test rig. I noticed that in the article they got 167 fps with the geforce3 ti500 under windows xp. I'm wondering shouldn't I be getting alot more fps with my system? I also have the latest drivers for both my video card and sound card.

I also looked at another benchmark in another article, the Win, Lose or Ti- 21 GeForce Titanium Boards from December 18th, 2001. In the benchmark they used for system 1 a pentium4 1.8ghz, system 2 a Athlon 1.2ghz, and a pIII 800mhz for system 3. On the benchmark in quake 3 they got 190 fps in the quake 3 arena demo at 1024x768x32. I'm wondering why I'm only getting 6 fps more with a pentium 4 2.8ghz?
Edited by ZerO on 07/08/03 08:50 PM.

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

Dont use Quake3 to benchmark with. Use something like 3DMark2001SE, or Unreal Tournament. You really cant get a good idea of whats going on with Q3 alone.

ZerO · Jul 9, 2003

I don't play UT anymore, but where can I get 3DMark2001SE? I only do benchmarks with ut2003 and quake3.

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark2001.shtml" target="_new">http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark2001.shtml</A>

rubikian · Jul 9, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.futuremark.com" target="_new">Futuremark</A> website can get the download for 3Dmark2001SE. Since yours is GF3 Ti, I DON'T recomend you to get the 3DMark03.

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

I won

ZerO · Jul 9, 2003

Thx for the links. Here is the results I got on 3dMark2001 SE - 6718. I noticed in the Win, Lose or Ti - 21 Titanium Boards article from December 18th, 2001 the GeForce 3 ti500 scores 7564. In the article they are using slower cpu processors than mine so I'm still getting a lower score for some reason. Anyone have any ideas on what might be cousing my low score?

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

First, turn off vertical sync in your driver control panel.
Under the performance and quality setting, switch it to "high performance".
Under Direct3D Settings, set mipmap detail to "highest performance"
Are you using Detonator 44.03?
If not, tell me what you are using.

ZerO · Jul 9, 2003

I found out what was cousing the bad performance. I looked under my GeForce 3 performance options and noticed that I had 2x anti aliasing on, so thats why it was going so slow. Now I am getting a score of 9737 on the 3dmark2003se, about 2000 points better then 7564. So this is probaly a pretty good score for my system then, right? I don't have a system like mine to compare it too since you have to be registered to compare your results to other computers at futuremark.

I am using the 44.03 drivers. I had the vertical sinc under opengl set to enabled by default, I used quality under the image settings too, and I had my mipmap settings set to best image quality on the benchmark. I could try it again and do what you said and see if I can get an even better score, but I think I'll leave my image quality at quality.

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

quality

ZerO · Jul 9, 2003

I may be getting a better score in 3dmark, but in the quake3 time demo there was only a 6 fps gain from the benchmark from December 18th, 2001 with the geforce ti500 and my fps I got on the demo(this was with AA and AF off). I ran my benchmark in quake3 at 1024x768x32 at best quality with image quality at quality, and no AA and AF. I find this odd. But I guess its not the best thing to benchmark with as you said.

sirak · Jul 9, 2003

A 9737 is good given your graphics card. I have a GeForce3 Ti200, but my system is just a 1.3ghz PIV, so my 3dmark01 score was somewhere from 5000-5500 (not sure on the exact number - its been a while).

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

double post.Edited by GeneticWeapon on 07/09/03 01:01 AM.

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

I hit 5000 3DMarks with an MX440, and a Duron 1.1 processor, 512mb of SD Ram. The card was from Visiontek though and overclocked like a mofo....

phial · Jul 9, 2003

Under the performance and quality setting, switch it to "high performance".
Under Direct3D Settings, set mipmap detail to "highest performance"

but you dont play games with crappy detail settings do you? why the hell would you want that?

so if you bench with "performance" settings when you actually should use "quality" then your gettin a false bloated score

its not about getting the highest score. its about getting the best performance. i have my detail settings about 3 times higher than nvidia drivers usually allow you to go, thru a registry entry. i get about 9700 3dmark points with my system - 1700+ athlon 384megs ddr333 , TI4200 @ 250/500

i can get up to 11k, but why would i want shitty visual quality? and if i did that it doesnt mean my system is actually faster, it means taht 3dmark is less demanding when on those settings

-------

<A HREF="http://www.quake3world.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001355.html" target="_new">*I hate thug gangstas*</A>

rubikian · Jul 9, 2003

They just want to know what's the maximum point they can get to compare with tom's results...

rubikian · Jul 9, 2003

I won

You won but you get nothing...

GeneticWeapon · Jul 9, 2003

is this normal?

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Share this page