Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3Dmark2001 on geforce Cards

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 15, 2004 7:11:10 PM

I just installed a Geforce2 GTS 32MB in a P3-450 with 384MB PC-133. 3DMark2001SE Score: 1798

I have a Geforce2 MX 400 64MB in a P3-600 with 256MB PC-133. 3DMark2001SE Score: 1174

Why the difference? I know the memory bandwidth on the GTS is twice the MX400, but the MX400 has twice the memory??

Any ideas??

Spec:
Intel P4 2.4B
MSI 645E Max-U Mobo
512MB DDR333
GF3 ti200 64MB
SB Live 5.1
WD 60GB
Maxtor 120GB
LG 24x24x32 CDR
WIN2K PRo SP4
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2004 7:26:19 PM

The amount of memory on a graphics card isn't as important as how it uses it and how much it really can effectively use.

You could put 256mb on that GF4mx and it wouldn't change much of anything. It's access to the memory is less, and the core itself can't make use of more memory.

Think of any MX as a a hobble version of whatever number it had. The GF2GTS sometimes bests the GF4MXs, the GF2MX is much less capable.

Would it surprise you that a Radeon 9500Pro 64mb outperforms a Radeon 9200SE with 256mb? It's not about the size of the memory, but what you do with it.
Hmmm, why does that sound familiar? :evil: 


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! - <font color=green>RED </font color=green> <font color=red> GREEN</font color=red> GA to SK :evil: 
January 15, 2004 7:31:35 PM

Funny you should mention that a GF2GTS can outperform a GF4MX, as my brother-in-law has a Intel 1Ghz 256MB PC-133 and a GF4MX400, and he only scores 1807 in 3DMark2001SE, only 9 points higher!!!

Poor bastard.... :evil: 


Spec:
Intel P4 2.4B
MSI 645E Max-U Mobo
512MB DDR333
GF3 ti200 64MB
SB Live 5.1
WD 60GB
Maxtor 120GB
LG 24x24x32 CDR
WIN2K PRo SP4
Related resources
January 15, 2004 7:42:20 PM

I have read other places that the GTS is a better card... so it is... I had a setup slightly better than yours with a GF2 MX400 64MB card, and my scores were very close to yours... they were not near 1700... I think a little over 1300 was as high as I got.

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263
January 15, 2004 7:43:28 PM

Not a Geforce4 MX, the Geforce2 MX.

A Geforce2 GTS is better than a Geforce2 MX, but not better than a Geforce4 MX 440 or 460.

Actually, now that I think about it the Geforce2 GTS is better than the Geforce4 MX 420.

If your brother has one of those, he should quickly set it on fire.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
January 15, 2004 7:53:49 PM

I get 4483 in 3DMark2001SE. However I think this is a fair bit lower then what I should be getting. In the details its saying my texel fillrates are 271.8 MTexels/s for single-textureing and 515.2 MTexels/s for multi-textureing. But I'm pretty sure my card should have a fillrate of around 1600 MTexels/s according to everything Ive read. I'm betting if my fillrates were where they should be I'd be getting in the mid-5000 range like I was expecting.

Spec:
Asus A7N8X-X Nforce2
Athelon 2500+ barton (1.83ghz)
512mb Samsung DDR400
SoundBlaster Live! Value
Geforce2 GTS/Pro
WD HD 80G 7200rpm 8mb cache
Win XP Home
January 15, 2004 8:05:54 PM

Always keep in mind that quoted fillrates are theoretical, Vimp.

No card will test out at it's theoretical fillrate, usually the practical result will be much less.

________________
<b>Radeon <font color=red>9500 PRO</b></font color=red> <i>(hardmodded 9500, o/c 322/322)</i>
<b>AthlonXP <font color=red>2600+</b></font color=red> <i>(o/c 2400+ w/143Mhz fsb)</i>
<b>3dMark03: <font color=red>4,055</b></font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2004 10:10:38 PM

What drivers you running? On a Ti4200, the 4403 drivers are over 1000 3dmarks higher than the newest drivers. Also much faster than any other version I have tested. If you want the best score in 3dmark2001se on an nvidia graphics card, use the 4403 drivers.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
January 16, 2004 12:00:28 AM

I tested with the latest 53 forceware drivers.
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2004 2:11:36 AM

You got suckered into the memory scam eh? God forbid you'll buy an FX5200 with 256MB thinking it will be faster than an old Ti4200 with only 64MB!

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
January 16, 2004 2:17:39 AM

Actually, I have a GeForce 3 Ti200 64MB in my gaming machine, and find it works just fine for all current games, only losing some DX9 effects..big deal.

I also use the 4403 drivers, as I have found that any of the later release just slow it down.

Spec:
Intel P4 2.4B
MSI 645E Max-U Mobo
512MB DDR333
GF3 ti200 64MB
SB Live 5.1
WD 60GB
Maxtor 120GB
LG 24x24x32 CDR
WIN2K PRo SP4
a b U Graphics card
January 16, 2004 3:29:00 AM

Give the 4403's a shot and you will definately see a higher score in 3dmark2001se than with the 5303's

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9500 Pro, Santa Cruz, Antec 1000AMG, TruePower 430watt
!