I downloaded the free version of 3DMark03 today. Here is my setup:
2800+ AMD XP
1 gig PC3200/ Dual Channel Enabled
128 MB TI-4600
Running Windows XP Pro SP1
My machine scored a whopping 1763
, am I wrong or is this score extremely low?
My Desktop: <A HREF="http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html" target="_new">http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html</A>
You have a DX 8 vid card. Getting a DX 9 Card would get you much higher scores. Other than that, you seem to have a decent system that would enable you to get much higher.
Even if you purchased an ATI Radeon 9600 or comparable video card, you should expect scores of 5000+ in 3dMark03 build 340.
<font color=blue> Did you know that 89.72% of all quoted statistics are false? </font color=blue>
Your right on with the Ti4600 being DX8 and slow in 3dmark03 (doesn't run nature for one thing). Low 3dmark03 scores had loads of GF4Ti owners puzzled/mad back when the benchie came out.
But a R9600 series card isn't going to hit 5000 in 3dmark03. R9700 pro, or 9800 non pro will, but I doubt an OC'ed 9600XT could hit 5K, never mind the rest of the 9600 series. 3K-4K is more like it, and a little over if OC'ed.
ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
That explains it. Still trying to hold out on upgrading the video card a little longer. I still get good gaming performance, so I won't worry about it.
On a side note, just for laughs I tried running it on my laptop:
AMD 3000+ 64-bit
512 MB RAM (PC2600, I believe)
GeForce4 420 Go (32 MB dedicated)
It could only run one test, and scored 203.
Oh well, can't expect much from a laptop I guess.
My Desktop: <A HREF="http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html" target="_new">http://Mr5oh.tripod.com/pc.html</A>
In DX9 games, the Ti4200 (lesser than Ti4600) will often offer greater rendering speed than the 9600 Pro, simply because it doesn't even TRY to render DX9 features. Of course you get speed at the cost of features.
<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>
a 9600xt couldnt hit 5000 in 3dmark03.. i have mine at 560/320 and only get 4200.. even a o'c 9500pro can only get like 4800.. or sumting.. so only the 9800 or 9700 can get over 5000. unless u have some crazy mod
That's about right for a Ti4x00 card. Mine used to score 1450, I believe.
I scored 1200 with a 5200nu and 1000 with a 9200np. I think they both had 128-bit memory.
<font color=blue>AthlonXP-M 2500+</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Abit NF7-S</font color=green>
<font color=red>Kingston DDR400 2x256Mb</font color=red>
Yeah, good point. They perform better in real life than their 3dmark03 scores would have you believe.
ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
i had about 3300..
p4 2.26
512 DDR Ram 2700
Radeon 9800Pro
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS
I scored 5314. Everything in my puter is stock save the HSF. Any ideas to boost mine??
2600+ 266 FSB
A7N8X-E Deluxe
768 DDR PC2700
ATI ALL-IN-WONDER 9800 PRO SERIES
Maxtor 120 gig 8MB cach 7200
Western Digital 60 gig 8MB cach
Liton DVDRW +/- 4xrw/8xr/16x
3300 is very low for a R9800Pro. SHould be over 5K.
ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 1GB Corsair XMS 4000 Pro Series, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
You should be getting around 5500 with a 9800 Pro. At least make sure that you don't have AA and AF turned on in your video drivers.
Cranked to the max on a 5700 ultra i get 5000 3dm03 and every day running 4500. Which is still overclocked to580/980. Go figure???
Let the Good times roll: The Cars
I aint signing nothing!!!
3D Mark scores are based on the performance of test ran, and the number of test completed. You could have GREAT performance on all the test you've completed, but not having the hardware to run the other test is going to cost you BIG points. Unlike 3D Mark, GAMES will simply turn off those features.
In REAL games, there's a performance penalty for enabling some DX9 rendering features (eye candy). You could turn them off manually with most games, but by default they'll be turned ON with a DX9 card and OFF with a DX8 card. That makes the DX9 card look slower than it really is, you pay a performance penalty for eye candy!
<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>
| Quote : My machine scored a whopping 1763 , am I wrong or is this score extremely low?
|
thats actually not bad for a GF4
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
<A HREF="http://www.subhi.com/keyboard.jpg" target="_new">This is you, interweb junky</A>
| Quote : Cranked to the max on a 5700 ultra i get 5000 3dm03 |
I call B.S.
Put up your ORB link.
<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
I have a Radeon 9800 np clocked at 400/650 and it scores about 5800
My setup is lised below. I had a Radeon 9600 Pro in here before and that scored a bit over 3000.
Pentium 4 2.4(B)GHz
i845PE, NO INTEGRATED 3D DECCELERATOR HERE!
512MB PC2700 DDR-SDRAM CL2.5-3-3-7
Dual 80GB Hard Drives 7200RPM 2M/8M ATA100
BBA ATi Radeon 9800 128MB (400/650)
i did it again and got 4602 with 1024x786, i had vsync on last time.
Edit. i did it again with 800x600 and got 5437
are my scores low and can they be improved?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AznAnarchy99 on 08/02/04 05:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
I have no reason to lie about such trivial things.
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2312197" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2312197</A>
I aint signing nothing!!!
| Quote :
|
......??
Question about becnhing with 3dmark. Is everybody using performance settings in their Nvidia driver? I use to bench with the highest quality put I managed to get 6900 when using Performance...
Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
I bench with all the Texture/Filtering options in ATi's drivers set to highest quality. (no AA/AF though of course).
I get ~5900 - 6000 with my rig as it is in the sig, IIRC.
Just out of curiousity, has anyone benched one of the Sapphire 128-bit 9800Pro cards? I've been wondering for ages just how much of a performance hit the 128-bit RAM causes - I've looked about but haven't actually seen a side-by-side comparison anywhere..
---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
I think I reached 6700 with my highest OC with highest quality filtering and minor artifact... With moderate OC on my vid card at performance I get 6900 easy... Thats why I asked. Not a bad score altogether considering I had something around 5000-5500 befor I formated/tweaked/flashed and OCed my card...
Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
Me neither would be curious too. Probly worth the extra 40$(I think) sapphire asked to get an exchange...
Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
I was Just wondering whether <i>maybe</i> that was the cause of AzAnarchy's(or whatever his name was) comparatively low 9800Pro score... he didn't specify what make his card was...
it seems some ~20% below what you'd think it should be... does the crippled bus make that much difference?
---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
| Quote : I have no reason to lie about such trivial things.
|
| Quote : Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 1260.2 MTexels/s
|
theres no way in hell a 5700ultra, a 4 pipeline architecture on a 128bit memory bus can get that much fillrate, with normal game settings.. did you edit registry entry for mipmap LOD and set it to the lowest possible setting? and what drivers did you use? obviously not legit drivers because your clocks arent even displaying properly.
i cant stand it when people bench at settings they dont even game at, i bench at the highest detail levels possible..
increasing your score by lowering detail DOESNT mean your card is performing better. hell i could get 8k probably with my 9800pro if i hacked the detail settings to hell, but whats the point
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
<A HREF="http://www.subhi.com/keyboard.jpg" target="_new">This is you, interweb junky</A>
They look like hacked drivers to be sure, one of the reasons I didn't post some R9600 results I found, because they look fishy, but look below and you decide. There are a few R9600s that break 5K realistically, but they have INSANE OCs (700+mhz). I can break 4,200 with my R9600P OC'd, but it's a long way to 5K in a benchmark that doesn't have much impact from system OCs.
Like GW, I call BS on those, especially since they don't appear anywhere near the official list of results, of which <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1957007" target="_new">THIS</A> is the top one @ 4626.
At least the questionable R9600 result make the list;
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2732084" target="_new">It's officially the top R9600, but not believeable @ 14,562 bungholios</A> ; Hey it does better than the X800XT and the GF6800U (on a similar system)!
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2485193" target="_new">This one at least has OC numbers worthy of the results (5583 Bungholios).</A>
So I'd say based on just those figures that there's an issue with 3Dmk03 and hacks, like whatever Rickey used.
- 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
ATi made mine.
yea thats retarded crap. i wonder why Futuremark left those benchies up, they are obviously false scores
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
<A HREF="http://www.subhi.com/keyboard.jpg" target="_new">This is you, interweb junky</A>
the 5000 scores are Nvidia reference drivers with drivers set to high performance.
The 4600 scores are with driver settings set to high quality.
If you look NO 5700U shows correct clock speeds. in any of the compares I've seen. So I'm not sure what that means.
Here is another compare for you<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2312133" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2312133</A> with a slightly lower score. but still above 5000.
Would you like to see scores of my second comp. A P3 with a TI4200 that scores over 10000 on 3dm01. Of course these scores are over a year old or so. Hell I was the #1 P3 for a long time.
The rest of my system.
Asus P4P800
P4 2.6C @3410
512MB Corsair5/4 dual mode 2/2/2/5/7
BFG 5700 Ultra
WD 40gig 8MB
WD 40gig 2MB
Plextor 20/10/40/12A
Fortron 400wt p/s
I aint signing nothing!!!
First off I have never used hacks. Don't need to .And your Implying I used hacks [-peep-] you.
Come on back down to Ga. I'm not hard to find. Seems you like to run roughshod on the videocard forum.A basic dickhead in my opion. But I guess you need to keep your e-penis enlarged to compensate for what you don't have naturally.
I aint signing nothing!!!
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2617390" target="_new">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2617390</A>
Not me but the highest scoring 5700U
I aint signing nothing!!!
Sure you haven't. You use hack.. err cheat drivers... so what's the limit of a hack in your opinion? So bite-me plough-boy!
As for the highest FX5700U, you didn't even get that right, <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2089903" target="_new">this one is got 6066</A>
And who cares that it's only run at 800x600, you reduce quality to improve your score (unlike most people who want to compare results at default settings). Reduce resolution, reduce quality, who cares as long as you have top Bungholios right?
BTW, your results aren't valid anymore. I guess that was inevitable though.
Still not valid though. Not that that matters much since that 14K by the R9600 has valid WHQL certified drivers, but yours still doesn't qualify.
So either publish valid results (if you can) or else it's a hack, either through willful deception or ignorance.
Talk about e-penis you're major contribution is THIS, aand you talk about my e-penis? I don't even post my top Bungholios anymore!
As for the rest of your post, sure whatever dude.
- 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
OK you got me there. The only approved drivers for Nvidia cards are the 52.16 drivers. SO OK MY DRIVERS ARE NOT APPROVED BY FUTUREMARK> THERE FEEL BETTER>
But they are WHQL certified.
800x600 scores do not count. Stop being a idiot. You attack me personally and you want to bring up [-peep-] scores for your smoke and mirrors bullshit act.
You push a fine line between truth and lies. An average reader would look at your post and assume you are correct. But you are just spouting bullshit to try to cover your ass.
Have a good day.
I aint signing nothing!!!
Dick_Crisco
Find another forum to post on. Your through here.
<A HREF="http://rmitz.org/AYB3.swf" target="_new">All your base are belong to us.</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2216718" target="_new"><b>3DMark03</b></A>
What is that some form of a pathetic threat.
Wake up boys the world does not revolve arround you. Now get your heads out of each others asses and see the real world.
I aint signing nothing!!!
why dont you tell me everything you have done in regards to settings. again, no card on a 128bit memory bus could achieve 8000+mtexels in multitexturing fillrate. thats almost as much as a x800xt, a 16 pipe card on a 256bit bus, running 500+ core and 1ghz+ ram clocks!
-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
<A HREF="http://www.subhi.com/keyboard.jpg" target="_new">This is you, interweb junky</A>
Bah....sorry bout that. Typo error, got to typing too fast. I meant 4000-5000+ 3dMarks....
Sorry bout the confusion.
<font color=blue> Did you know that 89.72% of all quoted statistics are false? </font color=blue>
| Quote :
|
How could that be for a 9600?
I don't know, and that's why I say, there's alot of fishiness all over the place.
Just look at the results, and my mother nature is far superior to his (well the old compare I have is for the 535/355 run) but battle of the Proxycon is 4 times more than mines (27fps) and the spike in Troll's Lair the He11 out ot 180+fps versus my 24.5fps. Sure his wings of fury is slightly better thanks to a much faster CPU. I did notice something stange about his system memory reporting as 510, but other that that I don't know where to check.
Very weird, but F'in funny. I'm keeping the link for future R9600P/XT discussions.
- 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
can any1 tell me why im gettin such low performance?? i got about 4600 with 1024x786 no vsync with a Ati mde radeon 9800pro
Aren't you trying to beat it ?!
Nope.
There's only 3 people here who I've ever really benched 'against'.
GW, who still holds the title (but I have my own trophy of sorts), CasualCat (who hasn't been seen since shortly after we got our cards), and CS (who isn't much competition
).
I haven't saved a BungholioMark2003 since Build 2 when I got 4168, without tweaking the system (competition ended before that point).
- 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
There are 908 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
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.

