Odd 3dmark2000 results

[Guest]

Now I'm way beyond confused!
I ran the 3dmark2000 benchmark (v1.1) on my system and I got a breathtaking score of... 43!!! WTF!!!
Can someone explain to me what just happened?
Here's my config:
P3 600 (Katmai)
ASUS P2B (1012 BIOS) 440BX
GeForce 2 MX (Detonator 3 driver)
128Mb PC100
Win2000
DirectX 8
SBLive!
Need you know more?

3dmark detected my CPU as a P3 50Mhz, yes 50!

My system crashed when I ran the benchmark the first time. It rebooted by itself when it crashed during the Texturing test. I then ran the benchmark for a second time. This time I went through it and got the "dazzling" number mentioned earlier. I ran it a third time, and now it just hung and froze two minutes into the test.
Again, WTF!

- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[Crashman]

WOW, you got something SERIOUSLY screwed up on the board! Try reseting your board to BIOS defaults and see if that helps!

Suicide is painless...........

 

[TheAntipop]

did you underclock your cpu or something? have you heard about the athlon extremes? well this may be a pentium extreme, haha, j/k
i dont know whats wrong, I would take a proud stance as having the lowest score ever

If at first you don't succede, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside

 

[Crashman]

Not me. I get around 7400 or so.

Suicide is painless...........

 

[Guest]

stop overclocking yer cpu, yer video card. also, maybe directX8 isnt compatable with 3dmark2k. try quake3 and let me know how many fps u get

 

[tfbww]

OK, 3Dmark, blahblahblah. How do real programs work? Games etc. Faster enough? Good fps? 3DMark is merely window dressing.

 

[Guest]

It's almost not overclocked. I only up the FSB to 103.
Now, I made some ajustment to the BIOS and got 3106, but I guess that's not even near the standard for a GF2MX, is it?

- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[TheAntipop]

not really, you should be getting at least in the 4000's but 5000's are usually the norm for your system

If at first you don't succede, skydiving isn't for you.
<font color=blue>Intel Inside</font color=blue> = Idiot Outside

 

[Guest]

Vsync off didn't change a thing!
I got 3076 at 800x600x32.

- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[Ncogneto]

No I don't think those figures are the norm at all, he is about where he should be, maybe just a tad low. Remember he is running win2k also.......

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

 

[Guest]

Katmai core @ 600? Hm. Might still be something wrong, but the score might not be as tragic after all. If lowering resolutions doesn't raise the score, you may be running into cpu limitations.

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.

 

[Guest]

Sorry, I just noticed one other thing. Windows 200. I have toyed with it just a little, and found my scores lower than when I run it thru win98. Someone experienced with win2k might be able to help you (and maybe me too) a little further.

Wait, only 128 mb? That could definitely have an impact, does the drive chew during any of the tests? I have 256. Running win98 usually drains about 50-70. Win2k about 90-120. For all I know, that may not be typical, but if it is, then that could make a difference.

Tom Mc

Even a fool, when he remains silent, appears wise.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, the Hard Drive gets nervous during the test (once or twice). Same thing goes when playing UT, but this time the HDD gets high every ten minutes or so and the system totally freezes after a coule of hours.

I also have a tendency to blame memory.

I will test my benchmark again with my new 256Mb Crucial module PC133 CL2 expected sometime this week and I'll post my results.



- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[Guest]

Just got my new Crucial memory module (256Mb PC133 CL2) and ran 3dmark2000. I scored 3147. That's a 1.3% increase over my last result with the 128 PC100 CL3.

I now believe my CPU (P3-600 Katmai) is the bottleneck. But could it have such an effect on the benchmark?



- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[Guest]

The main reason is probably because when people run 3dmark to show off their scores, they run it in the default benchmark. Which is 1024x768x16. You however are running at 800x600x32, which is more demanding (and results in a lower score) than that slightly higher resolution at 16 bit color.

Click the 'default benchmark' button, and if it runs in 800x600x32, try setting up your own custom benchmark with 1024x768x16.

 

[Guest]

Last time I tried, it was the default benchmark and I got 3147 (see last post).

- Better go Green than Blue!

 

[rcf84]

wow you still get more then a 486.

Cel 533 - 256mb sdram
15gb HD - ati radeon 32mb ddr (200/200)
SB live! mp3+ - win98 Beos

 

[Take_Out]

I get about 3000 3d marks with my 558mz PIII and a TNT2Ultra. Just for comparison. PS: just read the Win2k part, that is probably the bottleneck. Take-Out

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Take_Out on 01/23/01 05:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[kingbrd1]

I was running a p3 600eb with 256mb and I was getting scores of 4200-4300 or so. I run 98 and have the first geforce ddr board. I think my video card was slowing it down but not that much.

 

[Terak]

I agree regarding the Win2K theory...
My P3-650@833 yields 4900 3DMarks with my ELSA GeForce 2 MX

Also running Win98 on 128Mb PC133 and the MX is NOT overclocked... yet.

Terak