hows my scores? - update

[Guest]

884mhz Tbird and leadtek 32mb MX PRO SH 215/205
Win2k 12.41 nvidia driver

3dmark2k - 5538
3dmark2k1 - 2697

can someone tell me other benchmarks to throw at it?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 06/22/01 03:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Crashman]

Very low do to the MX.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[noko]

Come on those are great scores for a MX, that score is almost as fast as a GF2 in 3dMark2001. Anyways beats my MX400 hands down in both benchmarks.

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>

 

[Guest]

yeah, I know they can't compete with a better video card but for a MX thats great.

 

[Crashman]

They sqaurely match my scores for a Radeon LE with a Celeron 850!
They are about 20% lower than my generic motherboard PIII 700@933 w/128MB Ram and GTS 32MB!

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[Pettytheft]

That is a very fast score for the MX. What is your setup? I can only crack 2949 with a GeForce2 Pro on a Duron 750@900. So give me the drivers, OS, settings and such. Were you running the default 3dmark 2k1 settings as well?

Blah, Blah Blahh, Blahh, blahh blah blahh, blah blah.

 

[noko]

Download this OpenGL benchmark tester/demo, it is very cool:

<A HREF="http://www.glexcess.com/" target="_new">http://www.glexcess.com/</A>

GL Excess version 1.1 you can enable sounds by copying version 1.0 data.pak1 to version 1.1. It has instructions in how to do that. Just cut and paste results from the browser after the tests, make sure you select all the tests.

Here is my results in 1024x768x32 windows 2k v sync disabled on my MX400/800mhz Athlon

XSMarks - 2397

Scene 1 to 12 from left to right

32bpp
6/9/2001
MIN 38 48 55 14 30 50 29 42 25 16 33 39
AVG 53 64 80 23 52 70 50 58 35 25 46 36
MAX 63 84 101 84 132 84 69 71 42 56 63 52

SUMMARIES 1254 2000 1192 1735

Radeon in W2K 3118beta drivers, overclocked to 195/195, T-Bird 1.2@1.4ghz

3137 - XSMARKS Scene 1-12
1024x768
32bpp
6/11/2001

MIN 50 74 58 25 46 66 40 63 42 25 42 52
AVG 69 93 68 38 75 79 64 66 54 39 46 49
MAX 83 112 92 91 154 83 83 67 70 72 65 71
SUMMARIES 2217 2604 1735 3995



Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>

 

[Guest]

Tbird 650 @ 844, MX was at 200/240 but those scores shouldn't be taken seriously. I have decided to go for 0 or near 0 tollerence for artifacts, I'll bench again and see what I come up with. Win2k so those scores are a bit lower then they should be and everything was default.

Oh, and I can't get 64mb agp textures to work right now either. I updated my 3dmark scores at the top, 0% artifacts.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 06/20/01 10:50 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

holy, that is the coolest bench I've ever seen. My MX did quite well I think...

2785 - XSMARKS Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 4 Scene 5 Scene 6 Scene 7 Scene 8 Scene 9 Scene 10 Scene 11 Scene 12
1024x768
32bpp
6/21/2001
00:03 MIN 42 57 62 19 34 55 32 47 29 19 39 45
AVG 60 76 93 27 60 77 53 62 38 29 54 42
MAX 72 100 125 87 143 91 86 76 47 58 80 59
SUMMARIES 1896 3052 1360 3220

 

[noko]

That is a very good score you got there. Did you activate the sound in GLexcess? and run the Demo? Just download the 1.0 version (<b>glxslsnd.exe</b>) and use WinZip to extract one file, <b>data.pk1</b> which will be a file size of 10,279,311 bytes, copy that over your version 1.1 data.pk1 (1,643,103 bytes) and you will have sound and music. Pretty good guitar playing I might add with sound effects for all the demos. Is that the default speed of the MX or overclocked?

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>

 

[Guest]

I just finished watching the demo with music and sfx, really sweet work he's done with that. Those are 215/205.

 

[Guest]

I am surprized how well it is running in games. I new the faster ram would help but I didn't know it would help that much.. and it flys in max. Weird, games don't like the gpu over 215core but max can run at somewhere around 230core.

 

[HighCv2]

Hmm, I my GeForce 2 mx @ 200/185 scores 267x on 3d2k1 and 5600 even on 3d2k .

"He who laughs last doesn't get the joke"

 

[noko]

What is your system specs? Mine does 4436 in 3dMark2000 and 2239 in 3dMark2001, W2K, 800mhz Athlon.

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>

 

[Guest]

Noko - "What is your system specs? Mine does 4436 in 3dMark2000 and 2239 in 3dMark2001, W2K, 800mhz Athlon."

What graphics card do you have? A radeon like your sig?

I get 3250 in 3dmark2001 with:
Win2k
a7v133
850@952 Thunberbird
215/400 (yes 400 memory) on an MSI 815 GF2 GTS w/ ramsinks and dual 80mm blowholes over the card.

If I leave it running at 400 memory clock for more than 5 minutes, it messes up though.

My other (stable) score is 2900 with:
Win2k
a7v133
850@910 Thunderbird
210/365 MSI 815 GF2 GTS



Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.
-Einstein

 

[Sihs]

Do these scores match your LE with or without overclocking? I suppose from Anandtech's review that the LE should perform better than MX at default clock.

Sh!t Happens.

 

[noko]

I have a MX400 paired up with an Abit KA7 mobo, Classic 700@800mhz, 256mb of ram. Also have a Radeon 64 VIVO Retail joined with an IWILL KK266, 1200@1400mhz T-Bird, 266 FSB, 512mb of ram. The Radeon gets 3607 when it was overclocked to 195/195 in 3dMark2001 at 1024x768x32.

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 06/21/01 01:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[phsstpok]

The 3DMark2000 score seems a little low while the 3DMark2001 score seems pretty good.

My best scores with a Geforce256 SDR (highly overclocked at up to 150/216) are 5644 and 2431 with default benchmarks.

What's an MX PRO? Is that the same as an MX-400?

Phsstpok
Duron 600 @1007, Abit KT7
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare.shtml?1377235" target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare.shtml?1377235</A>
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?970369" target="_new">http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?970369</A>

 

[Crashman]

The performance of the LE with Hyper Z DISabled and stock clock were about the same as the MX, but when I enabled Hyper Z it did much better, and overclocking it really put it over the top.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[phsstpok]

Is this good for a highly overclocked (150/210) Geforce256 SDR, Duron 600@1007, KT7, FSB 106, Windows 98SE, Detonator 12.40?

(Enter the name of your project here) - GeForce 256/AGP/3DNOW!
3039 - XSMARKS Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 4 Scene 5 Scene 6 Scene 7 Scene 8 Scene 9 Scene 10 Scene 11 Scene 12
1024x768
32bpp
6/21/2001
16:34 MIN 58 54 66 23 44 55 39 50 40 26 54 64
AVG 81 71 95 34 77 71 53 61 54 42 72 60
MAX 100 91 114 146 167 99 71 70 67 81 106 84
SUMMARIES 2594 3150 1864 3033

 

[HighCv2]

System:
Tbird 1.2@1.33
a7v133
256 pc133 ram
Asus Gf2mx (original) V7100 tvout

Ran the benchmark on win98SE though

I get ~4600 on win2k with 12.20 dets, they seem to be the most stable, yet speedy

"He who laughs last doesn't get the joke"

 

[Guest]

madonion says my 2k1 score is 6% above the quadro 2 Pro average and 4% below the Radeon average. It seems with a faster cpu my scores would go up quite a bit.

 

[noko]

Looks good to me, if your card is performing good enough for what you do then I recommend you wait until you really need to upgrade. I really don't think you will see to much difference unless you upgraded to a GF3. Usually if your frame rate is above 30 FPS then it is smooth game play (as long as you don't have significant low points) and having anything over 60FPS would be virtually undistinguishable. So what then becomes important is the quality of the 3d. FSAA or high resolution capability, anistropic filtering, color etc..

Well to eat your <b>C kie</b> and have it too, gotta get <b>Rade n II</b>

 

[Guest]

yeah, that is why I was originally going to get a radeon instead for the better quality but found out that the geforce is better in max. I'm not that impressed with fsaa. I thought it would have a larger effect than it does, even at 4x it isn't much.
This one will just be a nice increase from the tnt2 I had untill we see what the radeon 2 has to offer.

 

[Guest]

well, turns out it was having the gpu too high was giving me the artifacts and the mem can go way higher than I thought. These scores are at 215 core and 250 mem (100%, no artifacts at all, at 260mhz artifact tester finds 6 but games get more than that at 255+).

Here's my fav benchmarker, GLXS:
3146 - XSMARKS Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3 Scene 4 Scene 5 Scene 6 Scene 7 Scene 8 Scene 9 Scene 10 Scene 11 Scene 12
1024x768
32bpp
6/22/2001
03:04 MIN 52 56 75 23 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AVG 75 76 111 35 74 Abort Abort Abort Abort Abort Abort Abort
MAX 90 100 143 98 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
SUMMARIES 2385 3674 1696 3220

crazy...