Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3D Mark2001SE

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Font
  • 3D
  • Computer
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 10, 2002 7:53:54 AM

I ran a test on my computer yesterday and the result I achieved made me puke (almost).
I got around 3600 points in 640x480 with a XP1600, 256Mb RAM, Epox Kha+ and a Gforce2Mx card.

Yes, yes...I know it´s a stinky card but I am in doubt about the result anyway...should it really be this poor!?

<font color=red>...</font color=red><font color=blue>STOP EVERYTHING</font color=blue><font color=red>...</font color=red>

More about : mark2001se

April 10, 2002 9:19:57 AM

yep.. that's actually a pretty good score for a GF2 Mx. i would expect it to score at the low end of 3000's or even lower
April 10, 2002 10:42:21 AM

Well, it would probably be around 3000 without OCing.
Before I overclocked it, it used to be 175 & 165 (Not too sure here), well...now I run it at 190 & 190.


<font color=red>...</font color=red><font color=blue>STOP EVERYTHING</font color=blue><font color=red>...</font color=red>
Related resources
April 10, 2002 1:23:29 PM

That's actually pretty darn good. I used to only get around 2900 on my GF2MX400 (non-OCed) with an XP1700.



"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 1:27:47 PM

2900? That´s kind of odd me thinks...
I assume you tested it in 640x480, right?

When I ran the test in 1024x768 I got around 1600 points.


<font color=red>...</font color=red><font color=blue>STOP EVERYTHING</font color=blue><font color=red>...</font color=red>
April 10, 2002 1:34:15 PM

Of course, my scores were at 1024x768. So 3600 is probably right on for your resolution.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 3:16:15 PM

You MUST run your 3dmark tests at default settings in order for it to have any meaningfullness at all. If you fiddle with the settings or make them lower your score will be artificially inflated. default is 1024x768 32bit i believe.

"OOOOO Shiny things. I can make powerful equipment with shiny things!" - The imp Butler from BGII
April 10, 2002 3:32:42 PM

I use to get close to <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2775289" target="_new">5600</A> whit my old Asus MX 32Mb card on a XP1700 whit 512 DDR.It was overclocked to 190/190 btw.



The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 


edit note:revised the score to make phsstpok happy...are you??<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by varlo on 04/10/02 10:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 10, 2002 3:35:01 PM

6000? C'mon, how is that possible?.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 3:38:06 PM

Well look at the link,it's hard to lie whit the proof...



The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 
April 10, 2002 4:01:14 PM

Yes, I see the link, I want to know how it was possible for him to do it. That's around double the "normal" score for that card. Very impressive.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 4:22:05 PM

Once again, non default settings tests have no bearing on reality, and no basis for being compared to other setups or cards. This test was set to maximize scores as evidenced by the settings, at default settings his score would come out far lower.

"OOOOO Shiny things. I can make powerful equipment with shiny things!" - The imp Butler from BGII
April 10, 2002 4:40:05 PM

The original post was saying that he ran it at 640 settings,if he wanted to see a 1024 setings then my score drop to <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2775221" target="_new">3400</A>,as i said before the only thing on this system that is not at default is the vid card,it was overclocked at 190/190 and that is it.


The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 

edit note: added the link and revised the score<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by varlo on 04/10/02 12:44 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 10, 2002 4:43:34 PM

Well, that's still a very nice score for that card.

:-D

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 4:49:28 PM

BTw,while in the 3dmark2k1 scores i score <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2988880" target="_new">8500</A> whit my 8500,no overclocking at all...still the same pross,I'm waiting for the T'bred for my next upgrade...


The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 
April 10, 2002 5:11:35 PM

Nice score. I'm getting about 7900 with my new R8500, but that's with everything on the PC running. I haven't tried shutting-down unnecessary background apps, etc. yet.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks."
April 10, 2002 5:38:33 PM

5595 isn't that close to 6000, its still a nice score for that card though. <A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3215682" target="_new">I do pretty well with my Geforce 4.</A> although strangely I see people with over 11000 claiming stock Ti4400s.
I plan on reinstalling windows soon since I haven't done so in over 4 months, I'm sure theres plenty of new drivers to boost my performance a tad (Via AGP and 4in1s)

If my response is brief and vague its because the info you provided is too!
April 10, 2002 8:25:31 PM

Huh! 5595 is not 6000 and it's 640x480, 16-bit, anyway. Why don't you post results with the default benchmark. That's 1024x768, 32-bit.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 10, 2002 8:50:00 PM

Jake75, when benchmark scores are way off of where they should be (50% or lower) the first thing to suspect is that the AGP driver hasn't been loaded.

If that Kha+ mobo is really the EP-8KHA+ you need the Via 4-in-1 drivers or the AGP driver. You can get both at the link below. The latest 4-in-1 driver is 4.38(2)v(a). The latest AGP driver available is 4.05c, although 4.10b is part of the 4.38 4-in-1 drivers.

<A HREF="http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=2" target="_new">http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=2&lt;/A>

To avoid a corrupt installation of the 4-in-1's, rather than just installing on top of an old version, I recommend using the uninstall option. (You'll see it when you run the installer). After uninstalling old drivers <b>don't reboot</b> when prompted but rather run the installer a second time. This time let it install all the components. Don't forget to select "Turbo Mode" for the AGP driver.

This method seem unnessary but after running into the following problems I always do it when updating the 4-in-1's. The problems mentioned include 3D games crashing at random times, blank display with just a blinking cursor, nVidia card stuck in 640x480x16-bit mode (this mostly happens when updating nVidia drivers, cured by reinstalling 4-in-1's first and then the nVidia drivers), and other problems.

The clean install, as described above, can also sometimes fix spontaneous reboots when starting 3D games or 3D games immediately freezing. However both of these symptoms can also be, and most commonly are, caused by inadequate power supplies.

The above fixes are for Via chisets only, except the tip of suspecting the AGP driver, which applies to all chipsets.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 04/10/02 04:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 10, 2002 10:00:55 PM

Quote:
Why don't you post results with the default benchmark.

Why don't you read ALL the post I did in this threath.

The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 
April 11, 2002 1:58:41 AM

Whoah, these scores sound kinda low. I have a PIII 600E with 256MB PC100 SDRAM and a GF2MX and I can get about 2000 on default settings, no ocing. Could be a fluke.....
April 11, 2002 2:42:45 AM

Nice scores you got there frend!!!
And those that get these 11k scores run the minimal config possible,usualy with W98se and don't use any PCI slots exept maby for the modem/nick card...whitch i must add dint do!!
BTY the lastest Via 4in1s gives a little boost as well.


The faster a computer is, the faster it will reach a crashed state :eek: 
April 11, 2002 7:00:59 AM

I admit I don´t have the latest 4 in 1´s, so hopefully the low performance problem will be solved with fresh ones.

And, I assume the MX isn´t such a good card anyway, I will put it into my old P2-266 as soon as I can get hold of a new card for my current system.

Thanks for the installation advice anyway!

<font color=red>...</font color=red><font color=blue>STOP EVERYTHING</font color=blue><font color=red>...</font color=red>
April 12, 2002 6:38:54 AM

I installed the latest drivers, it didn´t get any better...it actually lowered my score by 50 points.

All I have to do now is to wait for a Geforce3 to drop down from heaven (not likely, but it might happen) or buy one when it´s payday (more likely).

<font color=blue>Be yourself, do whatever <font color=red>you</font color=red> like</font color=blue>
April 13, 2002 12:31:54 AM

well he got 5600 by lowering the test to 640x480x16bit color, and lowering the z-buffer to 16bit instead of 24.

AOL-For people who like to pay extra for their SPAM
April 13, 2002 1:46:54 AM

This is puzzling. You should be getting much better scores than 1600 (at 1024x768). Do you have an MX-200 by any chance? That would explain the low score.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
April 13, 2002 3:14:21 AM

I am using XP 1800 + and GF2MX at 205/205. I have got 33xx marks with the default setting in 3D Mark 2001.
If I not o/c it, it get 27xx marks.
Both results are tested under WinME and 28.32 driver.
April 13, 2002 3:26:37 AM

Thanks, ccs. That's in-line with what I would expect for Jake75 even though he has an XP1600+ vs your XP1800+.

Even with my old Geforce256 SDR (highly overclocked) and a Duron @ 1007mhz I was getting 2700. Surely, his Geforce2 MX should do better than 1600 (unless it's an MX-200).

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 13, 2002 6:40:16 PM

Hey on the note of 3D Mark2K1 SE, i was wondering if anyone else here is having my problem. When I run the test (P4 1.4 Socket423[that makes me mad] 256MB RDRAM, 40gig Maxtor HD, and Radeon AIW [6058 drivers]) the first game thing (car chase low detail) i get pitiful frame rates like 5-10FPS and compared to on high detail i can get like 15-20FPS. I was wondering if this is just with my system. Also I seem to have noticed that like all ATi cards have horrible point sprites. My PIII600E with a GF2 MX can get about 4M and my AIW can only get ~.5M. Is this just a failing of Radeon cards or is it something else? Also these sprites, when and where are they used? Thanks
April 13, 2002 7:12:39 PM

with 200/200 oc on a 32mb card neither 400 or 200, in the middle. i managed over 3500. I believe that is a good score. Well if it is no let me know. lol. Her is the url
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3217615.
Default settings otherwise tooo
xp1900
256mb ddr ram
prophet 2mx
ecs k7s5a
pr
April 13, 2002 8:51:40 PM

Sorry, no answers here but getting lower framerates at low detail than at high detail is bizarre.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 13, 2002 9:02:52 PM

I think it's something to do with either my OS or the texture setting. When I change the setting to either 24bit or 16bit, it runs fine like at ~50FPS and on WinME, I also get ~50FPS. Just kinda weird.....
April 15, 2002 6:32:15 AM

If I have a Mx-200?
Yep, that´s the one.

So, you´re saying that it is a acceptable score for that card then?
Man, and I thought I bought a decent card...well, Geforce3 next for me.

<font color=blue>Be yourself, do whatever <font color=red>you</font color=red> like</font color=blue>
April 16, 2002 1:15:44 AM

Hard to say what is a typical score. The best scores at Madonion are always overclocked cards. For MX100/MX200s I see one score around 3000, about a half dozen between 2100 and 3000, and then a bunch around 2000. 1600 probably isn't far off of typical.

A Geforce3 would be considerably better but they are still expensive.

The soon-to-be available Geforce4 TI4200 might be a good choice if the street price is low enough. (I'm hoping to see it under $150 but that's probably being optimistic).

The ATI Radeon 8500 is also a good choice for the money which is about $150 online.


<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 16, 2002 8:13:34 AM

Either I go for a Geforce3Ti200 or wait a little longer for a Geforce4 Ti4200.
Problem is, I live in Sweden and it will probably take a little longer before the Ti4200 arrives here.

I´m not sure if I can wait that long, I really want to get rid of that Mx200 asap you know!

<font color=blue>Be yourself, do whatever <font color=red>you</font color=red> like</font color=blue> (Not on my expense though)
April 16, 2002 6:58:10 PM

I don't know about release dates in Sweden.

At least you can get STCC2. I love the demo but I can't find the game here in the USA. STCC2 has realistic car handling which is why I like it but it also has very dated graphics).

As for the Geforce3 Ti200, I have mixed feelings about that card. It's a little slower in raw performance than a Geforce2 TI but does have per pixel shading. I think the Geforce3 Ti200 is only mediocre when LOD is turned all the way up. FSAA is much better but still kills performance. I think it's the slow memory that handicaps the Geforce3 TI200. This is cured by overclocking.

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
April 17, 2002 10:42:06 AM

STCC2, maybe something to look into?
I´m on the lookout for a good car game, ColinMcRae2 was a wonderful game but I am tired of it now.

Maybe I should go for a Geforce3Ti500 instead of the Ti200?
I do have the cash, it´s just that I don´t feel like "wasting" that much on a card for the computer.

Well, I think I will go for a Ti200 in the end anyway, as long it is better than the Mx I´m a happy man.


<font color=blue>Be yourself, do whatever <font color=red>you</font color=red> like</font color=blue> (Not at my expense though)
April 17, 2002 5:06:29 PM

Quote:
I think I will go for a Ti200 in the end anyway, as long it is better than the Mx I´m a happy man.

No doubt about the Gforce3 Ti200 vs Geforce2 MX-200. Even a Geforce2 GTS would more than double your performance.



<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
!