Scored too low with a XP 1800+

[Petter156]

I recently upgraded to a Athlon XP 1800+ from a PIII 500 mhz.
I also swithed to 266 mhz DDR memory, as opposed to my erlier 320 MBs of standard 133 mhz SDRAM. My graphics card is the Riva TNT2 model 64.

I ran 3D Mark 2001SE awaiting a positiv surprise. But no, my score had only increased from 590(old hardware) to 603(brand new hardware). After upgrading the driver from the bundled one to the newest Detonator XP driver i got the score up to 675. Both benchmarks were ran under a resolution of 1024x768 with 32 bit colors.

So tell me, is my score too low? According to madonion.com, a person with the same hardware got over 1000 points! I have the newest drivers and DirectX 8.1. What could be causing this subnormal amount of 3D Mark-points?
Any comments and replies will be much appreciated. Thank you.

 

[baldurga]

Well, do you have the same AGP size and multiplier (x1, x2 or x4)? Fast writes enable? Also, make sure you have Vsync disable in Directx AND OpenGL.

And finally, you graphic card is not on par with your new computer. You have a very serious bottleneck with the TNT2. What's more, your benchmark has going up mainly because some bench of 3DMark are GPU AND CPU dependant. Do you really notice a big difference in games?

If you play regularly, at least try to buy a GF3, or better a GF4 Ti 4200 if you budged allows you.


DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!

 

[cakecake]

"...with 32 bit colors."

I suspect this to be the problem, although I cannot know for sure as my last experience with TNT2's was so long ago. The TNT2 you have was built for 16 bit and not so much 32 bit.

Another thing, make sure madonion.com is registering your video card correctly. The TNT2 is such an old card it might not be able to tell. Those scores actually look pretty reasonable to me, and 600 is pretty darn good for a TNT2 M64. The M64, as I remember it, has an incredibly low memory clock, which makes it much worse than the regular TNT 2.

Keep in mind that if 3dmark correctly reflected true Direct3D performance that your scores would always be a little bit higher. Direct 3D games for the most part tend to be affected a little more by processor speed than graphics card speed, not entirely, but a bit more compared to opengl games. And since you have a fast processor this should help.

Finally, 3dmark 2001se tests directx 8 support. Your chip was made back when directx 5 (I think this was the version at the time) was out. Since then there have been quite substantial changes. So, your score really seems quite good actually.

This little cathode light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine!

 

[chuck232]

The M64, as I remember it, has an incredibly low memory clock, which makes it much worse than the regular TNT 2.

Nope, pretty sure it was just cause it has 64bit SDR RAM and the original TNT2 has 128bit.

Keep in mind that if 3dmark correctly reflected true Direct3D performance that your scores would always be a little bit higher. Direct 3D games for the most part tend to be affected a little more by processor speed than graphics card speed, not entirely, but a bit more compared to opengl games. And since you have a fast processor this should help.

You could try to get a D3D benchmarker. As for OpenGL benchmarks, I use GLExess.

What's the deal with lampshades, I mean it's a lamp, why would you want a shade?

 

[Petter156]

The driver doesn´t let me disable Vertical sync, acts like it´s opening a pull-down window but it doesn´t show properly. Oh well. My mainboard manual says only to enable fast write if the graphics card supports it. Does the TNT2 M64 support fast-write? Could it be damaged if I enable it anyway?
Still seems weird that a person with the same system gets a so much higher score. I compared the results with madonion´s result-browser.

 

[10GHZ]

603 is pretty much the full strength of the TNT2 m64. the card is 4 generations old, even though your cpu is working at its fastest, the graphics card is letting the whole system performance down, keep in mind, most game these days relies havily upon the graphics card, NOT the cpu, althought the cpu also play a major part, but MOST of the processing is done at the graphics card side. it's time 2 upgrade your video card.

 

[Ghostdog]

You´re right. I´m getting a Radeon 8500 by the end of the summer (don´t use the computer all that much during the summer holiday).

The funny thing is i juggled with the decission of buiyng either a R8500 or a processor, MB and memory. The dynamic three won.
You might be asking why I don´t wait for the next generation from NVidia, ATI and maybe even 3D Labs? By the time those cards are out my graphics card will be even older and the new generation will probably cost too much for my pockets. And I´ve been playing this long with the TNT2 m64, I´ll have to manage.
Sooner or later everyone has to upgrade if they wan´t to keep playing new games.

 

[10GHZ]

ye... but do wait for the R300 and NV30 to be released, by then, the R8500 and GF4 will be much cheaper. so you save $$$

 

[Ghostdog]

Are there any release-dates for the cards? Even rumoured ones? Waiting for them would be the sensible thing to do, it depends on if I can afford the cards when they relese. And if I can wait that long.

 

[chuck232]

OK... RV250: July 17th
R300: September
NV30:Q402-Q103.

It seems like NV30 may be quite late. It just taped out recently, while R300 taped out more than 3 months ago, or so it's rumoured. I've got some juicy stuff on RV250. Pop over to the ATi R8500 MAXX thread.

Falling down stairs saves time