I tried the 4.10's and lost 200 points.:eek:
Printable View
I tried the 4.10's and lost 200 points.:eek:
The 4.10s are supposed to be the "magic bullet" for the x800s. if you're not using an x800, then that's probably why you saw a drop in score.
i wonder if is built on the "doom 3 " engine where you can"t get 10000 ?????
i none of us can get 10000 for now!!
what do you mean?Quote:
Originally posted by cheeseman
i wonder if is built on the "doom 3 " engine where you can"t get 10000 ?????
i think, that they wanted to maske a benchmark for the next generation of gpus. like they already did in 3dmark03.
i think, that it will take at least 3 years until games come out, which have similar framrates on x800/6800 cards.
i did it last night...don't remember exactly...it was in the 2500 range.
p4 2.4 ghz 533 FSB
asus p4pe board
1 GB pc2700
9800 pro
everything stock. i don't get this benchmark at all...i was looking to upgrade to a 64 bit 3200 pc3200...only costs like 340 bucks to do so now...but i don't see that much of an increase in some of your guys rigs. perhaps i should just wait some more...
Is it just me , or is 3D Mark 2005 a little on the boring side......:confused:
I just don't like how you can't get any of the additional tests like you have in '03 and '01, you only get the video and cpu tests now for the free version.
The 3dMark series is mostly a GPU benchark. Other components do make a difference, but the video card is 90% of the score. If you look at other more CPU intensive benchmarks you will see a much higher performance from the higher end AMD chips.Quote:
i don't get this benchmark at all...i was looking to upgrade to a 64 bit 3200 pc3200...only costs like 340 bucks to do so now...but i don't see that much of an increase in some of your guys rigs. perhaps i should just wait some more...
I only run the video tests because, as Magua stated, it is mainly a GPU test.
Has anyone tried comparing the original 3dmark05 to the 1.1.0 patched version?
Original 3dmark05: 2500
Patched 3dmark05: 2505
Not too much of a difference for me.
2487
xp2500m@ 12x200
2x512MB crucial pc2700@200mhz
9800pro@stock
I was a bit gutted at first but reading the rest of the posts here its not too bad. :D
yeah, seems like lower scores are usual. i wasnt really into benchmarking when 3dmark 03 came out, so i dont know what peoples original scores were, but i figure that manufacturers, mainly gpu manufacturers will use this as a mark for themselves, and within a year or so there will be a gpu capable of getting the 20k+ scores:cool:
Hi all, look out newbie on the block :t
Scored 1177 with...
AMD 2600+
ASUS A7N8X
768Mb Ram soz not sure of frequency
9700Pro
I think it's fair to say my system got a good beatin by this monster of a test. Max frame rate i saw was 13, lowest during cpu tests bottomed out at 0 :(
I did have a few extra system processes running which i'm sure if i turned them off would have made a world of difference :rolleyes:
It was nice to see the 9700 can still "run" (maybe "slow stroll" would be more appropriate) this type of thing given it's age though
i got a surprisingly high score....as a matter of fact im number 2!!! always 2 never one i will OC with beast and get a 4000 out of it though.
system spec : -
2.8 Ghz C 800 fsb running at 2.8 Ghz
1024 MB of RAM (Generic)
X800 pro not OCed
and i gotta 3700 that is a pretty good score i would think, but i wont worry yoshi will come soon and beat us all to a pulp lol. the benckmark was a very interesting slide show at the CPU tests though lol.