POST YOUR 3DMARK 2003 SCORES HERE!!!! - Page 4
Page 4 of 82 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1230

Thread: POST YOUR 3DMARK 2003 SCORES HERE!!!!

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    122
    and why is mother nature not supported on my machine??
    It's becuase your G4 4600 is only a DirectX 8 card, and mother nature is a DirectX 9 bench.

  2. #47
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    I'm on dialup, and decided to cancel it. My area doesn't get any type of broadband until the end of this month. The d/l slowed to 3KB/s after time, and then it dropped to 0.2 and kept timing out. A friend with DSL is going to burn a copy for me

  3. #48
    Ultimate Member x51out's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Tucson AZ, 22 Dec. 2012
    Posts
    1,434
    Yeah, don't worry too much, CausticVapor. The free-version of this benchmark is really just a teaser in a way. It doesn't tell me anything, nor will it tell much to anybody else. In other words: the free-version is worthless, IMO. Oh, and by the way, I score on a totally non-overclocked system (det. 42.86): 1407... wtf does it mean?? Nobody knows.

  4. #49
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...910707,00.html

    The article i was refferign to earlier

    --Jakk

  5. #50
    Ultimate Member AllGamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Posts
    16,305
    LOL

    this is specially funny, from your link

    On a related note, Nvidia has contacted us to say that it doesn't support the use of 3DMark 2003 as a primary benchmark in the evaluation of graphics cards, as the company believes the benchmark doesn't represent how current games are being designed. Specifically, Nvidia contends that the first test is an unrealistically simple scene that's primarily single-textured, that the stencil shadows in the second and third tests are rendered using an inefficient method that's extremely bottlenecked at the vertex engine, and that many of the pixel shaders use specific elements of DX8 that are promoted by ATI but aren't common in current games.
    and then it comes the next paragraph about quitting

    and then we have the prof with the GF-FX

  6. #51
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    Yeah i cant help but think nvidia are trying to prepare an excuse for when all the computer illiterates go out and spend megabucks on the supposedly revolutionary FX and then start whining about poor benches

    --Jakk

  7. #52
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    WOO HOO downloading it here at 300k!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.gamershell.com/filehell/1296.shtml


    Go to filehell #3

  8. #53
    Ultimate Member x51out's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Tucson AZ, 22 Dec. 2012
    Posts
    1,434
    That's where I dl'ed it from also. I'm still disappointed in the free-version. You'll see. I guess you get what you pay for, which for free, means nothing.

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Bradford, NH
    Posts
    216

    WoooHooo

    5117 marks.

    200FSB
    8RDA+

    2X256mb CAS 2 Corsair


    9700pro @ 350/335
    Epox 8RDA+
    XP2100 215fsb SYNC
    Corsair XMS 3200 5-2-2-2 (430mhz)
    BB ATI 9700pro(8X)
    Maxtor diamondmax 7200 40g ATA133

  10. #55
    Ultimate Member x51out's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Tucson AZ, 22 Dec. 2012
    Posts
    1,434
    Taken from an article on OVERCLOCKERS.COM:

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____
    "3DMark2003"
    Ed Stroligo - 2/12/03


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Got the program and ran it with a TBredB running at 13X166 on an A7N8X, Radeon 9700 Pro running stock, got a score of 4586 with default settings. Had no problems whatsoever running the program, which was the purpose of the first run, not to get into a Hall of Fame with it.

    What I visually saw was less than appealing. Three of the four tests bring the Radeon 9700 Pro to its knees at least some of the time. I was seeing framerates of less than 5 fps a few times more than a few times.

    It's probably going to take at least one, maybe two generations of video cards for these tests to run all the way through at 24fps.

    If your video card can't run DirectX 9, it looks like the programs skips the tests that use it and gives you 0 points for it. This helps to give people with GF4s ascores of less than 1500. Run a GF2, and you'll get a couple hundred points.

    These results seem to be leaving most people with that kind of equipment kind of upset, as you can see in this forum thread.

    What Really Is 3DMark These Days?

    Is 3DMark really a benchmark anymore, as it is normally used? Or is it a virtual track for virtual hotrodding? Has the benchmark itself become a game?

    I think that's how the overwhelming majority of people who actually use it perceive it. I don't think they really give a rat's *** whether or not it truly reflects video performance; it's just the playing field for competition.

    Obviously, it can be used as a benchmark, and I don't think it wise to render a snap judgment on whether it's good for that or not.

    But if you view it as a racetrack, one can say right away that it just threw the vast majority of its participants off the track, and isn't too hot a track for those who are left.

    Beware a benchmark whose major effect on most people is, "Your system sucks, ergo, you suck. Buy, buy, buy. More, more, more."

    If your system was perfectly good until you ran the benchmark, don't toss the system. Toss the benchmark.

    Or don't even download and run it to begin with.

    Email Ed
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

    Well, well. Seems I'm not alone after all.

  11. #56
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    First the good news:

    3217 3DMarks, comparatively I ROCK!

    Second the bad news:

    3DMark 03 free version sucks. You have absolutely no ability to do anything but run the benchmark at default settings and submit your results (If their servers are up).

    I think the real reason Nvidia hates it is that it's a DX 9 bench and they don't have any DX 9 cards out yet. Seeing as I've yet to see a GfFX for sale anywhere, it doesn't really exist yet.

    Athlon XP 1800+
    Gigabyte GA-7DX
    256MB PC2100 DDR
    Sapphire Radeon 9500 Pro
    "Dude you're getting a Dell." Obscure curse from the early 21st Century, ascribed to a minor demon-spirit known as "Stephen?" [sp].

  12. #57
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    Man my system sucks


    Only got 168


    I could only run game 1 and the fill rate.

  13. #58
    Senior Member Benssax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    AL,USA
    Posts
    909
    A new high score of 1419 P3 at 1.15ghz and TI4200

  14. #59
    Ultimate Member x51out's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Tucson AZ, 22 Dec. 2012
    Posts
    1,434
    Bizkitkid2001... why don't you read my post above? It is taken from overclockers.com, and it hits the nail on the head.

  15. #60
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    I did read it, but am still complaining

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •