dcsimg
Page 7 of 82 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 17 57 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 1230

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

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    186
    I got 1113 with ATI 8500LE 128 meg AMD 2000+ with 1024 megs of ram. I want a new graphics card!

  2. #92
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Funny how half the ppl don't post links.

  3. #93
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Streetsboro
    Posts
    315
    i try to upload the score to the server and i got an error so i gave up. and i got a new score with my cpu over clock to 2.3ghz. it was 1821
    Asus A7v8x
    Amd XP 2700+
    Kingston 512mb Pc3200
    Asylum Geforce 4 ti4200 128mb ( bentch at 11829 not o/c)
    Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum
    Maxtor 80Gb with 8mb buffer ATA - 133
    Sony DVD-rom 16x
    Samsumg 52x Burner with 8mb cache
    400W PS
    SLK-900u + Panasonic 92mm fan
    and lot of fans
    Windows xp Pro SP1

  4. #94
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    1299 i think my vid card is bottlenecked or something radeon 9000 Pro 128mb http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=229719
    Athlon XP 2100+ @ 2.24 (178X12.5)
    512Mb DDR400 (Corsair)
    80Gb WD 8Mb Cache
    Radeon 9000 Pro 128mb DDR
    MSI KT3 Ultra 2
    SB Live! Value
    Intel NIC
    2 CD-RW 8x4x32 & 2x4x24 (im cheap)

    TwEaKist

  5. #95
    Ultimate Member grimfandango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,669
    boy.. 176mb of downloading!!





    Its goin totake me forva

  6. #96
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Originally posted by causticVapor
    Funny how half the ppl don't post links.

  7. #97
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    Im gonna run it again new processor speed
    Athlon XP 2100+ @ 2.24 (178X12.5)
    512Mb DDR400 (Corsair)
    80Gb WD 8Mb Cache
    Radeon 9000 Pro 128mb DDR
    MSI KT3 Ultra 2
    SB Live! Value
    Intel NIC
    2 CD-RW 8x4x32 & 2x4x24 (im cheap)

    TwEaKist

  8. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    Originally posted by TiGgErDbC
    UMMMM little low dont you guys think for your systems??

    1700xp@ 2.1Ghz air cooled(12.5x166)
    gf4 440mx(given to me i wouldnt buy it)
    256 ram pc2100 (soon i'll get 2700 or even 3200 ram)

    6286
    what the? 6286? more like 686 to be believable. if you had seen the Thread Title its "3dmark 03 scores!!!". u must be using 3dmark 01. anyway i got 1401 for my pc running WinXp(i think sthis OS has hardware benefits) also, all settings are deafault:

    AMD XP 2000+(1.66)@ ~2300+(1.87Ghz)
    Vcore @1.8, FSB 150, Default mulitpiler of 12.5

    Triplex GF4 Ti4200 64mb/3.3ns. Not OC'ed but guess its auto cos the AGP bus is at 75Mhz.

    Kingston PC2700 768MB at 300MHz(150x2)

    Seagate Barracuda4 40GB on Raid 0

    so, to summarise, its 1401 3dmarks with AMD XP 1.87GHz, GF4Ti 4200.

  9. #99
    Ultimate Member Sweeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    lost at the moment
    Posts
    1,746
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=265451
    5110

    P4 2.53Ghz @ 3.0Ghz
    512MB OCZ DDR333 PC2700
    Radeon 9700 Pro

  10. #100
    Senior Member kevrob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    613
    Ti4200= 1503, Ti200= 768
    kevrob1

    Peace Go With You...

  11. #101
    Senior Member kevrob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    613
    Supposedly you can see an increase of anywhere's between 100 and 600 point increases with the 42.68's... I saw a 46 point increase with the Ti 4200...

    Test Results


    Game Tests

    3DMark Score 1549 3DMarks

    GT1 - Wings of Fury 105.2 fps

    GT2 - Battle of Proxycon 9.8 fps

    GT3 - Troll's Lair 8.9 fps

    GT4 - Mother Nature Not Supported



    CPU Tests

    CPU Score 475.0 CPUMarks

    CPU Test 1 49.2 fps

    CPU Test 2 9.1 fps



    Feature Tests

    Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 681.9 MTexels/s

    Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 1789.1 MTexels/s

    Vertex Shader 5.2 fps

    Pixel Shader 2.0 Not Supported

    Ragtroll 5.4 fps



    Sound Tests

    No sounds Not Supported

    24 sounds Not Supported

    60 sounds Not Supported

    P4 @ 2.26GHz
    512Meg Samsung pc2700
    Winfast Ti 4200/128DDR ram 4x/8x @4x
    Win XP Pro SP1
    MSI-GMax Board
    kevrob1

    Peace Go With You...

  12. #102
    Senior Member kevrob1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Fargo, ND
    Posts
    613
    Actually I lied, I saw a 146 point increase with the 42.68's

    Project Manager
    Project Type

    3DMark03PCMark20023DMark2001 Sort by
    Score - descendingScore - ascendingDate - descendingDate - ascendingPublished first Items/page
    51020304050All

    Total 3DMark03 projects: 2
    Project slots available: 3

    Score: 1549

    Date: 2003-02-22
    CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2277 MHz
    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200
    249.8 MHz / 513.0 MHz
    OS: Microsoft Windows XP
    Res: 1024*768@32 bit
    Active

    Published

    Delete

    Dynamic Compare URL

    Score: 1403

    Date: 2003-02-21
    CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2277 MHz
    GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200
    249.8 MHz / 513.0 MHz
    OS: Microsoft Windows XP
    Res: 1024*768@32 bit
    Active

    Published

    Delete

    Dynamic Compare URL

    Time to tweak, buy a Radeon 9700Pro, or get off the pot
    Sorry about the triple posting...
    Last edited by kevrob1; 02-22-2003 at 12:53 PM.
    kevrob1

    Peace Go With You...

  13. #103
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    414
    Well I can only say that 3D mark 2003 was a disappointing download. I know it must be future proof but the last 3d mark programs all had a ceertain style with plenty to look at, even on a card 2 years older (ie even with a geforce 2mx 3d marks 2001 was enjoyable)

    as it is a benchmarking tool I can't moan but it leaves a gap for someone else to bring in some more style into benchmarking, there was nothing quite as cool as seeing those tree's in 3d mark 2001 or the Matrix style game.

    As for the recent demo's theres a pretty cool looking first person doom style game, the flight sim is nothing special. The package feels rushed, maybe they should have left it till the end of the year or included more direct x 8 stuff with it for a more accurate mark as I only feel that with the lack of direct x 8 features current systems are going to be off the mark.

    I can get all sorts of marks from 400-1500 depending on the drivers I use all version 41 or higher nvidia

    System:

    AMD Athlon XP 2000 overclocked at 1.75ghz
    Geforce 4 Ti 4200 core@300 ram@580
    MSI KT3 Ultra Mobo
    512mb PC2100 ram

  14. #104
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    salisbury,md,USA!!
    Posts
    46
    i can atest to the new 42.86 beta drivers they rose my score from my previous post of 1467 to 1567 not overclocked at all so obviously these new nvidia drivers will help us all out a bit

  15. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    There's a serious flaw with this benchmark, guys. If you read the manual, a recommended card would have 129mb of ram. i can safeley say that 75% of us use GeForce cards, be it Mx, Ti or even TNT. Futhermore, nVidia cards with 128mb on-board memory are only a handful, that only high-end users can afford.

    If you look closely, the ATi 9700s get at least 4000-5000 while some GF3 Ti are getting sub 1000. For those users who have less than 128mb on ther vid card,the bmark compensates by using local memory! What the...

    Madonion has really screwed up on this one! in 3dmark 2001, you would be getting at least 70-120 fps per game(normal res, low detail) +/- 2. What then , is the spreading spectrum if you were getting 4-5fps on a 3dmark 03 bmark? +/- 0.1?

    Its really very iaccurate if you ask me. 3dmark2001se is still my preferred bmark choice

Posting Permissions

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