dcsimg
Page 8 of 82 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 58 ... LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 1230

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

  1. #106
    Ultimate Member omega31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    So. Cal. USA
    Posts
    2,380
    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=284903
    847
    Woohoo.

    ECS K7S5A
    Athlon XP 1600+
    512mb PC2100
    geforce3 ti200 64mb
    All stock speed.

  2. #107
    Ultimate Member Rugor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Pacific Northwest, Earth
    Posts
    2,694
    Ok there are a couple of reasons for the low scores, especially with Nvidia cards.

    First, most people do have less than 128mb of graphics memory regardless of what card they're using.

    The other one, which really hurts Nvidia users is the way 3DMark03 uses Pixel shaders.

    There are currently 4 main revisions of Pixel Shaders: v1.1 (the original DX 8.0 spec), v1.3 (DX 8.1 and used by most Nvidia cards) v1.4 (DX8.1+ and used by ATI DX8 class cards), and v2.0 (DX 9 Spec, only used by R300 based cards at the moment.) The GfFX does use at least v2.0 Pixel shaders, but there aren't any for sale at the moment.

    3DMark03's DX8 and lower tests provide two main code paths, one for Pixel Shader v1.1, and one for Pixel Shader v1.4. The PS v1.1 path requires multiple passes in many cases where the PS 1.4 path can achieve the result in a single pass. Nvidia cards using PS 1.3 in hardware default to the slower PS 1.1 code path. It wouldn't matter with DX 9 cards because PS 1.4 is a fully supported subset of PS 2.0 which DX 9 requires. But you can't buy an Nvidia DX 9 card yet.

    It's funny, but it reflects the way things have been for the last few years. ATI's technology has been more advanced, but Nvidias has had better driver support and more raw speed. The original Radeon was a more advanced card than the Gf2, but was usually outperformed. 3DMark03's one of the first benchmarks that takes advantage of ATI's technical edge rather than Nvidia's raw speed.

    It will be very interesting when Nvidia starts releasing real DX 9 cards. (By real I mean ones you can actually buy.)
    "Dude you're getting a Dell." Obscure curse from the early 21st Century, ascribed to a minor demon-spirit known as "Stephen?" [sp].

  3. #108
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    salisbury,md,USA!!
    Posts
    46
    has anyone looked at the guy who has the second highest top score its not a an ati at all its a old nvidia ti card and the dude himself admits he has no clue how hes done it. i even went back to the same drivers as him to see if i could repeat it i got my best scores but not nearly what he got i think this benchmark is flawed in its design struture

  4. #109
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    its a hacked score if he has no explanation of the score then its fake
    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. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    Originally posted by XtReAmTwEaKist
    its a hacked score if he has no explanation of the score then its fake
    yup, ur right. its either hacked thru xml editing or hes just lying. NO, i repeat, NO 64mb card will get above 2000...period.

  6. #111
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    what WTF are you talking about not even above 1000 lol GF cards are ****ty for this benchmark dont even bother if your card doesnt support PS1.4 my card barly makes it and ITS STILl ****TY the card comes up as a 64mb card not a 128 **** card does anyone know how to fix that prob!
    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

  7. #112
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    no! WTF are YOU TALKING ABOUT! i got 1401 with gf4ti!

  8. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    melb Australia
    Posts
    122
    I got 4100 on a radeon 9500 pro (bios hack and overclocked 330/317)

    on a xp2100@ 2.26ghz (2800+)
    soltek sl75drv5 (kt333)
    512 kingmaxx pc2700

  9. #114
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    wow i rest my case......still i havea ****ty radeon 9000pro does anyone know how to fix the memory display error plus it degrades performance in 3dmark03
    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

  10. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    haha extremists. its true that futuremarke has f**ked up big time here. i think your display error could be due to directX(u have to have dx9 installed!!) or OS based. why did u get a 9000 pro instead of a 9700! haha...budget?

  11. #116
    Member XtReAmTwEaKist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    408
    you got that right even though noe i could've gotten a 9500 today if i could've waited **** sales cause i bought the card offline for 169 with shipping included VIA nextday air so yea im bummin
    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

  12. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Teletubby Land
    Posts
    45
    lol

  13. #118
    Member ziroi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    89
    Well, my computer is too old too even run 3d2003. I guess I'll download 2001 and post my score. Just in case you are interested, it probably would have been around 600-700 if it could even benchmark for me:

    AMD Athlon 1.3 Ghz (underclocked at 1000 Mhz, yes you heard me right, underclocked)
    MSI K7T266 Pro2 Mobo 266 Mhz FSB
    Ati All-In-Wonder 128 - 32 MB
    Sound blaster 128 pci
    80 Gig WD Harddrive
    256 MB PC2100 DDR on a stick
    350 Watt PSU w/2 case fans and a not so powerful cpu fan (hence I run my processor at 1000 Mhz, because it runs a bit too warm for me at default speed)
    Windows XP Pro
    My computer is old, but it runs great!

  14. #119
    Member ziroi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    89
    What the heck! I download 2001SE and it says I need Direct X 8.1 and for me to try again! I have Direct X 9!! Oh well, guess I'll go get sandra software now...
    My computer is old, but it runs great!

  15. #120
    Senior Member strat1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Boston Mass hole
    Posts
    549
    I expected more from my new Radeon 9500 Pro, but the games are SO fast - love the new card!
    Both Scores are Stock and the average of 3 tests each.

    XP 2000 @ 1.67
    MSI KT3
    Radeon 9500 Pro
    2 Maxtor 40 gig 7200 rpm Raid 0+2
    512 Crucial DDR2700
    Antec 400 smart power
    SB live MP3+


    3D MARK03 2390
    3D Mark01 11980

Posting Permissions

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