1781 all stock wow now i want to get rid off my g4ti4200 and get the gf fx
Printable View
1781 all stock wow now i want to get rid off my g4ti4200 and get the gf fx
g4 ti4800 and i get a frickin 1467 i know i need more ram in my computer and its only a 1.4 ghz but comon i was averageing like 10 fps in everything but the first test o the frustration:confused:
g4 ti4800 and i get a frickin 1467 i know i need more ram in my computer and its only a 1.4 ghz but comon i was averageing like 10 fps in everything but the first test o the frustration:confused:
Clearly FutureOnion want's this benchmark to last. Our egos are taking body blows since our tricked out game machines can only manage 4 sig figs in 2k3, where as in 2k1 we were in the 11000+ range. 2k3 benchs where games are (theoretically) headed and thus gives you a guesstimate of how well your current hardware will perform in cutting edge games of 2007.
Nvidia is pissy because the PS1.4 deal is comming back to bite them in the ****. Eh, screw it. It's just a bench mark. John Holmes has us all beat, so who really cares anyway. :D :rolleyes:
John Holmes??? Didn't he die in like 1988?
Quote:
Originally posted by civic91dx
1781 all stock wow now i want to get rid off my g4ti4200 and get the gf fx
90% chance there wont be a GFX!
Read my post in vido card section.
:(
Wow, I kicked your guy's asses. 1748, thank you very much!!!
Ahh, that score sucks. I've got crazy hardware too.
-P4 2.53 ghz
-512mb PC-1066
-GF4 ti4600
-AND a Klipsch Promedia 5.1, great system. Go buy it.
Quoted by Kaiser_235:
Yeah, as soon as my dog starts farting $100 bills... hmmm, let's see... wow. only FOUR FARTS! I can handle that.Quote:
-AND a Klipsch Promedia 5.1, great system. Go buy it.
3dMark 2003 4909.
3dMark2001SE 14257
AMD 2400XP
1 gig ddr ram (running dual 512)
Asus A7N8X deluxe mobo
Radeon 9700 pro
All running stock, no overclocking or memory tweaks.
now slight vid card oc
will try more aggressive ram/cpu timings to see what happens.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=265021
new score was 1100 something but got a new proc.... where'd i put my Radeon 9700
I got 1113 with ATI 8500LE 128 meg AMD 2000+ with 1024 megs of ram. I want a new graphics card!
Funny how half the ppl don't post links. :p
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
1299 i think my vid card is bottlenecked or something radeon 9000 Pro 128mb http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=229719
boy.. 176mb of downloading!!
)-|
:(
Its goin totake me forva
:rolleyes: :rQuote:
Originally posted by causticVapor
Funny how half the ppl don't post links. :p
Im gonna run it again new processor speed :D :t
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:Quote:
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
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.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=265451
5110
P4 2.53Ghz @ 3.0Ghz
512MB OCZ DDR333 PC2700
Radeon 9700 Pro
Ti4200= 1503, Ti200= 768:eek:
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
:(
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:rolleyes:
Sorry about the triple posting...
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
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
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
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=284903
847
Woohoo. )-|
ECS K7S5A
Athlon XP 1600+
512mb PC2100
geforce3 ti200 64mb
All stock speed.
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.)
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
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.Quote:
Originally posted by XtReAmTwEaKist
its a hacked score if he has no explanation of the score then its fake
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!
no! WTF are YOU TALKING ABOUT! i got 1401 with gf4ti!
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
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
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?
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
lol
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
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...:mad:
I expected more from my new Radeon 9500 Pro, but the games are SO fast :eek: - 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