POST YOUR 3DMARK 2003 SCORES HERE!!!!

I got 1,000,000,000

Mm9004:

Quote:

---

I got 1,000,000,000

---

You got 1,000,000,000? Why stop there? Why not just fill the whole page up with zeros... stay on the carpet, kid ;) .

Just put in a new OS an HD

XPh ( Tweaked for Performance ) Had W2K Pro
2000XP 1 gig DDR N/OC ( page file set at 1.5x ram ) ( CPU Temp 36C )
GF FX 5900 N/OC
2 WD 40gig 8m cache HD ( Had 1 WD 20gig HD an 1 Maxtor 30gig HD )
1 DVD 1 CD-RW

After Defrag an boot defrag
5103

My System:

GeForce4 Ti 4600 128MB, 8xAGP
AthlonXP 2700+
512MB PC2700
Epox 8rda+ (nForce2)
80GB Western Digital HDD w/ 8MB cache


My scores:

CPU@default (2x166=2166MHz): 1873
CPU@ 13.5x178=2403MHz: 2067

SYSTEM

1700 xp JUIBH @ 12.5x166
1 gig ddr 333 cl 2.5
2 40 gig maxtor raid 0
gigabyte 7vaxp
sapphire radeon NP 391/317(havent played around with it to much)

5384 3DMarks

Using Cat7 got 2850 up from 2401 cat6 at stock, no oc. ATi 9600 non pro.

3D Marks 2003: 4251 marks

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
P4 2.4
1GB PC2700 DDR

at default settings

wow my oc'ed radeon 9600 pro is almost up to par with that 9700 pro!!!1

3dmark03 w/ (513/340.20): 4059

Andiesean...

Thats a pretty low score for ur system....go into driver settings...advanced settings and make sure everything is set to performance. On my exact same system I get 5000 points...everything at standard speeds. I have overclocked my 9700pro (pushing it a bit more every so often) and am getting near 5700 3dmarks (simialar to 9800pro scores at default speeds).

Pentium IV 3.0GHz
2 x 512MB Twinmos 400DDR
Radeon 9800Pro 128MB
Catalyst 3.7 (driver set to stable, not to performance)
ASUS P4C800 deluxe
WD 120GB 8MB
Audigy 2
DirectX9.0b
Win XP -SP1

With -now and then- framerates <10 FPS

3DMark2003: 5390

Will test it also with driver set to performance and vsync off as suggested by CWIN (tnx, by the way).

3DMark2003: 5427 (all tabs on performance, vsync was off during both benchmarks by the way)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Uisge
(driver set to stable, not to performance)
3DMark2003: 5390

---

Very good score (for the settings). Try setting everything to performance in the direct3d section, and disabling vsync :t

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Mm9004
I got 1,000,000,000

---

Welcome to the club :rolleyes:

hmmm scary i didnt change my performance tab there set to the middle and i got 5390 with a 9800 NP just oced... :\

i'll go re-benchmark :)

i got 1 point on 3dmark03

current set up

radeon 9800 pro
200 mhz CPU
64mb SDRAM

i cant seem to figure out the problem!!!






im kidding :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ComPooTer
i got 1 point on 3dmark03

current set up

radeon 9800 pro
200 mhz CPU
64mb SDRAM

i cant seem to figure out the problem!!!

---

try a defrag ;)

2.1 amd
512 166
9800 NP 417/317
raid 0
gigabyte 7vaxp

5693

cat 3.7 lol and the 3.8's JUST came out :|

Don't expect much from the Cat 3.8, atleast from a synthetic benchmark point of view.

However, I find NWN looks nicer under Cat 3.8 than 3.6 (I d'led the 3.7's but never bothered to install them).

is it just me or what, i installed the 3.8 drivers and i couldve sworn the image quality improved even more, i was like woww

quite possibly, haven't played any games since installing. Anyone who hasen't installed yet wanna take some before/after screenies?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magua
quite possibly, haven't played any games since installing. Anyone who hasen't installed yet wanna take some before/after screenies?

---

Ill try and get a 3.2 to 3.8 on a 9700np

Image quality doesnt seem to have increased over the 3.7's nor does speed/performance, if anything it just seems to be a lot of compatibility fixes, addition of new driver control features and an overhaul to the control panel

--Jakk:t

I do like how you can save different custom settings, instead of manually changing each time you want to change. The filters are fun to play with, I don't know how practical they are though. Just played a little black and white halo :cool:

bblqj78,
i tried setting my drivers for optimal performance as you suggested, and i only gained 54 marks........went to 4305. this is my first build, and all this stuff is new to me, so i am still learning. i am open for any suggestions to boost my score without OCing. thanks :t

Quote:

---

tried setting my drivers for optimal performance as you suggested, and i only gained 54 marks........went to 4305. this is my first build, and all this stuff is new to me, so i am still learning. i am open for any suggestions to boost my score without OCing. thanks

---

Hmmm...funny. Make sure and do this on both the OpenGL Tab and the Direct 3D tab. You should get a lot more...make sure vertical sysnc is disabled.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bblqj78


Hmmm...funny. Make sure and do this on both the OpenGL Tab and the Direct 3D tab. You should get a lot more...make sure vertical sysnc is disabled.

---

I though, 3DMark is Direct 3D only.

I think it is

3DMark03 is specifically a DX9 benchmark, not OpenGL.

Yes, I had both Open GL and 3D Direct set for optimal performance, and vert sync disabled............:(

After upgrading to the Cat 3.8 from 3.2 drivers...
I ran 3dMark 03 demo. Amazing concidering it wouldnt start before, sumink was up with it.... but i remember when i last run the demo, there was quite a bit of stuttering, and the quality wasnt good.
The quality is massivley improved as well as the performance. But remember.... thats from Cat 3.2 to 3.8! :p

and what was your score cwin?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ammok
and what was your score cwin?

---

Dunno.. ran the demo :p
I can tell its faster tho


Thats the quality i get at full quality in 3d mark
still getting used to the drivers in the new catalyst

4401 3d marks
just set stuff to optimal performance, need a defrag, running plenty of programs and stuff... havent o/c'd
Ill get better :p

ATi 9700 np
alright i suppose... ill get better

(i was getting 3000 sometimes before):t

Why did you only have the 3.2 drivers! :confused: :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magua
Why did you only have the 3.2 drivers! :confused: :p

---

i have drivapgradophobia... baaad experiences :eek:

I can see that happening, but never have had serious problems myself

3d Mark 2003 Pro

Spec: (Computer "Gengis")

MCI K7-2N Raid motherboard (sound disabled)
Athalon 3000 (@ 2.17Mhz)
1 Gb Ram (DDR 400MHz)
Ati Radeon 9800 256Mb
Soundblaster Live! 5.1
Maxtor 200Gb SATA drive
Maxtor 200Gb IDE 7200 rpm drive

Other spec: (Computer "Fraggle")
GB Motherboard
Intel Pentium 4 2Ghz
512 Mb Rambus ram @ 400Mhz bus
NVidea G-Force 4600
Soundblaster Live! 5.1
Maxtor 80Gb (@5200 rpm)
Maxtor 60Gb (@5200 rpm)
Maxtor 20Gb (@5200 rpm)

Hi all,

With the above specs I'm getting 1574 on 'Fraggle' and 5587 on 'Gengis' (don't ask about the names - it's just my weird sense of humor)

As you can probably tell, I don't have much loyalty to any particular manufacturer (except maxtor, maybe!) - I've noted a few things from these machines....

1. Intel Vs. Pentium.. No contest, Intel wins hands down. The 2 Ghz Processor has held it's ground extremely well for 2 years nearly! Trouble is, if I wanted a 3Ghz Intel processor, it would cost around £500!! This is not really acceptable for a mere chip - especially when it's my ATi doing all the work! For £150 I picked up the XP3000 - and as you can see, it performs very well.

2. CPU's don't make that much difference to performance. With the same spec as above for Gengis, but with a 1Ghz processor, I got 4843 on 3D Mark 2003 pro! However you really notice the difference in 'general' computer use.

3. MCI motherboards REALLY kick *** and make a big difference!

4. S-ATA drives are extremely quick - expect these to get at least 10 times faster as the technology is accepted by the IT community. Pain in the 'arris to install though.... I recommend Seagate's "Disk wizard" for set-up.

5. I managed 337 FPS on the "wings of fury" test 1 at one point... Beat that!!

6. All this hardware made me miss the mortgage payment for a month! What a jerk!!!

All comments welcome, hope to hear from you all soon.

Rick_Terminal

Nice scores! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick_Terminal
1. Intel Vs. Pentium..

---

I also believe, that Intel wins on Intel Vs. Pentium, because Pentium is from Intel. On Intel Vs. AMD the AMD Athlon64 wins in performance and price/oerformance ratio in the high end (I could post benchmarks, if you dont believe it) and the Athlon XP wins in price/oerformance ratio in the lower end.

1. AMD is the much smarter choice for price/performance. The p4 3.2ghz probably barely edges out the 3200+, but will lose to the top 64bit processor. I feel overall AMD wins the AMD vs. Intel match.

2. You're right, 3dmark 2003 is very GPU dependant, everything else will make minor changes compared to a different video card.

3. I don't get how you come to the conclusion that MCI mobos make a huge difference in scores. Gengis has a *MUCH* more powerful video card, CPU, faster HD's, and double the ram...how you attribute any improved performance to the mobo is beyond me.