Quote::(Quote:
If you're here for the 3dMark03 download, you've missed out. We want to thank everyone who helped us destroy some bandwidth and spread that 3dMark love.
Printable View
Quote::(Quote:
If you're here for the 3dMark03 download, you've missed out. We want to thank everyone who helped us destroy some bandwidth and spread that 3dMark love.
Uhg, my system is compleatly video card bound with a result of:
1050
Sys:
Athlon XP 1700
512 MB PC 2100
Radeon 8500 with 3.0 drivers
Audigy 2
lol - apparently nvidia are claiming thers a fault wit 3dmark 2003 and nvidia cards giving an incorrect figure. Theres a link to it from www.actiontrip.com
--Jakk:t
i mean comon the FPS we get show that we should get a low scare.
for the space fighting demo my FPS where around 5!!! yes 5
i given up now. this it it. my next computer will not be a gaming rig, i will buy a cheap no power 3dcard.
and why is mother nature not supported on my machine??
what is that?
It's becuase your G4 4600 is only a DirectX 8 card, and mother nature is a DirectX 9 bench.Quote:
and why is mother nature not supported on my machine??
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 :)
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.
http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...910707,00.html
The article i was refferign to earlier
--Jakk:t
LOL :r
this is specially funny, from your link
and then it comes the next paragraph about quittingQuote:
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 we have the prof with the GF-FX :D ;) :p
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:t
WOO HOO downloading it here at 300k!!!!!!!!!
http://www.gamershell.com/filehell/1296.shtml
Go to filehell #3:t
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.
5117 marks.
200FSB
8RDA+
2X256mb CAS 2 Corsair
9700pro @ 350/335
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.;)
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
Man my system sucks:(
Only got 168:(
I could only run game 1 and the fill rate.:(
A new high score of 1419 P3 at 1.15ghz and TI4200
Bizkitkid2001... why don't you read my post above? It is taken from overclockers.com, and it hits the nail on the head.
I did read it, but am still complaining:p :(
^bump:eek:
I've run the new 3D Mark and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
It was a huge download, and didn't run all that well on my system. Yes my score was respectable, mostly because I do have a DX 9 class video card, but the experience of sitting there watching the demo through wasn't. It stuttered and the framerate dropped al the way down to 1 in places.
Despite that I got 3217 which is pretty good, at least compared to many systems out there.
But for this huge download-- I got much less functionality than in 3DMark2001SE. I can't save to a text file, so I can see my results properly for myself. I can't even change the resolution, or select tests not to run. In 2001 I could deselect the tests my Gf2MX couldn't run for a better comparison of simple speed against the Radeon 9500 Pro (I know the 9500 Pro owns it).
I can't do that in 03.
It's much less than I expected, especially after all the hype. All it needed was an FX Flow cooling system to make it perfect.
rochacarlos, my comp rocked your system lol by like 200 point and your proc is 500+ megahertz faster LMAO proves intel sucks a fat one only thing you beat me in was cpu testing oh well ATi and AMD all the way
Hey, hey, hey chill. :mad: Gib is nowhere near deservant of being called a stupid-***.Quote:
Originally posted by XtReAmTwEaKist
STUPID *** HES USING A 7500! AND RUNNING 3dmark2001 lmao!!! ITS 3DMARK03 not 01 but my score with 9000 pro 128 1159 3dmarks Athlon XP 1600+ @1.72Ghz 786mb DDR333
Drunk, sir, I presume?
1550 3dmarks.
I ran it at 5:40 AM before I came to work. I couln't upload the file, as the servers were probably way over-flogged. Later on I'll post a compare URL.
I couldn't have stated it better myself. :) I was thinking this exact sentiment in traffic today.Quote:
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.
Nvidia abandoned Futuremark's ship in December because they knew their FX wasn't even close to ready to compete with Radeons today. They of course wouldn't admit defeat, so instead pulled a liberal maneuver and attacked Futuremark, stating their benchmarking tool is "inefficient" in its vertex shader engine. Then there's Nvidia not putting their FX card on the market. This just tells me that Nvidia lost this round, and it's not Futuremarks' fault.
ßeeßlevidia
nvidia and AMD could both be accused of spewing massive amounts of the familiar
F, U, D.
lately.
F, U, D ? and caustic i was playing but still that post was BS i can only run one game with my 7500 and i get like 900 points but explain the F U D
ran again. 1555. Made 1 small sound card related tweak (to where it should be) and got my lousy 5 point increase.
Quote:
STUPID *** HES USING A 7500! AND RUNNING 3dmark2001 lmao!!! ITS 3DMARK03 not 01 but my score with 9000 pro 128 1159 3dmarks Athlon XP 1600+ @1.72Ghz 786mb DDR333
Do you think you could show a bit more respect here? Seriously.Quote:
rochacarlos, my comp rocked your system lol by like 200 point and your proc is 500+ megahertz faster LMAO proves intel sucks a fat one only thing you beat me in was cpu testing oh well ATi and AMD all the way
ß
it does make a person wonder just how much money ATi payed futuremark to release 3dMark03
well if they did they didn't pay enough the :r :p
cuz even ATI runs pretty **** slow in 3DMarks03
so i'll say 3DMarks03 is really a fair bench testing software for new PCs
:t
yea i was out of line B but still lmao....... he posted a 02, with a 7500 thats funny
XP2100+ Tbred "B"@2286Mhz, PNY GF4 Ti4400@308/661 gets me .... 1734 3D'03 Marks.
Pretty pictures... sort of meaningless otherwise.
3dmark 03 doesn't like my setup. Since I have a 64mb card, I get stutters every few seconds as textures are swapped into my card. :(
I won't even post my score. . .
Has anyone with a geforce 4 tried the new 42.68s?
Here's the link.
HERE is the reason why most of us have POOR scores
http://www.rage3d.com/reviews/Other/3dmark03/
3DMarks03 REALLY uses 128 Meg of VGA ram Minimum
so those of us with 64 Meg
we have to go throught the slow AGP pipe to Share normal RAM to deal with the stuff
:t
Whew!! that's one big file for benchmarking...post my score when I get there...:t
People dont download the benchmakr. There is no point. This bench is useless at the moment cause the hardware for this test hardly exist. There are only 3 DX9 cards out there and thats all the benchmakrs uses. So every geforce owner at the moment cann forget it.
This bench will be usefull in about 1 year, when most of us have DX9 Gpu's and some games will acctually use DX9.
i just uninstalled it again.
My first 3DMark 2003 score is 1228
AMD Athlon TB 1.4Ghz
512Mb 133Mhz RAM
G4 Ti4200 64Mb
Audigy
Not bad considering...
Actually, I have no idea what this means other than I don't have any hardware to support this new benchmark.
2047
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=165561 :rolleyes: