POST YOUR 3DMARK 2003 SCORES HERE!!!!

[ngc457]

I got 1113 with ATI 8500LE 128 meg AMD 2000+ with 1024 megs of ram. I want a new graphics card!

[causticVapor]

Funny how half the ppl don't post links.

[civic91dx]

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

[XtReAmTwEaKist]

1299 i think my vid card is bottlenecked or something radeon 9000 Pro 128mb http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=229719

[grimfandango]

boy.. 176mb of downloading!!





Its goin totake me forva

[causticVapor]

Originally posted by causticVapor
Funny how half the ppl don't post links.

[XtReAmTwEaKist]

Im gonna run it again new processor speed

[gregmatic]

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.

[Sweeper]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=265451
5110

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

[kevrob1]

Ti4200= 1503, Ti200= 768

[kevrob1]

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]

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...

[her own pride]

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

[zeus21]

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

[gregmatic]

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