Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Why is my 3dmark score so low?

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    49

    Why is my 3dmark score so low?

    hi. im runnin a:
    2.4-2.93(163 fsb)
    768mb ram at 407mhz(relaxed timings)
    gainward ti4200 at 300/545 43.45 drivers.
    wd 40gig w/ 8 mb...
    albatron px845pe board.
    windows 2000

    but....

    I getting like 9000 in 2001SE w/ no anti-whatever or filtering at 640x480!!!! i just reloaded my os like a week or 2 ago and i redid the os like 3 weeks b4 that!!!!(modem wasnt bein recognized.)

    shouldnt i b gettein like 13-14k?

    i was usin the cd drivers and i got like the same score.... then went t 43.45 and saw like no diff.(yes, i did uninstall the cd drivers, and i would think 2000 would do a good job of it...)
    I didnt think id have to reload the os just from going from one version of det's to another.
    thnx for any help



    update: i reinstalled the 43.45's and now get like 11k in 640x480.
    Last edited by Metal_militia01; 03-30-2003 at 06:33 PM.
    working on:

    2.4b sl6eu 167fsb winter (3.06) 148fsb summer(2.66)
    ti4200 at 300/545
    Albatron px845pe
    512mb hyperX pc3000, 256mb samsung pc2700
    WD 40gig w/ 8 mb buffer
    pionneer dvd
    ...and all the other junk....

  2. #2
    Ultimate Member Bizkitkid2001's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    2,750
    Why you running it in such a low res? Run it useing 1024x768 and tell me what you get.

  3. #3
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    Yeah that res is too low for a real indication, also make sure your motherboard drivers are updated to the newest version, see if that helps, it should do

    --Jakk

  4. #4
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Man I get 9100 with 8500 radeon in 3dmark2001se. AND that is at default mode (1024x768). Your at 640x480 which says nothing-!!! I bet I break 11k at that res. too. Be a man see what your card does. Hit bench defaults and let her rip! My buddys P4 I built him (2.4gig B northy-asus p4pe) and ti4200 otis abit card gets over 11K AT 1024x768 yours should too cause he aint oclocking either and you are.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    49
    i did run it at 1024x768, but cant remember the score.....(im at school right now) ill test when i get home at 1024, ill post that score

    ill d/l mobo drivers prolly tonight too.
    working on:

    2.4b sl6eu 167fsb winter (3.06) 148fsb summer(2.66)
    ti4200 at 300/545
    Albatron px845pe
    512mb hyperX pc3000, 256mb samsung pc2700
    WD 40gig w/ 8 mb buffer
    pionneer dvd
    ...and all the other junk....

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    49
    k, ran it at defaults and got 9204... .relly makes me wonder.
    working on:

    2.4b sl6eu 167fsb winter (3.06) 148fsb summer(2.66)
    ti4200 at 300/545
    Albatron px845pe
    512mb hyperX pc3000, 256mb samsung pc2700
    WD 40gig w/ 8 mb buffer
    pionneer dvd
    ...and all the other junk....

  7. #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Dallas TX
    Posts
    13
    i wonder if it has somehting to do with win2k. after i upgraded to xp from 2k my score went up 1200 points. 2k wasnt the best gaming os. my gf3 ti500 would sometimes have problems where the os didnt want to install the drivers correctly. im at school i'll post something about it later when im done
    dont play leapfrog with a unicorn

  8. #8
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    2k wasnt the best gaming os
    2k is THE best gaming OS EVER, nuff sed

    Basically if games still run okay dont get your knickers in a twist over 2dmarks

    --Jakk

  9. #9
    Ultimate Member omega31's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    So. Cal. USA
    Posts
    2,380
    As Jakk said, Win2k is excellent for games. The benchmark scores I get in Win2k are practically the same for Win9x and XP.

  10. #10
    Gone
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,713
    Originally posted by Metal_militia01
    k, ran it at defaults and got 9204... .relly makes me wonder.
    Yeah,but guys Im running next to him with 8500LE LOL. Now my buds system with slower cpu no oclocks and ti4200 breaks 11,000. I certainly wouldnt settle for 9xxx on that system either. Its a good reflection of how his card is gonna take to games and well-it aint showing too much gonads at this point!

  11. #11
    Member 2penguins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Amongst the yobbs.
    Posts
    383
    There is a limit to how far you can overclock your GPU.

    300 on the GPU may be too much. I don't know much about the Gainward cards, they may throtle themselves back if they get too warm...sorta like Asus.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    1

    3dMark Problem

    Hello all. I've got the same sort of problem with 3dMark, but this is probably even more of a joke. Here is my system:

    Windows 2000
    Amd 3000+ Barton 2.16Ghz
    Asus a7n8x Deluxe mobo
    1.02 G Samsung PC3200 DDR Ram
    Radeon 9800 Pro
    Direct X 9.0

    Ok, my issue is this. In 3dMark2001 I am scoring just over 9000 with this system. I have NOT installed the latest drivers for the motherboard and have NOT installed Windows XP yet because my case door is locked, and I don't have the key. Therefore, I cannot access any CDRom drives. But, like I said, no drivers are installed for the A7N8X, only the ones which windows 2000 would put on. Also, the Radeon 9800 is updated with the latest catalyst 3.4 Drivers for Windows 2000 along with DirectX 9. I was expecting at least a 14,000. But anyway, I really hope someone can help... it just doesn't make any sense to me at all!

    Thanks all.

  13. #13
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    300 on the GPU may be too much.
    300's about the going rate on ti4200 GPU's for the better makes, given that gainward cards are o/c'er orientated that shouldnt present a problem

    Metal Militia didnt mention his CPU speed, if its about the 1.3ghz mark then 9000 looks about right to me.

    As for Fixed, you really do need to have mobo drivers installed and make sure all video card driver properties are set to default and ensure Vsync is disabled before running 3dmark 2001

    --Jakk

  14. #14
    Senior Member Grentarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wagga, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    759
    Metal Militia didnt mention his CPU speed
    hi. im runnin a:
    2.4-2.93(163 fsb)
    the relaxed memory timings and Vsynch can cause problems
    Win2K is the best OS for 3DMark2001 from most benching guides and everything you read.
    apart from thjat..

  15. #15
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    18,631
    Whoops

    --Jakk

Posting Permissions

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