1321
Duron 1.1 ghz
256mb ddr ram corsair xms pc3200
128mb radeon 9100
A load of bubblegum and some gooey fans
Duron 1.1 ghz
256mb ddr ram corsair xms pc3200
128mb radeon 9100
A load of bubblegum and some gooey fans
4700 3dmark03 score. Hoping to get it up a few notches.
Wow 3 fans, I guess it's cool if you plan to o/c the card, but one fan on my 5900ultra does more than enough noise as it is.
Wow 3 fans, I guess it's cool if you plan to o/c the card, but one fan on my 5900ultra does more than enough noise as it is.
4418 3D Marks 2K3.
Catalyst 3.5
Via 4in1 Hyperon 4.46.
Latest Audigy Drivers.
All Windows Updates.
AMD AthlonXP1800 @ Stock.
Abit KT7A-RAID, BIOS v.A64.
768mb PC133 SDR RAM(512mb Kingston, 256mb M-Tec).
Sapphire Atlantis 9700PRO 128mb AGP @ Stock.
Catalyst 3.5
Via 4in1 Hyperon 4.46.
Latest Audigy Drivers.
All Windows Updates.
AMD AthlonXP1800 @ Stock.
Abit KT7A-RAID, BIOS v.A64.
768mb PC133 SDR RAM(512mb Kingston, 256mb M-Tec).
Sapphire Atlantis 9700PRO 128mb AGP @ Stock.
you are my guruOriginally posted by: merlocka
Originally posted by: dakels
merlocka's score of 4 makes your comp look like a friggin CRAY supercomputer!Originally posted by: Killeruk
I beat you all with my score!!!! --------196------- With my Radeon 64Mb DDR VIVO!!!!!
It was tough to get the score that low. I underclocked the card so much it started crashing
Update - now down to 2 3D marks. That's a 50% improvement!!!
CrystalBay
Platinum Member
- Apr 2, 2002
- 2,175
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: merlocka
Originally posted by: dakels
merlocka's score of 4 makes your comp look like a friggin CRAY supercomputer!Originally posted by: Killeruk
I beat you all with my score!!!! --------196------- With my Radeon 64Mb DDR VIVO!!!!!
It was tough to get the score that low. I underclocked the card so much it started crashing
Update - now down to 2 3D marks. That's a 50% improvement!!!
Ahem...
Betcha can't get just ONE!
5387 3dmarks
ATi 9800 Pro
Abit KR7A Raid
Athlon 1900 at 1.68
SB Audigy 2
Not bad for a slow processor, soon to upgrade to a pentium 3.0 or Athlon64
my old GF4 Ti 4200 128 meg did 1280 3dmarks
ATi 9800 Pro
Abit KR7A Raid
Athlon 1900 at 1.68
SB Audigy 2
Not bad for a slow processor, soon to upgrade to a pentium 3.0 or Athlon64
my old GF4 Ti 4200 128 meg did 1280 3dmarks
1009 with a 64MB 9100 | XP1700+ | nF1 | 512MB--figured I'd get a bit more, but hey, I realize I'm not going to be playing anything too taxing too well on this setup.
As for nVidia not "optimizing" their drivers for the Doom III scores Anand posted, did you miss the fact that Anand ran his benches at nVidia's expense on an nVidia system (and almost using an nVidia demo, though iD changed that at the last minute)?
(And not to rain too much on your parade, but I'm still not convinced any FX 3DM03 score is a real one. You never know, the FX architecture may be so convoluted or high-maintenance that it took nV this long to fine-tune the drivers to maximize the hardware--but I doubt it, given the blatant cheats ET exposed and nV tried to litigate into legitimacy. Heck, we've all seen that the reason GF3/4 and 8500 scores jumped so high in 3DM2001SE was because they swapped their own shaders for 3DM's, which is a cheat in the scope of that benchmark. The bench *may* be irrelevent to some, but the cheat certainly makes any score obtained with it irrelevent as far as anyone is concerned. Honestly, I'm convinced first-generation DX-whatever hardware will usually be too slow for games that finally get around to fully exploiting DX-whatever, so it's pointless to even bench it. DX9 hardware may be the exception/breakthrough, though, with HL2 set to use PS2 and run well.)
Wait a sec--are you sure you scored 6000 in 3DM03v330 with the 44.03's? I thought v330 cut off nV's optiizations in that particular driver. You sure you're not using the 44.65's or .67's? ExtremeTech scored much lower than you with the 44.03's.
Edit - NM, ignore that last link--ET was benching at 12x9, for some reason. Their 4800 at 12x9 can easily turn into your 6000 at a lower res and on OC'ed hardware. I'm still puzzled about the driver and 3DM03 combo, though.
As for nVidia not "optimizing" their drivers for the Doom III scores Anand posted, did you miss the fact that Anand ran his benches at nVidia's expense on an nVidia system (and almost using an nVidia demo, though iD changed that at the last minute)?
(And not to rain too much on your parade, but I'm still not convinced any FX 3DM03 score is a real one. You never know, the FX architecture may be so convoluted or high-maintenance that it took nV this long to fine-tune the drivers to maximize the hardware--but I doubt it, given the blatant cheats ET exposed and nV tried to litigate into legitimacy. Heck, we've all seen that the reason GF3/4 and 8500 scores jumped so high in 3DM2001SE was because they swapped their own shaders for 3DM's, which is a cheat in the scope of that benchmark. The bench *may* be irrelevent to some, but the cheat certainly makes any score obtained with it irrelevent as far as anyone is concerned. Honestly, I'm convinced first-generation DX-whatever hardware will usually be too slow for games that finally get around to fully exploiting DX-whatever, so it's pointless to even bench it. DX9 hardware may be the exception/breakthrough, though, with HL2 set to use PS2 and run well.)
Wait a sec--are you sure you scored 6000 in 3DM03v330 with the 44.03's? I thought v330 cut off nV's optiizations in that particular driver. You sure you're not using the 44.65's or .67's? ExtremeTech scored much lower than you with the 44.03's.
Edit - NM, ignore that last link--ET was benching at 12x9, for some reason. Their 4800 at 12x9 can easily turn into your 6000 at a lower res and on OC'ed hardware. I'm still puzzled about the driver and 3DM03 combo, though.
Around 1300, Radeon 8500 128mb, AthlonXP at 174x9.5=1650mhz.
By the way when IS HW2 coming out anyway?
By the way when IS HW2 coming out anyway?
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
As I mentioned above to get this score I had to clock my Geforce FX at485Mhz Core and 985Mhz Ram
I used Detonator 44.03 because i couldnt see any performance difference in the beta ones
So i stuck to the ones off the website plus i'm sure there more stable for overclocking
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: zsouthboy
Originally posted by: merlocka
Originally posted by: dakels
merlocka's score of 4 makes your comp look like a friggin CRAY supercomputer!Originally posted by: Killeruk
I beat you all with my score!!!! --------196------- With my Radeon 64Mb DDR VIVO!!!!!
It was tough to get the score that low. I underclocked the card so much it started crashing
Update - now down to 2 3D marks. That's a 50% improvement!!!
Ahem...
Betcha can't get just ONE!
I cant
and not for lack of trying. But, I just realized that I think I have the lowest 3Dmark03 score EVAR. Take a look on the ORB.
I don't think so. I think that is a fine machine for most needs. Now if you are into heavy games, graphics, or video, I'd just buy a better video card and beef up the ram 512+
Regs
Lifer
- Aug 9, 2002
- 16,666
- 21
- 81
Now I just compared Jeffs marks to mine. He has the onboard nvidia sound and I have a audigy 2. His score was 25%-40% higher then mine. How can that be?
I've noticed I do not have Direct X 9.0a and my FSB is still at stock speed. Still I think the score is a little...small.
Compare URL with sys specs
I've noticed I do not have Direct X 9.0a and my FSB is still at stock speed. Still I think the score is a little...small.
Compare URL with sys specs
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter