-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
3D MARK2003 Scores Please!!!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
cownipples
Golden Member
6443 3d mark2003
CrystalBay
Platinum Member
various numbers from 4800 to over 5390 depending on VPU clock/mem settings
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.
videoclone
Golden Member
🙂 As I mentioned above to get this score I had to clock my Geforce FX at
485Mhz 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
485Mhz 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
videoclone
Golden Member
Home World 2 comes out next month 🙂 ... its taken long enough ! about time.
capodeloscapos
Senior member
1667 with my GF FX 5200@305-600, default settings, Win98Se and CPU AthlonXP1700+@2296Mhz 🙂
Regs
Lifer
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
