Installing Direct X 9.0c fixed it, as I had presumed. 2427 with 9800 Pro @ stock. For some reason my online result browser wont work, tells me I need to go into folder options and associate a program with a certain file or some nonsense, but I can't find anything that looks like it belongs to 3DMark in folder options. Oh well, looks about right based on other people's scores from this post.
I'm not sure how to change those settings, but either way I doubt they're the problem. I mean, my 3DMark03 score is perfect for my rig, so I don't get what's wrong with 05, and to a lesser extent, 03.
Oyeve
Lifer
- Oct 18, 1999
- 22,071
- 885
- 126
I originally got 1100 with a P4 3.0ghz and an ATI 9800pro, changed the cards settings to all performance levels and the score shot up to 2300. I dont rely on any benchmarks to tell me how my system should run. I rely on games. Doom 3 runs just fine on my system with most of the settings either on medium or high so screw you 3dmark05. Farcry runs great with everything maxxed out as does just about every other game with the exception of doom 3, but the game sux so I dont care.
The Nvidia menu has image quality set to high performance while AA and AF are application-controlled (off).
And I can run Doom 3 (the demo, since I haven't picked the actual game up yet) perfectly fine (1280x1024, High, 2xAA) at a nice framerate (I haven't seen it drop below 30 fps, and it's often at 60).
So I'm not concerned about the components themselves, since they seem to perform fine, albeit a little hot (my GPU is about 62C idle while my CPU is about 41-43). This is more about my e-penis, as well as sheer curiosity as to why it runs so poorly while 03 is so nice. Also, I'm missing out on visual bliss of the program with it running a lot choppier than it should.
And I can run Doom 3 (the demo, since I haven't picked the actual game up yet) perfectly fine (1280x1024, High, 2xAA) at a nice framerate (I haven't seen it drop below 30 fps, and it's often at 60).
So I'm not concerned about the components themselves, since they seem to perform fine, albeit a little hot (my GPU is about 62C idle while my CPU is about 41-43). This is more about my e-penis, as well as sheer curiosity as to why it runs so poorly while 03 is so nice. Also, I'm missing out on visual bliss of the program with it running a lot choppier than it should.
Apocalypse23
Golden Member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 1,467
- 1
- 0
this is what a friend of mine got when he ran 3dmark 05
score: 10005
Athlon 64 FX53
6800 Ultra
2 GB 400 MHz Dual Channel DDR
10000 RPM SATA Hard disks
I still can't believe him
Apocalypse23
Golden Member
- Jul 14, 2003
- 1,467
- 1
- 0
wtf is a e-penis lol. I doubt hed be lying he is a very rich and busy businessman, just tested it when i asked him and told him bout 3dmark05. He got a 8959 with his x800pro and pentium rig and a 10005 with this athlon rig.
hes using dualchannel 2gb pc3200 ram and a abitAV8-3RDEYE board.
i compared the highest marks on the 3dmark site and it was just a 7000 somethin with someone haveni only 1 gb ram...
im sure the 2gigs dual channel and his extremely fast stat drives did the trick. he said he installed xp in 8 minutes long time ago with the rig.
Those sound like '03 scores... I would bet that that's what they are. 3DMark scores since 03 have been almost entirely dependant on GPU, so nothing else would have made that big a difference.
Installed WinXP in 8 minutes? As in booted from the CD and did a manual install - not an image. In 8 minutes? Um, no. No chance whatsoever. And I'm guessing his 3DMark scores are either an error or the truth stretched.
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: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter