3dmark2001 blues..

[neuralfx]

hm alright, on the machine Im on i have
900tbird, A7v133, 640mb, gf2gts32mb, winME
When I had 3dmark2000, I would get nice scores, like about 7600, ok so I built another machine
1gig, kt7a-raid, ibm deskstar 60gxp, 128mb, gf2gts32meg (leadtek),
Win2k.. ok So i got 3dmark2001, and I run it at600x800x32 and I cant even get it to finish the tests, it keeps locking up, but you can tell that the FPS is crap, i figured maybe it was a via4in1 thing or maybe a Det3 thing.. so I installed it on my winME box, and... i got a WHOPPING SCORE of 848... heh.. what is up with that... Has anyone else got just plain ridiculous results like that?.. and on the WinME box, the most FPS i got on any of the tests was 19, that was the shootout.. as well It wouldnt even run like 4 of the tests, like it said "bump mapping not supported", any one have any idea?....
Btw, I'm not overclocking, my mem setting is 2-2-2, Im running default benchmark, and 2k i didnt have the latest 4in1 and I used the leadtek drivers, and on the winME i used Microsoft's default drivers and Det3 6.50... even with those drivers my score/performance shouldnt be that ridiculous... well thanx in advance..
-neural

 

[Whitewolf]

You probably have the same problem I had. Look
<a target=new href="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=27&amp;threadid=411705
">here</a> my post.

Summary of the above:
Try a newer driver. And have you installed via 4 in 1's?

 

[Degenerate]

If you have the lates drivers, then may be something is faulty? Temperature?

 

[SammyBoy]

3dmark 2000 and 3dmark2001 scores are different and cannot be compared, but there is something wrong with your settings to be getting 800s with that rig

 

[SammyBoy]

3dmark 2000 and 3dmark2001 scores are different and cannot be compared, but there is something wrong with your settings to be getting 800s with that rig

 

[dutchboy]

might need more than 128 ram

 

[xtreme2k]

3dmark2001 in Win2k recommends 192MB RAM.

 

[PCResources]

Why on earth would you care????????????

Is that what you use your computer for, running benchmarks, if so, sell it and give the money to charity...

Are you satisfied with what your computer can do for you in the applications you use it for, if yes, then great, if no, check your components...

I could optimize a 486 setup and beat the crap out of most modern setups, of course, you could only use that rig for benchmarking, it would be a bad choice for anything else...

If you have to run benchmarks, then use real world ones, like Q3A timedemo and such, of course, if you do not play any games that uses the Q3 3D engine, the scores wouldn't matter...

If you think that your computer is fast enough for what you do, then fine, if not, upgrade....

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[neuralfx]

Patrick, your right benchmarking really isnt that big of a deal, though its the best way I know how to see that everything is running smooothly.. Im not trying to get a top score heh.. but tryin to get the machine where it should be..
Ok well like I said I have 2 machines that are getting low scores, I realize 3dmark2k and 3dmark2k1 are different but I know 85x is abnormally low.. Ok on the WinME system I have about 640mb.. which is probably more than win9x will even use efficiently but oh well.. Ok I have the 7.52 drivers and it may or may not have helped a little I got about 3 more FPS on avg. I installed the 4.29 4in1 it helped bout as much as the other drivers did. I dont think its a driver issue... least not with a score this low... If anyone has any other advice Im open to suggestion..
Btw, like I said, I just want to make sure my system is running as well as it should if anyone has any other benchmark tools or similar things to test a system with Id be happy to try.. I have used SANDRA, though is it accurate.. or what about HD tach?....
-neural