3dMark2001SE Score of 1225 on XP1700, GF2; typical?

[LS20]

ran it for the first time after a fresh reboot. have all latest driver (though latest vid driver is dated :barf

specs:

ECS k7S5a
Xp1700+
128mb pc133 at default bios setting
20gb 7200rpm ata100 maxtor drive
abit siluro gforce2 mx200 32mb video card (gpu speed default)


I got around 20fps on most of the tests (1024x768) and scored a total of 1225. my friend says that that is PATHETIC.

is it really pathetic or is it typical for my setup?

 

[Theslowone]

Your video card is killing your score, your score would probably be 3 times that with a geforce 2 pro or ti.

 

[jiffylube1024]

Yup, I agree. The GF2 MX 200 is ridiculously slow for games (and even the MX 400 ain't that great - especially for new games). A GF2 Ti would be way way faster on that machine (3000+ I'm sure) and a GF 3 Ti200 would be killer (5000+). That also translates into real-world game scores too, GF2/3 TI run excellent on Athlon XP cpu's. My roommate is running an XP1700+ and a Ti200 and his machine is blazing fast! So fast I had to go and upgrade my 2 year old comp to a P4 1.8A @ 2.4 GHz.

Peace!

 

[Ryukumu]

I haven't benchmarked lately, but I've got one of the original Geforce2MX cards and my 3DMark 2001 score was somewhere in the low to mid 2000's. I plan on upgrading my video card soon, probably to a Radeon 7500 (-maybe- an 8500 depending on prices, 3d performance isn't the biggest issue with me).

 

[muttley]

the slowest is the mx200 then the mx then the mx400
Now I have a GForce 2 GTS and a XP 1700 and I can pull with some late drivers NVIDIA scores of madonion 4200 or so.

I believe that even at 640 x 400 at 16 bit color the processor is not holding back the video card but the video card is holding down scores at 5350.

An up to date drive can help lots compared to an old one not to mention the bios. The present driver I am using is 2.3.1.1 11/29/2001. I tried an older one and lost 1000 or more test points on madonion.

muttley

 

[LS20]

well i tried the Nvidia Detonator driver (as opposed to Abit's own [1+ years old]) and got it up to 1356...

I'm not too concerned, though, as I rarely game... but i am disappointed at how FAR its trailing the 'norm' setup.


Anyways, the problem I have is that with the Detonator driver, I'm unable to access the advanced settings in the properties. Whenever I try to get to it (to change refresh rate, for example), it'll say that Windows has occured an error while processing \winnt\systems\display.cpl ... to sum: the control panel


however, if i revert to the Abit driver, it'll work fine again. have you run into this problem?

 

[pamf]

i got 3298 on my tbird 1333, asus v7100 gf2 mx, 512mb pc133... your low amount of ram probably isnt helping.. i dont know how much memory comes into play in 3dmark though. id definately get some before it gets any more expensive .. heh.. i dont know just how much slower an mx 200 is than an mx, but that still seems really low given the rest of your config .. course im overclocking my card too .. you could try that using a tool like nvmax.. depending on the card you may be able to push it pretty far..

i havent had any problems with the advanced button (i assume you mean the one on the settings tab of display properties?) using the detonator 23.11 drivers.. you could try uninstalling all your video drivers, then insalling the detonator drivers ..

but yea, id definately look into getting some more ram and a new video card.. just dont buy a gf4 mx heh..

 

[FPSguy]

It's not a good score. 3dMark has a comparison chart for various cards using your CPU. For my 1.2 GHz Athlon it says an MX200 averages 1279. I would think it would do better than that on your system. Your video card and the 128MB of SDRAM are contributing to the low score. My system uses 256MB of DDR RAM and has a GEForce3 Ti 200. While my scores are a bit below average, the average score for that system using a 1.2GHz Athlon is 5658 -- over 4 and a half times faster. So, if you want to up the score I would think about more RAM, faster RAM, and a much better video card.

 

[Mem]

<< Your video card is killing your score, your score would probably be 3 times that with a geforce 2 pro or ti. >>



Yep I agree ,you really need a faster video card for your XP 1700+, stick a GF3/GF4 Ti in there and you will see a very good score .

Btw I`ve a XP 1700+ and GF2Ti and get 4725 score on 3Dmark2001SE.

 

[LS20]

stupid me. i was rushed when i bought this system... for the price,i couldve had a gf2 gts/pro...

anyways, does the inability to run some test count against your score? i wasnt able to do a couple... like the pixel shading test, for example.

*256mb crucial ddr cs2.5 arriving noon today. i will try that + detonator driver

 

[Anveo]

MY friend has that exact same configuration except he has 256MB DDR memory and that is about the same score he gets. I have tried better drivers and other tweaks but I believe the video card is the bottleneck.

 

[FPSguy]

> does the inability to run some test count against your score? i wasnt able to
> do a couple... like the pixel shading test, for example.

Yes, your score will be much lower if your card cannot complete some of the tests. Still, I used to have a GEForce2 Ultra in my Athlon 1.2GHz machine and I got about twice the score you are getting (and the GF2 Ultra also couldn't complete some of the tests). My score more than doubled when I switched to a GF3 that could complete all the tests.

 

[Jman13]

No...that is not a correct score.

I scored 3201 on my XP 1700+ when I was using an original GF2 MX. I doubt you'd be 2000 points below that, with everything else being similar.
See my GF2MX results here.

Once I updated my video card to a GF3 ti 200, I managed 8103
Check and make sure you have Accelerated Textures enabled in your DXDIAG. (display tab).

Jman

 

[Lorne]

sounds like your in software T&L and you need to be in Hardware T&L.

 

[WaltC]

<< I'm not too concerned, though, as I rarely game... but i am disappointed at how FAR its trailing the 'norm' setup. >>




Heh...now that's a new one.....someone who "rarely games" being concerned with 3dMark2001SE scores......


If you want to play 3D games you do not have the card for it. If you want to play 3D games there are several that you can buy that will suit that purpose beautifully--probably the best buy right now is the GF3 Ti200 which can be had for < $199 and overclocks far beyond its default settings quite safely and reliably. If you buy another 3D card just steer clear of anything nVidia with an "MX" in the nameplate--especially the upcoming nv17, or GF4mx--that one really stinks.... You probably thought you were "getting a real deal" when you bought your card and are disappointed to find otherwise.

What you are is someone who knows he's just waiting on that "special" 3D game to come rolling along--one that "trips your trigger," so to speak--and you know you'll be all over that game when you see it. Meanwhile, you want to make sure you have enough horsepower to run "it" when you find it....

What you are is a latent 3D gamer--face it, deal with it, and get rid of that mx......

 

[LS20]

<<

<< You probably thought you were "getting a real deal" when you bought your card and are disappointed to find otherwise.
>>


hahaha that is ENTIRELY correct. I didn't do my research at ALL when I bought all the stuff for my rig. My old computer died w/o warning and I rushed to replace it. I went to a local store where they had all the parts in stock and financing. Turns out neither worked out (didnt need to finance, they didnt have parts in stock)...

anyways, at the time, i thought that the pecking order went: GF2, MX200, MX400, GF3, etc etc

turns out mx200 is the very, very bottom of the barrell. o well, i know better now... time to run the benchmark with new DDR :-D

 

[LS20]

OK, here are the results with 256MB Crucial DDR running at Cas2.5 and fast timing mode


1024x768x32bit (default) : 1365
1280x1024x16bit : 1451.




screencap of settings for the benchmark test. and also error that I get when trying to get into advanced settings (to change refresh) rate

OWNED

 

[Theslowone]

A while ago with my old video card I ran 3mark2001 default with my cpu running 1ghz, geforce 256ddr slightly oced(blue orb), and 512 ddr ram cas2-2-2 I got out around 3300.

I missed that card though not that its better then my radeon 8500, it just had character.

 

[merlocka]

No...that is not a correct score.

Actually, it's pretty normal for Geforce2 MX200. They have half the memory BW of the regular MX or the MX 400, and it cripples the performance.

This guy has nearly the same rig as yours (which scores 32xx) and only manages 15xx.