Is 3DM2003 the new video benchmarking standard? What's your score?

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
I've had 3DMark2003 downloaded for quite some time now, so I figured I'd install it. :eek:

My results are very low, to say the least. I know you cannot compare 3DM2001 w/2003 as they are completely different programs.

I am running DX9 (so far, so good).

I scored 1045. Pretty sad, I think! :disgust:


That's w/a 2.1GHz CPU/200FSB/GF3


What's your score and what's your setup. (brief description, like above)
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Wow, SgtZulu; did you come up with that all by yourself, or did someone have to help you?
rolleye.gif
 

squidman

Senior member
May 2, 2003
643
0
0
Originally posted by: MichaelD
I've had 3DMark2003 downloaded for quite some time now, so I figured I'd install it. :eek:

My results are very low, to say the least. I know you cannot compare 3DM2001 w/2003 as they are completely different programs.

I am running DX9 (so far, so good).

I scored 1045. Pretty sad, I think! :disgust:


That's w/a 2.1GHz CPU/200FSB/GF3


What's your score and what's your setup. (brief description, like above)


To score high u need not the DX9, but DX compatible hardware, Like Radeon 9500+, GeForce FX. GF2, GF3, and GF4 have DX7 and DX8 support. If u had hardware DX9, u'd score 5000 or so.

 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: AthlonXP
in the 4600's with my modded 9500.

:Q Modded? You mean that soldering hardware mod that was going around? Any probs w/that?

M4H; thanks. :D
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: squidman
Originally posted by: MichaelD
I've had 3DMark2003 downloaded for quite some time now, so I figured I'd install it. :eek:

My results are very low, to say the least. I know you cannot compare 3DM2001 w/2003 as they are completely different programs.

I am running DX9 (so far, so good).

I scored 1045. Pretty sad, I think! :disgust:


That's w/a 2.1GHz CPU/200FSB/GF3


What's your score and what's your setup. (brief description, like above)


To score high u need not the DX9, but DX compatible hardware, Like Radeon 9500+, GeForce FX. GF2, GF3, and GF4 have DX7 and DX8 support. If u had hardware DX9, u'd score 5000 or so.


The new NVidia FX cards aren't DX9 hardware? (I'm not hip on the newest of the new stuff...) Sheeeeeet; I almost bought one last night! *whew*

Side note: I shipped my dead 4200Ti back (RMA) today. I should have a new one in two weeks or so. I must admit; the Ti was much faster than the GF3, BUT the GF3 has better image quality. Colors are crisper and framrate, while not as high, seems smoother, somehow. :confused:
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: OverVolt
5400 here

It's *OFFICIAL*, my videocard sucks. I've got a Ferrari system running on Yugo tires. :disgust: The GF3 was Da'Bomb in it's day...but it's a grandma videocard now. :p

I must admit though, AFA regular gaming goes, as long as I keep it under 1024x768 with a mid-level of eye-candy, it does pretty good and the image IS sharper than my Ti4200.
 

50

Platinum Member
May 7, 2003
2,717
0
0
4,200.....i think i can get higher once my replacement card comes
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91
Full System rig in my sig.

Pentium 4 2.4C @ 3120 (1040 FSB) w/Radeon 9700 Pro at 325/310

5130 3DMarks
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: NFS4
Full System rig in my sig.

Pentium 4 2.4C @ 3120 (1040 FSB) w/Radeon 9700 Pro at 325/310

5130 3DMarks

That's what I love to see; AT Staff overclocking like mad. :D Excellent! :cool: That 9700P is looking better and better as the days go on.

I want to see what Palit ships me (I RMA'd my dead 4200Ti today..I didn't kill it...really!) before I spend big buks on either a 9700P or an FX-flava card.
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
i think you guys missed the point of Sgt Zulu's post: who gives a shite about 3dMark2003. comparing scores is like comparing penis length: might be fun, but it really doesn't tell you how the performance is in real applications.
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i think you guys missed the point of Sgt Zulu's post: who gives a shite about 3dMark2003. comparing scores is like comparing penis length: might be fun, but it really doesn't tell you how the performance is in real applications.

Nah...I got the point of his post...he's an idiot. :p

Anyway, while things like 3DMark and SANDRA might just be "synthetic benchmarks", they are still a recognized standard in our Geek World.

If you tell me that your rig scores XXX-number of 3DMArks in 3DMark2001, I know what that means. It gives me a yardstick, if you will, which to compare my system against.
 
Jan 31, 2002
40,819
2
0
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
i think you guys missed the point of Sgt Zulu's post: who gives a shite about 3dMark2003. comparing scores is like comparing penis length: might be fun, but it really doesn't tell you how the performance is in real applications.

You're just jealous that our ePenii are bigger than yours. ;)

And while they might be artificial, there's still some basis in reality (barring cheater drivers).

- M4H
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
27,327
16,157
136
ASUS A7N8X, XP2700 @ 2370 , ATI Radeon 9700 pro, 4955
 

SpideyCU

Golden Member
Nov 17, 2000
1,402
0
0
Ah, that explains it. I was wondering about that - the DX9 support does it. I'm around 1600 with my GF4 and overclocked 2100+ - I was wondering why the big gap when I wasn't too far away from non-overclocked 9700's in 3DMark2001 SE.
 

EdipisReks

Platinum Member
Sep 30, 2000
2,722
0
0
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Originally posted by: EdipisReks
well, i get 5000 or so in 3dmark2003, so my epen0s is about a mile long.

Your mother must be proud, Oedipus.

*da da dum ching*

- M4H

yuckity yuck. i wonder what kinda movie they could make with Oedipus Rex and company and Elektra and company. *rubs chin thoughtfully*