Low 3DMark Scores

Brewer

Junior Member
Dec 1, 2002
9
0
0
Best 3D Mark score I have achieved is 5600. I have a Dell Dimension 8100, Intel 2.4, 768MB RD800 RAM, Visiontech G3 Ti200 64MB, Windows XP Pro SP1, KDS Visual Sensations 19SN 1024x768 85mhz. Antialiasing is turned off. I am using NVidia Driver 40.72. Just recently reformatted hard drive and everything is running great. According to the comparisions I should be scoring around 8000-8500. Any help would be appreciated.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,148
57
91
Is vsync disabled?

How about anisotropic?

And are you getting that score on the default benchmark?
 

Brewer

Junior Member
Dec 1, 2002
9
0
0
vsync is disabled, anisotropic is set at zero, scores are off the default benchmark test
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Do you have any results for application benchmarks (like UT2003, Quake3, RTCW, Serious Sam, etc)???

If you must use a synthetic like 3Dmark, can you provide a link to your results. It's difficult to help without additional details.

I assume you have read madonion's FAQ on the topic.

 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Ah but the real question is, are your 3D applications running too slow? That is what matters. 3DMark = terrrrrible.
 

chizow

Diamond Member
Jun 26, 2001
9,537
2
0
You have to OC everything until you get 3dmark to finish 1 out of 10 times. If done correctly, you will have so many artifacts on screen that it'll just look like a big blob. The more BSOD's, the better. If you get a BSOD, then you are on the right track, just OC a little bit less and try again.

Chiz
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Don't forget setting LOD bias to +15 so that all the textures look like a 3 year old drew them with crayons.



 

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
That sounds like an accurate mark to me.
Friend has a 1700+ with a Ti200 and he gets about 6800.
You're good to go.
replace your video card and watch 10K come with ease! :D
 

AdamK47

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
14,489
1,987
126
I saw the title of this thread with the word 3DMark in it and had to check the originators registration date. The results I found are not surpising.
 

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
Originally posted by: AdamK47 - 3DS
I saw the title of this thread with the word 3DMark in it and had to check the originators registration date. The results I found are not suprising.
Even though the benchmark doesn't really mean much... it can at least tell you if your system is running good enough or not. It matters more if you get good FPS in the games you play... but 3dmark is a good comparison.
 

merlocka

Platinum Member
Nov 24, 1999
2,832
0
0
Originally posted by: Yield
Originally posted by: AdamK47 - 3DS
I saw the title of this thread with the word 3DMark in it and had to check the originators registration date. The results I found are not suprising.
Even though the benchmark doesn't really mean much... it can at least tell you if your system is running good enough or not. It matters more if you get good FPS in the games you play... but 3dmark is a good comparison.
That's the problem. I don't believe that 3dmark is a good comparison. Computers which are identical (as reported in ORB) can have HUGE varience in score because of driver tweaking (well, driver mucking). This causes people to expect higher scores than what they measure with default settings, and they never realize that with extra 3Dfarks comes a trade-off in image quality / stability.

For example, this guy thinks he should be scoring 8000-8500 with a 2.4G p4 and a Ti200. I'm guessing that if he checks some basic things (to which I provided a link above) his system would score about 7500 with default settings. Overclock the card and mess with the drivers and 8000-9000 is easy. So, which score is "right"? 7500? But when he hits the compare button all he sees are PC's with the same "stuff" as he has, but they are scoring 9000. That's when the confusion sets in and they post to sites asking why their 3Dfarks are so low.

In addition, there have been numerous cases on these forums where people ask about low 3Dmark scores, without ever running a real-world application to benchmark. When they do so, the scores end up right where they should be. I'm not sure why, but it happens... and I wouldn't put something past the fact that all of the cards are so heavily optimized towards 3Dmark that if something is a bit "off" and the optimizations aren't, well, "optimal" anymore you'll see a performance drop-off.

Just my $0.02 why I belive that 3Dmark has become a poor comparison tool, unless comparing changes is same system.

 

Brewer

Junior Member
Dec 1, 2002
9
0
0
Thanks for your thoughts. Makes much sense. What would be a better test than 3D Mark?
 

CraigRT

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
31,440
5
0
Originally posted by: Brewer
Thanks for your thoughts. Makes much sense. What would be a better test than 3D Mark?
UT2003!
uses GPU and CPU power to the max.
You can also try Quake3 Arena... do a demo run without any patches installed and run the timedemo at different resolutions.
this tells you alot about your CPU speed and video power ( at high resolutions ) its still a widely used benchmark, most sites still use it to run benchmarks.
 

Jayczar

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2001
1,628
1
81
Did you install the Intel inf drivers after the reinstall?
I have seen terrible scores on the Intel platform
without them, it should be the first thing you install.
 

Brewer

Junior Member
Dec 1, 2002
9
0
0

No I did not. I don't want to sound stupid but where do i go to check what chip set I have and what version of driver that is installed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY