My 3Dmark scores are in the toilet given my rig. Help me out!!**ADDED UT2K3 Bench's**

[codeyf]

Give me a list of things to check, cuz I scored 8400 on all defaults!!! I got higher than that on my old AXP 1800 right with a vanilla GF3.....

Here's my current rig:

P4 2.53ghz (133 FSB)
Soyo Dragon Platinum Mobo
512mb Kingston PC2700 (333, default timings)
MSI Geforce4 Ti4200 (Det 40.72's, default core/mem)
Maxtor D740X, 40gig HD
Fresh install of XP Pro
SB Audigy

Help me out guys! Seems like @ default settings I should be very close to 10000 if not breaking it given my setup.

13.840881 / 49.429123 / 85.772255 fps -- Score = 49.454647 rand[21047] botmatch-anubis
14.099294 / 49.331963 / 84.989273 fps -- Score = 49.358192 rand[21047] botmatch-asbestos
73.816292 / 168.860672 / 498.301392 fps -- Score = 168.987808 rand[5909] flyby-asbestos
18.428177 / 42.344059 / 78.935303 fps -- Score = 42.394646 rand[29105] botmatch-citadel
29.314335 / 115.063896 / 276.096222 fps -- Score = 115.261948 rand[6878] flyby-citadel
19.371031 / 38.506546 / 74.266335 fps -- Score = 38.526470 rand[2992] botmatch-antalus
60.128887 / 108.798409 / 344.966736 fps -- Score = 108.818947 rand[21984] flyby-antalus

 

[BoomAM]

you know what the problem is? 3DMARK.
Its not always reliable to dont worry. Aslong as ure getting higher fps in proper games, then dont worry about 3dmark. Its just something for sad people who spend ages trying to get a few more points, so they can brag on forums like AT.

if you really want to check if its faster, then run summit like Q3 or RTCW or SeriousSam 1&2. asuming you knew ure old scores.

 

[merlocka]

Deeko

 

[nj]

When I went from my GF3 to GF4 I had the same problem. I guess I didn't completely get rid of the previous 30.xx drivers and it was holding it back. I would uninstall everything and reinstall the 40.72's. I have almost the same setup as you average about 10,500 ... and no, I certainly don't take 3dmark as the final word on how well my system runs, but it's a starting point.

 

[codeyf]

Originally posted by: nj
When I went from my GF3 to GF4 I had the same problem. I guess I didn't completely get rid of the previous 30.xx drivers and it was holding it back. I would uninstall everything and reinstall the 40.72's. I have almost the same setup as you average about 10,500 ... and no, I certainly don't take 3dmark as the final word on how well my system runs, but it's a starting point.

I just reinstalled everything, windows, drivers, etc.

 

[PCMarine]

There is a weak link in there somewhere. Check your P4's thermal compound. P4's throttle the speed according to the CPU temperatures. Ive seen cases like yours where they have badass systems, but their comps run like crap in intense usage (like games and 3dmark). They either put TOO MUCH or too little on the cpu...check yours and make sure it's just right.

 

[merlocka]

Deeko's away from his computer, he's asked me to step in and try to help out with this. I'll do my best.

Ahem...

3Dmark sucks as a benchmark. You?re wasting valuable moments of your life worrying about a low 3dmark score.

Device drivers are so heavily optimized towards 3dMark that it has ceased to be a meaningful benchmark. Comparing your scores with scores on the ORB is meaningless because 90% of ORB users tweak their systems to the limits of stability (while degrading image quality to abysmal levels) just to eek out an extra 3Dfark or two.

Posting some UT2003 benchmarks would be much more useful as it is a benchmark based closely in reality, so begone with yea heathen and do not returneth until you bringeth relevant data.

 

[codeyf]

Originally posted by: merlocka
Posting some UT2003 benchmarks would be much more useful as it is a benchmark based closely in reality, so begone with yea heathen and do not returneth until you bringeth relevant data.

Downloading it now....[ahnold] I'll be back [/ahnold]

 

[cmdrdredd]

this sounds like you missed the Intel application accelerator install as well as the Intel INF files.

 

[Dulanic]

I don't get this whole Anti 3DMark thing... ya its not the best benchmark, and people tweak stuff just to get the highest score... but its quite obvious when hes a good 2000 or 3000 points below what he should be getting that SOMETHING isnt right... ya comparing 3DMark scares is stupid for a few hundred point difference... but when its a few thousand points low SOMETHING IS WRONG.

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
I don't get this whole Anti 3DMark thing... ya its not the best benchmark, and people tweak stuff just to get the highest score...

cool, we agree.

but its quite obvious when hes a good 2000 or 3000 points below what he should be getting that SOMETHING isnt right... ya comparing 3DMark scares is stupid for a few hundred point difference... but when its a few thousand points low SOMETHING IS WRONG.

2000 or 3000 points below what? I search the ORB for scores with Ti 4200 and P4 2.5 - 2.53 GHZ and I see scores which range from 13xxx to 4xxx. Which one is right? Let's check with the professionals...

According to Digit-Life's 3Digest for October, TI4200's score from 10900 to 12900. I dunno what flavor of 4200 he is using, but it's good for a 2000 point swing depending on the model.

So, naturally, it looks like an optimally configured computer with P4 2.53 and a Ti4200 should score 10,000 3Dfarks. He is scoring 8400. I'm assuming he has read the FAQ which gives tips about low 3Dfark scores, but don't you agree that providing data from a real benchmark like UT2003 would be more valuable?

 

[Dulanic]

Ok and what are you going to compare the UT2K3 benchmarks too? Your arguement applies to ANY benchmark, games, 3DMark, any of them... what should your score be? I know from mine and friends scores about what the scores should be... a 4200 with a P4 2.53 should be around 11000... if it was 10000 and he said something, ya Id prob laugh.... but he is quite low from my own experience.

 

[techietam]

Dulanic IS right. If Codeyf was complaining about gaining
only a few points after overclocking, then it would be one thing...
But he's got everything default here and it should be around
10K.

Cmdrdredd has the point with the INF install, although Application
Accelerator wouldn't cause it...

 

[chizow]

Although I don't put much stock in 3dmark2k1 (I always run it at LEAST once anytime I update OS, driver or hardware though), I would be concerned if I didn't break 10k with his rig. His score tells me there is something fubarred with his system settings, drivers, or he possibly has a hardware conflict.

Chiz

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: Dulanic
Ok and what are you going to compare the UT2K3 benchmarks too?

Gosh, that was hard. The exact method for benchmarking is detailed in the digest.

Your arguement applies to ANY benchmark, games, 3DMark, any of them... what should your score be?

No, 3dMark is a synthetic benchmark. UT2003 is a application benchmark. My argument applies specifically to synthetic benchmarks.

I agree 3Dmark has value when testing changes in a PC or testing for stability. I don't believe that it's a good reference test for comparison between PC's because the heavy 3Dfark specific optimizations done in drivers. The mad onion website has a FAQ with suggestions for people with "low scores".

What I think is pitiful is the number of posts which are to the effect

"i just put together / upgraded my PC and I only get XXX 3dmarks"

have you tried any other benchmarks?

"no"...

If you scored 8400 on 3Dmark but every other application which you use ran with performance comparable to what other people / reviews show... would you worry about it?

 

[codeyf]

There are my UT2K3 scores. It's at 1024x768, 32bit, max detail settings.

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: codeyf
There are my UT2K3 scores. It's at 1024x768, 32bit, max detail settings.

60.128887 / 108.798409 / 344.966736 fps -- Score = 108.818947 rand[21984] flyby-antalus

Max detail settings... that's default right? I don't have UT2002 in front of me right now.

According to the 3Digest, Ti4200's range from 105.2 (for a default 128MB card) to 115 (for a default 64MB card).

 

[codeyf]

Card is at default for both core and mem (250/446). As far as settings go, they were set to the highest in UT2K3. I went back and put everything on "normal" and got:

84.497215 / 116.623550 / 379.870850 fps -- Score = 116.661407 rand[21984] flyby-antalus

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: codeyf
Card is at default for both core and mem (250/446). As far as settings go, they were set to the highest in UT2K3. I went back and put everything on "normal" and got:

84.497215 / 116.623550 / 379.870850 fps -- Score = 116.661407 rand[21984] flyby-antalus

So, in a real world application your benchmark is 116.66fps, which is even higher than the 250/444 clocked card on the 3Digest page.

 

[BoomAM]

If you ask me, 3D mark is useless as a benchmark now as practically all cards out can run it with total lack of respect for it.
For benchmarking, use UT2003/Q3/SeriousSam.