-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
OFFICIAL: Post your 3dMark 2003 scores here.
Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
drewdogg808
Golden Member
sure it beats it, but not by over 2x as much like the scores suggest.
You guys gotta understand the point of the new benchmark is to determine how well cards will perform in the future. Ya the new ATI cards are much more equipt to handle games of the future in comparison to the Geforce4 line, I have been telling ppl to buy the 9500 Pro for a while because of this very reason. If you are gonna upgrade every 6 months than who cares but for the people who buy cards for the logn run (me still going on Geforce2 Ultra) the one with the DX9 ability will own the older ones. In a year or two you will probably see a 4x advantage in a 9500/9700 card over a Geforce4 Ti card, same thing with the FX card and will be able to handle the future much better because of the DX9 features. Remeber this test will probably have to last the next two years. And about the CPU scaling well it seems low now but when were at 8GHz by 2005 it will be a whole new ball game.
Achilles97
Senior member
I got 3600 with all the driver settings at default. I was expecting more....
Human2k, when you went to other drivers, your card is still softmodded to 9700, right?
Human2k, when you went to other drivers, your card is still softmodded to 9700, right?
Not necessarily. Carmack has commented on this already. There are code optimizations for each card family that will compensate for missing DX9 features. It might not look as nice, but it certainly won't chug along like in 3dFarce2k3.
The GF4 Ti4600 comparison is true (not quite 2x as slow, but considerably slower) but if you look at the results Unsean posted a bit closer, you'll see that he clearly has a much faster CPU in his Ti4600 rig in comparison to his son's R9700pro system (look at the 2k1 benches). I'd hate to even speculate on what kind of CPU would produce an 11k score with a 9700pro in 3dmark2k1, I'm guessing maybe a 1.5ghz Celeron against probably a P4 3.06 or an XP running at ~2.4ghz (15k is very high with a GF4).
In any REAL game, the Ti4600 rig would be considerably faster than the 9700pro rig (with or without FSAA + AF), especially considering the 9700pro performs best with faster CPUs. The article at THG (I rarely use THG as an example, but 3/4 of the article is nVidia quotes so I guess its OK 🙂 ) goes into further detail on why 3dmark2k3 is a poor benchmark; its the same conclusion many here could see after running it a few times, but explains in great detail WHY the results are flawed.
Chiz
Doing better now: 1778 3dmarks
(Using new dets.) Could do a little better if I went down to 60Hz from 144Hz default. Also, the latest drivers think I have 64MB video ram, and I really have 128MB.
(Using new dets.) Could do a little better if I went down to 60Hz from 144Hz default. Also, the latest drivers think I have 64MB video ram, and I really have 128MB.
sharkeeper
Lifer
Leo, what's up? LTNS. 🙂
This benchmark is crazy. My dually gets a 1866 (GF4 Quadro) and my "off the clock" computer gets a 4877 due to the 9700 pro obviously. I'd put the 9700 in the dually but it's far too busy running traces and other important stuff.
I may sneak a 9700 in one of the other duallies that are in standby mode. Increased security is a real PIA! :|
Perhaps this would be an excuse to buy a rev. 1.5 MPX2 and a pair of Barton's and cut them! 😀 Xeons do kind of sh!tty on this benchmark eh?
Cheers!
This benchmark is crazy. My dually gets a 1866 (GF4 Quadro) and my "off the clock" computer gets a 4877 due to the 9700 pro obviously. I'd put the 9700 in the dually but it's far too busy running traces and other important stuff.
I may sneak a 9700 in one of the other duallies that are in standby mode. Increased security is a real PIA! :|
Perhaps this would be an excuse to buy a rev. 1.5 MPX2 and a pair of Barton's and cut them! 😀 Xeons do kind of sh!tty on this benchmark eh?
Cheers!
AtomicDude512
Golden Member
Alas! DirectX 7 only, no more no less... Just has AA and a faster memory bandwidth.
Challenger
Diamond Member
1293 with an 8500 and latest drivers,P4 2.4.Getting a 9500 PRO tommorow not because of the 3DMark but because UnrealII doesnt run real well for me in heavy firefights:Q
Achilles97
Senior member
I was able to increase it up to 3650 after I installed the new ATI drivers and control panel. I was expecting over 4000, booo....
Confused
Elite Member
That is my ONLY thoughts on this piece of crap "benchmark"
Here is my rig, and scores:
Bits that stay the same:
MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB
Epox 8RDA+
2x 256MB PC2100 DDR
With XP1700+ @ 1712MHz (170x10), memory at 138MHz (crappy memory won't do more than 142)
1339
Up the CPU speed to 1892MHz (170x11), memory at 138 again
1354
Up the CPU speed to 1925MHz (175x111), memory at 138 again
1357
Put the CPU up to 2GHz (200x10), memory at 133MHz
1354
You can't tell me that adding 300MHz and increasing the FSB by 30MHz can not change the score by more than 20. If it was ANYWHERE near correct, then it would at least scale for the CPU tests!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
