Post your 3dmark scores

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/d...floss/3dmark2.7GHz.png

5627
X2 4200@2.7GHz
X1900XTX

You motivated me to run mine again. I originally got 5610 but I got it up to 5911 now.

 

[bryanW1995]

25733 is the new top score. it's on a Q6850 with an 8800ultra.

 

[Ruger22C]

3dMark05:

3DMark Score 8967 3DMarks
CPU Score 6524 CPUMarks

Game Tests
GT1 - Return To Proxycon 37.0 fps
GT2 - Firefly Forest 28.6 fps
GT3 - Canyon Flight 43.7 fps

CPU Tests
CPU Test 1 3.0 fps
CPU Test 2 6.3 fps

AM2 4200+, 2gB DDRII 800, 320gB SATA 3.0 PR, 7950GT, XP.

 

[zagood]

I've got a nice history spanning back a year and a half...wish they'd let you keep more than 5 scores in your project manager (free version).

Score: 1989 - 6800 NU 375/850
Date: 2006-01-19
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3907 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 6800
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1280x1024

Score: 4527 - MSI 965 Neo-F (all stock I think)
Date: 2006-10-15
CPU: Intel Core 2 2126 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1280x1024

Score: 5742 - DS3 7900 GS 641/796
Date: 2006-12-23
CPU: Intel Core 2 3200 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1280x1024

Score: 8864 - 8800GTS 513/792
Date: 2007-02-17
CPU: Intel Core 2 3207 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1280x1024

Score: 10651 - 8800GTS 650/999
Date: 2007-03-28
CPU: Intel Core 2 3207 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTS
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
Res: 1280x1024

"Core 2" is an e6400
"Pentium 4" is a socket 478 3.0e.

-z

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Where is the "3Dmark is useless and misleading" option?

why would we have a false and misleading option?

it has it uses

It certainly does have uses, but not with the '3DMarks' portion of it. If you are comparing SM 2.0 or 3.0 scores independent of the CPU scores then it is great.

actually my favorite use of 3DMarkXX is to track *changes* in a rig

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Where is the "3Dmark is useless and misleading" option?

why would we have a false and misleading option?

it has it uses

It certainly does have uses, but not with the '3DMarks' portion of it. If you are comparing SM 2.0 or 3.0 scores independent of the CPU scores then it is great.

actually my favorite use of 3DMarkXX is to track *changes* in a rig

I think that is the only reason that most of us use 3Dmark, other than seeing how an upgrade affects the performance of a rig, 3dmark is pretty useless.

 

[TheRyuu]

I can hit about 9000 (maybe a little more) on my setup. (in sig).
Last time I ran it I got 8800 but my CPU was only at 2.5ghz then. Now, I should be able to break 9k.

Only thing stopping me from hitting 10k is the CPU. The Opteron still has fight left in it though 🙂
I'll probably upgrade to a Q6600 sometime later this year. (or equivalent AMD CPU if it's faster/cheaper, etc..)

Getting a Core2Quad would make me get a new mobo, and new ram. Hopefully though, I can reuse everything else. So the upgrade should come in at or around $500-$700. And my limit is <$1000
😛 I'm hoping my 8800GTS will last 😉

 

[MarcVenice]

12819 3dmark05. I can't run 3dmark06 I think, because my screens native res is at 1280*1024. When I tried running it, it locked up.

Another question, when I ran 3dmark05, I get a LOT of red dots, not placed randomnly, but on the outlines of figures/characters. This only happens during the CPU test though, where the gpu test replays, with the marine sqaud, and the dragon under water. During the GPU tests everything looks normal.

This is on a x2 3800+ @ 2.5ghz, 2gb ddr333 at 2-7-3-3, 8800gts 320mb stock speeds.

 

[Narse]

12150

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Where is the "3Dmark is useless and misleading" option?

why would we have a false and misleading option?

it has it uses

Because it does just that?

It gives far, far too much credit towards dual core processes. Its misleading to the point, where its down right lying.

I had a 3700+@2750Mhz, with SLI'd 7800GTX's. Got 6328 for the score. Then had the exact same system, but with an Opty at 2635Mhz and one revision of newer drivers, and got 8011. Same cards, same mobo, same everything, but the CPU and one revision of a newer driver. Ive still got links for both scores.

Dont even attempt to try and explain that its not a false representation of a score. If anything, the 3700+ would be faster due to the 100+ more Mhz it had. Dual core is not going to help much, if at all at 1280x1024. The same score difference was there even at 1920x1200, which is simply idiotic. According to 3dmark, my Opty should be much, much faster in games. But guess what, it wasnt. Imagine my surprise! Or not... I realize its supposed to give you an idea of what games will run like in the future, hence the name. To this day, there isnt one game where my Opty would have been faster.

There was a time when 3dmark was actually useful, those times are long gone. All it does it make people think they need to upgrade, and mislead people who dont know any better. Oh yeah, and make people have "competitions" to see who can get a higher score.

But Im done ranting. Have fun in this thread and bragging about a useless score.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Where is the "3Dmark is useless and misleading" option?

why would we have a false and misleading option?

it has it uses

Because it does just that?

It gives far, far too much credit towards dual core processes. Its misleading to the point, where its down right lying.

I had a 3700+@2750Mhz, with SLI'd 7800GTX's. Got 6328 for the score. Then had the exact same system, but with an Opty at 2635Mhz and one revision of newer drivers, and got 8011. Same cards, same mobo, same everything, but the CPU and one revision of a newer driver. Ive still got links for both scores.

Dont even attempt to try and explain that its not a false representation of a score. If anything, the 3700+ would be faster due to the 100+ more Mhz it had. Dual core is not going to help much, if at all at 1280x1024. The same score difference was there even at 1920x1200, which is simply idiotic. According to 3dmark, my Opty should be much, much faster in games. But guess what, it wasnt. Imagine my surprise! Or not... I realize its supposed to give you an idea of what games will run like in the future, hence the name. To this day, there isnt one game where my Opty would have been faster.

There was a time when 3dmark was actually useful, those times are long gone. All it does it make people think they need to upgrade, and mislead people who dont know any better. Oh yeah, and make people have "competitions" to see who can get a higher score.

But Im done ranting. Have fun in this thread and bragging about a useless score.

i think you missed my entire point WHY it is NOT useless in my later answer to AA

actually my favorite use of 3DMarkXX is to track *changes* in a rig

it is extremely useful

now rant on about "whatever" because i am not bragging ... just stating the facts, Sir.

 

[SilverHair]

3DMark Score 7093 3DMarks
ATI X1950XTX Stock
AMD X2 5200+Stock
OCZ DDR2 4 Gigs
1 TB drive space SATA


3DMark Score 2520 3DMARKS
ATI X850XT
AMD X6400 3200+
2 Gigs DDR
750 GB drive space SATA

3DMark Score 2048 3DMARKS
Nvidia 7600GS
Intel E6300
4 gigs DDR2
3.4 TB drive space SATA
(File server)

 

[Ackmed]

It sure tracked a change in my rig. A change it said boosted performance by almost 25%. Yet in games there was no boosted performance.

The fact is, its very misleading. Especially to those who just take the end number at its face value. And that sir, is stating a fact.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
It sure tracked a change in my rig. A change it said boosted performance by almost 25%. Yet in games there was no boosted performance.

The fact is, its very misleading. Especially to those who just take the end number at its face value. And that sir, is stating a fact.

Perhaps it IS misleading .. to you
-i can certainly agree with you that it could be misleading. Especially to those who just take the end number at its face value as you apparently do.

--are you done ranting yet, Sir?

 

[Ackmed]

Its not misleading to me, and I dont take the numbers at face value. But good try at an insult. You havent changed at all.

The fact is, it can give a slower gaming PC, a higher score. Thus, misleading many people who do not know any better. Many reviews, give a review of a card based on just scores. Such as scores from 3dmark. Taking just the score to compare cards is silly. 3Dmark can be very misleading

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Its not misleading to me, and I dont take the numbers at face value. But good try at an insult. You havent changed at all.

The fact is, it can give a slower gaming PC, a higher score. Thus, misleading many people who do not know any better. Many reviews, give a review of a card based on just scores. Such as scores from 3dmark. Taking just the score to compare cards is silly. 3Dmark can be very misleading

and you haven't changed at all either - so what is your point?
--if i actually DO insult you, it will not be an "attempt"

IF you are just taking just the score to compare cards it IS silly
-if you do it my way - to track changes within a system - it IS very useful
--or do you need someone else beside me to explain how i do it for you?

 

[Ackmed]

Nope, still shooting your attempts down. I wouldnt put it past you to throw out insults again.

And the point is, I said it can be very misleading. I also gave an example of it doing just that, and flat out giving a much higher score, to a slower PC. I also showed you "tracking changes" can also be misleading.

The fact is, games are much better to get results. 3Dmark can mislead, be compromised to give higher scores, and be flat out wrong. But hey, lower all the settings you can, to get a higher score, because thats how we play games, right? Yeah.

I'll ask once again. Please stop your attempts at baiting anyone into less than respectful behavior, let alone a moderator. Nobody insulted, or attempted to insult you and that is grossly obvious. If you can't get along with the other kids, please let any moderator know this. You are trying to walk that thin line, but the line can be moved if plucked enough.

Thank You,
Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Nope, still shooting your attempts down. I wouldnt put it past you to throw out insults again.

And the point is, I said it can be very misleading. I also gave an example of it doing just that, and flat out giving a much higher score, to a slower PC. I also showed you "tracking changes" can also be misleading.

The fact is, games are much better to get results. 3Dmark can mislead, be compromised to give higher scores, and be flat out wrong. But hey, lower all the settings you can, to get a higher score, because thats how we play games, right? Yeah.

again? this is a completely new situation with moderation in Video. If you are going to get hung up on the past it is your personal problem.

again .. just because 3DmarkXX is useless to you does not mean that it is useless to the rest of us as a tool or that we are not smart enough to know it's limitations.

i also benchmark with far more emphasis on gaming benchmarks then on synthetic tests.

everything taken together helps to correct a lopsided viewpoint that a single test may give

 

[ArchAngel777]

Honestly, just cut Mr Apop some slack 😛 - He only had to do what he had to do in the past because of the lack of moderation. Hell, all of us have posts we made that were clearly unacceptable with today's ruleset, but we did it because if we didn't defend ourselves, no one else would. So, yeah, a lot of things were said that probably should not have by many in this forum, but now we have moderation and can relax and act civil.

As for Ackmed, He USED to get on my nerves, but I generally consider him pretty damn informative and level headed (for the most part). Lets just get along...

I think the fact is, 3DMark06 to the 'general public' is misleading. To our secluded little enthuesiast market, it is only misleading to 'some'... I don't think that can be disputed. 3DMark06 is one of MANY tools you can use to test peformance. That is the reason reviewers just don't test Quake 4 and then deem the fastest graphics card to 'X' company... Have to use as many tools to your disposel as possible.

With that said, I do think there is a lot of E-Penis type stuff that goes on with 3DMark06, though not in this thread that I have noticed. So what have I stated other than the obvious? Not much... Case Closed, issue solved.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

3d06: Around 6500, I forget what exactly, but somewhere around that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Honestly, just cut Mr Apop some slack 😛 - He only had to do what he had to do in the past because of the lack of moderation. Hell, all of us have posts we made that were clearly unacceptable with today's ruleset, but we did it because if we didn't defend ourselves, no one else would. So, yeah, a lot of things were said that probably should not have by many in this forum, but now we have moderation and can relax and act civil.

As for Ackmed, He USED to get on my nerves, but I generally consider him pretty damn informative and level headed (for the most part). Lets just get along...

I think the fact is, 3DMark06 to the 'general public' is misleading. To our secluded little enthuesiast market, it is only misleading to 'some'... I don't think that can be disputed. 3DMark06 is one of MANY tools you can use to test peformance. That is the reason reviewers just don't test Quake 4 and then deem the fastest graphics card to 'X' company... Have to use as many tools to your disposel as possible.

With that said, I do think there is a lot of E-Penis type stuff that goes on with 3DMark06, though not in this thread that I have noticed. So what have I stated other than the obvious? Not much... Case Closed, issue solved.

well-said

and THIS particular thread IS for e-penis comparisons ... it serves no other "purpose" except perhaps to show what rigs our fellow posters are running

in that case Ackmed IS quite correct - and informative: i.e. for this type of comparison 3DMarkXX IS quite "misleading" for showing whose rig plays games "better" ... and as we can all see the 2900xt appears "optimized" for '06.

--but i'd be a real fool to lock this thread on that basis

 

[Stumps]

one thing that both Apoppin and Ackmed have forgotten is 3Dmarks use as a tool for testing overclocked graphics cards (and to a lesser extent CPU's) and general system stability, I find 3Dmark very useful for this.

I have the professional versions of all of the 3dmarks (required tool at work) which allows me to run them in a loop giving the video card (and the rest of the system) a chance to heat up, usually a bad overclock or dodgy component will fail within 30mins of running 3dmark as a loop.

3dmark also looks pretty cool running on the demo PC's at work.

3Dmark has it's uses, but as a performance tool, it's not to be taken as seriously as futuremark would like us to take it.

 

[PCTC2]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
12819 3dmark05. I can't run 3dmark06 I think, because my screens native res is at 1280*1024. When I tried running it, it locked up.

Another question, when I ran 3dmark05, I get a LOT of red dots, not placed randomnly, but on the outlines of figures/characters. This only happens during the CPU test though, where the gpu test replays, with the marine sqaud, and the dragon under water. During the GPU tests everything looks normal.

This is on a x2 3800+ @ 2.5ghz, 2gb ddr333 at 2-7-3-3, 8800gts 320mb stock speeds.

EDIT: Read it too fast. I don't know anymore.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stumps
one thing that both Apoppin and Ackmed have forgotten is 3Dmarks use as a tool for testing overclocked graphics cards (and to a lesser extent CPU's) and general system stability, I find 3Dmark very useful for this.

I have the professional versions of all of the 3dmarks (required tool at work) which allows me to run them in a loop giving the video card (and the rest of the system) a chance to heat up, usually a bad overclock or dodgy component will fail within 30mins of running 3dmark as a loop.

3dmark also looks pretty cool running on the demo PC's at work.

3Dmark has it's uses, but as a performance tool, it's not to be taken as seriously as futuremark would like us to take it.

hey, *i* didn't forget - that IS part of what i use it for ... 3DMarkXX has its uses ... it is a good tool for tracking system changes - including OC'ing and stability
--it is far from "useless" - or misleading - as Ackmed as suggested ....
please ... don't lump me in with him 😛
====================

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
12819 3dmark05. I can't run 3dmark06 I think, because my screens native res is at 1280*1024. When I tried running it, it locked up.

Another question, when I ran 3dmark05, I get a LOT of red dots, not placed randomnly, but on the outlines of figures/characters. This only happens during the CPU test though, where the gpu test replays, with the marine sqaud, and the dragon under water. During the GPU tests everything looks normal.

This is on a x2 3800+ @ 2.5ghz, 2gb ddr333 at 2-7-3-3, 8800gts 320mb stock speeds.

that isn't good

first of all are you running Vista or XP? There is an issue with 06 and Vista. LMK and i will look up the 'workaround'. 1280*1024 IS the native resolution of 3DMark06 - so that is NOT it

finally the 'red dots' might indicate a problem with your CPU's OC - try lowering it

 

[dreddfunk]

Something can be both useful and misleading at the same time. The difference between the two often comes down to education and experience, not native intelligence.

How many people here can adequately evaluate a company's financial statement for problems? Financial statements are both useful and misleading--and many intelligent people can't analyze them nearly as well as 'less' intelligent people with the right experience.

I have no problem seeing 3dmark as being both useful and misleading.