Where should me 3dmark2001SE scores be? And what's yours?

[SunnyD]

I've got a Gainward GeForce 4 Ti4200 64MB card clocked at stock speeds and am getting between 7900 and 8300 3dmarks. I think this is a bit low, but ain't sure. Where should I be scoring, and also, what kind of scores are everyone else getting - list your video card too.

I guess this will the the official brag about your 3dmark scores thread.

SunnyD

[edit] Looks like I'm a wee-bit slow here then, just as I thought. Hmm... GeForce 3 Ti200's out-pacing me by a hefty margin... [/edit]

 

[Barrei]

Msi g3ti200 - 8891 3dmark 2001s.e.

 

[Actaeon]

Running 3DMark2001SE 330 - 1121 3D Marks

1.13 Athlon T-bird @ 1.2 (8.5x 141)
Nvidia TNT @ 121/140 - 28.90 Drivers
Abit KT7A - Latest Bios, Latest 4 in 1 Drivers
512MB of Generic SDR
Windows XP Professional

 

[Don66]

Radeon 8500=9710 3dmarks 2001SE
P4 1.6A @ 2220 MSI 845 ultra ARU

 

[snow patrol]

You should post ya basic PC spec as well

Any way - I'll be the highest (for now!). 11991 3d2001 marks. Gf4 ti4400 / P4 @2.61 / 512megs PC800

 

[cjsketchy]

8500 marks.

XP 1700+ o/c to 1900+
512 megs PC2100
Radeon8500

 

[bunker]

8060 marks

XP1800
512mb pc2700
GF3 Ti200 (233/500)

Vid card only thing oc'ed

EDIT - THIS IS WITH 3DMARK 2001 SE. I know some of you still use 2000 and say your scores are high!

 

[moocat]

3DMark2k1SE - 8465 8627 under Win98!

-Tbird 1.4@1.59ghz (145x11)
-512mb PC2100 (aggressive timing)
-Radeon 8500oem 265/265mhz
-using the latest leaked beta drivers
-Win2k

 

[01AccordV6Coupe]

3dmark 2001 (I don't know the difference between the SE version)
7,300
Video card is overclocked to the highest the driver properties setting allows. 220/500

I think I should be scoring higher, what do you guys think?
In the driver setting for anti alias, it's set on auto. (when I set it on 4x, my score is so low!)

 

[01AccordV6Coupe]

Originally posted by: bunker
8060 marks

XP1800
512mb pc2700
GF3 Ti200 (233/500)

Vid card only thing oc'ed

EDIT - THIS IS WITH 3DMARK 2001 SE. I know some of you still use 2000 and say your scores are high!

I have the same setup as you, except for the 2700ddr. I think mine is the regular 2100ddr

 

[jaybee]

9169 3dmarks in 2001SE (in WinXP).
XP1600+ at 2000+
GF4 4400 at 305/625
384MB PC133

At default speeds (GF4 and XP) I get 700 less. I need to push the fsb... I'm going to dump my PC133 for PC150, set to CAS3, and try to hit 160fsb -- of course, I'll have to lower the multiplier again. Anyway, I'm going to aim for 9500.

jaybee

 

[robertjamestroll]

8454 3d marks 2001 SE

Athlon XP 1700+ at 2000+ on a 152mhz fsb
512mb DDR RAM (on same bus)
Gainward Geforce 2 Ti o/c from 250/450 to 320/550, 28.90 drivers
Display settings 1024*768 100hz
Gigabyte 7vrxp mobo, latest chipset drivers.
Windows XP.

Everything optimized in the registry, and on hardware.

Gainward cards are good because they can handle higher voltages.

 

[paladiin]

7190

Configuration:
Duron 700 OC'd to 1Ghz (133FSB)
Abit KT7A KT133A mobo
512MB CAS3 PC133 SDRAM
GeForce 4 4200 128MB oc'd to 315/546 (100% stable) - 29.42 drivers - AGP2X (4x locks up)
Western Digital 30.0 GB 7200 RPM ATA100 Hard Drive

At first I was kind of disappointed in this score too, but after publishing my score, I placed #3 against similar configurations. So I'm satisfied with that. Upgrading from a GeForce2MX (oc'd to 220/210) brought me up from a score of 3000.

I plan on upgrading next week to an XP1800+ which should help boost my scores as well.

 

[Rottie]

1190 3DMark SE 330

Damn I think Paladiin hurt my feeling for the best score. I can't afford to OC my Duron 700.

 

[Vic]

9417
3DMark2001SE, latest patch
XP1800+@1900+
512MB PC133
Iwill KK266+
Visiontek GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 315/560 (coolbits limit, appears that it can go higher) and 29.42's

 

[rky60]

10,400 something

AthlonXP 2100
Geforce4 Ti4600
2X256 Crucial PC2100
WindozeXP

Stock vid card speeds

 

[systemjockey]

9703 but my pc's been running all day. Gainward Gf4 Ti4400 golden sample, whatever the hell that means; AMD XP 2100+; 512Mb PC2100 no OC.

 

[drewdogg808]

11124

xp1900 @ 1.72ghz
gf4 4400 (305/650)
512 pc2100
winxp pro

 

[jamautosound]

8722 - 3dMark 2001

XP1800+ @ 1688
512 PC2700
8500
Win XP

 

[mrman3k]

7623 3dmarks

1.1GHz Athlon
256MB PC133
MSI TI4400 stock speeds
WinXP Pro

 

[Balex99]

9252 3dmark2001SE default settings

1.43 tbird (10x143)
K7S5A
Windows ME
512 Crucial PC2100
Gainward Geforce4 4200 64 meg(285/571)
nvidia 29.42s

 

[9ball]

11065

1.6@2.4
ti4200 (300/560)
winXP

 

[Jayczar]

9784

Abit Ti4400 (315/660)
XP 1600 @ 1800
512 DDR

 

[RobsTV]

I used to think the 3dm2k1se was a good indicator of comparing systems, and how they would perform in 3d games.
That is not really true any more.

Just put together a cheap all in one system, with built-in ProSavage8 video, and it scored a whopping 650 in 3dm2k1se.
Same system with GF2 MX scored 2100 in 3dm2k1se.
Yet in a very intense graphics game like Nascar Racing 4, both ran about the same 38fps with high details, D3D.
Tried another basic 32bit 3d game, Links 2001, and both performed and looked about the same.

So it seems 3dm2k1se is designed to give higher marks for specific features manufacturers incorporate for the sole
purpose of getting higher 3dm2k1se scores, and do not reflect any real life gaming performance numbers.

 

[Jayczar]

I agree Rob but I just do it for fun.