why are my radeon 8500 3dmark scores so low?

[joecool]

gents,

just got a radeon 8500 and while i'm thrilled with the visual quality and quantum performance leap over my geforce3 ti200, i'm surprised by the relatively low 3dmark score i got:

cpu - amd xp1800+, running at stock speed
mobo - ecs k7s5a
ram - crucual ddr2100 running at stock speed
video - hercules radeon 8500 running at 300/300 (effective 600 memory)
os - win2k pro

running the old (NOT se) version of 3dmark 2001 i got 8366. this seems low. i notice those getting much higher scores have way oc'ed their fsb's - like, to 160MHz plus. i'm amazed the cpu fsb speed would have that bit an effect on graphics performance. there are a few things i can think of to improve my numbers:

- crank up memory performance numbers on ram in bios.
- run benchmark under win98 (faster?)
- run 3dmark 2001SE
- crank up fsb on cpu (limited possibilities here due to poor oc support in the k7s5a bios).

any other ideas? am i off base or are my numbers actually not that bad? and why does the cpu fsb speed seem to play such a large role in this?

thanks in advance,

joe

 

[CubicZirconia]

am i off base or are my numbers actually not that bad?

Your numbers really are not that bad at all. Although running win98 and messing with memory settings might give you some improvement, don't expect much. Like you mentioned, most people who get really high scores have equally high fsb's. Remember that 8366 isn't bad all, all oc'ing will likely do is give you a better 3dmark score.

 

[LS20]

Originally posted by: joecool
gents,


am i off base or are my numbers actually not that bad? joe

3d bench has a comparison feature agians other video cards

that shoudl show you if youre in the ballpark

 

[joecool]

Originally posted by: LS20

Originally posted by: joecool gents, am i off base or are my numbers actually not that bad? joe

3d bench has a comparison feature agians other video cards that shoudl show you if youre in the ballpark

yeah, actually, using that doing comparison to exact match of my machine i come out on top - comparing to other ecs boards with the 1800+. guess i'm not so low after all. i just really wanted that 10k score!

 

[jiffylube1024]

Um, your score is fine. The Radeon 8500 really can't hit 10k 3dmarks without a ridiculously overclocked system (P4 in excess of 2.7 GHz with a high FSB). The difference between the Radeon 8500 and GF3 Ti200 is ususally about 1000-2500+ marks, but this difference shrinks drastically if/when the GF3 is overclocked near Ti500 levels (most Ti200's come with 4ns RAM that is rated to run at 500 MHz anyways). When overclocked, to say 200/500, the Ti200 and Radeon 8500 really aren't that far apart in performance at all. Also, many games perform similar or better on the GF3, whilst it loses to the Radeon in 3dmark. Don't take my word on this, read some recent performance comparaisons here @ AT or another good hardware site (Tom's, hardocp, etc ..)

 

[Entropy007]

Originally posted by: jiffylube1024
Um, your score is fine. The Radeon 8500 really can't hit 10k 3dmarks without a ridiculously overclocked system (P4 in excess of 2.7 GHz with a high FSB)

I wouldn't call my 1.8a @2400 MHz rediculously overclocked but I can get 10991 with my 8500 @300/300 using Rage3d Tweak's 3DMark 2001 setting and around 10400 at ATI default settings

 

[Edman]

I used to gave a lot of credit to 3DMark in the past, but know I that the score in it isn't all, 'cause I'm getting like 7600 3DMarks (SE) in my current rig, (appear slow isn't it?) but in games is another story, for example I play WCIII at 1280 * 1024 all details setting at maximun, and it dose't show any sign of lag (none at all).

So I guess that is not a bad idea check in games the performance of your system instead of turn crazy trying to reach high 3DMark scores.

Just a Tought.


Check my rig Page.

Regards!