| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 41226 | 2004-01-03 23:43:00 | 3dmark 2003 | Mark Veldhuizen (2570) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 205139 | 2004-01-03 23:43:00 | I just ran this beast on my new system I built, it really baught it down to it's knees! I was seeing less than 15 FPS in some areas, like the DOOM 3-Style space shootup. I was a little dissapointed seeing my new 2000 dollar computer struggle like that, but my final score at the end was a good 3040 3dmarks which isn't too bad, I guess. My specs: AMD xp2600+ BARTON MSI KT4 mobo 512mb DDR400 (3200), 512mb DDR333 (2700) = 1024mb RAM ATI Radeon 9600 PRO 128mb So, is 3040 3dmarks okay for this system, and okay for games for the next year or so? And post your 3dmarks, too, with system specs, for comparison. Sorry if this has been done before :) |
Mark Veldhuizen (2570) | ||
| 205140 | 2004-01-03 23:46:00 | Accusations fly everywhere about 3dmark 2003, I wouldn't trust it at all. Better to stick with 3dmark 2002, or real world benchmarks such as UT2003 or Q3A (aging, I know, but it is still a good benchmarking standard). |
agent (30) | ||
| 205141 | 2004-01-03 23:49:00 | 3dmark 2003 is designed to bring a system to its knees. | metla (154) | ||
| 205142 | 2004-01-03 23:51:00 | You think thats bad. My system AMD 1800XP 1024 megs PC2700 Ram Asus A7V8X mother board Creative Audigy2 sound card Leadtek GF4 Ti 4400 2 x 80 gig ATA133 7200rpm drives and all I got was 15 fps on the first tests and 1 (a measly ONE) FPS for the other more intensive tests. I was flabbergasted, I was sure I would get more than that. :D |
Odin (227) | ||
| 205143 | 2004-01-03 23:54:00 | Yeah 3DMark is a bit of a dog. I would suggest the Gunmetal benchmark, it's heaps better and supports DX 9. You'd probably get a better result from using it cheers chiefnz |
chiefnz (545) | ||
| 205144 | 2004-01-04 00:15:00 | Well I just ran 3DMark SE and my system scored.... 4423 3D marks. Resolution was 1024x768 @ 60Hz. Where do I find what my fps was, during the test I went as high as 68fps and the lowest was 13fps. My specs: Intel Celron 2.4Ghz (overclocked to 2.66Ghz) 1GB DDR 400 SD RAM 80GB Seagate Barracuda HDD Asus Magic 9520 GeForce FX 5200 128MB Windows 2000 SP4 Think I will try other resolutions and refresh rates to see how I go. Another thing in 3DMark in my CPU description it says Current speed - 2.66Ghz Max Speed - 3.06Ghz Does this meanI can overclock my Celeron a bit more or not. cheers chiefnz |
chiefnz (545) | ||
| 205145 | 2004-01-04 00:19:00 | Was that 2001 SE? If so, I'm 75% of downloading it now, I'll give you my score in 10 minutes. And I don't know about overclocking - I don't do it, all my gear runs stock. I may look into overclocking later. |
Mark Veldhuizen (2570) | ||
| 205146 | 2004-01-04 00:27:00 | My system gets a healthy 11700 on 3dmark2001. That is with quality settings on performence and a overclock of the video card. xp2200 g4ti ECS nforce2 512mb ram. win XP pro |
metla (154) | ||
| 205147 | 2004-01-04 00:38:00 | 2001, stock everything, on high quality, no overclocking at all (Although I'll get to that :)) 10243 3dmarks. How much did you overclock the video card, as you scored a clean 1,500 3dmarks more than me with just a gf4ti (you didn't name which one, either)? |
Mark Veldhuizen (2570) | ||
| 205148 | 2004-01-04 00:38:00 | Yes Mark it is the SE version. To be honest I'm quite surprised are got over 4000 i don't think i've scored that high before. cheers chiefnz |
chiefnz (545) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||