3D Mark 2003 has been released by Futuremark (http://www.futuremark.com). This software benchmarks your systems gaming ability with DX7, DX8 and DX9 tests. The download is 178mb[!] and the test has shown to be utter rubbish with Celeron 900's beating 2GHz+ P4's. Conspiracy theorists, and NVidia themselves, claim the benchmark is optimised for ATI cards after NVidia failed to sponsor the software.
I agree after scoring a pitiful 1200pts with my P4 2.4, RDRAM and Ti500 gfx. :rolleyes::eek:
Spectacular though the benchmark is, maybe this will teach hardware nuts, overclockers and Futuremark/Madonion, that framerate is NOT life*.
* lil pun on the 3D Mark slogan there ;)
Somewhere in the 4500 range, not bad considering I cannot OC right now (never knew you could snap a brass standoff in half by over tightening it).
Specs:
P4 2.66 GHz @ 2.66 <- Good for at least 3.1 @ 1.7vcore
512Meg Corsair 3200C2
ATI Radeon 9700Pro (325/310) <- Good for 375/330 before the RAM craps out and I get artifacts everywhere
Hercules Game Theater XP
Abit IT7 MAX motherboard (I need to get a floppy so I can update the BIOS)
For reference, I can run UT2k3 at 1280x1024 with 4xAA and 16xAF with the quality setting maxed out and still get above 60fps. That is the main reason why I think 3dMark2003 is bull, as it barely gets about 40FPS at 1024x768 with no AA or AF and with the performance settings, and it looks only marginally better than UT2k3 running at those settings...
Got 15.5k in 3dMark2001 as well...
I get 8300 in 2k1!, something is very wrong with my system, I'm sure bios settings are all correct, I don't know why my scores are so bad :(
Make that 9100 in 2k1 with everything stock :(
tbh I can run pretty much any game on adequately high settings, I've not choked my system once with a game.
The lovely people at Danger Den are sending me some goodies to help :D
Originally posted by mouse
The lovely people at Danger Den are sending me some goodies to help :D
Nice, I really want to try water cooling an even an Alpha and a Tornado fan are not cutting it in a place that has 70F winters... :-\
I've gone for a Maze 2, don't like the Maze 3 and its pointless plastic lid. My cpu is a B0 stepping so overclocking is a challenge, the most I've managed is about 2.7GHz which increases my 2k1se score by a pitiful 500pts but beaing in mind my system is close to silent as it is; passively cooled gfx, zalman flower on cpu and Enermax quiet psu, I think water is the logical next step.
Here are my compare urls:
3D Mark 2001se: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5954059
3D Mark 2003: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=168493
PC Mark 2002: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1105778
think I'll do the vid pin mod for more volts too, setting my board to 1.7 gives me ~1.45, not even default volts :mad:
I got 4366
Asus A7V333R
Athlon XP2200
1G PC2700
Raid 0 40g ata133
Radeon 9700 Pro
I never OC anything so this is without any tweaks. Something funny is that the first time I ran this it said my proc was 1.43. I knew this was wrong so I looked in the BIOS and in the proc speed setting was 1.43 not 1.8. So I changed it to 1.8 and am now running my AMD at its correct speed. I have had this mobo for 6 months and have been running it slower than it should.......How does it feel?:D
Originally posted by mouse
think I'll do the vid pin mod for more volts too, setting my board to 1.7 gives me ~1.45, not even default volts :mad:
ouch, that sucks. The IT7 has about .05v sag and I don't like that... :p
Originally posted by Thejavaman1
ouch, that sucks. The IT7 has about .05v sag and I don't like that... :p I use a TH7-II, suprised you don't see more 'sag' since we both have Abit boards. I'm not suprised by my 03 score, only ATI cards do well on this benchmark. :confused:
Got my waterblock this morning. I'll have to order more gear from the US, it was cheaper than it'd cost me from a UK distributor.:eek:
Originally posted by mouse
I'm not suprised by my 03 score, only ATI cards do well on this benchmark. :confused:
I'm pretty I read something at HardOCP where a GeforceFX with latest drivers barely beat out a Radeon 9700 Pro?
Originally posted by jkd
I'm pretty I read something at HardOCP where a GeforceFX with latest drivers barely beat out a Radeon 9700 Pro? Yeah, it just beats the 9700pro on most benchmarks. If they'd have used 256bit memory as was rumoured they'd have thrashed it as gfx cards are all about ram bandwidth these days. Considering the new ATI will be released in a couple of months, the FX isn't worth buying, as if any top gfx is ever worth buying. I hate it but ATI are really on top of the game at the moment.
Originally posted by mouse
I hate it but ATI are really on top of the game at the moment.
Why do you hate it? Is ATi inherently evil? I love it, nVidia typically makes good video cards, and now they are pressured to make even better ones. You win, whether or not your favorite manufacturer is on top.
And as for GFX beating Radeon 97000 Pro's - there are still a significant amount of benchmarks which the R9700 Pro still wins, and considering you can actually buy 9700 Pro's right now is something to consider.
ATi got the jump, and I doubt they're gonna let the advantage slip.
Probably because their past has involved poor cards with poor drivers. I don't think they bring much to the game other than cards with high memory bandwidth. They've not really innovated much to my knowledge. NVidia are evil too; I find both GF4 and FX pointless marketing excersises, but with their much criticised hoover cooling system they're at least trying new things. I think both companies should sign a pact or something not to release new ranges every 3-4 months, that way we might see something new rather than souped up, steroidal, nothing new cards like the GeForce4 and FX.
Originally posted by mouse
Probably because their past has involved poor cards with poor drivers. I don't think they bring much to the game other than cards with high memory bandwidth. They've not really innovated much to my knowledge. NVidia are evil too; I find both GF4 and FX pointless marketing excersises, but with their much criticised hoover cooling system they're at least trying new things. I think both companies should sign a pact or something not to release new ranges every 3-4 months, that way we might see something new rather than souped up, steroidal, nothing new cards like the GeForce4 and FX.
Have you tried the catalyst drivers? They are just as good as nVidia's drivers and they have better IQ to boot.
Also, Abit came up with the FlowFX cooling system (they called it OTES), nVidia just copied it and made it louder.
I concider an entirely new core, that supports DX9, is based on the .15m process and runs cooler than the .13m based GFFX core, and was out 6 months earlier pretty damn good.
Also, ATI came up with PS1.4 support (nVidia hasn't added it into their cards).
Really, nVidia lost this round hard (6 months late, with the only card that is able to beat the 9700Pro being sold in limited quantities)
Fair point on ps1.4 but is it any use to anyone or another two years ahead of its time technology? My next card is likely to be ATI unless NVidia do someting special. I'm hoping Yellowstone memory technology will remove the onus on bandwidth, then maybe we can start using pixel shaders and so on.
Do You have a compare url Javaman? might be funny to see yours against mine :o
30205 3DMarks
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
30205 3DMarks
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4600 @ 2.40GHz
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT
That really doesn't mean much anymore, you need to run a more up to date test. Most machines today could hit it out of the park like that.