3dmark2001 bench ... post here

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 8:46 am

I got a score of 1619

That´s very low isn´t it??

I wonder that the "nature" part is not working also one or two other part won´t work ?!

Cheers,
Thor Walez (

)

smaier69 · Post by **smaier69** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 1:01 pm

1.1GHz T-Bird
KT7A-RAID
256MB RAM @ 100Mhz
ATI Radeon 32DDR
27.1GB Maxtor ATA/66
4.3GB Quantum ATA/33
etc,

3DMark2001 score = 2738

---------------------------------------------

700MHz slot "a" Athlon
MSI MS-6167
ATI Expert2000 VIVO
128MB ECC RAM @ 100Mhz
Adaptec 2940U2 (U2W - 80MBps version)
9GB Quantum Atlas 10K (10,000RPM)
etc,

hmmm..... it freezes when running the high detail car chase test. runs all the other tests OK. cant get a score without running all the tests, though.

---------------------------------------------

i have not had 3DMark2001 for long enough to know what a good score really is. the Radeon does not really play well with the VIA chipset, though. i also have an MSI K7 PRO mobo laying around, and am thinking about trying out the Radeon/1.1GHz CPU with that to see if there is any improvement. i doubt it will, as the chipsets are almost identical, but i am sort of curious.

ssjDoh · Post by **ssjDoh** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 2:41 pm

Originally posted by smaier69:
1.1GHz T-Bird
KT7A-RAID
256MB RAM @ 100Mhz
ATI Radeon 32DDR
27.1GB Maxtor ATA/66
4.3GB Quantum ATA/33
etc,

3DMark2001 score = 2738

You should get a lot better than that with your setup...you should be at least in the 3000 range...

HongKongPolice · Post by **HongKongPolice** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 2:52 pm

You guys gotta realize that he's using a GeForce2 MX, so a score of 1619 is not surprising

smaier69 · Post by **smaier69** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 3:02 pm

You should get a lot better than that with your setup...you should be at least in the 3000 range...

yeah, i know. this is just a really fresh system, and i have not really had time to start tweaking. i am still working on the final hardware layout between the fileserver comp and the workstation. different drivers and BIOS's are definitely in order. just have not gotten around to it yet.

[ 03-18-2001: Message edited by: smaier69 ]

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 4:11 pm

Originally posted by TigerUpperCut:
You guys gotta realize that he's using a GeForce2 MX, so a score of 1619 is not surprising

i got that and my score is a 3248, seems low to me

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 4:14 pm

how many MB's is the 2001 download guys? Im 16MB's into it and am just wondering how much more I have to go.

smaier69 · Post by **smaier69** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 4:16 pm

hashman · Post by **hashman** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 4:24 pm

Maybe your card has only 16 MB of RAM? I know ASUS makes MX's with 16 and 32 MB. 16 MB MX is very slow.

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:04 pm

NOPE!!! I do not know why my system is such slow ...

I have the 32MB SDR V7100 tv-out retail by ASUS with the core@200 and ram@183 oc´d, it will reach 1763 but crashes in loop-mode after the 3rd loop!

I had an xtra "slot"-fan beneath the MX plus an old 486-CPU-hs/fan on it and an 80x80 fan. ....?

I have at now back @default clock!

Cheers,
Thor Walez

PS: I use the default bench-settings (1024*786,compressed,24,double...) --> Perhaps can s.o. tell me his score with a system nearly like mine!

Cheers,
Thor Walez (

)

[ 03-18-2001: Message edited by: Thor Walez ]

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:08 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF:
Antec Outside
Abit KT7A w/B-Orb
Duron 800 @ 1004mhz(143*7)
Vortex Heatsink/Fan
256MB RAM Cas 2
GeForce2 MX Titan II(Core@200 RAM@183)
SB Live! XGamer
30 Gig Maxtor 7200rpm
3com Etherlink XL
50x CD Rom
40x10x DVD
4x4x12x HP Burner
10 Fans Total
Optimal Settings 3Dmark 2001
score: 3248

Hey YARDofSTUF please tell me your "OPTIMAL SETTINGS 3Dmark 2001" !!!
It may double my performance *looking @your score*

Thanks,
Thor Walez (

)

[ 03-18-2001: Message edited by: Thor Walez ]

YARDofSTUF · Post by **YARDofSTUF** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:14 pm

i saw u used compressed mode, optimal settings for me are 800x600 32 bit 32bit texture 24bit Z buffer depth and double frame buffer... that is basically how i run my games so that is what i test at.

Bababooey · Post by **Bababooey** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 6:49 pm

1661

1ghz tbird
asus a7v
V3 2000 pci<----- ARGH

256mb pc133 2-2-2 micro
15.3gig 7200rpm western digital

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 8:54 pm

2063
Test settings:
1024
32bit color
Compressed textures
Hardware Tnl
No FSAA

P3 800EB
128MB RDRAM PC800
i820
Geforce DDR 64MB
7200RPM 20gig HD

You cannot be getting over 3000 with an MX. Its only got a quarter of the bandwidth of my card, so the extra core clock it has doesnt really make much difference.

I think I'm gonna put a card cooling kit on my card and give it another 20mhz to both the core and memory.

[ 03-18-2001: Message edited by: Macho-Module ]

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:01 pm

862, how pathetic is that

800x600 32 bit 32bit texture 24bit Z buffer depth and double frame buffer

ATI Rage Fury 32MB VIVO
P3 500@550
128Megs of Ram
Win2K

aagiants · Post by **aagiants** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:17 pm

361 WOO HOO. i have one of those, built in video cards which share memory w/comp.. heh heh

Prey521 · Post by **Prey521** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:21 pm

Originally posted by aagiants:
361 WOO HOO. i have one of those, built in video cards which share memory w/comp.. heh heh

I guess mines aint so pathetic after all

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 10:37 pm

1556

1280x960
32bit color
frame buffer: Double
texture format 32 bit
Z-buffer: 24 bit
Hardware Tnl

So is that decent for those high settings?

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Sun Mar 18, 2001 10:38 pm

I can tell I wont be playing games at 1280 for much longer

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:02 pm

Originally posted by YARDofSTUF:
i got that and my score is a 3248, seems low to me

1941 with your recommended (<--typed right???) settings

Cheers,
Thor Walez (

)

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:33 pm

geez ya'll are messsin this whole thing up

IN order to benchmark fairly we all must bench at the exact SAME settings

To do this just open 3DMark2001 and bench at the DEFAULT settings it has, no need to change anything!

The default settings it tests at are 1024x768x32 with Compressed Textures and the higest Z-Buffer your card supports, if you don't have T&L it uses the D3D rendering either 3DNow or SSE, if you do have T&L it will automatically choose Hardware T&L

So no need to change any settings, just open 3DMark2001 up and Benchmark it, then post your results, that's the only FAIR way to do it

As for the nature test not running it's because it needs a FULLY hardware Vertex and Pixel Shader compliant video card, currently the only ones are the ATI Radeon and the GeForce3, however because ATI is having some driver problems on the Radeon it may not work on the Radeon YET.

Same thing goes for the Pixel shader test. Most cards have a Vertex shader but not a Pixel shader, except for the ATI Radeon and the GeForce3 at this point.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:36 pm

That said, here are my scores with the DEFAULT 3DMark2001 settings I mentioned above

Windows 2000: 1577
Windows ME: 1745

(a pretty decent boost from win2k to win9x, prolly do to drivers better optimized for win9x)

System specs:

Abit BE6-2
P3 600E overclocked to 816Mhz on a 136FSB
256MB Micron PC133 SDRAM @ 2-2-2
Voodoo5 5500 64MB AGP with latest drivers on both OS's as found at www.3dfx.com

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:38 pm

BTW anything under 2000 is SLOW

A GF2 Ultra on a 1.2Gig T-Bird is pulling in the 3,000's where as most others with just GeForce2's and cpu's from 800Mhz or higher are in the 2,000's

so anything under 2,000 is slow and prolly a video card upgrade will help a lot

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:50 pm

Cool, so my 2063 was the valid score then, sweet!

Would more RAM help my score much? Not sure how the other components come into play in the new 3dmark.

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:19 pm

Originally posted by Macho-Module:
Cool, so my 2063 was the valid score then, sweet!

Would more RAM help my score much? Not sure how the other components come into play in the new 3dmark.

nah, 128MB is good enough, though I have 256MB, the more the more it can load into memory i guess.... It sure couldn't hurt things, heh

What Driver version you running? I've seen GOOOOD things witht he NED's 11.0 version, they gave a good performance increase even from the 10.8's!

RoundEye · Post by **RoundEye** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 2:38 pm

Default 2865
Low resolution 3301

P3-800@916
256 Meg Cruicial RAM
ATI Radeon 64

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 3:19 pm

I'm using the 6.67 WHQL certified drivers.

If you have any suggestions on which drivers are best, then by all means post a link for me.

Thanx Brent.

(ps. and any bugs in the drivers or if their beta would make a good mention too

)

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: Macho-Module ]

sic_6 · Post by **sic_6** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:16 pm

3D Mark 2001 Highest (1280x1024x32x32) : 1104
3D Mark 2001 Default: 1617 max score
3D Mark 2001 Lowest (640x480, 16-bit) 1704 max score

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: 6[sic]6 ]

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:30 pm

ALL NVIDIA owners go here: http://www.the-ctrl-alt-del.com/Drivers.htm

If you have Win9x grab the 11.00 Drivers

If you have Win2k grab the 10.80's

You will notice higher 3dmarks and frame rates, they are good

Try it yourself, run 3DMark2001 and look at your score, then install these latest drivers and THEN look at your score!

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:42 pm

Originally posted by Brent:

If you have Win2k grab the 10.80's

You will notice higher 3dmarks and frame rates, they are good

Try it yourself, run 3DMark2001 and look at your score, then install these latest drivers and THEN look at your score!

Win2k
Detonator 6.31 @default 3dmark = 1619-1763 @different Core/Ram clocks max.200/183

ASUS V7100 v6.49 @default 3dmark = 1899 @default clock (+280)

*now downloading win2k 10.80* will take a few only 1.4k @DSL

Thank you,
Thor Walez (

)

Azrael-69 · Post by **Azrael-69** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 4:54 pm

I Posted 2568

AMD Duron 800 (1000Mhz 10x100)
256MB Micron PC133
GeForce II GTS (32MB DDR)
30GB Maxtor (7200 ATA 66)
And This Was Under Win2k (If It Makes A Dif

)

It Did Make A Difference Of 1000 Marks In 3dMark2000

I Dunno Guys.. For A System (Mine) That Posts 6980 In 3DMark2000 (Under WinMe)
I Think This New Rating System Is Seriously Messed. And These Guyz With Radeons Are Eating The GeForces For Breakfast..

ssjDoh · Post by **ssjDoh** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:17 pm

hehe, do I have the highest so far??? 3086..

Hehe, well I'm actually low for tweaked Radeons...I should be getting like 32xx with my setup, if I tweaked a bit more.

And the Radeon does not support Directx8 version of Pixel shaders.

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:32 pm

After hours of downloading ... NICE with win2k and detonator 10.80 I got 1954

I will break thru the 2k wall !!!

Thanks to SOC he send it to me *lol* 16k is better than 1.4k

Cheers,
Thor Walez (

)

PS: I will keep you up-to-date if I managed it... Just take a look @ how stabile the driver is 4 oc Core&Ram

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:39 pm

sorry, i don't know why their site is so slow right now....

but they do have ALL the driver versions up there, they are usually fast, just not today, heh

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 5:55 pm

Holy $hit brent!!!!

1377 at default settings!!!

That's almost a 600 pt drop from my 6.67 drivers!!!

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 6:06 pm

Ok, it's 2178 now???

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 6:14 pm

It only drops when I enable FSAA in display properties, but I thought the benchmark didnt use FSAA. It says NOAA in all the tests.

2280-2320 is the highest range I've seen it (my DDR) go.

I wonder if the Elsa drivers force FSAA in the demos if you specify FSAA in the control panel. I noticed that there are four options, allow app to decide, fsaa off, 2x2, and 4x4. This must mean that the elsa drivers automatically force AA in all apps. Or not...some clarification and discussion would help alot guys.

***UPDATE***

On my MX, with fsaa option "allow app to decide", I gained over 100 pts, which is low considering that my first bench on the other computer was lower than the following three, so I will run the MX with 11.00's a few more times later, for good measure.

On the bad side of things, I dropped to 1200 with fsaa turned to 2x2 in the display properties.

This bothers me because I had fsaa 2x2 on the 6.67 drivers activated, but got 2063 on my Geforce DDR, and 1900 or so on my MX, both with AA on in display properties.

It sounds like the drivers force AA in all apps, which is disconcerting for gaming because on any other nvidia driver I have used, checking the force FSAA in all applications tab would result in slide show city.

Any wisdom would be appreciated ( John, Prey, Evil, Brent??? )

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: Macho-Module ]

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: Macho-Module ]

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: Macho-Module ]

Thor Walez · Post by **Thor Walez** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 6:32 pm

I GOT IT, I GOT IT!!!
Cheers @himself:

with Core@200 and Ram@200

[ 03-19-2001: Message edited by: Thor Walez ]

Azrael-69 · Post by **Azrael-69** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 7:00 pm

Update On My System..
Used Those 10.8 Drivers And Got 2805..
SWEET.. I'm Going To Break The 3K Barrier While Using Win2000..

BTW What Is This FSAA?? How Do I Disable It?

Gaming-Module · Post by **Gaming-Module** » Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:38 pm

Um....what card you usin dude?