Post your 3dMark 2003 Scores here - Page 2

DaveM · 02-12-2003, 02:21 PM

From "Catalyst Maker" over at the www.rage3d.com forums:

"Expected 3DMark2003 scores
A few people have asked me why their score is low or if the score they get is right for their system. I cant answer all those individual cases but I want to share some results we observe in our benchmarking labs. (Remember these numbers are directly from ATI)

Use these ONLY as a guide and have fun comparing:

System:

P4 - 3.06 GHz i850e
1GB PC 1066
Win XP Pro SP1
CATALYST 3.1

Defaults 3DMark settings, CATALYST control panel on performance setting

Radeon 9700 Pro: 4772
Radeon 9700: 4169
Radeon 9500 Pro: 3571
Radeon 9500: 2511
Radeon 9100/8500: 1301
Radeon 9000 Pro: 1135
Radeon 9000: 1008
Radeon 7500: 364
Radeon 7000: 107"

martin2110 · 02-12-2003, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brschmid
aaahhhh, i was really gonna try it too. guess not.
Martin, your laptop is about the same as mine except i have 256RAM, and a 750 PIII

It turns out that I have 256RAM as well. Man, I don't know my stuff...

FB · 02-12-2003, 02:30 PM

so does it display an error message or it just quits?

BKA · 02-12-2003, 02:54 PM

I have my 2.0 overclock to 2.4 and my PNY G4 Ti4600 overclock to 305/665 and I got a score of 1632. Ouch!

I was gonna buy the Pro version of 3DMark03, but I guess I'll wait until I get a 9700 or the new Nvidia card later this year. Getting scores like this depresses me.

Just when I was blowing away scores in 3dMark 2002. Here comes a program that brings my framerates to a crawl.

<<Smacks FutureMark on the hand!>> Bad FutureMark! Shame, Shame, Shame!

YoBoGo · 02-12-2003, 02:58 PM

Wish I could join in on all the fun, but I still can't even DOWNLOAD the friggin thing!!!

Have gotten an hour into it 3X now and lost it!!! I will just wait until 3DMark2004 comes out, I will bet I can download 2003 then!

JoeFrat · 02-12-2003, 03:01 PM

Radeon 9000 pro 64mb
P4 2.4
P4B533
512mb pc2100
Everything @ stock speeds

1064 3d marks.

This one is a customer's machine, I haven't tested my rig yet.

DOA · 02-12-2003, 03:03 PM

Here it is with Radeon at 351/317 (artifacts in 3rd game test)
4267

Here it is with Radeon at 351/310 (no more artifacts

but crappy score

)

martin2110 · 02-12-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brschmid
so does it display an error message or it just quits?

It displays an error message and tells you that you need a DX8.0 VGA card.

Piddyful · 02-12-2003, 03:53 PM

It is true, unless you have a newer Radeon, you most likely will not break 2000 score. But ATI's got a new card coming out next month and there will be lots of new cards in the next couple years. Futuremark has done good future proofing them selves, but it seams kinda underhanded as a way to "stimulate the economy" and have to buy all new equipement just to get a better than the worst score. And I really don't like the lack of options in the "free version". On top of that and the fact [b]no one is getting a good score yet to even want to buy the pro version, and if you tried to download it yesterday.... you probably already not happy with them. It may hurt them. They should have been a little more prepared for the downloading. I'm sure they could have had more mirrors. But mabye they feel invinsible now?

With the system overclocked at 156fsb and vid card @ 355/335, I score a 5100.

sapiens74 · 02-12-2003, 04:03 PM

Mine was in the 4800 range or so.

spookyload · 02-12-2003, 04:05 PM

I got a 1658 with a ti4600 and am quite pleased with it since my system isn't OC at all. Next month I will put the FX I preordered in and see what happens. After seeing the pictures of Chaintechs neon lit FX, I wish I has gotten one of those. Their cooling setup looks a little better. And it is coming in at 30db instead of 70db. Oh well, we will see what comes of my Asylum card. Until then I take my licks with the rest of the non DirectX9 card owners.

FB · 02-12-2003, 04:06 PM

thanks martin,

Rickwell · 02-12-2003, 04:07 PM

Well 3D 03 sure makes the NVidia cards look bad.But I don't think I want to run out and get a new ATI just yet.I will probably wait for a few more generations.Any games I play run very smooth at 1600/1200.

But with the newer ATI cards I'm impressed.

zapionics<alt> · 02-12-2003, 04:18 PM

1544 on Granite Bay with a TI4400,
frame rates on the benchmarks are all low or single digits!!
This rig pulls 13000 in 3dm2001 at default speeds.

Why are these GeForce cards scoring much lower than the Radeon in this benchmark? Is it due to AGP 8x? Anyone with an 8x GeForce?

FB · 02-12-2003, 04:19 PM

what games do you play Rickwell?

02-12-2003, 02:21 PM	#16
DaveM Whats in a title, anyhow? Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Near Seattle, Wa. USA Posts: 588	From "Catalyst Maker" over at the www.rage3d.com forums: "Expected 3DMark2003 scores A few people have asked me why their score is low or if the score they get is right for their system. I cant answer all those individual cases but I want to share some results we observe in our benchmarking labs. (Remember these numbers are directly from ATI) Use these ONLY as a guide and have fun comparing: System: P4 - 3.06 GHz i850e 1GB PC 1066 Win XP Pro SP1 CATALYST 3.1 Defaults 3DMark settings, CATALYST control panel on performance setting Radeon 9700 Pro: 4772 Radeon 9700: 4169 Radeon 9500 Pro: 3571 Radeon 9500: 2511 Radeon 9100/8500: 1301 Radeon 9000 Pro: 1135 Radeon 9000: 1008 Radeon 7500: 364 Radeon 7000: 107" __________________ System spec's in profile.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 02:30 PM	#18
FB Re-Retiring Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MN, USA Posts: 24,834	so does it display an error message or it just quits? __________________ Bye Bye ABXZone.....Rest In Peace.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 02:54 PM	#19
BKA Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 2,093	I have my 2.0 overclock to 2.4 and my PNY G4 Ti4600 overclock to 305/665 and I got a score of 1632. Ouch! I was gonna buy the Pro version of 3DMark03, but I guess I'll wait until I get a 9700 or the new Nvidia card later this year. Getting scores like this depresses me. Just when I was blowing away scores in 3dMark 2002. Here comes a program that brings my framerates to a crawl. <<Smacks FutureMark on the hand!>> Bad FutureMark! Shame, Shame, Shame! __________________ DFI LT X48-T2R Q9450@3.2 2-3870(CF) 4GB Patriot Viper Vista x64 ULT
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 02:58 PM	#20
YoBoGo Watered Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 1,030	Wish I could join in on all the fun, but I still can't even DOWNLOAD the friggin thing!!! Have gotten an hour into it 3X now and lost it!!! I will just wait until 3DMark2004 comes out, I will bet I can download 2003 then! __________________ ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe * AMD 64 FX62 * Water Cooled w/ DANGERDEN TDX BLOCK * 2GB Corsair DDR2 2 x XFX 7900GTX - SLI w/Water Cooled DANGERDEN Blocks* AUDIGY 2ZS * LOGITECH 580'S * LITE-ON CDRW * PLEXTOR COMBO CDRW/DVDRW 2 x 150GB WD Raptors SATA RAID0 * CM Stacker Case Silver * PC POWER & COOLING 510 SLI PSU * Custom Wiring, Switches WIN XP PRO SP2 * NFORCE 91.31 * DIRECTX 9.0C NEW 3DMARK2003: 37,618 NEW 3DMARK2005: 16,012 NEW 3DMARK2006: 10,203
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:01 PM	#21
JoeFrat Registered Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,849	Radeon 9000 pro 64mb P4 2.4 P4B533 512mb pc2100 Everything @ stock speeds 1064 3d marks. This one is a customer's machine, I haven't tested my rig yet.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:03 PM	#22
DOA Registered User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 2,066	Here it is with Radeon at 351/317 (artifacts in 3rd game test) 4267 Here it is with Radeon at 351/310 (no more artifacts but crappy score ) __________________ Intel C2D E6420 @ 2.67GHz Asus P5B Plus 4GB Crucial BallistiX PC2-6400 (4-4-4-12) 2x Seagate 320GB Matrix RAID eVGA 7950GT KO 512MB Enermax Liberty 400W Creative Labs Audigy 2 Value Windows Vista Ultimate x64
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:53 PM	#24
Piddyful Highly Regulated User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: So. California Posts: 656	It is true, unless you have a newer Radeon, you most likely will not break 2000 score. But ATI's got a new card coming out next month and there will be lots of new cards in the next couple years. Futuremark has done good future proofing them selves, but it seams kinda underhanded as a way to "stimulate the economy" and have to buy all new equipement just to get a better than the worst score. And I really don't like the lack of options in the "free version". On top of that and the fact [b]no one is getting a good score yet to even want to buy the pro version, and if you tried to download it yesterday.... you probably already not happy with them. It may hurt them. They should have been a little more prepared for the downloading. I'm sure they could have had more mirrors. But mabye they feel invinsible now? With the system overclocked at 156fsb and vid card @ 355/335, I score a 5100. __________________ Intel P4 2.6C, ASuS P4C800-E Deluxe, 2x40gb Maxtor ATA133 RAID 0, 2x256mb Corsair XMS PC3500, HIS 9800pro 128mb, Thermalright slk-800u, Enermax 460w, Antec 1030b, Audigy ES, Logitech Z5300 5.1, & Viewsonic G220f 21"
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:03 PM	#25
sapiens74 Registered User Join Date: May 2002 Location: Honolulu Posts: 423	Mine was in the 4800 range or so. __________________ Current Rig: Athlon 4800X2, Lian Li 1200A Black Case, Dual XFX 7800GTX , Asus A8N-SLI Premium, X-FI Fatal1ty Sound, Antec Neo 480 PS, OCZ 2GB PC3200 Platinum, Dual 74GB Raptors, 250GB SATA Storage, Dell 2405 Monitor. Logitech DiNovo Media Desktop w/MX1000 Mouse, Pioneer DVD 110BK
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:05 PM	#26
spookyload IN-n-Out Expert Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Probably stuck in Iraq! Posts: 2,919	I got a 1658 with a ti4600 and am quite pleased with it since my system isn't OC at all. Next month I will put the FX I preordered in and see what happens. After seeing the pictures of Chaintechs neon lit FX, I wish I has gotten one of those. Their cooling setup looks a little better. And it is coming in at 30db instead of 70db. Oh well, we will see what comes of my Asylum card. Until then I take my licks with the rest of the non DirectX9 card owners.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:06 PM	#27
FB Re-Retiring Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MN, USA Posts: 24,834	thanks martin, __________________ Bye Bye ABXZone.....Rest In Peace.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:07 PM	#28
Rickwell Last user turn off lights Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,568	Well 3D 03 sure makes the NVidia cards look bad.But I don't think I want to run out and get a new ATI just yet.I will probably wait for a few more generations.Any games I play run very smooth at 1600/1200. But with the newer ATI cards I'm impressed. __________________ Water Cooling-DangerDen Cooled Core 2 Extreme qx9650 3.00 Ghz Asus X48 DDR2 Rampage Formula XFX 280 GTX 1.0GB Video Card 4GB Corsair Twin 2X4096-8500C5DF 2 x 74 GB Raptors Matrix Raid 0/0 Corsair CMPSU-1000HX PSU Corsair 4GB Voyager GT (Ready Boost) Dell 2405 LCD Flat Panel Monitor WinXP x64 sp2 / WinV x64 sp1
(Online)

02-12-2003, 04:18 PM	#29
zapionics<alt> <unknown level> Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: AUSTRALIA Posts: 2,938	1544 on Granite Bay with a TI4400, frame rates on the benchmarks are all low or single digits!! This rig pulls 13000 in 3dm2001 at default speeds. Why are these GeForce cards scoring much lower than the Radeon in this benchmark? Is it due to AGP 8x? Anyone with an 8x GeForce?
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:19 PM	#30
FB Re-Retiring Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MN, USA Posts: 24,834	what games do you play Rickwell? __________________ Bye Bye ABXZone.....Rest In Peace.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode