Post your 3dMark 2003 Scores here - Page 3

Coz · 02-12-2003, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zapionics<alt>
Why are these GeForce cards scoring much lower than the Radeon in this benchmark?

Prolly down to differences in Pixel Shader version support between cards.

I've cranked my GB rig up to sig specs (except Radeon at 380/333) with CAT3.0 and DX9 and I got the following....

Big w00t.

Bassman · 02-12-2003, 03:33 PM

DOA · 02-12-2003, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zapionics<alt>
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?

Can't be 8X AGP since I am running 4X.

Its because of the pixel shader versions like Coz said. Just read this article explaining each of the tests. Here's nother article on the pixel shaders.

FB · 02-12-2003, 03:35 PM

Coz, that is quite the oc you have there and only scored 300 above me so i don't feel so bad now

nice score and excellent oc

Coz · 02-12-2003, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brschmid
Coz, that is quite the oc you have there and only scored 300 above me so i don't feel so bad now

nice score and excellent oc

Heh, thanks mate. My Vapo is arriving tomorrow and I should be able to crank my Granny Bay up to the 190-200MHz FSB range (3.42-3.60GHz). With the extra few hundred MHz and extra few hundred MB/s memory bandwidth you can expect my next score to be......

5033.

wz1 · 02-12-2003, 03:45 PM

I'll be the first here to say that with my PIII 1.0ghz and Geforce4 mx440, after loading screen of 1st test, only test selected, my system reboots. Tried it 10 times , same results and i am not having problems whatsoever with 3dmark2001 looping it 10 times. Anybody have any suggestions?

Piddyful · 02-12-2003, 03:57 PM

I would imagine the reason the Radeons are doing better in this new benchmark compared to the GF is due to programmable pixel shading and textures per pass, stuff like that (sorry, don't have the exact listings in front of me). I guess it may be the only thing we have so far that actually uses some of that stuff.

krellnor · 02-12-2003, 04:54 PM

4484 no oc, stock system.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=64614

TechNet · 02-12-2003, 04:54 PM

What a joke!

1663 marks.

No more than 7fps on most demos apart from the fighter plane one.

Looks like they've done a PowerVR on us! As you know ATI are sponsoring 3Dmark03. A few years back Videologic got a testing company to optimise their benchmark to make their PowerVR chipset look better than the then champion 3DFX.

Shame MADONION got influenced so easily.

Regardless of score I will stick with what I have. Every game I have runs flawlessly at 1280x1024. What more could I want.

FB · 02-12-2003, 05:17 PM

Coz that is amazingm i can't even imagine 200FSB, the highest i have ever run is 148

TigerJim · 02-12-2003, 05:26 PM

Didn't OC the Hercules. It's late and I gotta go to word early. For some reason I can't get through to the futuremark.com site. Here's a ScreenShot:

finally got it registered!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70460

Sir_JaKoNT|L · 02-12-2003, 05:38 PM

tigerjim

nice score mate

but the link seems to say your hercules running at 344/317

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70460

Camel_abx · 02-12-2003, 05:41 PM

5229
P4 2.53 @ 149fsb
Sapphire 9700 non pro/ Cat 3.1/ DX9
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70846

SupDawg · 02-12-2003, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by zapionics<alt>

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?

Because, you need a dx9 compatible video card to get a higher score.

Its like 3dmark2001. If you didn't have a dx8 video card, your score sucked..

Piddyful · 02-12-2003, 06:01 PM

It may seam 3DMark is teaming up with ATI to "make themselves look better" but the fact is ATI was just able to release a video card with DX9 and advanced features before GF did, thats all. All the manufacturers are going to come out with bigger and better cards (hell, ATI has one coming next month) so it's just a matter of time when you Nvidia people have a better card to buy with these advanced features. I just hope for you guys the card doesn't look way stupid and isn't louder than your cpu cooler.

02-12-2003, 03:33 PM	#32
Bassman Community helper Join Date: May 2001 Location: Montreal Canada Posts: 448	3Dmark 2003 score __________________ *Bassman*
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:35 PM	#34
FB Re-Retiring Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MN, USA Posts: 24,833	Coz, that is quite the oc you have there and only scored 300 above me so i don't feel so bad now nice score and excellent oc __________________ Bye Bye ABXZone.....Rest In Peace.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:45 PM	#36
wz1 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 307	I'll be the first here to say that with my PIII 1.0ghz and Geforce4 mx440, after loading screen of 1st test, only test selected, my system reboots. Tried it 10 times , same results and i am not having problems whatsoever with 3dmark2001 looping it 10 times. Anybody have any suggestions?
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 03:57 PM	#37
Piddyful Highly Regulated User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: So. California Posts: 656	I would imagine the reason the Radeons are doing better in this new benchmark compared to the GF is due to programmable pixel shading and textures per pass, stuff like that (sorry, don't have the exact listings in front of me). I guess it may be the only thing we have so far that actually uses some of that stuff. __________________ 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, 04:54 PM	#38
krellnor Registered User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 21	4484 no oc, stock system. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=64614 __________________ Asus A7V8X/AMD 2200+ no oc 512 DDR PC2700 SK7 heatsink/YSTech 80mm fan Radeon 9700Pro MAudio Revolution 7.1 soundcard/6 speakers 2 Maxtor 80gig drives WinXP Pro with SP1
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 04:54 PM	#39
TechNet Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: London Posts: 178	What a joke! 1663 marks. No more than 7fps on most demos apart from the fighter plane one. Looks like they've done a PowerVR on us! As you know ATI are sponsoring 3Dmark03. A few years back Videologic got a testing company to optimise their benchmark to make their PowerVR chipset look better than the then champion 3DFX. Shame MADONION got influenced so easily. Regardless of score I will stick with what I have. Every game I have runs flawlessly at 1280x1024. What more could I want. __________________ ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe / BIOS 1018.004 / 2.8Ghz SL6WJ Malay @ 3.40Ghz / 243FSB / Zalman CNPS7000A-CU / 1:1 / VCore:1.5875 / VDimm:2.65v / AGP:1.60v / OCZ EL DDR PC-4000 1GB KIT @ 500mhz / 3-4-4-8 / PAT / Hercules 3D Prophet 9800 Pro (425\730) / Seagate 'Cuda' SATA 7200.7 (RAID 0) / Antec Truepower 550W PSU / Lian-Li PC-6089
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 05:17 PM	#40
FB Re-Retiring Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MN, USA Posts: 24,833	Coz that is amazingm i can't even imagine 200FSB, the highest i have ever run is 148 __________________ Bye Bye ABXZone.....Rest In Peace.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 05:26 PM	#41
TigerJim OC Junkie Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 123	Didn't OC the Hercules. It's late and I gotta go to word early. For some reason I can't get through to the futuremark.com site. Here's a ScreenShot: finally got it registered! http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70460 __________________ Gigabyte 8INXP F3 BTmod bios P4 3.06 HT (running at 166fsb=3818 with 1.65v 100% stable) 2x512 Corsair XMS3500 Platinum (2-2-2-5 64us, 2.8v) Hercules Prophet Radeon 9700pro (Cat3.1 drivers 1.7v) Prometeia Idle/Load: -28°/-16° 3Dmark03 - 5834 3DmarkSE01 18,000 Club!
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 05:38 PM	#42
Sir_JaKoNT\|L an ASUSBoard fanatic Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Singapore, Sydney, Jakarta Posts: 4,581	tigerjim nice score mate but the link seems to say your hercules running at 344/317 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70460 __________________ running rig AMD ATHLON X2 4000+ AM2 Gigabyte GA-M61SME- SL2 2 x V-Gen DDR2 1GB RAM PC5300 WDC 160GB SATA2 8MB Sony DVD R/W 20x Enlight EN 4150 casing Enlight True Power 420Watt PSU Stick together team... HTC Tytn II is the way!!!
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 05:41 PM	#43
Camel_abx Krusty Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA Posts: 1,729	5229 P4 2.53 @ 149fsb Sapphire 9700 non pro/ Cat 3.1/ DX9 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=70846 __________________ SinXP 2.4b@3.3 H2O Ehiem1250>Dtek ProCore>Maze4>Bayres> Someday a real rain will come, and wash all the scum off the streets.
(Offline)

02-12-2003, 06:01 PM	#45
Piddyful Highly Regulated User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: So. California Posts: 656	It may seam 3DMark is teaming up with ATI to "make themselves look better" but the fact is ATI was just able to release a video card with DX9 and advanced features before GF did, thats all. All the manufacturers are going to come out with bigger and better cards (hell, ATI has one coming next month) so it's just a matter of time when you Nvidia people have a better card to buy with these advanced features. I just hope for you guys the card doesn't look way stupid and isn't louder than your cpu cooler. __________________ 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)

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