Question About My 3dmark Score...

xioutlawix

<div class="IPBDescription">...</div> Curious. Went ahead and downloaded 3dmark2003, and ran all the tests on it. Got a score of 4891. Now, have no idea what that means.

For background info,
I'm running windows xp pro w/ service pack 1,
asus p4g8x deluxe board,
p4 2.4ghz processor,
1gig pc2100 ram
radeon 9700 pro.

So, what's the verdict?

Liku

Where'd you download this? I'd like to run a test too. I think the lower the Number the Better. But I'm an idiot. ^_^

Legionnaired

HIgh number is better, and with that rig, you should score in the neighborhood of.... NM, that's 2003 you're running.

My 2002SE score is something like 6871, with a 1.6 athlon, gf3ti200.

But, that doesn't help you. Try filing your results online, and comparing it with others of the same grade system.

Talesin

Verdict is that 3DMark2003 is currently accepted as NOT being an accurate benchmark yet. No one's broken ten thousand yet, and scores vary wildly from machine to machine.. even with the same hardware, drivers and OS setup. 3DMark2001SE is a *much* better benchmark for 'real world' usage at the moment, and has proven to be consistent in its scoring systems.

Considering that my AthXP 2200+ with a Radeon 9500 Pro ended up scoring about 200 above your monster, seems to support those findings. :b

MaTT

Considering I have a similar system to yours but with a gf4ti4600 and i get a score of around 800 i would says thats pretty good! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> The big difference comes about because the gf4 is a directx 8 part whilst the radeon 9700 is a directx 9 part. 3dmark03 is a directx 9 benchmarking tool and the radeon can run all of the tests whilst the gf4 can only run about 40% of the tests.

I do however attain a nice score of just under 12000 in 3dmark 2k1 with a little tweaking and overclocking.... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> And liku with 3dmark the higher the number the better.

FlatlineUTD

I read somewhere that the 2003 scores are considerably low because it includes testing for GeForce FX and ATI Radeon 9800 cards, which aren't widely available yet. This would explain why the vast majority of people (ie those without FX cards) are scoring really low.

With the developer's track record, it wouldn't surprise me that they did this so they wouldn't have to release another program when the cards become widely available.

xioutlawix

I see what you mean. Downloaded 3dmark2001 SE, and got a score of 15,186 with it, played with a few things, and it seems to be mostly consistent. Thanks for the feedback guys =)

BioHaz

I got a score of 1200 on the 3DMark2003 Demo app. I feel so powerful! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->

AMD 2000+ XP
GeForce 4 Ti4800 (AGP)
GeForce 2 MX (PCI - Disabled for test)
512mb PC2100
MSI KT3 Ultra ARU
WinXP Pro + SP1