What is your 3DMARK2001 SE score?? [Archive]

SecretSquirrel

29-10-2002, 12:06 PM

DAMNIT

Something is seriously up with my machine.
I get 10401 with:

XP2000+ @ 145x12.5
XP333 mobo
512 MB Nanya PC2100DDR CAS2
Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 @ 315/600 (looks at Sern...)

This Iwill motherboard must be sucking my will to live, Sern has a near identical speed, but with SDRAM and gets the same as me?!?!

Also, I seem to have the lowest Bump Mapping scores on the planet, even Binkys card beat mine. What the hell?

[edit] Oh, Electric Flyscraping Megapanties (http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4896601)

[edit edit] Sern, nice OSX theme :) Get mobydock :D

TheCrow

29-10-2002, 01:59 PM

this was the last test i done

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4393501

Binky Stunt Cat

29-10-2002, 03:17 PM

Crow, whats your FSB at?

TheCrow

29-10-2002, 03:29 PM

143 i think when i ran that

dustyslapper

29-10-2002, 03:30 PM

Crux - that's exactly where I want to be with my rig, dammit.

I have the same gear as you, except for a Epox 8kha+ and a HD which doesn't like anything beyond a few mhz over 33 on the pci bus.

I need a good kt333 - fsb at 133 is not giving me enough bandwidht and atm my chip can only run at 1660 :( I'm sue it's good for 1750*1850 or so. I need the 166 bus...

crux

29-10-2002, 03:35 PM

Heh, I love my board :)

Where's the OCNZ 3dmark team? :D

Gremlin

29-10-2002, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by mird-OC
hey! boo! boo! incomplete test! boooo! ;)
Only people with time to waste run all the damm tests :) pointless running any more than is required for the benchmark imo, though I guess I could actually score higher if I do run them

mird-OC

29-10-2002, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Gremlin
Only people with time to waste run all the damm tests :) pointless running any more than is required for the benchmark imo, though I guess I could actually score higher if I do run them
oooorr lower :D

Gremlin

29-10-2002, 06:10 PM

hehe, I'll run one once I finish this rebuild and see.

icedemon32

30-10-2002, 08:33 PM

Cool, thanx guys

now i have something to compare to when i finish building my new computer :)

h0nky

30-10-2002, 09:17 PM

one last one. no link or anything though.

9015 with:
XP1600+
256mg of sammysung
ti4200
ep-8k3a
and its all standard clock.

-DC-

30-10-2002, 10:49 PM

do i have to buy it to get it on the net as a link? :(

dustyslapper

30-10-2002, 11:07 PM

no you tardlet, go to your project manager and under every project will be a compare link.

Go read the MO FAQ if you want to know things like that.

:p

swiftynz

30-10-2002, 11:11 PM

DC: no you dont, all you have to do is click the submit results button after the benchmark ;)

my comp is definately underperforming, not sure why. sern's whips mine by 300 odd marks, yet he's on an older mobo and sdram :-/

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4869861

not that it really matters, its only 2% below the average ti4200 with an XP2100+. :p

-DC-

30-10-2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by h0nky
one last one. no link or anything though.

9015 with:
XP1600+
256mg of sammysung
ti4200
ep-8k3a
and its all standard clock.

i gather from that, that my system is under-performing too? :(

XP 2000
512 Samsung DDR
Ti4200 128mb
Ep-8k5a3+
all stock standard, and i get about 9300 - 9500 :/
doing all tests in 1280 res (right? dose it use desktop res?)

i haven't used 3dmark for so long that i've forgotten how to set it properly... i think i ran defaults anyway

Binky Stunt Cat

30-10-2002, 11:40 PM

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4856545
theres the one i ran with your Ti4200 in my machine Alex...not sure what conditions it was under...may have had some things running....
stoopid question: ya oc'd it yet? :p

SecretSquirrel

31-10-2002, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by -DC-
i gather from that, that my system is under-performing too? :(

XP 2000
512 Samsung DDR
Ti4200 128mb
Ep-8k5a3+
all stock standard, and i get about 9300 - 9500 :/
doing all tests in 1280 res (right? dose it use desktop res?)

i haven't used 3dmark for so long that i've forgotten how to set it properly... i think i ran defaults anyway

Personally I would expect more from that system, esp with that board...I only get 10k OVERCLOCKED...****ty ****ing hua board, I spit on it and not pay it for the sharp gratey loving.

NTBlowz

31-10-2002, 02:09 AM

I got 9900 with stock AXP1600+ and Leadtek GF4Ti4200 64MB with KT266A ;)

swiftynz

31-10-2002, 02:09 PM

binky: no i havent overclocked it yet cos quite frankly i dont see the point in risking the ram for a measly 10 or so frames a second.

but dammit, NTBlowz almost beats my score with an XP 1600+!! :rolleyes:

seems i'm in the same boat as you SS....
*jumps overboard* :D

my chipset's an AMD 761, not sure if that has anything to do with it but according to sandra its not far behind a KT266a @ CL2 and this is only 133fsb, CL2.5.

oh well, i'm reasonably happy with 9986 for the meantime.

Binky Stunt Cat

31-10-2002, 02:51 PM

OMG!!!!
Someone here (other than me) isnt gonna overclock soemthing?
Swifty are you sure your feeling well? :p

SerN

31-10-2002, 03:09 PM

Swifty: My card is overclocked no wonder my score is better....
I was getting about 9300 stock.
Plus 3dmark doesn't use the extra bandwidth of DDR.
your score is very good for stock speeds... :)

Don't worry, be happy :D

swiftynz

31-10-2002, 04:01 PM

oh well i'll sit on it then :)

the main reason i considered my score low is because my mates computer with a slightly overclocked XP1800+ is beating my machine by quite a margin considering its a slower cpu (compare here (http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4837098) - binky, compare it to yours with the ti4200 :p). maybe those Gigabyte 7VAX boards are a lot better than people think? or the synchronous 166fsb? although sern has said that 3dmark doesn't use the bandwidth anyway.

binky: i am quite comfortable overclocking hardware that isn't worth too much but atm i have a cpu and graphics card both worth over $300 new, and my cpu at this speed is almost at the limit of the architecture anyway (it's an AGOIA). not only that but my hsf is one that some oem's ship as stock and my temps are in the 50's. the GF4 gets quite toasty too.

must... get... 10k... :D

Binky Stunt Cat

31-10-2002, 05:28 PM

Alex...look at the fsb......170Mhz....thats the key thing here. Means his AGP hus is either at 85 or 68Mhz, and that'll be where the boost is comming from.

swiftynz

31-10-2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Binky Stunt Cat
Alex...look at the fsb......170Mhz....thats the key thing here. Means his AGP hus is either at 85 or 68Mhz, and that'll be where the boost is comming from. binky, i'm the one who set that computer up f00 :p
its running on the 1/5 divider so its at 68mhz. whoa! 2mhz ;) (bugger all performance boost). clocking it up to 170 from 133 only added about 200 marks, which means its still more than 300 over mine at 133fsb.

meh, its a newer board, it should perform better i guess.

-DC-

31-10-2002, 09:15 PM

Originally posted by SecretSquirrel
Personally I would expect more from that system, esp with that board...I only get 10k OVERCLOCKED...****ty ****ing hua board, I spit on it and not pay it for the sharp gratey loving.

so what do you think is up with my PC making it underperform? :(

h0nky

31-10-2002, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by -DC-
i gather from that, that my system is under-performing too? :(

XP 2000
512 Samsung DDR
Ti4200 128mb
Ep-8k5a3+
all stock standard, and i get about 9300 - 9500 :/
doing all tests in 1280 res (right? dose it use desktop res?)

i haven't used 3dmark for so long that i've forgotten how to set it properly... i think i ran defaults anyway

hmmm k. going into more detail: ddr333 ram and the 4200 is only 64meg. im running what i thought was defult (in the display and cpu settings in accual 3dmark): 1024x768 32bit colour. although i get 7355 with it in 1280x1024.
sounds like you is running the accual program using the programs 1024x780 settings.:D .

asanthadenz

31-10-2002, 10:57 PM

okay heres my score...not the best but wht do can u expect frm a SDR System.

btw the system is so clogged up wif junk that this score aint even right :p , i only chucked in 1 of my 256mb sticks in because the 256mb Hyundai craps out at tht FSB :(

XP1600@XP1800 1.5ghz
512mb SDRAM
Radeon 8500LE

8165
http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4917508

Ill update back when i fresh install my windewz XP, bet ya ill get a higher score, maybe 8500 :D or something close to that.

TheCrow

01-11-2002, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by Binky Stunt Cat
OMG!!!!
Someone here (other than me) isnt gonna overclock soemthing?
Swifty are you sure your feeling well? :p

At the moment my gfx card and processor are running stock speed as well, only reason being though is one of my fans aint working right.

PsYcHo

01-11-2002, 01:44 PM

8325 (http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4923017 )
^ system specs are there as well :)
Not bad for a little Ti 200 :)

2 much thinking

01-11-2002, 02:14 PM

XP1700+
256mb PC2100 Twinmos CL2
FIC AN11
Chaintech GF4 MX440
41.03 Dets

Default: 5745

XP1700+ 150 x 11 (locked) @ 1650Mhz
card at 310/450

O/C: 6503

SecretSquirrel

01-11-2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by -DC-
so what do you think is up with my PC making it underperform? :(

Not sure, are you CERTAIN you're running CAS 2? And whats the video card running at?

jeef

01-11-2002, 03:11 PM

did my first tests today, so havnt figured out that submit thing, will look into it :)

~11k
pixelview ti4200 128mb (oc'd to something, cant remember, im at a different computer)
asus a7v333
xp1800 at 12.5X155mhz
512ddr ram

during the test my vid card got has hot as 70C :eek: need pixelice methinks...

fraz

01-11-2002, 04:35 PM

i think i can only pull 6k with a ti4200 but thats stock and celeron 1.1@1.1 with sdram
am waiting on cooler so i can get it stable at 1.53
also got to do volt mod on ram cos it sucks

-DC-

01-11-2002, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by h0nky
hmmm k. going into more detail: ddr333 ram and the 4200 is only 64meg. im running what i thought was defult (in the display and cpu settings in accual 3dmark): 1024x768 32bit colour. although i get 7355 with it in 1280x1024.
sounds like you is running the accual program using the programs 1024x780 settings.:D .

well my RAM is sumsung PC2700 (DDR333)
and i have the 128mb version of the Ti 4200...

Originally posted by SecretSquirrel
Not sure, are you CERTAIN you're running CAS 2? And whats the video card running at?

CAS 2?
me = comptuer newbie compared to you guys :p
can you explain?

also, how do i check what res i'm running my benchie at?

2 much thinking

01-11-2002, 05:20 PM

refer here (http://www.radiativenz.com/guides/memoryguide/index3.shtml) for information regarding CAS.

You will generally have options to change the things listed on that page in bios

to check the benchmark res and other settings just click Change on the front menu and you have all the options

-DC-

01-11-2002, 07:57 PM

well i found what settings i'm running -

1024x768 (32 bit)
Double Buffer
Texture format: Compressed
Z-Buffer: 24-bit

It also occured to me that i'm running the original drivers from the box (my Vivo version)

according to the 'AIDA32' System specs program I have:

512 PC2700 DDR (unbuffered) with reduced 7.8ns self-refresh
my highest CAS Latency is 2.5 (6.0ns @ 166mhz)
and 2nd highest CAS latency is 2.0 (7.5ns @ 133mhz)

what res does everyone else run their 3dmarks @?

h0nky

01-11-2002, 10:06 PM

-DC-, i run mine at what i thinks is the defult: 1024x768, 32bit. i seriously would have thought your rig to get 10500 no sweet maybe even 11k. i dunno but i think that 3dmark is also not the most reliable progam out there. figures jumping around and things. i just dont know:(

SecretSquirrel

02-11-2002, 12:36 AM

DC, mate, reset, go into BIOS, search through till you find RAM Latency options, and change them from Auto or 2.5 to 2, because I guarantee that if its not already on 2, you're going to get a hua of a large speed increase in 3DMarks

Agent666

02-11-2002, 01:33 AM

4100

Leadtek GF2 Pro 64Mb 230/380 1.2ghz tbird @ ~1.33ghz 512Mb

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4926357

EDIT:- no ocing at all 3727

-DC-

02-11-2002, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by SecretSquirrel
DC, mate, reset, go into BIOS, search through till you find RAM Latency options, and change them from Auto or 2.5 to 2, because I guarantee that if its not already on 2, you're going to get a hua of a large speed increase in 3DMarks

well, just checked it and it was on 2.0 before...
changed it to CAS 2.5 but only got a 200-250 increase

results here: :(
http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=4928808

going to nvidia update drivers from stock ones
and also update the VIA drivers from stock too.
will try again later today

swiftynz

02-11-2002, 09:37 AM

DC, reread that post. CAS 2.5 is SLOWER than CAS 2.0. how the hell did you get an increase??

/edit: btw your compare link doesn't work

-DC-

02-11-2002, 11:44 AM

<edit> here's the 1st one with old drivers</edit>

and here's the 2nd one with all drivers updated

http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=4929520

i still don't get it then :p i thought CAS 2.5 runs @ 166fsb?
bah, okay i'll turn it down to 2.0 again...
but how come on my epox fastest presetting is CAS 2.5? and 2.0 is normal?

Agent666

02-11-2002, 12:05 PM

no no no ..... you might need to lower the timings to get it to run @ 166 is what they all meant..... yes cas 2 is faster but at higher bus speeds your poor old memory might not be able to handle it ;)

BTW the second link doesnt work either..........

-DC-

02-11-2002, 03:18 PM

eh? so i have to run the memory @ 2.0, but @ 166 speeds? i mean... they run fine @ 166mhz and 2.5...

bah... how do i make the links work? :confused:

Agent666

02-11-2002, 03:52 PM

no 2.5 is the lower speed (slowest)
2 is the highest (fastest)

ZeuS

02-11-2002, 04:24 PM

1.4ghz tbird @ 1.54 (162x9.5), IwillKK266 (KT133A), pc-133 cas3 SDR, 64mb Ti4200 @ 331 core, 575 mem, aircooling, stock HS&F on gpu! (3 fans on vidcard in total :P)

dets =40.52, OS= win98se

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4575798 10826 3D marks

mird-OC

02-11-2002, 04:46 PM

go teh SDR system! :D

SecretSquirrel

02-11-2002, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by ZeuS
1.4ghz tbird @ 1.54 (162x9.5), IwillKK266 (KT133A), pc-133 cas3 SDR, 64mb Ti4200 @ 331 core, 575 mem, aircooling, stock HS&F on gpu! (3 fans on vidcard in total :P)

dets =40.52, OS= win98se

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4575798 10826 3D marks

Eh?? I call shenanigans!

-DC-

03-11-2002, 12:07 AM

well my last score was 10600 (approx) anyway...
till i find how to work the links, thats all the proof i have

Agent666

03-11-2002, 12:22 AM

just right click them and select copy shortcut...... you are obviously cutting and pasting from the wrong part of the page or something

-DC-

03-11-2002, 08:18 AM

well, all i do is - online result broswer, type in the info, publish, then copy/paste the link :/

Agent666

03-11-2002, 10:23 AM

this is the one you should be pasting..... not the one in the addressbar

fraz

04-11-2002, 03:22 PM

sweet, just got it from 6200 to 7500
waiting for det 40.72 to d/l

fraz

04-11-2002, 10:28 PM

7500 to 8700 with latest det's and 1.47 gig but ram only at cas3 4-way interleave enabled

Just need some better ram now

Also, Volcano 7+ are big mofo's but do the job pretty well - about equal to a stock intel hsf when the fan is on the low setting

Mack 10

04-11-2002, 11:16 PM

OK Just finishing off the rebuild,

xp 1800+ @ 1.61
512 meg DDR 2100
Triplex GF4 Ti 4200
MSI K7T266 Pro2

Before rebuild ~8000
After rebuild ~9000

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4932352

I'll do a bit more work on raising it when I get the time, I think I should be able to be getting it up round 11 G at least

Bumped it up to ~9500

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4962292

mrtyphoon

07-11-2002, 04:07 PM

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=3505294

This score is a bit old. After upgrading the Radeon's drivers to Catalyst 2.3, installing SP1 to Windows XP, and setting 3D Mark 2001 to its default settings, I got a score of about 7200 marks. Not bad for a non-overclocked system!

1.2 GHz AMD Athlon T-Bird
FIC AD11 mobo (AMD 760 chipset)
2x256 MB DDR266 ram
64MB ATI Radeon 8500 (275/550)
60GB IBM Deskstar 75GXP hard drive

Ragnor

07-11-2002, 06:37 PM

Submitting isn't working for me at the moment but:

Athlon XP1700+
GF3 128mb Ti200
512Mb DDR
Abit KX7333R
Win2k SP3

At stock I get around: 6204
With the GF3 oc'd to 250/500: 8220

Haven't unlocked the XP yet, it can run at 166FSB x 11 on colder days so I'm hoping to improve my case airflow and not need to bother unlocking it

Diluded

08-11-2002, 08:37 PM

:eek: :mad: :mad:

9879

xp2000
512 DDR
KT333
ti4200 128mb

bah oh well looks good to me anyway:o

h0nky

09-11-2002, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Diluded
:eek: :mad: :mad:

9879

xp2000
512 DDR
KT333
ti4200 128mb

bah oh well looks good to me anyway:o
hmmm it looks like your in the same boat as -DC-. im guessing that its all stock and the settings in 3dmanrk are all defult?
hmmm this is an interesting situation, two under performing systems which just comes back and shows that 3dmark is not as reliable as one thinks

p01s0n_p1e

09-11-2002, 11:04 PM

i think a few people need to realise that 3dMARK IS NOTHING BUT BRAGGING RIGHTS.

your 3dmarks in NOWAY REPRESENT HOW WELL GAMES WILL RUN in your pc- therefore from the amount of 3dmarks you have you cannot tell if a pc is underperforming..

example:

a friend of mine has an xp1600+ a geforce 2mx400 64meg and 512megs of ddr pc2100 his mobo i cant remember
he only gets 3000 3dm's

now
i have a celeron 1300, an asus tusl2c, a gf4 mx440 and 512 megs of pc133
i get 4938 3dm's

YET
in almost anygame we play at our lans he has a highewr fps than me, but wait i get more 3dmarks, so how can it be?

Binky Stunt Cat

10-11-2002, 12:58 AM

because its a benchmark that simulates DX8 gaming....the games your playing are most likely DX7....
Plus i noticed that MadOnion have Sysmark 2002 avalible on their site...need i say more?

Agent666

10-11-2002, 01:02 AM

Originally posted by p01s0n_p1e
i think a few people need to realise that 3dMARK IS NOTHING BUT BRAGGING RIGHTS.

your 3dmarks in NOWAY REPRESENT HOW WELL GAMES WILL RUN in your pc- therefore from the amount of 3dmarks you have you cannot tell if a pc is underperforming..

example:

a friend of mine has an xp1600+ a geforce 2mx400 64meg and 512megs of ddr pc2100 his mobo i cant remember
he only gets 3000 3dm's

now
i have a celeron 1300, an asus tusl2c, a gf4 mx440 and 512 megs of pc133
i get 4938 3dm's

YET
in almost anygame we play at our lans he has a highewr fps than me, but wait i get more 3dmarks, so how can it be?

mmm intel vs AMD ;)

p01s0n_p1e

10-11-2002, 05:56 PM

yea binky it was only today that i realised that i forgot to mention sysmark.
and no it is not an amd vs intel post, the thing that annoys me is that some people will imbalance thier system by buying a totally overkill video card for thier system because some guy on mad onion scored 20,000 by ln2 cooling thier system with that same card.

NTBlowz

10-11-2002, 06:16 PM

I agree.. last time I saw a guy with Celery 1.7 + R9700 only got 8400 3DMarks! :D

utopian201

10-11-2002, 09:26 PM

3dMARK IS NOTHING BUT BRAGGING RIGHTS.

your 3dmarks in NOWAY REPRESENT HOW WELL GAMES WILL RUN in your pc

word.

bob_dole_nz

10-11-2002, 11:45 PM

summit like 10500, but that was at 8x6 so me thinks me has a big prolem somewhere, running 1280x1024 with frikking new drives etc all i pulled was 4500,. Check my sig and you will understand my dilemma. I may not have been running in default but hey. The card RULES for gaming. Mmm, morrowind with encahnted robe;/glass armor/frostblade = PRETTY

ok my sig i changed, here is pc. 512ddr, gainward ti4200 128mb 4ns at stock. 2100xp stock. ga7vrxp. I ain't marked since the format, so i think all the **** i had on there may have been affecting it. Dammit have to find the cd with det 40.72 on it again

gingeralenz

18-11-2002, 01:26 PM

10659 3dmark

http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=4899785

amd xp1800 agoia @ default 1533
MSI KT&266 Pro2-A
Triplex gf4 ti4200
512mb pc2100 ram

swiftynz

18-11-2002, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by gingeralenz
10659 3dmark

http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=4899785

amd xp1800 agoia @ default 1533
MSI KT&266 Pro2-A
Triplex gf4 ti4200
512mb pc2100 ram your compare url doesn't work :(

/edit: as agent said in an earlier post, post this one:
http://forums.overclockers.co.nz/attachment.php?s=&postid=46525

gingeralenz

18-11-2002, 03:23 PM

try that

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4899785

score=10659

Bravo

20-11-2002, 12:12 AM

I bettered my previous Ti4200 score of 13k.

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4891801

Abit KX7-333R
256mb PC-3200 TwinMOS CL2.5 (@ 2-4-2-5-2-1CMD rate @ 207mhz FSB)
XP2000 @ 1860 (aircooled @ 1.775v)
Ti4200 Triplex, Peltier/Aircooled @ 350/648

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Bravo
I bettered my previous Ti4200 score of 13k.
another person who doesn't complete the whole test. it does make a difference you know ;)

Bravo

20-11-2002, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by mird-OC
another person who doesn't complete the whole test. it does make a difference you know ;)

How? You want to limit people whose who have pushed their system to the max to obtain a result, and put them behind people who have purchased a system, done little to no hardware tweaking (be it cooling, vmodding, or turbopll), done software overclocking, and obtained what is ultimately a mediocre result?

My result is valid for several reasons:
1. It ran all the tests specified to gain a result.
2. It did not fail any of the tests.
3. It competes with the top 1% of Ti4200 users in the World.
4. It comes just under top 15 for Ti4200 and AMD.

The difference in my result is my honesty to simply not clock the card, and the FSB back while in windows, and complete the rest of the tests at stock.

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 01:02 AM

if you can't finish the entire default test then it's not a comparable result, and as far as i'm concerned it's really even valid.

if you want to do a comparable bench, do all of the tests. madonion didn't put those other tests in there so you could just disable them.

it's like finishing half a marathon, taking your time and multiplying it by two, and then trying to compare it to the times of people who finished the entire marathon. nuh uh, you can't do that! ;)

Bravo

20-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by mird-OC
if you can't finish the entire default test then it's not a comparable result, and as far as i'm concerned it's really even valid.

if you want to do a comparable bench, do all of the tests. madonion didn't put those other tests in there so you could just disable them.

it's like finishing half a marathon, taking your time and multiplying it by two, and then trying to compare it to the times of people who finished the entire marathon. nuh uh, you can't do that! ;)

My post puts things into perspective, i suggest you look at the top scorers on, and tell them that their result is invalid.

I also suggest anything short of cheating (by editing the data being submitted) is valid, thats what software tweaking is.

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 11:43 AM

my point still stands - you have to compare apples with apples.

it's stupid that 3dmark allows you to disable certain tests, because it effectively creates umpteen dozen different benchmarks. a benchmark is supposed to be that - a benchmark - nothing more, nothing less.

i don't care that most of the top scorers do the same thing as you, as far as i'm concerned they're all invalid. achieving a specific score should mean that your system is not only that powerful, but that it's stable enough to complete the entire default benchmark. if a system is teetering so close to the edge of stability that you can't finish the entire default benchmark, it'll crash before a score is reported - disabling the last few tests just so you can get a score out of it is just plain cheating in my books.

again it's no different to my marathon comparison. someone who runs hard out and uses up all their energy to complete half a marathon can't compare their time to the halfway time of someone who completed the entire marathon.

Joshsti_NZ

20-11-2002, 03:12 PM

Nice one Mird - Bravo PWNED! ;)

Bravo

20-11-2002, 03:45 PM

Mird, how old are you? You clearly do not understand the opinion you hold, not the position the majority of people benchmarking hold with regard to this ideal you have. MO have stated short of outright cheating (editing the information being sent), any form of software tweaking, including limited testing, is valid, and will remain as such.

Throughout the thread, i have seen you claim twice an incomplete benchmark is not valid. I disagree for a few reasons.
1. The benchmark was never meant to compete with people running stock systems. The testbed at the time was being run at 2 in the morning, in the backyard, using an operating system, drivers, and system/video tweaks i would not for everyday use.
2. I never, ever stated it was anything but a result to compete with the top positions, for the reason pointed out above.
3. MO's position on partial benchmarking stands, a completed set, or completed benchmark, is any information that may be submitted.
4. The top benchmarkers (calling Macci's phase change results invalid?) have followed in this, simply to squeeze the most from their system, nothing else.

I think you need to go back and rethink the opinion you hold. It wont endear you to people off these forums (i would hate to see what sort of clobbering you would give someone who is less apt at defending themselve then me), and you have provided nothing to back this opinion up. No technical information, no factual information, and what makes your most opinion disturbing, it reads like a submission rule for this thread.

Just for your information here (http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4901153) is a benchmark of the system i was running after i took my 14k result. I did not really put any effort into it, and was not interested in providing any sort of competition by submitting it. I acknowledge partial benchmarks annoy most people (who have their own reasons), but i really see them as two sections of the Orb. Certainly a completed benchmark set is going be more respectable, but it comes down to sheer numbers.

As i said, rethink it.

EDIT:

Btw, i really couldnt give a **** if you converted to this line of thinking. Personally, i dont see how it should bother you.

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 04:55 PM

you're right, you and anyone else who wants to compare incomplete benchmarks is out on a league of your own. but in case you're having trouble understanding what i'm saying:

for the purposes of comparison everyone must use a complete and identical benchmarl

it's fine if you and whoever else decides that you want to submit incomplete benchmarks, but you just gotta know that for comparisons sake it means jack ****. yay, you get a big 3dmark, but if the benchmark isn't run under the default settings, you may as well be comparing 640x480 benchmarks to 1600x1200 benchmarks.

in case you're still having trouble understanging me, think of it this way: an apple is not the same as an orange. comprehende? :)

Binky Stunt Cat

20-11-2002, 05:23 PM

plus i dont want a benchmark that gives the performance of a heavily tweaked, close to melting down computer. I usualy only bump up the clock on my gfx card to see how much of an improvement i would get, then i dump it back down again because its usualy not worth it.
Mird knows what he's talking about.

Bravo

20-11-2002, 05:31 PM

Guys, its called benchmarking for a reason. To compare heavily overclocked/tweaked/cooled systems to stock systems.

How is it not comparable?

Game 1 resolves around Memory bandwidth, taking into account FSB speed, and general CPU speed.
Game 2 tests the GPU/Memory clocks.
Game 3, tests the GPU clocks in combination with the Memory timings and CPU speed.
Game 4 tests the GPU/Memory clock speeds specifically.

A result is still a result. You can compare my result to anybody else who has completed the full range of tests using the first 4 tests only. The additional tests do nothing, except stress the system for stability, and illustrate why those frame rates were recieved. In short, they do nothing except explain how the frames were supplied in the first four tests.

http://bravo.ausgamers.com/3dmark.gif

Your telling me this cant be compared?

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 05:37 PM

i'm getting the feeling i'm talking to a brick wall, so i'll just give up right now ;)

Bravo

20-11-2002, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by mird-OC
i'm getting the feeling i'm talking to a brick wall, so i'll just give up right now ;)

I fail to see how running the rest of the tests will improve your score, let alone provide any sort of detail on how the result was obtained.

They are indicators, nothing more.

p01s0n_p1e

20-11-2002, 06:02 PM

uh mird- you probably already know this, but the first 4 game tests are the only ones which actually give you the 3dmark..
you will probably find if you run a full test, and a test with only the game tests enabled, there should be little or no differance in your scores.

Ragnor

20-11-2002, 06:04 PM

flame war.. it's been awhile!

I agree with Mird...

I believe not completing the whole set of default tests is lame, but "to each their own", you can do whatever the hell you like..

It's just you should only compare your score to other scores where they also only completed the same tests as you..

You can't compare results done with only 4 tests, to results done with the full set.. It doesn't make sense

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Bravo
I fail to see how running the rest of the tests will improve your score, let alone provide any sort of detail on how the result was obtained.

They are indicators, nothing more.
perhaps if you re-read my posts you might understand what i'm saying. i don't really feel the need to repeat myself, but this is important for you to understand:

for the purposes of comparison everyone must use a complete and identical benchmark

benchmarking of overclocked systems is not only about performance figures, it's about obtaining the stability to complete those benchmarks. if you can't complete the entire benchmark you haven't obtained that stability.

it doesn't matter that the final tests don't affect the score. they're there and they're turned on by default. the real issue here is there's no real reason to turn them off unless you're wanting to misrepresent what your machine is capable of.

Bravo

20-11-2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by mird-OC
perhaps if you re-read my posts you might understand what i'm saying. i don't really feel the need to repeat myself, but this is important for you to understand:

for the purposes of comparison everyone must use a complete and identical benchmark

I see, so i must use all tests according to your opinion?

EDIT:

Im really losing my patience here.

Overclocking is not about stability, i dont run my system at the speeds i used to obtain that score, and i know if i could, i still wouldnt.

You remind me of those ********s who want prime95 results on P4 and XP based CPUs running 800 - 900mhz over their default rating using N2 or CO2.

Overclocking does not embody stability, most ram modules will not overclock 10% without producing errors, and this is especially worse of video card memory.

You drag people down, for no other reason then to invalidate the time and effort that have gone into the benchmarks.

Its listed on the Orb. Its validated by every 'respectable' source on the net (be it regulars from the Orb, MO themselves, or anybody who has a full or 'incomplete' comparison link).

Im done.

Lasuuco

20-11-2002, 07:07 PM

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4954466

Everything @ stock

mird-OC

20-11-2002, 07:57 PM

as i said earlier, being able to disable certain tests is really just a feature that's essentially a flaw in the 3dmark benchmarking system.

Deviant

21-11-2002, 01:25 PM

I understand what you are trying to say Bravo, but I'm with Mird on this one.

If I run just one of the 4 first tests, I get an extra 500 3DMarks, so wow that looks great. Doesn't mean Jack though, and if I tried too say so I would think myself as being stupid. It would only be a comparison to others running the exact same test as I did.

Mird isn't trying to take away the achievements away from those who get really big scores on LN2, he just saying don't compare them with other scores unless they ran the same tests.

Don't loose your patience Bravo. Everyone has a different opinion, and people don't have to conform to yours. Different opinions is a good thing.

And overclocking is about both speed and stability. People who achieve high scores like mine, normally specify whether or not it is stable or not for comparisons sake.
XP2100+
1933MHz best SiSoft Sandra score
1850MHz best SiSoft Sandra score (100% stable)

IMO your flaming is getting a bit strong, and bordering on personal attacks. I would recommend keeping personal feelings aside and stick with facts and good discussion. Your views are just as valid and a good read, and a different perspective and there's nothing wrong with that.

Binky Stunt Cat

21-11-2002, 01:28 PM

plusk, if you dont have stability, what have you got?

Agent666

21-11-2002, 01:33 PM

lol using the new testing methodology .... ie only running half the tests ;) I gained 100 3dmarks (4203)...... this mean my computer is now faster than ever before and all cos I didnt run a complete benchmark....... hopefully this lack of running tests will give me extra fps in games ... after all I got an extra 100 3dmarks .... man my computer is so fast now ........ thanks to all of those who put me onto this tweak to speed up my computer .......... I think I am going to bring all my friends round so they can watch my computer run 3dmark since it is so much faster now..........

Deviant

21-11-2002, 01:41 PM

ROFL, can I came and watch? Have you tried just running one of those 1st 4 tests. You get an even bigger score.

Agent666

21-11-2002, 01:54 PM

yes come join in the fun......... need to run all the games to get a score .... I did try to see if my computer was even FASTER by just running one test .... but no go

KrAzEgUy

21-11-2002, 04:49 PM

... check the sig :)

OC 100% stable, running Prime95.

[H]arls

21-11-2002, 05:11 PM

Its a bit of a difficult subject I suppose, though I do take mirds side on this one. (Mird buddy, next time you realise your talking to a brick wall, just let it go man, it aint worth the hassle) ;)

Its like Binky said "if you dont have stability, what have you got?". Its all very well having the fastest rig on the planet, but not if the damn thing locks up every 5 minutes.
Some people see overclocking as getting the absolute fastest/highest scoring system out there, doesnt matter if its stable its just got to have balls-to-the-wall-speed, if only for a couple of minutes. Others think its about gaining the highest stable overclock and running with it.

I go as high as i can go and then a tad more. If it crashes once every couple of hours, meh, so be it.

Besides, I dont sit there and play 3dmark all day. I overclock to make my games play faster & smoother, not compare numbers like wang sizes. :p

Binky Stunt Cat

21-11-2002, 05:14 PM

side note for Krazeguy: keep your sig under 4 lines of text...else things could hapen :rolleyes: do de do do do de do do

Agent666

21-11-2002, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by [H]arls
Besides, I dont sit there and play 3dmark all day.

Why not as I have already attested it is fun esp when you have uber-fast pc due to these tweaks ;):rolleyes:

KrAzEgUy

21-11-2002, 05:35 PM

... yeah sure Binky Stunt Cat i'll cut down my sig, hey do u visit Overclockersforum.com forums?

smac

21-11-2002, 05:40 PM

I guess what this program is used for is over to the individual - if you want to brag with it, cool, if not, don't. I would question it's accuracy (partial tests aside) considering it can give results with 10% or more varioance on same hardware, same settings, same temperatures.....seems a little weird. Don't think my hardware is THAT unstable. This means it can't even be used to accurately guage the impact/effect of system tweaks on the same machine, let alone someone elses. Comparing good ol' frame rates in certain games would seem to make more sense, but this of course doesn't take quality into effect. My humble Gf4 440 will run at 340/510 or higher without crashing (will complete mad onions tests) , but the artifacts are unbearable - when lightening crashes in Ghost Recon I want lightening, not a white 2inch square hanging over a tree!! Would be interested to see the quality on some of the machines with these higher scores....

KrAzEgUy

21-11-2002, 05:51 PM

... I OC'ed my GF4 Ti4200, up to 350/600 and saw no artifacts what so ever.

Agent666

21-11-2002, 06:04 PM

By the time you actually see artifacts you have generally gone 10-20% to far so backing off 1-2mhz till they dissapear will mean you are still doing damage to your card.............

Humantuckshop

21-11-2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by Bravo

Im done.

Hallelujah!!

swiftynz

22-11-2002, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by Bravo
Overclocking is not about stability, i dont run my system at the speeds i used to obtain that score, and i know if i could, i still wouldnt. since you dont run your computer at your overclocked speeds then i can see where you are coming from.

but i'm another person who agrees with mird:
an overclock is not a proper overclock unless it's stable.

each to their own i guess but there was no reason to get so worked up about it.

ZeuS

22-11-2002, 03:05 PM

An overclock is an overclock, the stability level that someone is after is all to do with the users limits, not someone elses expectations of what it should be.

ONLY the 4 game tests determine the final score, the other tests are just a nice reference to see what his vidcards clock might be at etc... (poly count and fillrate).

I use to only do the 4 game tests because I use to bench for hours at a time and the time that the extra tests take was just annoying, I'd get a fair amount of more benches done without the extra tests selected.

I've also never had a crash in the theoretical tests anyway (I know a few ppl get crashes in the bump mapping, no idea why as dragothic would be more stressful then dot3 :/ ) they are only there to help comparison between very similar systems to see where yours is lacking.

I ran my 3dm2k1 test at 331 core on my GF4 Ti4200, yet the majority of my games would crash at much beyond 315 (under 300 for no stability issues what so ever involving vidcard core speed).

swiftynz

22-11-2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by ZeuS
I ran my 3dm2k1 test at 331 core on my GF4 Ti4200, yet the majority of my games would crash at much beyond 315 (under 300 for no stability issues what so ever involving vidcard core speed).
this kind of proves the point that 3dmark is indeed nothing but bragging rights.

for any machine at stock speed, 3dmark is a completely useless guage of it's performance because you can bet that a large %age of the people running the tests are doing them on highly overclocked rigs at unstable speeds which they would never run for every day gaming. wtf is the point?

after reading this thread and through my own experiece i now use only 3dmark to compare performance between computers that i own or have built personally and i almost always run it at default speeds. that way (together with pcmark 2002/sandra) i get a true enough relative indication of how it's going to perform for everyday use.

Bravo

23-11-2002, 01:44 AM

Have to apologise for my attitude/tone, and general lack of patience on this board. I allowed myself a few days to really just 'shrug' it off.

Only a single point mird has made is valid in my mind, and that is 3DMark was not supposed to be run with tests disabled. This does not mean i will be running all the tests from now on, it simply means i will be making allowances when benchmarking to include a 'full' result.

Again, i wish to apologise at losing my patience, and want to thank everybody here for the tolerance they have shown for somebody who is relatively 'new'.

Cheers :)

mird-OC

23-11-2002, 12:07 PM

hey no hard feelings or anything. heated discussions make the best reading ;)

it's entirely possible to disagree and still get along :D

*hugs*

Joshsti_NZ

23-11-2002, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by mird-OC
hey no hard feelings or anything. heated discussions make the best reading ;)

it's entirely possible to disagree and still get along :D

*hugs*

Geez man, watch out!
Last time someone broke out the hugs they got the old wooden spoon :D ;)

fobski

25-11-2002, 10:49 AM

http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=5140474

:D

swiftynz

25-11-2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by fobski
http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=5140474

:D Originally posted by Madonion.com
The project id is not valid - please check the URL.:p

mird-OC

25-11-2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by fobski
http://service.madonion.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=5140474

:D
doesn't work, but this does:

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5140474

always remember to copy the right link ;)

Volodkovich

25-11-2002, 01:50 PM

well i get 7400 no OC, just tweaked agp and ram settings.

Specs :
Mobo: Abit kx7-333R
CPU: Athlon XP2400+
Ram: 256meg DDR pc2700, kingmax
Vid: Leadtek MX440

I should be able to get 9K OC'ed to around 2.5ghz, and a 200mhz fsb. But first i needa unlock the chip.

Ecstasy

27-11-2002, 08:44 PM

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=4980513

bob_dole_nz

28-11-2002, 05:11 PM

k i reformatted and got 10300 with gainward ti4200 128 mb @stock and xp2100 stock, with 512ddr. Then i put in my mates leadtek ti4600, all with newest drivers, and all i got was blimin 10800. either my card rulz or his sucks. Lol

SecretSquirrel

30-11-2002, 09:01 PM

Gutted...still under 11k :/

http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5193018

Spy

02-12-2002, 06:46 PM

14k+
for link see sig.

h0nky

02-12-2002, 11:25 PM

blab....blab blab. pie mmmm watching to much of weebl and bob.

anyway, 9610

with 1600+ @ 1753mhz (2100+):D
8k3a+
leadtek ti4200 64mg
sammysung 256 pc2700

just an up date to my 9015 not oced.

svenrune

09-12-2002, 04:25 PM

11768 stock http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5268752
14209 o/c http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=5268736

h0nky

10-12-2002, 01:21 AM

dude, you sig is h00ge!
dont mind me saying just to keep it to 4 lines max.

but very impressive score;)

svenrune

10-12-2002, 02:49 AM

sig fixed :D

It looked horrible

must kill Dell adguy

15-12-2002, 01:09 AM

9481...is this ok for my specs.....i am not sure if i am running my agp at 4x....for some reason the bios sets the default at 2x!!!

must kill Dell adguy

15-12-2002, 02:24 AM

hoorah!!! (in a snobby-pommish accent)
i have now fixed the problem and I am ending up with 13160 3dmark2001 points...

Joshsti_NZ

15-12-2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by must kill Dell adguy
hoorah!!! (in a snobby-pommish accent)
i have now fixed the problem and I am ending up with 13160 3dmark2001 points...

link?

SecretSquirrel

23-12-2002, 01:46 AM

Getting there, even more...

11780 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5407385)

goddamnit, if I dont break 12k soon I will throttle my p-due.

Wibber

23-12-2002, 01:59 AM

i was getting shocking scores for a while, then i realised i had reinstalled and forgotten to install 4 in 1's :P

on 106** now... I'm happy with that

SerN

28-12-2002, 01:17 PM

I've upgraded my motherboard to a Abit KX7-333R

now I get 12, 001 marks

specs:

XP 1800+ @ 1.76GHz (160 x 11)
Micron PC2100 @ 160MHz hardest ram timings the KX7 will do.
CPU decode set to ultra.
Leadtek Ti4200 128mb @ 315/560.

will OC video card higher later on when I install a program that will allow me to go over the above limits. :)

before I was getting 10500 with my SDR Soltek Sl-75 KAV, so I'm happy with the perfromance increase of finally moving to DDR.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5454153

SecretSquirrel

28-12-2002, 04:02 PM

MOTHER ****

I cant quite get to 12k (11760) BUT I have to try from scratch with a new hard drive...at a later date :(

I have an XP2000+ at 1.81GHz (151x12), PC2100 Nanya DDR at probably Normal settings (hmm) and a Leadtek GF4 Ti4200 at 315/615 (sometimes 630, depends on ambient heat)

WHY THE **** CAN I NOT GET 12K??!!?!1

Wibber

28-12-2002, 04:12 PM

3dmark is an fsb whore

SiLeNcEr

02-01-2003, 05:08 PM

13368

P4 2.4b
Legend PC2700 512Mb
ATI Radeon 9700 PRO

Nothing Overclocked yet.

Deviant

02-01-2003, 06:09 PM

Originally posted by SiLeNcEr
13368

P4 2.4b
Legend PC2700 512Mb
ATI Radeon 9700 PRO

Nothing Overclocked yet.

What a disgrace, you're likely to get banned around here unless you start overclocking.:D

macdaddy

02-01-2003, 10:49 PM

6511!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2000+
512ddr
mx440

WTF??!!!

h0nky

03-01-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by macdaddy
6511!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2000+
512ddr
mx440

WTF??!!!

mx440
you wont get over 7000 with with a 2000+ and a 440.

ie volod gets 7XXX with a 440 and a 2400+
i get 9XXX with a 4200 and a 1600+
see a pattern?
and i dont think the amount of ram you have efects the outcome either;)

p01s0n_p1e

03-01-2003, 02:00 AM

gee h0nky..
if i run 3dmark on his system with 64megs of ram, and run it with 512megs of ram- which is going to get higher.....

and just to run my point home, my celeron was getting 43xx with 160 megs of ram, when i took out the 32 stick and replaced it with another 128 stick to total 256, it jumped to 46xx and when i added another 256 stick for a total of 512- whaddaya know? 51xx...and that was pc133 sdram running at 100mhz fsb...

Wibber

03-01-2003, 02:22 AM

well it makes sweet fa difference when you get past 256, and you cant run 3dmark wiht less than 128mb :P

macdaddy

03-01-2003, 07:15 PM

gah i shouldve kept the R9000P :mad:

bob(nz)

04-01-2003, 08:52 AM

14240

P4 2.26 @ 2.84
Leadtek Ti4400 @ 305 / 665

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5481201

Iblis

09-01-2003, 04:44 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5577590

Wow! Well over 8000+ with my Geforce3! I remember when I was trying like mad to break 7000. Curse that sneaky nVidia driver team.... some of them need to defect to the ATi camp, so I can get rolling performance increases for my 9700-to-be. :D :p

[C]harlie

11-01-2003, 11:52 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5594524

SecretSquirrel

11-01-2003, 04:05 PM

Nice one Charlie :D
Too close to mine, shows I really need to get slightly better hardware instead of thrashing this stuff...

Deviant

15-01-2003, 08:24 AM

New Hi for me. 12245 on a Ti4200 64MB.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5633634

[H]arls

15-01-2003, 04:31 PM

NICE work Deviant - now crank out the H2O or liquid nitrogen and go really [H]ard :D

Hans

15-01-2003, 04:56 PM

CPU @ 2013 (183*11)
Leadtek GF4 Ti-4200 64MB @ 300C/600M

Binky Stunt Cat

24-01-2003, 11:16 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5716204
9790 :rolleyes:
stock Ti4200....:p

MoNk

24-01-2003, 05:59 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5611770

Iblis

30-01-2003, 08:42 PM

:D
My new baby! :cool: :D :cool: :D
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5737710
:eek: :D

Deviant

30-01-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Iblis
:D
My new baby! :cool: :D :cool: :D
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5737710
:eek: :D

Nice, but you only just beat my Ti4200 by 548.

You must be able to better that, have you overclocked it yet?

SerN

01-02-2003, 07:57 PM

I've boosted my score up 326 points for a total of 12,327 by upping FSB from 160 to 185 and OCing my ti4200 a little more 328 / 600 from 315 / 560.

heres my latest results http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5805248

Iblis

04-02-2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Deviant
Nice, but you only just beat my Ti4200 by 548.

You must be able to better that, have you overclocked it yet?
No, I haven't overclocked it yet, and the whole reason I wanted the card: 6xFSAA & 16xASF. We'll benchmark those, and then compare, eh? ;) i'll be OC'ing like a mofo when I get my A7N8X..... :D

Oh-Sigh-Ris

04-02-2003, 04:42 PM

GeForce2 Pro 64mb @ 235/460

Got me a nice 4887 for the moment. Core @ 240 is stable enough to run 3DMark benchmark, but quits games after about 30 mins.

Link: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5835821

must kill Dell adguy

04-02-2003, 10:18 PM

Son of a *****!!!!

How did you get that up to 235/460????

Isn't the stock 185 (or 200)/360 ????

cadmax

05-02-2003, 02:05 AM

bugger rong place sorry :o

ZeuS

05-02-2003, 03:01 PM

Already posted my Ti4200 score, but here it is again and a few oldies...

64mb Gf4 Ti4200
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4575798 10826

128mb Gf3 Ti200 (high quality test, minimal o/c'n, justa quick run)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=3076327 6816

32mb Gf2 GTS @245 core, 404 mem
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2803837 4822

32mb Gf2 GTS, celeron :/
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=1040269 2662

Ti4200, 1280x1024x32 4xAA, 8xAF
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4548727 2571

_N_

05-02-2003, 03:48 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4749165
Duron 154 x 9; Leadtek GF4Ti 4400, 310/620; ASUS A7V266EX

and my current setup:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4665654
ASUS A7V226EX; 256MB DDR; Duron 1GHz @ 9 x 155. Gainward Golden Sample GeForce 2 Ti 64Mb DDR VIVO (310/510)

Gh0s7 L3mUr

09-02-2003, 03:22 AM

Damn something is seriously wrong with my system I'm only getting 6725. :(

_N_

17-02-2003, 11:45 AM

ok, here is my score:
10822 3D marks
with duron 1.3OCed to 1.47 at 147FSB
and Gf4 Ti4600 at stock, can't OC, cause my PSU is too weak.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5967472

nicotine

27-02-2003, 02:29 AM

3Dmark01SE = 16699

Abit IT7 max2 revision2

P4 2.4b C1 @ 3170mhz (default Vcore)

2x512 XMS3500 @ 441mhz 2-2-2-5

ATI 9700np @ 331/324

I know that I can break 17000+ with some more tweaking, put large heat sink on video card, add some ram sinks. Im sort of at a wall with the xms memory at cas2 which seems to give the best results in 3dmark. I need to get the hacked bios that has extra voltage increase. I know the cpu will do more. soon very soon.

river hack computer:

3Dmark01SE = 4096

Asus TUSL2-C

1.1a celeron @ 1555mhz

256mb XMS150 and 256mb Legend @ 141mhz 2-2-2-5

Powercolor GF2 GTS 32mb @ 230/383

charismo

04-03-2003, 09:12 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6058415

11405 3dmarks
XP @ 1703 MHz
512 133 MHz DDR
Powercolor Radeon 9700 NP@ 339.75/303.75

TheCrow

05-03-2003, 06:16 PM

just got my new Triplex gf4 ti4200 installed

got 9299 with no overclocking done to the cpu or card

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6087658

Oh-Sigh-Ris

05-03-2003, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by must kill Dell adguy
Son of a *****!!!!

How did you get that up to 235/460????

Isn't the stock 185 (or 200)/360 ????

no, mine @ stock was 200/400. It actually went up to 475 on the RAM and 240 on the core, but the textures weren't too good. I got 5115 in 3DMark2001SE @ 235/460 with my new nForce2 board. I've had to drop it back as BF1942 didn't seem to like it that high, but all my other games are fine. Strange.

BloodDonor

05-03-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by Gh0s7 L3mUr
Damn something is seriously wrong with my system I'm only getting 6725. :(

whats ya specs? im too lazy to hunt for em :p

btw i get 10375 ;)

the GF4 ti4200 rocks :D

I.R

05-03-2003, 10:58 PM

er I think I get 12429

on 10.5 x 172 and GF4 4200 @ 300/600 or there abouts.

Though I'm only on 256Mb and a really old install...... like 3 graphics cards and three mobos worth of install :eek:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6015407 and it's not a duron :rolleyes:

Gh0s7 L3mUr

05-03-2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by BloodDonor
whats ya specs? im too lazy to hunt for em :p

btw i get 10375 ;)

the GF4 ti4200 rocks :D

P4 2.0G @2.66 (20*133)
Soyo p4 845pe
Corsair XMS2400
GF3 Ti200 @240/515

The thing is, on the MadOnion site the average Ti200 score is in the 9000s and here I am OCed and got even getting close.

mird-OC

06-03-2003, 12:16 AM

you have a hard time with your rigs there don't ya l3mur ;)

i thinks me and your rig are gonna have to have a wee chat at the next L3 :p

Gh0s7 L3mUr

06-03-2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by mird-OC
you have a hard time with your rigs there don't ya l3mur ;)

i thinks me and your rig are gonna have to have a wee chat at the next L3 :p

Yeah tell me about it. I spend a premium in order to try and make sure nothing is holding me back, while others buy cheap (ram etc) and get better results than me. Think I'm going to give some of that vData ram a go... only $160 for 512MB of PC2700. Least then if it performs as badly as my Corsair I will have saved a few $$$.

Dunno if I'm going to be able to make it to #13 (running out of babysitters), but I'll definitely be there for the Easter Lan. :D

rude_awakening

22-03-2003, 05:17 PM

11044....but I havent done anything to it yet!!!

maybe its time to really punish these oc'ed Ti4200s :P

MoNk

22-03-2003, 05:34 PM

would a 3.3 line running 2.90 severely affect my 3dmark performance?

Araurlis

26-03-2003, 02:52 AM

Hmmmm......
History
Duron 950 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2429011)
AthlonXP 1800+ @ 1915MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6171214)
AthlonXP 1800+ @ 2025MHz (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6217801)
None of my CPU's have survived for more than about 10 minutes b4 overclocking (the length of time needed to plug in, turn on, turn off, make coffee, tweak).
The graphics card is the same one and NOT overclocked - never really been bothered to do so with the graphics. Its a Hercules Prophet II GF2mx

Deviant

12-04-2003, 12:23 PM

I beat 14000 with a Ti4200.

That must be getting up there.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6315271

bob(nz)

18-04-2003, 07:52 PM

And 18248 here (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6347868)

Damn its a long way to 20000!! :(

IronH

18-04-2003, 08:39 PM

Ti4200, Duron 1.2, nForce2 = 10448
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6288532
(upgrading to a Tbred soon)

GF3, XP1800+, KT333CE = 8923
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4404476

GF4MX440, XP1800+, KT266A = 6990
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=3998788

GF4MX440, Duron 1GHz, KT266A = 5234
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=3054825

NZSnake

20-04-2003, 10:45 PM

i got 6059 with everything at stock speed
My rig needs another format and reload :(

XP2100+, 512mb DDR333, MX440-SE, GA-7VAXP Mobo, 60Gig Baracuda IV, AOpen 40x12x48, Poseidon Watercooling. :)

MoNk

20-04-2003, 11:00 PM

12345

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6359448

2100+
GF4ti4200 64
Soltek FRN-L
Samsung 512 pc2700

2 much thinking

21-04-2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by NZSnake
i got 6059 with everything at stock speed
My rig needs another format and reload :(

XP2100+, 512mb DDR333, MX440-SE, GA-7VAXP Mobo, 60Gig Baracuda IV, AOpen 40x12x48, Poseidon Watercooling. :)

That is quite a reasonable score. Are you running your Mem/FSB at stock also?

NZSnake

21-04-2003, 03:10 PM

yeah, everything was set at factory defaults, if i overclock everything to the highest stable values i know of it gets up to 6300. after a fresh reload i get up to 7000 sometimes, only thing is that the graphics card doesnt have pixel shaders :( if it did i could probably get a better score

h0nky

22-04-2003, 01:06 AM

Originally posted by NZSnake
if it did i could probably get a better score
shock horror!

after i formatted i got 9700 and oced just at 166fsb 10600

axp1600+, ti4200, ep8k3a+, samsung 256mb, wd800bb.

bob8899

22-04-2003, 10:04 AM

1800+ @ 2067MHz water cooled
256 ddr 150MHz 2 2 2
geforce4 mx440 336/505

7176 3D marks

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=6&projectId=6326527

soven

24-04-2003, 11:08 PM

Family Rig
Epox 8k5a3+
512mb Mushkin black pc3200
xp1800tbred b 10 x 166 cooled with pal8045
Leadtek Geforce3 ti200 stock

7447 marks
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6378779

Just gave it a run, prettry much running without a sweat. Will push it when I get the time.

Jay

30-04-2003, 01:25 PM

My rig

Shuttle SN41G2 XPC
512mb Kingston ValueRam
XP2100+ (not overclocked)
Powercolor 9700 Pro (Catalyst 3.2)
Win XP SP1

I'm only getting 12333 - what's going on? Does anyone have any tips? Shouldn't I be in the high 12k's or tipping into the 13k's. My 9500 Pro did 11,500 no problem.

SerN

30-04-2003, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Jay
My rig

Shuttle SN41G2 XPC
512mb Kingston ValueRam
XP2100+ (not overclocked)
Powercolor 9700 Pro (Catalyst 3.2)
Win XP SP1

I'm only getting 12333 - what's going on? Does anyone have any tips? Shouldn't I be in the high 12k's or tipping into the 13k's. My 9500 Pro did 11,500 no problem.

That score is about right, You need to OC that 2100+ if you wanna get over 13k.

Jay

30-04-2003, 01:36 PM

I'm thinking you might be right there. I was going by this

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/cpu_charts-23.html (http://)

But then I suppose this is a dedicated benchmarking set-up like..

Stove

30-04-2003, 03:09 PM

5817.
Not too shabby for the old girl
Athlon 1200 @ 1200
128meg PC133 SDRam
MSI K7T mobo
ATi Radeon 8500 LE

stevo

03-05-2003, 10:11 AM

19703..........just a couple more tweaks and I'll be in the 20k club:D

stevo

04-05-2003, 09:30 AM

*made it* to the 20k club :cool:

bob(nz)

04-05-2003, 09:48 AM

WD Stevo :D

Can you post us a link to your result, would like to see the details of your rig :)

MoNk

04-05-2003, 09:50 AM

Good stuff.

What next steve? :p

stevo

04-05-2003, 10:00 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6428436
Found a couple of tweaks that seem to have worked to help it.

Card has no cooling for memory and the h/s for the gpu is a POS
I guess if I went crazy I could improve it cooling wise,but what the hell,why bother.

nicotine

04-05-2003, 12:41 PM

What were your video cards clock setting, I can't see them listed on that page.
You must of disabled any program/core files from loading at start up to get a score that big with the now dated PE chipset.

stevo

04-05-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by nicotine
What were your video cards clock setting, I can't see them listed on that page.
You must of disabled any program/core files from loading at start up to get a score that big with the now dated PE chipset.

Core 440/369mem
Didn't disable programs from loading at startup.
System restore,Screensaver, native default Windows performance settings etc etc all running

nicotine

04-05-2003, 03:24 PM

How do you tweak it to get more grunt?

2 much thinking

05-05-2003, 09:33 PM

5918

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6435633

Refer sig for hardware; CPU, Vid Card and everything else stock speed.

Hoping now to be able to break 7K with overclocking.

Disrespective

08-05-2003, 12:02 AM

Hmmph

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6444765

1800+ @ 2087MHz
512MB Generic RAM
Leadtek GForce4 Ti 4200 @ stock
blah
blah
blah

I.R

31-05-2003, 09:53 AM

I just found the "aggressive" setting in the BIOS :rolleyes:

13378

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6561988

Come on 14K :D

2 much thinking

02-06-2003, 10:02 PM

13432 Marks (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6573554)

I feel a challenge coming on mr I.R. :p

2 much thinking

02-06-2003, 10:21 PM

Now we are getting down to business :)

13646 Marks (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6573592)

IronH

03-06-2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by 2 much thinking
13432 Marks (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6573554)

I feel a challenge coming on mr I.R. :p

hey can I join in? :D

XP1800+ & 64MB Ti4200
13801 3Dmarks, 14000 should be easy (when I have the time)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6451246

Genesis

03-06-2003, 06:56 PM

11873

Sig says it all. Everything on stock atm.

Valium

03-06-2003, 07:54 PM

9461, 1700pallmino, albatron ti4280p all stock speeds,

getting the new cpu/mobo/ram in a day or two so ill be back to post my +16000 :)

2 much thinking

05-06-2003, 10:04 PM

Soooo close to 14K, however another day waits

13909 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6586761)

IronH

05-06-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by 2 much thinking
Soooo close to 14K, however another day waits

13909 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6586761)

hey good work 2MT
right then, tomorrow I will have to find time to crack 14000 :D

BorgWarner

07-06-2003, 05:10 PM

Geforce4 Ti4800SE @ 310/620
P4 2.8c @ 230MHz FSB (3.25GHz)
1GB PC2700 @ 368MHz dual channel, 4.8GB/sec

15290 3DMark 2001 points

[ TrancE ]

08-06-2003, 08:52 AM

Athlon 1600+ Tbird @ 1.4 (no o/c)
256 DDR 266
GeForce 2 MX 400 64 DDR (original nVidia)

on default settings i get 3986 marks. Not bad for a weak system like mine ;) :p

Hey, ph33r me, im upgrading to a GF4 MX card in couple of days, stay tune and see what the friken differene between 2MX and 4MX is, with same specs w00t:D

2 much thinking

09-06-2003, 11:26 PM

Finally 14K has fallen!! :D

14145 Marks (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6605512)

NZSnake

10-06-2003, 12:19 AM

sweet!
good work man!

[ TrancE ]

10-06-2003, 11:33 AM

<p01s0n_p1e> no you dont
<p01s0n_p1e> i have an explicit record of everything which goes in and out of my ass, and your dick isnt on the list
<p01s0n_p1e> im gonna regret saying that

come to think of it... i got a grafics card from him

:D :D :rolleyes: :eek:

SquattingDog

12-06-2003, 06:43 PM

with my GF4MX440 @ stock (which for mine was 290/440), i got 6595 marks (my sig says the system this was running in).

with my new radeon9500pro at stock, full test, i got 11879 marks. i wasnt able to chuck it on the site tho-was down last nite ><

[ TrancE ]

12-06-2003, 09:52 PM

Apparently P1e was running his MX440 at 8 000 as he told me @ Stock.

Hopefully that was true and i get to play with that baby;)

DJ_Lo

15-06-2003, 11:51 PM

13,056 on a GF4Ti4400 @ 300/650. P4 2.4 system.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6632427

Lo.

glyde

18-06-2003, 12:46 PM

13500 ish

ABIT NF7S v2
xp1800 th-b @ 200 X 11.5
2 X 256 geil pc3200 @ cs2
HIS Radeon 9500 pro

TooMuchCoffeeMan

18-06-2003, 02:56 PM

Hey guys how does 18529 3D marks sound?

compare URL: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6639250

dustyslapper

18-06-2003, 04:30 PM

Currently 'a snitch' under 13000. I'll post compare once I've gone over.

Give me a second :)

Crispy

18-06-2003, 04:55 PM

13085
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6643743

Specs:
XP2000 @ 133x15
Soltek 75RRN2
2 x 256MB Generic 266
Excalibur 9500Pro @ 338,300

DJ_Lo

18-06-2003, 05:13 PM

Just wondering... does my 13056 seem a bit low for a Ti4400??

Lo.

dustyslapper

18-06-2003, 05:17 PM

Dang Iron H - I'm not sure id I can compete on an equal footing with you mate. You have 500mhz of cpu powar that I cannot equal.

Pretty happy with how I'm doing at the moment though - I still have 'some' room (maybe 20mhz?) in the CPU I think - I know my ram has a lot of headroom. It's a case though that I really have to be in the mood to do any serious playing, it's so damn boring.

Had a tweak of my memory timings, bumped the CPU up to 1.95V (36*C at idle is what it reads, with an alpha 8045 and vantec stealth - yeah right), and pushed the vid card ram to within a mhz or two of where it really shouldn't be. GPU core has more room though, I ran it at my everyday clock.

Nature loves the bandwidth.

13108
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6643768

BorgWarner

19-06-2003, 05:35 PM

Got to 16003 now, thanks to my new Abit IC7-G being better at overclocking than the soltek and the albatron 865 boards i had.

That's with a Ti4800SE, can't wait to get a high end DX9 card.

MoxPearl

22-06-2003, 11:27 PM

11472 with Ti4200 64mb

Here is hoping that when i get mah 9800Pro it will up it a bit :D

IronH

25-06-2003, 11:31 AM

sweet, finally found some time to do a re-test

Athlon XP1800+ & Ti4200 & the crapiest $60 worth of RAM money can buy
14244 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6673803)

now just gotta figure out how to manipulate the LOD settings and find a proggie that has sliders that go higher for the Ti4200, for some strange reason GTU doesn't allow me to do it with the Det 40.52 drivers..... does anyone know of another tweaking program that can do it? I also tried powerstip but it didnt have the LOD option.

ZeuS

25-06-2003, 02:58 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6652790 14610

NF2, XP2100+, 512x2 DDR, F'ked 64mb Ti4200.

319 core, 554 mem, rest of stuff detected in 3dmark.

[ TrancE ]

25-06-2003, 10:41 PM

4901 marks.

1600+ Athlon @ 1.4 stock

GeForce 4 MX 440 64megs @ 320/480 - not the max overclock, hardly really tried

256 DDR 133

And some brandless mobo that obviously spoils the whole thing.
I bet i can squeeze more out if i try but since i installed DirectX9 (wich was a big mistake btw:() everything started crashing. Im formatting it all so should come with a new result soon :) i bet i can get over 5500 any bets :p

Compare (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6661669)

/edit

Remember, im 1337 so you better not bet against me! ;) :D :rolleyes:

NTBlowz

25-06-2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by [ TrancE ]
4901 marks.

1600+ Athlon @ 1.4 stock

GeForce 4 MX 440 64megs @ 320/480 - not the max overclock, hardly really tried

256 DDR 133

Hmmm.. I got 4906 with AXP1600+ @ 1.4Ghz, 256MB DDR, KT266A mobo and stock GF2Ti @ 250/400...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2607061

IronH: have u tried Rivatuner? (or the on the display property.. it is called mipmapping instead of LOD)

IronH

26-06-2003, 09:30 AM

yeah, tried rivatuner as well, didnt like it, couldnt find any mipmapping things, found a LOD bias which did SFA, also tried NVHardpage and that sux as well.

EDIT: oh ok, Im just a noob with rivatuner, finally got it to work, the LODbias sets the limits of the LOD to a max of 10+/-, I set the level to 3+ which makes the textures really blurry and retested, my 3D mark score went down 100points, hmmmm..... odd considering my other comps would gain significantly - oh well. 14244 will have to do for now.

[ TrancE ]

27-06-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by NTBlowz
[B]Hmmm.. I got 4906 with AXP1600+ @ 1.4Ghz, 256MB DDR, KT266A mobo and stock GF2Ti @ 250/400...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2607061

That is defenetly my mobo then, i have looked at compare, and i beat you at carchase low, dragothic low, fill rates, point sprite shader and bump mapping, so when the motherboard becomes a little bit of a bottleneck (i.e. high detail tests) you come out winner. Im making a new gaming rig (hopefully done in two-three months seeing as tho im going away for next month) im using Nforce2 ;)

Hopefully that comes a good tip for anyone making a comp, motherboard isnt a fly-thru it is one of the most importnat things. If not THE most important.

/edit

that IS a bloody close result tho i would say, considering we use diff components! :eek:

/yet another edit

You are using 3Dmark2001 original, if you have a chance, try SE, it puts your marks a bit down, a little more details in tests i beleive

IronH

27-06-2003, 04:21 PM

You are using 3Dmark2001 original, if you have a chance, try SE, it puts your marks a bit down, a little more details in tests i beleive

my score went up 100 odd 3Dmarks when I went to SE

IronH

28-06-2003, 07:09 AM

UPDATE - XP1800+ & Ti4200 = 14720 - getting closer to 15k :)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6686042

[ TrancE ]

28-06-2003, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by IronH
my score went up 100 odd 3Dmarks when I went to SE

My score went down by about 150:(

Thats it im sick of this brandless mobo!

glyde

28-06-2003, 05:25 PM

after o/c my radeon9500pro now got new 3dmark

14954

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6687817

still probably go higher with better cooling

[ TrancE ]

28-06-2003, 05:32 PM

You didnt complete every test mate.
You only done games but all the rest is N/A of course you can be happy with the result but you cant compare it to other systems
Run every test and publish it, it would be comparable then...

MoNk

28-06-2003, 08:40 PM

I think thats a result of tweaking, and it does actually do the tests.

Clarify?

[ TrancE ]

28-06-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Deviant
I understand what you are trying to say Bravo, but I'm with Mird on this one.

If I run just one of the 4 first tests, I get an extra 500 3DMarks, so wow that looks great. Doesn't mean Jack though, and if I tried too say so I would think myself as being stupid. It would only be a comparison to others running the exact same test as I did.

Mird isn't trying to take away the achievements away from those who get really big scores on LN2, he just saying don't compare them with other scores unless they ran the same tests.

Don't loose your patience Bravo. Everyone has a different opinion, and people don't have to conform to yours. Different opinions is a good thing

Thats what i was going on about... It is a good way to tweak up your system, but if you unclick few things and run the test getting more marks, thats not really tweaking is it?
Of course different things to different people, im just saying it isnt really directly comparable to for example my crappy result, because i ran all tests (even tho some of them didnt even go :p )

:D