PDA

View Full Version : 3DMark2001 out TODAY!



Maggi
13th March 2001, 08:15
Whoa ... what a rush ... LOL

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Anyways, it must be getting real close now, cos they pulled off the trailer they had for d/l before ...

Cheese,
Maggi

Maggi
13th March 2001, 08:17
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">3DMark2001 out at 4-6pm PST

» Discuss! Nicklas "worm" Renqvist @ Tue 2001-03-13

We've finally sorted out the last minute details with the download sites and mirrors and wanted to give everyone heads up that we're going live with 3Dmark2001 between 4 - 6 pm PST. Sorry to still leave the time a bit open, but as we're not hosting the file alone and need to syncronize the roll-out with mirroring sites.

Also, our servers are maxing out big time. (Like most of you surely have noticed http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif So, please, please try to avoid refershing the pages multiple times each minute as we're taking kind of a heavy beating on this one (and if you really, really have to keep refreshing use the 3DMark2001 Confidential page where we'll post the info first).</font>

it took ages for that page to load this time ... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Topha
13th March 2001, 11:10
PST is pacific standard time, right? how many hours time difference is that from german time?? from EST would be ok,too.

xortam
13th March 2001, 11:21
PST? Nein! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif


(neun)

Topha
13th March 2001, 11:25
nein what??? i wanna know how long i have to stay up, but im too lazy to go look somewhere else http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

SteveC
13th March 2001, 12:25
err... page *really* struggling to load! I NEED 3DMARK2001 NOW! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

xortam
13th March 2001, 12:30
Geesh ...

Q:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Topha:
... how many hours time difference is that from german time?? </font>

A: Nein! 9! Its a joke, get it?

4 P.M. PST (16h00) is 00:00 UTC/GMT, or 1:00 (01h00) in Germany.

Topha
13th March 2001, 12:34
i wasnt quite sure, (grinning embarrassed (<--spelling??))
trying to get the site to load, argh

Topha
13th March 2001, 12:38
oh, you actually wrote neun under it, now i really feel dumb. thanks though http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

SteveC
13th March 2001, 13:01
On the stroke of midnight here...

(beavis impression - heh hehh hheh he said 'stroke' hehh hhehehhehh) (sorry)

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

xortam
13th March 2001, 13:17
I've been benching Q3A like mad trying to quantify the impact of my recent CPU upgrade. I need to go back to my old CPU to run some more tests. I already had run a couple 3DMark2000 (freebie version) benches but I'll wait and run the 2001 version first before I swap CPUs again. Otherwise, I couldn't get too exited about its arrival but now I'm waiting in queue with everyone else. Will just have to stroke 'till midnight. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

SteveC
13th March 2001, 16:04
It's here!! (Can't get to madonion's site - it's totally overloaded)

http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10045-100-5122338.html?tag=st.dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-4.5122338

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

Joel
13th March 2001, 16:16
I have it and have already run it. Pretty hard on the G400s. Be sure to watch the demo. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Joel http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Liquid Snake
13th March 2001, 16:21
38MB! WTF! Oh well.

xortam
13th March 2001, 16:28
c|net is currently feeding me at 29 KB/sec. At this rate it would be faster to have them send me a CD.

Maggi
13th March 2001, 16:31
http://gamershq.madonion.com/3dmark2001/


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Well, I think the topic says it all! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif The long awaited new benchmarking software 3DMark2001 will be released today (2001-03-13)! The exact time will be announced a bit later.

We will keep updating the 3DMark2001 Confidential Page with the latest news and stuff the whole day, so keep reloading! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif </font>

xortam
13th March 2001, 16:35
I just noticed that it has a requirement of DX 8.0. Tell me it ain't so! I downloaded DX8 when it was released but thankfully never installed it (running Win98). Aren't people still having tons of trouble with DX8 on Win98? Has there been some patches released or some procedures announced to stabilize it?

SteveC
13th March 2001, 16:54
Well - whoppee I get a massive score of 1060 on my G400 (non MAX under win2k). I must say though that it looks FANTASTIC! Especially the floors in the matrix scene and the EMBM test! Off to try the demo now.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

SteveC
13th March 2001, 17:01
One word for that demo, Joel - WOW!! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif That is just dying to be played on a huge screen with a massive sound system! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Xortam - I've never had a problem with DirectX 8 (apart from it may be a minute amount slower than dx7)

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

alessandro
13th March 2001, 18:35
It seems that this benchmark is made for just one card.......GF3 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I'm getting 3039 3DMarks with my Radeon 32Mb DDR 190Mhz/190Mhz o/c.
I'l try my MAX to see what i get.

By the way the 'minimum'for the 3DMark 2001 is a 500mhz cpu with the recommended to 1ghz and get this... 192Mb RAM if you run Win2K?????????


[This message has been edited by alessandro (edited 14 March 2001).]

xortam
13th March 2001, 18:58
Well if this version requires DX8 it will just have to wait until I finish up my other benches. I've got too much time invested in my current testing to change things now. Seems there's something new released every week that can affect your system performance. It would be a full time job to quantify every system change.

Ultramar
13th March 2001, 20:38
My score:

Intel Pentium III 750
ASUS CUBX
256 MB RAM
Matrox Millennium G400 MAX
Windows 2000 Professional
DirectX 8.0
5.33 Drivers

D3D Software T&L
1024x768
Depth: 32 bit
Z-Buffering: 32 bit
Texture Format: 32 bit
Buffering: Double

3DMark Score: 1291

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail - 21.1 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail - 7.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail - 17.2 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail - 6.9 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail - 30.6 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail - 15.9 fps
Game 4 - Nature - Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 129.1 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 164.3 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) - 2.2 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) - 1.1 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping - 21.3 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping - Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader - 12.7 fps
Pixel Shader - Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites - 0.7 MSprites/s

[This message has been edited by Ultramar (edited 14 March 2001).]

Greebe
13th March 2001, 21:04
RESULTS
3DMark Score 1438
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 23.2 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 8.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 22.2 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 8.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 31.4 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 16.6 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 126.9 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 161.6 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 2.8 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 1.0 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 17.9 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader 18.4 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 1.1 MSprites/s

System:
Athlon500@850
G400Max (@default res for benchmark)
256 meg "7E" mem

Overall I rate this game a yawn

rylan
13th March 2001, 21:42
Yeah, its kinda too bad that the entire program pretty much _crawls_ on an overclocked G400MAX... I'm afraid to see how poorly a G450 would perform.

That demo would look SWEET in 1024x768x32 or higher, but I don't like watching slideshows very much :P

isochar
13th March 2001, 22:02
It's not just a G400max that's slow...

I'm running it on this:
Thunderbird 1200@266
Asus A7V133 (Bios 1004, VIA AGP GART 4.29)
384mb Crucial PC133 CL2
Annihilator 2 GTS (Detonator 6.50)

Most of the benchmarks bring this setup to its knees http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif (Can't imagine what would happen I threw my G400max in there http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif)

I'd post my scores, but 3dmark crashes on the 2nd game. It needs all the games to run before it'll calculate the scores.

Seems there are a few people experiencing this bug on AMD systems:
http://www.sharkyforums.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/004238.html

Helevitia
13th March 2001, 22:17
Well I get 2910 on my Radeon 32MB DDR AIW.

I have:
Asus A7V w/ TB 700@900
256MB PC133 Mushkin rev. 2
Win98SE

Dave

------------------
What if the Hokey Pokey is what it's all about?

Rags
13th March 2001, 22:28
3020 on my Radeon 64MB DDR.

Rags

SuRGV
14th March 2001, 00:22
Darn.. I get only 2465 with V7700 (GF3 GTS 32 MB), P3 600@800 MHZ, 192 MB (just enough), Win 2000 SP1, DX 8.a.
BTW. I'm using 6.50 driver. Will try 7.52 to see if it's different.
Anyone with GF2 GTS 32 MB here put your scores please..
Trung.

Greebe
14th March 2001, 01:15
you mean 2 not 3 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Topha
14th March 2001, 01:33
getting 1496
athlon 750 @ 800 (only overclocked fsb)
128 ram
g400 max
asus k7m

im almost disappointed, i would have expected better animations for the matrix scene

SteveC
14th March 2001, 02:02
mmmm Score of 926 on my brother's P3-550/G450/128Mb/Win2k machine... Looks like I'll have to borrow loads of graphics cards again and do a load more tests....

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

SteveC
14th March 2001, 02:02
Oh, by the way - what if game 4? My matrox G4x0's can't run it. 'Not Supported In Hardware' or something.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

Topha
14th March 2001, 02:06
steve: i think game 4 is the nature scene they show in the demo. cant run it either, but thats what i heard. there is a screenshot with a man fishing on the madonion page, looks really cool.
i ran the demo at 1024 and got about 1fps.

cant wait for the cebit, i want my g800 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

DentyCracker
14th March 2001, 03:11
AMD Duron *edit* 700@950* edit
Abit KT7
256 MB RAM
Matrox Millennium G400 Dualhead 32 MB
Windows Me-Windows 2000
DirectX 8.0-DirectX8.0a
6.50 Drivers-5.51 Drivers


D3D Software T&L
1024x768
Depth: 32 bit
Z-Buffering: 32 bit
Texture Format: 32 bit
Buffering: Double

3DMark Score: 1341-1343

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail - 23.3-23.1 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail - 7.7-7.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail - 20.6-20.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail - 8.2-8.3 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail - 27.9-28.2 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail - 15.3-15.2 fps
Game 4 - Nature - Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 117.7 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 133.9 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) - 3.0 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) - 1.3 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping - 19.8 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping - Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader - 18.0 fps
Pixel Shader - Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites - 1.0 MSprites/s


The demo is sweet
*edit* Must have been very tired whein I first typed this *edit*

Windows 2000 score identical to WinMe, very interesting

[This message has been edited by DentyCracker (edited 14 March 2001).]

[This message has been edited by DentyCracker (edited 16 March 2001).]

Ad_B
14th March 2001, 05:38
D3D Software T&L
1024x768
Depth: 32 bit
Z-Buffering: 32 bit
Texture Format: 32 bit
Buffering: Double
3DMark Score: 1847

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail - 33.4 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail - 13.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail - 27.0 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail - 10.6 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail - 36.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail - 20.1 fps
Game 4 - Nature - Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 149.6 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 182.8 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) - 3.6 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) - 1.9 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping - 22.7 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping - Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader - 20.6 fps
Pixel Shader - Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites - 1.1 MSprites/s

Athlon T-Bird 1Ghz @ 1.22Ghz (111x11)
256 Mb 133Mhz Cas 3 @ 148 Mhz Cas 2
Abit KT7
and the all important G400 Max @ 167/222
Win2k SP1
Direct X 8.0a

EDIT: Latest Matrox Drivers/Via 4.29 4in1's


[This message has been edited by Ad_B (edited 14 March 2001).]

Electric Amish
14th March 2001, 08:25
WOOHOO!!

630 default bench on my TNT2 M64 here at work running in a Dell 1ghz. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

No Dot3, No EMBM, No Game 4. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

1088 on my Geforce 256 32mb, default bench, running on a Dell 733. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

amish

[This message has been edited by Electric Amish (edited 14 March 2001).]

isochar
14th March 2001, 08:37
For those of you who haven't already...

RUN THE DEMO! (The benchmark is only half of things to come http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif)

The nature scene is jaw-dropping! Not to mention the Matrixesque scene gets a few eye-candy additions at the end...

Jorden
14th March 2001, 09:00
Been trying to get onto the download page for the past 15 minutes, but even that's not possible. Getting a Page not Found error all the time http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Jord.

isochar
14th March 2001, 09:34
Try download.com or zdnet.com (probably the largest user capacities of all the available download servers)

ftp://ftp.zdnet.com/threedee/tweakfiles/benchmark/3DMark2001.exe

http://download.cnet.com/downloads/0-10045-100-5122338.html?tag=st.dl.10001-103-1.lst-7-1.5122338

ftp://ftp.download.com/pub/win95/games/tools-editors/3DMark2001.exe

alessandro
14th March 2001, 09:43
It seems from the other forums in the net that ATI cards are doing VERY well.
Even my Radeon beats GF2Ultra's scores.
It might be that the Radeons have better DX8 implementation than the GF2 chip.
I'm looking forward for any KyroII's 3dmarks and of course GF3's ones that should be very good considering the fact that 3DMark 2001 is made for this card.

alessandro
14th March 2001, 10:50
Radeon 32DDR 183/183 with no registry tweak at this time.

http://www.giatimis.freeserve.co.uk/Radeon32DDR.jpg

I turn-off some background programs in my memmory since last time.



------------------
Athlon Thunderbird 1.1Ghz@1.2~1.3+GHz Socket A 256Kb,Asus A7V dipswitches,GlobalWin FOP32-1 heatsink,GlobalWin 802 Advance ATX Case, 17" Sony Multiscan 200PST,384MB Crucial PC133 CAS=2,ATI Radeon 32Mb DDR,(Matrox Millenium G400 MAX 32MB 5ns SGRAM),IBM Deskstar 75GXP 15Gb UltraATA/100, Quantum Firebal EL 10.2Gb,Hewlett Packard DeskJet 970Cxi,Sound blaster Live!,Cambridge Soundworks 5.1,Creative PC-DVD 5X,CDR-RW Ricoh MP7040S@MP7060S(Tweaked from 4x---&gt;6x with no problem),Adaptec SCSI 2920C,Diamond SupraExpress 56e PRO,Iomega Zip Drive.

drzaius
14th March 2001, 12:19
what are you all running the benchmark in? 1024x768x16 with 16bit zbuffer/texture, No FSAA double frame buffer? or have we all gone to 1024x768x32 with 32bit zbuffer/texture, no FSAA and double frame buffer?

just wanna know before i post my mark (not that's going to be amazing or anything, just wanna know) http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Slow people as easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that are hard.

Topha
14th March 2001, 12:36
when i start it it asks me to change settings to 1024x768 everything 32bit, thats what i did, guess thats the new defaul settings.

question: when i set everything to 16 bit, res at 640x480, there is no speed improvement, it actually seems slower. anyone know why?

Greebe
14th March 2001, 12:54
Guess the MURC now stands for...
Mini Users Resource Center

rylan
14th March 2001, 13:26
Greebe: Funny.. but still somehow sad http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Paulr
14th March 2001, 14:08
Right, managed at last to get this thing downloaded.
Results as follows:

D3D Software T&L
1024x768
Depth: 32 bit
Z-Buffering: 32 bit
Texture Format: 32 bit
Buffering: Triple
3DMark Score: 1542

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail - 26.5 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail - 10.0 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail - 21.4 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail - 8.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail - 33.0 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail - 17.8 fps
Game 4 - Nature - Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 133.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 165.7 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) - 2.7 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) - 1.4 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping - 21.5 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping - Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader - 17.7 fps
Pixel Shader - Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites - 1.2 MSprites/s

Well it isn't excellent, but considering the detail on this thing it will have to do.

alessandro
14th March 2001, 14:49
I just used the default options for my card:
1024x768, 32bit ,Antialiasing:No,Frame Buffer:double, Texture Format:Compressed, Z-Buffer:32bit,Hardware T/L.....

Nuno
14th March 2001, 15:21
1639 default bench (1024 all 32bit) in win2k using 5.50 drivers.

Tb900@1008, 256 Mb Ram G400 oc 148.5/198

PS: Oh and that was with AGP 1X forced. So much for the AGP hype again...

[This message has been edited by Nuno (edited 14 March 2001).]

SteveC
14th March 2001, 15:23
I just did some tests for part of a chart for my local computer shop:

(see Greebe's post further down)

All cards used latest drivers available. Tests done on a 1.1Ghz Tbird on an A7V with 256Mb PC-133 (CAS3) under Windows Me.

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

[This message has been edited by SteveC (edited 15 March 2001).]

Nuno
14th March 2001, 15:30
I wonder how the Kyro II will perform in 3dmark2k+1 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

SteveC
14th March 2001, 16:04
I haven't got one of those yet to try... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

Nuno
14th March 2001, 16:12
Of course, Hercules will only ship them at end March / beginning April.

But I guess it will not perform very well as 3dmark seems VERY optimized for T&L cards (and don´t say Nvidia because Radeon are supposed to have a weaker/different T&L and it scores = or better than the GF2´s)

As for the G400, 3Dmark2k1 is very geometry limited. The 1Gig Athlon could very weel be throwing more poly´s at the G400 than it could render, but getting ~1600 in 1024 with all bells and whistles on and only ~1900 in 640x480, all 16 bit, seems very suspicious.

ChenSoft
14th March 2001, 16:18
Does anybody knows how 2 bypass the memory test,
So i'll B able 2 use [i]3DMark2001</u> on my 96MB Comp.
__________
Chen

Joel
14th March 2001, 16:22
D3D Software T&L
1024x768
Depth: 32 bit
Z-Buffering: 32 bit
Texture Format: 32 bit
Buffering: Double

3DMark Score: 1671

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail - 30.0 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail - 11.8 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail - 25.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail - 9.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail - 31.9 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail - 18.3 fps
Game 4 - Nature - Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 126.6 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) - 163.5 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) - 3.7 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) - 1.5 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping - 20.3 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping - Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader - 20.7 fps
Pixel Shader - Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites - 1.2 MSprites/s

Joel http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
System Specs (http://members.home.net/gilchrist.joel/g400.htm)

drzaius
14th March 2001, 16:22
ok i'm done with a whopping 1269 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

specs:
celeron 850 (8.5x100)
256meg CAS2 @100
G400 32meg @150/200
Abit ZM6

------------------
Slow people as easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that are hard.

Neomagic_Twist
14th March 2001, 16:27
Didn't have my own computer handy at the time, since I don't feel like dl'ing 38MB on dialup, so I tried it on my dad's P2 300 with Voodoo 2, just for kicks.

Result: 249 3D Marks.

Never over 4 fps.

http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

SteveC
14th March 2001, 16:42
heh heh - try running it on your namesake then (a neomagic adapter)! You won't get anywhere....

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

Greebe
14th March 2001, 17:34
http://members.home.net/greebe2/Incoming/3dm2001a.jpg

You can remove that monster sized pic, Steve http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Rags
14th March 2001, 18:33
How about some Radeon Win2k results?

1689 here.

I expected as much.

Rags

-Chapel-
14th March 2001, 20:17
Hey Guys,

Where did you get that chart?
I have a Gfart2 GTS on a 1gig Athlon and I didn't get anywhere near the 3000 that chart claims. I got 1978 as a score. I used to be around 5000 before. My MAX on the otherhand got a real pathetic score of 1079.

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

drzaius
14th March 2001, 20:31
-Chapel-
what drivers are you using? i've seen some scores go up from 3300 to 3800 (plus a little o/cing) because of new drivers, particularly the 10.** drivers they seem to have something in them that helps.

------------------
Slow people as easy to pass, it's people who drive fast that are hard.

frankymail
14th March 2001, 22:40
I've got a 4750 3DMarks 2001 score using a Celeron 600@900 256 MB and a GeForce 3... see the GLMarks topic in the Benchmarks forum http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000019.html

...Anyone jealous??? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

Yet, I would trade it in an instant for a G800...

Working like a small Ant, kissing like a squid http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/rolleyes.gif and fragging like a King,
Francis Beausejour


------------------
What was necessary was done yesterday;
We're currently working on the impossible;
For miracles, we ask for a 24 hours notice ...

mirp
14th March 2001, 22:46
Here (http://www.forumromanum.de/member/forum/forum.cgi?USER=user_39116&ACTION=view&ENTRY=984558500&mainid=984558500) is something about KYRO and 3DMark2001. Looks like it cannot use textures due to a bug in DX8. I think that means we won't see any results from KYRO (I+II) until MS have fixed that bug. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

[Sorry, only demo is affected. (??)]

[This message has been edited by mirp (edited 15 March 2001).]

SteveC
14th March 2001, 23:26
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by -Chapel-:
Hey Guys,

Where did you get that chart?
</font>

I made it last night...


------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

Six Of One
15th March 2001, 08:19
Obviously something beyond CPU speed and graphicsboard is influencing the benchmark.

I have run this just for fun on default settings on my Athlon Classic (Slot A) 600@690/128MB on an Epox 7KXA (Via 4in1 4.29) and a non-o/c'ed G400 SH 16MB (PD6.50/Win98SE/DX8a) forced to AGP 1x and diabled AGP Fast Write with my mail client, firewall and browser running, downloading the new full install for CS1.1 anf thought i might risk a look. I got 1261 points. Two times.

Then i read about TNT2 Ultras getting 900 and something at 3dcenter.de. Now i read of G400Maxs getting around the same score as i do on much more powerfull machines. I seriously wonder what is causing such erratic benchmark results. Any ideas?

Regards

fds
15th March 2001, 08:29
Dual Pentium III 667 MHz, 512 MB
Windows 2000 SP1 DX8

ASUS V7700 Deluxe (GF2 GTS)
ASUS 6.49 drivers
2092 3DMarks

Matrox G400 MAX
5.31 drivers
1111 3DMarks

Both using the default settings (complains about no texture compression on the G400 though).

Both skipped the Game4 nature test. EMBM run only on the G400, DOT3 run only on the GF2.

Seems to be 3DMark 2001 is now heavily biased for ATI Radeons. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif Nice for a change from MadOnion.

So is the Radeon still performing very badly under Win2k?

Nuno
15th March 2001, 08:50
It seems so. Judging from Rags post, it performs just as fine as a G400 http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

fleabus2
15th March 2001, 11:10
Hi:

RESULTS

3DMark Score 1385

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 23.7 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 8.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 18.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 7.4 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 32.0 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 16.6 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 137.9 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 171.5 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 2.2 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 1.1 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 21.2 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader 12.8 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 0.7 MSprites/s

D3D Software T&L
Width 1024
Height 768
Depth 32 bit
Z-Buffering 32 bit
Texture Format 32 bit
Buffering Double
Refresh Rate Default
FSAA Mode None

Win98SE clean
PIII 800E slot1
512MB PC 133 @ 100MHz CAS2
Asus P3B-F i440BX ACPI bios 1005
Matrox G400Max DualHead
Bios v1.9; PD 6.23
Aperture size 256MB
AGP Status: X2
DirectX 8.0a
Desktop at test: 1024x768x32bit 85Hz DualHead disabled

Nothing over clocked or tweaked.

RAB
15th March 2001, 20:16
Only 570

G400 Vanilla 6.50 drivers
AMD K6-3 450
256 megs
Win 98 SE with DX 8.0

I know its an old CPU, but this is not good. Ever since the 6.x drivers came out, I've been getting lower and lower scores on benchmarks. Did Matrox stop supporting the MVP3 chipset with the 6.x series drivers?

I've got a K6-3+ 550 with a Radeon 32 DDR that I'll test later. But its drivers are terrible on an MVP3 also. Older games that used to run smooth are now jerky. Somethings not right and its either recent drivers or DX8 just suck on MVP3 chipsets. They were getting pretty good with older drivers and DX7 but have gone downhill on both my Matrox g400 and my Radeon 32 DDR with newer drivers and DX8.

What gives?

RAB

[This message has been edited by RAB (edited 16 March 2001).]

mirp
15th March 2001, 21:22
RESULTS

3DMark Score 1595

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 29.2 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 10.7 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 22.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 9.1 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 32.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 18.0 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 132.2 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 164.5 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 3.0 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 1.5 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 23.1 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
Vertex Shader 18.9 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 0.8 MSprites/s

D3D Software T&L
Width 1024
Height 768
Depth 32 bit
Z-Buffering 32 bit
Texture Format 32 bit
Buffering Double
Refresh Rate Default
FSAA Mode None

------------------
ASUS P2B-B rev. 1.02, Intel Pentium III 700@933 MHz, Micron 256MB PC133-222, Enermax EG351P-VE, Western Digital WD450AA, Toshiba SD-M1212, Matrox G400 SH 32MB 142/189, PowerDesk 6.50, CTX VL950T, Creative SBLive!, Windows 98, IE 5.00, DirectX 8.0

[This message has been edited by mirp (edited 16 March 2001).]

Novdid
16th March 2001, 03:07
I have 424 3dmarks.

AMD K6-2 450
RIVA TNT 115/120.

Topha
16th March 2001, 05:18
Project Name My Benchmark

Operating System Microsoft Windows ME
DirectX Version 8.00

Mobo Manufacturer ASUSteK Computer INC.
Mobo Model K7M

CPU AMD Athlon(tm) Processor 788 Mhz
FSB 105 MHz

3D Accelerator Matrox Millennium G400 DualHead MAX - English
Graphics Chipset Matrox G400 MAX
Driver Version 4.12.01.1800
Video Memory 32 MB

Resolution 1024x768 32bit
Texture Format 32bit
FSAA Disabled
Z-Buffer Depth 32bit
Frame Buffer Double
Rendering Pipeline D3D Software T&L



3DMark Result 1514 3D marks

Game 1 Car Chase - Low Detail 24.2 FPS
Game 1 Car Chase - High Detail 8.0 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - Low Detail 23.1 FPS
Game 2 Dragothic - High Detail 9.1 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - Low Detail 34.2 FPS
Game 3 Lobby - High Detail 17.9 FPS
Game 4 Nature N/A FPS

Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 142.9 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 177.0 MTexels/s

High Polygon Count (1 light) 2.9 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 lights) 1.4 MTriangles/s

Environment Bump Mapping 23.6 FPS
DOT3 Bump Mapping N/A FPS

Vertex Shader Speed 16.7 FPS
Pixel Shader Speed N/A FPS
Point Sprite Speed 1.2 MSprites/s

Tempest
17th March 2001, 06:11
Default Benchmark + Athlon 850 + 256 MB + G400 MAX + Windows 2000 SP2rc2 = 1359 3DMarks

Timeripper
17th March 2001, 10:58
Arrrrggggghhhh,

Celleron 500
G400 DH

3D marks
553 @ 640x480
549 @ 1024x768
492 @ 1280x1024
400 @ 1600x1200

So it looks like it is very heavy on the CPU. The frames rate almost did no decline when I switched from 640x480 to 1600x1200. Only the EMB and the hall shooting did decline. So it looks like it that my CPU is the bottle neck for the other tests.

The reason for this is probably that DX8 has to calculate stuff that is not done in hardware.

So it looks like I need a new CPU. Which will come in another month (I hope).

Regards,
Timeripper.

Topha
17th March 2001, 11:24
hey timeripper, its the same here, it actually seems slower at 640x480 than it does at standard settings, and i have a 750 athlon.

Joel
17th March 2001, 12:35
Found the formula that is used to calculate the 3DMark.

3DMark score = (Game1LowDetail + Game2LowDetail + Game3LowDetail) * 10 + (Game1HighDetail + Game2HighDetail + Game3HighDetail + Game4) * 20

For the rest of the article see www.hardwaremania.com/reviews_eng/3dmark2001/3dmark.shtml (http://www.hardwaremania.com/reviews_eng/3dmark2001/3dmark.shtml)

Since the G400 can't do Game4 that is what hurts it's score compared to the GF3. Hopefully that will change soon, http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Joel http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

RAB
17th March 2001, 15:00
What makes more difference is texture compression. On my Radeon 32 DDR (K63+ 550, Win98SE, DX8) I get 1080 with texture compression turned on and 780 with texture compression turned off. Obviously, the lack of support for texture compression hurts scores as much as anything.

My G400 on my other machine (K6-3 450, Win98SE, DX8) gets 570, but it doesn't do texture compression. Nonetheless, it runs much like the Radeon with texture compression turned off (the Radeon doesn't run game 4 either so the scores are comparable).

Is there a way to enable texture compression on the G400 and get scores up? It looks like it adds about 30% to scores. I thought Matrox added some compression for textures in the 6.x drivers, but 3dMark2k1 won't allow it for G400s.

RAB

Nuno
17th March 2001, 17:20
And now I got why Radeon are performing ahead of Ge-force´s: Game 1 and Game 2 HD are using triple texturing, and the 3 texel units on the Radeon can render it in one pass, while the Geforce only has 2 texel units for pipeline..

superfly
17th March 2001, 19:08
I get 3050 3dmarks on the default bench using a dual p3 993+ Gf2 gts 64 meg.

What's curious though is that 3d mark recognizes both cpu's and actually uses them,but the way SMP is implemented isn't very well done since while it splits the workload between both cpu's,they never exceed 50% load each during either the benchmark or the demo run.

When i only use one cpu, it's load is always pegged at 100%,while the other isn't being used at all.

So in reality there's no performance advantage in running both since the score is about the same in either case.

[This message has been edited by superfly (edited 18 March 2001).]

Admiral
18th March 2001, 12:49
1576

P3 650@900, (still) 128 ram, G400 vanilla @150/200 (1xAGP, 128 aperture), Win 98, DX 8.0a, PD 6.50

alessandro
18th March 2001, 15:19
With a little more o/c of my Radeon 32 DDR 200/200,i'm now at 3388 3DMarks at 1024x768x32bit with 32bit Z-buffering.


Using 24bit Z-buffering like the GF2's, i get 3453 3DMarks .

Compare URL--- http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?441458



[This message has been edited by alessandro (edited 18 March 2001).]

Indiana
18th March 2001, 16:03
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Rags:
How about some Radeon Win2k results?

1689 here.

I expected as much.

Rags

</font>

Err, here I get:


http://www.indiana.claranet.de/3DMark2001.png


- Duron800 only @893 atm, since those pencil-drawings to unlock the CPU have stopped working again...
- ABit KT7
- Radeon 64MB DDR OEM oc'ed to 200/200. No other specific tweaks, especially full 32Bit Z-Buffer
- Win2k SP1, Radeon 5.13.01.3114 Win2k driver

As you're also posting other problems with the Radeon in Win2k that I do not have, I think you should recheck your system config. ATIs Win2k drivers are far from being perfect but they're not as bad as you keep claiming, they're overall very stable here. Now, if ATI could finally resolve the lacking performance in specific areas, e.g. take a look at the high Polygon-count results. I guess here we'll have to wait for another trick like the BetaDX8-DLL that cured these low Radeon/Win2k scores in 3DMark2000

EDIT: Sorry for the late reply, but I didn't see your low score until now

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 19 March 2001).]

cbman
18th March 2001, 20:01
I get 2516

Cele II 566@875
ASUS CUSL2 Bios 1006
256MB PC 133 at CAS 2
Creative Labs Ann. 2 GF2 GTS (210/360)
A whole buncha Extra Crap
and a nice trackball

I also think that because the Radeon does both EVBM and DOT3 BM that it also gets a boost in its scores... maybe this Benchmark is just for judging how many options is squeezed into a card... (I would post a pic.. but my webspace is gone..LOL)
so I will teadiously write it out by hand...

(Default Bench)

Results

3DMark Score 2561
Game 1 - LOW 53.1
Game 1 - HIGH 12.5
Game 2 - LOW 41.0
Game 2 - HIGH 15.6
Game 3 - LOW 56.7
Game 3 - HIGH 24.6
Game 4 - NOT SUPPORTED
Fill Rate (Single) 296.9
Fill Rate (Multi) 566.3
High Poly (1 Light) 16.3
High Poly (8 Light) 3.1
EVBM - NOT SUPPORTED
DOT3 BM - 47.3
Vertex - 20.4
Pixel - NOT SUPPORTED
Point - 8.2

And this Benchmark doesn't want to run on my classic Matrox Ultima (2MB)... (Go Figure)

------------------
Hang Low and Limber

impact
19th March 2001, 02:39
Can't catch them!

http://www.digit-life.com/newsimages/3dm2001.gif

Indiana
19th March 2001, 10:41
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by cbman:
I also think that because the Radeon does both EVBM and DOT3 BM that it also gets a boost in its scores... maybe this Benchmark is just for judging how many options is squeezed into a card...</font>

No, the EMBM and Dot3BM tests don't influence the final score, this depends only on the fps in the 4 game scenes with a bit stressing of the high detail scores. You can find the formula to calculate the score yourself somewhere in this thread (page2, I think).

Take a look at your high-detail fps and you'll know why your score is quite low.

Then take a look at the Fillrate-tests and you'll probably get the idea why the Radeon beats the GTS: 3DFake2001's engine apparently is one of the very first to actually use the Radeons triple texturing units, giving it a slight edge over the GTS with it's dual texturing.

If you want to see one of the Radeons drivers major weaknesses in Win2k, take a look at the high-polygon tests: the results are terribly low, lower in fact than when using software T&L. The same problem was apparent with the combination Radeon/Win2k/3DMark2000 but this could be resolved by using one DLL out of the Beta146 of DX8 instead of the release-version.

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 19 March 2001).]

Rags
19th March 2001, 11:26
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">As you're also posting other problems with the Radeon in Win2k that I do not have, I think you should recheck your system config. </font>
Uh, sorry. But ATI tech support has already reproduced my crashes and issues (every one of them), and they assure me they are looking into fixing them in the next release or the one after. So you can take that "system config" theory and push it to the side http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">ATIs Win2k drivers are far from being perfect</font>
I have a better description than that http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">but they're not as bad as you keep claiming</font>
Yes they are, in fact I am quite confident that if I used my Radeon more often, I would have no problems finding more problems.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">they're overall very stable here. </font>
Well, I am not there, so that means nothing to me.



<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Now, if ATI could finally resolve the lacking performance in specific areas, e.g. take a look at the high Polygon-count results.</font>
The performance problem is only half of the equation.


http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Rags

cbman
19th March 2001, 11:30
Yeah.. I read the post about how the score is created... but then why bother even including other tests in if they don't factor at all... makes me think this test may be flawed...

I do agree with you on the triple texturing though (Being a good thing if your card can render 3 pixels a pass as you get to see the full effect).. but then any other card owner can't get the actual fill rate of multitexturing on their cards... another thing to throw off the validity of the test I think...

Just MHO

Charles

------------------
Hang Low and Limber

Joel
19th March 2001, 12:34
All of the different version of 3DMark has calculated it's 3DMark scores based on the fps achieved in the games. Final Reality was probably the last benchmarker that I have used that did take everything into consideration. But we also all know that 3DMark can be a very inaccurated benchmark. With a simple hack it can show scores to be alot more than they would be normally. Just check out this thread forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000015.html (http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000015.html)


Joel

[This message has been edited by Joel (edited 19 March 2001).]

Indiana
19th March 2001, 12:35
cbman, I agree that all 3DMark benchmarks are seriously flawed, I've started a thread about this topic sometime ago in this forum.
What do you think of a benchmark that is "coincidentally" released just after a gfx card of a certain vendor is available and makes sure that it has one feature that is ONLY available on this specific card: the nature test, and this one in fact goes into the score giving the GeForce3 a much higher score even if it's not one frame faster than a GeForce2 in the other tests (BTW, they're doing this the second time now, think of the T&L support of 3DMark2000 being only available on the Geforce and boosting it's scores over the competition without any relation to real-world performance).
BTW, this thing with only the game-scenes fps going into the final score is there at least since 3DFake2000.

Rags,
seeing you posting a score of 16xx tells me that there IS something majorly wrong on your system (or do you have a P90?). I also can't reproduce your artifacts when using IE and I'm heavily using this with up to 20 windows open most of the time. I don't use any of the other programs you mentioned in the other thread so I can't double-check these, but here the only problem with ATIs Win2k drivers up to now has been the sometimes lacking performance.
Or maybe it's an Intel vs. AMD issue here?

Joel
19th March 2001, 13:00
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">BTW, this thing with only the game-scenes fps going into the final score is there at least since 3DFake2000</font>

Actually it's been doing it since 3DFake1999.

Joel

xortam
19th March 2001, 13:08
Any benchmark is only useful if you understand what exactly the benchmark is measuring and how that relates to your system usage. If you just want to see who gets the highest number (as a MURCer so eloquently stated, you're comparing the length of your winkies), then you aren't mature enough to benefit from benchmarking. You can't very will compare video card performance between multiple systems unless you make sure key operating parameters are equivalent (BIOS, OS level, drivers, etc.). Q3A demos are a good test for me because I'm trying to measure the performance impact of various game parameters and system configurations in order to optimize my Q3A gaming experience. I'm careful about controlling my environment so I can isolate a single variable and measure its impact. If you really are trying to optimize your system, you need to select a benchmark that reflects the way you use your system and carefully control your system while modifying various parameters.

cbman
19th March 2001, 14:57
I am all for the mature use of benchmarking... its definately a boon if you use it correctly to test new driver revisions, tweaks, etc.

I wonder if I should make a small program where you input your results from 3DMark2001 (all of them...) and then it calculates a total score on the info to a specification decided by concensus...

Maybe if I have some spare time..


------------------
Hang Low and Limber

Rags
19th March 2001, 17:22
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">seeing you posting a score of 16xx tells me that there IS something majorly wrong on your system </font>
Sorry, there is nothing wrong with my system. If I use the drivers that give the best performance in 3DMark, I cannot even run my debugger with VC++, the debug window just corrupts out. Again, ATI agrees that it's THEIR ****ING DRIVERS CAUSING THE PROBLEM. What part of that don't you understand?


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">(or do you have a P90?). </font>
Don't act retarded....err...scratch that, I can't expect that much, so NO I don't have a p90.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">I also can't reproduce your artifacts when using IE and I'm heavily using this with up to 20 windows open most of the time. </font>
You don't have to, and I could care less if you can or not. I have problems with it, ATI knows that their drivers are having these problems, and you don't even come into the equation. So quit calling me a liar.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">but here the only problem with ATIs Win2k drivers up to now has been the sometimes lacking performance.</font>
Again, that's there, and I am here. We have totally different systems and requirements. So save your rhetoric for someone who gives a darn.


<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Or maybe it's an Intel vs. AMD issue here?</font>
Damn! You are a regular Sherlock Holmes http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

Rags

thecurse
19th March 2001, 21:07
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by RAB:
Only 570

G400 Vanilla 6.50 drivers
AMD K6-3 450
256 megs
Win 98 SE with DX 8.0

</font>

g400max
512megs memory
pii 350 (yea my secondary non-server computer right now)
clean install of win me since i jsut got that mobo
latest drivers

3dmark2001 score of 442 :/

piii 933
512 megs
geforce 2 ultra gts 64 megs ddr w/ dvi
clean install of win me (got new 60 gig ibm hd)
det 6.50
3dmark 2001 2419

SuRGV
20th March 2001, 06:52
Thecurse,
I think my slower machine can beat your score.
=============================================
RESULTS
3DMark Score 2755
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 50.9 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 16.1 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 44.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 17.7 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 57.1 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 27.7 fps
Game 4 - Nature Not supported by hardware
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 262.1 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 494.6 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 15.4 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 2.9 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping Not supported by hardware
DOT3 Bump Mapping 40.1 fps
Vertex Shader 24.2 fps
Pixel Shader Not supported by hardware
Point Sprites 6.7 MSprites/s
=============================================
I got 2465 score with Det. 6.50. All tests were run in Win2k (SP1).
My system:
PIII 600E@800EB on ASUS P3B-F (ASUS socket 370 Adapter)
Asus 7700 Geforce 2 GTS 32 MB
192 MB generic RAM
Win98/Win2k Dual Boot
DirectX 8.a
...........
Trung

alessandro
20th March 2001, 14:42
I get 2687 3dmarks 2001 in Win2k WITHOUT o/c my Radeon and no registry tweaks.
Rags, what CPU do you have?

cbman
20th March 2001, 15:11
Oh yeah.. well stick this in your pipe and smoke it... lol

Intel 815 Onboard CUSL2
(I let my brother borrow the GF2)

853 = Massive Speed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh Yeah... (PS it may be low but the demos run smooth enough...)

LOL

------------------
Hang Low and Limber

Novdid
20th March 2001, 16:06
I have posted that I get 424 with my Riva TNT paired up with a K6-2 450. A G400 should get more than that but it doesn´t. This benchmark seriously relies on the CPU.

Rags
20th March 2001, 16:39
This was done on a P3 733E.

Rags

xortam
21st March 2001, 09:48
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Topha:
i dont really see 3dmarkxxxx as benchmarks ...</font>

Your previous posts in this thread contradict that declaration. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the "eye-candy" used in benchmarks. I still get a kick out of watching the Chamber bench in ZD's 3D WinBench; nice polished floor reflections.

Topha
21st March 2001, 16:00
i dont really see 3dmarkxxxx as benchmarks, i just think its cool to see what you can do with a computer, and for taht 2001 is pretty cool (even if you need a gf3 for best results), take the matrix scene for example, or nature, it looks really good

Osty
21st March 2001, 20:14
What's up with the new 3D Mark from Mad onion. My G400 is totally hosed with like 6 FPS. I think it's that damn monster. Check out this thread at Mad Onion:
http://discuss.madonion.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=3dmark2001&Number=369288&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5

Topha
22nd March 2001, 05:03
the scene looks good, although i expected more from the animations after what i read about max payne, and usually i dont really like things that much when i see them the first time, it always takes some time http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

PS: i just dont like the max payne model

roadie
25th March 2001, 06:44
this seems alright for a g400max:

@ default 1367

------------------
-------------------------
athlon classic 666
asus k7m @111fsb
128mb pc100 cas 222
g400max @ 165/220
win98se
pdesk 6.21

Indiana
25th March 2001, 10:38
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">Originally posted by Topha:
PS: i just dont like the max payne model</font>

Me too, looks a bit too much like "Mika Hakkinen in Matrix-style"...

villerk
25th March 2001, 21:57
My machine is AMD K6-2/500, 128 MB, i740 8 MB, Ali Aladdin V. I get over six hundred 3DMarks on 3DMark2000, but only 350 on 3DMark2001, even, as I have been told, they use the same scoring algorithm! This describes well how games/gaming developement has gone downhill the last few years: if I buy a "modern" 3D-shooting game, it doesn't even start with my computer, but a few years older game, which looks exactly the same as the modern ones, executes smoothly and without jerking! I definitely think that all these modern games are not optimized correctly. If they would be optimized, they would run on a Voodoo2 and P166MMX, but now as we have all the power we need (and a little too much extra), no optimization is done.

BTW I ran the test with 640x480x16bit. 3DMark2001 says I don't have enough memory or computing power for 1024x768 mode... however, 3DMark2000 works well with bigger display modes.

CHHAS
15th April 2001, 00:52
Duron 650@866, 512 MB ram @cas 3, Win98 SE, 1024x768x32 32 bit tetures, 32 bit z, double buffering<table border=1>
<tr><td>Card</td><td>G400 16 mb @180/180</td><td>Powercolor Evil Kyro 64 MB</td></tr>
<tr><td>Score</td><td>1306</td><td>1570</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 1 low</td><td>21,7</td><td>26,1</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 1 high</td><td>7,6</td><td>3,9</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 2 low</td><td>19,2</td><td>29,3</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 2 high</td><td>8,1</td><td>12,2</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 3 low</td><td>27,8</td><td>44,8</td></tr>
<tr><td>Game 3 high</td><td>15,2</td><td>12,3</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fill rate single</td><td>132,8</td><td>226,7</td></tr>
<tr><td>Fill rate multi</td><td>152,7</td><td>229,9</td></tr>
<tr><td>High poly 1</td><td>3,3</td><td>3,6</td></tr>
<tr><td>High poly 2</td><td>1,2</td><td>1,6</td></tr>
<tr><td>EMBM</td><td>20,5</td><td>49,6</td></tr>
<tr><td>DOT 3</td><td>0</td><td>24,0</td></tr>
<tr><td>Vertex</td><td>17,2</td><td>16,2</td></tr>
<tr><td>Point Sprite</td><td>1,1</td><td>0,4</td></tr></table>


[This message has been edited by CHHAS (edited 15 April 2001).]

[This message has been edited by CHHAS (edited 15 April 2001).]