PDA

View Full Version : 3dmark2000 - Kyro 2...post here



tanion
29th May 2001, 05:19
My score is:

3D Mark 2000:
3500 (default benchmark)
3211 (1280x960, 32 bit)

3D Mark 2001:
I just got the card a few days ago and just reinstalled the system, haven't tested yet...

What's your score?

------------------
PIII 733@803 Vulcano II, Artic Silver Thermal Grease, 256 PC133@146(cas 2), 3D Prophet 4500 Kyro 2
Asus CUV4X

Novdid
29th May 2001, 09:57
I wonīt post anything until I get my problems sorted out.

Please stand by. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

Kosh Naranek
29th May 2001, 12:20
Just to compare

3DMark2000
Score : 7831 3DMarks
Compare url : http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare.shtml?1385226


3DMark2001
Score : 3279 3DMarks
Compare Url : http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?943186


All run on :
GF2 GTS 32 MB DDR on P3 700E@1050 Mhz

[This message has been edited by Kosh Naranek (edited 29 May 2001).]

kyosuken
30th May 2001, 00:38
Here are mine

3dmark 2000 : 4324

3dmark 2001 : 1666

forcing texture compression give me some ugly pbs (visual defect) that does not appear in village mark, nor temple demo.. (in 3dmark 2001, in the matrix style demo, 'neo' is visible through the walls...)

n-bench from amd is pretty low... not so many poly and lot's of transparency.. there is a big bug too, the stars are above everything else (so 3d space ships are covered by them) this bug did not appear with the g400 16mb, surely a z-buffer thingy

running with 32 bit textures/32 bit zbuffer
3dmark 2000 = 3952

one test failed for no apparent reason, the synthetic cpu test...
Ken

[This message has been edited by kyosuken (edited 30 May 2001).]

Novdid
1st June 2001, 06:37
What CPU do you have, Kyosyken???

kyosuken
1st June 2001, 08:02
i have a 1.2ghz avia

is it because the cpu test failed i only got 4600+ in 3dmark 2000 i don't know...
saw some review where it hits easily the 6000+ range with my cpu type...

ken

dsp
1st June 2001, 08:25
Ken,

The CPU test for 3dMark 2000 will fail with 32 bit zbuffer enabled, the program will not test the CPU with these settings. At least thats what I've seen from my experiences, it shouldn't change scores at all.

dsp

Novdid
2nd June 2001, 05:15
I get 6200 3dmarks and I have a 1333 AXIA at 1551MHz. I think that the number is to low.

As I have said before my card has some serious issues with my system. For example I canīt get the frames in Q3 to go higher than 107fps at the lowest settings possible, while many get results around 150fps with a CPU that is 500MHz slower than mine. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/confused.gif

I'm going to test my 3d prophet in my friends machine to see if there is something wrong with it.

kyosuken
2nd June 2001, 12:04
Update

went to win2k (was in xp before)

3dmark 2000 = 5557

Something important to notice :

Win2k/winxp + raid 0 setup + via agp 4.05c = Raid death

the same setup with 4.05b instead is working correctly... (thanks to paul unofficial kt7 faq i could retrieve all off my datas ^^ link : http://go.to/kt7faq)
Ken

[This message has been edited by kyosuken (edited 02 June 2001).]

Admiral
5th June 2001, 10:46
3DMark 2000 (default test): 5158

3Dmark 2001 (1024x768x32, 32bit z-buffer... default test ?): 1799 (and I have DX 8.1 installed http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif )

Quake3 1.27h, demo demo127 (1024x768x32, trilinear... highest settings): 67fps (with bilinear, 71fps)

in WinME, on a P3 650@900 with 256ram and a Hercules Kyro II

Edit: Say, is there any asynchronous overclocker for the Kyro II ?



[This message has been edited by Admiral (edited 05 June 2001).]

Novdid
7th June 2001, 16:26
The chip canīt be overclocked asynchronos. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

It's like the Radeons.

Indiana
8th June 2001, 12:08
The Radeons CAN be overclocked asynchronous, it's just "not recommended as the chip is optimized for sync operation" or something like that.
However I think this is more or less like some people saying you shouldn't change the default multipliers of the G400, as I didn't notice any speed-decrease when running my Radeons core and mem asynchronously.
I still keep them synchronous but just because they both are able to reach the same speed (about 205MHz).