3D Mark 03 out!!!!

Heh. I spent a half hour this afternoon trying to find a working mirror, finally got a good one, and was halfway through the download when all of sudden I realized...

:oops:

Wait a second.

...I have a GF2MX.

:oops: :oops:
/clicks cancel

Thanks, but I've already got a theretical fillrate test in 3dmark01. ;)

(That said, it's a good thing that I and the rest of the NV<20 crowd can only run 1/4 of a forward-looking 3d benchmark. That's the way it should be, and if it helps displace the GF4MX from its current spot as the standard OEM card, so much the better.)
 
BoddoZerg said:
3dmark2001 was the same way when it came out too. Try running it on a TNT2 or GeForce SDR.
Click to expand...

LOL! I did back when Max Payne was coming out! Remedy said that to run the game one would need a score of 900 in 3dMark2001. On my AMD K6-II @ 450 Mhz and my TNT2 Ultra I just barely got that -- at 640x480 resolution. Needless to say, I decided to upgrade. :D
 
anyone else getting a wierd stuttering even when the fps are in the 190s with your r9700 pro ? also anyone who isn't having the stuttering on the 9700 pro can test and see how scores change with fsaa on ?
 
Well I haven't loaded 3Dmark since the original 2001 version was released, Installed the latest 2003 with Athlon XP 2100 overclocked to 1850 mhz on a Nforce 2 board with a 9700 overclocked to 350/330 I scored 4914, I must say there is some real neat effects in the game tests, overall much better than 2001, the bomber battle scene is pretty cool.

I can see why people are complaining with Geforce 3's and 8500's, it must be a slide show.
 
jvd said:
anyone else getting a wierd stuttering even when the fps are in the 190s with your r9700 pro ? also anyone who isn't having the stuttering on the 9700 pro can test and see how scores change with fsaa on ?
Click to expand...

I was until I disabled my Sygate Firewall. I've seen others complain with other internet apzz open like ICQ etc..
With my firewall on I get stuttering all the time, as soon as I disabled it, smooth sailing.
 
Doomtrooper said:
Well I haven't loaded 3Dmark since the original 2001 version was released, Installed the latest 2003 with Athlon XP 2100 overclocked to 1850 mhz on a Nforce 2 board with a 9700 overclocked to 350/330 I scored 4914, I must say there is some real neat effects in the game tests, overall much better than 2001, the bomber battle scene is pretty cool.

I can see why people are complaining with Geforce 3's and 8500's, it must be a slide show.
Click to expand...

Thats how it was with 3dmark 2001 and my radeon. I was getting 3k on the test , with my 9700 pro i was getting 14k . Same will happen with this test , I'm sure the r400 will double the r300s score. Thats what ati has been doing with thier video cards
 
Humus said:
Anyone else having serious slowdowns when benching with FSAA+Aniso?
It's like 6fps w/ vs. 60fps w/o and 1700 vs. 4400 marks :?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seriously dislikes FSAA for sure.
 
YES YES, I know 3dmark is a fake benchmark and all that, but hear me out anyway okay?

Isn't it WEIRD how Nvidia on one hand trumpets their NV30 which will herald a new era in computer graphics on one hand, and on the other bashes 3dmark2003 or wtf it's called (I only started it once and it hung during the second test) because it doesn't represent games of today?

Is it only me who sees the BLATANT DOUBLE STANDARDS here?

I mean, game test 2 may run at no more than 3-5 fps on my P4-1.7GHz + seriously overclocked GF3 (which is probably why the darn thing crashed), but that is how games that are aimed at NV30 will look. So what are these guys complaining about, really? This is what their card was built for, for cryin out loud! Or was supposedly built for anyway...

Unless they're whiney brats because their product is being generally slapped around by a six month old competitor that is clocked tons slower that is... Yes yes, I know it wins with the new drivers, BARELY. But that's the ultra version which most "in the know" still seem convinced won't make it to retail, and standard version WILL lose. Badly.

*G*
 
Pretty simple to guess why the AA performance tanks so thoroughly sometimes...most of the game tests state they require 128MB...if you turn on AA it seems pretty likely you can start texture fetching over the AGP bus in short order.
 
So you can rec the download to use with DX7 because of game test 1.
As i said earlier to Nicklas the " worm" i would app better prices on the Fullsharedownload cause to many of use will be forced due too economoic resoans too buy ....

Goooood i´m tired--- Sory for the spelling!.......
 
Himself said:
Humus said:
Anyone else having serious slowdowns when benching with FSAA+Aniso?
It's like 6fps w/ vs. 60fps w/o and 1700 vs. 4400 marks :?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it seriously dislikes FSAA for sure.
Click to expand...

Found myself with 1499 with 6x FSAA and 128 tap AF. :/
Might I add I used Cat 3.1.

Also I can't send with online result browser and I can't access other peoples ORs either. :/

NM, it works. :)
 
Is it me or does the benchmark seem rather cheesy? Anyway - score is:

3512 3DMarks -

P4 1.6a OC 2.4Ghz
512 MB PC2700 Ram
ATI 9500 Pro
 
mat said:
wow 1060 Points with my GF4Ti 4200/Athlon XP 1800+

and <5 fps in games 2 and 3
Click to expand...
Almost same config and score and performance issues here.

Honestly? Me thinks this time they took the term "futuremark" too seriously. Anything but the very latest and gratest (9700+ and probably GFFX whenever it becomes available) does totally horrible in anything but game test 1, at least that's what I hear. System like ours certainly aren't high end anymore, but certainly still WAY above the low end. Until now I never played a game that gave me the urge to upgrade (even the likes of UT2k3 and Morrowind play fine in high res), this is exactly what this kind of horrible slideshow in 3DM03 suggests I got to do though. I would be surprised if more than maybe 5% of the gamers out there actually had rigs that could run those tests in a fluid manner. ÃŒt'll be at least a year before an "average" system gets even close to anything like fluid motion in those tests, that's probably intentional but I still think its mighty stupid.

So even though I believe Nvidia is being quite unreasonable with their anti-3DMark crusade, in this case I actually gotta agree with them. It certainly isn't very efficient and as of now has almost no relation at all with how current and future games are going to perform ona system...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top