worm on 3DMark03

sorry, i thought that by "default settings" you meant the ones that are selected when you first install a driver or press the defaults button, sorry for the misunderstanding

 

Hmmm, upgrade CPU time maybe, 1594 marks for Win2K 1.35GHz AMD 9700 PRO DX9 Catalyst 3.1 using FSAA is 6x and AF is at 4x:

http://service.futuremark.com/servl...projectdetails&projectType=10&projectId=33916

Re-ran with all applications closed and Directx settings set to maximum performance to get 4154 2.6 times higher score.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=35349

 

you can get it off the news sevrers. I got it off of alt.binaries.boneless I downloaded it @ 175 KB/s instead of 8 KB/s that I was from a website!

 

No, it tests the graphics card. Upgrading your CPU has relatively little to do with your results, unlike 3dmark 2001. I'd base the CPU upgrade decision off of actual games...and I hold out hope for when that becomes the common perception.

 

As someone--why I think it was you, Demalion--pointed out, 3DMark03 takes a much larger hit from MSAA than today's games do, because 3 of 4 tests actually require nearly 128MB just to hold the textures and a single framebuffer, and thus are presumably spilling to some AGP texturing when MSAA is enabled. Interesting question whether games will soon be hitting such high texture memory requirements that the cheap AA of today's high-end cards goes away. (Or when 256MB cards come along to save us.)

Anyways, g_day: the load on the CPU is the same whether you're running 640x480 no AA/AF or 1600x1200 6xAA/16xAF. OTOH, most of today's games are heavily CPU-limited. You might want to take a look at the gamer's upgrade guide at Ace's; they make a great case for needing a nice CPU to get good framerates in a large range of today's games. (Whereas for most of these games your 9700 Pro is only going to buy you high res and IQ settings at the same so-so framerates.)

 

Yeah, I mentioned that, , and I think higher resolutions (even without AA) might provide a similar effect.

Hmm...there was already indication that UT 2k3, the "King of DX 7 Excess", can make use of 256MB of graphics card memory. Looking at some games, I think it is likely this year at higher settings.

I do expect a 256MB '9900 Pro' at a price premium. The main problem with comparing performance with AA or high res in 3dmark03 to demonstrate an advantage for a 256MB card is if the performance is compared to 128MB cards without emphasis on how extreme the demands are and how it doesn't reflect relative GPU performance (which some reviewers will inevitably and blithely indicate it does), and with the extreme demands 3dmark03 places on the cards in any case, I don't think it is necessary or suitable.

 

Hmm... so does this mean 3DMark03 might actually benefit from AGP 8x?

 

I was wondering the same thing after reading the B3D article.

Also, has anyone tried Parhelia's FAA? I'm curious what the performance hit will be because FAA doesn't require all the extra memory that MSAA requires.