ill show you mine if you show me yours

Stonemason

Pervy`s lol

Just to see who has the best 3dmark 2000
mine is a measley 5728 come on big boyz show me yours and no fibbing about how big it is either lol.


Stone

Stephen

3DMark 2001 is out now, but its scores are incompatible with earlier versions. Its a hell of a lot more demanding on your system than 3dmark 2000. I scored 2445 in 3dmark 2001.

tobi

Where can you get this 3D Mark2000?

Stephen

3dmark2001 is available from http://www.madonion.com

I just reinstalled 3dmark2000 from a magazine coverdisc there... 6010 on the default benchmark.

---

- Munch

Stonemason

Hehehe stephen

i take you like the 2000 reading better

what you running ?

mines a tbird 1 gig overclocked to 1.2 a gf pro ddr overclocked to 135 ccf/330 mcf and 256megs of pc 100 ram i figure the both the ram and gf are bottlenecking things buggery do da hehehe cant keep up these days

Stone

Stephen

P3 Xeon 866mhz (not overclocked) / 256mb PC600 rdram, and a geforce 2 GTS.

---

- Munch

Stonemason

thought you might have a gf 2 but rdram 600??? i reckon my next stop will be sdram pc 133 and a gf 3 cheap and cheerfull ram hehe

Hobbes

How doe that benchmark thingy work? I ask because the fps it was reporting for my machine were dire (1-9fps? wtf?) and the demos were slow. Nothing I have has ever been that slow on the machine at those resolutions. Final score was 964?!

I have a AMD 1.1GHz, 655MB SDRAM, GeForce2 32MB.

Gerry

On 3dmark 2000, I get 5579 on the default benchmark, this would be much higher if I was not running windows 2000. The machine is a p3 600 clocked at 966, geforce2 gts clocked to 200/370, and 256 megs pc133.

Stonemason

Not intirely sure how benchmarking works above it runs a set of demo`s increasing in complexity starting at the lowest res and increases the res up and up presumably recording fps for each res then takes an average and hey-presto give`s you a mark depending on how well your system coped.But im probably wrong hehehe.Huuum there be summit wrong there hobbes think you need a tune up bad hehehe either that or your getting a false reading for some reason!


Stone

Stephen

Yeah, i noticed that the demos in 3dmark2001 ran very slow compared to those in 2000.

Hobbes - make sure you've got full-screen anti aliasing turned off.

PiE

770.

my Celeron 333, 64mb, 4mb ATI RagePro combo rocks!

Stonemason

Hehehe well its certainly from the stoneage


Stone

PiE

eh...does what i need it to do...just about

Vincent

I get 3320 with V3 @ 175mhz
And 5117 with GF2 mx @ default speed

This is on win2k with P3-700e@945 and 128mb ram. Not allowed overclock mx cos it's not mine

Stephen

I presume those are 3dmark 2000 scores, not 2001?

Vincent

aye

sutty

3dmark 2001 is ment for a Ge-Force 3 i think.

My comps a 850mhz athlon T-bird @ 1Gz
512 megs of cas2 pc133 sdram
Ge-Force2 gts (creative)
RAID 60gig array (two ibm 30gig 75gxp, 7200rpm at RAID 0)

I'll post a 3dmard score in a few min

---

Ciaran Sutcliffe
aka: sutty
[HIV]sutty
For a good time goto:
http://www.hotinternetvirgins.com

Vincent

Just overclocked the mx on the sly , default core and memory is 175/183, i overclocked it to 200/215, and got 5700 with 3dmrk2000. Considering this is an mx ure score seems alittle low gerry, you should be gettin around 7000 i think.

Gerry

I'm using 3dmark 2000 v1.1, dunno if that makes any difference. Also, I used the first run, subsequent runs usually get faster because everything is loaded. I'll give it another try.

Stonemason

Hehehe pie soz i wasnt having a dig at your PC it was just a silly play on words when you said your Ragepro combo "ROCKS" it just popped into my head an older machine+rocks+flintstones =Stoneage wierd how the twisted mind workers sometimes hehehe


sTonE

PiE

LOL! No worries mate, slag away all yiz like

sutty

6745!

default bench mark on the first run......

i ownz j00 a11

---

Ciaran Sutcliffe
aka: sutty
[HIV]sutty
For a good time goto:
http://www.hotinternetvirgins.com

Gerry

I reinstalled 3dmark, now get 6963 on default bench.

Gerry

little bit of clocking of geforce, to 220/370, now get 7168 3dmarks.

Kali

I managed 9190 by tilting the case at a 23 degree angle to speed up the flow of voltage through the logic gates and blowing on it with a straw.

Gerry

I presume you tilted it forwards, so the electricity would be going down the hill.

WhiteWashMan

sad.
now if it was a 'how large is your penis game', youd all be winners....

astrofool

hehe, even all the big web sites do this, one of them got their numbers taken down due to them being faked, still good thing to see what the best of the technology, pushed to its limits can do, ~7000 gef2, A1000, 128 RAM, haven't ran it again since I added in an extra 128, must do that today, 2200 or 2700 on 2001 tho, can't remember which

Stephen

Just reformatted and installed WinME rather than Win98 ... my 3dMark 2001 score jumped up by about 400 marks - was 2445, and now is 2860.

(P3-866mhz + 256mb PC600 ECC RDRAM + GeForce 2 GTS 32mb)

Stonemason

Huuum well im running a gf/1ddr with a 1ghz t/bird overclocked to 1.2ghz and stil my life is not complete hehehehe


Stone

BTW if this does not make sense PFM as im alittle worse from wear hic.

Loomer

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stephen:
P3 Xeon 866mhz (not overclocked) / 256mb PC600 rdram, and a geforce 2 GTS.

</font>

NYOM!!!

po0k

I'm geting around 3500 in default bench in 3D2000. spec is P3 800, 128 PC100, GF1 32mbSDR (creative) at normal clock, UDMA33 30Gb hdd Maxtor i think, Win98SE, 6.34 drivers, need to run iot again though.
Alos 3Dmarks benchmarking is not a true refelction of tow ir system will play todays games, cos its rendering pipeline system is different to DirectXes and OpenGL, especially the T&L stuff. Fact.
Still, thats a pretty sh|te mark for meh spec though
[VTi]Syxpak - going to get a GF2 GTS off Stone in the summer after GF3 causes price crash (hopefully)

---

No-one ever suspects the Duck
He who must die, must die in the dark even though he sells candles

_CreeD_

8189 on 3d mark 2000.

Stephen

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by [FCA]SyxPak:
Alos 3Dmarks benchmarking is not a true refelction of tow ir system will play todays games, cos its rendering pipeline system is different to DirectXes and OpenGL, especially the T&L stuff. Fact.</font>

Eh, isn't 3DMark using a Direct3D system?

Stonemason

Im with you on that cunning plan syxpak hehehe unless gf3 comes in at a fairish price them huuuuuuuuum .


Stone

po0k

Stephen, I know for a FACT. It uses Dx7 features and stuff, but its rendering engine is not 'real-world' so-to speak.
DirectX is just an API, like GLide, OpenGL, S3MeTaL etc. The actual engine isn't game type, its more of a cad one as far as I could fathom form where I read it, which i think was Tom's harware Guide, though that site has since moved/shutdown. There.
Correct me anyone if I'm taliking (paraphrasing really) absolute ball-cokz
And Stone, hehe, expect meh to be calling u arounf mid July...hehe
John

---

No-one ever suspects the Duck
He who must die, must die in the dark even though he sells candles

Stephen

Just a note, 3DMark 2001 uses DX8

astrofool

3dmark uses a game engine like any game, so does represent fairly well how your system will do in modern games, there are parts of course which are entirely synthetic, it's not to be taken seriously, but in general a faster system gets a higher score.

Some games are optimised/unoptimised for certain pieces of hardware (P4 and Q3, freakishly fast, yet slow with others), u'll find alot of benchmarks favour one company over another (Intel invest in alot of benchmark companies), also the compiler used will affect it alot (SSE/3D Now optimisations)

_CreeD_

None of which changes the fact that I'm still winning...

po0k

heeh, new results, 4512 with me above setup on Det3 6.50, 4517 on 7.52, but haven't had time to really confirm the 7.52 ones yet, I ran the 6.50 ones 4 times. Is it me or does the first time u run the benchmark after starting the 3DMark2k prog give lower markings? the first result is always the worst while the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. are consistent.....
Astro, that is what I'm saying, the benchmark can't really be used to compare performance. Whereas games have to run optimally on as many platforms as possible to maximise their user-base....
PS2 sux. the thing melts after playing DVDs for too long, how much is a decent fan ffs?

---

No-one ever suspects the Duck
He who must die, must die in the dark even though he sells candles

Canaboid

Score 2001 on default benchmark in 3dmark2001.
Athlon @ 1gig, 256 PC133, gf2mx.

Couple of things, Win2k Scores higher than win98 on same PC (dual boot).

Subsequent results get incrementally lower.

satchmo

I only got 845 on 3dmark2001 on the default setting (1024x768, 32 bit color, compressed texures, no AA)

Hercules Prophet II GTS 32mb
Tbird 850 @ 1ghz
128mb ram
Win95

What the hell am I doing wrong???

Stephen

Tried win98/ME ?

satchmo

i was thinking about it, but I don't want to screw with my machine till my exams are over. Do you think it would make that much of a difference?