my 3dmark 2001 score

[Bubba]

Ok, here is my score with specs.
Asus A7V bios 1007
Duron 600@950
512 MB Crucial PC133 cas2
Geforce2 Ultra 64MB (6.50 drivers)
WinMe

3DMark 2000 ~ 7300
3DMark 2001 = 2888

I couldn't see the nature scene either.
On the 8 lights test my machine just crawled.
I think I need to get a T-Bird with more cache.

Does anyone think the 10.XX version drivers would work better? If so, which ones?

 

[Grizely1]

same here. Oh the 8 lights it was probably 8 fps. :frown: I got 2800 i think.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s

 

[Grizely1]

don't get your hopes up. i dont think G800 is coming out for a long while.

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s

 

[phsstpok]

My score went from 2281 to 2323 switching from Detonator 3, rev 6.50 to 10.80. Below are the individual scores (10.80 scores first, 6.50 scores second).

This is subjective, but with 10.80 the display seems to look better. Contrast (bright to dark difference) level seems to be a little higher. This seems to improve lighting effects.

Also, notice the huge improvement in scores for High Polygon Count (1 Light), DOT3 Bump Mapping, and Point Sprite Speed, (especially this score).

Unfortunately, my system became very unstable in OpenGl apps. Direc3D run great. I did not have this problem with the 6.50 drivers.

<b>Update:</b> Your results may differ. I only have a Geforce256 SDR.

3DMark 2001 Result(3D marks) 2323 2281

Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail (FPS) 35.3 38.4
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail (FPS) 16.4 17.3
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail (FPS) 35.2 33.3
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail (FPS) 15.3 13.0
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail (FPS) 48.0 45.3
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail (FPS) 25.2 25.3
Game 4 - Nature (FPS) Not available Not available
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) (MTexels/s) 228.0 232.7
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) (MTexels/s) 439.5 444.0
High Polygon Count (1 Light) (MTriangles/s) 10.5 8.5
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) (MTriangles/s) 2.2 2.2
Environment Bump Mapping (FPS) Not available Not available
DOT3 Bump Mapping (FPS) 37.1 30.8
Vertex Shader Speed (FPS) 32.8 31.1
Pixel Shader Speed (FPS) Not available Not available
Point Sprite Speed (MSprites/s) 6.9 1.0


Duron 600@1007 mhz, 9.5 x 106 mhz FSB
Abit KT7, WZb01 BIOS, 4.29v Via 4-in-1 drivers
128 MB OCZ Enhanced PC-133, CAS 2/3/2 SDRAM, Turbo timing
VisionTek Geforce256 SDR @150/210
Maxtor DiamondMax VL 40 Hard Drive
Windows 98SE
DirectX 8.0
nVidia Detonator 3, ver 10.80


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 03/17/01 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[DSutcliffe]

1024 X 768 score:

2608

system specs below. Is this normal? I have never used this benchmark before.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=3737" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=3737</A>

 

[Guest]

yes, that is pretty normal for 3dmark2k1. It was just released and it is meant to last a year so todays cpu/vid cards don't quite cut it.

 

[Grizely1]

oh good now i don't feel too bad cause i got 2700 and thought i screwed my computer (i have gf2 gts too).

-----------------
"648kb is all the space anyone will ever need!"

Bill Gates, 1980s

 

[Guest]

im just too scared to run 3dmark2001 on my tnt2 m64

___________________________________________

Smoking is a major cause of statistics.

 

[Guest]

What cpu you have? My tnt2 is cut in half by my 500mhz. I've seen scores nearly twice as much as mine with better cpu's

 

[noko]

Don't worry about the benchmark, run it for the awesome demo. It is cool, who cares about the benchmark anyways? If your programs/games are running how you want then you are set.

 

[Guest]

why does the nature show up in the demo but can't benchmark?

 

[noko]

Demo uses software routines in DX8 while the Nature scene in the benchmark is testing the hardware DX8 features. If the video card doesn't have the required DX8 hardware support it passes the test. Appears that only the GF3 is able to run the nature benchmark scene at present. Here is the blurb from 3dMark2001:

<font color=green>This scene depends heavily on DirectX® 8 features. The trees, grass and butterflies are animated, transformed and lit using vertex shaders. The movements of the fisherman are made by morphing, also using a vertex shader. The surface of the lake uses vertex shaders, pixel shaders and cube maps. Due to the pixel shader use, this test cannot be run without DX8 compatible graphics hardware. The scene only has a high detail run and affects the 3DMark score accordingly....

</font color=green>



<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by noko on 03/18/01 08:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Gog]

Given that you have travelled back in time from the year 20001 I would have hoped that technology would have advanced to the point where we no longer user 3DMark to bench our computer systems. Couldn't you have brought back some neural computers or at least a GeForce 2500 for us to view?

Look at the size of that thing!

 

[Guest]

I didn't come back to this time on purpose you know. Now I can't get back. It is weird, microsoft doesn't own everything in the world during this time

 

[Guest]

ok, ok, we're back to the year 2001

 

[Guest]

yeah, this prog pretty much rocks.... my system

Tbird 850 @ 910 6.5*140mhz
256MB Crucial 140mhz CL2
bla bla bla
Radeon ATI LE clocked at 190/190


this machine didnt rock the world, but scored 3317 on the test.... I tweaked the hell out of it




Old addage: "Users never prosper" ) Long live the tweakers

 

[noko]

LE did almost as good as my 64meg Radeon Retail. Good job.

 

[Guest]

Damn those 32mb DDR Le's are nice at $80 online, though you have to watch you don't get a sdr. It is either the LE or kyroII for me.

 

[noko]

By far the best deal out for a modern Graphics card. I don't think they will be out for long due to the stiff competition it gives ATI directly.

 

[Guest]

damn, I wish the kyro II would become available already I want to compare these guys together in max.

With the kyro II's win2k drivers I think it would be the best choice for anyone running win2k. Driver maturity is slow and I don't think they will match the kyro's drivers anytime soon.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by m_kelder on 03/22/01 05:45 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Guest]

Didnt someone just post on here saying their ATI Radeon Did better in WIN2k than ME? If so it appears that there are some damn good drivers out now... anyway, the Radeon LE from newegg.com is DDr and will ship for 75 dollars or so total

Im thinking about getting another one either that or a GeForce MX to laugh at



Old addage: "Users never prosper" ) Long live the tweakers

 

[Guest]

can you buy me one to so you have someone to laugh with?

 

[noko]

The new W2k 3116 drivers from ATI are very fast in OpenGL and in Directx8. I am convinced now that the Radeon W2k drivers are starting to mature. Just bought the new game Serious Sam and loaded on W2k and my mouth is still open and watering. It runs flawless in W2k and the graphics makes QuakeIII look kinda anemic. Supposenly a 3 texture game, in any case it just flys on the Radeon in W2k. I've havn't had this much fun since my Amiga days of long ago. Right now my neck is sore from the intense visual action pounding on my brain of Serious Sam.

 

[Guest]

That is good to hear. Maybe the last update fixed ati's problem with running dual planes in opengl.

 

[phsstpok]

Noko, I've been watching most of your posts on ATI Radeon cards. What is your opinion of the Radeon LE? If you were looking for a budget card, as I am, is this the one you would choose? or would you wait for the Kyro II? or choose something else? Granted the Kyro II, even at street price, is likely to be more money than a Radeon.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 03/23/01 03:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>