Very low 3DMark 2001 score.

[Alex_10000]

Hello all,
I bought a computer last weekend, when I tried to run 3DMark 2001, It gave me extremely low score: 1616. I used GTU to Overclock the graphic card to 230/200 get a result of 2110, still far from the supposed 3000+ score. I've tried all settings to improved the performance, which didn't seem to help. Does anyone knows what may be wrong? Thanks.

My computer spec:
P4 1.8A OCed to 2.4 (533)
Kingston 1066 Rdram 128MBx2
Asus P4T533C MB
Geforce MX 400 64MB (Pine Excalibur)
Maxtor 7200 80G HDD

 

[10GHZ]

have you installed the latest detonator driver from nvidia?

 

[williamc]

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

okay seriously, if you thought that was a high end gaming maching you got RIPped off. A GF MX 400 is a 30 dollar el cheapo card good for nothing other than running MS Office in my opinion. Thats actually an exceptionally GOOD score for that card.

I kid you not, i'm being very serious. You have a monster pc with a mini mouse gfx card. Swap that card for a Radeon 8500 or a GF4 TI card and you'll get over 10,000 3dmarks. gfx card is all that is holding you back.

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the empires state building, along came goblin, wiped the spider out<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 05/31/02 10:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Matisaro]

With that videocard why the hell did you even bother to overclock?


Dude you got delled.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[bront]

With that card, you got about the right score. Make sure you have the latest detonator drivors and motherboard AGP drivers.

Otherwise, while that's a slightly low score, it's not too far off for that video card.

"Search your feelings you know it to be true, I am your... twin sister" - Darth Vader

 

[buddry]

You got a sweet rig with a terrible video card. Why? Go get a GF4 ti4200 and that will fix your scores.

That is a nice <b><font color=green>Garbage Can</font color=green></b> you have there!

 

[Alex_10000]

Ok. All. This machine is purposed for Mpeg2/4 encoding, not gaming. I don't play hardcore 3D games that much. Thanks all for your comment. I did install the latest driver from nvidia and FSAA is off. My OS is XP.

Even though it is just a mx400, the score should be significantly higher than 1600 at default settings.

Any knowledegable one out there?

 

[chuck232]

I have a PIII 600E with 256MB of SDRAM and an original MX, and I get ~2000 3DMArks 2K1 SE. So that is a pretty low score if you ask me.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[samwyse]

I've got a P III 933MHz and an original MX and I get about 2300.

 

[Flyboy]

I agree with Chuck. I have a PIII 750Mhz, 384Mb Ram, Asus GeF2 MX400 and I score about 2500pts. If I overclock it I get around 2700 pts. So I agree that you should be getting at least over 2000, and possible to 2500.

 

[Flyboy]

I agree with Chuck. I have a PIII 750Mhz, 384Mb Ram, Asus GeF2 MX400 (32Mb) and I score about 2500pts. If I overclock it I get around 2700 pts. So I agree that you should be getting at least over 2000, and possible to 2500.

 

[BarDwarf]

Wow, amazing how much worse a G4 MX is than a G2 Ultra, even if they are based on the same chip.

 

[Flyboy]

Clock rate wise there isn't much difference. In fact the GeF4 MX has a higher core clock speed (270Mhz vs. 250Mhz), but slower memory (200 vs 230). I think maybe what makes the GeF2 Ultra so much better than the GeF4 MX is the GeF2 Ultra has 4 rendering pipelines versus GeF4 MX's 2.

 

[chuck232]

I think you got something messed up there... First of all the original MX had a core speed of 175MHz. The MX400 had 200MHz. Also both of them had 166MHz of 64 bit SDRAM. I believe the Ultra had DDR RAM. 230MHz DDR, which is basically equivalent to 460MHz DDR. The GF2 Ultra was just a way faster chip. The Ultra has 7.36GB of memory bandwidth while the MX only has 2.7GBs.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[phsstpok]

Did you load the Intel chipset drivers?

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>

 

[Flyboy]

Oops, It should have been the GeF4 MX440, not GeF4MX400. I wasn't talking about the GeF2 MX400's with 200Mhz clock (I have one of these).

I was trying to compare the GeF2 Ultra with the GeF4 MX400.


Here's a link showing the specs for the various GeForce line of chips:

<A HREF="http://www.a1-electronics.co.uk/Graphics_Cards/GeForce4/Nvidia_GeForce4.shtml" target="_new">http://www.a1-electronics.co.uk/Graphics_Cards/GeForce4/Nvidia_GeForce4.shtml</A>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Flyboy on 06/02/02 12:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[chuck232]

Wow, amazing how much worse a G4 MX is than a G2 Ultra, even if they are based on the same chip.

Ok I got kinda messed up there. The GF2MX is based on a castrated version of the GF2 GTS core. The Ultra is merely based on that core with 0.18u manufacturing and faster RAM. The GF4MX is not based on the same core as the GF2 Ultra.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[williamc]

The GF4 MX core is based on the theory that cheaper is better. I would take this opportunity to point out that economics is utterly mistaken in the case of graphics cards. The more you pay the more you get in point of fact. At this time the market is so competitive that you can't get a bargain, they don't exist. Closest thing to a bargain is a GF4 TI 4200 right now and you lose things like 2d quality as evidenced by Tom's overview.

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the empires state building, along came goblin, wiped the spider out<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by williamc on 06/03/02 03:38 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[chuck232]

The GF4MX is fine for DX7 games. They aren't too bad. I would never suggest them, since they would go out of use soo fast, but for a person that plays only Quake, it should do them fine. The GF4 Ti4200 probably has the best price/performance ratio, although the R8500 is also very close. For a home user that surfs the net, even a GF2MX would be fine. IT all depends on what you do. I'm sure a lot of people find use for the GF4MXs. They are basically replacing the GF2MXs as the mainstream base-line card. For many of use gamers/computer enthusiasts it doesn't come in very handy, but for many people, that's all they need.

My firewall tastes like burning.

 

[williamc]

And the gods of computers spat the MX out of their mouths and said, long live Matrox for low end graphics users.

The itsy bitsy spider climbed up the empires state building, along came goblin, wiped the spider out

 

[Crashman]

That wouldn't happen to be the PCI version of the card would it? The reason I ask is because a PCI bus can only supply enough bandwidth for a score of around 1600, regardless of what card you use or the rest of the system.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?