Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

3DMark 2003

View
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >

121. Re: 0.o Feb 17, 2003, 18:51 fredrickson
 
you are damn stupoid to care baotu hat

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
120. Re: 0.o Feb 17, 2003, 06:36 digdug
 
"I remeber when how pissed off I was when my machine could barely run DOOM (latest fps at the time) with 4 megs of ram, while my friend had no problem running it on 8 mb"

Been there i went out and got another 4megs to get it running smooth.;)

This comment was edited on Feb 17, 06:37.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
119. Re: oow I'm not the only one.. Feb 17, 2003, 06:03 kyleb
 
lol, you are right, it does actually run pretty good; at least in the game tests is reasonable. the second cpu test is the one where the flaming sword is so choppy it is hard to appreciate, but then again i only have an xp@1632. regardless the use of all the bumpmaping and shader effects are amazing, i remember when the tests with bump mapping was just one big square with four different maps and a moving light.

anyway, as for an upgrade, don't upgrade for a benchmark!

if you have a directx 8 capable card you are probably just fine in every game you play, if you don't and you also also have trouble running your games at the settings you would like then a anything from a 9500pro up is bound to make for a good card. as for the geforce fx; no one knows when its going to be available now anymore than we thought we did when it was supposed to be out 6 months ago. right now there is some pretty impressive reviews of "sample cards" on some major hardware sites but from where i am sitting it looks as if they are very deceptively crossing the line of journalistic integrity and into the realm of fraud. there are questions neatly tucked away in the articles that beg for answering, yet when questioned directly the authors tend to either ignore it or respond with snide comments and rhetoric. it is really sad to see the way a large company can manipulate the evidence to point to where those who are not realy looking will think that it is pointing in their favor.

personally i have little interest in the product at this point, as well as great disgust for the way it is being pushed. though hopefuly they will clean up their act and the nv35 should be interesting; not to mention coming along late this year when it will be about time for me to upgrade again.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
118. Re: oow I'm not the only one.. Feb 17, 2003, 04:30 Eldaron Imotholin
 
Yeah you're absolutely right about all that.

I hear from more that the benchmark is running pretty good with a 9700pro. I'll look into that, I hope the card isn't too friggin expensive!
Or should I go for the GeForce FX? Damn I'm not updated to this kind of things... I should truly look into that again..

 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
117. Re: oow I'm not the only one.. Feb 17, 2003, 02:43 kyleb
 
Another thing.. NVidia isn't all speaking bullshit I think.
I've seen nicer things in demo's and games then, ie, the part where that girl ignites her sword in the Benchmark. Yet that part had so low an fps even though games with similar visual quality kick ass on my system.


but wether it looks good to you or not is compleatly unimportant, it is a benchmark. for all it matters that flameing sword could have been a steaming pile of dog dropings and as long as they rendered useing the current directx codebase then the benchmark serves its purpose.

also, presonaly i think that sword looks absolutly stunning for the few moments i acutaly get a reasonable framerate to enjoy it on my top of the line 9700pro. i rember when 3dmark2k1's nature was exactly the same on my gefoce to its knees as well.

the only point nvidia has on this issue is they are not going to stand by a benchmark that shows how they have laged behind industry standerds because according to them it is not the directx board but solely nvidia that sets those standards. they are wrong.

This comment was edited on Feb 17, 02:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
116. 0.o Feb 16, 2003, 23:43 Kruddie
 
I remeber when how pissed off I was when my machine could barely run DOOM (latest fps at the time) with 4 megs of ram, while my friend had no problem running it on 8 mb. Judging by the negativity among people, I can only guess that everyone was recently putting money into their system to run the games of now.... not of the future. Sure it would make me mad too, but I would guess that everyone is familiar with the ole obsolite bug hitting computers these days in a short amount of time.

We got like 10 more months of 2003, and I can guarantee that at the end of this year the highest scores in the benchmark will double. It's kinda like a reality check for people that the hardcore games are coming. This should be nothing new.....

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
115. oow I'm not the only one.. Feb 16, 2003, 19:26 Eldaron Imotholin
 
As I read thru a few posts.. I've noticed that more ppl have such a shitty performance as me.
You know what? I DON'T GIVE A SH*T!!! As long as the non-2006-games (games on the market now and later this year) run fine, wich they still do, I'm happy.

Another thing.. NVidia isn't all speaking bullshit I think.
I've seen nicer things in demo's and games then, ie, the part where that girl ignites her sword in the Benchmark. Yet that part had so low an fps even though games with similar visual quality kick ass on my system.

I don't know what this Benchmark tries.. but they won't make me put all m'bucks in a new system quite YET!!

 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
114. Re: No subject Feb 16, 2003, 19:05 Eldaron Imotholin
 
I didn't read the posts yet, sorry. But I had to say... isn't this Benchmark a bit TOO much for 2003? I mean.. my computer was close at exploding, I would say! I got a score of something around 950 with:

Athlon 2000+
512mb DDR 333mhz
GeForce 3 Asus Deluxe
Sblaster Live!

Edit: I couldn't adjust the settings. The resolution was 1024 as far as I can remember...


This comment was edited on Feb 16, 19:07.
 
Avatar 15836
 
Playing: Skyrim, World of Warcraft.
Future: Dead Space 3.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
113. No subject Feb 16, 2003, 18:38 kyleb
 
lol anon, what evedcence can you present to back such perpostorus claim?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
112. Re: No subject Feb 16, 2003, 17:58 anon@24.76
 
Or maybe 3Dmark actually tests to the directX standards....


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
111. Re: No subject Feb 16, 2003, 16:48 shaqFU
 
Yup, it hammers Nvidia cards. I got 1511 with the following:

Athlon XP 2700+
Asus A7N8X board
512 Mb Corsair DDR (333)
GeForce 4 Ti4400


Ya I have same setup exactly except I have A7V8X.
1769 was best. Clearly ATI pays better!

This comment was edited on Feb 16, 16:49.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
110. Re: ATI Biased Feb 16, 2003, 13:43 kyleb
 
"ATI Biased Feb 15, 13:18 Molestro

I scored a 2765 with my thunderbird 950mhz. 768mb sdram.
ATI RAdeon 9500 PRO 128mb <---- there's the reason.
Clearly I dont run games better then all the geforce 4 owners who have p4's. The only fair way to look at it seems to be if ATI owners compare with eachother, where the scores seem to range from 2500-5000, and Nvidia owners compare only with eachother where the scores range from 500-2000. 3d mark 03 definitly doesnt portray how well the cards do in todays games though, I have to agree with Nvidia on that one..."


it is from futuremark, if you think it is suposed to show how thigns compare in todays games you are totlay missing the point. of corse your current generation card does beter in comparison to technology that has been out for ages. as for the cpu comments, what do you think that whole push for harware tranfromation and lighting was about a few years back? to say any of that makes the benchmark ati biased is absurd.

This comment was edited on Feb 16, 13:43.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
109. Re: No subject Feb 16, 2003, 13:40 digdug
 
The 9700pro does 4468 3dmarks on this system
Asus P4S8X, with raid,firewire,usb2,8x agp, motherboard,

P4 2.53, sckt 478, 533bus processor,

512mb PC2700, 333mhz memory,

ATI 9700 Pro 128mb video card,

Maxtor 120gb 2mb 7200rpm HDD,

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
108. Re: No subject Feb 16, 2003, 09:50 Elbryan
 
Just installed the new nVidia drivers, 42.68, from http://www.reactorcritical.com/ and my score jumped from 1066 (with the 41.09 drivers) to 1446. My system is as follows:

P4 2.2 gHz
512mb DDR Ram
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
Geforce 4 Ti 4600


 
-Elbryan

"Flying is simply learning the knack of throwing yourself at the ground and missing."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
107. Re: No subject Feb 15, 2003, 15:14 banddirector
 
Yup, it hammers Nvidia cards. I got 1511 with the following:

Athlon XP 2700+
Asus A7N8X board
512 Mb Corsair DDR (333)
GeForce 4 Ti4400
SB Audigy

Makes me wonder what a 9700 Pro would do ...

 
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
106. ATI Biased Feb 15, 2003, 13:18 Molestro
 
I scored a 2765 with my thunderbird 950mhz. 768mb sdram.
ATI RAdeon 9500 PRO 128mb <---- there's the reason.
Clearly I dont run games better then all the geforce 4 owners who have p4's. The only fair way to look at it seems to be if ATI owners compare with eachother, where the scores seem to range from 2500-5000, and Nvidia owners compare only with eachother where the scores range from 500-2000. 3d mark 03 definitly doesnt portray how well the cards do in todays games though, I have to agree with Nvidia on that one...

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105. Re: No subject Feb 15, 2003, 12:03 Ray Marden
 
Er...not.

Again, the "benchmark" favors a 9700 or FX class card.

Living in a pixel-shaded world :),
Ray

Edit: Code fix.
---------------------------------------
Don't eat the Menchi!11111
http://users.ign.com/collection/RayMarden
HELLO!?! The *fish* have wings and the *cows* have toes!
This comment was edited on Feb 15, 12:03.
 
Avatar 2647
 
Everything is awesome!!!
http://shoutengine.com/GarnettonGames/
I love you, mom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
104. Re: No subject Feb 15, 2003, 07:22 Mshraks
 
Problem has been fixed Just install DirectX 9.0.
But the score is not so good just 1027.
Its seems to be time for the ATI 9700 128MB.
There whe go again.%)

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
103. Re: No subject Feb 15, 2003, 06:51 Mshraks
 
When i try to start up 3dmark03 i get the message:
Direct3D DLL not found.
What the hell is this? I`ve got a ATI 8500 128Mb Card what do i have to do to solve the problem?
I`m running WN2K pro.

This comment was edited on Feb 15, 06:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
102. Re: No subject Feb 15, 2003, 02:52 WebDemon
 
Ended up with a score of 1006. WTF!? Just built and tweaked this system with my own two hands. This thing is definatley ATI biased. Just look at the difference in scores between GeForce and Radion cards. That's a pretty bad score for my system.

Pentium 4 2.53GHz 533FSB
512Mb Corsair DDR (333)
GeForce 4 Ti4200 128mb 8X
SB Audigy 2
Haven't seen anything slow it down until I ran into this thing.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo