3DMark 2003 score Post'em if you got'em
Well it sucks that you can only post your score once in the unregistered version. Actually didn't find that out till I tried to do a second. Anyway. . . Is 5702 good? middle of the road? Ok.
This topic was started by gr33d,
Well it sucks that you can only post your score once in the unregistered version. Actually didn't find that out till I tried to do a second. Anyway...
Is 5702 good? middle of the road?
Ok..the 5702 must've been a fluke (???)
I was bored and decided that benching 5x would get me a good average.
Ave. 5012
lowest 4944
highest 5066
I'll be uninstalling this benchmark now. IMO - it's not a reflective of any game out now or even in a year or two. With a score fluctuation like what i've seen, it does not give true representation of hardware either. Just like any synthetic bench, take the scores with a grain of salt, or in this case a jar.
Then again, I might just keep it for the cool demo. :)
Is 5702 good? middle of the road?
Ok..the 5702 must've been a fluke (???)
I was bored and decided that benching 5x would get me a good average.
Ave. 5012
lowest 4944
highest 5066
I'll be uninstalling this benchmark now. IMO - it's not a reflective of any game out now or even in a year or two. With a score fluctuation like what i've seen, it does not give true representation of hardware either. Just like any synthetic bench, take the scores with a grain of salt, or in this case a jar.
Then again, I might just keep it for the cool demo. :)
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
A few people have asked me why their score is low or if the score they get is right for their system. I cant answer all those individual cases but I want to share some results we observe in our benchmarking labs. (Remember these numbers are directly from ATI)
Use these ONLY as a guide and have fun comparing:
System:
P4 - 3.06 GHz i850e
1GB PC 1066
Win XP Pro SP1
CATALYST 3.1
Defaults 3DMark settings, CATALYST control panel on performance setting
Radeon 9700 Pro: 4772
Radeon 9700: 4169
Radeon 9500 Pro: 3571
Radeon 9500: 2511
Radeon 9100/8500: 1301
Radeon 9000 Pro: 1135
Radeon 9000: 1008
Radeon 7500: 364
Radeon 7000: 107
taken at rage3d forums CASE CLOSED!1
Use these ONLY as a guide and have fun comparing:
System:
P4 - 3.06 GHz i850e
1GB PC 1066
Win XP Pro SP1
CATALYST 3.1
Defaults 3DMark settings, CATALYST control panel on performance setting
Radeon 9700 Pro: 4772
Radeon 9700: 4169
Radeon 9500 Pro: 3571
Radeon 9500: 2511
Radeon 9100/8500: 1301
Radeon 9000 Pro: 1135
Radeon 9000: 1008
Radeon 7500: 364
Radeon 7000: 107
taken at rage3d forums CASE CLOSED!1
1300 3dmarks
1600 3dmarks o/c'd
1600 3dmarks o/c'd
Fastest results :
3DMark2001 - 8482
3DMark2003 - 1409
ECS K7S5A - FSB o/ced 138/138, sideband & fast writes enabled
XP 1600+ - e/ced 1450mhz
384 Crucial PC133 - Ultra/CL2 settings
Albatron Geforce4 Ti 4200 w/128 o/ced to 260/510
Omega 40.72 drivers - quality
I need some DDR...
G
3DMark2001 - 8482
3DMark2003 - 1409
ECS K7S5A - FSB o/ced 138/138, sideband & fast writes enabled
XP 1600+ - e/ced 1450mhz
384 Crucial PC133 - Ultra/CL2 settings
Albatron Geforce4 Ti 4200 w/128 o/ced to 260/510
Omega 40.72 drivers - quality
I need some DDR...
G
Its all on my spec page in sig, but here it is again (5433):
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=118401
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=118401
i am running a p4 2.4ghz, 512 ddr 333, maxtor viper hardisk,
17" Samsung LCD TFT monitor, win xp home, pro-link ti4200,
Tested using 3d mark 2003.
My total score being 1105, Is this any good? Can it be better?
3DMark projects
Result 1
Primary Device NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X
Width 1024
Height 768
Pixel Processing None
Texture Filtering Optimal
Max Anisotropy 1
Vertex Shaders Optimal
Repeat Tests Off
Fixed Framerate Off
Comment 0
3DMark Score 1105 3DMarks
GT1 - Wings of Fury 73.4 fps
GT2 - Battle of Proxycon 6.6 fps
GT3 - Troll's Lair 6.9 fps
GT4 - Mother Nature 0.0 fps
CPU Score 449 CPUMarks
CPU Test 1 46.2 fps
CPU Test 2 8.6 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 508601959.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 508753143.0 MTexels/s
Vertex Shader 5.1 fps
Pixel Shader 2.0 0.0 fps
Ragtroll 5.0 fps
No sounds 36.3 fps
24 sounds 27.6 fps
60 sounds 0.0 fps
Family Pentium® 4
Internal Clock 2400 MHz
External Clock 133 MHz
Description NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X
Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
Driver Version 4.1.0.9
VGA Memory Clock 500 MHz
VGA Core Clock 250 MHz
Total Physical Memory 510 MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
17" Samsung LCD TFT monitor, win xp home, pro-link ti4200,
Tested using 3d mark 2003.
My total score being 1105, Is this any good? Can it be better?
3DMark projects
Result 1
Primary Device NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X
Width 1024
Height 768
Pixel Processing None
Texture Filtering Optimal
Max Anisotropy 1
Vertex Shaders Optimal
Repeat Tests Off
Fixed Framerate Off
Comment 0
3DMark Score 1105 3DMarks
GT1 - Wings of Fury 73.4 fps
GT2 - Battle of Proxycon 6.6 fps
GT3 - Troll's Lair 6.9 fps
GT4 - Mother Nature 0.0 fps
CPU Score 449 CPUMarks
CPU Test 1 46.2 fps
CPU Test 2 8.6 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 508601959.0 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 508753143.0 MTexels/s
Vertex Shader 5.1 fps
Pixel Shader 2.0 0.0 fps
Ragtroll 5.0 fps
No sounds 36.3 fps
24 sounds 27.6 fps
60 sounds 0.0 fps
Family Pentium® 4
Internal Clock 2400 MHz
External Clock 133 MHz
Description NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 with AGP8X
Total Local Video Memory 128 MB
Driver Version 4.1.0.9
VGA Memory Clock 500 MHz
VGA Core Clock 250 MHz
Total Physical Memory 510 MB
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Normally, the score is around 4500 (4495 last time with standard settings)
Today I tried something different : my 17" won't reach 2048x1536 so I took my TV and go:
The score -> 1679 pts
(Details:
Wings of fury -- 53,5
Battle of proxycon -- 8.9
Troll's Lair -- 9.0
Mother Nature -- 13.8
CPU Marks -- 414
Fillrate Single -- 1313
Fillrate Multi -- 2502
Vertex Shader -- 13.8
PixelShader 2.0 -- 15.8
Ragtroll -- 7.4)
And all at 2048x1536 !!
PC :
AMD XP2200+ not o/c on ASUS A7V333
512 DDR333
ATI R9700 Pro not o/c
So you see, let the future begin we still got many fps at 2048x1536, and the most! (of the 3 last benches) in the mother nature test (interesting, normally it's the slowest test in the bench..).
And the funniest thing : trying to enable fsaa 6x in 3dmark at that resolution --> out of video memory ))
Today I tried something different : my 17" won't reach 2048x1536 so I took my TV and go:
The score -> 1679 pts
(Details:
Wings of fury -- 53,5
Battle of proxycon -- 8.9
Troll's Lair -- 9.0
Mother Nature -- 13.8
CPU Marks -- 414
Fillrate Single -- 1313
Fillrate Multi -- 2502
Vertex Shader -- 13.8
PixelShader 2.0 -- 15.8
Ragtroll -- 7.4)
And all at 2048x1536 !!
PC :
AMD XP2200+ not o/c on ASUS A7V333
512 DDR333
ATI R9700 Pro not o/c
So you see, let the future begin we still got many fps at 2048x1536, and the most! (of the 3 last benches) in the mother nature test (interesting, normally it's the slowest test in the bench..).
And the funniest thing : trying to enable fsaa 6x in 3dmark at that resolution --> out of video memory ))
...well here goes' ...see my sig.
Got a 6895 with a fairly decent video OC. Need to add some after market cooling to get it a little higher. Still have yet to OC the system processor since the Intel boards a pretty limited. Well... looks like a good excuse for another upgrade...
3DMARK 2003 - 6895
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1909356
3DMARK 2003 - 6895
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1909356
All I can say is MAKE SURE if you are an NVIDIA customer that you are using the Futuremark Cert. Drivers, otherwise you will end up in one big long argument like this:
http://www.globalinferno.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3
http://www.globalinferno.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3