FutureMark release 3dmark2003

Gandalf · February 11, 2003, 10:31:40 PM

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

Stryker · February 12, 2003, 09:11:01 AM

where the FEK did you manage to download it from? I've just tried a total of 30, yes 30 mirror sites and they are all full up with twats and their 56K modems downloading it.

Stryker · February 12, 2003, 10:20:08 AM

Dur ok, I'm finally downloading it at a blazing 100Kbit/s.

When I've got it I'll put it on an FTP server and post the link in the dMw members forum.

Not long now, paitients my beauty :lol:

Gandalf · February 12, 2003, 07:29:56 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=58655

First 3DMark test results in. 4569

Stryker · February 13, 2003, 08:43:43 AM

After all that I cant post my results. My machine crashes on the third game test... FFS.

smilodon · February 13, 2003, 05:29:02 PM

I recon you need an upgrade mate :wink:

smite · February 15, 2003, 02:45:36 PM

For a 4600 this is a crap score.
1605
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=109406

smite · February 15, 2003, 03:43:08 PM

upped FSB to 140 from 133
upped GPX core to 331
upped GPX clock to 702 this is on the limit of working not working.

and it only went up to 1743
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=167960

suicidal_monkey · February 15, 2003, 09:10:55 PM

8O my pc can only run the first of the 4 games and got a score of 177 :?
still, at least I beat people with a similar spec pc by about 50 ... I think I might uninstall sdm2003 and get the 2001 version instead :?

995MHz athlon (mobo bios limits the speed)
ecs k7s5a motherboard
256 pc2100
64Mb Geforce2 ultra (41.09 drivers)
Win XP pro (dx9)

It's time to overclock everything I think :/
I hear the ultra's overclock well, I think the ram can stand lower CAS, but I dont think my omtherboard allows overclocking...

smilodon · February 15, 2003, 09:44:14 PM

I've never been a fan of 3Dmark as I can't honestly see what the point is. I'll accept that if you're on the upgrade trail and want to benchmark the effect of another stick of ram or a new CPU then it may be worth running. And obvioulsy review sites and mags will want to run it, so that they can give accurate reviews of new hardware.

I bought Unreal 2, which is arguably the most graphic intensive game around right now. I ran it at 1028x756 with everything cranked up to full - and it ran without a problem. So that's good enough for me. I don't really need a score to tell me if my frame rate is fine or falling through the floor.

Now if there was a 3DMark for crap games I might have saved myself Â£35.00 :!:

Anonymous · February 15, 2003, 10:47:19 PM

Quote995MHz athlon (mobo bios limits the speed)
ecs k7s5a motherboard
256 pc2100
64Mb Geforce2 ultra (41.09 drivers)
Win XP pro (dx9)

It's time to overclock everything I think :/

Looking at your kit list I would lose the GF2 and get a GF4 Ti4200 or an ATI 9000. That would be a very cost effective performance increase. Additionally, another 256 RAM wouldn't hurt but fix the graphics card first.

suicidal_monkey · February 16, 2003, 02:12:49 AM

hrmmm :? thats what they say, although I think the extra ram is the first thing on my list seeing as its affordable right now. When I can persuade myself that I can fork out over 100 quid on another gfx card I will replace the old one. Until then I'm gonna try overclocking the ultra gradually, see if it improves at all. Either I get a small increase or I blow it up and force the issue :roll: My setup is just about perfect for CS (50-100fps unless theres a LOT of smoke) but bf1942 puts more of a strain on the system.

Anonymous · February 16, 2003, 12:35:47 PM

Ooops! Where I said Radeon 9000 I should have said Radeon 9500. The 9000 is equivalent to a GF 4MX and you wouldnt get much of a framerate increase. Have a look at:

http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030...acharts-04.html

to compare framerates on cards. The grey bars are for an Athlon 1000 which is close enough to your system to be representative. Your GF2Ultra would give around 36 fps. A GF 4 Ti4200 would give around 80 fps with the same CPU and similarly for the Radeon 9500.

I do not believe you would see much performance increase in games from the extra RAM. Maybe slightly faster to load new levels.

HTH?

Stryker · February 16, 2003, 03:05:32 PM

has anyone else had 3DMark crash their PC?

I'm using the radion drivers out the box and direct X 9.

suicidal_monkey · February 16, 2003, 04:28:36 PM

it failed to run a lot of the games and tests but it didnt crash. dx9, winxp,
but nvidia 41.09 drivers.

As for the ram - it'll help reduce load times and also speed up some
memory transfers. I've had the little yellow warning trianges concerning
memory a few times with bf1942. I would love to outfit my pc with all the
bits it needs, but I'll start with the ram.

Looking at those vga charts I'd say its not worth my while going any
higher than, say, a radeon 8500 or geforce3 due to the limit imposed by
the cpu after that. I realise it's game dependant to some degree, but I'm
sure theres a trend. Hopefully I'll have the cash to refit my pc in a few
months. Until then I'll cope. Was actually getting better fps in bf1942 at
1024x768 with all the gubbins turned on last night