3DMark 2003 Released
12 February 2003, 07:42 PM
#31
BANNED
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats more like it Mr F. Im hoping to have it Dl'ed by tommorow. Im hoping for at least high 3000 to low 4000. Deffo looking like a 9700 pro friendly (if u can call it that) benchmark.
13 February 2003, 10:10 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Nvidia still doesn't like 3DMark 2003?
Nvidia has contacted Gamespot to say that it doesn't support the use of 3DMark 2003 as a primary benchmark in the evaluation of graphics cards, as the company believes the benchmark doesn't represent how current games are being designed. Specifically, Nvidia contends that the first test is an unrealistically simple scene that's primarily single-textured, that the stencil shadows in the second and third tests are rendered using an inefficient method that's extremely bottlenecked at the vertex engine, and that many of the pixel shaders use specific elements of DX8 that are promoted by ATI but aren't common in current games.
In response to Nvidia's statements, Futuremark's Aki Jarvilehto said, "We've been working for the last 18 months to make 3DMark 2003 an accurate and objective benchmark. Nvidia was one of our beta members until December, and it's not our place to comment on why they've decided to withdraw from the program. After working on the project for almost two years with all the leading manufacturers, we do strongly believe that 3DMark 2003 is an accurate representation of game performance for modern 3D accelerators."
In any case, 3DMark 2003 offers some tech demos that use some of the advanced graphics technology that's on its way for future PC games.
Nvidia has contacted Gamespot to say that it doesn't support the use of 3DMark 2003 as a primary benchmark in the evaluation of graphics cards, as the company believes the benchmark doesn't represent how current games are being designed. Specifically, Nvidia contends that the first test is an unrealistically simple scene that's primarily single-textured, that the stencil shadows in the second and third tests are rendered using an inefficient method that's extremely bottlenecked at the vertex engine, and that many of the pixel shaders use specific elements of DX8 that are promoted by ATI but aren't common in current games.
In response to Nvidia's statements, Futuremark's Aki Jarvilehto said, "We've been working for the last 18 months to make 3DMark 2003 an accurate and objective benchmark. Nvidia was one of our beta members until December, and it's not our place to comment on why they've decided to withdraw from the program. After working on the project for almost two years with all the leading manufacturers, we do strongly believe that 3DMark 2003 is an accurate representation of game performance for modern 3D accelerators."
In any case, 3DMark 2003 offers some tech demos that use some of the advanced graphics technology that's on its way for future PC games.
13 February 2003, 10:26 AM
#36
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 8,204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting reading
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDMw
http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...=5&o=0&fpart=1
3DM01 was a useful system tweaking benchmark, the new one seems to be so dependant on the graphics card it's useless in the real world unless you have a suit of benchmarks to run on.
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDMw
http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...=5&o=0&fpart=1
3DM01 was a useful system tweaking benchmark, the new one seems to be so dependant on the graphics card it's useless in the real world unless you have a suit of benchmarks to run on.
13 February 2003, 06:06 PM
#44
BANNED
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4470 3D Marks
Running with Cat 3.0's with no tweaking and only a very slight overclock of fsb (as I usually run it),AMD 2000 XP @ 1750/140, Saphire ATI 9700 Pro (standard clock/mem speed) and 512 Meg Corsair XMS2700 @ CAS 2 and 1:1.
Might try it with Cat 3.0 a's next then clock the 9700.
Deffo seems to lurv 9700's though
Edited to say this was with Asus A7V333 Mobo
[Edited by Jye_0 - 2/13/2003 6:09:07 PM]
Running with Cat 3.0's with no tweaking and only a very slight overclock of fsb (as I usually run it),AMD 2000 XP @ 1750/140, Saphire ATI 9700 Pro (standard clock/mem speed) and 512 Meg Corsair XMS2700 @ CAS 2 and 1:1.
Might try it with Cat 3.0 a's next then clock the 9700.
Deffo seems to lurv 9700's though
Edited to say this was with Asus A7V333 Mobo
[Edited by Jye_0 - 2/13/2003 6:09:07 PM]
13 February 2003, 09:41 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4627 on my rig.
P4 - 2.53Ghz
512MB DDR 2700
Radeon 9700 Pro
Standard timings, FSB etc...
Running Catalyst 3.1 reference drivers.
I beat Super_Si, that's all that counts to me
P4 - 2.53Ghz
512MB DDR 2700
Radeon 9700 Pro
Standard timings, FSB etc...
Running Catalyst 3.1 reference drivers.
I beat Super_Si, that's all that counts to me
13 February 2003, 09:45 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lurkin Somewhere
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see you sandra cpu benchmark and mem bandwidths theres only one person whos even near hehehehe 
might scan ebay just for a 9700 now getting that annoyed
Si
theres only one person whos even near hehehehe might scan ebay just for a 9700 now getting that annoyed
Si
13 February 2003, 11:11 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that I'm kicking Super_Si's **** on this!!!
1771
P4 2.4Ghz
512Mb PC2700 DDR RAM
Ti4200 128Mb 8xAGP
Running Windows XP Professional
Looks like I *need* a Radeon 9700 Pro as well!!!
1771
P4 2.4Ghz
512Mb PC2700 DDR RAM
Ti4200 128Mb 8xAGP
Running Windows XP Professional
Looks like I *need* a Radeon 9700 Pro as well!!!
13 February 2003, 11:19 PM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lurkin Somewhere
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Date: 2003-02-12
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3622.4 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
300.4 MHz / 648.0 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows 2000
Res: 1024*768@32 bit
Thats my info
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3622.4 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
300.4 MHz / 648.0 MHz
OS: Microsoft Windows 2000
Res: 1024*768@32 bit
Thats my info
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post