3dmark03

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:52 pm

Anyone tried the new 3dmark yet? It's quite demanding, I only got about 1200 with a Duron and GF4Ti. Now I feel like upgrading.

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 1:55 am

I won't even begin to point out the logical fallacies associated with upgrading your computer on the basis of a synthetic benchmark.

I have a PII-400 and a geforce 2 mx. I don't even care what my 3dmark is.

...now if they could find a way to SUBTRACT points on the basis of how LOUD your box was, then we'd be talking...

TheMuffinMan · Post by **TheMuffinMan** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 3:02 pm

shunx wrote:Anyone tried the new 3dmark yet? It's quite demanding, I only got about 1200 with a Duron and GF4Ti. Now I feel like upgrading.

I got a 1076 with a Radeon 9000 and a 1700+...in a year or two, I'll score over 8000. For now, I'll settle with my battery backup upgrade.

ez2remember · Post by **ez2remember** » Sat Feb 15, 2003 5:22 pm

The only problem with newer 3D benchmarking is that they utilise nthe latest features found only on the latest graphics cards, so if you don't have it the results will stand poorly. You are penalised. Not fair you say, well life is a bit like that. I am sticking with 3Dmark2001SE until I have a Radeon9700 Pro AIW or something similiar..

DaShiv · Post by **DaShiv** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:13 am

4658 on the new 3dMark2003. P4 2.4, Radeon 9700 Pro w/ the Zalman heatsink. The new 3dMark scores seems to really disproportionately favor the Radeon 9500/9700 series, since I clearly do not get 4x as many frames as systems scoring in the 1000 range, for example. On the Mother Nature demo the FPS dropped as low as 9 at times...

Negative noise points for my system for: 3 Panaflo 1L's at 5V (two case fans and one CPU fan), Nexus 3000 PSU, and a WD 80G HD in a SmartDrive2002. The system is (just) barely audible from about 2 feet away in the middle of the night so it's certainly not exactly "silent" yet... but very tolerable. I've been sleeping in a bed 4ft away while the box runs Folding@Home at nights. Already accidentally turned the computer off twice now while trying to turn it on when I wake up in the mornings. Stupid power saving on the LCD...

ez2remember · Post by **ez2remember** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:16 am

DaShiv wrote:4658 on the new 3dMark2003. P4 2.4, Radeon 9700 Pro w/ the Zalman heatsink. The new 3dMark scores seems to really disproportionately favor the Radeon 9500/9700 series, since I clearly do not get 4x as many frames as systems scoring in the 1000 range, for example. On the Mother Nature demo the FPS dropped as low as 9 at times...

I would not say 4658 is not a bad score because 3DMark2003 is likely to be very demanding. As you saw from the previous post 1000+ on older cards is the norm.. I mean they could make the figures stand out big, but what is important is how it outperforms anything else and how the score is relative to other cards. Imagine on the new 3Dmark2003 it said you got 30,000 would that mean your card has suddenly become twice as fast, and older cards easily reach 15,000. Nope of course not..

So it only makes sense to compare benchmarking results with other cards.

DaShiv · Post by **DaShiv** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:14 pm

Well, anything 4000+ on 3dMark2003 is a very good score, of course--I meant that 3dMark2003 is pretty brutal with scoring non-Radeon 9700 (and GeForceFX) cards. I suppose it's because they're leaving some room for growth, but I'd imagine that it can be pretty demoralizing to see someone else get more than 4x of your score.

I've read quite a few comments on various hardware sites saying "damn, I need to upgrade now" even though, as Beyonder points out, it's pretty silly to upgrade because of a synthetic benchmark. Despite my 3dMark2003 score, I'm certainly not getting 4x of shunx's framerates. Even though the "marks" aren't supposed to correspond to framerates, I think the old 3dMark2001 SE scores modeled relative performance (framerate) differences on current games much more accurately than the 3dMark2003 scores do. Maybe that'll change once games like Doom3 come out.

3dMark2003 owned my 9700 though. I laughed out loud watching my framerates plummet during the tests, and that's at 10x7 with no AA/AF. So much for the latest and greatest.

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 5:25 pm

3dMark2003 owned my 9700 though. I laughed out loud watching my framerates plummet during the tests, and that's at 10x7 with no AA/AF. So much for the latest and greatest.

phew, I thought there was somthing wrong with my 4200 when it gave 1FPS(!) for a lot of the troll demo. That was in a quite high res, mind, but then on my TFT only the native 1280x1024 looks right.

Post by **Rusty075** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:01 pm

The reason that 3DMark03 seems to favor ATI 9x00 series cards is because it's its based on DirectX 9 primarily. If you're running an Nvidia card, even a Geforce4, you're still limited to DirectX8 specs. The FX is (was?) going to be Nvidia's DX9 compatible card.

3DMark03 measures how well your card will be performing on future games, not the ones available today. The graphics card industry is in a strange position right now, the cards have functionalities that no games support yet. It's a bit like owning a DVD player a year before they started selling DVD's in the stores.

As for my score....... 261

and that's fine with me.

jhh · Post by **jhh** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:30 pm

Have any of you heard the rumours that Nvidia drivers secretly optimise 3Dmark03 pixel shaders by swapping in their own versions?

Incidently, I can't finish the tests since some unknown program takes focus. No idea what, but then I only wanted it for the pretty graphics anyway. I don't think games are even taking full advantage of DX8 yet.

TheMuffinMan · Post by **TheMuffinMan** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:45 pm

jhh wrote: I don't think games are even taking full advantage of DX8 yet.

Morrowind: The Elder Scrolls is the only game where I can tell that it's taking full advantage of DX8. It uses Pixel Shaders on the water and in some other environmental objects. It looks great BTW.

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:40 pm

TheMuffinMan wrote:Morrowind: The Elder Scrolls is the only game where I can tell that it's taking full advantage of DX8. It uses Pixel Shaders on the water and in some other environmental objects. It looks great BTW.

Yeah the water in Morrowind is the only place where I remember seeing pixel shaders.

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Sun Feb 16, 2003 9:46 pm

Beyonder wrote:I won't even begin to point out the logical fallacies associated with upgrading your computer on the basis of a synthetic benchmark.

I have a PII-400 and a geforce 2 mx. I don't even care what my 3dmark is.

...now if they could find a way to SUBTRACT points on the basis of how LOUD your box was, then we'd be talking...

This benchmark is not the only thing that's made my computer feel slow, since I also am starting to get slower frame rates with newer games. Of course if you're not into the latest gaming then all of this is pretty stupid, I agree. (My box wouldn't lose too many points on being loud though!)

DaShiv · Post by **DaShiv** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 2:30 am

You might be right, Rusty075, about the DirectX 9 dependency of the test causing scores to be skewed lower on older cards, since the GeForceFX keeps up with the Radeon 9700 no problem: http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image ... 80X2wuZ2lm

We won't go into the noise aspect of the FX though.

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Mon Feb 17, 2003 5:55 am

oh man ive wanted to play morrowind for so long, how is it anyways?

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 12:09 am

GamingGod wrote:oh man ive wanted to play morrowind for so long, how is it anyways?

Very loose, very unguided, very long, very big. Nice music and scenaries.

I don't know anyone who actually finished the original game, yet it has two expansion packs.

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 5:21 am

Thank god, im getting sick of playing rpg's where your herded from place to place like cattle. I played Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 and they were fairly open and really fun, but there havent been many other good games like that. Oh and the fallout games were great too. Trust me Ill beat morrowind and find all the secrets ect without cheating, it might take me several months, but ill finish everything!

DaShiv · Post by **DaShiv** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:10 am

Actually the main quest for Morrowind isn't all *that* long. If you follow the main plot intently and become the Nevarine as soon as possible, I'd estimate that it takes about as long as a "standard" RPG. The thing is, the developers seem intent on throwing as many diversions as possible in the way to lure you off-course. Morrowind and the other Elder Scroll games really take the concept of "side quests" to a whole new level.

All in all, Morrowind is a dangerous game for the easily distracted.

I don't think it's possible to do everything with a single character, since many of the factions are at odds with each other--the Thieve's Guild and Fighter's Guild require you to kill the members of the other guild, the three Houses are mutually exclusive, etc. And there always seems to be another rock to look under in that world...

GamingGod · Post by **GamingGod** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:24 am

good, that way i can play it 2-3 times and always see new stuff. i love games like that

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 pm

DaShiv wrote:Actually the main quest for Morrowind isn't all *that* long. If you follow the main plot intently and become the Nevarine as soon as possible, I'd estimate that it takes about as long as a "standard" RPG.

So you actually finished the game? That's pretty cool. I think you're right that the game is very distrating, because in the end I just got confused by all the subquests that I forget, "what the heck was I supposed to do for the main quest anyway?"

TheMuffinMan · Post by **TheMuffinMan** » Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:50 pm

DaShiv wrote:Actually the main quest for Morrowind isn't all *that* long. If you follow the main plot intently and become the Nevarine as soon as possible, I'd estimate that it takes about as long as a "standard" RPG. The thing is, the developers seem intent on throwing as many diversions as possible in the way to lure you off-course. Morrowind and the other Elder Scroll games really take the concept of "side quests" to a whole new level.

All in all, Morrowind is a dangerous game for the easily distracted. I don't think it's possible to do everything with a single character, since many of the factions are at odds with each other--the Thieve's Guild and Fighter's Guild require you to kill the members of the other guild, the three Houses are mutually exclusive, etc. And there always seems to be another rock to look under in that world...

There was a main quest?! What was that all about?

I stocked up on $$$...then I'm kinda drifting, taking quests along the way.

Jiffylush · Post by **Jiffylush** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:10 pm

Morrowind was the reason I bought my 4600 and it was well worth it, great game.

I basically finished it, I became the Nevarine and killed dagoth-ur, but the game was not 'over' I was still running around. I think you are supposed to go back and kill the other god vivec to move things along.

And then of course there is always vampirism

Beyonder · Post by **Beyonder** » Wed Feb 19, 2003 9:01 pm

shunx wrote:
Beyonder wrote:I won't even begin to point out the logical fallacies associated with upgrading your computer on the basis of a synthetic benchmark.

I have a PII-400 and a geforce 2 mx. I don't even care what my 3dmark is.

...now if they could find a way to SUBTRACT points on the basis of how LOUD your box was, then we'd be talking...
This benchmark is not the only thing that's made my computer feel slow, since I also am starting to get slower frame rates with newer games. Of course if you're not into the latest gaming then all of this is pretty stupid, I agree. (My box wouldn't lose too many points on being loud though!)

Eh. I bet with a good video card, you could game pretty well on anything above a 1 ghz. Typically I turn off a lot of the eyecandy to get smooth framerates, and I find my internet connection (low ping) and mouse make a much bigger difference than a state of the art hairdrier video card in my system.

These benchmarks just give people the impression that their hardware is inadequate, when it's really not true. My brother still games with an Athlon 1.0 ghz chip and a Geforce2 GTS video card, and he schools me. He just turns off a lot of the eyecandy to get smooth framerates - doesn't really care for the looks all that much....

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:29 pm

Beyonder wrote:Eh. I bet with a good video card, you could game pretty well on anything above a 1 ghz. Typically I turn off a lot of the eyecandy to get smooth framerates, and I find my internet connection (low ping) and mouse make a much bigger difference than a state of the art hairdrier video card in my system.

These benchmarks just give people the impression that their hardware is inadequate, when it's really not true. My brother still games with an Athlon 1.0 ghz chip and a Geforce2 GTS video card, and he schools me. He just turns off a lot of the eyecandy to get smooth framerates - doesn't really care for the looks all that much....

3dmark is just a reference, but I can tell whether my computer is fast enough by running apps and games. There are no rights and wrongs when it comes to consumer preference. Maybe you don't care about high-end graphics that much, but some do. Many of my friends don't even play 3d computer games anymore, so there's no point for them to spend money on any PC stuff. To each his own.

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:30 pm

Jiffylush wrote:Morrowind was the reason I bought my 4600 and it was well worth it, great game.

I basically finished it, I became the Nevarine and killed dagoth-ur, but the game was not 'over' I was still running around. I think you are supposed to go back and kill the other god vivec to move things along.

And then of course there is always vampirism

Did you play Tribunal yet? I couldn't tell what's actually different in the game after the installation.

DaShiv · Post by **DaShiv** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:49 pm

I haven't gotten around to Tribunal yet myself, but according to several reviews the new plot for the expansion will begin with an assassination attempt the next time your character sleeps. Investigating it is supposed to open up the new travel destinations, etc.

shunx · Post by **shunx** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 10:02 pm

DaShiv wrote:I haven't gotten around to Tribunal yet myself, but according to several reviews the new plot for the expansion will begin with an assassination attempt the next time your character sleeps. Investigating it is supposed to open up the new travel destinations, etc.

I just put my char to sleep for 24 hours, but nothing happened!

Gandalf · Post by **Gandalf** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:33 am

Morrowind is a truly wonderful game. I'm waiting for my copy of Tribunal to arrive in the mail, it should be here tomorrow or so. Can hardly wait!

I finished the main quest as a vampire, it's quite a pain in the ass though!

As for 3dmark2003, I can't even run it. It bitches about my GeForce4MX cards and then just terminates. Lovely. Then again, I only get 60003dmarks with 2001SE.

3dmark03

3dmark03

Re: 3dmark03