Good 3D Mark score ?

[Mayhem1869]

I was wondering what a good 3D mark score would be, mine got a 5610.

 

[Deeko]

d00d, you aren't l33t like me. my Gateway Essential with integrated video gets a l33t 20000. w0000t!

btw, I hate 3DMark. There is no such thing as a good score. Any card can get anything at any given time.

 

[WetWilly]

20000? Hey Deeko, I think you've got four zeros too many on that score

 

[Zipperhead]

LOL

 

[RobsTV]

Sorry, but Deeko is dead wrong. Why he continues to slam threads like this (instead of simply ignoring them), is beyond me. Most "Techs" here agree. 3DMark is a great "TOOL"

Your score should be within 95% every time when comparing to a 100% indentical system.
Since you are scoring 5610, if other identical Athlon 600's and CL GeForce 2 GTS are scoring more than say 6000, then it looks like you could do some tweaking to "Optimize" your system. That is basically what 3DMark 2000 is good for, Optimizing your system. Sure it may run great at 80% of it's true potential, but so does a CPU. Just like video cards, most would not be able to tell the difference in gaming between a 800MHz or a 1GHz CPU, so the arguement that if your games run good, don't worry about your 3DMark scores doesn't hold true. Would you run a CPU at 800Mhz, when most others are running the same exact CPU at 1GHz????

The people that dislike 3DMark 2000 do not understand it, and think there is something wrong with it, since their totally different high end system scores lower 3DMarks than a mid range system. It only works excellently when comparing identical systems, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[bluemax]

It's a decent utility, but there's got to be something more accurate something so "geforce-biased". Something that **really** puts all aspects of a computer through its paces. Video, CPU, audio, hard drive.... EVERYTHING.

Admittedly, it's called 3D Mark for a reason. It's a measure of CPU/Video card performance, although a crappy video card + good CPU or a good video card + slow CPU can give the same score - not the best indicator of performance.

 

[ahfung]

RobosTV, there is something Deeko will never understand. His hatred on 3dmark is just as rigid as his religion.

Dave3D said it the best, 3dmark is only for someone with brain to interpret the result. It is not for someone who knows nothing about how 3d accelerators work and especially with personal hatred in mind.

 

[han888]

just wonder how much nvidia pay the madonion, if madoninion really fair , they must make the 3dmark for glide not only for t&l(that mus be something wrong here i think if the madonion dont release the 3dmark weight on t&l geforce card will be in trouble, just for example here: how come the geforce sdr will have a higher mark then voodoo5, i am not hate 3dmark, because i have a geforce card too,

 

[han888]

sorry double post, just too put some opinion here, my conclusion just we have been fool by nvidia marketing, the promote their product with that way, just think the different between geforce ddr with gts2, in overall when we play the game, we can not notices any different, but in 3d mark it's show a huge different, just remember software make by programmer, they can make the software what they like ex: if they want to cheat us who know?? i just run final reality bench, and my voodoo5 beat the gts in overall score

 

[ahfung]

"just for example here: how come the geforce sdr will have a higher mark then voodoo5, i am not hate 3dmark, because i have a geforce card too,"

Plain and simple, it is because under the default resolution at 1024x768x16, memory bandwidth isn't stressed that's why cards like GF SDR and MX can beat V5.

One more thing to add, if nvidia DID pay madonion, the default 3d mark would run at 1024x768x32. Then in 1999 all Voodoo users would be fvcked up and the scores would be really really ugly for TNT/G400/Savage3D/Savage4.

 

[han888]

One more thing to add, if nvidia DID pay madonion, the default 3d mark would run at 1024x768x32. Then in 1999 all Voodoo users would be fvcked up and the scores would be really really ugly for TNT/G400/Savage3D/Savage4.

who know after year the madonion just get paid by nvidia?

 

[pidge]

I think that is nonsense. Didn't AMD tweak 3D Mark to get better scores on their chips? Or was it ATI? I forget. Anyways, I agree with RobsTV. 3D Mark is good for comparing alike systems and helping you optimize your system. It is not a good measure of performance when comparing two difference systems.

 

[Deeko]

Robstv, if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, you are the one that is "dead wrong". Riddle me this, how many good benchmarks do you know that can vary by 1000 points with no changes to the system? One time I ran it, I thought I must have left FSAA enabled, nope, 3DMark is just inconsistant. I fired up Q3 to see if everything was scoring low, nope, I got the same as always. Fired up UT(ok it's not great for this purpose), just to check if maybe something was wrong with D3D. Nope. This happened on two other peoples' systems too. And people are always posting abnormally low scores here, when everything else is fine. I don't ignore threads like this because people get so upset when their 3DMark score is low, when everything else is ok, for no reason. I'm educating the masses. If you think I don't understand 3DMark, you are wrong. I know that you can't compare 3DMark scores to other systems, I have been stressing that for a long time now. If you are one of the ones that 3DMark will be consistant for you, then you can use it to guage checks on your own system, but even comparing to a completely identical system can throw things off. I have no "personal hatred", as ahfung put it, towards 3DMark. I just think that too many people consider it to be a all-comprehensive-godly benchmark, when in reality it isn't. No single benchmark is best. You have to use a combination of benchmarks, from varius APIs, to gauge system performance. But if you want a single benchmark to do everything for you, you won't find it, but I honestly think Q3 is a better choice than 3DMark. The only thing I consider 3DMark to be great it is stability testing.

 

[pidge]

I usually turn off everything that I don't need to run in the background before running a 3D Mark benchmark and I never have any problems. Although I really don't care about the score so much. I wonder when they are going to release one for DX8 and P4's.

 

[Deeko]

I'm actually kinda anticipating 3DMark 2001, maybe it will fix the inconsistances between systems and whatnot in 2000.

 

[RobsTV]

Deeko wrote in part ""Riddle me this, how many good benchmarks do you know that can vary by 1000 points with no changes to the system? One time I ran it, I thought I must have left FSAA enabled, nope, 3DMark is just inconsistant. I fired up Q3 to see if everything was scoring low, nope,""

Sorry, but if scores of identical systems are off by 1000 points, then there "IS SOMETHING" wrong or different between the 2. Might be a simple bios setting. Might be memory. But something is different, as that is NOT normal. If you don't want to correct it, don't run the test. It's up to you. But to say these results of 1000 points off is typical is not correct. 5% off is about what you can expect. Run the test a few times in a row, and it should actually score within 2%, which is normal for any benchmark.

Also, so 3DMark (which uses D3D) didn't run like you expected, and you then ran Q3 to see what's up???? Since when does Q3 use D3D?? This is a perfect example of not using correct testing methods. As I keep saying, compare the same things!!!! Comparing a Q3 benchmark (OpenGL) scoring to 3DMark (D3D) scoring, is like comparing ATI to nVidia scores in 3DMark. Can't be done. OpenGL can be at 100%, while your D3D setup can be at 70%. Using UT as a video benchmark, or system checker is also useless, as it's results depend more on the CPU than anything. Plus there is the false UT results that users with 3dfx cards think they are getting, when using Glide and 32bit. But, back to the root. If your system scores vary from other identical systems by more than 300 or 400, or about 5%, then there is some tweaking that could be done. This program is free, and small, unlike the other benchmarking programs you used.

 

[Deeko]

If my 3DMark was 1/4 if what it should be, I'm pretty sure that UT will show at least SOME variation in it's score, be it CPU dependent or not. I also play Madden 2001 almost everyday, and while it has no timedemo, it doesn't run at high framerates so you can notice differences. And there was none. There is nothing wrong with my system. There is something wrong with the program.

EDIT: I can't read.

 

[ahfung]

"There is nothing wrong with my system. There is something wrong with the program."

Obivously the fault either comes from your card which doesn't have integrated T&L engine or the fact that 3D Mark integrates with high polygon/lighting tests.

Of course you can keep saying there is nothing wrong with the lack of integrated T&L engine, but we all know it DOES make a difference indeed and it starts to make a big difference now.

 

[Deeko]

HAHAHHAHA now you're putting words in my mouth dude. I've never said that, and I never would say that, as it is totally false. We're beating a dead horse here. I'm not gonna change my mind, and you're not gonna change yours.

 

[ahfung]

I think I don't have to go too explicitly as long as you know what I'm talking about. It'd be fine.

I respect you.

 

[Mayhem1869]

So, now that we have all of our bickering out of the way, does anyone has a score froma comparable system to share with me ?

 

[RobsTV]

No score, as we just like to bicker here.

You score looks "VERY" good for an Athlon 600 classic with a GF2 GTS.
But, that is only if you ran the default benchmark.

 

[Mayhem1869]

Thanks, that's all I really wanted.

 

[Deeko]

Refer to my first post man....your system can't stand up to my Gateway Essential.

 

[Odin30]

Sorry had to keep this going.
I have to agree with deeko. I have run 3dmark about 30 times since i built my rig and everytime i get different numbers even though many times i havent changed anything. Most of the time im around 7000 but ive gone from 7489 to 6600. Usually it only fluctuates 1 to 200 marks but still its kind of crappy when you start at 7489 then can never get there again even though you upped ram speed cpu speed and teaked many other things.
Just my 2 cents