So what's your 3DMARK score?

[Elvis2]

7336

 

[cw42]

3dmark is a waste of time. Tainted benchmarks, along with ATI withdrawing their drivers.

But since you ask...
03 - 6400
P4 2.4b, 9800Pro 256mb @ XT speeds

 

[Avalon]

5200 or so with my "9700 pro". One of my friends just walked into Walmart an hour ago and bought an FX 5200 256mb card for $128. I wanted to cry. He could have gotten a 9600 pro or 9800 SE for less than that.

 

[Don66]

12,000+
The system in my sig.
CPU isn't O/Ced

 

[Chopstick217]

11581

 

[1ManArmY]

6150

 

[JBT]

11158 stock GT, 12665 with OCed GT

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Marsumane

Originally posted by: boomdart
like 1250 or something....in the newest one, '03/'04 whatever was newest about 2 months ago...I'm far too lazy to check it out

xp2600, fx5200 256mb, 256mb 3200 ram, 123gb desktar, nforce2 motherboard, sb audigy

Just to show again how bad the 5200 is, I score around 1000 to 1100 w/ a gf3ti200 oced on my system. considering the 5200 is a dx9 card, im sure its obvious why many people dispise the 5200

Hmm, I get somewhere between 1000 and 1100 too, with an AMD XP2000 (166 x 10.0), and a 64MB Radeon 9200 AGP 8x, on a KT400 mobo with 768MB of PC2700. That's something that I don't quite understand, how the FX5200 seems to do a little bit better in synthetic benchmarks, but the 9200 seems to do better in actual game benches. (Some, not all.) I think that the FX5200 has a higher geometry bandwidth than the 9200, that might be one reason. Seems to be about 20M vertex/sec limit on the 9200, and I think the FX5200 can push nearly 60M vertex/sec., even if their memory bandwidth and clocks are comparable.

The 9200 seems to have slightly better memory-efficiency than the FX5200, so it pulls ahead when enabling things like AA/AF, but it also slows down the frame rates so much that doing so is an absolutely pointless endeavour for either card. So is running at a high resolution (1600x1200).

The last point of comparison between an FX5200 and a Radeon 9200, specifically for 3DMark03, is of course, the ATI is only DX8.1, whilest the NV is DX9, so it can run more of the tests.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
3769 with:

AXP 1800+
Radeon 9600pro
786MB Ram

Wow, that's quite a difference to my slightly-under-1100 score, with the only major difference in hardware being swapping out the Radeon 9200 128-bit for a 9600Pro. Interesting jump, thanks for the reference point.

 

[HaloEighty8]

13015 3DMarks

With system listed in my sig.

 

[Cawchy87]

i think around 3500-3800

 

[althes]

6875 using pcx5300 pci express card

 

[OdiN]

~14200

6800 Ultra is nice

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: MoobyTheGoldenCalf
3769 with:

AXP 1800+
Radeon 9600pro
786MB Ram

Wow, that's quite a difference to my slightly-under-1100 score, with the only major difference in hardware being swapping out the Radeon 9200 128-bit for a 9600Pro. Interesting jump, thanks for the reference point.

The 9200 has no DX9 support, while the 9600 Pro does; not having DX9 support murders your 3dmark 2k3 score because you get an automatic '0' in the DX9 games.

 

[kyparrish]

9800pro (435mhz/800mhz): ~6500
(vga silenced/volt-modded/ram-sinked)

mobile barton @ 2.2ghz

 

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Marsumane

Originally posted by: boomdart
like 1250 or something....in the newest one, '03/'04 whatever was newest about 2 months ago...I'm far too lazy to check it out

xp2600, fx5200 256mb, 256mb 3200 ram, 123gb desktar, nforce2 motherboard, sb audigy

Just to show again how bad the 5200 is, I score around 1000 to 1100 w/ a gf3ti200 oced on my system. considering the 5200 is a dx9 card, im sure its obvious why many people dispise the 5200

Hmm, I get somewhere between 1000 and 1100 too, with an AMD XP2000 (166 x 10.0), and a 64MB Radeon 9200 AGP 8x, on a KT400 mobo with 768MB of PC2700. That's something that I don't quite understand, how the FX5200 seems to do a little bit better in synthetic benchmarks, but the 9200 seems to do better in actual game benches. (Some, not all.) I think that the FX5200 has a higher geometry bandwidth than the 9200, that might be one reason. Seems to be about 20M vertex/sec limit on the 9200, and I think the FX5200 can push nearly 60M vertex/sec., even if their memory bandwidth and clocks are comparable.

The 9200 seems to have slightly better memory-efficiency than the FX5200, so it pulls ahead when enabling things like AA/AF, but it also slows down the frame rates so much that doing so is an absolutely pointless endeavour for either card. So is running at a high resolution (1600x1200).

The last point of comparison between an FX5200 and a Radeon 9200, specifically for 3DMark03, is of course, the ATI is only DX8.1, whilest the NV is DX9, so it can run more of the tests.

I am using ATI Radeon 9200 128MB 3Dmark03 score was 1211 and 6961 on 3Dmark2001 SE

 

[dheffer]

check my sig i think its 7000 or close to that
9800 pro 128mb --> 9800xt flash
512mb ram
a64 2800+ @ 1.95ghz

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Rottie
I am using ATI Radeon 9200 128MB 3Dmark03 score was 1211 and 6961 on 3Dmark2001 SE

Those numbers are bit higher than mine. Do you have the card OCed (stock is 250/200), and what kind of rig do you have powering it? (Since 3DMark is also somewhat CPU-dependent as well.)

 

[FiberoN]

late 8000's early 9000's cant remember correctly.

 

[vapidtransit]

My score is about 6300, and I find that to be very disappointing

I'm fairly new to video tweaking/optimization so I'm not really sure where to start looking for places to improve.

Its a new system so the install of XP pro is very fresh

A64 3000+
Geforce 6800 GT 256mb ddr3 (latest drivers)
120GB sata
1 GB ram
XP pro, fully updated
DX 9.0b

Edit: everything is stock, no OC

Previous video card was a geforce2 that I pulled out of my old rig. I've had it in there since April since I didn't want to spring for a 9800 when I knew the new nvidia/ati chipsets would be available in may/june (too bad they weren't!)

I don't *think* there's a driver problem here so I haven't run any driver cleaners

I haven't run Far Cry yet, but I will today.

 

[zodder]

I only ran 3DMark03 right after I installed my 6800 GT, so without any tweaking, I got 11,111.

 

9081

 

[rbV5]

9790



Edit: dwell, wondering why the heck is your CPU score so much lower than mine?

 

Originally posted by: rbV5
9790

Damn you. You have the same system as me, how did you squeeze out the extra 709 points What's your video clocks at?

EDIT: That's bizarre. I have to look into that because looking at my previous test I got a 707 CPU score. Probably some Windows service woke up during the test.... grrrr.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: rbV5
9790

Damn you. You have the same system as me, how did you squeeze out the extra 709 points What's your video clocks at?

It was at 380/850 when I was benching it to see how she plays out...very well for a sub $300 card as it turns out. The CPU score is odd though, I have a mobile barton (2400+) at 190x12...everything seems very similar between our rigs, except you have an extra 256MB ram, and a slightly higher FSB.