Graphics 3D Mark 2003 Scores

Lol, this is probably one of the most depressed threads on these boards . A lot of use of the and smilies .

Anyway I got 1140 with Quincunx anti-aliasing and 1445 with no anti-aliasing. So who's going to be first to break the 10k barrier this time .

~~~~~~~~~~~
System:
XP 1900+
Geforce4 Ti 4400
512Mb 2700 DDR

 

jojojojo... 209... nice joke

P4 1.8 ghz
512 DDR
Geforce 2 GTS/PRO 64mb DDR

 

79 3DMarks

Specs:

AMD Thunderbird 1.33GHz
LEX BN780 PRO mobo (cheap)
512MB PC133
GeForce2 MX200 with 32MB RAM
LG Flatron 795FT (monitor)

 

gf3ti200 @ 250/550 (4600 on rma!)

1800 xp stock 1148
1800 xp 141 x 12.5 1160

so overclocking was virtually pointless, hmm is that the case with real games er no I don't think so!

very repetitive to watch and having to get the pro version to simply run one test at a time to save sitting through whole thing for each tweak you make is just poxy!

plus can't get onto the ORB either must be well swamped.

 

with radeon at 350 clock and 335 ram, i got 4973

 

I got a whopping 1778 with my rig and I was pretty disappointed.
It does not seem nearly as comprehensive as 2001SE.
Heres the project url
http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10&projectId=3029

 

hi guys, just read some of your post, most ppl get low marks in 3D Mark 2003. and some of you are saying that you will get a new cpu and think the 3D Mark will increase.

That's wrong! 3D Mark 2003 admit the other day saying that 3D Mark 2003 is now mainly depends on graphics card rather than the cpu itself, graphics card plays it all.

and ATi 9500 and above are the only ones that is directx 9 itself, that's why they get better 3D Mark than those GF Ti, lol

i got 2834 with my ATi 9500 Pro

ppl should download drivers, and ur marks will increase, or should try to oc ur graphics card.

 

What is annoying is the people saying how crap their system is after getting a bad 3D 2003 score. That kind of attitude will only make gfx companies strive to optimise their cards with this benchmark, which isn't even a real game engine, and probably a lot worse at benchmarking real world game performance than any 3D mark released before it. Real games will suffer with gfx performance and quality, and the drivers will suffer as well. Ignore it, it's a poor benchmark.

 

191 on Xev

 

Think of it this way
3D Mark 2003
Was your card designed in 2003?
Probably not.
2003 was designed for cards like the Radeon 9700 PRO and Geforce FX, not the Radeon 9500s or Geforce 4 Ti 4200s a lot of people have.

 

TBH this benchmark is rather skewed, 3dmark2001 was considered something of a benchmark for how well a system runs games (though obviously not as good for that as real benchmarks or time demos within a game ), but 2k3 takes the biscuit somewhat.

Take something like a 1Ghz Athlon with a Radeon 9500 Pro, and a 2.8Ghz P4 with a Ti4600...the Ti4600s system comprehensively whoops the other in any game you can buy now, yet gets caned in 3dmark2k3 by the system, solely because of the video card, which wouldn't happen at all in the real world.

Now, this makes it somewhat useless IMHO as a gaming benchmark, and even as a direct x 9 benchmark (though saying that most of the test is not dx 9 IIRC) it is rather pointless at this time since there are only about 4 fully featured Dirext X 9 cards one can buy! In time I am sure it will mature as a benchmark, as more DX9 featured games come out and more DX9 hardware features are part of newer cards specs, but atm, erm, I would put even less weight behind it than I usually would with synthetic benchmarks.

Myself, I haven't even run it - direct x 9.0 (which I found out it needs to run, having downloaded it) is still not stable enough for what I want to do, and I'd rather stick with dx 8.1 and have a useable and stable system than one I'd get an astoundingly slow benchmark score that bares little resemblance to actually gaming performance at this time

My 2p

 

it will be very interesting to see what the Geforce FX gets on 2003!

I think the new release of 3dmark has made most people think that they have a crappy graphics card when that isnt the case at all. All the gf4 (probably) will play all the new releases of games and it doesnt really prompt an upgrade..........yet.

But one thing that does make me want to get a new card is the sight of not supported in 3dmark When i had me Voodoo 5500 i got this a lot on 2001 and why i upgraded eventually to a ti4200. However i would feel much more satisfied able to use all benches in 3dmark I think the only thing that 3d mark shows is how quickly the graphics card industry moves and that the geforce 4s may soon become obsolete

Ill just stay here with my 2137

 

Highest GFfx score on the ORB is 2337
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=118197

 

I got 1636 with the following specs:

Win 2000 Pro with DX 9.0
AMD Athlon 2200XP+ 1.8 GHz
256 MB Samsung DDR PC2700
Soyo KT333 Dragon Ultra
Gainward GeForce 3 Ti 4600 128 MB

Must say I'm not so happy with this score since it's a fairly new system. So if anyone know how to improve this score plz post a msg or PM me. Thnx in advance. Although I see most of u guys with similar system specs got the same score (almost) as I got. Still there are some killer scores here like 4000 with not so much more powerful system that I got. WTH did u guys do ?? ??

And no I'm not saying that my system is a killer.

 

change your video card...

the system is not influenciating the test... it's all on the video.

 

1550.

ti4200 (128mb) gainward 8x.
256mb ddr ram (****ty ddr though....)
xp2000

 

845
and i still love my 9000 pro

wheres the friggin uninstall button....stupid program....

 

1226 First run with everything at default speeds

1Ghz AMD Athlon
256Mb Crucial PC2700
MSI KT4 Ultra
64Mb Leadtek Geforce 4 Ti4200
Soundblaster Live 1024

 

Well, this would be an awesome benchmark to compare video cards (But right now it's looking more like comparing the Radeon 9700 to the Radeon 9700 PRO )

 

168 with a gf 2mx400 stock just wait till i get my radeon 9700 pro