3Dmark results

Samson

I have had the feeling for a while that my PC is not performing as well as it should, certain games perform poorly and considering my system spec. I don't believe they should.
Anyway, I downloaded and ran 3Dmark, the result I got was 7953.
Considering my system spec. (listed below) is this good/bad/average?

Pentium 4 2.4Ghz
Abit BE7 mobo
512MB PC2700 DDR CL2.5 RAM (2 x 256MB DIMMS)
Radeon 8500 AGP
WinXP home

Woden

Who makes your radeon? is a an LE version of the card?

Quigs Snr

Hi Samson,

Your old kit (Tbird 1200 - 100FSB, 512MB PC133 SDRAM), now has a Radeon 8500LE in it. It scores about 6750.

That said I do not think your score is incorrect. The radeon 8500 does not stretch much past 7500 no matter what system you put it in.

Samson

Originally posted by Dataisgod
Who makes your radeon? is a an LE version of the card?

It's the original 64MB ATI Radeon 8500, not the LE.

Woden

perhaps you computer is limited by the graphics card in some games? also 3D marks don't always translate to good game performance

heres some links i've found useful recently

http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2002q3/radeon-9000pro/index.x?pg=4

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1655&p=5

however this was even better showing how graphics card scale with processor speed.

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1608&p=6

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.html?i=1650&p=6

how this helps but i really think a bottleneck in your computer now is your graphics

Samson

The reason that I felt my kit was under-performing was because my previous kit (which Quigs Snr bought) seemed as quick when playing games (which is borne out by the 3Dmark results).
The only major component I kept was the graphics card.

Thanks for those links Dataisgod, it certainly appears that my card has flattened out performance-wise no matter what my processor speed is.

http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/video/roundups/2002/07/UT2003-CPU/image035.gif

I guess I'll have to consider buying a Radeon 9700PRO or a GeForce4 Ti4600.

Woden

i'd definitely wait a bit if you could those cards will drop major in price when the FX stuff is out a bit and radeon's new 9800 and 9900 hit the shops then it will be happy days and radeon 9700's for all

TacT

nono, hang on a minute, you should be getting better 3dmark scores than that.

bios settings/chipset drivers? latest gfx card driver?

KdjaCL

Umm i get 798 with a geforce 3 ti 500 does that mean i cant play Splinter Cell on 1024x 768 without a drop in slow down anymore??



Something is seriously wrong with that test how someone with a 8500 LE beats my G 3 ti 500 by over 6000 points.

There are others with All in Wonders getting beter scores than me.
LOL

kdjac

Stephen

He didn't say which version of 3dmark he was using... Could have been 2001SE ?

Samson

Originally posted by TacT
nono, hang on a minute, you should be getting better 3dmark scores than that.

bios settings/chipset drivers? latest gfx card driver?

I have an up to date graphics card driver installed.
Have checked my BIOS settings and cannot see anything obvious wrong.

What results do you think I should be getting?

Samson

Originally posted by Stephen
Could have been 2001SE ?

Yes.
Why, would it make a difference?

BKtje

cos theres a new one out which gives much lower scores. especially if ur using a nvidia based card.

Stephen

Yeah, 3DMark 2003 is very much biased in favour of ATI cards.

I don't know anything about radeon 8500 cards, but i'd suspect you should be getting more with that hardware. My xp1800 + Ti4200 setup gets just a whisker under 11,000 marks in 3dmark 2001SE.

Samson

Originally posted by Stephen
Yeah, 3DMark 2003 is very much biased in favour of ATI cards.

I don't know anything about radeon 8500 cards, but i'd suspect you should be getting more with that hardware. My xp1800 + Ti4200 setup gets just a whisker under 11,000 marks in 3dmark 2001SE.

So if I used 3Dmark 2003, I would get a different result, but someone using a GeForce based card would get the same result?
Which version of 3Dmark would give a more accurate reflection of system performance?

KdjaCL

Doom 3 demo tbh.

better idea of how good your system and card with that then 3dmark.


//me wonders about that 798

kdjac

Woden

i think the 2001se is better if the later one has a bias towards ati cards, with regards to the 11000 score the ti4200 could have something to do with it.

BKtje

actually its biased towards ati cards as ati cards can handle it better according to tomshardware explanation thingy i read. (or was it anandtech.com) I'll have a look for it.

To say its biased towards ATI is a bit mis informed imo. Its just that it appears that ATI's cards can run unoptimised code much better and that nvidia need to have the code optimised in order for their cards to perform.
You decide which is better but remember that most games do have optimised code for nvidia cards.

So i guess its biased towards all cards that are able to run standard unoptimised code.

( this is why with a newer driver the nvidia cards do much better as it handle the unoptimised code much better or something)

Check this article if interested: http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/20030219/index.html

BKtje

2001se analyses directx8 and 8.1 (i think) systems . (ie current games)

while 2003 analyses directx9 systems with the view for future games and how the system might perform for them. (games to be released later this year)

You decide which to use. People without an directx9 gfx card are obviously gonna take a serious hit.

(radeons have used part of a directx9 feature or something which is also why their cards do well)

Anyone please feel free to point out any errors. ALl i know i learnt from that tomshardware article and another which i cant remember

KdjaCL

I read this on Blues News.

Kinda long but very informative.

http://tech-report.com/etc/2003q1/3dmark03-story/index.x?pg=1

kdjac

Samson

One thing is certain, though - 3DMark 2003 is aimed at testing the performance of current and future graphics cards in games that will arrive somewhere between 6-12 months down the line. For current games and hardware, its predecessor, 3DMark 2001 SE, remains the test of choice and retains its validity.

From:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/column/20030219/3dmark2003-05.html

Samson

Originally posted by Dataisgod
i'd definitely wait a bit if you could those cards will drop major in price when the FX stuff is out a bit and radeon's new 9800 and 9900 hit the shops then it will be happy days and radeon 9700's for all

I don't think the price on a 9700PRO is too bad at the moment.
Komplett have two coming into stock soon at €376.25 for the Crucial and €383.03 for the Sapphire.
As I would buy them through work, I can get them sans VAT, therefore cost to me would be €310.95 and €316.55 respectively.

http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=27820&t=278&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=24&GrpID=1&s=pl
http://www.komplett.ie/k/ki.asp?action=info&p=28365&t=278&l=2&AvdID=1&CatID=24&GrpID=1&s=pl

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.