3D Mark Scores

[n0strax]

I guess my previous topic I made dissappeard or got deleted, or at least I can't find it. If you find it tell me and i'll delete this one.

I got a new gfx card and sound card and here are my scores:

Before
-----------
3d mark 2001: 1,308

3d mark 03: 74

After
------------
3d mark 2001: 8,972

3d mark 03: 4,094

Yay!!!

[Master Bob]

why man why get the GFX?? and was it the ultra?

[Madblunted]

Wow your one lucky dude, I want to get that or a 9800 or 9700 in the distant future.. I was told by a co worker that ati was having problems w/ the vid card melting (soldering) themselves to the Motherboard

[[GF]Burke]

12K

(on 2001)

lol, not the new one..

[n0strax]

why man why get the GFX?? and was it the ultra?

No I said "gfx" as an abbreviation for graphics, cause i'm too lazy to spell out real words, lol

[Madblunted]

oh i was thinking geforce fx too...

[n0strax]

no, i already have a vacuum, don't need another one.

[shades307]

With the new comp i just recently built:

3DMark03 = 4575 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=494247)

3DMark01SE = 13944 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6266388)

My old comp that is currently sitting in corner:

3DMark01SE = 5825 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2866402)

All of these scores are done with default benchmark, absolutely no overclocking, whatever drivers i happen to have installed so probably newer ones available, and no tweaking. I know that there is room for improvement, but I'm just plain lazy and am happy with things how they are. As long as games run fine, I see no need to play with anything.

[Master Bob]

oh in that case nostrax ur scores are PRETTy good.

[apeter]

heh, no he doesn't have the FX, that's too much buck for the bang, he got the 9700PRO

[capdavis]

3DMark01SE - 8430

[Master Bob]

Well said apeter, well said.heh, no he doesn't have the FX, that's too much buck for the bang, he got the 9700PRO U are being sarcastic as in he got a 9700 Pro, right?

[apeter]

lol, he has an ati 9700 pro, and I said the FX costs too much (too much buck) for what it's worth (for the bang) just a little play on words on my part :P

[Master Bob]

the Fx does cost too much, especailly since the 9700 Pro, released 5 months or so before it is the equivalent of the FX.

[shades307]

I got my 9700 Pro for the hefty price of $244!

Did i get a good deal?

[n0strax]

mine was $299, so yeah

[neb1211]

9700 pro= 225 bucks
FX Ultra= 260 bucks
Me= Geforce FX Ultra

[Madblunted]

9700 pro= 225 bucks
FX Ultra= 260 bucks
Me= Geforce FX Ultra

same here i am going to get that card too.. the GeForce FX ultra..

[powerhausegamer]

:twisted:



9700 pro
3d mark 2001:9231
i am not joke'n 1600x1200 2aa pure hardware

3d mark 03:? just got it today havent tested it yet

[n0strax]

I got updated scores:

Before:
------------
3d mark 2001: 8,972

3d mark 03: 4,094

After:
------------
3d mark 2001: 11,094

3d mark 03: 4,260

[Master Bob]

what did you do?

[n0strax]

For some reason my cpu was underclocked at 1.1ghz when it's supposed to be at 1.53ghz, I had the low performance settings loaded in the bios and didn't even know it, but i got it fixed. Makes me wonder what the scores would be if I actually had a good cpu

[imported_Yoshi]

When it comes to speed, NVIDIA's GeForceFX 5900 Ultra is currently unbeatable, at least in 4xFSAA.
-Tomshardware

Toms Hardware 5900Ultra review (http://www6.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030512/index.html)
Check it out.

[/url]

[sixshot666]

3DMark2001se=13535
3dmark2003 330=1658
winxp sp1 directx 9.0
epox 8rda+
xp2500 barton(11*200)
1gb pc3500
80gb hdd 7200rpm
GeForce4 Ti 4200(305 core/525 memory) 128mb
for some reason pcmark2002 reads directx 8.1