3DMark 2003

[plonk420]

*faints*

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

god, it wrecked my GF4Ti

[buba king]

got 3977 points!! Go ATI!

[wmansir]

I installed the new CAT 3.1s, DX9, 3DMark2k3 and all it does is tell me that my ATI 8500 doesn't support Stencil buffer and can't run any tests. Of course that's wrong. Hell, the first test only requires DX7 and the 8500 is a DX8.1 part.

It doesn't matter much because I hear it's like a slideshow on anything but 9500/9700 or GFX.

[gabest]

crashed after the second cpu test :o

[CrazyPortuguese]

In the second cpu test I got about 1-2fps 1660marks with a Ti4200 and a XP 2000+, usualy I get 13000 marks with 3dmark2001.

[Boulder]

My friend just got over 10000 points in the 2001 version and was celebrating this milestone. Imagine his face when he sees the scores with this one:D

[plonk420]

at least it's purdy =]

GF4Ti4200, AXP 1800, 19" flat screen Viewsonic P95f+b, 50+ gigs of music vids... ahhh life is good

oh yeah, 14XX in 3DMark03 hehe

[theReal]

Haven't d/l'ed it yet because it's 117MB and my DSL is limited to 2GB/month. Also I don't think I'm going to make a lot of points with my Radeon 7500. I mean I do get 5840 points in 2001 SE with no major tweaks, just the normal drivers - and that is without nature test - but I think the new 3DMark is so focussed on Radeon 9700 that my card won't even run half of the tests.
Since 3DMark 2001, this benchmark has become more of a hyping tool for new graphics hardware than a real benchmark. The games released since then haven't even been using DX8 HW acceleration too much (which means the Radeon 7500 is still able to display everything just fine) but Futuremark and ATI want to tell you that you're totally out when you don't have DX9 HW acceleration...

btw how is the soundtrack? In 3DMark 2000, the soundtrack was bombastic and so was the demo. 3DMark 2001 was very disappointing in that aspect, the soundtrack was just ok and the demo was rather lame...

[CrazyPortuguese]

Well my friend with a MX440 and XP 1800+ wasnt able to run the test it aborted in the second test, now I think I know why if I got 1-2fps in some parts of the benchmark he would get under 1 maybe thats why it aborted, maybe the same would happen to u.

[theReal]

I've been running 3DMark 2001 SE on my dad's computer recently (Athlon 1000@1060, 384MB SDRAM @ 141MHz, Matrox Millenium G200 Graphics Card - you see it's my old computer with an even older Graphics card :) ) It got 345 points with default settings and 1066 points with 640x480 16 bit, lol :D

What struck me was that every test was labelled to be running with full software acceleration (I think the Millennium G200 is still a DX5 card...), but of course it didn't run nature test because it had no hardware acceleration. Why can't nature test be seen with sofware acceleration? Well, only because they wanted you to buy a GF4 or Radeon 8500 card (and I guess many people bought a new card only to see nature test running...)

Now it's the same with DX9 HW acceleration. There's no game that needs it, so the expensive Radeon 9700 and Geforce FX sell badly. So ATI and NVidia decided they need a new 3DMark now to convince people of buying their new products :rolleyes:

[CrazyPortuguese]

:) I would love to know the score of you card with 3dmark2003 :)
-10000 marks :)
Now seriosly speaking the strange thing is that the minimum requirements are a 32MB card I doubt that anything under radeon 8500 is able to run the tests (exept the first)

[Boulder]

Originally posted by theReal
Why can't nature test be seen with sofware acceleration? Well, only because they wanted you to buy a GF4 or Radeon 8500 card (and I guess many people bought a new card only to see nature test running...)


The test can't at least be seen on my 8500LE. I got 1088 points, I'm not oc'ing the card at the moment. It was hilarious to notice that the second and third tests gave me 1..5fps on average:D

The good thing about 3DMark is that you'll get a very good way to test if anything's wrong with your machine. You can easily check what range of points you should get with your setup. I know a lot of people who hadn't installed their chipset AGP drivers and this was found out by running the test and comparing the results.

[theReal]

The test can't at least be seen on my 8500LE. I got 1088 points, I'm not oc'ing the card at the moment. I was referring to the "Nature Test" in 3DMark 2001 - you should be able to see it with a Radeon 8500.
I don't know anything about the new 3DMark 2003 tests, but I guess my Radeon 7500 will run even less tests than your card...

[The Edge]

While I was fooling around with the latest and greatest from FutureMark, I stumbled upon a bug which can really open the gates of cheating if it isn't fixed pronto. Here's the steps to reproduce it :

1) Set your 3D card at default clock with your favourite overclocking utility
2) Open 3D Mark 2003
3) Start benchmarking, then press Escape so that benchmarking can't finish.
4) Now open your favourite 3D card overclocker again and overclock it like there's no tomorrow
5) Benchmark again, but this time let the benchmark finish
6) Publish your score to the Online Browser for the world to see.

If you look carefully, you will see that the 3D Card clock that is being reported is the one you had when you started 3D Mark, and not the actual overclocked values that you used. So it seems that 3D Mark checks for the clock when it starts and NOT when it benchmarks! As you can easily realize, unless this flaw is patched, there is no way you can tell whether the scores you see are coming from overclocked cards or not. I guess FutureMark should move swiftly now and patch this version ASAP.

Source:neowin.net (http://www.neowin.net)

Edge