Apparently, each of the modules of 3DMark2000 are under 64Mb, so more memory than that shouldn't increase performance if it wasn't paging to the hard drive before the upgrade-- which your numbers seem to suggest would be the case.
Generally, RAM upgrades only increase performance in situations where your computer would be paging to the HD without the upgrade.
Your scores are about right for a Celery. The only this worse is a K6-2. I was running a K6-2 400, 128MB PC100, and TNT2U and only managed 1220. The Celeron is definitely holding you back as to higer 3DMark 2000 scores.
Originally posted by Nuts4GTS: Your scores are about right for a Celery. The only this worse is a K6-2. I was running a K6-2 400, 128MB PC100, and TNT2U and only managed 1220. The Celeron is definitely holding you back as to higer 3DMark 2000 scores.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. When I was running a Celeron 464 with a GeForce DDR and 64Mb... I got over 3800 3DMarks.
It's definitely the Viper that's holding him back... not the RAM or the celly. Don't forget that 3DMark2000 makes heavy usage of T&L, which the TNT2s don't have. If he were to just get a GeForce DDR or a GTS and drop into that system, he should easily get over 4000 3DMarks!
Yes....that is true. 3DMark 2K is extremely lop-sided in favor of GeForce based cards. I am not questioning that! I concur that RAM is not the issue. I was merely trying to state that based on his specs, those scores were pretty average. Either and upgrade to CPU or Video will yield much higher results. Upgrading to say a PIII 600E would more than double the score even with the Viper V770. Unfortunately, we can't all afford the latest and greatest!
I would think you could get a better score than what you are getting. Try increasing your ram settings to fast or high or 2-2-2 or what ever your board uses. I'm not to famaliar with the Celerons, but didn't some of them not have any L2 Cache? This was a major performance hit was it not. My K6-3 setup was scoring 1773 on standard bench.