Well Mad Onion has the revised 3DMark 2001 out. This is the Second Edition version. mostly just bug fixes, but I think there is a new test. My GeForce2 GTS does not support it, but it now has a second Pixel Shader test called Advance Pixel Shader. I might just have missed it on the older version, but if not this might support the duel pixel shader on the GeForce4. Mad Onion always likes nVidia and loves to make sure they support all of their new features.
Scores seem about the samne as befor. I cant wait for my GeForce4 Ti 4200 (or better). I am waiting for my Federal tax returns and am getting $3000. I just did my State Taxes and I am getting another $300. I also get bonus checks at work in the Spring and Fall and my Spring bonus should be about $600 (fall is about 2-3 times as much). I think a new monitor is definately in order for me this year too.
AMD Phenom II x4 945 3Ghz | ASUS M4A77TD | 2X WD 1TB SATA 2 hard drive | 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 | nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS | ATI TV Wonder Theater Pro 550 | Antec P-160 case | Antec 650w Earth Watts | LG Blu-ray Super Drive | LG DVD RW | Windows 7 Pro
I downloaded the SE, don't see much of a difference. I can't run the new "advanced Pixel shader" either. I have a GF2 MX400, can't run the nature test either, sadly I've never seen this hehehe.
Hey, just out of curiosity, which would you prefer to have in your system, a PNY GF2 MX400 or a Hercules GF2 MX ? I can't keep track of which is better anymore. So if someone wants to list all the different GeForce setups from GF2 all the way up to the new GF4 in order from best to worst, I think that would be informative for quite a few people! I feel kinda stupid asking, but hey, I'd rather know than not.
BTW, new 3DM2001 SE :2588 default bench
------------------
Stupidity should be painful.
Woohoo, 14th person to solve the 4D rubik's cube...ever! http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm
Watch me solve a regular cube in 24.2 seconds at www.rubiks.dk videolist, Daniel Hayes!
The Advanced PS test looks cool... just a bunch of fishes swimming in a lake, nothing that the ATI Nature demo doesn't totally put to shame already. Managed to run smoothly with 4x Quality FSAA @1280x1024 so that was kinda sweet.
BUT, my score's gone down from about 9100 to 9000. Grrrr... I reckon it might be the Nature Test that's off a bit in fps. I know the new tests don't contribute to the score but they could at least have had the courtesy not to rob 8500 users of 100 3DMarks! Bloody nVidia conspiracy, mutter, mutter...
MuFu.
P.S. T-Bird 1.2@1.5GHZ (150 x 10, 1.85V)
KG7-RAID
512MB Crucial DDR CAS2
ATI Radeon 8500(flashed/penciled LE @ 320/315MHz, 1.8/3.75V)
WinXP Pro
6025 Beta Drivers
You know, I've seen some damn long descriptions of where people live, and I was just wondering how freakin' long of a location they actually allow you to write in here. Looks like it's quite a bit. Oh well, if the space is here I'll use it!!! :)
Posts
2,330
This is a complete joke.
The new "advanced" pixel shader test checks to see if your card has hardware support for PS 1.4. Of course, only the Radeon 8500 does. If not, it "falls back" to older PS version 1.0, and although MadOnion claims the visual effect is the same, this is not possible due to the way texture reads are handled in the different PS versions.
In fact, it's entirely plausible that a GF3 will run the new "advanced" test using the "older" PS 1.0 than the Radeon 8500 (although, naturally the visuals will not be identical). People will probably wonder why the GF3 runs the test faster than the 8500 even using "older" pixel shaders, not knowing that the visuals are not comparable.
The biggest joke though is MadOnion's reason for only making the advanced shader test a "feature detect" and not including it in the score: it needs to be able to run natively on at least two platforms. Of course, not even the GF4 can do that. Strange, I don't remember MadOnion having the same problem when they included the Nature test in the first edition... there were no other cards that could run that test, and none planned on entering the market for months. Other cards are fully capable of rendering that scene using fallback rendering methods, as is seen in the demo, but MadOnion neglected to allow that. Not only did MadOnion ensure that only the GF3 could run the test, they weighted it more heavily than any other test. What a joke.
They could at least be consistent. If it's an "advanced technology" test, then either always make it part of the score, or never... not just when it helps the nVidia camp. If it's not supported in hardware, either always have fallback rendering methods, or never... not just when it helps the nVidia camp.
------------------ Only 30,000 to 40,000 genes in an Einstein, a Michael Jordan, or a Bach? Boy, can that God guy write tight code or what? - David Rudloff
IMO, Mr. Derek Smart is a hypocrite: Only someone who is either (a) lying (b) ashamed of their products (c) just plain ashamed, would hestitate to give out some simple and straight forward information. - Derek Smart, Ph.D.
Originally posted by Swedishlf: I downloaded the SE, don't see much of a difference. I can't run the new "advanced Pixel shader" either. I have a GF2 MX400, can't run the nature test either, sadly I've never seen this hehehe.
Hey, just out of curiosity, which would you prefer to have in your system, a PNY GF2 MX400 or a Hercules GF2 MX ? I can't keep track of which is better anymore. So if someone wants to list all the different GeForce setups from GF2 all the way up to the new GF4 in order from best to worst, I think that would be informative for quite a few people! I feel kinda stupid asking, but hey, I'd rather know than not.
I'm not sure about a few of the GF2 cards, but I'm pretty sure that's it, but I do know the MX400 is faster than the MX, and the MX200 hauls up the rear.
3dmark2001's with my TNT2 = 1710 @ default (minus AA)
At default settings, the GF2TI is below the ultra, but easily surpasses it with o/cing. I finally broke 5300!! Woo-Hoo!! Going for soe cooling with the tax refund.
It was a pain in the *** to get to the project manager site to record the stats though. http://gamershq.madonion.com/compare2k1.shtml?2714334
------------------
AMD Athlon 1600 XP
ECS K7S5A
512 MB Crucial DDR
30 GB Western Digital HDD
Aopen 56x CDROM
Gainward Geforce 2 Ti@285/523
Voyetra Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
Windows XP Pro
AMD Athlon 1600XP @1596 w/AX-7+Panaflo H1A
Epox 8K3A
512 MB Crucial PC2100 Fast settings
30 GB WD HDD
LiteOn 40x12x48
Aopen 56x
Gainward Geforce 2 Ti 261/554
Turtle Beach Santa Cruz
XP Pro
Originally posted by DuronClocker: I'm not sure about a few of the GF2 cards, but I'm pretty sure that's it, but I do know the MX400 is faster than the MX, and the MX200 hauls up the rear.
3dmark2001's with my TNT2 = 1710 @ default (minus AA)
I think (dont quote me on this one) that the MX400 is exactly the same speed as a normal MX (SDR - like the hercules one) and they just renamed it following the introduction of the MX200
------------------
Duron 700@1100 2.1v Air Cooled
Abit KT7 Raid w/voltage mod
Gainward Geforce2 Pro 64Meg
The MX400 has a core clock of 200MHz whereas the original MX had a 175MHz core. Other than that they are pretty much identical. The MX200 is somewhat retarded though, having a 64-bit memory interface.
Damn... I only need 150 points to overtake the #1 Pentium II score (they have a PII@496 and mine is considerably less). I was only getting about 3200 with my PII266@375 but my score went up by 100 with SE. If I could only get a few MHz out of it to make 400 (3x133). Not that it really matters... I was fairly disappointed with the hype they made about SE and it only has one new test...
Would anyone know where to find the manual for the Abit BE6-II mobo? I need to find the jumper settings and see if I can set a 2x multiplier with the DIP switches. I've scoured the net and haven't been able to find anything. Even the link to the manual at Abit's website is broken...
------------------
Sir, are you classified as human? Negative, I am a meat popsicle.
[This message has been edited by wrathchild_67 (edited 02-13-2002).]
660 with 3dmark2001SE and I can't run default ,the only 32bit setting I have is for 640x480,so thats what I've run at.
Guess I'll be picking up the Radeon 8500DV sooner than I had planned ,this G450 is getting embarrassing
I wish it could run the other tests in "software mode". I hate seeing a test skipped. Even if they cut the scores in half for using software mode, I would be happy. Yes I think they are catering to nVidia a bit. I hope the GeForce4 can handle the Advanced Pixel Shader.
I saw nVidia is actioning off 3 GeForce4 Ti4600 for charity. Last I saw they were all runnig about $1000 each. The main problem I see is the auction does not end until something like the 23rd and by the time they ship it to you you could probably go down to the nnearest Electronic Beauteque and get one for $400 +tax. Blah, charity, blah.
3 more weeks for my GeForce4 Ti (and probably 2 days for my DVD drive and 19" monitor).
AMD Phenom II x4 945 3Ghz | ASUS M4A77TD | 2X WD 1TB SATA 2 hard drive | 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 | nVidia GeForce 8800 GTS | ATI TV Wonder Theater Pro 550 | Antec P-160 case | Antec 650w Earth Watts | LG Blu-ray Super Drive | LG DVD RW | Windows 7 Pro
I read a thread on the madonion site thatsaid the ge4ti does not do 1.4pixel shaders, but for the advanced pixel shader test with a ge4ti present it drops back to 1.0 shaders, so you will see the test run. the only card that will run the advanced test with 1.4 shaders is the r8500. there was no mention if this means that it does it better or not.
Yep, that's right. The 8500 does the advanced test with 1.4 whereas the GF4 does it with 1.0. The quality will be essentially the same although [bait]the ATI card will probably have superior image clarity[/bait].
All the 1.4 shader means is that the 8500 can do the shadowing and texturing in one pass where the GF3/4 needs more. It's a great feature that allows superb realism with minimal performance hit. How this affects performance in the GF3/4, I'm not sure. We can find out if someone with a similar system to me and a GF3 can get fps for that scene. Anybody?
I recently downloaded 3dmark2001SE and in the Advanced Pixel Test at the default settings I get 53.6fps. Overall about 6500-6600 3dmarks total. Not sure how that rates but I hope it helps.
My System
Athlon XP 1700+
256mb pc133
Visiontek GF3ti200 (not overclocked)
40gb Maxtor 7200
Reply With Quote
hehehe.
Bookmarks