all of my hardware is pretty decent, but i'm getting ridiculous scores (3577)??????
PIII-600 (@750)
Asus p3v4x bios 1005, the latest 4in1 via drivers)
Asus v6800 geforce ddr (det3 v6.18)
128mb hyundai pc133 ram (dunno anymore on ram, sorry)
win2k professional
first of all i can't even get the geforce to run in 4XAGP with my via chipsets even though the p3v4x is suppposed to support it. second, i'm pretty sure a celeron 500 with a 4mb video card can beat my score of 3577. what gives.
[This message has been edited by yellowfungus (edited 10-16-2000).]
3577 is slow? Are you kidding. It will be good for most of the games out there. Well as for the Celeron thing goes, mine is Cel 300A with 64 MB and ATI Rage IIC card with 8 MB. Can you imagine what my 3DMark 2000 scores are? Well it is just 264. Any suggetions on where the problem is?
Saurabh
Intel Celeron 600@600
XO i810 Motherboard
On Board VGA and Audio
196 MB PC100 RAM
Motorola 56 Kbps PCI Modem
Samsung 40GB ATA66 IDE
IO/Magic 24x CDROM
Samsung SyncMaster 17" Flat Monitor
nah, the games don't run good at all, nothing in 3d anyways. i compared my scores to other peeps with the geforce and 750p3's. and they all pull scores of 6000+. granted most of those guys either have 512MB ram, or embellished slightly or both, but i'm nowhere close to 6000. i have to run diabloII in directdraw cuz it chugs like crazy in direct3d to the point it's unplayable.
Not quite sure why your games are running so slow. However - I wouldn't use 3dmark as a guide. The only thing it's good for is it's pretty demo mode.
How can a program designed to give the video card the hardest possible time, be a good benchmark for games - which are designed to give the best compromise of speed and quality? The two aren't the same.
Actually, rereading your post: Have you tried your system on Win98? Win2k isn't exactly known to be a speed demon.
Also don't worry about AGP 4x. It will only improve your frame rates by 1 or 2 fps.
The third and final thing: You are getting a better score than I do. Once again don't hold much stock in these scores.
------------------
P3 750 @ 750!?, 128MB of PC-150 SDRAM, Aopen AX63 Pro, V3 2000 @ 175, 13.6GB - 7200rpm WD Expert, SB Live Value, LG 40x CDROM, Jazz 300W Front Speakers + Sony SRS PC300D Rear Speakers / Sub Woofer, Sony CPDE200 17" Monitor, Full Tower Case, Win98 Original Edition.
P3 750 @ 750!?, 128MB of PC-150 SDRAM, Aopen AX63 Pro, V3 2000 @ 175, 13.6GB - 7200rpm WD Expert, SB Live Value, LG 40x CDROM, Jazz 300W Front Speakers + Sony SRS PC300D Rear Speakers / Sub Woofer, Sony CPDE200 17" Monitor, Full Tower Case, Win98 Original Edition.
well, this whole time i've been running nvidia's detonator 3 drivers, (6.18), and seeing it is afterall an ASUS card, i tried putting in asus' 5.33 drivers, but no improvement. =(
it fixes the AGP4X problem, but the 3dmark scores are exactly the same. on top of that i'm one of those anal people that likes to clean his desktop of anything not necessary, and now i have that asus icon in my systray =) that i don't know how to get rid of. in win98 i disabled it with msconfig but dunno how in win2k.
well now i'm just whining. if anyone can think of other things i can try to get it up to the 6000's like other people with my setup, lemme know please. thanx.
GOSHARK: i'm hoping that your score being higher to mine is due to your faster cpu and more ram (600@750, 128MB). cuz it would really suck for a geforce to lose out to a tnt2 =)
I'd have to agree with GOSHARKS, Win2K is not the OS you want to use if your into games. 98SE or ME arn't as stable as 2K but from what I've read there much better for a gaming platforum. If you don't mind the hassle of putting in a new OS, it might be worth a shot. Just my 2-cents.
Whoever in the world told you people with PIII 750s w/GeForceDDRs get 6000+!?
According to the results published on Madonion's site, NO ONE with that setup has yet gotten out of the 5000s. Your score may be a bit slow (most average around 4500), but it isn't the disaster you think it is, because that setup just isn't enough do 6000!
First of all, i appreciate all the feedback, thanx.
ok, in order:
cratermaker: yeah, win2k isn't too good at games, but i just love the stability so much i can't go back. i was so used to getting the blue screen of death every day on win98se, the fact that i could run the computer for 5 days without rebooting and still have the performance i'd get on a fresh boot astounded me.
i was wondering whether the win2k alone was enough to explain the huge discrepancy in the score, or if there were other factors.
The main reason i'm concerned with the low score isn't cuz i wanna pull a 8000 and wave it around some o/c site, i was just concerned that i may have something configured really wrongly. the worst is when you buy a good system, then have it perform at half capacity cuz u forgot to turn something on.
Baloney: my bad. actually, the 6000+ scores were slightly too high cuz i asked madonion for ranges from 700-800 (mine being 750). When i changed the range to 700-750, they were in the 5000's just like u said. how do i close that gap between 5000 and 3577 though? =)
Gosharks: i disable everything when i run 3dmarks, and always test off a fresh reboot. i'm an anal user who disables any program from autolaunching in startup anyways, and double check in task manager before i run.
if there's any more information i can post up, like screenshots of wcpuid, or microsoft.nfo files, lemme know. i'd love to get to the bottom of this.
To be honest YellowF, I cant for the life of me see why you feel Win 9x is so unstable. Of course, 2k is a much more stable platform, but it is NO game OS, and dont let anyone tell you other wise. Just because they made the purchase, they fell a need to justify it. Even if only to make them feel better. I have personally seen, in my own little shop, 3D Mark scores drop by 1000 points on EXACT hardware. And that was simply by formatting the HDD and installing Win 2k. Even games made to work with Win 2K score about 25% slower than in Win 9x.
Also, dont bum because you are not seeing the scores of 6000 some here claim, because I can tell you, they arent either. They just dont know WE know.
This makes me wonder if Balonyflaps remembers the first time he and I ever wrote to each other. It was probably nearly 2 years ago, when some were claimimg to be getting scores of 60+ fps in Unreal in software mode. Which to this day is not even close to possible.
Dave
i7 2600k @ 4.6 ghz by Turbo multi - MSI Z68A-GD65-G3 - 8 gig GSkill Ripjaws @ 1600 8-8-8-24 - Corsair H100 Closed loop water cooling - 2 XFX 6870 DD Crossfire - 256 gig Mushkin Enhanced Chronos Deluxe and 250 Gig WD Blue Series - PCP&C Turbocool 850 SSI
Well. Win2k is very good in games IMO. I play only Q3 and with my p3-700e@1008 + gef2 gts + my cfg + q3 speed dll's i get 128 fps in 1024 all to the max. I have Win ME installed on my second hardware. With the same drivers, cfg, dlls... i get only 88 FPS. Win2k RuLeZ!
BTW: I get a ****ty score in 3dMark2k too but who the hell cares 'bout 3dMark.
[This message has been edited by AriciU_of_KoF (edited 10-17-2000).]
Known issue that W2K, GeForce and DirectX7 produce low 3DMark2000 scores, may be mentioned in the GeForce FAQ. There was a version of DirectX8 beta (brrr, gives me a chill to think of using it) actually got the scores up to where W98 systems were. The latest beta wasn't any better than DX7 so if you try it get the older version. Can't remember the version number but it did help to get the scores up so maybe the final release will get them on par with W98 systems. I personally wouldn't touch the beta because of potential bugs and the difficulty in un-installing DirectX.
[This message has been edited by 23skidoo (edited 10-17-2000).]
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks