3D Mark 2003 [Archive] - Kustom PC's Forums

The Pimp

12-02-2003, 03:35

Will do the first 2 benches on the Rad 9000 PRO bulks baulks out at the start of 'Trolls Lair' & the Demo with a 'Device failure' error. I have a feeling that it is down to the Catalyst 2.4 that I am having to use to get the AIW functions working (the Catalyst 3.1 or 3.0 drivers seem to disable the AIW functionality). Going to try it on the 9700 Pro either tomorrow or Thursday (prolly Thursday as I am fairly busy tomorrow).

Dead_One

12-02-2003, 08:36

4574

With no overclocking, looked kinda pretty as well
p4 2.53, rad 9700 pro
quite happy

The Pimp

12-02-2003, 10:41

Managed to get the 'benchmark' to complete with an amazing score of 2141 marks using the Catalyst 3.1 drivers on the 9000 Pro. Not a bad score really, but with the limited options that the free version of the software gives you, I am not surprised. Anyone paid for the Pro version yet????

Thomas @ Kustom

12-02-2003, 13:04

We've got it here, getting scores of between 4000-5000 in an a7n8x radeon 9700 pro 1 gb memory and xp 2600+

audiman

12-02-2003, 13:24

4788 is my first run at 3d mark 2003.

and

my second run is 4936 3d marks .

ill need to try the cat 3.01 drivers now.

more tweaking etc to come 5,000 + here we come.....

Olicg

12-02-2003, 20:08

so wot do u think ill get with the rig in my sig! lol! i doubt it would even run at all.

conan

12-02-2003, 23:04

Run it? I'm even gonna bother downloading it until I've finished my new rig LOL.

tomm

12-02-2003, 23:51

My first result was 4562 with this spec:

Shuttle SS51G with : 2.53GHz Pentium 4, 1024mb RAM, Radeon 9700, 120gb WD SE Hard drive.

ling_thing

13-02-2003, 00:07

Originally posted by Olicg
so wot do u think ill get with the rig in my sig! lol! i doubt it would even run at all.

i gues you would get around 200
maybe bit more

Schvetty

16-02-2003, 12:40

O MY GOSH

i ran it first time and I scored a whopping>>>>>>>14 points?

second time i ran it i scored a great 9 points hmmm
any help will do

i got

AMD 2000XP
256 PC2100 DDR
ATI radeon 7500 64MB DDR
Jetway 867AS MO-BO 200-266
40gig seagate 5400 drive C: D:
120gig samsung 7200 drive E: F: G:
lite on 12x cdrw

why do i only get 14 point's

or is this about right for this system

thanks all
chris:)

Schvetty

16-02-2003, 12:53

and would getting a new 512 stick will i get more points in 3dmark2003 codename beast killer

Herminator

17-02-2003, 06:10

WAHEY!!!

I beat the 5k barrier :D

5021 to be exact :cool:

From what I've found fsb does very little, cpu scores go up a little but they aren't hugely important for overall scores. What the test really likes, other than a DX9 card, is high gpu clock speeds, a few MHz can add 100points. Also need to make sure you put the card properties to performance, gets another couple hundred.

So far I'm at 148fsb, RIMM at 4x and turbo settings
9500 softmod to 9700, core at 333MHz, mem 317.3MHz

don't think the 9500 mem will go much higher but the core seems ok, gotta love this softmod :cool:

:edit: well who needs sleep when you have overclocking fun next to you, now at 5110, using 342/321.8

gone yet higher :) no bad effects seen yet either
355.5MHz core and mem at 324MHz, the maximum setting therer is for the mem, this gives 5217, think that will do me for now ;)

weeeeeeeeee http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=210843

audiman

17-02-2003, 09:22

what cat drivers are you using cat3 or 3.1?
i noticed a drop of about 100 when i started using the 3.1's still cant get by 4936 3d marks yet.(still not to bad for what i have got ).

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 09:47

it has to be said, the scoring system is completly different(and I'm not just talking about the dramatic fall in points)
it'll totally change the way you look at a gfx card, let me explain how I mean.

Above, someone got 14marks(sorry) with a 7500, we'll exclude machine spec for the moment. where as in 2001se, you would have got about 4000-5000.
A radeon 9500 non pro, get's 2000, while in 2001se it would have got 10000
a radeon 9700 gets just over 4000, while it would have got 13500 in 2001se
a radeon 9700 pro gets nearly or over 5000 marks, while in 2001se, it would have got 15000+

so what does this tell us, well, instead of testing general speed and overall abilities, it's really testing games for their ability to play modern games. before you would have said that a radeon 9700 was three times faster than a 7500, and had some more features, now we're saying it's what 400 times faster? no I don't think so! What we're saying is that the 7500 isn't as capable for modern games. I mean are you honestly going to say a 9700 non pro is twice as fast as a 9500, I don't think it is, hoever it does have to be said, that if people go on these scores, the radeon 9500 is no longer a card that is half the price, but still only 2000-3000 marks behind the card that's double the price, you're actually seeing performance per pound you spend! It's going to totally change the way people buy gfx cards, it's got to be in the industries favour, if people think that it's not worth getting the lower cards, I think they've fixed it to be like this 8)

audiman

17-02-2003, 10:02

a radion 7500 only gets 14 marks .
why do i get 88 with a geforce 2 mx 32mb card with asus k7m 512mb pc133,amd slot a t-bird @857 mhz etc etc

why no game this time around within 3d mark?

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 10:09

Hey audiman,

Don't worry, I'm not having a dig at anyone here, I'm saying I think the scoring system is somewhat fixed, we know that 3dmark has always favoured nvidia, and i think you'll see HUGE scores when the ge-force fx comes out, and why, becuase it's already been proven that the 9700PRO is faster, and I think they need something to sell it!

The fx get's no where near the radeon in the nature mark fo 2001, and I think it'll be the same in the nature scene of 2003, and if it's not, then it's definatly fixed!

Schvetty

17-02-2003, 10:13

after defraging my c: drive i got whooping 130 points pooy pooy pooy what will the gefroce 3 be compare to my ati 7500 64ddr

audiman

17-02-2003, 10:17

but how can schevetty only get 14 points with there spec and me 88 with a spec on my old comp that only runs the first plane and the 2 fill rate tests.
where else me other system runs 4936 marks.
any tips for 5,000+
im buying a stick of 256mb soon will that help?

i agree with you thomas i too feel thats its in away fixed.
what scores are you getting thomas?

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 10:32

uh... I can't actually remeber...
I'm running a p4 2g, with a 9500 non pro soft modded to 9700, I'll run it tonight and let you know chaps.

As for the weird scoring, I do have to point out one is an old radeon one is an old nvidia geforce, so it probably gets 80 points just for bearing it's rear 8)

The other thing to take into account is of course, for the first time, your sound card has an effect on your 3d performance...*COUGH*

you can sit there and say, well it's 3d sound etc, but I still don't think it should be part of the default test...

The Pimp

17-02-2003, 10:38

Soundcard don't play that much of an issue Thomas. It will play some obviously, but as a general ruling, it doesn't rearly matter as running a 'benchmark' without sound just gives a false impression. Who plays games with no sound all the time?????????

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 10:47

Pimp, I just think it shouldn't be part of the test, fair enough it's gamers banchmark, but if you want to know how your system performs in 3d, I still think sound shouldn't really play a part.

Nikumba

17-02-2003, 11:34

4616 :)

On my nice 2.4Gig shuttle with 9700 Pro.

And that is with no over clocking, i can take my FSB past 145 so might try that and see how close i can get to the 5K mark :)

Nikumba

The Pimp

17-02-2003, 11:59

I semi-agree Thomas, but benchmarks like 3DMark etc are there to show you supposedly how good your system is at performing DirectX tasks. DirectX as you already know is not just for the graphics side of things and covers all multimedia aspects. if they wanted to purely show off the 3D graphics side of things then they would not put any sound in the benchmarks at all. Come to think of it though, I don't recall hearing any sounds at all from 3DMark2K03 when running the benchmark side of it.

audiman

17-02-2003, 12:16

the last 3 test's with the planes have sound enabled in them.

Walrus

17-02-2003, 12:18

Originally posted by Herminator
LMAO at all those with GF4's not seen one above 2k :D :p

Boohoo :(

I will get above 2k :p

Got about 1870 (if memory serves me correctly) when I first downloaded it, with half a dozen apps running. I'll fire it up again when I get some time, with a 'clean' boot.

I think the real killer is that GameTest 4 simply won't run because it is DX9 specific. I'm not sure what sort of score penalty this gives.

The Pimp

17-02-2003, 12:19

Originally posted by audiman
the last 3 test's with the planes have sound enabled in them.

On the Free Edition????? Not from what I have just sat through they don't. The Pro edition has the sound tests but they are disabled in the Free Edition.

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 12:22

pimp it depends on what kind of card you have, just like a gfx card, not all the test features are supported.

audiman

17-02-2003, 12:33

thats correct thomas on my old system it has a soundblaster 1024 and i get no sound from it mind it will not play that test either with my old gf2mx either so thats probley why.

on my new system with the asus a7n8x deluxe it plays them well with the onboard nforce audio.

3d mark makes you crave for hardware you dont really need yet just to get a better score & to get the graphics manu etc selling more topend cards (if you fall for the trap anyway)

my main gripe is theres no game .

make yourself feel better turn back the clock to 2000/1 and run 3d mark 2000/1 look at that score......wahey.........

Schvetty

17-02-2003, 12:37

well i can say i have fallen for the trap...... unfortunatly i canot keep up at the moment....

time for an upgrade i think :)

The Pimp

17-02-2003, 12:44

Originally posted by Thomas @ Kustom
pimp it depends on what kind of card you have, just like a gfx card, not all the test features are supported.

On any sound card?????? I have tested here sound cards from the onboard solution all the way through to Audigy 2's & not one of them will give sound from the Free edition. Not that it matters anyway as the benchmark is flawed in many ways & doesn't pertain to real world performance at all.

Like audiman has said, if you must run these 'benchmarks' stick to a level playing field rather than something that is geared to one thing over another.

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 12:50

benchmarks imo are very misleading anyway, you'll spend loads on overclocking gear to get that extra 20-200 marks, and what for, so you can run the tests at a few fps faster, or quake at 400fps, what the h**l for, you're eye doesn't see much above 50fps anyway.

Jack once said something to me that I thought was brilliant. Instead of 3d card manufacturers concentrating on raw speed, or the ability to perform well in one area, they should concentrate on the ability to keep above 50fps in all circumstances...

The Pimp

17-02-2003, 12:53

Originally posted by Thomas @ Kustom
benchmarks imo are very misleading anyway, you'll spend loads on overclocking gear to get that extra 20-200 marks, and what for, so you can run the tests at a few fps faster, or quake at 400fps, what the h**l for, you're eye doesn't see much above 50fps anyway.

Jack once said something to me that I thought was brilliant. Instead of 3d card manufacturers concentrating on raw speed, or the ability to perform well in one area, they should concentrate on the ability to keep above 50fps in all circumstances...

Exactly my sentiments!!!! As you probably have aqlready seen, I hate comparisons being made to how fast something can run on <insert benchmark suite> . If it plays the game without lag, then why need more?????

audiman

17-02-2003, 13:08

another downfall and i admit to it myself is you spend hours and hours tweaking this and that just to get a few more points on the benchmark of your choosing.when you should be playing the games you love to spend your hard earned on.

its only human nature e.g. my car does 122mph the next persons does 130 etc etc .

i still dont feel that racing games are fast enough yet take rallisport challenge with all set to on amazing eye candy but it still hampers performance .
so what i want is near lifelike graphics with 50fps at least always all the time never below that.

Schvetty

17-02-2003, 13:10

need proff to belive the eye can only see 50ish fps

but we can still see the frames going faster if we could only see 50 fps wouldnt it just stop at 50 and we would not see the differnce eg....

200 frames a second looks a lot faster then 50 frames a second

and you can see the differnce

need hardcore proof the eye only see 50ish fps to belive that

sorry:)

slartiBardfarst

17-02-2003, 13:23

i was having just this discussion on another forum where the guy said that 28 was the most the eye could see. (quite where i got that from???)

if i can go off topic slightly for a second, the human eye can see far higher frame rates than anyone though possible. there is no upper limit as some people can more than others. on average it's over the 200fps mark. fighter pilots are able to pick out details that flash up at 220fps regularly.
it's hard to make out any differences anything over 60fps in everyday circumstances on a pc monitor though.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://amo.net/NT/05-24-01FPS.html

Herminator

17-02-2003, 13:25

ah, the age old insulting of 3d mark comes up. I personaly think the test shows very little, just that I should be able to play future games that use the new features of DX9 with a reasonable fps. The problem is that's likely to be a long time away, it'll be close to graphics card update again, or atleast those guys with anything like a GF4 or slower will be able to pick up a card twice as powerful as a 9700pro for somewhere around £150. I just did a little overclocking to see if I could break 5k, it was mostly boredom, I was amazed as my card kept going after 5k, only when I had the maximum overclocking setting available did I see any sign of issues, that was just the occasional odd flash on parts of the screen. I've reduced the speed to more sane levels because I'm not going to see any difference at all in any games I play.

hmm, now I have to find something else to try and beat in another test when I can't sleep :rolleyes:

Thomas @ Kustom

17-02-2003, 13:25

you will be sorry schvetty! mwahahahahahhaha!

Schvetty

17-02-2003, 13:25

thanks m8

hehhehe i wonder if mikes eye outa monster inc can see 20000 fps

Schvetty

17-02-2003, 13:29

lol "In the back of the net" Alan Partridge style

hey thomas you read any of them links yet lol av it

Thomas @ Kustom

19-02-2003, 09:40

I tested my system last night, nothing to write home about, 3898, but it's not on the 533 bus, and it's a ....via chipset, .... sigh

ZStation

21-02-2003, 22:35

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=274667

4580 3DMarks. I'm happy with that score.

DaveMark

22-02-2003, 00:44

might be getting this rong .. but with 3dmark2002 i gor 14000 apporox .. and u are saying here with 3dmark2003 with the same gc u getting only 4000

dave

conan

22-02-2003, 01:00

Run it and see Davemark, my PC wouldn't even run it! There again, I could only get 1500 in 2001. Wait for the new rig, then I'll kick ass:cool:

Fireblade

22-02-2003, 10:15

Originally posted by DaveMark

might be getting this wrong .. but with 3dmark2002 i got 14000 approx .. and u are saying here with 3dmark2003 with the same gc u getting only 4000?

'fraid so Dave... 'tis the nature of the beast! I tried runnin' it on this 1GB PC2100, Gainward Ti4600 loaded rig, and got just under 1500 :eek: It's a grueller of a benchmark for sure!

I'd pro'ly get a slightly better score on the rig I'm gonna start buildin' soon, coz it'll have 1GB PC2700 and a Radeon 9500 PRO, and the Radeon 9xxx series seem t' fare better ;)

Forthy

25-02-2003, 14:29

Just run it and got 4143 on system in sig. Gonna do a bit of tweaking later and see if I can't bump that a tad.

Thomas @ Kustom

26-02-2003, 13:37

Just tried out a redon 7500, in a via p4pb ultra mainboard, with a 2.4 p4, and it scored 203 3dmarks. Which kinna disproves the earlier 10 marks 8)

Forthy

27-02-2003, 01:05

Originally posted by Me!
Just run it and got 4143 on system in sig. Gonna do a bit of tweaking later and see if I can't bump that a tad.

Tweaked it just a little. Now getting 4289. Just for comparison that works out to 11693 in 2001SE.

That's FSB @ 140MHz = Athlon @ 1610MHz
Gfx clock 301.5MHz, Gfx mem 310.5MHz

[edit] how do you upload a saved result from 2003???? - the menu's gone and 2001 doesn't recognise the file type!

Thomas @ Kustom

27-02-2003, 09:10

probably only allowed to do it in their precious pro version

audiman

11-03-2003, 22:15

im happy tonite i hit 5029 .
i havent tried it for weeks and was bored for 10 minutes so i gave it a retry 5029 . that will do for now...

lord reaper

13-03-2003, 23:54

Mi first score with no o/clock :)

3544 marks, might try o/clocking, but happy with this score.
good enough to run doom 3 without any glitches :D :D

Thomas @ Kustom

14-03-2003, 09:46

What are the requirements for doom 3 anyway, any news on when it's out?

Sharky

14-03-2003, 12:21

Its not due for release until the end of November at the moment, and the specs are TBC :( :(

Forthy

16-03-2003, 15:12

Just patched my 9500 to 9800 with the new w1zzard patch :D - with all the settings same as last time it's bumped my score to:

4,371. Pleasing!

Although bizzarely it's dropped my 2001 score by nearly 200 points - wierd!

lord reaper

31-03-2003, 22:03

My score at de-fault :D :D :D

4650 marks :)

Proplus

28-04-2003, 03:27

Jeez....a lot of mediocre scores I see here.

I purchased a VapoChill PE Skt478 system from Kustoms a few months back now. Whacked in my 3.06GHz on my ASUS P4G8X, and waited a long time for a decent GFX card to come out. So when the Radeon 9800 Pro came out, I snapped it up!

The system is OC'd to 3.91GHzs stable, with motherboard running with tweaked BIOS to keep my 2x256Mb Corsair XMS Platinum PC3500 on aggressive timings (2-2-2-5).

With the GFX card at stock speeds, I got around 5700.

With OC'ing the GFX card to 440/400, I got just over 6270 .

And now with the DELL OEM Catalyst 3.3 drivers, I got 6570!!, w00t!!!

BTW, thanks Kustoms for the past service (I'm the guy that keeps buying using bank transfers!), I'll be buying the WaterChill from you soon, but I'll hang on until AseTek release the waterblocks for the GPU and chipset. :)

Thomas @ Kustom

28-04-2003, 09:25

hey nice scores,

Can I ask why Dell catalysts get beter scores? am i missing something here? I mean perhaps this can be explained by you bought a dell 9800, but if not, what the heck made you try the dell drivers.

Thomas @ Kustom

28-04-2003, 09:40

oh never mind, just saw w1zzard site 8)

Fireblade

28-04-2003, 12:53

Originally posted by Proplus

Jeez....a lot of mediocre scores I see here

That's a darned harsh statement t' make Proplus :( Not many peeps on these forums can afford the luxury of a system like yours you know :rolleyes:

I'd expect t' get better scores than most from a VapoChill rig, wi' a 3.06GHz CPU, Corsair XMS Platinum PC3500 memory, and a Radeon 9800 Pro :eek:, but I certainly wouldn't call lesser scores from far less powerful systems "mediocre"!

On the contrary... there are some damned impressive scores given the hardware used t' obtain em, which (IMHO) says a lot more for the users personal tweaking abilities, rather than out-and-out raw power such as yours ;)

Proplus

28-04-2003, 13:31

Originally posted by creepy
That's a darned harsh statement t' make Proplus :( Not many peeps on these forums can afford the luxury of a system like yours you know :rolleyes:

I'd expect t' get better scores than most from a VapoChill rig, wi' a 3.06GHz CPU, Corsair XMS Platinum PC3500 memory, and a Radeon 9800 Pro :eek:, but I certainly wouldn't call lesser scores from far less powerful systems "mediocre"!

On the contrary... there are some damned impressive scores given the hardware used t' obtain em, which (IMHO) says a lot more for the users personal tweaking abilities, rather than out-and-out raw power such as yours ;)

If want to talk about tweaking, you need to look no further. I have done literaly EVERY possible way to tweak the system, ranging from the BIOS, using different OSs, tweaking the OS, running the benchmark, and OCing the system and GFX card. All in all, from default, I've gained about 2000 points on 3DMark2003. Jeez, I contributed to write that article on RojakPot on the BIOS optimization guide.

Even on my other system (XP1700+, Shuttle AK35GTR, PC2100, GF4 Ti4200 modded to Quadro 700 XGL), I still managed to tweak it to get 1856 points, can you match that with the spec I had?

Fireblade

28-04-2003, 15:15

"can you match that with the spec I had"

No I can't... but then I haven't tried :)

But even if I could/did match your scores, I wouldn't throw scorn on the efforts of others, by calling them "mediocre", just coz my final result was better ;)

Proplus

28-04-2003, 15:29

Originally posted by creepy
"can you match that with the spec I had"

No I can't... but then I haven't tried :)

But even if I could/did match your scores, I wouldn't throw scorn on the efforts of others, by calling them "mediocre", just coz my final result was better ;)

Any even if you did try, I doubt you'll ever get past 1700.

It was a statement I made, if you don't like it, you can always choose to ignore it. If it was deemed inappropriate, I'm sure a member of the moderating team will either edit it or remove it (trust me, I'm a mod on another forum). Just because you have been on this forum longer than me, it doesn't mean you can judge me.

And yes, they are mediocre, if you just take some time and browse around the net for scores, you'll see some impressive scores posted by people with non-extreme setups like mine. All it takes is a little research.

Thomas @ Kustom

28-04-2003, 15:32

Guys I'm nt going to edit this, but stop it right here.

I agree with you both, yes Proplus is getting good scores, but has paid the price to get it, such is the nature if you want the cutting edge, but at the same time I wouldn't down other peoples efforts.

It's just a benchmark for god sake, don't fall out about it!

Proplus

28-04-2003, 15:44

I'm not downing other people's efforts, its just that from what I see of their spec they CAN achieve better scores, all it takes is a little more research.

Thomas @ Kustom

28-04-2003, 16:01

OK proplus, perhaps then you could help some of them out. instead of everyone arguing and falling out over this, why don't you post a link to a tweaking guide which might help them.

And don't flame other members, in your previous post you made a comment to creepy about

Just because you have been on this forum longer than me, it doesn't mean you can judge me

but in the previous paragraph you've said

Any even if you did try, I doubt you'll ever get past 1700

Do you know Creepy well enough, and have knowledge of his technical abilities to make this judgement about him?

Everyone just play nice, and welcome to the forums proplus

Proplus

28-04-2003, 16:15

The key word being here is 'doubt', it does not mean he can't achieve it, just that the chances of him doing so are marginally small.

As for some links:

http://forums.theoverclockingstore.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22849

http://www.systemcooling.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=606

http://www.systemcooling.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=621

http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=mo3dmark2001&Number=1075973&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

As for those with ATi GFX cards:

http://216.239.37.120/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://www.hardware-mag.de/hardware.php%3Fid%3D144&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhardware-mag.de%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8

And the BIOS optimization guide, head over to www.rojakpot.com

Proplus

28-04-2003, 16:17

And for those with the ASUS P4G8X mobo, this is where to get the tweaked BIOS:

http://www.x86-secret.com/articles/tweak/e7205twen.htm

Thomas @ Kustom

28-04-2003, 16:21

pretty interesting looking stuff, I'll need to look at the ati one later 8)

Thx

slartiBardfarst

28-04-2003, 18:39

it does not mean he can't achieve it, just that the chances of him doing so are marginally small.
since you are so much better at this than everyone else, how come you haven't looked at voltage modding? i voltage modded my 9700np from a stock of 275mhz up to almost 420mhz before it becomes unstable, as well as doing all the bios alterations. personally i think that is a far better result than just buying the very best of everything and doing software tweaks.

maybe you were unaware of volt-modding :)
all it takes is a little more research.

Proplus

28-04-2003, 18:43

Didn't I mention I already volt modded my 9800 Pro? The big photo for it got passed around the web only last week, and I immediately got to work on it........

ZStation

28-04-2003, 21:19

I havn't been following this thread for a long time, nor have I been fiddling with the PC much.

Last night decided to check out the overclocking options on this NF7-S. Changed to FSB from 133 to 166 and lowered the multiplier so the chip was still running at 2GHz.

Quite surprised - went up from 4250-ish to 4690 3DMarks. I need a decent heatsink before I start playing properly, and I need to clean the fust out of the heatsink on the 9700 Pro before I even entertain overclocking that.

For those interested: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=665952

Fireblade

29-04-2003, 21:15

Thought some of you might like t' know there's a 3DMark 2003 update available now. Here's some info...

Futuremark has released a new patch for its 3DMark03 benchmarking software. This patch supposively fixes numerous bugs and problems people were having with their first release. It adds several new options for benchmarking and full support for the new DirectX 9.0a.

The update comes in two flavors, a 4.9MB patch (313 -> 320 version) ,and also a 177MB full install file. See below for a list of mirrors and the full changelog ;)

3DMark03 Patch (build 320) Improvements:

Key technical points:

Now supports Microsoft DirectX 9.0a.
Professional version includes customization tools for different skins.
Anti-Aliasing (FSAA) and full frame pixel shader post-processing can now be used simultaneously. (NOTE: DirectX 9.0a runtime must be installed for this functionality).

New Features:

Added appropriate tools for creating custom skins for the 3DMark03 user interface.
Added a new benchmarking option which forces PixelShader 1.1 code path in game tests 2 and 3.
"Submit Saved Result" feature enabled in 3DMark03 Free Version.
2 new command lines added: "fixedfps" and "disableopt".

Fixes & Updates:

CPU & VPU/GPU MHz detection functionality updated.
Installation issue solved.
Fixed all reported issues with results in Excel.
Fixed ImageQuality Test issues.
Updated System Info.
Improved driver detection.
XML issues solved.
All other reported & identified problems and bugs in 3DMark03 have been solved.

Important Notes:

Benchmark results from the original release of 3DMark03 (build 313) and the updated version 3DMark03 (build 320) are fully comparable.

3DMark03 (build 320) is available as a full version and a patch version.

The registration codes for 3DMark03 (build 313) also work for 3DMark03 (build 320).

Download from... VR Zone (http://www.vr-zone.com/3DMark/), Overclockers Club (http://www.overclockersclub.com/downloadcenter/?action=file&id=49) or FileShack (http://www.fileshack.com/browse.x?cat=1207) :)

Source Warp2Search (http://www.warp2search.net/article.php?sid=12002&mode=&order=0)

Thomas @ Kustom

30-04-2003, 09:58

good post creepy

DaveMark

30-04-2003, 13:40

i got 4358 with 3dmark 03 . is that good see my sig for specs .. with the old 3dmark i was getting 14000 odd

dave

Forthy

30-04-2003, 18:45

I'd say that's a tad low mate. Mine's at 4462 on a Rad 9500 and an athlon 1800. Admittedly the 9500 is patched, but I would've thought your system should be able to whoop mine hands down. Tweaky tweaky my friend :D

//edited to include: Compare (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=671037)

tomm

30-04-2003, 18:51

I agree it seems a little low. I got 4562 with a P2.53 and a Radeon 9700 and I used to get 13500 in 3D Mark 2001. Maybe its due to the processor test in the new 3d mark which probably doesn't favour AMDs as much.

DaveMark

30-04-2003, 19:02

i suppose .. all i know is my comp rocks :D lol

dave

ZStation

30-04-2003, 20:30

Actually, it's just about right - KT400 is slower than nF2, so that benchie isn't far off.

Thomas @ Kustom

01-05-2003, 09:58

as I say I don't put much in benchmarks, they make you compair systems and make you think you should spend loads on new gfx card or cooling just to get that extra few points, and in the end that's all it is!

Does you computer play all your games at a detail and speed you're happy with? Yes, fine it's ok, the day it doesn't, change up, you'll have more money in your pocket, and won't be dissatisfied with your system cos you're not compairing it.