3D mark03

[Deus]

here (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4LDE=)

[Tanaban]

UhhO for futuremark... a Hard|OCP rejection will hurt

But here is a link any way: linky (http://www.fileshack.com/file.x?fid=2229)

[K]

We have a reallllllly fast mirror at BiT-Tech... You gotta register to the Forums (http://forums.bit-tech.net) though ;)

[TheCorps]

anyone gonna post scores

[K]

Originally posted by TheCorps@Feb 12 2003, 01:16 AM
anyone gonna post scores
When it downloads ;)

Mine will be shite. I need new CPU/MoBo/RAM. Bleh.

Don't think I'll be keepin this on my drive for long... Just wanna see the pretty tests, then I'll uninstall it.

[TheCorps]

Ya my score will suck too. I hope I can upgrade soon.

[mOOkie]

Holy shit thats a big file. :ph34r:

[TheCorps]

We should see who can get the lowest score. :lol:

[K]

Originally posted by mOOkie@Feb 12 2003, 01:26 AM
Holy shit thats a big file. :ph34r:
Says you need at least a gig free to install it >_<

[TheCorps]

damn I am just gonna run once then uninstall.

[Deus]

LOL lowest score, lol
too bad i dont' have my P1 :(

[Tanaban]

Originally posted by K@Feb 11 2003, 06:06 PM
We have a reallllllly fast mirror at BiT-Tech... You gotta register to the Forums (http://forums.bit-tech.net) though ;)
thanks Dav. and Bit-tech! me lub you

All I know is that if I dont break the 1000 mark there will be some pain raining down on some people.

[TheCorps]

I got 1130 (w00t)

*procceeds to uninstall 3DMark03*

[Haysoos]

hey, i can get my friends p2 450Mhz HP Vectra, throw a P2 233Mhz in there, then grab my Rage3D card thats so old it has to be daisy chained with a regular vid card cause it only does 3D, not 2D. (w00t) This could be fun, i'll try it the next time im home. I'll bring my digi cam just incase it catches on fire :ph34r: (w00t)

just read requirements, guess no P2... I'll try it though! if that doesnt work, then I'll try to get the lowest possible on this comp. a little underclocking, maxing everything, maybe even snagging a vidcard OC program to underclock my R9700 PRO... unfortunately my 512MB RAM wont bottleneck well, i'll see if i can snag my friends 256MB stick for the test...

[mOOkie]

Weird new scores... nice tech demos.

Got 1780 but that half waht it should be compared with other people with identical systems <_< . Can't be bothered to try again. Might do later...

[Tanaban]

I cant run it at all it gives me:

[AMGpower]

I pwn alll Jooo bitches 164. MOhahhahahah. I could only run 1 vid test. Hahahaha. Well now that I think about it im MAD. Grr I have a, might I say pimp rig, but the vid card is just bringing me down. ah well

[TheCorps]

That suxs

[Haysoos]

After reading HardOCPs article on it, i think i'll stick with 3DMark2001 SE build 330...

[Mr.unknown]

so sad I had high expactations for the 3dmark03

[Chief]

2635 3dmarks. Booyah. B)

[TheCorps]

Ran again and got 1292. Pretty happy considering it was choppin like hell in the games.

[EyePoker]

I own you all! 168 3dmarks! :ph34r:

[Mr.unknown]

now your pimpin

[Tanaban]

I got nothing still so I WIN

[Haysoos]

im now inspired to get bad 3DMark scores... If i get bored anytime soon, im reinstalling the voodoo3 and doing some mad underclocking on da CPU...

[Deus]

1207, lol i was getting like 1fps for most of the tests! :lol:

[d0nk`]

im sticking to 2001 i like big numbers ;)

[JC Denton]

Originally posted by Jesus@Feb 11 2003, 08:38 PM
After reading HardOCPs article on it, i think i'll stick with 3DMark2001 SE build 330...
Agreed. Plus this [H]ard|OCP quote has gotta hurt for the Futuremark guys:
In closing, Kyle has informed me that [H]ard|OCP will not be using the overall 3DMark03 score to evaluate video cards.

[Tobalaz]

Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Feb 12 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Jesus@Feb 11 2003, 08:38 PM
After reading HardOCPs article on it, i think i'll stick with 3DMark2001 SE build 330...
Agreed. Plus this [H]ard|OCP quote has gotta hurt for the Futuremark guys:
In closing, Kyle has informed me that [H]ard|OCP will not be using the overall 3DMark03 score to evaluate video cards.
Wow, they change their name and everything goes kaput.
At least I'm not going to get sick loooking at 40,000 point 3d Markswhen I'm only getting 10,000. A couple hundred points is alot easier to swallow.

[K]

Originally posted by Tanaban@Feb 12 2003, 03:36 AM
I cant run it at all it gives me:
I bet you didn't install DirectX 9...

[JC Denton]

Originally posted by Tobalaz@Feb 12 2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Feb 12 2003, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Jesus@Feb 11 2003, 08:38 PM
After reading HardOCPs article on it, i think i'll stick with 3DMark2001 SE build 330...
Agreed. Plus this [H]ard|OCP quote has gotta hurt for the Futuremark guys:
In closing, Kyle has informed me that [H]ard|OCP will not be using the overall 3DMark03 score to evaluate video cards.
Wow, they change their name and everything goes kaput.
At least I'm not going to get sick loooking at 40,000 point 3d Markswhen I'm only getting 10,000. A couple hundred points is alot easier to swallow.
*Shrug,* I'm not impressed considering it can't technically judge games anymore.

[K]

Originally posted by Captain Kirk@Feb 12 2003, 11:19 PM
Wow, they change their name and everything goes kaput.
At least I'm not going to get sick loooking at 40,000 point 3d Markswhen I'm only getting 10,000. A couple hundred points is alot easier to swallow.
*Shrug,* I'm not impressed considering it can't technically judge games anymore. [/quote]
It almost seems they made a benchmark that could test a videocard for games of a few years back, todays games and some to come. Which is pretty stupid since they have two other benches that can do the first of that. It woulda made more sense to keep with the flow and do one to bench for future stuff. They should change their name to PastPresent&FutureMark.

[Haysoos]

They should have kept real game engines in it. Hell, what if they got the Doom3 engine in there?! would have been much better than trying to create a "universal" DX9 benchmark...

[Tobalaz]

Originally posted by Jesus@Feb 12 2003, 05:52 PM
They should have kept real game engines in it. Hell, what if they got the Doom3 engine in there?! would have been much better than trying to create a "universal" DX9 benchmark...
Pretty much agreed.
Maybe a universal benchmark that tests the systems with the most used engines (Unreal v.x, Quake v.x) gives a total score for bragging rights, and recomends optimal settings for each engine.
Now that would be worth buying once every 2 years, it'd make finding the vga sweetspot all the easier (unless you're a performance nut that just loves to tweek).

[Haysoos]

The problem is that tweaking for a synthetic benchmark (3dmark) has no garenteed positive effect on real world gaming. The advantage of 3dmark2001 was that it was built on a real game engine and was basically a botmatch benchmark more or less, so tweaking for 3dmark would result in improved real world game performance to some degree. The problem with 3dmark03 is that it is entirely synthetic, no game to it besides DX9, so tweaking for it, and tweaking drivers for it, has no garenteed effect on real world gaming. I dont know about recommending optimal settings, but using several different real game engines would have been a great idea, and it would be good publicity for those engines and would give a representation of real world performance...

[Mr.unknown]

that would be pretty cool if it had the Unreal engine in it. B)