It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Weird benchmarking scores in 3D Mark 2000-2005s for my new video card!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Hey guys I am having a problem with a new video card that I just resently bought about a week ago. Its a Sappire Radeon 9800 pro 256 MB video card running at 378 mhz for the core and 324 mhz for the memory stock(648 mhz effectivly because of the DDR ram). I istalled this video card with no problem, and it plays excellently but I am getting weird benchmarking scores when ever i test it using 3d marks 2000-2005. Here are my computer specs:

OS: Windoes XP Home
CPU: Pentium 4 @ 2.0ghz (400 mhz bus) (stock)
RAM: 2 GB Kingston pc 3200 (400 mhz)

Driver: DirectX 9.0c
Video card driver: Catalyst version : high 3.0 to low 4.0 (Not sure cuz I didn't check) (The video cards default driver)

With all of these specs for my computer and the following video card settings: 0x AA, 0x AF, No Temporal AA, No Catalyst A.I., Mipmap at lowest setting, Truform off, VSync off (lowest video settings) I took these benchmarks and got these scores:

3D mark 2000 (v1.1) : 10,854
3D mark 2001 SE (v3.3.0) : 11,870
3D mark 2003 (v3.6.0) : 5,439
3D mark 2005 (v1.2.0) : 2,689

The weird thing is that the 3D mark 2000 and 2001 SE scores ARE WAY TOO LOW... I checked out other forums and guys with the same video card and crappyer computers score from 17,000 to 19,000+. WTF, something is up but I have no clue what. I downloaded Catalyst 5.5 driver and my 2000 and 2001 SE scores actually went down a little. Anyone know what is wrong or what I can do to get a better score?

Although the 2003 and 2005 scores are around the correct range.

[edit on 30-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Anyone have any ideas? Or at least can some of you guys post your 3dmark 2000-2005 scores so I can maybe compare the scores to get a better idea of what is wrong with my computer...



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Did you check your Bios to see if it's set up for your particular card? Each card now comes with a booklet that tells you the preferred BIOS settings in order for your card to work at optimal levels.

EDIT: OT You might also want to change your coloring in your profile as I can't read your name and I believe that goes against the rules, SO posted a thread about this the other day so you might wanna change it to something more legible


[edit on 2-6-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Personally I don't like judging my card by those scores. Will the card play your favorite game at 60 fps at 1024 x 768 with anti-aliasing turned on? If so then "Don't worry, be happy". There's always a bigger and better card.

I think half of those scores are people blowing smoke.




You might also want to change your coloring in your profile as I can't read your name and I believe that goes against the rules


Yeah, what he said


[edit on 2-6-2005 by dbates]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Did you check your Bios to see if it's set up for your particular card? Each card now comes with a booklet that tells you the preferred BIOS settings in order for your card to work at optimal levels.


Funny thing is my card didn't come with an instruction manual... (probably cuz its like a 2 year old model) but its not like I need it to know how to install a video card. Im no noob, I know what im doing so I know everything is working PERFECTLY. My only beef is that my 3d mark scores in the 2000 and 2001 SE versions are lower compared to simpilar video cards and computer setups. But my 2003 and 2005 scores are exactly where they should be. Maybe they changed the way they score video cards in the new versions... I dunno. My card works exactly as I though it would, I get an avg. of 28 FPS (and never goes under 24 FPS) in Farcry at MAX game settings and MAX video settings of 6x AA and 16x AF at 1024 x 768 x 32 @ 60 hertz (old LDC moniter). So its not a hardware problem. I think Futurmark changed the way the calculater the scores in their 2000 and 2001 SE version. But I have heard no news of this change so im still a little puzzled...

P.S. I will change my profile in a few days, as im a currectly working on a new avatar.

P.P.S. Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 runs a slow at full graphics... only 14 FPS average. Thats why I have to play it at 800 x 600 x 32 to get better speed, although its still looks pretty. I like playing games at their max... the way they were meant to be played.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by beyondSciFi]




top topics
 
0

log in

join