is this good? my 3dmark2001se sucks but 3dmark2003 good??!! - Tech Support Forums

jakx · September 21st, 2003, 02:46 AM

Ok from what I've read this is pretty bad for 3dmark2001se and this other one is alright for 2k3 so can you tell me what you think?

7785 2k1
2750 2k3

CPU: AMD Athlon XP 1800+ overclocked to 1779ghz
and ATI RADEON 9600 NP overclocked to 420/211
plus 386mb DDR Ram

WingWizard · September 21st, 2003, 03:00 AM

eh, it's not the greatest

jakx · September 21st, 2003, 03:03 AM

as helpful as that is...
have any suggestions?
and what do you mean its not the greatest...both?

WingWizard · September 21st, 2003, 03:07 AM

i'm not entirely sure if those scores are consistent with your hardware;

better proc., better ram and running in dual channel, all that good stuff will increase your scores.

ArcticFox · September 21st, 2003, 04:46 AM

Yeah that's really low for your rig. Here's mine:

3200+/400Mhz FSB (overclocked 2500+)
512mb (2x 256 in dual-channel mode)
A7N8X-DX (nForce2)
Ti 4200 running at 300/545

I get 12843 in 2003. Even though my proc is much faster than yours, and the bus is twice the speed, I think you should score higher in 2001. However, I scored 1528 in 2003, but I was running a 3000+ (maybe a 2800+) at the time. So I think WingWizard has something going, your scores are a little weird. Your 2003 seems pretty up their for your rig, as your 9600 NP overclocked or not isn't a barn-burner.

Change some settings, make sure your BIOS settings are correct for your hardware, and run some more tests.

jakx · September 21st, 2003, 06:05 PM

I'm gonna go ahead and post some links so maybe that will help...

http://service.futuremark.com/servle...jectId=1322614

http://service.futuremark.com/servle...&projectType=6

Be aware that the CPU wasn't overclocked then but I just ran another test and the difference was maybe +500 thats it.

Eladijaz · October 6th, 2003, 05:35 AM

Hi Jakx,
I'd say your scores are about where they should be. The 9600np has quite slow memory and only half the pipelines of the 4200 so it doesn't do too well in 3dmark2001. However, it is directx 9 compliant, which the 4200 is not, and so does better in 3dmark2003.
IMO you're doing well.
Regards,
Elad.

Ultima · October 15th, 2003, 03:41 PM

I've tested the 9600 against the 4200 at work.

Even tho it is not as fast as the 9700 or 9800, it held it's ground against the 4200 with agp8x and 128Mb.

Both were tested on an a7n8x and XP2400, both came out around the 10k barrier.

Here's my score in 3DMark2001SE, altho much had been tweaked.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6386724

So I'd say these 2 cards should be about equal in 3DMark2001SE.

agathodaimon · October 15th, 2003, 04:01 PM

Ultima, are you talking about the 9600 PRO or the NON-PRO?
I would think that the PRO would be close to the 4200 and the non-pro would be slower, and therfore his score looks correct.

I have an XP1800 at stock speed and a Geforce4 Ti4200 (slightly OC'd) and ended up getting 10,088 in 3dMark 2001se.

Ultima · October 15th, 2003, 06:07 PM

Sorry, my bad.

Is indeed the Pro version.

But let's face it, almost every 9600 can easily be clocked to Pro speed, as the difference isn't all that much.

I'm getting the 9800 soon, non pro version, and it runs only slightly slower then the Pro version.

I've already tried it, and without additional cooling she'll run at Pro speed easily.

Gonna add ramsinks to it, put artic silver on the core and see what she can do.

Finally upgrading from this Ti4200.

That'll go in my 2nd pc, and my Ti200 will go into my server, as that is my last puter.