View Full Version : 3dmark 2003

Mark Veldhuizen
04-01-2004, 12:43 PM
I just ran this beast on my new system I built, it really baught it down to it's knees! I was seeing less than 15 FPS in some areas, like the DOOM 3-Style space shootup. I was a little dissapointed seeing my new 2000 dollar computer struggle like that, but my final score at the end was a good 3040 3dmarks which isn't too bad, I guess. My specs:

AMD xp2600+ BARTON
MSI KT4 mobo
512mb DDR400 (3200), 512mb DDR333 (2700) = 1024mb RAM
ATI Radeon 9600 PRO 128mb

So, is 3040 3dmarks okay for this system, and okay for games for the next year or so?

And post your 3dmarks, too, with system specs, for comparison.

Sorry if this has been done before :)

04-01-2004, 12:46 PM
Accusations fly everywhere about 3dmark 2003, I wouldn't trust it at all.

Better to stick with 3dmark 2002, or real world benchmarks such as UT2003 or Q3A (aging, I know, but it is still a good benchmarking standard).

04-01-2004, 12:49 PM
3dmark 2003 is designed to bring a system to its knees.

04-01-2004, 12:51 PM
You think thats bad.

My system
AMD 1800XP
1024 megs PC2700 Ram
Asus A7V8X mother board
Creative Audigy2 sound card
Leadtek GF4 Ti 4400
2 x 80 gig ATA133 7200rpm drives

and all I got was 15 fps on the first tests and 1 (a measly ONE) FPS for the other more intensive tests. I was flabbergasted, I was sure I would get more than that. :D

04-01-2004, 12:54 PM
Yeah 3DMark is a bit of a dog. I would suggest the Gunmetal benchmark, it's heaps better and supports DX 9.

You'd probably get a better result from using it


04-01-2004, 01:15 PM
Well I just ran 3DMark SE and my system scored.... 4423 3D marks. Resolution was 1024x768 @ 60Hz. Where do I find what my fps was, during the test I went as high as 68fps and the lowest was 13fps.

My specs:
Intel Celron 2.4Ghz (overclocked to 2.66Ghz)
80GB Seagate Barracuda HDD
Asus Magic 9520 GeForce FX 5200 128MB
Windows 2000 SP4

Think I will try other resolutions and refresh rates to see how I go.

Another thing in 3DMark in my CPU description it says

Current speed - 2.66Ghz
Max Speed - 3.06Ghz

Does this meanI can overclock my Celeron a bit more or not.


Mark Veldhuizen
04-01-2004, 01:19 PM
Was that 2001 SE? If so, I'm 75% of downloading it now, I'll give you my score in 10 minutes.

And I don't know about overclocking - I don't do it, all my gear runs stock. I may look into overclocking later.

04-01-2004, 01:27 PM
My system gets a healthy 11700 on 3dmark2001.

That is with quality settings on performence and a overclock of the video card.

ECS nforce2
512mb ram.
win XP pro

Mark Veldhuizen
04-01-2004, 01:38 PM
2001, stock everything, on high quality, no overclocking at all (Although I'll get to that :))

10243 3dmarks.

How much did you overclock the video card, as you scored a clean 1,500 3dmarks more than me with just a gf4ti (you didn't name which one, either)?

04-01-2004, 01:38 PM
Yes Mark it is the SE version. To be honest I'm quite surprised are got over 4000 i don't think i've scored that high before.


Mark Veldhuizen
04-01-2004, 01:42 PM
It'd be your Celeron that's stopping you from getting anything higher - although 4000 is still a respectable score.

04-01-2004, 02:00 PM
> How much did you overclock the video card, as you
> scored a clean 1,500 3dmarks more than me with just a
> gf4ti (you didn't name which one, either)?

Leadtek g4ti4200.

No idea how much i overclocked it,Although it cant have been extreme as i didnt have any defects happening on screen.

04-01-2004, 02:04 PM
Woohoo well just hit 5343, set the drivers to performance and overclocked the core clock frequency and memory clck frequency of my g/card by 20%

Res was 1024x768 32 bit colour @ 60Hz

Now I wonder if overclock my CPU more if it will gimme more power.....hehehehehehe hahahahahahahahah :)


04-01-2004, 02:20 PM
Okay just hit 7245 3D marks...

640x480, g/card overclocked 20% again.

I think maybe its time for an g/card upgrade.

Anyone wana buy my GeForce FX 5200?


04-01-2004, 02:31 PM
Ok I can't overclock the Celeron more than the 200Mhz I have it on now. I went up to 2.89Ghz but my machine kept restarting.... oh well looks like I may need to get a new CPU and g/card....



Pete O\'Neil
04-01-2004, 06:45 PM
Geforce 4 Ti's just about always beat out ATI Radeon 9500/9600's in 3D Mark 2001. Its just the way it is, the Radeon 9500/9600 have never been at there strongest in pre DX9.0 programs. Although you will find if you use a DX9.0 benchmark such as Halflife 2 or Aquamark then the Radeon will take the Geforce 4 to bits

04-01-2004, 11:15 PM

Pete O\'Neil
05-01-2004, 10:04 AM
I think you'll find your wrong melta, i have had personal experience with both cards and honestly say that the Ti's out preform Radeon 9500/9600 in 3D Mark 2001. Before i provide links to back up my claims can we assume that the 9500 outpreforms the 9600 or do i have to provide links to prove this aswell?


would you like some more sites or is that enough? What they show is that when running 3D Mark 2001SE at defualt settings the Ti4600 easily beats a 9500, a Ti4400 is roughly on par with a 9500, and that a Ti4200 is only around 500 marks behind.

05-01-2004, 10:11 AM
Yep,Your quite correct.

However,once you do some overclocking or enable AA the ATI cards spank the nvidia's.

Plus the fact that the g4 series don't suport dx9...

Meh...i got nothing...

And yeah,i do know the 9500 pro outperforms the 9600pro,no need for links.

Pete O\'Neil
05-01-2004, 10:46 AM
> However,once you do some overclocking or enable AA
> the ATI cards spank the nvidia's.
> Plus the fact that the g4 series don't suport dx9...