3dmark 2003 is out!

[Cantacuzene]

3dMark 2003 is out. Its 171 megs. I'll post my score later when my download finishes.

http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml

[Bires]

OH! Beat me to the link by 13 minutes....d/ling....

[Bires]

My downloads (3 so far) keep getting cut off. Maybe I won't be downloading this this evening

[Cantacuzene]

Yeah. Both times I tried I got about 90-100 megs done and it died. Really frustrating.

[Bires]

use the european mirrors-they are just as fast and its early morning over there.

[Bires]

My rig right now... (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=22819)

So...without DX9 optimized drivers...this thing runs BE-U-TI-FULL... :eek: but slow. :rolleyes:

Oh well.

I do find it funny that when The Matrix was cool-we had Matrix-like scenes. Now the LOTR is cool-we have trolls and stuff.

Also, FalconNW is out (The King is Dead), and Alienware is in (Long Live the King of high-priced gaming computers)

[Cantacuzene]

Now none of the servers work. Time to start looking on irc...

[sbp]

Hardocp (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4LDQ=) won't be using 3dmark 2003 as a benchmark.

"3DMark03, a DirectX 9 Benchmark?" This is one question that we really must ask ourselves. Game 1 is a very simple DX7 test that is not representative of any current games. Game Tests 2 and 3 are DX8.1 but use Pixel Shader 1.4, which is not used by any games we are aware of and will not be to our knowledge. Game 4 is a hybrid of DX8/DX9. It is these four tests that determine the overall score. Only one game test in this benchmark DirectX 9 and then only partially.

One issue we have been discussing as of late with amoungst ourselves and with ATI and NVIDIA, is the implementation of real world game benchmarking versus synthetic benchmarking. We do feel that synthetic benchmarks do have their place if used properly. Actual games or gaming engines should remain the primary focus though. When it comes right down to it we would rather see improvements and gains in real world games rather than in synthetic benchmarks.

First seen here: http://www.3dchipset.com/index.php#1178 Also note next news post Nvidia is displeased with 3DMark03

--------------
I've never gone for 3dmark. Ohh lookie my 3dmarks went up 100. BFD!

[Bires]

This prog gives you tons of info about your system, and it records cpu FSB and video card core and memory clocks in the compare record. Nice touch.
There is also a very handy benchy for determining your framerate hit from your soundcard. It runs one of the tests with sound off, then again with sound on (EAX on my Audigy). Another nice touch.

I don't aggree with comparing one benched system with another you have no control over, as you can still tweak the drivers for performance and make your FPS increase while your image quality tanks, but as a benchy for overall system performance-this one is pretty good (initial opinion).

It still lacks one thing I have wanted these demos/benchies to have:
TEMPERATURE MONITORING!!!!!:angry:

Would it kill these programers to have a little radio button to have the program monitor CPU and mobo temps during the benchmark?

I'm still waiting...

[sho.gun]

fast link: http://www.overclockers.at/phex/3DMark03.exe


gonna test and post in a sec

[Bires]

The demo is pretty nifty (the WWII part anyway). I noticed while it and the benchmarks were running, that my HD had a lot of activity. I also noticed that some of the scenes ran fine, then slowed down for no on-screan reason. So, I deduced that 256 of PC2100 is not going to cut it for this prog. (Futuremark says 256M minimum...I think not)

Luckily, I have a 512 of PC3200 on its way. :D

[CynJon]

Wow, ran this just now and it's REALLY working my system hard...I have AMDXP 1800+ (OC to 2000+), 512MB of Crucial PC2100, and ATI Radeon 9700 Pro with latest drivers and DX9... Score: 4509

The second set of tests, especially the second one with the girl with the sword (ala LOTR), framerates dropped into the 1 to 5 FPS range...:wow:

I want to reboot and run it again...I like the fact that some of the tests have sound now--shows what an impact it can have on framerates.

EDIT: I just ran it again, and got 4477...I think I'll quit while I'm ahead. :)

Detailed results here. (http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10&projectId=31833)

[Cantacuzene]

1469 marks

AMD 2100+
GF4 Ti4200 @ 270/508
A7N8X
512 pc2700

Overall, I think my system held up rather well. I am NOT impressed with the art they used compared to 2k1SE. When 2001 first came out that nature scene blew us all away with how far ahead of current technology it was and how well done the art itself was, technical difficulty aside. This year there was nothing in the demo that made me gasp at its beauty. You can definitly tell different people worked on this one.

[irwin]

1.33ghz t-bird @ 1.33ghz :D
ecs k7s5a
256mb pc2100
gainward gf3 ti200 @ 200/451

My 3dmark2003 experience

aSIa N O u TCaST (11:02:40 PM): ok im scared now that this is gonna lock up my comp or make it hang
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:02:42 PM): Wow, ran this just now and it's REALLY working my system hard...I have AMDXP 1800+ (OC to 2000+), 512MB of Crucial PC2100, and ATI Radeon 9700 Pro with latest drivers and DX9... Score: 4509

The second set of tests, especially the second one with the girl with the sword (ala LOTR), framerates dropped into the 1 to 5 FPS range...
BLaCKHouL (11:10:08 PM): http://www.lemonizer.com/images/shocam.jpg
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:10:51 PM): direct x 9 is required to run this program
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:11:00 PM): you can dl it at microsoft.com/xxxxxxx
BLaCKHouL (11:11:02 PM): yeah
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:11:05 PM): bah
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:00 PM): last time i dled a dx update it screwed up my games
BLaCKHouL (11:12:26 PM): look at the cam!
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:30 PM): i did
BLaCKHouL (11:12:33 PM): o
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:12:37 PM): you were wearing your santa hat again
BLaCKHouL (11:12:47 PM): it's so soft...
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:00 PM): is it live?
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:04 PM): or relatively live
BLaCKHouL (11:13:11 PM): live in theory
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:33 PM): theory of relativity, that is! AH AH
BLaCKHouL (11:13:39 PM): lol
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:13:50 PM): im totally on the ball with the jokes today
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:16:31 PM): hey how long does the 3dmark thing last?
BLaCKHouL (11:16:32 PM): ah
BLaCKHouL (11:16:36 PM): like...
BLaCKHouL (11:16:38 PM): a long time
BLaCKHouL (11:16:42 PM): 5-10 min
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:16:46 PM): ok i'll brb in 5-10 min
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:03 PM): lol ****
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:07 PM): 3dmark crashed
BLaCKHouL (11:23:13 PM): lol
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:16 PM): i was in battle of porygon or something
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:23 PM): like the entire thing was doing 1-3fps
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:26 PM): the entire time
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:31 PM): then it went to 0
BLaCKHouL (11:23:32 PM): yeah my fps dove really really low in that one
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:38 PM): and then went back up to 3
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:23:44 PM): and then booted me back to desktop
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:39 PM): arg and in the first oen
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:41 PM): with all the planes
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:46 PM): it said Frame xxxx
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:53 PM): i thought that was the frame rate!
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:24:58 PM): i was like HOLY 500!!!
BLaCKHouL (11:25:01 PM): LOL
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:25:15 PM): i realized that it wasnt the frame rate after it passed 900
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:25:21 PM): bleh
aSIa N O u TCaST (11:26:52 PM): http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/3dmark2003.jpg

_--___--_-

Yeah, I think I gotta build a new comp. :heh:

[coleslaw]

My system only supported the first test and scored a 176! :heh:

[Tommy Boomfiger]

i need a new computer :(

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by sbp
Hardocp (http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NDI4LDQ=) won't be using 3dmark 2003 as a benchmark.

"3DMark03, a DirectX 9 Benchmark?" This is one question that we really must ask ourselves. Game 1 is a very simple DX7 test that is not representative of any current games. Game Tests 2 and 3 are DX8.1 but use Pixel Shader 1.4, which is not used by any games we are aware of and will not be to our knowledge. Game 4 is a hybrid of DX8/DX9. It is these four tests that determine the overall score. Only one game test in this benchmark DirectX 9 and then only partially.

One issue we have been discussing as of late with amoungst ourselves and with ATI and NVIDIA, is the implementation of real world game benchmarking versus synthetic benchmarking. We do feel that synthetic benchmarks do have their place if used properly. Actual games or gaming engines should remain the primary focus though. When it comes right down to it we would rather see improvements and gains in real world games rather than in synthetic benchmarks.

First seen here: http://www.3dchipset.com/index.php#1178 Also note next news post Nvidia is displeased with 3DMark03

--------------
I've never gone for 3dmark. Ohh lookie my 3dmarks went up 100. BFD!

On the one hand, I rather agree with them, but then I've never liked 3dmark as a benchmark. On the other hand, getting picky about 3dmark when they benchmark with strange things like turning the sound card off - yeah ok, and that proves what, exactly? Does anyone play games with no sound card? Then benchmarking with no sound is a little misleading, ain't it?

Really, there is no 'perfect' way to bench a system, which is why you use real world programs in addition to 'made up' benchmarks like 3DM.

[Bires]

Originally posted by Tommy Boomfiger
i need a new computer :(


DON'T GIVE IN TO THE MACHINE!!!! Throw the hammer! Buck the status quo. Don't be another "my-system-sucks-because-a-benchy-told-me-so" lamer.


Disclaimer: Hey do what you want. It's your $$ ;)

[Cantacuzene]

It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one. As long as the playing field is leveled any test is good.

That said, I think they dropped that ball on this one. Its definitly not "eye candy" like previous years releases.

[Speedfreak]

Score: 1490

A7N8X
Athlon XP 2400+
GF4 4200 (275/555)
512MB PC3200

[skynet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one. As long as the playing field is leveled any test is good.


Not necessary. Take Quake III for example. With these newer systems you need to up the settings way up high and then the difference in really in the margin of error. Or what if we used 3DMark 97. I remember that as the original 3D mark, Did it even give scores? I don't remember. But I doubt that would be an acurate measure for todays systems.

Why? It is not optimized for the newer hardware. And What happens when the software is optimized for only X based hardware. Still not an acurate measure because not all software is optimized like that.

There is no one solution fits all, even if everybody uses it.

[Cantacuzene]

I don't think anyone is advocating using 97 or that anyone is encouraging peopel to still use Quake 3. A bit of common sense goes a long way in selecting your benchmarks.

[skynet]

You specifically said


It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one.

A bit of my common sense says 3D mark is not a good tool to benchmark.

[Cantacuzene]

You're taking my post out of context to imply that I think as long as everyone uses old programs then its good enough.

[skynet]

Again You specifically said



It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one.


Now those words right there are yours, and you said that it doesn't matter. So if it doesn't matter, old or new also doesn't matter as long as everyone uses it.

Those are your words not mine, they do not need to be taken out of context to assume what I said as you have specifically said that it doesn't matter.

[Cantacuzene]

You're just being a d***. I obviously did not intend to mean that we should all use old programs and that would be just as good. Why do you do you feel the need to over-analyze what I said anyway? I think you're just trying to find anyway you can to make me look 'wrong.' I don't let any grudes I have from other threads and topics carry over into others so I suggest you do the same.

[Tommy Boomfiger]

Originally posted by Bires



DON'T GIVE IN TO THE MACHINE!!!! Throw the hammer! Buck the status quo. Don't be another "my-system-sucks-because-a-benchy-told-me-so" lamer.


Disclaimer: Hey do what you want. It's your $$ ;) its not a benchmark, ive been wanting a new system for a while now because the stuff i do is just going so slow on my current system. this benchmark was just really pathetic on my box. the thing is that i wont settle for second rate parts and i wont buy anything until i have the money for it.

as far as benchmarks go, i dont put a whole lot of emphasis into them, but they do offer pretty much the only way to compare the performance of two machines. if you wanted to compare the acceleration of two cars you would go out to the track and race them or run time trials. that wouldnt be the definitive answer to which one accelerates better, there are always variables. tires, humidity, ambient temp, wind, driver and what ever but its a benchmark. for computers there are probably dozens of variables that will affect the bench, doesnt make any real difference in the real world when all you are doing is browsing the web and reading emails and gaining 3 fps when playing a game

[zippyjuan]

3dMark03:4088
Athlon XP 2400+
Asus A7N8X
512mb PC 2700
Powercolor Radeon 9700 (not Pro)
No sound card (just on-board stereo used)
I checked my CPU temp after the test and it was 42C (usually 39-40 with stock heatsink and fan). No change in MB temp (30C). All settings to factory.

[Bires]

I remember when I was running my Radeon there was some tweaks in the tweaker (Radeonator I think) that could be set for 3dMark2001. When I set them, I got about 500 more points, but the image quality suffers.

My image quality settings are always at the top, so my benchmark results are always a little low.

My point is, you can tweak your card to get artificially high (or low) #'s. 3DMark doesn't state those reg tweaks in the compare record.

[skynet]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
You're just being a d***. I obviously did not intend to mean that we should all use old programs and that would be just as good. Why do you do you feel the need to over-analyze what I said anyway? I think you're just trying to find anyway you can to make me look 'wrong.' I don't let any grudes I have from other threads and topics carry over into others so I suggest you do the same.

Maybe you should reread the posts a little more in detail. My point was not that you said we should all use older programs. My point as stated is



There is no one solution fits all, even if everybody uses it.


The entire deal with the older programs is just one of the many flaws in your statement. What Bires said is another. Hell I could squeeze plenty of extra points out of 3D Mark, I could even write a program (If I tried enough) to emulate a 3d card which just draws a blank screen and reports a huge FPS. It is a legitimate score, but it means nothing. Again, There is no one solution fits all, even if everybody uses it.

I have no grudges, I could careless who you are, its not until now that I even looked at your name and proceesed the letters in my brain.

[Cantacuzene]

You really read far too deep into what I said. You imply that I suggest that if everyone uses one program its fine. I consider 3damrk part of a good benchmark, but not the whole benchmark.

[skynet]

Hahahaha!

Are you listened to yourself? First you state

It doesn't really matter what benchmark you're using (real world vs artificial) as long as everyone is using teh same one.

You disagree by saying

You imply that I suggest that if everyone uses one program its fine.

That is exactly what you suggest!

[zippyjuan]

You guys still going at it?! Give it a rest already!

[NuTs62]

Time to laugh at my pitiful scores!

3DMark03 Score: 865

Dual AMD Athlon MP 1800+ @ 1533MHz
ATI Radeon 8500DV All-In-Wonder
Kingston 1GB PC2100 DDR RAM
Tyan Tiger MP Motherboard
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Platinum eX
Windows XP Professional



since i had to reformat my HD, my system hasn't acted normally.. so that could be part of the reason.. :shrug:

[zippyjuan]

I went back into my BIOS and changed my CPU setting from OPTIMAL to AGRESSIVE and my score increased by 10 points. The A7N8X is supposed to help unlock the processor of Athlon Tbred B processors. Interestingly, when they listed my system components, they describe my Athlon 2400+ as being 2.0ghz, like I expected, but it also said that it has a maximum of 3.0 ghz. I didn't know they could go that high. The CPU also was about 3 degrees C hotter at that setting.

[irwin]

Just tried running it again and it was able to post a score. :)

http://www.lemonizer.com/uploads/3dmark2003_2.jpg

[kain9i6]

wow..

Gigabyte GA-7VAXP
AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 1737 MHz
FSB 139 MHz
Memory 512 pc2100
NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
Drivers 4.1.0.9


But GT4 Mother nature "Not supported"
Pixel Shader 2.0 "Not Supported"

My score was 1524 though..

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by NuTs62
Time to laugh at my pitiful scores!

3DMark03 Score: 865

Dual AMD Athlon MP 1800+ @ 1533MHz
ATI Radeon 8500DV All-In-Wonder
Kingston 1GB PC2100 DDR RAM
Tyan Tiger MP Motherboard
Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Platinum eX
Windows XP Professional



since i had to reformat my HD, my system hasn't acted normally.. so that could be part of the reason.. :shrug:

Yeah, 8500's really score low in this version.

[Showtime]

1626?

2.6ghz P4, Epox4G4A, ti4600 @300/650, 512 DDR @290mhz, 5400 deathstar.

Kinda low for my hardware but my rams not running fast (290mhz) and my card needs to be at 320/730. This hd was in my old system and doesn't run all the new hw right.

I need to do fresh install of win98se. I had this hd when I was runnig a 1.6a/MSI mobo and a ti200.

Finally a reason to tweak the new stuff. I think I'll reformat my other hd and get ddr that can handle the dividers on this mobo. Maybe break 2k!

:)

-jel:halo:

[Showtime]

1721 on 2nd run. Card @315/715 and fsb at 147 with most aggressive ram settings. Looks like it will need fsb 155+ and bios tweaked for performance to break 2k. Or maybe just fresh install with a better hd.

-jel:halo:

[Bires]

Only 1250 on my P2.2 (OCed 1.6A) with a TI4200 64M (290x630). I'm thrilled with my system because I get >40 fps in UT2003, NOLF2 (and everything else ) with Quincunx FSAA at 1024x768.

[Booyamos]

2893 - first time
3539 - Second time

Looked great, ran a little slow on the last few ones.
P4 2.4ghz
Asus P4G8X Deluxe
512mb PC2700
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
80 gig 7200 8mb SE WD HD

compare here http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=224585

perty lookin stuff, I wants to go fly planes now :)

[Lothar]

anyone know why when i try to run the program, my computer just restarts? im open to all ideas

[Bires]

I've found in the past that insufficient voltages to the CPU, RAM, AGP are usually the culprits behind similar reboots.

[Lothar]

i tried boosting them up as high as i could, ill still fiddle around with it, but it hasnt worked yet
thanks for the tip though, hopefully it'll work