I have just upgraded from a 9600pro to a X800Xl and in 3D Mark 2001 iam getting A Score of 14000 i thought i would be touching the 20000 mark am i right you can see the system soecs and i have the latest drivers and a freash install of XP.Help.
I have just upgraded from a 9600pro to a X800Xl and in 3D Mark 2001 iam getting A Score of 14000 i thought i would be touching the 20000 mark am i right you can see the system soecs and i have the latest drivers and a freash install of XP.Help.
3000 running on 166fsb....... 20k sounds very optimistic.
All the same have you checked all settings in the drivers are set to performance etc.
I wouldnt expect more than 16k or so tbh, as 01 is heavily based on your CPU and particularly the FSB.
I have run benchmarks for 2003 and 2005 they seam to be on track i just thought 2001 would give me a good score on the future web site most people get at least 18000 up.
What were you getting on your 9600Pro?
I think i was getting about 8000 thought i would get more with the x800xl 4 vs 16 pipelines.
No. If you had a 3000+ A64 you could expect 20000+, but not with a stock AXP 3000+.Originally Posted by theslasher@ntlw
This is about the best you can hope for @ stock:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8786258
The DX9 benchmarks like 2k3 and 2k5 are not nearly as CPU dependant. You will get much better performance jumps in those benchmarks, but not in 2k1.
Just done a new bench mark toped 16000 that makes me happy i rember my 9600pro benchmarking 2003 with the trolls it was doing 1fps now at least 28fps,
Yes, today's games will be much faster on the X800XL as well! Enjoy!
iirc my 2500 @2.3ghz, 1gb 3200, 9700pro (with a little oc) gets 16000 max in 3dmark 2001 so ram and cpu speed (fsb) is whats limiting your score.
StormPC is right about the later benchmarks, they are much more gfx card dependant.
Imho benchmarking is fine for testing a new system and tweaking (or for bragging rights) but it's not the be all and end all. If your pc does what you want it to, when you want it to, then just sit back and enjoy
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Thank you iam at peace now i can play the mighty half life 2 at max settings is there such a sexy thing.
Hhehe congrats on the new purchase.
The X800XL is a great card. Here's what you can do with a 3700+ San Diego. Everything is stock cooling and volts.Originally Posted by theslasher@ntlw
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8596406
Indeed, but come on, 3dmark 2001 has about as much relevance as flying badgers, than it has with game performance.Originally Posted by StormPC
Maybe, but you may want to read the title of this thread Smokester.Originally Posted by Smokey21
He asked about 3DMark2001, not games. I just through the games comment in there because it is true and he later spoke of games.
Yeah i know, just saying. I mean 01 is so old, it's not really got much relevance, hell you can score 1000 points just having 1Mb L2, instead of 512k.
You can get 30k, with that system, my 4400+ and X1800XT only get around 34k. Then if you compared 03 or 05, it would be a massacre.
Yes, in the same way that the X800 series only beats the 9X00 series slightly in 2k1, so the X1800 series beats the X800. This does not mean that 2k1 is no longer relevant. It is a very good overall measure of raw system horsepower if you understand how to interpret the scores. 2k3 and 2k5 are mainly DX9 benchmarks. CPU matters on some tests but nowhere near as much as it does on 2k1. All the newest games are DX9. For DX8.1 and older games (there are many more of those than there are DX9) 2k1 is a more realistic benchmark.
We are not really talking about 2k1's validity here, just the reasons for the discrepancy in the scores of the X800XL in 2k1, 2k3 and 2k5.
Last edited by StormPC; 29-12-2005 at 05:03 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)