3DMark2003 Worth the wait????

Anyone else had the same thoughts/problems as me regarding 2003??

After taking many joyous hours trying to get a download slot, I managed to get wedged in on a Australian site. (Sorry MG, your links were all full) and proceeded to download the 180+ Mb file.

Once downloaded, I was mightily impressed by the new graphics on the splash screen, and it looked all sparkly and new. Then I tried to use it.

It firstly told me it would only be able to run 1 out of 4 tests, and I should download 3DMark2001 to run the other tests!!! It then choose to run intermittently, stating that it had a problem with my DirectX 8.1 (I have DX 9 installed and verified on my system) and when it did run, because it could not run all 4 tests, I did not recieve a Score (at least I assume that, it did not give a reason).

What a crock of $hit!!!

OK, maybe I got a corrupt dl. Tried another site, downloaded at the wonderful speed of 20K/sec (On my 1Mb BB connection!) and installed. Same again, only this time it would not run at all.
OK, maybe got a stuffed DX9 install. So I re-installed DX9. Still the same probs.

Over the last 2 days, I have managed to run the 1 test it will do on 3 occasions, and out of those 3 it crashed once, gave me loads of artifacts once, and only actually run well once.

Did I do something wrong? Or is 3DMark03 as crappy as it appears??

 

It's not corrupt.... same things happening to me!!!

Do we have to buy it to actually get use out of it??? Anyone purchase it??

Me

 

I found a good read about it at HardOCP.com.

Sounds like a crap to me.

 

No offence but you guys are not that smart, it's because none of your videocards can do DirectX8 stuff, there's only 1 DX7 test, and 1DX9 the other 2 are DX8. This benchmark kicks ass! It will sure last a long time to, The highest score there is 5000, andt he average is 800, it should surly last another 2 years! There is nothing wrong with it... except, it should let Geforce4 Ti's use Pixal Shader 1.3 instead of 1.1... that slows the geforce4's down a bit, and the free version is to cut down compaired to the bought version, otehr then that, it rox!!!

 

None taken Max

*Note to self - Shoot Max in head *

Only flaw in that argument is that 3DMark02 trumpeted that it was the DX8 testing platform. Therefore, the DX8 tests would not have run on my card on 3DMark02. But they did. And they also did on my old GF2 MX400 card.

I now have a GF4 MX440 card which is DX8 compliant (and DX9 compatible according to the box), so it should, by process of deduction, run at least 3 out of the 4 tests.

It don't

It has now managed to run another 2 times this evening. Both times giving crappy pictures, and running very slow and choppy.

Your points also do not explain the program bugs that I have experienced, regarding the non-performance and the random artifacts that appear on the screen (And before you ask, YES I did turn back the o/c settings to factory default - still did it)

All in all, my question was more along the lines of "Have I got a corrupted download, or is this down to the program?" but I do accept your points reference the DX9 card.

But how many DX9 cards are out on the market at the moment?? Not many last time I looked (I await correction )

In the mean time - I am going back to 2002. At least it worked.

 

It was 3DMARk 2001, not 2.... It runs great on my 8500 (well "great") 800 points, and the Geforce4 MX440 are DirectX7, they can do some DirectX8 stuff but not much, just some simple vertex shaders, that's why you couldent run the nature test in 3DMARK 2001 nor the 2 DX8 tests in 3DMARK 2003. You need a better card, a ATI Radeon 9500 Pro would do you good!

 

Hmmm.

Good info.

Maybe FutureMark should make things a little clearer upon release then.

Judging by some of the posts in other forums, quite a few people coming across the same problems, and your reply makes me think that I was not the only one to fall into that trap.

 

Is this why 3D won't run nature tests on my machine? I have directx8.1 installed. And I only got a score of 477 because of the 4 tests it wouldn't run. Guess I shouldn't even bother with this new one.

 

No it's not what DX you got installed, it's what DX your card fully supports. Just keep the bench and run it when you get a new card. Any Radeon 8500 and up will run everything except the DX9 test.

 

You happen to have the Geforce 4 MX. 3D Mark 2003 is a directx 9 benchmarker, meaning pixel shaders are needed. That's why it wouldn't work. You need a video card with pixel shaders. Any MX card does not have pixel shaders.

 

Yep These cards all support DX8 which you need to run all of 3DMARK 2001 or most of 3DMARK 2003:
ATI:
Radeon 8500
Radeon 9000
Radeon 9100
Radeon 9500
Radeon 9700

nVidia:
Geforce3 Ti
Geforce4 Ti
Geforce FX

These cards do not support DX8:
ATI:
Any RAGE card
Radeon 7000/Radeon VE
Radeon 7200/Radeon
Radeon 7500

nVidia:
Any TNT or RIVA card
Geforce 256
Geforce2
Geforce4 MX (can do a small amount of DX8 stuff, but not much)

Althou you mize as well get a DX9 card which includes:
ATI:
Radeon 9500
Radeon 9700

nVidia:
Geforce FX

Does that answer your question?

 

atm i only have SiS onboard graphics (booo!!!) but ill download it anyway, see how dire it is. Im guna get one of them GeForce 4 Ti like wot u sed up der. hopefully it will work well with them

 

Actually 3DMARK 2003 runs better on the Radeons because the Radeons support a better Pixal Shader, but the Geforce4's are just as good in real games (except the 9500 and the 9700 are much faster/better then any Geforce4). But, it's your choice.

 

ahh, but i cant AFFORD a Raedon thats my only problem

 

Sure you can, how much money you got? The radeon 9000's can be found for $50 64Mb and $100 for 128MB...

 

if you install DX9.0 you will be able to run all 4 tests.

 

According to Max, Flessa does not have a card that will run the DX9 tests anyway, same problem as me. That is if Flessa still has the same card as listed in sig.

 

told me in various different ways "you dont have anything worth testing on this thing!" then dissapeared.

great..

 

LOL.

Know the feeling

 

Listen, to run the 2 DX8 tests in 3DMARK 2003, or the 1 DX8 test in 3DMARK 2001 you need a DX8 card And DX8 installed. I already explained this to you. To run the 1 DX9 test in 3DMARK 2003 you need a DX9 card and DX9 installed. I already told you guys which cards can do which. Do you understand yet?

 

Ummm so what I understand is that my Radeon AIW 7500 just sucks.... is that it??

Ok..
I'll practice.. Ummm Honey.. the video of our child will look so much nicer on a 9700 all in wonder....

or..

umm

Help me here!!!!

Curtis

 

Yes, I still have the 32mb SiS 305 vid card so I won't worry about the new 3D for a while. Besides, I don't do gaming, just surf the net and do email so it will work just fine for a long time to come.

 

Yea, the 7500 isn't the best, but it is fine for current gaming.

 

Well . . . I broke down and decided to try 3DMark03.

Fastest download was eDome.net. I was able to maintain 95Kb/sec or higher.

Anyway, here's what happened . . .

Score = 1736 on the benchmark. But the thing is a slide show on tests 2-4. Framerates were in the basement or worse.

However, the demo ran very smooth and looked great.

I don't know what FutureMark figures everyone has for equipment but 'holy cat food'! If my P4 2.4 with a 9700pro has to visit the litter box they must figure the next generation will be the 'cat's ass'!

the_Cat

 

Update to last post:

Ran the benchmark again at same settings . . . 1716.

Checked out FutureMark website and other scores . . . mine sucked . . . big time.

Sooo . . . I rebooted and cranked up the 9700 to 360/330. The score came up . . . 5092. Way too many artifacts to be a relevant test however it puts me in the ballpark instead of the parking lot.

Still got a slide show during the second CPU test.

I am going to try another at 350/325 and see what happens.

Why do I bother!?!?

the_Cat

 

I was using a Geforce 4 4600 and a Pentium 2.0 Ghz and got framerates on test two and three as less than 10 fps. I can tell you that watching a game at an average of 5 fps is humbling.

Just remember: 3dMark needs to make every video card currently available and future cars of the next few years be pushed to the limit. What good is a benchmarking program if any card released in the last six months can get a perfect score?

 

Sometimes people can't see the obvious(or at least refuse to). A video card cannot "learn" new features or technologies.

Take a note: READ THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

 

Anything above 1000 in 3dmark2k3 is decent, this is a hard benchmark, everyone was complaining that 3dmark2k1 had become a CPU benchmark, so they made this one that wiill last for a couple years.

 

I was amazed how many high end users are in the 5000's and yes even in the 6000's . . . and no I haven't been dipping into the cat nip again!

See some samples below from the Future Mark website.

Score: 6683 **Hiwayman** VR-Zone Team
Date: 2003-2-17
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 4012 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9700/9500 Series
486.0 MHz / 387.0 MHz
User: d.j@geek.com

Score: 6660 **HIWAYMAN** VR-Zone Team
Date: 2003-2-15
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3967 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9700/9500 Series
486.0 MHz / 387.0 MHz
User: hiwayman@vr-zone.com

Score: 6566 oOoO-DigitalJesus-OoOo VR-ZONE
Date: 2003-2-14
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3795 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9700/9500 Series
492.0 MHz / 357.0 MHz
User: d.j@geek.com

Score: 6405 CATCH22ATPLAY VR-ZONE 3DMARK TEAM
Date: 2003-2-14
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3367 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9700/9500 Series
450.0 MHz / 405.0 MHz
User: catch22atplay@yahoo.com

If I tuned my 9700 that high I'd be the proverbial 'cat on a hot tin roof'. That kinda heat could fuse kitty litter!

the_Cat

 

Well there all RAdeon 9700 Users, any otehr card has trouble getting past 3000.

 

Yup you're right! Here are some samples:

Score: 2508 |RickY|@PORTUGAL
Date: 2003-2-18
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows XP
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3486 MHz
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4600
361.0 MHz / 751.0 MHz
User: ricky@sapo.pt


Score: 2622 no modifications
Date: 2003-2-13
Res: 1024x768 32 bit
OS: Microsoft Windows 2000
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2539 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 8500/9100 Series
274.0 MHz / 274.0 MHz
User: gob66@yahoo.com

My last two were 4998 and 5104 with minimal artifacts and no extra cooling. I am pretty sure I could do the 5500 again w/o artifacts if I could keep the heat down.

Still it's hard to believe that the 9700 can still be hauled down to its knees by some parts of this bench. Even in the 5000 territory the Ogre test comes down into the low 20's fps . . . amazing.

the_Cat

 

Nice, yep! So in other words, we're right, you guys are wrong.

 

You wanna be careful Max. You might get dizzy up on that High Horse of yours!!! Either that or someone will take offence to the tone of your posts and push you off it.