3DMark 2003 version has done exactly what UT2K3 did to UT. It raised the minimum standards quite a bit and hasn't of yet justified doing it. Before you start flaming me let me just say that I know it's designed with future technology gaming technology in mind. I know all of the beginning scores are low just like the orignal 3DMark scores were at first blah blah blah. I KNOW! I kNOW!<br> The demo wasn't as good as the last one. I've only run it once but I think that will be enough since I don't have one of the new ATI cards and that seems to be what this thing is geared for. At least the old 3DMark gave middle of the road systems a chance to complete all of the test and get a fair score. This thing requires you to have a 2000+mhz system and a DirectX9 ready video card with 128mb ram and 512mb system ram just to give you a better than average score. Yes, you could run the test with a lessor system but why would you want to put yourself through it? At least have a DirectX8 capable video card. Read the warnings before you actually run the benchmark. <br> For the record, I scored a 1,347 with the new 3DMark benchmark. I'm guessing that if I had a new ATI 9XXX card that I would have scored in the upper 3000's. With the older version of 3DMark, I usually scored about 10,200. Post up your scores if you are a nerd enough to. That's all!<br><br>Hermskii <p></p><i></i>

Did someone say nerd??? Ya gotta be talking about me. I would be happy to post the scores that my system gets, but it will take me around 3 months to download this 171 meg file. I expect that my score will be a little higher than half of yours, Herm. On 2001 SE, I bench around 8600, but my system is showing its age. I'll be sure to post it when I get it. <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

this must be for the damn 9700 and the new nvidia fx thats comming out.<br><br>i received a measly score of 1291. the fps on some of the scenes were awful..<br><br>later<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10&projectId=106528">service.futuremark.com/se...tId=106528</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p>PIMPOLOGY</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub44.ezboard.com/bschwantzsredeemerarenaserver.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yourpimp@schwantzsredeemerarenaserver>yourpimp</A>  <IMG SRC="http://www.gif-universum.de/Animierte_Gifs/Monster/49.gif" BORDER=0> at: 2/13/03 5:07:22 pm<br></i>

Pretty lame benchmarks as far as entertainment is concerned.<br>The pixel shaders 2.0 test was VERY impressive though, almost photo realistic. <br>Got 5067 3D Marks.I plan to try again after i get through cooling the Radeon.(Damn I love my Xmas present to myself<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> )<br>The CPU tests really lets you know just how week that ole Intel architecture is compared to the latest offerings from NVidia and ATI.My P 4, overclocked to 3.06 Ghz! could only muster 10-15 fps @640x480 16 bit on the first test. Where the Radeon(@1024x768 32 bit) held up well over 200 fps (only one test was over 60 fps btw and that was the first one(DX8.1 test)) <br>Anyway the Benchmark must be designed for like a GeForce 7 MXXXX platinum or the Radeon 12,000 Pro or something cause my new system gets 14,200 pts on ole 3DMark.<br>Its probably jawdropping at 2048x1600 resolution,<br> if you could pry Deep Junior away for that chess board long enough to run it.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Hey Jarg... is that 8600 2k1 marks with your Radeon?<br>Have you installed your socket adapter yet? Just curious.<br><br>Geek Inc.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

Yep, but remember, I have a measly P-4 1.5 gig. Also, the FSB on this thing has always tested slow. I NEED MORE POWER!!!!<br>Unreal 2 is kicking this things butt right now. I may have to (gasp) go to low details on everything. <br>AND I STILL OWE $ ON THIS RIG!!!!<br> <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

I ran the benchmark... I predicted that I would get half of Herm's... I got a 4386. Great Googly Boogly! Well, I suppose that that Radeon 9700 did come in handy. There were a few of the benches where I was getting less than 5 fps, so I have no idea how I got this. <p>The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

Well just for kicks and giggles and ,seeing that the new 3.4 drivers helped out Death's score , I decided to give the 3d mark03 a try too.... here's what i scored.. = 5486 ?<br>Is this good ??? not ? ..or close to what I should be gettin for this system?? <br>what was your new score D??? just curious !!<br>later ......Tri<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

What card are these new drivers for? <p>Hermskii</p><i></i>

thats for the Radeon series of cards ...mines the new one..the 9800 pro, I think the drivers haven't quite caught up to it yet...awesome card... avg. in most ut 2k3 games is 100+ fps, with eye candy off, and will get 60 or more with it maxxed out !!, sometimes still will dip down to the high 40's on some maps though.... those maps are rough on a computer and card!! <p></p><i></i>

Well, After the new drivers, I got a 4812 with my 9700 pro. I also have a p-4 2.4 gig. if that helps. <p><SRA> The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

Don't guess i can test my P2=400 lets just say i'm alot slower than all of you.<br><br><br>SRA>XX_MAN<br>L<br>O<br>W <br> <br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub44.ezboard.com/bschwantzsredeemerarenaserver.showUserPublicProfile?gid=xxman@schwantzsredeemerarenaserver>XXMAN</A> at: 5/19/03 7:00:28 am<br></i>

Have you tried Riva Tuner or equivilent yet on your 9700?<br>Im water cooling my Card and found it to be quite overclockable.I put those BGA Ramsinks on the memory and now I have lots of extra ceiling on the memory speed too.<br>Just Curious what yours can run.with factory cooling<br>Stock is 325 mhz core and 310 mhz memory<br>The most i could get with full reliablity was:<br>391.5 mhz core and 344 mhz memory.<br>Not bad at all.<br> <p></p><i></i>

I have, but I don't have the cojones to push it too far. I ran my Geforce 4 4400 up to 4600 specs, and now I have a a card that artifacts better than it renders. You gonna get the 9800 or stick with the 9700? <p><SRA> The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>

Your's artifacts when run at default settings?<br>Odd.<br>I very happy with my AIW 9700 Pro.<br>It good for a 5700 on 3DMark03, with those OCed settings and gets a 5060 with defaults.<br>Have you loaded the Cat 3.4s yet?<br>Your artifacts may be caused by your mobo or system memory.<br>I had a similiar artifact problem when I ran aggresive memory timings on my old Soyo Dragon board,But my new VIA P4B400 Ultra runs flawlessly with this card.I love it!<br>Keep me posted.<br><br>|).|.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :hat --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/pimp.gif ALT=":hat"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Have you loaded the Cat 3.4s yet?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Yep, I got them yesterday.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Your's artifacts when run at default settings?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Yep, no OCing at all.<br><br>It is the card. I installed it in a friends computer. Same result. It occurs after the computer has been on for a few minutes. I suspect that the fan is faulty. I have been meaning to get a new one and try it out, but I keep forgetting.<br><br>Do you think that the AIW's extra features are worth the price? Just curious, because I may consider it for the next upgrade. I have a TV wonder VE on this rig, and I enjoy watching the TV while surfing. How is the DVD performance? <p><SRA> The Jargonaut<br></p><i></i>