POST ur 3Dmark2002 SE score here !!

Dont you mean 2001SE??:confused:
Yea i get 2876, sys specs below. I should reach 10k though as im gettin my GeForce4 in a few days!!:cool:
 
Score

hmm last time --- 6583

---------------------------------------
Win XP Profesional
Tbird 1.1
256 of 133 (generic)
Asus A7V (bios 1.08)
SB live! value
Maxtor 40 gig ata66 5400 rpm
Creative GF2 Ultra (newest drivers)
16x10x40 lite-on
56x cr-rom
and some periferals and junk..
 
around 4500 3dmarks

Dual PIII850s@1Ghz
1Gb PC133 SDRAM (2x512Mb)
Abit VP6 Mobo
2xIBM 30Gb Hard Drives
ATi Radeon DDR 64Mb
SB Live! 5:1
Cambridge Soundworks FPS1600
Sony 19" Monitor
Generic Optical Mouse
Teac 4x4x24 Burner :)

around 2000 3dmarks
PII 350@392Mhz <- This is slowing 3dmark down
256Mb PC133 SDRAM
Tyan Slot1/Skt370 mobo
20Gb Western Digital
10Gb Maxtor
Generic Geforce2MX (With socket 7 HS/F) - RAMsinks soon!
SB Live!5:1
Hansol 19" Monitor
 
I ran as low as possible to see what the highest score I could get is. I want to say at default settings I came in around 6k. I did run the SE before but I wasnt able to post my scores because when I run the benchmark, I oc my fsb for more speed which renders my nic card useless. I remember my default scores being decent on the SE.

I cant figure out why my scores are lower than others with the same exact machine as well. My scores @ 640x480 are the same others running defaults on the same machine. It doesnt make any sense.

Im gonna play around with it today and post back later some scores with SE.
 
People probably get differnet scores for a number of reasons, i actually get the highest score on the whole thing for a 1.45 athlon and any Kyro 2, even though mine is only 32mb, and i only have SDRAM!!

You can do lots of things to give yourself extra 3DMarks, main one probably being OC your graphics card. But also things like, how much starts up when you boot your PC, and how big your virtual memory is, mine is set at 1gb, and that gave me about 150 extra marks, over the Windows automatic settings.
You've just got to fiddle around with all BIOS settings to see what gives you the best combination!;)
 
Maybe this can help clarify things more:

http://www.designtechnica.com/article.php?sid=1305
News: How Flawed is PCMark2002?
Posted on Thursday, December 02 @ 00:00:03 PST by prod

MadOnions PCMark2002 is made with the help of BAPco. Now, BAPco makes its own benchmarks for PC usage as well, such as SysMark 2001-2002. Now, how fair would all these SYSTEM benchmarks be, if they where being funded, or even made by a cpu manufacturer? Well, BAPco., is nothing other than a front for Intel. They have flawed SysMark in the past, and now, it looks as if PCMark2002 is in the same boat. A benchmark cannot be fair for all PC users, if it is favouring a certain "type" of PC. Thus, PCMARK2002, should only be used by Intel cpu owners. I'll even say Pentium 4 owners, and should be only used as a comparison to other Intel cpu owners, at most.

DO NOT USE PCMARK2002
Click to expand...

Here is another site talking about Intel's "relationship" with the makers of Sysmark and giving benchmarks to back up the allegations:

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm

Hardware reviewers rely on software tools to make performance analyses. Most often, the most crucial insights of reviews are dependent upon commercially derived benchmark suites. With Intel's help distributing their products, the CPU maker's alter ego, BAPCo, has seen its SysMark application level test suite become perhaps the most widely used CPU analysis tool in the industry.

By controlling the very lens through which all CPUs are viewed, Intel can show their processors in the best possible light while placing its rivals' products in the shadows.

There are many ways to skew benchmarks to make a particular CPU look good. One cheap and dirty method is to highlight a particular instruction set extension to the exclusion of the competitors' analog. We mentioned well over a year ago our belief that SysMark 2000 had Intel SSE optimizations to the exclusion of AMD's 3dNow! enhancements. However, testing this conjecture was difficult.

With the introduction of AMD's Palomino, this situation has changed. The Palomino is very similar to the Thunderbird version of the Athlon, but boasts full SSE compatibility. Although Palomino desktop chips are not available yet, we dropped a 1.2 GHz Athlon MP into an Epox 8KHA system and compared performance with a 1.4 GHz Thunderbird Athlon used in the same setup. The SysMark test we chose to examine was Photoshop since its filters were a prime candidate for SSE optimizations.
Click to expand...
 
Looking on the Result Browser, id still think you should be gettin more than that!! More around the 7000-7500 mark!

Read the GeForce tweak guide on 3DS:
GeForce Tweaking Guide

:grinthumb

BTW, which model GeForce3 have u got??
 
I have a Leadtek Winfast Geforce 3. Its the original one...Yeah, I went through the tweak guide and there are some improvements to be made. Ive been playing around with different drivers so Im not fully tweaked yet.
 
Well, I would say yes as long as you have a very good cooling system for your cpu. It may be worth overclocking to 900mhz and see what type of results you get first. 1.17 is a bit high for a 700 PIII. You may have more instability issues than you would want.
 
Well thanks a bunch Cobra, but, do you have idea how I would find out my cooling fan and the speed it runs at?

Also, what do you think I could sqeeze it to without buying any new cooling components?

Thanks!

:grinthumb
 
Well, if you dont know what type of HSF you have then it is the stock one. It would not be sufficient for high speed overclocking.

What type of computer do you have? If you have an OEM motherboard, you may not be able to overclock at all.
 
I have a DELL computer...

I may be able to find out what the full system specs are.

I'll get back to you soon.

Thanks!

:grinthumb
 
Dell= no overclocking. Guranteed.


Dell, Gateway, Micron, Hp, etc... All use Intel based mobo's that dont have any overclocking features. You gonna be stuck at 700mhz.
 
well, you can buy a new motherboard that has overclocking features or you can buy a faster CPU (which might not be a bad idea). The first thing to figure out is what type of CPU you have. A slot or a socket processor. If it is socket processor you may beable to upgrade to a 933mhz for around 100.00 or less.

First though, look in the case and see if it is a socket or a slot. Then you will need to figure out from the bios what type of mobo you have. It is probably an Intel board. If so you go to Intels site with your bios number and try to locate your mobo specs. Usually the first 4 or 5 digits of the bios will identify the board. After the board is identified you will know the max speed. A bios may be needed to achieve the high speed.

Post your bios and the Dell model number and I'll look into it for ya.
 
Whoa..

Do you know how to do all of this step by step?

Can I have the computer on while I do this?

I'm not the biggest hardware guru, sorry.

Thanks.

:grinthumb
 
Yeah I have a good idea what to do once you give me the model number..

For now just give me the model number of the Dell computer. You can leave your computer turned on.
 

Similar threads

Daniel Sims
Qualcomm's Snapdragon X2 Elite looks good in early CPU benchmarks, but Apple holds GPU crown
Replies
8
Views
230
Squid Surprise
Squid Surprise
D
Redesigned iPhone SE 4 could debut next week with major changes, AI features
Replies
13
Views
757
captaincranky
captaincranky
midian182
Crimson Desert reviews fail to meet the hype as Pearl Abyss shares tumble 29%
Replies
13
Views
276
Gravitytr1
G

Latest posts

Back