PC Mark 2004

[MetalStorm]

It can be downloaded from the various Futuremark mirrors as always, but what does your system score?

To start it off, my rig scores 3782

[Emberghost]

3484

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=9840

[daNo-]

.

[MetalStorm]

I don't have a registration code...Explain what you mean...

[daNo-]

.

[Supertrucker]

all 3dmark products have that line, it is not required to purchase the product for the basic benchmarks, only for advanced features, and discussing warez is against forum policy

[daNo-]

Thx for letting me know supertrucker, sorry won't happen again.(Talking about illegal hacking of software on the forums)

[Emberghost]

When it asks for the serial # just click next, implying that you are going to use the free version. ;)

[MetalStorm]

Come on guys post some scores!!!

[Hookem]

NF7-S, 2500 Barton, 512meg Buffalo PC3700, 120gig WD JB, OEM 9700 Pro, all @ default...3765

[MetalStorm]

looks like L2 cache makes a huge difference then if your barton scored as well as my 1700+ oced to 2.2GHz either that or i didnt get any points because it cant run the hd tests on win2k

[Hookem]

but i dont want like a trial version

Well then do what all good boys do and pony up the duckies for the program... :)

Running 3D Mark 2003 right now...Just about over...Hang on...And here are the results...3D Mark 2003 4909

I really dont put much stock in these numbers...I have overclocked my stuff to near meltdown...I mean smelling kinda funny and everything...And still do not get anywhere near some of the numbers these guys post...Makes me wonder what in the world the difference is...I mean I could deal with a couple hundred points difference but some of these guys post scores that are a thousand or more than mine with virtually the same rig...;)

[SF101]

blah wouldnt tell me my score
something about system suit or somethin i duno

[dguy6789]

its not a trial, it is a free version with the most advanced features disabled.

[dropadrop]

Well, I'm surely not re-installing internet exploder and media player on my computer just to run some benchmarks. Looking at the results on futuremarks homepage, it really seems to like intel processors though!

[Tyberius]

Alright, well my system is crippled right now only running at 2.34/333FSB, because I sold my hyperx to afford a gig of mushkin 3500 level II.....So I'm using my spare 512mb PC2700 Corsair XMS until it gets here, does FSB adversly affect your PCMark score? cause I'm only runnin at 333 right now, cant wait for that mushkin, then I'll Be back with a score to be proud of....any way, here are my results...4126 woohoo!

[MetalStorm]

nice score, fsb certainly seems to help btw, so when you get that new ram it should go like a rocket!
I'm only running at 2.2GHz at the moment because I have just been doing typing and don't really need it going full speed, I need a VDD mod really, then I will try and squeese some more performance out of this beast.

[dguy6789]

my score is 3558,

Athlon XP 2600+
512MB PC2700 Dual Channel
Radeon 9600 Pro 128MB

[David]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=23077

Scored 3821 in PCMark 2004.

Dual AXP2100+
1024MB PC2100 RAM
GeForce 4 Ti4200
2x 40GB Seagate HDDs (no RAID).

[daNo-]

I scored 3006 In PCMark 2004 : /

[ColtIce]

3139 will improve on that with a couple of upgrades i have coming:)

[Tyberius]

Woohoo! my machine is crippled! and I'm still on top! Somebody come burst my ego quick, my head is getting offly heavy....

[pacino]

do you want it AMD-burst or P4-burst? :D ...

[Tyberius]

Either one, preferably AMD though.

[lee]

3965 - just finished running 7 hrs. of prime95 b/4 i ran this test.........i seem to do well in the pcmark series but my score in 3dmark03 went to crap when i changed mobo's (from MSI kt3 ultra2 to abit nf7-s)...........all other benchmarks run best on this board also so can't imagine why 3Dmark03 runs so poorly.........

[Tyberius]

what timings do you have? i've found my nf7-s likes 10-2-2-2

[MetalStorm]

Does the hard disk test count as part of the test score, because that can't be run on windows 2000 for some reason, or so it says anyway.

[Timmybighands]

p4 2.4c = 3908 all stock settings (processor and ram)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=30309

[Tyberius]

Not sure, I never use this benchie. I have raptors in raid 0, so if it does count, perhaps thats why even though my FSB is crippled for the time being, I still got a good score. still waiting for someone to knock me off my hill....so I can come back and crush them when my replacement ram arrives...this 2700 is killing me...errr

[Timmybighands]

p4 2.4c @2.9 = 4733 (overclock limited by TERRIBLE CH-5 chips - waiting for my BH-5 Corsair Chips and will hit 3.2)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=30348

KING OF THE HILL TYBERIUS

[sp00L]

3854

2500+ @ 2300 (11.5 x 200), 2x512 OCZ 3500, A7N8X-X, SLK900-A, 92mm Enermax Fan, MSI TI4200 128 Meg, CreativeLabs SB16 PCI, 40G Samsung HDD, 350 W Antec SmartPower.

The rig in my sig hit an even 5700, but I think we're looking for AMD setups here. I'm thinking of swapping the mobo when I have the money. This was my first oc'ing rig and I still have a soft spot for it although my wife uses it mostly :cool:

[Tyberius]

crapmonkeyonastick! I knew those intel boys would knock me off my hill, oh well i still am king of AMDs hill for now. And again, just wait till my new ram gets here...(shouldnt have sold my hyperx the wait is killin me)

[sp00L]

It's all good. Look, we have the same monitor! Well, I'll be chasing you on the amd boards when (if) I get my new mobo.....these amd's have a lot of life left in them.

[Tyberius]

Akkk! and you have my RAM!!!....thats on order :(

[#18]

heh, looks like this one is more popular than then same topic I posted in under software section.

Anyway, I didn't like the new benchmark. It's more stressful than any 3dmark. I had to back down 91MHZ from my stable gaming speed to get a score without any error.

5179 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=12466)

I should get higher if it's not as stressful as Prime95 :(

[Tyberius]

how come my gaming rig beats you in 3dmark2003 @7,089 but you beat me in 3dmark2001?? Do we know if PCMark2004 supports SMP? I'm gonna run it and see....

[dropadrop]

It supposidly supports smp, but I don't think it's working very well. Alot of intel users are getting better scores by disabling HT and alot of amd users are getting better scores by setting the thread priority to realtime.

[Tyberius]

I wonder why that is??

[invisible hand]

3354 On stock P4 2.53

[#18]

Originally posted by Tyberius
how come my gaming rig beats you in 3dmark2003 @7,089 but you beat me in 3dmark2001?? Do we know if PCMark2004 supports SMP? I'm gonna run it and see....


My 03 score was running at 3357MHZ, 2k1SE was running at 3383MHZ. That extra 26MHZ Pentiume 4 power sure did the trick. j/k :p

Well 2k1SE is more system depended. Unlike 03 mostly depends on graphic card alone. 2k1SE score shows my system overall performance is better than yours due to more CPU power, more memory bandwidth, etc. On the other hand, 03 doesn't see through rest parts of the system much besides video card. Most likely I get a little tiny bit better fps in real life gaming than you. :D

Originally posted by dropadrop
It supposidly supports smp, but I don't think it's working very well. Alot of intel users are getting better scores by disabling HT and alot of amd users are getting better scores by setting the thread priority to realtime.

Are you sure? I should disable my HT to get a higher score lol.

[Tyberius]

Ahhh, makes sense, as my 9800XT likes it better in an AMD system anyway, it told me so :p

[#18]

Here is some prove of my system's overall performance is good, which is something I am pretty happy about :)


http://www.theforumisdown.com/uploadfiles/users/anon1/files/sandra bench.jpg

Also you can compare the PCmark2002 score Here (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1608729)

What scores did you get from these benchmarks?

My 04 score link is in my first post. It's about 25% higher than yours. :p Your XT is really even out most part, I still own a little tiny bit advantage in frame when it comes to real life gaming. As for other use, heh :D.

I know there are people(extreme overclockers) have better scores. The scores I have aren't bad for lazy me(stock air for everything).

[Tyberius]

Wow, I'm impressed. I'll post my gaming rigs benchies when I get my new ram in. Although I can tell you that with my old HyperX(which I sold to upgrade to the level II mushkin) I was scoring 20,169 on 3dmark2k1 and just above 7,000 on 3dmark03. Never ran Pcmark on it though, that was a barton at 2.42ghz@422fsb 10-2-2-2 timings. Not bad considering your system has a 1ghz lead on mine, and over double the FSB :D, what kind of hard drives do you run? And what do you mean better in game performance on your vid card?

[#18]

I was saying 3dmark2k1SE is closer to real life gaming. Frame you get in games is depended on overall system performance. Of course the graphic card alone takes a big part of it. So I own you a little tiny bit in real gaming performance judged by 3dmark2k1SE score lol :p. For now.

My hard disk? I am using WD1200JB. Two of them in this system. Upgrade to SCSI soon :).

PCmark tells the performance of the rest system beside the graphic card. I also like Sandra. My delicous memory bandwidth isn't a Barton system can match :).

[#18]

By the way, I saw your impressive server. I heard the hammer processors have 1600MHZ system bus. I wonder how is the memory bandwidth? Could you please run a memory bandwidth test in sandra?

edit: lol What was I saying? The score below yours for compare was tested on Opteron. It doesn't make yours Opteron too :D
That was stupid. heh, well excuse me. My mind went to Opteron at the first place when it comes to "1800+ beat P4 3.0GHZ" :p.

[Trader88]

5,347 here.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=14151

[Tyberius]

Unfortunately sandras memory benchmarks are extremely unrealistic, unless you turn off all the buffering and stuff. Use memtest86 to get your real bandwidth

[Heatsinkguy]

I smoked tyberius in Pcmark04 and i had the priotity set to normal and i had hyperthreading enabled(which slowed it down) and i still beat him more than 600 points. Dual CPUs dont mean everything as u just saw 1 p4 single cpu lay the smackdown on 2 athlons

[MetalStorm]

W00t, broke 4k pretty nicely here: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=31932

4119 PCmarks! - 215*11.5 my performance overclock, I tested it before on my general everyday speed before

[dropadrop]

Originally posted by Heatsinkguy
I smoked tyberius in Pcmark04 and i had the priotity set to normal and i had hyperthreading enabled(which slowed it down) and i still beat him more than 600 points. Dual CPUs dont mean everything as u just saw 1 p4 single cpu lay the smackdown on 2 athlons

It does'nt look like it takes very much to beat an amd processor in pcmark04... I'd say it does'nt relate to real world performance very well either.

Quaddamage was complaining that he would have to run his A64 at over 3ghz to get scores that compare with P4's that are not even extremly highly overclocked.

[Heatsinkguy]

Maybe its because quaddamge is using pc2100 ram or something..Anyways PCMARK04 is respected everywhere else and is the best program to use for cpu benchmarking. I dont know why you guys complain.
And no way does PCmark04 favors Intel in anyways.

[larva]

I think this benchmark is pure tripe. It's not like it would bother to tell you if not running the hard drive test will affect the score or not... I guess you simply wouldn't want to know. I guess that's a lot more likely than this test being made by simpletons ;)

I have two real issues with this test though. Firstly, it is influenced by the video card. This is an innexusable lapse in logic. We have 3DMark for video card testing, it is ridiculous to construct this test such that is requires a 9800 to get top scores.

My second serious problem with the test is it is obviously seriously flawed from a accuracy and consistancy standpoint. And it is obvously easily cheated. If you look at the top scores on the ORB, they all sport scores on the multithreaded parts 3-10 times that of a normal rig running without whatever trick these people have found to unrealistically bloat their scores. And these people all have hyperthreading disabled, which obvously ought help mutlithreaded stuff, not hurt it.

PCMark 2002 was (and still is) a great system test for quickly and fairly evaluating cpu, memory and hard drive performance levels. It is everything PCMark 2004 is not. The fact that it doesn't fully function under 2K, the fact that video card plays a real role in determining the score, and the fact that people have already figured out how to produce unrealistic scores makes this a real waste of time.

[EagleClaw]

ok , why am I getting such a high score with my crap system?

I got 4772. Or is this because I am running the free version ?

[dropadrop]

Originally posted by Heatsinkguy
Maybe its because quaddamge is using pc2100 ram or something..Anyways PCMARK04 is respected everywhere else and is the best program to use for cpu benchmarking. I dont know why you guys complain.
And no way does PCmark04 favors Intel in anyways.

From your comment I would understand that you have no idea who quaddamage is. I also wonder where pcmark04 is being used so widely for testing, most places have seemed very sceptical towards it.

-is extremly inconsistent
-requires mediaplayer and internet exploder to run
-is unstable
-seems to prefere intel cpu's by far

Actually even though A64's seem to be performing better then xp's in anything you throw at them, they perform equally in pcmark2004. This would allready go pretty far to show that there is something seriously wrong with the benchmark.

I can only wonder how you consider a program used for benchmarking every component in the system to be the best possible program for cpu benchmarking?

[Heatsinkguy]

Then your saying sis sandra is valid? because tyberius dual 1800+ beat my p4 3ghz with ht by more than 2k points. Is that valid? No because sandra just does each test on each cpu and just adds them up and now i got tyberius boasting and ranting about his scores on msn

[dropadrop]

I don't want to sound offending, but I feel too much competition spirit between you too guys during the last few days. I don't consider sisoft sandra to be any better in measuring performance.

A good measure of performance comes from using alot of diferant programs and getting some kind of medium from the results. It's quite obvious that an amd dually will spank a P4 in several apps that support smp. It's just as obvious that your P4 will spank it in lots of programs that don't support smp.

One thing I know for sure is, that neither of your computers will be any better because it beats the other in some benchmark. Also a benchmark is not suddenly an industry standard because your computer does well in it. A bit of competitive spirit is allways good, just keep it healty and friendly. :)

[Tyberius]

Bravo! well said dropadrop! :D

[Heatsinkguy]

Ya well said

[#18]

Originally posted by dropadrop
It supposidly supports smp, but I don't think it's working very well. Alot of intel users are getting better scores by disabling HT and alot of amd users are getting better scores by setting the thread priority to realtime.

Look like you got some false information there.

I disabled the HT just for seeing a better score. Actually I lost around 500 points by doing it.

[Trash80]

4152 here, and on my 12 month old hardware. Got some new stuff on the way though.

I don't know about all the new benchmark programs hitting the market recently, they seem to be a bit inconsistent, from one run to another. I'll still use them to check performance differences between my old hardware and new. But I really think there are too many variables getting involved and have started feeling like it is comparing apples to oranges.

I'm starting to use in game time demos for more reliable 3D comparisons.

Side note: Maximum PC is going to be using Halo Timedemo and Jedi Academy for their 3D comparisons (one will be dropped when HL2 is released).

[Timmybighands]

Just passed 5k. :)

[#18]

Originally posted by Timmybighands
Just passed 5k. :)

5001 points? :p

[Timmybighands]

Actually, it was only 5046, but that's with only 1 stick of 512. I had to pop that in to get a higher overclock. I'll get another in there and push harder.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=35156

[d]g[ts]

Look like you got some false information there.

I disabled the HT just for seeing a better score. Actually I lost around 500 points by doing it.

Try again, this time set priority to realtime and wait it out. when doing this the score will really jump.

I went from 5493 to THIS (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=40701)

nice jump ehh!

[#18]

I tried twice. Same resault. With HT I got around 5200. It went down to about 4700 with HT disabled.

[d]g[ts]

but when you do it set pcmark priority to realtime in the taskmanager. If you dont do that part it doesnt work out. I'm guessing it's a bug and peeps are talkin bout it @ FM forums.

I didn't believe at first but it werks

[NewbiePerson]

It does use the video card a little but it's performance is affected by the cpu a fair amount example
I ran with and without cache keeping the same settings.
physics 3d calc went from 149.76 to a lowly 84.095
the 64 lines went from 1641.44 to 1366.570
with cache disabled score went from about 3500 to 2500.
I can probably get over 4k if I try.
That was all tested with a Barton.
One interesting note was on 3dmark 2k1 nature only dipped by 3 fps.
the biggest drop was the car chase at the beginning going down by a little over 100fps.

[ColtIce]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=36278

new score 4273

[NoxioN]

4021 points. 200x12fsb xp1700. @ 2.4ghz

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=11

[Tyberius]

Originally posted by ColtIce
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=36278

new score 4273

WTF? Something tells me this benchie isnt consistent....I'm clocked much higher than you, and I score less???

[MetalStorm]

I know what you mean, I have noticed that too... PCMark2002 was so much better...

[Tyberius]

pcmark2004 doesnt do a very good job with SMP either, my dual 1800s only score 3612 or something

[NavyDood]

3955 with specs below

[ColtIce]

Originally posted by Tyberius


WTF? Something tells me this benchie isnt consistent....I'm clocked much higher than you, and I score less???

run it in real time from task manager that gave me a 1000 point boost
plus this a fairly fresh install(3 days old) of a very tweaked xp pro

[larva]

But the point remains that this is one dodgy benchmark. For it to be so easily swayed by the priority settings brings into question the accuracy and precision of the multithreaded tests entirely. My rig jumps from 4590 to 6219 running it in real-time.

Personally I have yet to see the end of PCMark2002's usefulness. Its resuts are still repeatable, reflect application performance pretty well, and even applies well across architechtural differences. I'm not sure what problem PCMark2004 is supposed to fix, but I can point to several notable problems it introduces.

[ColtIce]

yeah i only use benchmaks to test changes i have made to my system.i don't think to much of any benchmark that you compare across the internet because there is no way to duplicate conditions and to many variables system to system.

[Tyberius]

larva, my only problem with pcmark2002 is that it doesnt support SMP :(

[larva]

Very much like most applications.

[Emberghost]

Updated score -> 4641 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=41622

[mfjonny]

3941... I don't understand, how are lower speed tbred systems topping my setup? Some of the numbers even sport the same vid cards... ???

[Tyberius]

its an inconsistent test methinks

[OC Detective]

Only good for generating a number that is evidently meaningless in terms of being able to compare cpu's - especially as it can be manipulated so easily to improve the score.

[Tyberius]

Well said!

[Hookem]

Okay here we go with a new rig...Albatron PX865PE/P Pro...2.6Ghz 800fsb P-4...same 512meg stick of Buffalo PC3700...Retail ATI 9500 Pro (Catalyst 3.8 just like the AMD rig with the 9700 Pro)...All at default...PC Mark 3907...3D Mark...Hang on...And here are the numbers...3691...:)...The variables are just mind boggling...With this...Without that...I only use this stuff to test system stability and catch stuff I might not have done to a box...Just getting through some of the benchies out there says something...Weather or not it makes "mines faster than yours" a reality is another whole issue...I have heard that some guy's use liquid whatever to run 3D Mark one time smoking most of the system to be "King of the Hill"...To me having a system that does not crash, no blue sceens...That runs day and night without even a hic-up is what it is all about...Yeah I could do all the little things that I know about to "pump up the jam" on my numbers...But will it live like that...I dont think so...And I would still be thousands of points off some of these guys numbers...Shucks I'm happy just to get through most of the benchies I run without it telling me I need Microsoft whatever to run...To me they are a great excersise in being able to setup a box, install the critical updates, drivers...The whole encihalda first time out of the gate without having to go "dang I forgot that"...I really think that there are some guys in here that can post some outrageous numbers...I know I could do a bunch better than posting numbers with a box setup at defalut...Look at Larva's rig...Do you want to top that??? Value Ram??? Right now I want 300fsb stable out of my P-4...But am I in the same league with batboy??? I dont think so...Will I get there...Who knows...But as batboy seezzz...He can post at 300fsb and show a screen shot...But he aint running it at 300fsb...To me numbers, scores, dont mean a whole lot of anything unless they are a all the time thing...Yeah I overclock my stuff until it squeal's...Do I leave it like that...No...Do I post it...No...I learn somthing with each new box that I build for myself...And to me that is what it is all about...Getting better at building box's...Not posting numbers...;)

[ColtIce]

i think people worry about numbers to much when the bottom line is "does my rig do what i need it to?"I'm like everyone else,i want the fastest machine i can have but i don't think the gap between the latest,greatest and a good mid-range is all that big.on a side note i'm sorry i even posted my scores here.

[Hookem]

Hey it is just like posting numbers on temp's...Hey I go out and buy the "latest and greatest" stuff...Mount, remount...ArticSilver 5, Ceraminqe, AS III...Lap...Re-Lap...Remount...Do I get the numbers you guys get...No...I always use Lian-Li T-4's to get my numbers...But do my MBM5 numbers compare...Not no...But no way...You could hang meat at my place...No kidding...70F minimum...But my temp's against you guys...Not even close...:o...The P-4 rig I just posted numbers on is sitting on 46C CPU temp with the stock heat sink/fan and it is 68F in here...How much difference will it make when I install my Swiftech MCX 4000 and one of those 99 cent MNB fans from directron or any other fan I stick on it...It aint even close to some of the temps I see...:o ...It is just really hard to compare apples to apples in the computer world...So many combinations...I have thought about building two identical box's just to see how much if any difference there would be...But that would just not be any fun...Not to me anyway...;)

[sQUiRLy]

I donwloaded PCMark'04 last night and ran it several times and got large variations in scores. The program closed down three or four times from errors after running its course. Sometimes the last video bench would be in 800x600 and not it 1024x768. Real screwy program IMO.

[Radius]

haha my PC i screwd :D i run the PC Mark 04 and i dont see my scores at all :S only standing N/a on all testes :(

[Cyberwiz01]

my meaningless number: 5036

Radius, do you have media encoder 9 installed?

[Radius]

Originally posted by Cyberwiz01
my meaningless number: 5036

Radius, do you have media encoder 9 installed?



Yes i downloaded it from windowsupdate and it still dont show my score or nothing :(

[sQUiRLy]

I had issues with this program and I wasn't stable last night and neither was my computer. Ok, I downloaded another copy and installed it and I'm having no issues running it. Still not sure about the last video benchy though.

score 3817
XP1800 @2191MHz
nForce 2 Ultra
1x512MB 3200 @400MHz 7-3-3-2.5
2MB 7200RPM 22% full
9600pro @440/660

score 3915
XP1800 @2260MHz
1x512MB 3200 @410MHz 8-3-3-2.5

[NewbiePerson]

it doesn't test only the cpu it is supposed to be a whole system test. Unless you buy the pro ver. I'm sure they will getting around to patching it eventually...

[larva]

Yes, but as we know games are hugely affected by the video card, and most other tasks are not. Since we already have 3DMark (and numerous other measures) to guage gaming performance the old cpu-mem-hard drive focus of PCMark2002 was much more appropriate. It is very difficult to place a single number on "performance" as different tasks respond vastly differently to the four basic perfrormance areas--cpu, memory, hard drive, and video. Considering that some tasks are almost entirely video dependant and others don't tax the card a bit the notion of rolling the video performance into a overall system performance rating is at best flawed logic. It is much more useful to consider the memory, cpu, hard drive, and video performance seperately (even though they can influence each other to a degree) and use an understanding of what specific tasks require of those if the goal is performance analysis.

[themiz4jc]

4704. Spec in profile. :>

[#18]

Originally posted by larva
Yes, but as we know games are hugely affected by the video card, and most other tasks are not. Since we already have 3DMark (and numerous other measures) to guage gaming performance the old cpu-mem-hard drive focus of PCMark2002 was much more appropriate. It is very difficult to place a single number on "performance" as different tasks respond vastly differently to the four basic perfrormance areas--cpu, memory, hard drive, and video. Considering that some tasks are almost entirely video dependant and others don't tax the card a bit the notion of rolling the video performance into a overall system performance rating is at best flawed logic. It is much more useful to consider the memory, cpu, hard drive, and video performance seperately (even though they can influence each other to a degree) and use an understanding of what specific tasks require of those if the goal is performance analysis.

The whole point of PCmark04 isn't to make a better bechmark. They just want a new product to make more profit. Or at least 04 sounds more advanced than 02.

In fact, 02 is good enough. It's not like everyone is getting insane score, need something more stressful.

It would make a little more sense if they make a 64bit bechmark.

The only problem I see with 02 is that it still read CPU 80MHZ lower than actual speed. It used to be 50MHZ, then -70MHZ. Now -80MHZ. At least on me. I don't think it is really so hard to fix such a little tiny problem. Or at least they can do a little trick to add 80MHZ to the speed PCmark reads.

As for 04, it read 1022MB RAM instead of 1024MB RAM on my computer. SOMEBODY STOLE 2MB RAM FROM ME!

[MetalStorm]

And '04 tests things at the same time, and Hyperthreading adds nothing to the score? or reduces it even... so either Hyperthreading sucks or the benchmark is nothing like realworld performance...

[Tyberius]

I just say pcmark04 is garbage! IMO of course

[Brett-Driver 7]

5800 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=49763)

[#18]

hey people, if you are posting scores for 04, please do NOT use the trick such as turn off HT on P4, or whatever on AMD, and without even mention you are using the trick. It's just taking advantage of the bugs.

heh, talking about the score above me :). How is that possible for a 2370MHZ Althon processor to get higher score than a 3.3GHZ+ P4 without using tricks?

We all know the real score without trick should be up to 1500 points lower.

Just say so if you are using the trick. If you don't, it's more like dishonest.

[ColtIce]

my only problem with saying its dishonest is that we tweak and optimize to run 3dmark .so why not this one?i would say run it both ways and post BOTH scores and let people make a judgement based on that

[#18]

There is a difference between tweak and taking advantage of a bug WITHOUT telling people "I am using this bug to get 1500+ points than my real score". It's ok for those people who said their score is based on that bug.

If you are using that bug without mention it, you are confusing some people make them think there is something wrong with their set up. To lots of people, benchmark is a way to discover the problems based on if the score is "normal". This function is making more sense than simply "I GOT A BIG NUMBER THAN U! HAHA!!".

[ColtIce]

which is why i said to post both scores.i'm sure futuremark will be releasing a patch to deal with it.my scores are posted twice in this thread.slightly off-topic i've always ran 3dmark@high priority and it netted me a couple hundred points am i taking advantage of it aswell?

*edit*i can't argue that its not a bug.my point is doesn't every point count untill it's patched and/or ruled invalid by futuremark?

[Brett-Driver 7]

I am deffinatley useing the trick. I discovered it today. For the last 5 days I have watched punks beat my baby with 40 gig hard drives with IDE cables hanging off em, XP 1700's, GEForce Ti's and PC2700. I was hella fustrated thinking I must have done a tweek or maby spilled anti-freeze on something. Any how. I posted on 2 other sites that I am using it. I would rather everyone else use it to. And I dont think that this is cheating. Granted one would never really set a program on there pc to realtime. It is no different then when we go to our services pannel and switch off as many as we can so that there is more of your cpu for your higher end result. I would rather not use it but theres no patch yet.
Originally posted by #18
hey people, if you are posting scores for 04, please do NOT use the trick such as turn off HT on P4, or whatever on AMD, and without even mention you are using the trick. It's just taking advantage of the bugs.

heh, talking about the score above me :). How is that possible for a 2370MHZ Althon processor to get higher score than a 3.3GHZ+ P4 without using tricks?

We all know the real score without trick should be up to 1500 points lower.

Just say so if you are using the trick. If you don't, it's more like dishonest.

[Brett-Driver 7]

Here is my old score 4272

Here's my new score after I changed to Real time Priority 5800

[d]g[ts]

Well as much as 1 would love to be on the front page of the ORB (top 5 even) I edited my score and listed the non realtime score too. CUs it is a bug and hopefully will be patched soon



STill love FP tho hehe
:)

[larva]

Yeah, I hear ya. My realtime score puts me at #19 on the ORB, but I made sure to mention the word "Realtime" right in the title of my ORB submission.

[d]g[ts]

Yea i saw yours (could tell from the rig :) )and figured i'd do the right thing.

[#18]

Why not put a picture of your face on there too? All people see is the user name you have with a link of your score. They don't even get a chance to see the face of the famous person who is on the first page. :p

[L&M]

I got 4114 running all tests in Pcmark2004 with the specs bellow.
Are those scores good?

And where is that HT setting?I can't find it.

[makaka]

HT:hyperthreding technologie
this future is only for p4 users
this option is availble in the bios
ht : enabled or disabled

[diehrd]

Well I know duals are not as fast as single procesor systems ...BUT....PC2004 score,,,"4707" from the system in my sig...Whoo hooo go Dual's :) :)

If ya only knew how good it finaly feels to post a top score after not having a chance for so long ......he he he

[KOXC2003]

4829- free version

[theELVISCERATOR]

5707 all settings STOCK

[theELVISCERATOR]

this with real time priority...second page on orb...

[lbbo2002]

Regular 5298 on 3.0C @247 (250FSB scored lower for some reason)

Realtime 5800... anyone see a pattern here

2.4C and 2.53B rigs are busy so have to run them later to compare.

[Motley]

4217

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=229786

[tekOC]

4642

Just ran EVERY single test in PCMark04, with all my background applications running.

2.4C@3.12GHz 1.6V (260FSB) temporarily, waiting for Komusa RAM
Corsair XMS 1x512MB PC3200 @ 2.85V, 5:4 (single-channel mode!!!!!)
9500pro@300/300 Catalyst 4.2
Soundblaster Live 5.1+

That's basically all thats missin from my sig.

[icebezzel]

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=11&projectId=240154

4534

[Bugeyes]

Amd XP-M 2500 @ 2700MHz = 4854 ---> Compare Link (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2356859)

[comfortablynumb]

4759
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2357058


AMD64 3400 @2420mhz, MSI K8T NEO, 1G Mushkin level1 3500,
2XRaptors (non-raid), MSI 5900XT.

CN

[dustybyrd]

here's my dual 2.415ghz AMD without any cheating (Like realtime priority)... 5331

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2299517

i got 4995 with my 2.4c p4 at 3.44ghz (again no cheating)

[Filthy1001]

P4 @ 4.25

6301

» http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2359425

[dippy_skoodlez]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=145309

2.2ghz AMD (11x200) primarily stock, plain old windows IDE drivers.

[TheNewbie]

Heres my score its ok I guess:

[Ruben]

Well I tested mine 3760. not to bad. I think it's time for a 3.2

[Capt Fiero]

http://www.captfiero.com/pcmark2004.jpg

Rig in my sig

[theELVISCERATOR]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2367442

5844

[whitehaze]

5272 :D

[Swifty77]

4295, see sig for details.

[malon]

4255

[Sucka]

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2322780

5924

[Capt Fiero]

Ya I squeaked mine up a bit. From 4780 up to 4832

[fletch]

4264

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2369544 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2369544 )

167x12 I think that was

[Biasos]

5125

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=231019

[mittlesmertz]

4634, without tweaks, free version. System below.
I have a higher score than an A64 3400? This seems wierd, I don't trust this bench.