On 3dmark why does nature suck?

[BigJohn]

Why is it that the NAture part of 3dmark always sucks, it usually hoovers around 19 or 20. What would make it go faster?

[Robbie]

I remember reading on here that part of the benchmark is VERY intensive. If you don't have AT LEAST a GF3 it probably wont run. I have a gf2 and it won't run on my system.

I would love to see it bench on my system though. I think it looks really really sweet in the demo.

Rob

[fuzzba11]

When I was running my 1400 @ 1602 and 215/520 on my GeForce 3 I wasn't dropping below 30 fps at any point, so you've got a bottleneck elsewhere in your system...

[RedDeathDrinker]

What vid card/processor combo are you using?

[Violator]

The reason it won't run on anything other than a GF3 is 'cos it uses PixelShaders which only the GF3 currently supports. It's also very intensive and the average score for that part of the test is 18-21FPS so don't feel bad.

[BigJohn]

I have the gainward GF3 sample golden pack (or whatever its called) I'm also running an amd 1.4 not oc (I know I'm bad) And 512 mb ddr with the ecs k75sa Ecs board and also win me. I also have the new nvidia drivers and the drivers for the sis 735. But then again when I try to run 3dmark sometimes it says that the memory is full and won't benchmark.:(

[Violator]

BigJohn, if you're meaning you get an 'out of memory' error when running 3dMark it's cos the latest dets have a memory leak problem.........

[BigJohn]

So what do we do about that? Besides suck it up and go on.

[Violator]

Back to the previous version for now, unless the new 'leaked' version fixes the problem.......