1488MHz celery1.2= 6596 3dmark with GF3. The gf3 really helps those scores that much?

1488MHz celery1.2= 6596 3dmark with GF3. The gf3 really helps those scores that much?

I remember on the front page someone showed some scores for the celery @ 1600 and this is what they got

using a gf2

Celeron @ 1600
SiSandra CPU 4494/2145
SiSandra MM 8709/10811
SiSandra Memory 456/479
Quake 154.0/147.2
3D Mark 2001 4164

Click to expand...

http://www.overclockers.com/articles494/


using GF3

celery1.488 cas3 Sandra
Cpu, alu 4189, fpu, 2004
Mem, alu 313, fpu 346
3Dmark2001: 6554
2-3-3 mem alu 328 fpu 356
2-3-2 mem alu 367 fpu 398
3-3-2 mem alu 344 fpu 379
2-2-3 mem alu 351 fpu 381
2-3-3 (with Precharge control enabled) mem alu 338 fpu 376
2-3-3 (Precharge on) 3dmark2001: 6596

Click to expand...

http://forums.overclockers.ws/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50669&pagenumber=2



So why in the world are the 3dmark scores so different. I know the cat on the first page says he used the same setups but after seeing this I am not so sure. Seems alot of this has to do with the vid card too not just the cpu. If I am not mistaken the scores at 6596 also had to have been done at 2X AGP speed as 4X was not enabled on the BX as such the BH6 like this guy is using here with a slocket adapter. Hmmmm, very suspicious.


I am not quake or gamer literate but I thought 4x AGP speed had alot more of a bearing on the performence of the vid card than the cpu would. Someone help me reason this out would ya.

Btw, it's a Pny GF3 Ti-200 @ 220/487

3Dmark2001 does measure the VIDEO card performance, thats what it was made for, my PIII with a Geforce2Pro gets more than twice the score of my friends who has an mx200 and aN athlon 1600+ its mostly in the video card...

oh yeah, iwas looking at benchies and a Geforce3 is about 2-3times as fast as a geforce2Pro (which the guy used)....most gaems run fine nowadays if you have more than a PIII 500 with a 60$ plus video card...

While all these benches can give an *idea* of what comparable v cards and systems can do, I find it, by no means, the definite benchmark for all v cars, especially considering the varying computer systems.

Funnyperson hit it right on mentioning the difference of the v cards and how the MX v card didn't even make the Athlon XP1600 look good, or vice versa. I have a Radeon 8500 and my brother a Radeon 7500. I can score over two times higher than he can on 3DMark2001. Yet in running games, even demanding games, I can only manage about 5 to 10 fps better than him, at best, with everything set very near identical. Main difference is my v card and I am running more computer horsepower than he is. Still to me 5 to 10 fps is that great considering the computer system v card and the *VAST* differences of scores in 3DMark2001!

I just take the 3DMark scores, like the rest of the benches, with a grain of salt, and use them for a ver, and I mean *VERY* general comparison of hardware and systems.

Cheers,
Mike Lamb

3dmark2k1 is heavily DX8 weighted, giving an advantage to cards like the Gef3 and Rad8500.

Mike360000 said:

While all these benches can give an *idea* of what comparable v cards and systems can do, I find it, by no means, the definite benchmark for all v cars, especially considering the varying computer systems.

Funnyperson hit it right on mentioning the difference of the v cards and how the MX v card didn't even make the Athlon XP1600 look good, or vice versa. I have a Radeon 8500 and my brother a Radeon 7500. I can score over two times higher than he can on 3DMark2001. Yet in running games, even demanding games, I can only manage about 5 to 10 fps better than him, at best, with everything set very near identical. Main difference is my v card and I am running more computer horsepower than he is. Still to me 5 to 10 fps is that great considering the computer system v card and the *VAST* differences of scores in 3DMark2001!

I just take the 3DMark scores, like the rest of the benches, with a grain of salt, and use them for a ver, and I mean *VERY* general comparison of hardware and systems.

Cheers,
Mike Lamb

Click to expand...

Exactely!

"3dmark2k1 is heavily DX8 weighted, giving an advantage to cards like the Gef3 and Rad8500."

I would agree with that 110%!
With that in consideration, comparing any other card to the ones you mentioned is kind'of a self-defeating purpose.

OTOH 3DMark2001 can't give a true comparison of two differing v cards concerning everything about the v cards true performance. Again all the more reason to take this benchmark in very general terms, and with a grain of salt.

Having a low score in that benchmark doesn't necessarily mean your v card or computer can't compete or do as well with differing systems, regardless of hardware. But it does show where a specific weakness may lie. In this case, it really shows DX8 deffieicent/lacking v cards and not much more, unless you have a really weak computer system. Something completely overlooked here with 3DMark2001 is the fact that OpenGL is the much more preferred renderer. Benchmark results with it, I am sure would be quite different when comparing differing v cards, such as those that are DX7 compatible to the ones that are DX8 compatible, as is shown in 3DMark2001.

Cheers,
Mike Lamb