9600Pro 3DMark 03 score 2800+ too low on 2.45Ghz AMD?

[Kaswyn]

Current system:

Mobile 2500+ OC'd 2.46Ghz (11x233)
Zalman air cooled... Idle 41C, Full load 46c
NF7-S 2.0
120GB ATA 100, 8.5 seek time Seagate, w/8MB cache
512 MB PC3200 (Corsair Value Select)
Windows XP SP1
Direct X 9.0b
Latest Cat drivers
Using onboard sound and LAN
Sony CRX230E CD-RW
Sapphire Radeon 9600Pro (core 400 & effective DDR memory 600), running at full 8x and full performance.

I'm getting a little over 2800 score on 3DMark 03, and 10,000+ on 3D Mark 2001SE.

If I overclock the core to 450+, and DDR memory to 660, I get about 3000+ 3DMark 03, and 11,000+ on 3DMark 2001SE.

Something wrong here with the scores?

Another thing I wanted to point out is if I overclock my system and overclock the card as noted, I can't even get 3DMark 2001SE to start unless I up the voltage in BIOS to the AGP card to 1.8v. Otherwise I have to set it to almost default speeds to run it. And 3DMark 03 crashes halfway the same. This is also true if I overclock the card even slightly (i.e. 420 core, 620 DDR). Bad card maybe? No artifacts when I overclock though.

My Windows 2000 system (in my signature) is able to get 3DMark 2001SE scores as noted in the signature (sig changed)... with about 9-11k, but only 1,500+ on 3DMark 03 (possibly due to it not fully supporting DirectX 9+?)

 

[Th0r]

That seems about right ... my R9600Pro hits 3000points(3dMark03) at all my settings @ stock... i hit 11,000 marks at stock aswell..

 

[Tebore]

2800 seems a little low for 11x233 and 11x233 isn't 2.46 It's 2.56. I got about 33xx with a 9600Pro at 420core and 660mem and a Mobile at 11x223. I've since then sold it for a 9800Pro and it's a huge improvement.

 

[Kaswyn]

2800 seems a little low for 11x233 and 11x233 isn't 2.46 It's 2.56. I got about 33xx with a 9600Pro at 420core and 660mem and a Mobile at 11x223. I've since then sold it for a 9800Pro and it's a huge improvement.

My bad. I've been testing different speeds all day. I meant 11x223, like yours.

 

[Tebore]

My bad. I've been testing different speeds all day. I meant 11x223, like yours.

Your scores are all aout right then. You should really try 2001, it'll give you a better idea of what your system is capable of.

 

[Kaswyn]

Your scores are all aout right then. You should really try 2001, it'll give you a better idea of what your system is capable of.

You mean 2001SE? That one gives me 10-11k only, depending on if I overclock the 9600Pro or not. In fact, when I stuck my old 4x Ti4200 into the same system, STOCK speed, it gave me over 11k already. The frame rates are faster with my Ti4200 on 2001SE.

 

[Tebore]

Whoops it was kind of early in the morning. I meant if you wanted to give your system an overall benchmark then 2001SE would be better than 2003. I broke 14000 on a suicide run with my system, basically I maxed all the voltages at got everything stable enough to finish a 2001SE benchmark but it wasn't stable enough for me to get an ORB link. I would usualy max around 13000.

 

[Dragonprince]

A few things come to mind. First I wouldnt be changing the AGP voltage, it doesnt do anything for the card except burn it out. Second, program stability and crashes most likely are a result of poor cooling or too high OC's on the CPU, FSB and Memory. I doubt the card is causing the problems because your not artifacting. Third, did you forget to turn off the AA and AF and turn down the texture sliders to low ? That is usualy the culprit for people posting low score issues.

 

[CircuitBreaker8]

Benchmarks are bull****, just go play some games and be happy.

 

[Kaswyn]

A few things come to mind. First I wouldnt be changing the AGP voltage, it doesnt do anything for the card except burn it out. Second, program stability and crashes most likely are a result of poor cooling or too high OC's on the CPU, FSB and Memory. I doubt the card is causing the problems because your not artifacting. Third, did you forget to turn off the AA and AF and turn down the texture sliders to low ? That is usualy the culprit for people posting low score issues.

Yeah, I realized it could burn out the card, but it did allow me to run the benchmark programs while on higher voltage. I didn't want to leave it on high voltage, so I turned it back down and left it at stock.. and RMAing now as we speak. But I'm probably thinking the high FSB wasn't helping either, for stability issues. But other aspect of the computer were stable.

And yes, I did turn down AA and AF, so that it's all on best performance. Everything on the display settings were set to best performance.

 

[ElectroX]

2.8 seems a little low to me...

I was able to hit 4,083 with my old tbred at 1.9Ghz.

I'd suggest a run of DriverCleaner 3 and fresh drivers.

 

[Vintage]

I just did my 3dmark after reading this post i got a 4457 (Ati 9500 Pro) my specs are blow. this was first time to do try 3dmark on this pc .

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

LanParty NFII Ultra B
XP2500 Barton Core(Locked) 190x11 @2090 Now 200x11 @2200
Kingston Ultra Pc3200 2x512(Dual channel Mode) mem Timing 11/2/2/2/11/13 Now at 113/3/3/13/15
Maxtor 120 Gig Sata (Single) no raid
Thermitake Volc. 11
Onboard sound/ Nividia Soundstorm
Ati 9500 Pro (Soft Mod) Omega 4.4 Drivers 375/300
19in Flat Samsung Syncmaster
CPU Temp 34 to 39 idle / up to 46 underload

3DMark2001 Se 13899 //New bench of 14824
3Dmark 4457

 

[Kaswyn]

2.8 seems a little low to me...

I was able to hit 4,083 with my old tbred at 1.9Ghz.

I'd suggest a run of DriverCleaner 3 and fresh drivers.

Well, it was a new install of Windows XP, on a new hard drive.. etc, so I wouldn't expect anything else interferring. Anyways, waiting for the 9800SE.. going to soft mod it to get all 8 pipes running and hopefully don't get bad artifacts.

I realized something was wrong when my Ti4200 can beat it on 2001SE...