• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Geforce 2 MX PRO compare 3dmark 2000 scores

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Pinky

Pinky

Member
​
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I have the specifications in my signature and screen shot of the benchmark below using detonator 1200 drivers for windows 2000 (score of 3423 if it doesn't appear). Not a bad score at all considering the setup.

As an update, I ran UT last night, played FLAWLESSLY for 30+ minutes and had an average framerate 100 fps at 800x600 and highest everything!! That's a 50+ fps increase over my last P3 750mhz configuration. Thankyou dual celeries!

[img="[URL]http://speshalk.dyndns.org:1812/images/3d.jpg[/URL]"]
 
tonsku (Jun 19, 2001 08:22 a.m.):
I think you have something wrong, bacause I get 3800marks with
SINGLE Celeron and GF2MX...
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 slows the benchmark by about the difference between us (my old score was 3887 in windows 98)... 3dmark does not utilize the dual procs, it only sees and benchmarks with one of them. Nothing's wrong, and i still get great framerates... but most of all, the 32bit image quality is top notch.
 
wildone (Jun 19, 2001 09:00 p.m.):
well I got 5090 on a none overclocked regular gf2 mx , let me give you a hint , my current processor@1366mhz only gets me 2-5 points more in 3d mark then my 900tb did , I just dont understand ,but remember the card was not overclocked at all
wildone
Click to expand...

Hmmm... you run windows 2000? The only component that would affect video performance that has been consistent in my recent builds are the generic ram chips... it's possible they are holding me back, but not likely... I wonder if I am doing something wrong, but quite honestly, the image quality can't be beat , and I usually can't tell the difference between 40fps and 1,000fps (only 30 are needed for fluid motion).

If you have seen this before, perhaps you could point me in the right direction?.. otherwise, it's really not worth researching.
 
I am in the same boat as you. I ran 3dmark 2000 on my leadteck geforce 2 mx card and got a score of 4483. I thought it was too low and put up a post. I was reassured that my card was ok and that I just needed to do some tweaking. I would be more than happy to share my results with you when I am done testing. Just drop me an email. So far by changing my drivers I got her up to 4545 last night. I'm beginning to think that if I want to get into the 5000 range I'll need to overclock the card. Don't know yet, more things to tweak with before I overclock the card. First thing I'm going to do when I get a chance is to put some heatsinks on the ram chips. I'v noticed that they are warm to the touch. If you send me an email I will let you know what worked out best for me.
 
zoopa_man (Jun 20, 2001 08:33 a.m.):
If you send me an email I will let you know what worked out best for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I dropped you a line. if I come up with anything I will do the same.
 
I had never used 3dMark but since I read this thread I went and got it and benchmarked and I got a score of 1987..... WTF?!

thats a

GF2 MX 200/200
Athlon Slot A 550mhz (not o/c when i did it)
128mb pc133 ram
Asus K7M

wtf is going on :?

Your Celerons shouldn't shouldn't be beating me damnit !!! :)
 
I ran the default test for 3dmark2000 which listed as 1024x768x16 and my score went from 6474 @900 to 7072@1100. Food for thought.
 
CSaddict (Jun 29, 2001 08:18 a.m.):
I ran the default test for 3dmark2000 which listed as 1024x768x16 and my score went from 6474 @900 to 7072@1100. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Nice score, even for a GTS Pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back