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

Why use 3DMark2001se still?

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

wannaoc

Member
Joined
May 6, 2003
Location
Buried in UPS packages
Ok, heres my thoughts....

If you use 3dmark2001 se then all your doing is using out-dated benchamrking software in my opinion. It was built to benchmark hardware from years ago and as we all know hardware improves almost weekly.

Not to mention there is a new version out that tests a system to the edge in not only graphics but in sound and CPU. Yes we will get lower scores with 2003 but thats because our harware isn't more advanced than the software any more. It seems weird in a circle of people who want the fastest and best out of what we buy we still use software thats outdated and week. :rolleyes:
 
actually, 3dmark 2001 se is not outdated yet. to properly gage the performance of a vidcard right now you would need to run both 3dmark2001 and 3dmark03. why is this necessary? because of cards like the fx5200 thats why. It is not better than a 4600 ti, but if you go by 3dm2003 it scores higher because the older one is dx8.


on top of that, 3dmark2003 is not a great system bechmark, it is a gfood vidcard benchmark. see for yourself by running a bench at stock fsb, and then a becnh with a higher fsb, the scores hardly changne.
 
basically, cause 3dmark 2001 is alot funner then 3dmark 2003.

most people find it annoying that CPU speed plays almost no part in your actual score. it's like a 90% videocard, 10% CPU.
that makes it alittle boring, cause then basically, all you do is overclock your videocard the highest and you win.
thats not much fun.
in 2001SE, you can do a million things to increase your score, so it's much easier to get a tangible score, where you can definatly see an improvment.
 
Well the reason here is that 3dmark01 gives a much more accurate rading so smaller changes in my setup can be mesured easly eg. a 1 or 2 mhz fsb increse in 3dmark01 shows up as a few extra points but in 03 you dont se any change

also i want to get a comaprison with a wide range of cards so if i want to compare a card that is a few yaers old with a uptodate card then i cant use 03 cause a card from a few years ago cant run all of the tests or just cant run it period...

also 3dmark 01 is alot quicker and imo gives a better idea of performance in real world games. i dot se any dx9 games. yet du you??
 
Last edited:
tell me how many games are out that use direct X 9?
thats why, there are more dx8/8.1 based games out and as that is the current, mass used platform, then its what you should use to get a benchmark.
3Dmark03 doesnt really mean much at the moment, not until dx9 games come out, and dx9 cards become more available.
 
Cheesy Peas hit the nail on the head. Because more games which are out nowadays are relevant to 3DMark2001 than 03. 03 was released, to show performance for the "games of tomorrow" so to speak.

Of course, it depends which is more important to you. Current performance, to longevity of your card.

Perhaps that's why reviewers use both? :)
 
It's simple
03 is what ppl use to get an accurate reading. (At least, that's the case w/ dx9 based cards)
01 is what ppl use to challenge each other. Besides, it's fun to see 3d points run riot, beating the 20k mark :D
 
because our harware isn't more advanced than the software

You seem to have it a bit backwards... We have had a DX9 card... hint 9700... for more than 6 months, no DX9 games yet. Only a benchmark and demos... and they came after the hardware.

And most games today are still based on the same foundation that 3dmark2001 was.
 
I like 2k3 but its just that little bit too far ahead of the current hardware/graphics cards. I cant stand to see 13fps, its simply annoying. I reckon it will be 2004 before we seen good framerates in 3dmark2003

It would seem the final score in 2k3 is almost entirely Grahics Card dependant (which is fine) whereas 2k1 seems to be more indicative of overall sytem performance.
 
i use it still because i still have 2 R8500 cards. i really dont have the money to buy top of the line video cards. as i would rather spend money on newer faster cpu's and mem and mobos. my R8500's are fine for now, and i have recently become the top dogg for the card on our team.:D
 
I like it cuz it shows how far my computers have come, my first computer that i built last year, got 2112 benchmarks in 01

when I upgraded the videocard to a ti4200, i got 9112 (my old card was a hercules 3d prophet 64mb)

and soon i'll get my new amd system, and i'll post the scores then :)
 
If you want to play the next gen games then you need a good benchmark in 3DMArk-03... If you like the older games then 2001 will do fine...

I get 6.1K in 3DMark-03 so I'm happy with framerates and looking forward to Doom 3. However before I upgraded the MB, CPU and memory I scored 2.5K points less so it does take considerable account of your whole system... It's just we all like big numbers...:)
 
But it's still a benchmark to mainly bench you graphicscard,right? So what's all this whining about not putting your "kickass" cpu to work when you're running a benchmark for your gpu not cpu?

Many users still claim 3dmark2001 is the best benchmark simply couse they can't pass 2k in 3dmark2003

No hard feelings,ok? I know this doesn't apply to nearly 10% of everyone :p
 
I guess that because in real future world gaming terms the graphics card is the performance key... however I managed to get an extra 1.5K pts by clocking my card...

Would everyone be happier if a larger scale was used say multiplied by 3 which is about the average diffrence between the benchies...

Cheers RichieR
 
People still use 2001se because it benches dx8 games, which many people still play. I wouldn't say its out of date, but I would say that it doesn't put your system to the hardest test like 2003 does.
 
Simple:

3dmark 2001 is a benchmark.

3dmark03 is not a benchmark.

Futuremark has a disaster on their hands with 03 and I suspect they are working very hard to repace it ASAP.

Scott
 
Back