PDA

View Full Version : Why is my 3D Mark performance so bad?



razorx8
05-13-2002, 09:26 PM
Hi, wazzup everyone!

I have been testing my system with the 3D Mark 2001 SE to find out that it performs very badly for itís type. This is my system:

Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Microsoft Windows XP
DirectX Version 8.1 8.1

Mobo Manufacturer CHAINTECH Inc.
Mobo Model KJD - 761-8231
AGP Rates
(Current/Available) 4x / 1x 2x 4x

CPU AMD Athlon(tm) XP/MP/4 1533 MHz
FSB 133 MHz
Memory 512 MB

Graphics Chipset NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200 NVIDIA GeForce3 Ti 200
Driver Version 6.13.10.2832
Video Memory 64 MB

These are my 3D Mark 2001 SE settings :

Program Version 3DMark2001 SE 3DMark2001 SE
Resolution 1024x768 32bit 1024x768 32bit
Texture Format Compressed
FSAA Disabled
Z-Buffer Depth 24bit
Frame Buffer Double
Rendering Pipeline D3D Pure Hardware T&L

My score is 4838 and I looked around and found that almost everyone with almost identical systems (different MoBo and maybe different VGA manufacturer) with exact same CPU speeds, amount of RAM etc. had scores up to 7000 or even higher. Here is a comparision pic of someone with a pc almost identical to mine except for the mobo:
http://www.euroharmony.com/new/3dmark1.gif

As you see, this is not good at all, his pc kicks mineís ass in all tests (except for nature, but that one is still close). So what am I doing wrong? Is there anyone who can see if there is some tweak I can do to change this?

Thanks,

Razor

Wiggo
05-13-2002, 10:02 PM
Sorry but the mobo is probably the factor there as it's basically an OEM job. :(
<center>:cheers:</center>

-ReAPeR-
05-13-2002, 11:43 PM
yea the mobo is a big deal about the score u get on 3dmark i had a 1400t/bird with rad 7500 ka266 iwill mobo i was geting about 4500ish i got a new cpu 1800XP and it bumped it to about 4800 then my mobo got sold LOL time for upgrade got a new XP333 IWILL mobo and i have now a score of 5678 so it improved it the most.

razorx8
05-14-2002, 01:16 AM
So what kind of MoBo's are we talking about here? nForce? VIA? I researched around the net for the Chaintech KJD before buying and it seemed to outperform the VIA-KTA chipsets.

But heck, if I want to upgrade my MoBo I could just as well get a new system... I mean, it's so much work and trouble that selling this one and buying a new one probably comes to the same thing (financially as well).

Thoric
05-14-2002, 07:55 AM
But heck, if I want to upgrade my MoBo I could just as well get a new system... I mean, it's so much work and trouble that selling this one and buying a new one probably comes to the same thing (financially as well).

why get a new system? all you need at the most is a DDR motherboard, and get some DDR ram and u'll be laughing!!

its fine, really fine.

Wiggo
05-14-2002, 08:05 AM
If ya get a performance DDR board like an EPoX 8KHA+, 8K3A/+ or any from Abit, Asus, MSI, Soltek, Soyo or another other of similar specs and ya score will go up quite well. :smokin:
<center>:cheers:</center>

fragman
05-14-2002, 02:39 PM
My system is very similar to yours and I get around 6000 using the default benchmark. I have found my MSI board to perform quite well, but if you are going to replace it I would suggest getting a DDR333 board like the MSI K3T Ultra.

razorx8
05-14-2002, 03:01 PM
I allready have DDR, I mean, what's the point of having an Athlon with 512MB of RAM if you are not going for DDR. I just heard though that sometimes it increases performance if you change the slot the 512MB DIMM is in. Is this true?

I have been using many tweak programs like GTU and NVMax so it might be that they screwed up the config, is there any way I can reset the GeForce 3 to it's primary settings... Would uninstallation of tweak programs & dirvers help?

fragman
05-14-2002, 03:35 PM
There are performace differences with RAM in different slots on the nVidia nforce based boards, but I take it yours isn't one of those.

If you are using the GTU you can reset to "Pre-GTU settings", but only if you haven't overwritten them with a custom setting.

razorx8
05-14-2002, 07:49 PM
I reinstalled my Nvidia 21.83 drivers and my performance jumped to 6283... I will test 23.11 and 28.32 as well, but I guess that all that tweaking was the problem of the performance decrease.

Morgan_Lander
05-18-2002, 12:50 PM
I've found that the 21.81/21.83 have been the fastest and most stable for me.

Oh, and with the machine in my sig, I get 7651 in 3DMark2001 SE. NForce 415 baby!

chisholm
05-27-2002, 06:28 PM
yea u probably accidentally had anisotropic filtering or something enabled without knowing:cheers:

dragon
05-29-2002, 05:09 AM
check to see if your anti-aliasing settings are checked in your display properties. Even though it says no AA in the test, if you have that option checked in the display properties, it over-rides 3dMarks settings. that's about what i scored w/ my G3 when i had AA enabled. I scored about 7200 after disabling.

After running about 10 tests, each with a different driver and the exact same settings each test, the 23.11 detenator drivers work the best for my G3. i scored around 100 3d marks higher with the 23.11's vs. the 28.32's. these where my results from my experiment:

<u>driver</u> <u>score</u>
21.81 7029
21.83 7031
28.32 7162
23.11 7229

Each test consisted of these settings:
1024x768 32bit 24bitZ Compressed textures
No FSAA (also disabled in the display properties)

Core 220
Memory 496

Abit KR7A-133
256MB PC2100 DDR
AMD XP 1800+
3D Prophet III i jumped about 2000 3d marks w/ Nvidia G4 Ti 4400

daedalus
05-29-2002, 06:03 PM
I've also had good experience with the 23.11's however I've also heard that it can give Visual artifacts with some cards....due to it being a beta driver and all...

dragon
05-30-2002, 09:20 AM
The only thing that i've noticed with the G3 and G4 is when AA is enabled, a white line stretches down the right side and across the bottom edge of my screen. I think they still have some work to do on their drivers. I think anyone with a G3 or G4 hasn't even seen what those cards can even do. It was about a year or so after i bought my first generation Geforce before i seen a massive improvment in frame rates playing Unreal Tournament.

In 2 years or so, video cards won't have to be advanced anymore, by then, they'll have the power to render real life detailed images. We're not there yet, only about half way there with the Geforce 4 Ti family. i think it's about 200 billion operations per clock cycle is what's needed to perform real life detail.

dragon
05-30-2002, 09:38 AM
I figured i'd share this chart with all you tweakers out there.

http://216.12.17.73/j2/VideoCardBenchmarkChart.gif

JealousMidget
05-30-2002, 12:41 PM
Another thing to try is changing the AGP transfer rate from 4x to 1x/2x. I know it sounds silly, but I have found that actually increases the score. Of course your hardware and driver combinations will have some bearing on overall results, but since you putzing around with it anyway, might as well give it a shot.

JM :afro:

chisholm
05-30-2002, 03:25 PM
wow....decreasing the agp mode speed usually reduces performance quite a bit...hmmm wierd...although maybe with some buggy beta bioses?
:cheers:

JealousMidget
05-31-2002, 09:50 AM
I have wasted more of my life screwing around with the nvidia drivers than I care to admit. With some of the drivers, I found that just changing the AGP transfer rate got me out of the dreaded "loop" with no perceptable effect to the quality. Like I said, just something to try. Also, again, hardware combinations will have an effect. I tried a lot of things that worked for other people that didn't help me at all. Sometimes you just have to keep crunching til you find something that works for your setup. :hammer:

Just my $.02
JM :afro:

chisholm
05-31-2002, 03:39 PM
sounds good to me:cheers:

Tatoruso
06-09-2002, 01:06 PM
Another thing to try is changing the AGP transfer rate from 4x to 1x/2x. I know it sounds silly, but I have found that actually increases the score. Of course your hardware and driver combinations will have some bearing on overall results, but since you putzing around with it anyway, might as well give it a shot.

JM :afro:
I have set back at 2x because 4x actually decreases my performance slightly....
what can possibly be the reason?

chisholm
06-09-2002, 07:53 PM
well as you know ecs mobos are very cheapo...perhaps they just have a design fault:shoot: