Post your 3DMark05 scores here!  

2694 3dmarks on my 3.4 ghz p4 1 gig mem mr9800 non oc

Yo guys,

1485 is my score, this software is ridiculous....3-5 fps for the config below is not acceptable. I think the developers from Futuremark should remove the NOP's in their code or start learning from the outsourcing peers...)
Anyway, overall performance of 3Dmark05 is completely out of wack. Here's the specs on my machine:

Inspiron 9100
P4 3.2GHz HT
512MB
MR9700/128MB
Latest Omega drivers slighly oc

Again, I repeat myself with 3 words for Futuremark: RI-DI-CULOUS !!!

NOP?? I dont quiet understand. The benchmark tho slightly nvidia biased is a good representation of the power needed for the future games to be released in the next couple of years. I think its a great idea to figure out where everyone is at in the playing field. I have a 9800 mobility and I got around 2700 barely. Everyone is in the same area and seems like your scores are where they should be too cla

Suryad,

I agree with you that the benchmark values are in the average, the point is the software is awfully written, it's proposterous to have such a performance in nowadays machines. The latest game releases I'm still under the impression tend to be more and more agressive on memory/cpu/and_so_on requirements...I mean come on, gimme a break, do you really think that's what your CPU/GPU can REALLY do with well-written software?

For example, check out the following site:

www.theproduct.de and check those demos, they'll blow you away....
A graphic demo in 64k and a game in 96k, that's really efficient code, don't you agree?



Cla

Hmm you got a point there. But I dunno. I am skeptical. That is an excellent point you bring up Cla. I have to look more into this 'product' demo and see what features and stuff it is using. Thanks for bringin that up. :-)

Also I found this new engine in development called the Reality engine by www.artificialstudios.com or something like that. Download and watch their tech demos. You should bring up your argument in the other 3dmark thread that has started in the xps 9100 forum and see what the responses are. Anyway back to the tech demos, one of the demos which was mindblowign was done on a 9700 xt or something like that and it was incredible to see such an amazing looking engine. I dont know what the deal is with 3dmark though. IT could be that they are pushing a lot more polygons or something and other stuff which we are not aware of in their engine. I am not sure of course I am speculating. But I doubt it is badly written software though. IT could be that their engine just stresses the hell out of every gpu component and thats why everything is so hard to render. But no worries mate a brand new driver by ATI is coming out which will boost scores I am thinking almost in the 300 points range and that should bring us 9800 users to almost 3k. IT would be awesome if that is the perf boost we get because the x800 xt pe gets over 500 points boost. IT has something to do with fixing an AGP memory usage bug and so far from the benches I have seen there was a 15% increase in the benchmarks which is a lot. Maybe it will help games run better also...who knows...

oc'ed to 425/400, cat 8.07(hee hee), hardcore windows tuning, boxfan on high.... see sig...

i got 1041 for my 3dmark05... see sig everything is standard

1336 on 3dmark05 3479 on 3dmark03 i was using dell drivers and no oc

3DMaks05 yelds quite funny results.

3DMaks05 yelds quite funny results but so far I didn't see any comments on it. My i9100 (3.2GHz, MR9700 128M) yelds 1350 points. My old desktop (PIII 1.2@1.4GHz GFX5900) is more powerful then my i9100 from any other game's/benchmark's point of view but here it gave 1050 points... According to Futumark's ORB, people with 3GHz+ P4 and GFX5900 are also getting something like 1050 points. Isn't it funny?
I understand that a newest test is suppused to put any hardware on its knees but don't you think 3DMark05 isn't really fair? Could you compare 3dmark05's scores of your notebook and desktop and give some comments on it, please.

Edit: I forgot to mention that 3DMark05 by default uses highest available version of shaders. So it uses Pixel Shader 2.0 for MR9700 and Pixel Shader 2.0a for GFX5900. Could it be the key to the score difference? I have free version of 3DMark05 so I cannot change the shader profile. Could someone with Pro version run the test on a notebook and a desktop in the same shader profile, please.

well i bought my 9100 as a desktop replacement ....i still have my old desktop but it dosent meet the specs to even run it...........i scored just a little under u so dont feel bad theres i lot of us still with the 128 9700 that are getting right around the same score as us ..

You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about. If you have bad performance, it's because you have a crappy machine. On my desktop i score d 5100, of course that's nowhere near 3dmark03, but it's not supposed to. It's suppose to bench the most current systems, and future systems. So if you're getting a low score, it's because you have a CRAPPY system, NOT because it's been coded badly.

And as for the 64k demo, that 64k demo required at least a 1.5g cpu, 512mb of ram, gpu with 128mb and several minutes to load. And if you ran that game, your system would probably choke on that 64kb game as well.

Yes, i have an X800XT for my desktop. The point is, to think the benchmark is coded badly because you got a low score is simply ignorant. It's a benchmark specifically targetted at today's best systems, and for future systems. So yes, his system is crap inrespect to 3dmark05. If he wants to feel good and get good scores, he should run 3dmark03... or even better, 3dmark2001!! And obviously those are coded much better too, because he'll get higher scores LOLOL

Harcore I agree with you 100%

I got 1303 on my Acer Ferrari 3200. It's stock as it came from the factory except I put a 1 gig stick of PC2700 RAM in it.
(I can't afford to switch to PC3200, yet)
I must admit I was totally freaked when I saw the crappy framerates. On 3DMark 2001 I was getting between 80 and 150fps. I never got/loaded 2003, so I have no idea what it would do. I was a bit depressed until I started searching this out, so this score isnt' "too" bad, I guess.

i'm not even going to test out my current comp with 3dmark05... i shudder to think of how badly it will be slaughtered. on 3dmark03 it only got 1330

hopefully soon i'll have a nice system

hardcore has a valid point saying the test isn't suppose to give you high bench numbers since it is suppose to be able to test for the next two years...

it may be coded badly, but it does do what it's purpose - shows you how a system of today will run power hungry games of tomorrow...

i want to see how bad people think their cards of today are when the next gen cards come out years end and early next year with 512mb gfx ram and faster chips... notebook owners (i dont think) will have to worry too much about seeing too much of a jump as power constrants will be a big issue for makers trying to fit those power hungry gfx chips in the system along side hot and power hungry cpus

just for fun i decided to test my 5150, 984 3DMarks (3.06ghz, 512mb, 64mb nvidia card)... then again, its not a gaming system... most of the time it was going 0-3 FPS, it was funny.