...with these settings:
1280x1024
32bit
24bit ZBuffering
32bit texture format
Triple buffering
4x FSAA
Is that normal?
Printable View
...with these settings:
1280x1024
32bit
24bit ZBuffering
32bit texture format
Triple buffering
4x FSAA
Is that normal?
depends, what video card are you using?
Maybe it is not taking the FSAA well? I benched with those settings and got 8705 with a few programs running in the background. I changed over to 1600x1200 and still got 6748.Quote:
Originally posted by CadetLee
...with these settings:
1280x1024
32bit
24bit ZBuffering
32bit texture format
Triple buffering
4x FSAA
Is that normal?
Eric
sounds good for a radeon9500 pro. if its a 9700 pro, it may be a bit low
According to his specs (in his sig) he is using a GF4 4200 :)
I wonder what my GF4 4400 or 4600 can do with 4x AA/AF with those settings. I have never tried it :D I get tired of how long it takes to run 2001se...
He has a Ti4200, and that's an awful score for an R9500Pro! It's supposed to score nearly twice that at those settings.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
sounds good for a radeon9500 pro. if its a 9700 pro, it may be a bit low
why would 2800 marks in 1280x1028 with 4x fsaa be awful? this is 4 times 1280x1024, I would probably get 6k without fsaa and like 1.5k with 4x fsaa. the radeon9500 pro is nearly double that, or 2800 is great!
My brother's Geforce 4 TI 4200 128MB on an Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB of RAM gets about 9000 using the standard settings. You are using 2001 not 2003 right?
It seems more or less right to me for a 4200. It will suffer greatly at 1280 with 4x FSAA to be sure. I get just under 11000 at 4X FSAA on the default bench. I might try out Cadet Lees settings and see what I get.
Edit.... For comparison I get 8416 at the same settings which I think is pretty good overall.
I hit 10,324 on default settings..nothing wrong there :DQuote:
Originally posted by Invicta
My brother's Geforce 4 TI 4200 128MB on an Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB of RAM gets about 9000 using the standard settings. You are using 2001 not 2003 right?
Because I got 8705 at those settings and 6748 at 1600x1200 on those settings. I really only get about 14k normally. I'm sure someone can go over 10k.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
why would 2800 marks in 1280x1028 with 4x fsaa be awful? this is 4 times 1280x1024, I would probably get 6k without fsaa and like 1.5k with 4x fsaa. the radeon9500 pro is nearly double that, or 2800 is great!
Eric
Quote:
Originally posted by Invicta
My brother's Geforce 4 TI 4200 128MB on an Athlon XP 1800+ with 256MB of RAM gets about 9000 using the standard settings. You are using 2001 not 2003 right?
doesnt sound right, I get 7930 on 1GHz, his cpu is rated at 1800+ and he gets just 1100 more marks! good thing I can wait before upgrading, my cpu is almost as fast as his!
You do realize that 3dMark is heavy on the video card, don't you? Both of you run R9700 Pros..then see what you get. Your processor would be limiting you even more then..and you're not running a stock Tbird -- 143fsb instead of 133, correct..?Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
doesnt sound right, I get 7930 on 1GHz, his cpu is rated at 1800+ and he gets just 1100 more marks! good thing I can wait before upgrading, my cpu is almost as fast as his!
This system is completely non-tweaked. Just the default install on everything and I don't know what drivers he is using. 3dMark is stressing the video card first and foremost which would explain why your score is close to his.Quote:
Originally posted by Thunderbird1GHz
doesnt sound right, I get 7930 on 1GHz, his cpu is rated at 1800+ and he gets just 1100 more marks! good thing I can wait before upgrading, my cpu is almost as fast as his!
if 3dmark is so video intensive, why is someone getting 8500 marks on a radeon8500le on a 1.66GHz celeron, not sure but he may be using around 140fsb, but a ti4200 should beat a radeon8500le