do you think i should be getting an higher score?
it's all stock and here's the link to my score:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7091325
Printable View
do you think i should be getting an higher score?
it's all stock and here's the link to my score:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7091325
I think that scores pretty close to what you should be getting. I'm gonna guess and say your not running dual channel and that your ram timings aren't that tight(correct me if im wrong). Don't worry to much about your 3dmark score your rig is plenty. If you want a higher score your gonna need to overclock though.
yes i am running single channel and i also don't know how to change ram timings...
by the way, do you know how to access my video card bios?
That's about 5k more than me:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7091325
Get almost exactly the same for 'Car Chase high detail' though.
i'm trying catalyst 3.2 and 3.7 to see if they are better than 3.8's...
3.2 is faster then 3.8 by about 75-100 points... But 3.8 are better then 3.7 :)Quote:
Originally posted by Kappa2001
i'm trying catalyst 3.2 and 3.7 to see if they are better than 3.8's...
Not sure on 2003 tho..
You do have all the Direct3D set to the left hand side (performance) and AA/AF set to Application Default?
You should be around 17.5k for 100% stock since you are not running DCDDR.. Then you should be a little higher.. Closer to 18k
I never bother shifting the LOD's for my benchies. Maybe I should give it a go...
I have tried the 3.2`s, 3.4`s, 3.5`s and the Omega 3.5`s so far the Omega 3.5`s are the best ones for me. Still testing, got a few more to go.
the best was 17k with the 3.2's
it's still better than my old computer's 3100 points:D
Now if you overclocked... high 20-21k is very possible :)
Maybe the 3.2`s are better with a Intel system.Quote:
Originally posted by Kappa2001
the best was 17k with the 3.2's
it's still better than my old computer's 3100 points:D
I think 3.2's work better on Directx 8.1 (ie, Win2k or lower) and 3.5's with DX9. I don't think you see any boost from 3.2's unless you can run DX8.
Not sure though, when I bench my system I bench it like I use it, so latest drivers/DX version. (I do set for performance though)
Out of all the drivers I have tested so far on DX8.1, the Omega 3.5`s are the best and the only tweaking I am doing right now is setting D3D to performance.Quote:
Originally posted by mikead_99
I think 3.2's work better on Directx 8.1 (ie, Win2k or lower) and 3.5's with DX9. I don't think you see any boost from 3.2's unless you can run DX8.
Not sure though, when I bench my system I bench it like I use it, so latest drivers/DX version. (I do set for performance though)
I have a different outcome of said drivers :)
The Omega's are rather nice, but I only noticed a difference when DX 9.0 is applied... Otherwise they fall around the same speed as ATI release of the same drivers...
CAT 3.2 beats every single CAT from 3.4 - 3.8 by 100+ points in 2001 with DX 8.1.. Even with all the Omega drivers I tried too..
I guess these drivers are like the detonator`s, one driver that works good on soneone else`s rig will not do as well on another. All I can say is with the same settings I can not get over 17.6K with the 3.2`s and with the Omega 3.5`s I get 17890 on DX 8.1 with XP Home. BTW, After insalling the 3.2 drivers it now says I have a 9800pro, I guess because I had to use the 9800pro string.Quote:
Originally posted by Colossus
I have a different outcome of said drivers :)
The Omega's are rather nice, but I only noticed a difference when DX 9.0 is applied... Otherwise they fall around the same speed as ATI release of the same drivers...
CAT 3.2 beats every single CAT from 3.4 - 3.8 by 100+ points in 2001 with DX 8.1.. Even with all the Omega drivers I tried too..