My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Discussion about old graphics cards, monitors and video related things.

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby bakemono » 2018-1-16 @ 00:44

Greetings. I was browsing this board recently and decided to register... I have a lot of 3DMark01 results that I can share!

Socket 5 (Packard Bell C 115, i430VX chipset, Win98)
Pentium MMX Overdrive 200, GeForce 2MX 200 PCI = 290 3dmarks

Socket 7 (Shuttle HOT-591p, VIA MVP3 chipset, 512KB cache, Win98)
IDT Winchip 200, Radeon 9200 = 892 3dmarks
Pentium 166 at 188, Radeon 9200 = 1071 3dmarks
Cyrix M2 PR400 (285MHz), Radeon 9200 = 1535 3dmarks
K6-2 380, Radeon 9200 = 1891 3dmarks
K6-3 380, Radeon 9200 = 2304 3dmarks
K6-3 380, GeForce 2 GTS = 683 3dmarks
K6-3 380, Matrox G250 (800x600) = 308 3dmarks

Slot 1 (Intel SE440BX2, PC100 CL2 SDRAM, Win98)
Pentium 3 600e, SiS 6326 (640x480) = 203 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, S3 Savage 4 (16-bit color) = 870 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, nVidia TNT (800x600) = 976 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, S3 Savage 2000 (16-bit color) = 1098 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, Voodoo 3 3000 (16-bit color, unofficial drivers) = 1243 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, GeForce 4MX 420 = 2495 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, GeForce FX 5200 64-bit = 3100 3dmarks
Pentium 3 600e, GeForce FX 5700LE = 4438 3dmarks
Pentium 3 550, GeForce FX 5200 64-bit = 2785 3dmarks
Pentium 3 550, Radeon 9200 = 3530 3dmarks
Pentium 2 350, Radeon 9200 = 2643 3dmarks

Socket 370 (i815 chipset, Win98/2k)
Celeron 533, GeForce 2 GTS = 1381 3dmarks
Pentium 3 733, nVidia TNT (800x600) = 1011 3dmarks
Pentium 3 733, nVidia TNT2 M64 (800x600) = 1162 3dmarks
Pentium 3 733, Matrox G450 (800x600)= 1150 3dmarks
Pentium 3 733, Matrox G450 = 896 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, i815 integrated (16-bit color) = 660 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, GeForce 2MX 200 = 1533 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, GeForce 4MX 420 = 3213 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, GeForce 2 GTS = 3106 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, GeForce FX 5200 64-bit = 3794 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, Radeon 9200 = 5059 3dmarks
Pentium 3 933, GeForce FX 5700LE = 5230 3dmarks

Socket A (Biostar M7VIP-pro, VIA KT333 chipset, DDR333, Win2k)
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), nVidia TNT2 M64 (800x600) = 1884 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce 2MX = 2913 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce 4MX 420 = 3450 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce 4MX 420 195MHz RAM = 3900 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce 2 GTS = 4171 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), Radeon 9200 = 6666 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce 6200 = 7291 3dmarks
Sempron 2300+ (1583MHz), GeForce FX 5700LE = 7790 3dmarks
Athlon XP 2500+ (1833MHz), GeForce FX 5200 64-bit = 4884 3dmarks
Athlon XP 2500+ (1833MHz), GeForce FX 5700LE = 8425 3dmarks
Athlon XP 2500+ (1833MHz), GeForce FX 5700LE 20% overclock = 9280 3dmarks

Socket A (nForce2 chipset, Win2k)
Athlon XP 2800+ (2083MHz), GeForce 4MX integrated = 3683 3dmarks
Athlon XP 2800+ (2083MHz), GeForce FX 5700LE = 8977 3dmarks
Athlon XP 2800+ (2083MHz), Quadro FX 1000 = 10771 3dmarks

Socket 479 (Itox mini-ITX board, i855GM chipset, DDR333, Win2k)
Pentium M 2MB 1.6GHz, i855 integrated = 2500 3dmarks
Pentium M 2MB 1.6GHz, GeForce 4MX PCI = 4080 3dmarks
Pentium M 2MB 1.6GHz, GeForce 8400GS PCI = 9200 3dmarks

Socket AM2 (nForce 430 chipset, DDR2-800, Win2k)
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), GeForce 6150 integrated = 5481 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), Quadro NVS 285 = 9125 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), Radeon X1300 64-bit = 10291 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), Quadro NVS 290 = 13944 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), GeForce 210 520/600 = 17900 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), GeForce 9500 DDR2 450/400 = 19887 3dmarks
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), GeForce GT220 625/700 = 21626 3dmarks

Socket AM2+ (Biostar A770-A2+, AMD 770 chipset, DDR2-800, Win2k)
Athlon X2 4850e (2.5GHz), GeForce 7600GT = 23001 3dmarks
Athlon X2 7850 (2.8GHz), GeForce 7600GT = 29945 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), GeForce 7600GT = 29055 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), Radeon HD 4550 600/800 = 24945 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), GeForce 9500 DDR2 450/400 = 25815 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), Radeon HD 7510 650/700 = 31000 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), Radeon HD 5570 650/700 = 32828 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), GeForce GT220 625/700 = 32602 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), GeForce GT240 550/1000 = 32689 3dmarks
Athlon II X2 260 (3.2GHz), Radeon HD 3850 = 34945 3dmarks

Laptops (Win2k/XP)
Dell Lattitude C400, Pentium 3M 1.33GHz, i830 integrated = 1080 3dmarks
Fujitsu Lifebook B6110D, Pentium M 2MB 1.2GHz, i915 integrated = 3565 3dmarks
NEC Versa S820, Pentium M 1MB 1.0GHz, Mobility Radeon 7500 64-bit = 4060 3dmarks
Fujitsu Lifebook S series, Turion 64 X2 1.6GHz, DDR2-667, Radeon Xpress 200m = 4200 3dmarks
Toshiba Portege M200, Pentium M 1MB 1.7GHz, GeForce Go 5200 64-bit = 4765 3dmarks
Fujitsu Lifebook S series, Turion 64 2.0GHz, DDR2-800, Radeon Xpress 200m = 5300 3dmarks
bakemono
Newbie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 2018-1-15 @ 06:56

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2018-1-16 @ 04:23

bakemono wrote:Greetings. I was browsing this board recently and decided to register... I have a lot of 3DMark01 results that I can share!

Absolutely epic first post! Thanks a million for sharing all of those results. :-D
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2018-1-16 @ 04:30

I finally put Win10 on this thang. Not sure I like it, but this time I'm just gonna suck it up and keep it. :blah:
So here's XP vs Win7 vs Win10 on the same hardware.
4930K @ 4.8GHz, 32GB DDR3-2400, GTX 970.

XP:
4930K-4800-3D01-XP.PNG


Win7:
4930K-4800-3D01-W7.png


Win10:
4930K-4800-3D01-W10.PNG
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Baoran » 2018-1-16 @ 19:40

Is there usually a big difference if you run 3dmark01se in win98se or winxp on same pc?
Baoran
Member
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 2017-4-01 @ 08:39
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2018-1-17 @ 19:06

Baoran wrote:Is there usually a big difference if you run 3dmark01se in win98se or winxp on same pc?

98SE is typically slower than XP in 3DMark01, although it depends on your hardware. If you're GPU limited, the difference is quite small, and Win98 might even eke out a win if you're using an ancient video card and/or drivers. However, as you become more CPU-limited, XP pulls ahead, sometimes by a fairly large margin. Not exactly sure why, as 3DMark01 is single-threaded and Win9x should be lighter on system resources than XP, but it is what it is.

XP also outperforms 98 in many other synthetic hardware benchmarks.
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Baoran » 2018-1-23 @ 19:13

Has anyone experienced getting very different results in 3dmark01se in same system without changing anything and not installing any new software?
I posted here about a graphics card that I found: viewtopic.php?f=46&t=43144&start=1640#p643708
Later in the thread I told that that I tested the card and it worked fine and got 36714 3dmarks when testing it.

I just spent over an hour taking off heatsink, cleaning the card and putting new thermal paste.
After that I installed the card again, started the computer, started msi afterburner and started 3dmark01se to test if there had been change in temperatures.

To my surprise, the result was this:

winxp-8800gt.jpg


Anyone can say if the previous test or this one is closer to what kind of results you should get in 3dmark01se in this system?
Baoran
Member
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 2017-4-01 @ 08:39
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby agent_x007 » 2018-1-23 @ 20:19

Card isn't overheating, so if I had to guess, I would go with either Windows Update/Antivirus/Windows Update/.NET optimistations/other backgorund progam "doing it's thing" while you try to test, OR C1E/SpeedStep not kicking in max. performance fast enough.
User avatar
agent_x007
Oldbie
 
Posts: 818
Joined: 2016-1-19 @ 11:06

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Baoran » 2018-1-23 @ 20:24

agent_x007 wrote:Card isn't overheating, so if I had to guess, I would go with either Windows Update/Antivirus/Windows Update/.NET optimistations/other backgorund progam "doing it's thing" while you try to test, OR C1E/SpeedStep not kicking in max. performance fast enough.


Fresh windows xp install. Only thing I have installed are the service packs, drivers, afterburner and 3dmark01se. I have not even installed .net if it didn't come with one of the service packs. No antivirus and pc is not connected to internet.
Baoran
Member
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 2017-4-01 @ 08:39
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2018-1-23 @ 20:32

Baoran wrote:
Anyone can say if the previous test or this one is closer to what kind of results you should get in 3dmark01se in this system?

I got around ~63500 on an E8600 (3.33GHz) with a GTX 560, so your 2nd score seems about right.
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Baoran » 2018-1-23 @ 20:40

Standard Def Steve wrote:
Baoran wrote:
Anyone can say if the previous test or this one is closer to what kind of results you should get in 3dmark01se in this system?

I got around ~63500 on an E8600 (3.33GHz) with a GTX 560, so your 2nd score seems about right.


GTX 560 should be about 3 times faster than 8800 GT though, right?
Baoran
Member
 
Posts: 433
Joined: 2017-4-01 @ 08:39
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2018-1-23 @ 21:13

Baoran wrote:
Standard Def Steve wrote:
Baoran wrote:
Anyone can say if the previous test or this one is closer to what kind of results you should get in 3dmark01se in this system?

I got around ~63500 on an E8600 (3.33GHz) with a GTX 560, so your 2nd score seems about right.


GTX 560 should be about 3 times faster than 8800 GT though, right?

Once you're at the level of a GTX 280, 3DMark01 pretty much becomes a CPU test*. The DX8 graphics in 2001 are so simple for modern video cards that they pretty much just sit there, waiting for the CPU to catch up. My XP vs 7 vs 10 benchmarking shows this. I ran a GTX 680 under XP, yet it scored much higher than a GTX 970 on Win7 and 10 simply because there was less CPU overhead under XP.

*Although, I've noticed that some modern motherboards produce relatively low 3DMark01 numbers. A CPU that's underperforming in one board can sometimes achieve significantly higher performance in another motherboard. 3DMark01 is really weird that way. It seems that once you're in "Core ix Land", you need the right combination of board/UEFI, CPU, OS, and video driver to score really high. As always, low memory latency and high CPU clocks never hurt.
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 830
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Previous

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: silikone and 2 guests