agent_x007 wrote:

What driver U used ? My score with 6800 Ultra and X6800 (OC'ed to 3,33GHz) is 21155pkt : LINK (video - result @33:23). […]
Show full quote

Kamerat wrote:

A little 7800 GTX PCIe run on Windows 98 SE, this time with a Core 2 Duo E6600.

3m01_43525_9x400_G70-490-1375.png

What driver U used ?
My score with 6800 Ultra and X6800 (OC'ed to 3,33GHz) is 21155pkt : LINK (video - result @33:23).

3DMark06 - FX-60 @ 3,04GHz with GTX 780 Ti : LINK 😀

I've done just over 40,000 in 3DMark01 with a 7800GTX OC and a E4400 C2D at 3.6Ghz on a 680I motherboard

@up OK. But did U do it on non-VM Win 98 SE (like me) ?

agent_x007 wrote:

@up OK. But did U do it on non-VM Win 98 SE (like me) ?

Windows 98 SE is also a serious performance penalty for 3dmark 2001se ... XP is where it's fastest in all computers.

Playing with one of my two P4 CedarMill chips I bought recently used.

It's fun seeing what the upper limits on these P4 chips can do. I'm no where near thermal limits, 30c-32c idle, 47c load (custom water loop, single 120mm radiator). If I had a better p4-oriented motherboard for em where I could feed em more volts, I could probably shoot for 5.5 ghz - 6 ghz with em. But this is the most I can do with my current board for now.

EDIT: Forgot a ram speed screenshot.. so here.

Glad to see those Cedar Mills are working for you kithylin

Here is the score from my Abit AS8 build, never expected to score over 30,000 on a 865P motherboard

stuvize wrote:

Glad to see those Cedar Mills are working for you kithylin

Here is the score from my Abit AS8 build, never expected to score over 30,000 on a 865P motherboard

That's pretty nice for a prescott chip, I couldn't get any of mine to do anywhere near that. I only had the older 1MB ones though.

Do you have any ddr-500 ram? Would you like some? I can try to dig up my old information and point you to some cheap on ebay.

Here are a couple I haven't posted to this thread yet:

My Win98 box - Celeron 1.4GHz/V3-3000 AGP

Experimenting with Win XP on my main PC. i7-4930K @ 4.6 and a temporary GTX 680.
BTW, this machine scores 92357 in Windows 7 with a GTX 970.

I was going to post my latest builds score, but I am disappointed with 93000 on a 4790k @ 4.4ghz with a 980ti on windows 7 x64. I'm not entirely sure what the bottleneck is or if nvidia's driver just sucks for dx8.

RoyBatty wrote:

I was going to post my latest builds score, but I am disappointed with 93000 on a 4790k @ 4.4ghz with a 980ti on windows 7 x64. I'm not entirely sure what the bottleneck is or if nvidia's driver just sucks for dx8.

It's the video cards. Starting with the 700 series nvidia gpu's are optimized for DirectX 10 & DirectX 11 performance, and start getting progressively slower at DirectX 8 and 9 things. Assumably it's because nvidia thinks no one would be running those sorts of games/programs on newest hardware.

After all.. most people buy a GTX 980 Ti to play new AAA DirectX-11 titles like Star Citizen and what ever the latest Crysis is these days, Crysis 3? And Metro 2033, and that new Tomb Raider thing. Almost no one is buying a 980 Ti today specifically to play old games on it.

I can understand a lowering in support for DX8, but DX9 games are still very much the norm (lowest common denominator). I get quite nice scores in 3DMark03 (140k) and up. I just expected more out of such a fast card... anyways off topic enough.

My current rig is getting a bit long in the tooth at 6 years. This does show how much more powerful the single core
performance in the latest cpu's is though, also I proved that Amd's final drivers (14.4) that support XP aren't as good as older ones, but
I can't install anything older than 13.12 with this video card, so that's what I have run here. Technically it's just a rebadged 7870, and
for that matter so is the R7 370, so there probably would be a way to hack older drivers into installing on this card. The default clock
on this GPU isn't 1025, I have modded the bios to run at that speed as default and also for max voltage of 1.225v, as afterburner doesn't
support voltage control in this R9 270.

kithylin wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

@up OK. But did U do it on non-VM Win 98 SE (like me) ?

Windows 98 SE is also a serious performance penalty for 3dmark 2001se ... XP is where it's fastest in all computers.

I'm not agree there are some situation in wich is better win2000 or win98se
Some example:
Slot 370 tualatin or coppermine + radeon x8xx or 9xxx (win2000)
Random platform + nvidia tnt series (win98)
And so on

Stermy57 wrote:

I'm not agree there are some situation in wich is better win2000 or win98se Some example: Slot 370 tualatin or coppermine + rade […]
Show full quote

kithylin wrote:

agent_x007 wrote:

@up OK. But did U do it on non-VM Win 98 SE (like me) ?

Windows 98 SE is also a serious performance penalty for 3dmark 2001se ... XP is where it's fastest in all computers.

I'm not agree there are some situation in wich is better win2000 or win98se
Some example:
Slot 370 tualatin or coppermine + radeon x8xx or 9xxx (win2000)
Random platform + nvidia tnt series (win98)
And so on

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, on a lot of computers Win98se is -better- for actual usage. But for the point of making high scores in 3dmark 2001se, no matter what hardware it is, XP is going to be the fastest, in the terms of benchmarks only.

kithylin wrote:

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Yes, on a lot of computers Win98se is -better- for actual usage. But for the point of making high scores in 3dmark 2001se, no matter what hardware it is, XP is going to be the fastest, in the terms of benchmarks only.

I'm not talking about normal usage. I'm talking about 3d mark01 benchmark
And like i say before: Tualatin-coppermine + radeon 9xxx or x8xx ( but i can do more example) are ablee to reach the best performance only with win2000.
I can do some screenshot if you want
Xp is not always the best os for 3dmark01

Edit: Would you like to do a challenge with me?
We will choose the platform, you will use xp and i 98se or 2000 depends on components.
We will use same frequency even driver version ( graphics and chipset) only air cooling
Optimization allowed. ( naturally an old platform, not core 2 duo + pci graphics card, everybody know that with 775 xp is the way)
I have more than 30 mainboards (from socket 7 from socket 775-am2+) 150cpus and 80gpus agp so for me in not a problem

My $30 x1950Pro AGP arrived yesterday!

Here it is paired with an Athlon 64 3700 @ 2.75GHz and some nice, fast DDR500 memory.

3DMark01. Keep in mind this is running Win7. I'm pretty sure this setup would hit 30K under WinXP.

3DMark03:

Nothing overclocked here. Move along.

Here's my Win98 rig. P3-933, Geforce FX5200:

The Celeron D 335 couldn't quite match my insanely over-the-top PIII-S setup in Doom3, but it does take the lead in 3DMark 2001.

Celeron D 335 (2.8GHz, 533FSB, 256K L2), 1GB DDR333 CL2.5, 6800GT @ 385/540:

Seeing all your scores there makes me want to boot my AthlonXP system just to throw it into the ring and see how it compares.. I might just do that here for a minute and see where it ranks up against your systems.

It's an AthlonXP Barton-400-FSB chip @ 2.5 ghz with a 6800 ultra. Given your results I would guess in the 16k - 18k range.

EDIT: I was close.. 15.5k.

Larger: http://www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/r_2001se-WinXP-2.jpg

I don't know why some programs are reporting the video card at PCI Speed.. can see in AIDA64 it indeed is running at AGP 8x. I'm using an older version of XP there, so I can't use the newest version of GPU-Z.

Some day (If I get the initiative) I want to try Windows 2000 on it see how it does in there.