Got my new '98 Machine up and running:

ASRock 775VM800
P4 2.8Ghz
512MB Ram
ANTEC TRUE 550W
Geforce 5900 Ultra
Windows 98 SE

Come on, nobody doing dual tualatin CPU benchmark with 3DMark01 ?

stuntman wrote:

Come on, nobody doing dual tualatin CPU benchmark with 3DMark01 ?

Does it support multiple CPU's?

Dell Dimension 4600 BIOS A12
Pentium 4 2.66GHz (Northwood, 533MHz FSB, 512K L2)
1GB DDR (running at 333MHz)
Windows XP SP3

Radeon 9600XT - AGP 8X - 11972 3DMarks
Geforce 3 Ti 200 - AGP 4X - 7333 3DMarks

sliderider wrote:

stuntman wrote:

Come on, nobody doing dual tualatin CPU benchmark with 3DMark01 ?

Does it support multiple CPU's?

I don't have a clue ! Was reading help file few minutes ago and it says nothing about multiple CPUs..One of the reason I asked my question 😁
And another thing; are we all using same 3DMark build version ? I'm using build 330, one and only (I guess..) you can still download from their
website. That's one of important things while benchmarking right? Maybe someone can tell different, benchmarking with build 300 and build 330
getting same scores? 😀

So here is what a single Voodoo 2 scores on my Win98 Machine:

ASRock 775VM800
P4 2.8Ghz
512MB Ram
ANTEC TRUE 550W
Geforce 5900 Ultra
Voodoo 2 (Single Board)
Windows 98 SE

Shagittarius wrote:

So here is what a single Voodoo 2 scores on my Win98 Machine: […]
Show full quote

So here is what a single Voodoo 2 scores on my Win98 Machine:

ASRock 775VM800
P4 2.8Ghz
512MB Ram
ANTEC TRUE 550W
Geforce 5900 Ultra
Voodoo 2 (Single Board)
Windows 98 SE

note that 3dfx cards till voodoo3 don't support 32bit rendering, so they can't run 3dmark01's default test and their scores are not really comparable to other cards' default test scores.
and this score looks slow aswell... the voodoo2 shall be almost as fast as tnt, and a tnt can score at least 1100pts in default test.

I just did the Voodoo 2 for fun. I'm sure it looses points for how I had to configure it and for not being able to run some tests. However it seems to be in line cause someone else on this thread tested SLI'ed Voodoo 2s in a P3 and scored lower than this.

In actual games it excels beyond my expectations.

So here's my Win 98 machine with a 3.4Ghz P4 in it instead of the 2.8 that I tested before. A nice sized difference the CPU made!

ASRock 775VM800
P4 3.4Ghz
512MB Ram
ANTEC TRUE 550W
Geforce 5900 Ultra
Windows 98 SE

The Voodoo 2 (Single Board) score 477 which isn't any different, guess both max that out for this particular test anyways.

Do I win fastest '9x machine? I've got a 6800 Ultra OC on its way, so that will be the last upgrade for this machine. Can't wait to see what differences that might make.

Shagittarius wrote:

So here's my Win 98 machine with a 3.4Ghz P4 in it instead of the 2.8 that I tested before. A nice sized difference the CPU made!

Do I win fastest '9x machine? I've got a 6800 Ultra OC on its way, so that will be the last upgrade for this machine. Can't wait to see what differences that might make.

I think that rig should be scoring a lot higher than 12.4K. My modest little PIII-S @ 1585MHz can crack 11.5K with a stock-clocked 9800Pro. It's running XP SP3, which might be more 3DMark friendly than Win98.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Shagittarius wrote:

So here's my Win 98 machine with a 3.4Ghz P4 in it instead of the 2.8 that I tested before. A nice sized difference the CPU made!

Do I win fastest '9x machine? I've got a 6800 Ultra OC on its way, so that will be the last upgrade for this machine. Can't wait to see what differences that might make.

I think that rig should be scoring a lot higher than 12.4K. My modest little PIII-S @ 1585MHz can crack 11.5K with a stock-clocked 9800Pro. It's running XP SP3, which might be more 3DMark friendly than Win98.

Wasn't the 9800 a better card than the 5900? Or at least they were on par I think, also I do believe you are right about XP alone allowing for higher scores.

even a ti4600 can score over 17k, do you think the ti4600 is even faster than the 5900ultra? i am sure windows98 is what holding your score back.

noshutdown wrote:

even a ti4600 can score over 17k, do you think the ti4600 is even faster than the 5900ultra? i am sure windows98 is what holding your score back.

I will do an XP install and report back with the results, though my goal with this machine is to build the fastest Win '98 machine I can so I don't really care about the results.

RESULTS : With 163.73 Forceware drivers I got 14808k in XP.

Shagittarius wrote:

noshutdown wrote:

even a ti4600 can score over 17k, do you think the ti4600 is even faster than the 5900ultra? i am sure windows98 is what holding your score back.

I will do an XP install and report back with the results, though my goal with this machine is to build the fastest Win '98 machine I can so I don't really care about the results.

RESULTS : With 163.73 Forceware drivers I got 14808k in XP.

ok... thats more reasonable. the geforce5 series have highest 3dmark01 score with 4x~5x series of drivers, but they seem pretty unstable for me, and not good at later dx9 games either. 6x~7x series are a bit slower in 3dmark01 but more stable, and also better at later dx9 games.
1xx drivers are pretty slow for even geforce6 and 7, they just provide better compatibility if you want to play latest dx9c games on gf6/7, which may fail with pre-100 drivers.

noshutdown wrote:

Shagittarius wrote:

noshutdown wrote:

even a ti4600 can score over 17k, do you think the ti4600 is even faster than the 5900ultra? i am sure windows98 is what holding your score back.

I will do an XP install and report back with the results, though my goal with this machine is to build the fastest Win '98 machine I can so I don't really care about the results.

RESULTS : With 163.73 Forceware drivers I got 14808k in XP.

ok... thats more reasonable. the geforce5 series have highest 3dmark01 score with 4x~5x series of drivers, but they seem pretty unstable for me, and not good at later dx9 games either. 6x~7x series are a bit slower in 3dmark01 but more stable, and also better at later dx9 games.
1xx drivers are pretty slow for even geforce6 and 7, they just provide better compatibility if you want to play latest dx9c games on gf6/7, which may fail with pre-100 drivers.

In Win 98SE for 3DMark 2001 the best drivers i've used are the 81.98s. These work best for the Nature test providing double of the 4x~5x series. The 6x series scores about the same as the 81.98s. However for actual use depending on the game I have to shuffle between 45.23, 61.76, and 81.98. The earlier games often have problems with anything beyond 45.23 all exhibiting different issues, and the later games run too slow with them. So some of the later games crash with 81.98s, but if they do they usually run fine with the 61.76s and those are much faster for DX8+ games than the 45.23s.

It doesn't take too much to shuffle between them all.

Some C2D/Win8 action. Win8 seems to be a better 3D'01 OS than Win7. Still not up to XP standards (IIRC, this thing was pushing around 68k under XP), but probably as good as it's gonna get with NT6 and WDDM drivers.

C2D E8500 running at 3.8GHz/1600FSB, P45 chipset, GTX560, 8GB DDR3-1600.

And just for fun, a crappy old GeForce 6150SE based system I rescued. Has an X2-5200 and 4GB DDR2-667.

My current XP system. Athlon II X3 450, GTX 280.

Grrr, E800 Netserver and onboard graphic Ati Rage XL with 8mb won't work on 3dMark....Can't start it, some error about not enough video memory
to load textures or somethgin 😁 No run, no score, zero 🙁

here are the results for my Win 98 machine (Abit BX-6 1.0, 600mhz Katmai , 512MB PC100, Geforce2 Ti , Voodoo 3 3000 PCI)

Voodoo 3 results

Geforce2 Ti results

interestingly the PCI Voodoo 3 had about 100 points less than the AGP version , even though there is almost no difference in the games I tried.

Here's my current XP machine : C2D 7200, GTX 280