My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

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

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2016-7-20 @ 19:44

rick6 wrote:Alright, even though i created a bunch of these charts for various games and benchmarks and it's own thread for them, i believe this one belongs in here:

http://i1383.photobucket.com/albums/ah2 ... pgfuvw.jpg

All hail the great Geforce 3 TI200 that overclocked can surpass the Geforce 3 TI500 and almost match the TI4200!

All this on a Athlon X2 4200+ and a motherboard with support for both AGP and PCI-E.


is that the asrock model with nforce 3 + uli chipset? I was looking for one a few years ago, but didn't have any luck.

seeing a MX440 SDR, I never realized they went as far as that with the poor 440, the common bad model was the 64bit DDR one,
some other interesting results, that 3450 around the same as a ti 4200... 9700pro staying with the 6600GT; oh and the 6200 PCI score reminds me that I should give another go with my PCI cards on a clean win XP install.



clueless1 wrote:Here's a a KT400 system I recently came across. Gigabyte GA-7VAXP, XP 2200+, 1GB DDR400, Radeon 9800 Pro. All parts are from ~2003 except the HDD, which is from 2005. The RAM is running at 200Mhz, though I didn't notice much difference in results compared to setting the RAM to 133 or 166. If I leave the RAM set to AUTO in the BIOS, it ends up at 166Mhz.
The attachment 3dmark012200+.JPG is no longer available


I think I have a 2002 "competitor" (for this test at least, for gaming the 9800 is a lot faster); p4 2.4, asus p4pe, 9500pro, ddr 333
but it's interesting the higher score, I guess it's just the CPU or also the driver? my experience with the latest legacy driver from the AMD website has been poor recently, so I using some older driver
9500pro3dm.jpg


(running windows 7 the score is under 8500!)


Aideka wrote:Dumpster find laptop: HP Compaq NC6220, Pentium M 750 1,86 GHz, 512Mb DDR2, Intel GMA 900, Windows XP full of toolbars and crap that I spent over an hour cleaning. Score: 4689 3DMarks.


is that with single or dual channel? those IGPs like dual channel, but the score doesn't look to different from GMA 950 scores on laptops that I had anyway (on desktops with the full IGP clock, and fast CPUs it can go a lot higher I think)
SPBHM
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Aideka » 2016-7-20 @ 20:41

SPBHM wrote:is that with single or dual channel? those IGPs like dual channel, but the score doesn't look to different from GMA 950 scores on laptops that I had anyway (on desktops with the full IGP clock, and fast CPUs it can go a lot higher I think)


It is single channel, I could plug in another stick to make it dual channel, but I have another dumpster dive laptop with Core Duo and GMA 950 already, so I don't really need this to perform any faster :lol: .
Image
User avatar
Aideka
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2011-1-22 @ 16:52
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Aideka » 2016-7-20 @ 21:00

So, my other dumpster dive laptop.
Attachments
3Dm2k1.JPG
Image
User avatar
Aideka
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2011-1-22 @ 16:52
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2016-7-20 @ 21:14

I guess GMA 950 is not massively faster than GMA 900 if this is GMA 900 SC vs GMA 950 DC
but it's also probably CPU limited, and the GMA 950 had versions at 250 up to 400MHz I think, so there is that.

when I tested the GMA 3100 (not x3100, just 3100 which is a small evolution from GMA 950) with single vs dual I was seeing a pretty consistent performance gain, but I was running with a much faster CPU and the IGP had a 400MHz clock;

I think this score is very similar to the gma 950 laptop that I have, but it's currently running Linux.
SPBHM
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Aideka » 2016-7-20 @ 21:25

SPBHM wrote:I guess GMA 950 is not massively faster than GMA 900 if this is GMA 900 SC vs GMA 950 DC
but it's also probably CPU limited, and the GMA 950 had versions at 250 up to 400MHz I think, so there is that.

when I tested the GMA 3100 (not x3100, just 3100 which is a small evolution from GMA 950) with single vs dual I was seeing a pretty consistent performance gain, but I was running with a much faster CPU and the IGP had a 400MHz clock;

I think this score is very similar to the gma 950 laptop that I have, but it's currently running Linux.


Yep, this particular GMA 950 seems to be an 400MHz model and on dual channel. Cpu may be the limit here, since it's only 1.6GHz, and on 533Mhz bus. I mostly use this laptop with Steam's In Home Streaming, and the Core Duo seems to handle that well enough. The good thing about these older Intel GPUs is that they are mighty compatible with older games, and even ones that give grief on newer AMD or Nvidia GPUs mostly seem to work fine. The fact that they are on laptops is good too, so I don't have to fill all my tables with desktop computers :lol: .

EDIT: Come to think of it, Speccy says that the chipset for this laptop is 945GM, but that should be 250MHz gpu. Still, both GMA Booster and GPU-Z report the GPU to be 400MHz. Might try playing around with GMA Booster and see if I can slow this thing down by setting a lower clock speed, or are the programs showing the wrong frequency.

EDIT2: So... I downclocked the GPU to 250MHz, and got a score of 5263 3DMarks, details show that fillrates have gone down like expected. Now I have a bit of an mystery in my hands since the GPU of this chipset shouldn't be 400MHz at all...
Image
User avatar
Aideka
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2011-1-22 @ 16:52
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2016-7-20 @ 22:22

Aideka wrote:
SPBHM wrote:I guess GMA 950 is not massively faster than GMA 900 if this is GMA 900 SC vs GMA 950 DC
but it's also probably CPU limited, and the GMA 950 had versions at 250 up to 400MHz I think, so there is that.

when I tested the GMA 3100 (not x3100, just 3100 which is a small evolution from GMA 950) with single vs dual I was seeing a pretty consistent performance gain, but I was running with a much faster CPU and the IGP had a 400MHz clock;

I think this score is very similar to the gma 950 laptop that I have, but it's currently running Linux.


Yep, this particular GMA 950 seems to be an 400MHz model and on dual channel. Cpu may be the limit here, since it's only 1.6GHz, and on 533Mhz bus. I mostly use this laptop with Steam's In Home Streaming, and the Core Duo seems to handle that well enough. The good thing about these older Intel GPUs is that they are mighty compatible with older games, and even ones that give grief on newer AMD or Nvidia GPUs mostly seem to work fine. The fact that they are on laptops is good too, so I don't have to fill all my tables with desktop computers :lol: .

EDIT: Come to think of it, Speccy says that the chipset for this laptop is 945GM, but that should be 250MHz gpu. Still, both GMA Booster and GPU-Z report the GPU to be 400MHz. Might try playing around with GMA Booster and see if I can slow this thing down by setting a lower clock speed, or are the programs showing the wrong frequency.

EDIT2: So... I downclocked the GPU to 250MHz, and got a score of 5263 3DMarks, details show that fillrates have gone down like expected. Now I have a bit of an mystery in my hands since the GPU of this chipset shouldn't be 400MHz at all...


the laptop I have with this IGP runs at 250 but some softwares detects it as 400MHz, losing just 200 points from 400 to 250 also sounds to little
I think; the software I trust the most for it is Aida64 and maybe hwinfo32, but since it's running linux right now I can't really check, I think GPUz gave me wrong readings, it did the same with my GMA 4500M laptop which runs at 400 and GPUz gave me 533 (which is the clock of the higher end version of that IGP)

the laptop had a t2080 (core duo pentium, same thing but with less cache), and I upgraded to a C2D t7200 to try and run some HD videos a little better, the t7200 was quite cheap from the Chinese sellers, it was interesting to try, but in the end the gain is not to significant for basic use.
SPBHM
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Aideka » 2016-7-20 @ 23:01

SPBHM wrote:the laptop I have with this IGP runs at 250 but some softwares detects it as 400MHz, losing just 200 points from 400 to 250 also sounds to little
I think; the software I trust the most for it is Aida64 and maybe hwinfo32, but since it's running linux right now I can't really check, I think GPUz gave me wrong readings, it did the same with my GMA 4500M laptop which runs at 400 and GPUz gave me 533 (which is the clock of the higher end version of that IGP)

the laptop had a t2080 (core duo pentium, same thing but with less cache), and I upgraded to a C2D t7200 to try and run some HD videos a little better, the t7200 was quite cheap from the Chinese sellers, it was interesting to try, but in the end the gain is not to significant for basic use.


So, hwinfo and Aida 64 both show the GPU to be 250Mhz, but they show 250Mhz even when underclocked to 166Mhz, so they do not seem to be updating the frequency. Powerstrip, GMA Booster and GPU-Z show 400MHz. The difference as I said was mostly in the fillrates, and a few fps lower in other tests, thinking about it I don't really know what the actual clock is :P. http://www.m3fe.com/content/fillratetest Fillratetest from that url shows identical fillrate between 250MHz and 400MHz, but the memory scores go down, setting the clock to 166 lowers all scores... I have no idea how to see the real clock speed now?
Image
User avatar
Aideka
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 2011-1-22 @ 16:52
Location: Finland

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby SPBHM » 2016-7-21 @ 01:33

Aideka wrote:
So, hwinfo and Aida 64 both show the GPU to be 250Mhz, but they show 250Mhz even when underclocked to 166Mhz, so they do not seem to be updating the frequency. Powerstrip, GMA Booster and GPU-Z show 400MHz. The difference as I said was mostly in the fillrates, and a few fps lower in other tests, thinking about it I don't really know what the actual clock is :P. http://www.m3fe.com/content/fillratetest Fillratetest from that url shows identical fillrate between 250MHz and 400MHz, but the memory scores go down, setting the clock to 166 lowers all scores... I have no idea how to see the real clock speed now?


I always trusted aida and hwinfo more because they showed the correct info, at stock clocks at least, but I guess if they don't read the actual clock and just rely on their database... not so useful.

still, if you changed the GPU clock from 250 to 400MHz the impact in performance should be pretty clear, try running 3dmark 2001 with as high resolution and settings as possible, perhaps just game test 4 (nature) or something, the difference should be quite clear,
SPBHM
Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: 2012-10-26 @ 15:59

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Jade Falcon » 2016-8-10 @ 02:47

just a quick unoptimized 3d01 run with stock setting and a 100mhz cpu OC.
Image
Jade Falcon
BANNED
 
Posts: 3217
Joined: 2016-5-08 @ 19:23
Location: Nar Shaddaa.

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby agent_x007 » 2016-8-13 @ 12:05

Scores for TNT2 Ultra and a comparison score of how much more FX 5950 Ultra has to offer ;)
1-st attachment = FX 5950 Ultra
2-nd attachment = Riva TNT2 @ Ultra
Attachments
3DMark 01 SE GF FX 5950 Ultra.PNG
3DMark 01 SE Riva TNT2 @ Ultra.PNG
Image
User avatar
agent_x007
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: 2016-1-19 @ 11:06

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Oldskoolmaniac » 2016-8-21 @ 22:12

Here is a few my 2001 benchmarks, more to come in a little bit.
Attachments
P3-S 1.4GHz, 2GB RAM, Geforce 6800 GT, 120GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
P3-S 1.4GHz, 2GB RAM, Geforce 6800 GT, 120GB HDD, Windows XP
Celeron 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM, Geforce4 Ti4200, 120GB HDD, Windows 98SE.jpg
Celeron 1.4GHz, 768MB RAM, Geforce4 Ti4200, 120GB HDD, Windows 98SE
C2D 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM, 128MB Quadro FX 1400, 120GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
C2D 2.66GHz, 2GB RAM, 128MB Quadro FX 1400, 120GB HDD, Windows XP
C2D 2.20GHz, 2GB RAM, 384MB Intel G965, 120GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
C2D 2.20GHz, 2GB RAM, 384MB Intel G965, 120GB HDD, Windows XP
C2D 2.20GHz, 2GB RAM, 128MB Quadro FX 1400, 120GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
C2D 2.20GHz, 2GB RAM, 128MB Quadro FX 1400, 120GB HDD, Windows XP
Motherboard Reviews https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48825
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51460
User avatar
Oldskoolmaniac
Oldbie
 
Posts: 609
Joined: 2016-5-16 @ 23:58
Location: Michigan

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Oldskoolmaniac » 2016-8-21 @ 22:32

Here are some more, later i will bench the other half of my collection of machines.
Attachments
P4 3.84GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD 3850, 2x200GB HDD Raid, Windows XP.JPG
P4 3.84GHz, 4GB RAM, Radeon HD 3850, 2x200GB HDD Raid, Windows XP (This one Destroys my core 2 dual 2.20GHz)
P4 3.20GHz, 4GB RAM, 128MB Radeon 9700 Pro, 80GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
P4 3.20GHz, 4GB RAM, 128MB Radeon 9700 Pro, 80GB HDD, Windows XP
P4 2.60GHz, 4GB RAM, 64MB Intel I865G, 80GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
P4 2.60GHz, 4GB RAM, 64MB Intel I865G, 80GB HDD, Windows XP
P4 2.60GHz, 1GB RAM, 64MB Intel I865G, 80GB HDD, Windows XP.JPG
P4 2.60GHz, 1GB RAM, 64MB Intel I865G, 80GB HDD, Windows XP
Motherboard Reviews https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48825
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51460
User avatar
Oldskoolmaniac
Oldbie
 
Posts: 609
Joined: 2016-5-16 @ 23:58
Location: Michigan

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2016-8-22 @ 00:36

Here's what an overclocked Core 2 Quad can do on a DDR3 motherboard.
FSB-1600 paired up with 1600MHz memory gives great results.

Q6700@4GHz on Asus P5Q3, GTX680, 8GB PC3-12800, XP SP3

Image
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Oldskoolmaniac » 2016-8-22 @ 00:51

^^^^Holy over kill, im currently trying to work on an over kill xp machine too.

Are you using XP x86 or x64 with that 8GB of RAM?
Motherboard Reviews https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48825
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51460
User avatar
Oldskoolmaniac
Oldbie
 
Posts: 609
Joined: 2016-5-16 @ 23:58
Location: Michigan

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2016-8-22 @ 01:03

That was just a temporary XP-32 installation used for benchmarking. The Q6700 is actually my HTPC and it normally runs Win7-64.

If you thought that was overkill, well...
Image
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Oldskoolmaniac » 2016-8-22 @ 01:45

I downloaded a patch to get 3dmark01 to work with modern hardware and OS and the score is pretty low, next time ill try a new drive in my main rig and install xp.
Attachments
AMD FX8350 4.0GHz, 32GB RAM, 2GB R9 270, 128GB SSD, Windows 8.1.jpg
AMD FX8350 4.0GHz, 32GB RAM, 2GB R9 270, 128GB SSD, Windows 8.1
Motherboard Reviews https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=48825
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=51460
User avatar
Oldskoolmaniac
Oldbie
 
Posts: 609
Joined: 2016-5-16 @ 23:58
Location: Michigan

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby kithylin » 2016-8-22 @ 07:49

I found some XP-32 drivers for my new R9 290X card recently. One of these days I'll get around to putting XP on a spare drive and see what this beast of a card does with 3dmark 2001se.. maybe hit 200k.. :D
User avatar
kithylin
l33t
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: 2011-4-19 @ 01:32
Location: Arlington, Texas

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby agent_x007 » 2016-8-22 @ 10:34

kithylin wrote:I found some XP-32 drivers for my new R9 290X card recently. One of these days I'll get around to putting XP on a spare drive and see what this beast of a card does with 3dmark 2001se.. maybe hit 200k.. :D
Unfortunatly, with 3DMark 01 SE it's more about CPU/RAM, instead of GPU.
200k in 3DMark 01 SE... nice dream :)
Reality check : LINK

PS. I did "a thing", with my AGP card collection :
Image

Platforms used :
LGA 775 - LINK
PGA 478 - LINK

Complete scores (in ResultBrowser01se table) :
LGA 775 : LINK
PGA 478 : LINK
Image
User avatar
agent_x007
Oldbie
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: 2016-1-19 @ 11:06

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby foey » 2016-8-22 @ 23:29

Rebuilt my 2006 Athlon X2 3800+ and been benchmarking it most of the night.

Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @ 2.7Ghz, 2Gb DDR400, ASUS A8R32 Deluxe Motherboard, MSI Geforce 7900GTO @ 720/830, Creative XFi SB0770, Windows XP SP3

All overclocks were exactly what I had back in 2006 when built from new using exactly the same kit (Sold to a friend previously who was going to get rid of it!)

Image
Cyrix Instead Build, 6x86 166+ | 32mb SD | 4mb S3 Virge DX | Creative AWE64 | Win95
ATC-S PIII Tualatin Win9x Build :- http://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=40248
User avatar
foey
Member
 
Posts: 261
Joined: 2014-5-27 @ 20:11
Location: UK

Re: My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Postby Standard Def Steve » 2016-8-24 @ 00:22

Netburst just can't perform. :blah:
Here's a Pentium D 935 overclocked to 4GHz. Much less than even half of the 4GHz Q6700's score.
Image

3DMark01 was never SSE2 optimized and certainly hated CPUs with long pipelines, and Presler had an embarrassingly long 31 stage pipeline. Here's how it compares against a bunch of other CPUs, all with far fewer stages in their pipes.

Pentium M @ 2.72GHz, GeForce GTX 560
PM 2.72 GTX 560 3D01-XP.PNG


Opteron 185 @ 3.13GHz, GeForce GTX 560
Opteron 3.13GHz GTX560 3D01-XP.PNG


Core Duo (Yonah) @ 3.08GHz, GeForce GTX 560
T2600 3.08GHz GTX 560 3D01-XP.png


Core 2 Quad @ 4GHz, GeForce GTX 680
Q6700 4GHz GTX 680 3D01-XP.png
Last edited by Standard Def Steve on 2017-9-28 @ 19:56, edited 1 time in total.
Standard Def Steve
Oldbie
 
Posts: 917
Joined: 2012-9-15 @ 08:04

PreviousNext

Return to Video

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest