VOGONS


My 3DMark01 Mega Thread

Topic actions

Reply 660 of 745, by bakemono

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

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

Reply 661 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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. 😁

Reply 662 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

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. 😒
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
Filename
4930K-4800-3D01-XP.PNG
File size
845.03 KiB
Views
1406 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Win7:

4930K-4800-3D01-W7.png
Filename
4930K-4800-3D01-W7.png
File size
713.38 KiB
Views
1406 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Win10:

4930K-4800-3D01-W10.PNG
Filename
4930K-4800-3D01-W10.PNG
File size
240.99 KiB
Views
1406 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 664 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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.

Reply 665 of 745, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

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: I recently found this hardware, AKA the Dumpster find thread.
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
Filename
winxp-8800gt.jpg
File size
265.62 KiB
Views
1310 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

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?

Reply 666 of 745, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

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.

108080818886.png

Reply 667 of 745, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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.

Reply 668 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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.

Reply 669 of 745, by Baoran

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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?

Reply 670 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
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.

Reply 671 of 745, by tomoa

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Board: Asrock 775i65G R3.0 AGP
Processor: Pentium E6500K
RAM: Kingston CL2 2x256 MB
Graphics Card: Geforce 6800 GT DDR3 AGP - without OC

3DMark2001SE: 33185

Everything works under Windows 98 SE with oryginal drivers, Benchmark done under Windows XP

Attachments

  • bez_tytu_u13.JPG
    Filename
    bez_tytu_u13.JPG
    File size
    375.92 KiB
    Views
    1243 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception

Poland , http://komputery-retro.ddns.net/ http://komputery-retro.ddns.net/blog/ , I like old games and old computers 😀

Reply 672 of 745, by rod

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

System: Dell OptiPlex 745 Desktop
OS: Windows XP x64 SP2
CPU: Intel Xeon 3070
Memory: 8GB (4 X 2GB) DDR2-800 CL6 SDRAM
GPU: AMD HD7750 1GB 128-Bit GDDR5

Attachments

Reply 673 of 745, by Skyscraper

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

System/Motherboard: Asus Maximus IV Extreme P67
OS: Windows 10 LTSB
CPU: i7 3770K @4800MHz (A stable setting usable as 24/7 configuration)
Memory: 16GB (2x8GB) DDR3-2133 CL10,11,11,27-1T
GPU: Geforce GTX 960 2GB @stock

80650 points (Windows 10 LTSB seems less than optimal for running 3dmark2001)

Asus Maximus IV Extreme 3770K number two  4800 16GB 2133 3dmark2001.jpg
Filename
Asus Maximus IV Extreme 3770K number two 4800 16GB 2133 3dmark2001.jpg
File size
627.17 KiB
Views
1120 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Main PC: Dual Xeon X5690@4.6ghz, Evga - SR-2, 48gb memory, Intel X25-M g2 SSD and a Nvidia GTX 980 ti.
Retro PC #3: K6-2 450@500mhz, PC-Chips m577, 256mb sdram, AWE64 and a Voodoo Banshee.

Reply 674 of 745, by KT7AGuy

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I recently upgraded my old IBM ThinkPad T60 laptop's CPU and did four 3DMark2001SE before-and-after performance benchmarks to see what would happen.

2x2Gb Elpida PC2 6400, DDR2 666 - 3GB usable - Dual Channel Mode 5-5-5-15-21
ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 Graphics 128Mb RAM
Windows 7 Pro SP1 x86 32-bit
3Dmark2001SE set to defaults
Wifi disabled
ThinkVantage Power Manager set to Maximum Performance
Screensaver disabled
Cold boots inbetween each run

Before:
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7200 CPU, 2GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 666MHz FSB

9626
9666
9615
9622

After:
Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T7600 CPU, 2.33GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 666MHz FSB

9769
9833
9764
9817

While the 3DMark2001SE benchmarks don't show much improvement after the CPU upgrade, it definitely feels a bit snappier. I only paid $13 for this so I don't feel like I wasted my money. I expected about a 10% peformance boost and I think that's exactly what I got.

Reply 675 of 745, by Almoststew1990

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

I benchmarked a couple of netbook tablet things for some reason.

ASUS EEE PC - 1.6GHz Atom N270 Single Core; Intel GMA945, 1GB DDR2 - 2822 Points
ajYTh3Wh.jpg
ZmHsk5O.png

Linx 1010B Tablet thing - 1.33/1.66GHz 2C4T; Baytrail graphics of some kind, 2GB DDR3 - 6753 Points
9LNGAjzh.jpg
lkRZvXU.png

Ryzen 3700X 4.4-ish GHz | 16GB DDR4 3600MHz | Nvidia 1070ti | 750GB NVMe
AM1 x4 3820 APU Thing | 6GB DDR1 | iGPU or GTX 650
Slot 1 PIII 450MHz | 256MB PC100 | Nvidia MX440 | AWE32 CT3910

Reply 676 of 745, by overdrive333

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

In ~2004 I had the fastest celeron tualatin system in the world (according to futuremark database)

https://web.archive.org/web/20080205173823/ht … are?2k1=8299865

EPOX 3PTA + Celeron tualatin 1.1A@1.75 + Radeon 9800SE@9800PRO @ 440/740 (voltmodded) = 12105 😲

Reply 677 of 745, by Standard Def Steve

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Haswell's HD4600 integrated graphics in a Lenovo ThinkCentre. I'm actually very impressed with the performance! Keep in mind this is using cheap CL11 DDR3-1600; it would probably do much better with DDR3-2400, but I was too lazy to borrow that RAM from my main system. Still, this thing kicks the crap out of a 4GHz P4 with a GTX 560, which only hits 20K under Win7!

UZ2HPfG.png

And here are the 3DMark05 and 06 results. For the 3DMark03 results, check out the '03 Mega Thread!

i7-4790 IGP 3D05.PNG
Filename
i7-4790 IGP 3D05.PNG
File size
799.38 KiB
Views
385 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception
i7-4790 IGP 3D06.PNG
Filename
i7-4790 IGP 3D06.PNG
File size
459.67 KiB
Views
385 views
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

Reply 678 of 745, by Imperious

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Celeron M (Dothan)@1.3ghz vs Celeron D@2.66ghz. The Celeron M beat the D in every benchmark I threw at it.

Attachments

Atari 2600, TI994a, Vic20, c64, ZX Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC464, Atari 65XE, Commodore Plus/4, Amiga 500
PC's from XT 8088, 486, Pentium MMX, K6, Athlon, P3, P4, 775, to current Ryzen 2600.

Reply 679 of 745, by rod

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

System: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2
OS: Windows Embedded 8.1 Industry Pro x86
CPU: Intel Xeon X3230
Memory: 4GB (2 X 2GB) DDR2-667 @ 533 CL4 SDRAM
GPU: ATI Radeon HD3850 512MB 256-Bit GDDR3

Attachments

  • 3dMark01_4Core_01.png
    Filename
    3dMark01_4Core_01.png
    File size
    586.46 KiB
    Views
    303 views
    File license
    Fair use/fair dealing exception