I will just leave this here...

🤣
Well, at least it isn't a Core 2 that's beating me, because that would just lead to a night of heavy drinking.
As much as I hate tinkering with my main computer's guts unless it's necessary, I'll probably slot in one of my older video cards and get XP going soon enough. I'm very curious how many 3DMarks this box is capable of churning out under XP.

Here's an HP rig I was cleaning out for a friend. How was I payed? Why, I got to run 3DMark01 on it, of course! 🤣

Edit: Oops, wrong CPU and memory. This was actually an i5-4590 (3.3GHz/3.7 Turbo), and it actually had 12GB of RAM in it.
What a worthless card. The GT 710 is not much faster than today's integrated graphics. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if AMD's latest A10 or Intel's Iris Pro could outperform it.

Here's the i7-4790 (3.6GHz/4.0GHz Turbo) and GeForce GT 635.

Pentium 3 Katmai 600MHz, Asus P3B-F (Slot 1), 512mb PC133 ram, NVIDIA GeForce 2 GTS 32mb AGP (30.82 WHQL drivers), DirectX 8.1b, Windows 98SE

Skyscraper wrote:

I will just leave this here...
101020 points

http://hwbot.org/submission/2394787_havli_3dm … 60_112206_marks
😈

havli wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

I will just leave this here...
101020 points

http://hwbot.org/submission/2394787_havli_3dm … 60_112206_marks
😈

😀

Challenge accepted.

So I was going to attempt to trick my GTX 970 into working with XP, since 350.12 does support XP with older cards. Unfortunately, my rig just does not get along with XP at all--it refuses to even install the OS. Oh well, I was half expecting things not to work out anyway. I guess I'll never know how many 3DMarks or Doom3 frames this CPU can push under XP.

Skyscraper wrote:

havli wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

I will just leave this here...
101020 points

http://hwbot.org/submission/2394787_havli_3dm … 60_112206_marks
😈

😀

Challenge accepted.

Awesome score! That massive increase in performance that you got in Game 4 is kind of bizarre. I might have to re-test my Opteron/GTX560 setup with 296.10 later on. If I can get that kind of a boost in Game 4, I just might be able to break the 50K barrier on S939!

Standard Def Steve wrote:

So I was going to attempt to trick my GTX 970 into working with XP, since 350.12 does support XP with older cards. Unfortunately, my rig just does not get along with XP at all--it refuses to even install the OS. Oh well, I was half expecting things not to work out anyway. I guess I'll never know how many 3DMarks or Doom3 frames this CPU can push under XP.

Skyscraper wrote:

😀

Challenge accepted.

Awesome score! That massive increase in performance that you got in Game 4 is kind of bizarre. I might have to re-test my Opteron/GTX560 setup with 296.10 later on. If I can get that kind of a boost in Game 4, I just might be able to break the 50K barrier on S939!

If you look closly you will see that the GTX 285 has found partner for some hot SLI action 😀. The only thing in 3dmark 2001 scaling with SLI is pretty much Game 4, many of the other tests even get lower FPS. The lower FPS could be because I had to use a newish driver as the older ones fail to understand that the Z68 chipset is certified for SLI.

I think you only gain from SLI in 3dmark 2001 if you are heavly GPU limited in "Game 4", the GTX 560 is a much faster card compared to the GTX 285 (at least in the "Game 4" test) so I think something else will be needed to break the 50K barrier. I would start trying many different drivers, you are so close not much is needed. You should of course try SLI if you have two cards to see if the score improves but I would not buy another GTX 560 unless it was really cheap as I think a faster single card would be a better bet.

Here is more or less the same score with a single overclocked GTX 580.

Oh jeez, how'd I miss that? 😊

I actually have five of these Zotac GTX 560s floating around. They're great cards to put into random dumpster finds and similar rigs.
I have actually tried running two of these in SLI on the Opteron system. Unfortunately, the CPU is enough of a bottleneck that the WinXP 3DMark score only increases by ~50 points. Under Windows 7, the score actually decreases, from 29.3K down to 28.4k.

I haven't tried GTX 560 SLI in my "new" LGA775 system yet. The 3.33GHZ Core 2 Quad in that system may actually be able to put the two cards to good use.

Just a little bit to give you guys an idea what 775 platform can do with newer gpu's. I had a friend let me barrow his 2GB GTX 960 and tried it in my 775 system. Sadly these are the only benchmarks I got from it.

LGA-771 12MB quad core @ 3.75 ghz + DDR2-938 dual channel.

http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2990834

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/4667589

Finally got in the mail a Geforce 6200 PCI for this:

It's a Compaq Deskpro EN, with some upgrades (Pentium 3 733Mhz to Pentium 3 1Ghz, 128mb of ram to 512mb, IDE 10GB hdd to Sata 160GB hdd with the help of a pci to sata card, CD-Rom to DVD and now this video card)

Here is the 3Dmark2001 score

Very nice upgrade for a pc without AGP and that only scored 600 3dmarks with it's onboard intel gpu.

Now i have this really annoying problem becauce the computer bios doesn't like this card very much and it will always start only from the second power up, never from the first...any ideas? (already tried every option in the bios and even upgraded it)

Core 2 Duo E6600 at 2.4GHz, 8GB DDR2-800, GTX 560, Win7

Core 2 Duo E6600 at 3.0GHz, 8GB DDR2-800, GTX 560, Win7

Core 2 Duo E6600 at 2.4GHz, 8GB DDR2-800, GTX 560, WinXP

Core 2 Duo E6600 at 3.0GHz, 8GB DDR2-800, GTX 560, WinXP

Pentium D 830 and GTX 560. Hot and slow, just like a Cyrix. Really, 17K is a pathetic score, even for Win7.

Win7:

WinXP:

Asus PC-DL Deluxe with dual Xeon 3.06GHz w/5900XT, running XP Pro SP2:

GPU-Z seems to not know the GeForce FX very well (I've had similar oddities with other FX cards). It's a Chaintech 5900XT, 128MB, at stock 390/700. CPU-Z is correct for the CPUs (I didn't open a second window to show both, but they're the same).

obobskivich wrote:

GPU-Z seems to not know the GeForce FX very well (I've had similar oddities with other FX cards). It's a Chaintech 5900XT, 128MB, at stock 390/700. CPU-Z is correct for the CPUs (I didn't open a second window to show both, but they're the same).

I've seen this too, you need an older version to get gpu-z to report the specs on the older cards. They removed a lot of older video cards from the database inside the program as time went on.

So... I went and copy-pasted all my gpuz versions (they're not easy to find on the internet) onto my file server for you guys here for older gpu's we play with.

http://www.outfoxed.net/gpuz/ I think 0.3.9 should work for your card, probably.

Yes they're exe files, but they're all virus scanned with the latest version and update of AVG Pro when I downloaded em.

I have a more extensive list of about +50 more versions somewhere on one of my computers around the house, I'll try and find where I stashed em all later today.

kithylin wrote:

I've seen this too, you need an older version to get gpu-z to report the specs on the older cards. They removed a lot of older v […]
Show full quote

obobskivich wrote:

GPU-Z seems to not know the GeForce FX very well (I've had similar oddities with other FX cards). It's a Chaintech 5900XT, 128MB, at stock 390/700. CPU-Z is correct for the CPUs (I didn't open a second window to show both, but they're the same).

I've seen this too, you need an older version to get gpu-z to report the specs on the older cards. They removed a lot of older video cards from the database inside the program as time went on.

So... I went and copy-pasted all my gpuz versions (they're not easy to find on the internet) onto my file server for you guys here for older gpu's we play with.

http://www.outfoxed.net/gpuz/ I think 0.3.9 should work for your card, probably.

Yes they're exe files, but they're all virus scanned with the latest version and update of AVG Pro when I downloaded em.

Interesting. It's nothing I've ever worried too much about, because Coolbits will report the correct clocks. I've also noticed that on some of the FX cards it reports their core/memory configurations incorrectly. Thanks for mirroring the older versions too. 😀

Here is some quick 3dmark runs with an Athlon 64 4000+ and a Geforce 6800 "Ultra"

3dmark 2001

3dmark 2003

3dmark 2006 aka a slide show, the Geforce 6800 @Ultra is a bit slow 😁

Here's another Pentium D. The PD-935 has 4MB of L2 and runs quite a bit cooler than PD-830. The larger cache seems to lend a helping hand in Doom3, but the 3DMark01 result is still quite weak.

Pentium D 935, 3.2GHz, GTX 560, Windows 7:

Windows XP:

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-2001se-2 ... (98se).jpg

A bit low for the hardware it is, and I know it would be a lot faster if I was using XP on this thing, but I wanted to build this system to be 'the fastest ever' for windows 98, so that's what it is, a 2.5 ghz AthlonXP Barton chip for windows 98 :>

Yes, I'm a little crazy but oh well.