Marquzz wrote:

Kamerat wrote:

New personal best in Windows 98 SE with 38723 3DMarks, this time with Core 2 Duo E6600 and Asus Radeon X800 XT PCIe. Note that CPU speed detection fails, the real speed is 3776MHz (8x472MHz). 3DMark actually detects the right FSB. No LOD tweaks this time.

3m01_38723_8x472.png

Edit: New run, slightly tighter timings.

How did you get the P965 chipset to work with Win98? I never heard of anything higher than 925 working with 98.

Most important is to set the SATA Configuration to Compatible. I'm only using a 80GB SATA drive, so size is not an issue. Also I disabled all onboard devices and all tabs in CPU Configuration. For getting the SB emulation of the Aureal Vortex 8820 to work under MS-DOS, I've reserved IRQ 5 under "Advanced PCI/PnP Settings".

After first step of the Windows install I booted to pure DOS and added MaxPhysPage=20000 under the [386Enh] section in system.ini (Windows will then only see 512MB RAM, it won't even boot when it sees 2GB complaining about insufficient memory).

But did you install intels inf in Win98? Or are you jast letting Win98 handling it and install whatever driver it feels fit?

Kamerat wrote:

Marquzz wrote:

Kamerat wrote:

New personal best in Windows 98 SE with 38723 3DMarks, this time with Core 2 Duo E6600 and Asus Radeon X800 XT PCIe. Note that CPU speed detection fails, the real speed is 3776MHz (8x472MHz). 3DMark actually detects the right FSB. No LOD tweaks this time.

3m01_38723_8x472.png

Edit: New run, slightly tighter timings.

How did you get the P965 chipset to work with Win98? I never heard of anything higher than 925 working with 98.

Most important is to set the SATA Configuration to Compatible. I'm only using a 80GB SATA drive, so size is not an issue. Also I disabled all onboard devices and all tabs in CPU Configuration. For getting the SB emulation of the Aureal Vortex 8820 to work under MS-DOS, I've reserved IRQ 5 under "Advanced PCI/PnP Settings".

After first step of the Windows install I booted to pure DOS and added MaxPhysPage=20000 under the [386Enh] section in system.ini (Windows will then only see 512MB RAM, it won't even boot when it sees 2GB complaining about insufficient memory).

Marquzz wrote:

But did you install intels inf in Win98? Or are you jast letting Win98 handling it and install whatever driver it feels fit?

I'm using the drivers supplied by Windows 98 SE. I tried benchmarking a Crucial C300 SSD and got sequential read speed of ~200MB/s, just remember to enable DMA in Device Manager.

Here's a list of PCIe devices that I got working under Windows 98 SE: PCIe devices on Windows 98 SE

And here's another 3DMark03 run with my main computer; this time with the CPU overclocked (temporarily) to 4.6GHz. There is not too much of a difference from my regular 4.5GHz OC. It's amazing just how GPU limited this ancient DX8/9 benchmark is. Wings of Fury seems to benefit the most from the additional CPU speed.
That CPU score = Awesome. 😁

3DMark03 is all nice, but isn't this a 3DMark2001 thread?

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

I know, I know. This isn't 3DMark01, but I've noticed that others have been posting 3D03/05/06 results in this thread, which is just fine. So unless you guys want a separate 3DMark05 thread, I'm going to break the rules again and post a 3DMark05 result. I am all out of 3D01 shots!
Like 3DMark01, 3DMark 2005 is quite sensitive to CPU speed. It is nothing like 2003, which just keeps going up and up as you throw more GPU horsepower at it.

Fortunately, unlike 3DMark01, you don't lose any speed by running 2005 on a modern version of Windows. In fact, Win7 consistently posts slightly higher 3Dmark03/05/06 scores than WinXP!

Here's an i7+GTX970 result.
Remember when 3DMark05 CPU tests were like slideshows? Yeah, not anymore:

Can you do that on 3DMark06? His CPU tests are harder 🤣

it would be a lot faster with dual channel memory and winxp but still kind of fun to see, I remember doing all sorts of overclock experiences to reach 15K back in the day

So, what's faster: a first-gen Intel Mac with Radeon X1600 graphics, or a DDR-equipped PIII rocking a 6800GT? Let's find out!

iMac specs:
Core Duo T2500 (Yonah) - 2GHz, 667FSB, 2MB L2
i945PM chipset
2GB DDR2-667 in dual-channel
Mobility X1600 128MB/128-bit GDDR3
Windows 7 32-bit SP1

3DMark01:

3DMark03:

3DMark05:

Decked out PIII specs:
PIII-S - 1575MHz, 150FSB, 512KB L2
QDI Advance 12T - VIA Apollo Pro 266T chipset
2GB DDR-300 CL2
GeForce 6800GT AGP 256MB/256-bit GDDR3
Windows XP SP3

3DMark01:

3DMark03:

3DMark05:

I finally got a new computer, and it took about 2 days, but I -was- able to get XP-32-SP3 running on it. And now I can start testing some older hardware and older benchmarks and see what we get.

One of my first tests here. I'll get to trying faster stuff later and we'll see how that compares

First up though! A pair of overclocked 9800 GT's, in new computer: i7-3770k @ 4.6 ghz & DDR3-2200

Larger: http://www.outfoxed.net/9800gt-dual/3dmark%202001se.jpg

Athlon 500Mhz, 256Mb SD-Ram RAM, 80Gb HDD,DVD-Rom,MSI Microatx Mainboard (Irongate, AGP 2x!!!), GeForce NX6200 256Mb 128Bit (Uncrippled!)
Graphics Card is overpowered for this CPU 😉

And some more tests for folks here.

Dual overclocked GTX 260's in SLI together mated with 4.6 ghz i7-3770K system, and DDR3-2200.

Larger: http://www.outfoxed.net/gtx-260/3dMark%202001se.jpg

And a "The best I can do" here.
My overclocked GTX-770, with the I7-3770K @ 5061 Mhz, with DDR3 @ 2204 Mhz.

Larger: http://76.186.66.134:8080/gtx770/3dMark_2001s … 5_Ghz_3770k.jpg

My new Surface 3.
Atom X7 Z8700 (1.6GHz/2.4 Turbo)
4GB DDR3-1600 dual-channel

Tiger433 wrote:

Can you do that on 3DMark06? His CPU tests are harder 🤣

Oh man, you asked for it! 😁
Here are more than a few 3DMark06 runs.

GTX 970/i7-4930K @ 4.5

GTX 560/Core 2 Quad @ 3.33GHz

GTX 560/Core 2 Duo @ 3.0GHz

GTX 560/Opteron 185 @ 3.0GHz

GTX 560/Pentium D @ 3.0GHz

Radeon X1950Pro AGP/Athlon X2 @ 2.4GHz

Atom X7 Z8700/Intel HD:

GeForce 6800GT/Athlon 64 @ 2.64GHz

Intel GMA X4500HD/Core 2 Duo E7500

Mobility Radeon X1600/Core Duo T2500

Not too shabby for a Dell! This is the non-K variant of the Haswell 4790, so it's clocked at 3.6GHz with a 4GHz Turbo frequency. However, because it ran at 4GHz throughout most of the benchmark, I expected it to score a bit higher. My own PC, an Ivy Bridge E (which should be a little slower than Haswell clock for clock) scores around 10K higher at 4.5GHz.

And here's a six-core Phenom II 1055T with a slight overclock to 3.1GHz. The score indicates that it is roughly on par with Core 2 Quad, clock-for-clock. My Q6700 @ 3.33GHz scores around 43K, but that's with a much slower video card (GTX 560).

Here's the Phenom running 3D03. I'm not too familiar with the GTX 760, so I don't know if this score is being held back by the CPU at all.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Not too shabby for a Dell! This is the non-K variant of the Haswell 4790, so it's clocked at 3.6GHz with a 4GHz Turbo frequency. However, because it ran at 4GHz throughout most of the benchmark, I expected it to score a bit higher. My own PC, an Ivy Bridge E (which should be a little slower than Haswell clock for clock) scores around 10K higher at 4.5GHz.

And here's a six-core Phenom II 1055T with a slight overclock to 3.1GHz. The score indicates that it is roughly on par with Core 2 Quad, clock-for-clock. My Q6700 @ 3.33GHz scores around 43K, but that's with a much slower video card (GTX 560).

Here's the Phenom running 3D03. I'm not too familiar with the GTX 760, so I don't know if this score is being held back by the CPU at all.

If you're running all of these in windows 7 then that's why it doesn't score as high as you expect. These tests run fastest in Windows XP, and significantly slower in Win7. Except 3dmark 2003, which runs full speed in Win7. Also 3dmark 2003 doesn't count the CPU score portion of testing towards the overall score. So amount of cores there doesn't have any effect on the score, unlike 3dmark 2006 where it would matter, and contribute to the overall.

kithylin wrote:

If you're running all of these in windows 7 then that's why it doesn't score as high as you expect. These tests run fastest in Windows XP, and significantly slower in Win7. Except 3dmark 2003, which runs full speed in Win7. Also 3dmark 2003 doesn't count the CPU score portion of testing towards the overall score. So amount of cores there doesn't have any effect on the score, unlike 3dmark 2006 where it would matter, and contribute to the overall.

Oh, I know all about the Win7-3DMark01 speed deficit. 😀 But my main PC runs Win7, and it scores around 92K in 3DMark01.
I'll guess I'll blame it on the Dell's cheap mobo and the low-end chipset it's based on.

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 have a system with an Athlon 64 3700+ and a 6800 GT that gets around 21,000. Before I killed my 7900GS, and when I was running an Athlon 64 3400+, it also got around 21,000.