My new Win 98 Machine, scores 17k+ in 98, 22k+ in XP, here's the specs & score in XP:

Xeon 3230
ASRock 4Core-Dual-VSTA
2 GB DDR2 @533ish
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128MB
Windows 98SE / XPSP3

download/file.php?mode=view&id=74185

E7300, Asrock g31m-vs, 4GB DDR2 800, XP SP3, HD 4670 DDR2, HD 5850 reference, HD 7850 windforce 2x

it's interesting how on 3dm01 the 5850 is faster even when all the specs are all lower, and on 3dmark 03 the 7850 scores a lot higher than the 5850,

the 4670 does OK given the low memory bandwidth, but it's all very CPU limited I guess, also in gaming the 4670DDR2 is way slower,

SPBHM wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:40:

E7300, Asrock g31m-vs, 4GB DDR2 800, XP SP3, HD 4670 DDR2, HD 5850 reference, HD 7850 windforce 2x

it's interesting how on 3dm01 the 5850 is faster even when all the specs are all lower, and on 3dmark 03 the 7850 scores a lot higher than the 5850,

the 4670 does OK given the low memory bandwidth, but it's all very CPU limited I guess, also in gaming the 4670DDR2 is way slower,

ATI GCN seems to do poorly in 3DMark2001 SE compared to the older Terascale cards from what i've seem, my HD 5870 could score as high as 85k with a 4.6 ghz 1st gen i7 oc. Most GCN class GPUs struggles to surpass 45k even with really fast core 2 or 1st gen i7, for reference my 5870 scored roughly 62k in 2001 SE with an stock C2D E8600, 71k at 4 ghz and 78k at 4.4 ghz. My friend's HD 7970 only scored 45k with an i3 550 @ 3.7 ghz OC

Carlos S. M. wrote on 2020-01-13, 09:52:

SPBHM wrote on 2020-01-11, 15:40:

E7300, Asrock g31m-vs, 4GB DDR2 800, XP SP3, HD 4670 DDR2, HD 5850 reference, HD 7850 windforce 2x

it's interesting how on 3dm01 the 5850 is faster even when all the specs are all lower, and on 3dmark 03 the 7850 scores a lot higher than the 5850,

the 4670 does OK given the low memory bandwidth, but it's all very CPU limited I guess, also in gaming the 4670DDR2 is way slower,

ATI GCN seems to do poorly in 3DMark2001 SE compared to the older Terascale cards from what i've seem, my HD 5870 could score as high as 85k with a 4.6 ghz 1st gen i7 oc. Most GCN class GPUs struggles to surpass 45k even with really fast core 2 or 1st gen i7, for reference my 5870 scored roughly 62k in 2001 SE with an stock C2D E8600, 71k at 4 ghz and 78k at 4.4 ghz. My friend's HD 7970 only scored 45k with an i3 550 @ 3.7 ghz OC

that's interesting, I wonder how much of it is just drivers "3dmark optimizations" lacking or simply DX7 optimization,
looking at the results the 7850 is also slower at GT4 which uses shaders/DX8; I would need to test other things, but this CPU is not ideal for it since both cards are really fast for a 2.6Ghz C2D

looking at 3dmark03, the 7850 scored 74K, the 5850 64.5k on the same PC; now the 7850 is faster on all tests but GT1 (DX7 but also the more CPU limited one I guess), the 5850 holds a significant lead on that but on the rest the 7850 is ahead (Dx8/9),

the 5850 is also a little faster on quake 3 arena. (but more like 5-7% and again it's so CPU limited...)

It is an architecture thing not drivers.

At this point, that's just added driver overhead.

Tried on my Z97 system with i7 4790, HD 4600, BCLK OC to 103 Mhz and DDR3 2133 CL9

Also tried a 9500 GT in both single and SLI
HD 4600:

9500 GT:

9500 GT SLI:

Wow SLI really Sucks.

Another 5 MHz of FSB, another few hundred points. The 6800GT is slightly overclocked, at 385/540. This particular card is a pretty bad overclocker, but it's enough to push this machine over the 14K mark.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz (155MHz FSB, AGP @ 77.5MHz)
QDI Advance 12T motherboard - VIA Apollo Pro 266T chipset
2GB DDR @ 310MHz (2-2-2-5 timings)
EVGA GeForce 6800GT @ 385/540 - 81.98 driver
X-Fi Platinum
XP SP3

And here are the 3DMark2000 and Aquamark results. Same clocks and drivers as the 3DMark01 result up above.

Messing with my VIA C7-D 1800 Mhz and graphing skills, there some results i've gathered at the moment, still working on it

Carlos S. M. wrote on 2020-06-11, 09:03:

Messing with my VIA C7-D 1800 Mhz and graphing skills, there some results i've gathered at the moment, still working on it

unknown.png

Those VIA chips aren't very good performers in 3d huh? I would think at that frequency you should be getting much better performance out of those cards.

Clock adjusted FX series (with some period cards added as ref. points) :

Platform :

Athlon 64 x2 4800+@ 2700-MHz
Abit AV8@ 270-MHz FSB
512-MB RAM
GeForce 6800GT @ 425-MHz/1200-MHz

Standard Def Steve wrote on 2020-05-10, 01:58:

Another 5 MHz of FSB, another few hundred points. The 6800GT is slightly overclocked, at 385/540. This particular card is a pret […]
Show full quote

Another 5 MHz of FSB, another few hundred points. The 6800GT is slightly overclocked, at 385/540. This particular card is a pretty bad overclocker, but it's enough to push this machine over the 14K mark.

PIII-S @ 1628MHz (155MHz FSB, AGP @ 77.5MHz)
QDI Advance 12T motherboard - VIA Apollo Pro 266T chipset
2GB DDR @ 310MHz (2-2-2-5 timings)
EVGA GeForce 6800GT @ 385/540 - 81.98 driver
X-Fi Platinum
XP SP3
PIII-1628-6800GTOC-3D01.png

Nice score 😉 Take a look at this:

CPU: PIII-S (sl6by) @ 1750MHz (166,6 MHz FSB, AGP @ 66.7 MHz!!!)
MoBo: ECSP6S5AT- SiS 635T chipset
RAM: 1GB DDR @ 310MHz (2,5-2-2-6 timings)
GPU: GeForce 6800GT @ default clocks - 81.98 driver
WIN: 98 SE

My CPU is faster, but the AGP bus is not overclocked 😉
Your RAM timings are better and your GPU is overclocked 😀
I use win98SE, you use WinXP

Dude! You sunk my battleship! 😜

Even though your timings are a little looser, you're pulling in some spectacular memory latency numbers there. I think mine is around 85 ns, but that could be because it's clocked a bit lower.

Haha, wait till I overclock it a little bit my friend 😉 here's the result when I OCed it to the same values as you 😜

Still The momory results will be better when I lower the timings to 2-2-2-5 :]

The next step is to run this baby at 200 MHz 😁 😁 😁

I will improve my results on WinXP later 😉

Here's an update on WinXP

CPU: PIII-S (sl6by) @ 1750MHz (166,6 MHz FSB, AGP @ 66.7 MHz!!!)
MoBo: ECSP6S5AT- SiS 635T chipset
RAM: 1GB DDR @ 310MHz (2,5-2-2-6 timings)
GPU: GeForce 6800GT @ (different clocks ) - 81.98 driver
System: Windows XP

Default clocks:

385 / 540 :

430 / 590 (maximum for my card):

Im wondering if that is a decent score for this setup? Running Win ME, 45.23 drivers for the GF4.

PIII 1GHz
512mb Ram
Ti 4200 64mb

smullyoz wrote on 2021-10-10, 02:31:

Im wondering if that is a decent score for this setup? Running Win ME, 45.23 drivers for the GF4. […]
Show full quote

Im wondering if that is a decent score for this setup? Running Win ME, 45.23 drivers for the GF4.

PIII 1GHz
512mb Ram
Ti 4200 64mb

That's about what I was getting on my 1.266 Ghz Tualatin P3 with a Ti4600. Sadly, that motherboard was a server board and seemed like it really struggled with performance in bizarre ways when I tried to actually game. I switched lanes to an AMD Athlon at 1.4 and lost about a thousand marks, but games run way way better, and I can pretty much max anything from 2001 and back so I guess 3d mark isn't the gold standard I remembered it being when I went through 2001 computing/gaming the first go around.