Cool idea, have added my daily driver C3 1.2 GHz system. If I get some time later today I'll set up the C7 too and put that through it's paces.

Best,
Chris

26 3dmarks in 3dmark99? thats a typo i guess?

mrau wrote:

26 3dmarks in 3dmark99? thats a typo i guess?

I was wondering what happen with that myself too.

anyway the difference is massive between c3 and c7 it seems; its a pity they dont do anything new..

Later on ill bench the unichrome igp under win98 when i tried playing unreal it was so laggy but in xp it was a smooth 50-60 frames, must of been issues with the 98 driver.

Heres what my board looks like, its so tiny CPU runs a 9w

Two suggestions:
- Add a benchmark that is not about graphics. Because the graphics card is a major factor in 3D mark.
- In case of C3: Mention the sub-type. Because a 'Nehemiah' gives very different results compared to an 'Ezra'.

gerwin wrote:

- Add a benchmark that is not about graphics. Because the graphics card is a major factor in 3D mark.

^Yeah, that.

I hope you'll add the CPU test found in Cinebench R10 and R11.5. (C7s will run the R11.5 one; not sure about C3s.)

Hwbot's data base of bench marks has a spot for VIA cpu's.
http://hwbot.org/hardware/processors#key=via

^yep ill get to adding cinebench R10 and also final reality later on today. Any other benchmarking programs of interest?

BSA Starfire wrote:

Cool idea, have added my daily driver C3 1.2 GHz system. If I get some time later today I'll set up the C7 too and put that through it's paces.

Best,
Chris

Wow, that 3DMark2001 result is really slow. I actually have better results with the IGP of the SiS630 together with a Pentium III 866. I must confess there's a little tweaking involved. Maybe I should try to get a C3 for my SiS630 system, just for fun. 😀

where does one get such a nice board please? is this expensive?

mrau wrote:

where does one get such a nice board please? is this expensive?

The only boards that can be had for cheap are the ones with cpu soldered to the board, you will have to dig a little bit on ebay though for higher end models

mrau wrote:

26 3dmarks in 3dmark99? thats a typo i guess?

Nope, that is the score.

I think 3dmark 99 scores low with the g450, I had a P3 with g450 that scored really low, but in 3dmark 2000 and 01 it had a good score. Do you have another card other then a matrox to try out maybe? just for comparison in 3dmark99 cause im curious now.

the g450 was quite a decent card afair, if 3d mark fares badly with it, that would mean those marks are not worth much at all..

mrau wrote:

the g450 was quite a decent card afair, if 3d mark fares badly with it, that would mean those marks are not worth much at all..

yea i would have to agree matrox had some awesome cards

I agree, the G450 is a decent card. I'm using it in this system because of the DVI output, at the time I only had DVI monitors here at the new house.

Here is a picture of my VIA C7 motherboard, a PCM7E PC2500 v1. It's a neat little thing, I bought it new 3 or 4 years ago for £15, CPU is 1.5 GHz.

BSA Starfire wrote:

mrau wrote:

26 3dmarks in 3dmark99? thats a typo i guess?

Nope, that is the score.

Oldskoolmaniac wrote:

I think 3dmark 99 scores low with the g450, I had a P3 with g450 that scored really low, but in 3dmark 2000 and 01 it had a good score. Do you have another card other then a matrox to try out maybe? just for comparison in 3dmark99 cause im curious now.

I just changed the CPU in the VIA C3 1200MHz "nehemiah" system that was used for the benchmarks with a Pentium III 733MHz. No other changes whatsoever, just the CPU.

3DMARK 99 MAX now gives a score of 3493 3Dmarks & 9657 CPUmarks.
I can only think that the C3 was not running correctly in the ECS board, the BIOS(year 2000) pre-dated the CPU by 3 years and actually detected it as a VIA Cyrix III 1,2B. The machine did seem to work fine otherwise though, apart from the woeful 3Dmark scores. I wonder if perhaps the problem might lie with either the Matrox drivers or 3Dmark not knowing what the CPU actually is and using it's features(MMX, SSE whatever) correctly?

Best regards,
Chris