software

Description

» User Comments

Download

Screens

3DMark03

Saturday February 15, 2003 post a comment: 85 total

Name: Email: Comments: Input text above here     mimilolo at 12:28 4/11/2005 je veut télécharger 3DMark Security Encryption at 6:41 10/9/2005 Security Camera Fruit Smoothie Recipe at 4:51 5/9/2005 Fruit And Vegetable Kenny at 4:39 1/8/2005 I only got a low score of 4900 on my old P4 2.8 Ghz with GF FX 6800 Ultra! But with my new Dell laptop XPS I finally got my score up to 12000! It's amazing what a new machine can do! Richard Davis at 14:10 24/7/2005 Nice one, but what about der weg ? anywya, congrats from me. Joe Fuentes at 17:46 22/7/2005 The text was good, but i stil cant find the play ipdates. looking for it dude. viagra online at 13:13 19/7/2005 http://www.viagra4u.info Viagra, buy viagra, viagra online Order viagra, cheap viagra viagra online at 13:2 19/7/2005 http://www.viagra4u.info Viagra, buy viagra, viagra online Order viagra, cheap viagra Amit at 20:4 3/4/2004 Guys I just purchased a Ti 4200 and got a score of 6200 on 3DMarks 2001 SE.It seems to be a bit low(or is this score correct?) g.man at 18:0 5/3/2004 didnt you guys read the news? ati worked with 3dmark staff !! ill stake my machine ;) 3dmark03 is perfectly optimized for radeons :} this fact alone already renders that so called "software" utterly USELESS theid rather wiver their objectivity to pump up radeon users ego!!! LAMERS Anonymous at 10:49 4/2/2004 i scored a 32 ON THE ACT soldier318 at 17:4 9/10/2003 all you f**king moron!!!...can kiss my ass..... marcelo Brondani at 19:26 6/8/2003 Nosssa cara o seu site esta Very Very Very GOOD +++++++++1000000000 gostaria te ter esse programa metin at 12:40 28/7/2003 thank you metin at 12:32 28/7/2003 thanks Wartex at 10:19 9/7/2003 Hehe Ne0n. I understand ya. 78 points on my 2.4 ghz w 512 mb rambus and CrapForce 4 mx 420... if i had a radeon or something my guess would be that i had like 5-6 thousand. Anonymous at 8:33 20/6/2003 amd + nVidia FX sucks Ne0n at 11:24 1/6/2003 54 points LOL AMD XP 1600 1.4Ghz GeForce4 MX 440 512 ram Anonymous at 3:45 28/5/2003 von Julius Knitsch Anonymous at 3:44 28/5/2003 AMD is schitt!!! Grüße aus Deutschland an AMD So instabil kann einfach kein Prozessor laufen! Anonymous at 3:41 28/5/2003 the most points: only with the cool pentium 4 steve at 4:29 8/5/2003 love the program JOEJAM® at 4:9 4/4/2003 You stupid guys..... I downloaded this 3dmark and its work fine.. so you stupid guys or gays.. :p Shutup......... Anonymous at 5:35 3/4/2003 ill tell u what to do!!!! f**k off JOEJAM® at 5:32 31/3/2003 It is very slow to connect 3dmark what will i do... plz help JOEJAM® at 4:46 31/3/2003 Is this work for nvidea geforce2? flapdrol at 6:44 28/3/2003 this is not 3D mark any more, it includes sound marks to. for serialz: 5QBV1-J9B38-CPB11-DPLNV 87R03-57RWZ-MZR9Q-94B1X BN5BL-Q5598-A45XX-EYZQC 061UP-KN194-D31YE-0VAPF 2FP4E-RDPD3-TVPWT-RLCA2 80R1P-VPR2U-M8RXR-FRKSY 8LR2L-D0RAK-ZQRE1-SVFC0 9CC0Q-SEC3S-3BC17-P6U9K that would be enough.:) Anonymous at 8:49 14/3/2003 Key guy, invalid code dude? what's the trick mang? DeQuosaek at 1:49 10/3/2003 "The results and final score of 3DMark2003 are not comparable to any previous version of 3DMark." That's a quote from within the program. Like DRDEATH said, 4000+ is a pretty good score. No-one is getting 10,000 with this one. It scores in a completely different way. And if you lunkheads want to see your machines not choke on this just set the settings lower and change the resolution to something like 640x480 or lower... By the by, NVidia's cards won't do very well on this anyway, because they have to process most scenes twice, like SGS said. The cards don't support the higher end DirectX 8 components. That's bad programming on NVidia's part, not FutureMark's. It wouldn't make much sense for a company called FUTUREMark to come out with a NEW benchmark to test the OLD technology, now would it? I've got an ATi Radeon 9700pro and it tested just fine, thanks to it being a great newer card built to higher standards of quality. Anonymous at 23:44 8/3/2003 if u want my stats u have to do overclocking. not spending money until your pimpels bleed. neattairoski at 16:31 8/3/2003 OK This is what 3dmark is all about. people have top of the range machines and they try this benchmark. It gives you shit results and u think "oh shit need an upgrade" but you dont. If it plays all your games the way u like dont upgrade. save your money for something else. Its just all about the money guys dont be fooled. This program is just about making u think ur pc is shit so u have to spend money on uprades. Dont worry about. I have a 750mhz duron geforce2 64mb and it still plays the games i like. I wonder how much money 3dmark has made for computer stores. Anonymous at 17:47 7/3/2003 i got 5315 points Ro3rZ at 9:59 26/2/2003 got 4112 points with my radeon 9700 pro! felinusz at 6:41 21/2/2003 This thing is asking way too much, it beats the shit out of my computer, and most other rigs I have tried it on. SGS at 13:44 20/2/2003 I heard there's drivers that nvidia put out that allow the GF series to run the mother nature test, but I can't seem to get it to work. ALthough it'd be lacking features if I was to run it, I still want to see what it looks like instead of waiting 2 years again for a videocard upgrade (saw the 2001 nature test in person about 2 months ago for the first time =/ ). In my opinion, the nature scenes look the best. tom at 1:10 20/2/2003 My geforce did, and it ran lovely. i have a geforce 3 ti 500. but the only difference is that mine has a faster clock and stuff. but you should be able to run it. try getting the lastest drivers and directx that might sort it out. ignatius at 19:16 19/2/2003 Has this program been built with support for some of the other graphics cards on the market? Im wondering this because the previous version of 3dmark pretty much had little to no support for other video cards like sis xcabre series even though some of them were just as good or in some cases even better than ati and nvidia. The reason I think 3dmark has ignored some of the other graphics cards is because this tool has literally become a form of advertisement. It basicly is made solely to judge your system against preset standards of what is considered the perfect system configuration. Those who see that system configuration as well as the results from it want to have similar so they spend like crazy to get it. Then naturally a new version comes out and we see yet another newer and better system configuration that everyone must get in order to have the best system. I think if they want to truly benchmark they should concentrate less on a silly score and more on the literal facts of the system such as, data trasfer speeds, strain test to determine the health of the system, and ect.. Either way this sounds more and more like an advertisement instead of a natural benchmarking tool. Blake at 18:45 19/2/2003 Has anyone been able to run the nature test? If so, is it sweet looking? My Geforce3 didn't support that test. tom at 11:46 19/2/2003 this is a bitch to run. can't believe it i have a AMD 2.2 512DDR geforce 3 ti 500 and i never seen anything kick this s**t out of my machine. i think this is more designed for geforce FX. only prob with that, is the price and they aint out yet and from the looks of it, they won't release them cause of ATI. haha WeloZi at 4:51 19/2/2003 The games in 3dmark, can i get them on real? plz answer on mail, welozi@online.no Logic_Bomb at 12:57 18/2/2003 I agree with What_a_Croc It is stupid. As i said, you can make ANY PROGRAM bog down a P.C no matter how powerfull. what a croc at 3:58 18/2/2003 I get their logic, and I know it is free like someone else mentioned, but maybe they should have made sure it runs on current Modern PC's with decent framerates.. I dunno 30 plus is smooth, instead of between 5-10 FPS? I mean I have the latest in graphic technology, a pretty looking game called Unreal 2, now have you guys seen some of the graphics, especially the stuff inside that alien planet.. ship? Looks all organic like, I dunno how they did the texturing but it seriously looks like the walls are breathing !! Guess what? I get good FPS even when there are gunfights on and with those pretty graphics to boot... so for a so called benchmark to look at my latest hardware and say that it is really poor is laughable. I mean poor programming is poor programming and if they wanted it to run with tomorrows hardware then maybe they should have held it's release for another 2 years or so, at least it can handle the tests then. Logic_Bomb at 23:21 17/2/2003 Quote "An integrated online comparison service provides the user with an unprecedented insight into her PC’s performance and bottlenecks by enabling detailed test result comparisons with a community of hundreds of thousands of users" What in the living hell kind of Politically correct bullshit is this? Now i know there are some feMALES (lol ;-) ) that are into PC's(PC for politically Correct?) but it is still mostly a guy thing. Wow, not only have the released an overly bloated piece of software, but have managed to go PC(Politically Correct) as well. It isnt hard to frame out a modern P.C just throw in a bunch of overhead to make it chug on the really pretty scenes, make sure it is unoptimized and there ya go, "WOW, this REALLY pushes my new computer components hard, must be high tech. yeah, it looks pretty, but i just get tired of peoples amazement at it pushing there hardware, I could make a mario game frame out a PC (Just have about 5000 iteration of itself running in the backround, with some math overhead, and you now have a benchmark. Yes 3Dmark03 is pretty, but it needlessly chugs P.C's, now it WOULD be amazing if they would make something that looks that nice AND gets decent FPS, but i guess the whole shock factor of being "bleeding edge" wouldnt be there then would it? BEST Regards to ALL, Anonymous at 17:41 17/2/2003 Another thing my ati all in wonder 8500 w/ 128 mb of ram overclocked will smoke the g4 ti 4200 :-) Albanian Rebel at 17:39 17/2/2003 I have the all in wonder 8500 w/ brand new drivers a few days ago and latest drivers for all, i got althlon xp 1800 384 sd 133mghz and 100 gig hardrive at 7200rpm i got me a score of 1587 oops did i menchen my video card is over clicked to 315 mghz instead of 275 Optimox at 12:47 17/2/2003 Hahahahaha, oh my god, look at all you guys crying that you didnt get a good score. GD who cares about abenchmark score as long as you are happy with the games you are playing. Stop bitching unless you want to build a benchmark of your own. Remember you didnt pay for it so STFU ingrates. Anonymous at 11:16 17/2/2003 can any one help me my version says that it cannot find the file :oleacc.dll,what must i do i have the latest directx and detonater drivers please help SGS at 11:6 17/2/2003 I believe a small amount of my previous information is inaccurate. Although I do know that tests 2&3 use PS1.1 and/or 1.4 (1.1 does the multi pass thing), I know a few people with radeon 8500s (which have PS1.4) who get terrible scores also. Maybe it's PS2.0 that's able to render it all in one pass...which is a dx9.0 spec. GF4 cards aren't outdated so I wouldn't go running out right now to buy a 9500 or 9700 series. My last card was middle of the road two years ago ($150 for the gf2 mx) and it was able to hold up great for the first year, decent the second. I believe this will be nearly the same with the currect GF4 line, but it may get old a bit sooner from upcoming engines. lonewolf at 9:41 17/2/2003 dont forget, guys, that this is the 03 version, so they prob wont update this within 2 years or so, so by the time 04 comes out, you will be getting scores in the 10 thousands, but for now, 1500 is a good score. So stop complian about how your new systems suck: this tests what your computer will be like with games comming out in 2 years, not now (Quake 4, mabey?). Go to their website for more details. Oh yeah: Thaks a lot keyguy. Anonymous at 9:31 17/2/2003 I remember when I first ran 02, bad results then, and bad results now :-( keyguy at 9:20 17/2/2003 11115-11115-11115-9U03C Anonymous at 7:6 17/2/2003 i got 4800 in this Anonymous at 6:50 17/2/2003 this was not impressive by my opinion. i have seen better graphics on games i play now. just the regular bumpmapping and pixel shaders....i am very dissapointed that it runs so bad, must be bad programming. i have a p4 1.8 1 gig rdram 80 gig hd maxtor 133 ata and gforce4 ti 4600 i got a 1600..... i wont be running this poorly programmed benchmark again....that is all it is, bad programming Duy at 23:48 16/2/2003 Hooooowweeee 1783 on my p4 2.4ghz fsb 533 gf4 ti4400 128 ram. Man, my system and I feel weak, poor me. I hope I won't have to upgrade for swg. Thorn at 22:6 16/2/2003 Oh Yeah I got 12480 points with 3dmark2001 SE.. amazing 11000 point drop with the newer version.. I guess I will have to wait for my Geforce 10 Ti 9900 with 512 meg of ram on it before I try this benchmark again !! Thorn at 22:4 16/2/2003 WTF? ? ? ? I have a Pentium 4 2.53 overclocked to 2.8, a Geforce 4 Ti4400 (300,630) 512 meg of 333mhz DDR Ram and a new 80 gig ATA133 HD and I get a grand totall of 1540 3d mark points with 3dmark2003? I mean what the hell is going on? I was getting a grand totall of between 3-8 FPS on the 2nd test and 3rd, the 1st was fine but after that a complete halt.? I am sorry guys, but this is a joke, the Geforce 4 Ti 4400 maybe outdated by the newer ati Radeon 9700 Pro etc but the card isn't even 8 months old, ffs I just upgraded my CPU/MEMORY/HD not even 3 weeks ago and this is what this wonderfull program thinks of my hardware? Good one futuremark !! Anonymous at 21:47 16/2/2003 Ok I will give newer drivers a go, I had the uncertified 40.41 drivers loaded, just installed the newer 40.72 drivers which are certified, fixed a problem I was having in Rallisport too with the graphics going all funny. Thanks SGS SGS at 21:9 16/2/2003 Thorn, try the 41.09 drivers. They have been known to fix graphic glitches in many different games/applications. The slow performance on tests 2&3 is because nvidia's GF4's are only DX8.0 compliant where the tests are 8.1. The best pixel shaders to use are 1.4 or greater (8.1) where the current GF line only goes up to 1.1 meaning it has to to do multiple passes in order to render the same thing that 1.4 shaders can render in a single pass. The fourth game test is the only one that requires DX9.0 in order to run. I'm estimating that it probably affects the orerall score about 1000-1500points. If our GF4's had 1.4 shaders, we'd be seeing scores in the 2000's approaching 3000. I got 1700 3dmarks on my main system where my secondary scored a whole ~150(dx7 card). heh Thorn at 15:40 16/2/2003 damn 3dmark2003 doesn't even work properly on my supposed high end system, I have a P4 2.53 overclocked to 2.8, a Geforce 4 Ti 4400 overclocked to 300,630 and 512 meg of DDR PC2100 (333mhz) Ram and the first test runs ok but the 2nd onwards runs SLOW and I mean there is gotta be a bug slow and the graphics go all corrupted and multicolored.. now either my version doesn't work, there is a serious bug with the program because I am playing all the new games in high resolution without any graphical corruption at all. I am using the 40.XX Detornator drivers and every other game runs smooth and properly. What a waste of 180 meg worth of download :( BigDaddy at 10:50 16/2/2003 I have got a athlon XP 2700 512mbram and a nvidia geoforce tit 4400 128mb and this program rockes shiel at 9:31 16/2/2003 LOL i got a whole 149!!! I have a 64mb GeForce2 MX400 1.7ghz P4, 256mb RAM akabountykilla at 8:56 16/2/2003 This shit dont work mathias at 7:2 16/2/2003 Good luck!! Tentacle at 4:42 16/2/2003 Cards like the Radeon9700 that supports DirectX 9.0 will get MUCH higher scores than cards that don't. hunger at 3:24 16/2/2003 I am hangry mom. dx at 22:59 15/2/2003 by the way i had this program the day it was released supprisingly megagames were rather slow at getting this file but still think there one of the best gaming sites out there the copy protection where you cant upload score with pirated key is shit. it is only going to make their site worse by having FAR less scores. it is/will be very hard to find a system like yours with this shit copy protection :\ dx at 22:53 15/2/2003 this program is not made for current gen gfx and systems. it is made for future testing and the only people who could test with it nearly properly are those with a geforce fx quadro or 5800 ultra/ radeon 9700pro 8x on a amd 2800+ or a p4 2.8. wait and see in 6months+ people will acheive scores of 8g or more and then we shall see this benchmark how its supposed to be doen. blackacid at 19:48 15/2/2003 http://www.filemirrors.com/search.src?file=3DMark03.exe&size=185595833 want a faster dl go here Anonymous at 17:36 15/2/2003 sucks bc you have to have dx90 Ior303 at 16:32 15/2/2003 Well i newer liked this program for benchmarking ,Not becourse its bad. But it has sertenly always been a nice screen saver. Any way i miss the Punich your machine stuff on My old atari, Those where the days.. Anonymous at 14:22 15/2/2003 just like my brain i run in circles thewienerpatrol.com DRDEATH at 14:18 15/2/2003 Scoring 4000 or above is considered really good for this new version of 3d marks. cyrax at 13:57 15/2/2003 eheh Athlonx Tb 1ghz + Ti4200 128mb Turbo + 286mb : I got 1054 Points Woota :) but this score is with All setting Maxed MaSTeR_KylL at 12:5 15/2/2003 serial please =) Chippas at 11:36 15/2/2003 Hey thx keyguy! this really helps out... i can finally change resolution at this crap... =/ Keyguy at 10:52 15/2/2003 11115-11115-11115-9U03C coke at 8:4 15/2/2003 i've ran 3d mark 2003 the score i got 4062 the specs is 2600+GHZ AMD XP ATI RADEON 9700 DDR 128MB 8x 512MB DDR http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=10&projectId=61393 Tentacle at 7:23 15/2/2003 I don't get it... on every goddamn f**king comment-page, there are total idiots, saying how they are first, and how stupid they are! They just piss me off so much! I got this one yesterday, and man, was it slow! I got a grand total of 910 points on my 1,4 GHz AMD GeForce 3 with 768 mb RAM! But this program is meant for future computers as well... After one year, we'll probably have like 7 GHz computers anyway... abc at 7:20 15/2/2003 spent a day downloading it and it doesnt work. if u got a kyro2, save yourself the trouble and just forget it. no support for it whatsoever, cannot run a single test. time for an upgrade..... Kris at 5:52 15/2/2003 Wow how slow!!!! amd 1.3ghz 640mb pc2100 ddr geforce 4 ti4200 64mb RAMUNAS at 3:39 15/2/2003 BUT I ALLREADY DOWNLOADED THIS IT LOOKS NICE Palacz at 3:38 15/2/2003 Marichuana Rules RAMUNAS at 3:38 15/2/2003 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO U ARE FIRST ITS NOT FEAR CHECK THE TIME :) RAMUNAS at 3:36 15/2/2003 3DMARK RULESSSSSSSSSSS BTW I AM FROM LITHUANIA :) AND I AM FIRST!!!!!! HEHEHEHE CaT at 3:36 15/2/2003 Kewl, Its finaly here but too bad its 185 megs.