So, for various reasons, I had to get a new laptop... and out of curiosity I ran 3dmark..

 

 

 

Is 1396 a decent score? Keep in mind I'm not going to do any hardcore gaming.. maybe WoW or UT2004 and not on max settings.

Entirely depends on what 3DMARK you ran.

 

 

 

3DMARK 01, 02, 03 Etc....

3

It sounds like it's good. (just from remembering what other friend's scores were).

 

 

 

If i had it i'd run and tell you, but with the download speed capped here it'd take me forever to download :x .

 

 

 

 

 

Btw, UT2004 is able to run on all high settings on my familys laptop, which is nothing special at all. Its maybe a 2ghz AMD celeron with a built in graphics card and a gig of ram.

That's not a very good score. 5,000 is a top of the line computer and 1,000 is a basic system, from when they release it. So your laptop scores like a lower end system from 3 years ago.

That's not a very good score. 5,000 is a top of the line computer and 1,000 is a basic system, from when they release it. So your laptop scores like a lower end system from 3 years ago.

 

 

 

er... its a laptop, not a gaming desktop. You can't expect much from laptops unless you want to have it sitting on a block of ice. And also, the scoring method for each 3d mark version were different.

I got a score < 1,000 last time I ran 3d mark. Somehow I was only pulling 2-4fps on almost every test they ran :uhh: what the [cabbage]?

My score is about 2,000 on 3dMark 06. It's about 30,000 on 01 though. :mrgreen:

3Dmark is based mostly on the graphics card so your laptop is not going to do well because it likely has onboard graphics.

ok, so i ran 3dmark06 again..

 

 

 

SM 2.0: 314

 

- Return to Proxycon: 2.689 fps

 

- FireFly Forest: 2.553 fps

 

 

 

CPU

 

- Red Valley (1): 0.240fps

 

- Red Valley (2): 0.376fps

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My system....

 

 

 

AMD A64 3500+ (2.22ghz)

 

2gb DDR 400mhz

 

ATI Radeon 9800 pro 128mb

 

 

 

 

 

how is that kind of score possible with that :-s if someone can explain how 3dmark performs so crap, while every single game on this pc works flawlessless, i'd like to hear it.

3dmark stresses the graphics card to the max, In the tests no one is suppose to get tons of frames (meaning 50+).

 

 

 

You could also run the games on lower resolution then the test is using.

 

 

 

The cpu score is suppose to be that low. I get 3fps with an Opteron 144 (2.7ghz). 06 is based on dual core cpus so you will get low frames.

 

 

 

Since you have a card that can only do SM2.0 and 06 is based on SM3.0 I would suggest using 05 to get a "True" score to compare to others.

how is that kind of score possible with that :-s if someone can explain how 3dmark performs so crap, while every single game on this pc works flawlessless, i'd like to hear it.

 

 

 

Taking a wild guess, games are optimized to be playable. They may drop frames, remove detail and quality from certain textures and objects that aren't the focus of the gamer.

 

 

 

Where-as 3dMark is designed to completely knacker out your graphics card till it screams, then it gives it a handy dandy score at the end. :mrgreen:

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

I wouldn't feel so bad, I recently shelled out for a 1900XTX as you know.

 

 

 

I only got 5655 marks in '06.

 

 

 

See, even with an x1900XTX (ATI's best video card atm) he doesn't even get playable framerates.

3d '06 is meant to test only the newest and powerful gpu's. Same thing happens every year, by the time '07 is released the gpu's will just start getting decent scores on '06.