3Dmark

[Greatsilverwyrm]

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.

[d3nic]

Entirely depends on what 3DMARK you ran.

 

 

 

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

[Greatsilverwyrm]

3

[Nadril]

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.

[username388]

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.

[zonda]

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]?

[username388]

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

[blade995]

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.

[blade995]

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.

[Chris]

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.

 

 

 

[username388]

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

[Uldric]

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.