Simviation Forums

I just tested my system with 3Dmark03 and got 1390 3Dmarks.

how is this in comparison to others?

Ramos

Very very low. I get between 5000~6000 depending on what I have running in the background. However don't expect much more than 2500 tops from your card, as the core was not built for 3D rendering, but Video watching.

Cheers
Cameron

in 03 cameron you should get around 7000 not 6000, try shutting down apps in 05 you should get about 5000

Make sure you turn off AA and AF -- set to application preference.

I get 4k with my 9600xt.  Not bad for an ageing card  8)

in 03 cameron you should get around 7000 not 6000, try shutting down apps in 05 you should get about 5000

On an x1300? No between 1500 and 3000 are about the range that he is looking at, as his is a media card, and not a gameing one.

For me, yes I should be getting 7000, however I run on the most stressful settings for my system to find out the limit, not average preformance, and anyone else who turns off settings for a higher score is just cheating.

I really think that we need to have a board standird setup for benching cards, not just hitting "Run 3DMark" Like what settings and tests in 3DMark. That way if there are three people with the same systems benching three different things (I'm talking like 100s of points off not like 5 or 10) we can find out if the hardware is glitching.

Cheers
Cameron

Seems a bit lame that score! (you sure thats '03, not, 05?)


Before I sold it, I got 12000+ on '03 with my old 6800GT.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4129211

With my current LE, I get around 10k, you cannot tell the difference imo.

Well talking about standard 3d mark cameron like 99% of everyone runs, your scores should be alot better. Heck my 6600GT got 5800

BECAUSE THE 6600 IS A 3D CORE. The X1300, X1600, X300, X700, and I believe the 6200 are not designed for gameing. They were designed for photo editing, movie watching/editing, and moderate gameing. This is why if you have one of these cards, you will see a drastically less 3DMark.

Cheers
Cameron

BECAUSE THE 6600 IS A 3D CORE. The X1300, X1600, X300, X700, and I believe the 6200 are not designed for gameing. They were designed for photo editing, movie watching/editing, and moderate gameing. This is why if you have one of these cards, you will see a drastically less 3DMark.

Cheers
Cameron

Well I wont argue with the X1300, but the rest were designed for games, even the 6200. Compare the 6200 scores with say a 9600XT it beats it, its right between 9600XT and 9700 score wise. The 6200TC was made for a non 3d enviroment. Also the X700 and X1600 are marketed towards the mid range gaming platforms. Read ATI press release sometimes, it might help you to make a valid argument. ATI does not leave the mid range empty, and 99% of gamers are in this area of sub 200 dollar cards. The 6600 is actully slower than an X700 Pro bet ya didnt realize that. Only the 6600GT beats the x700 Pro. What you agian and agian fail to realize is some people are not able or willing to blow 300+ on a video card. The 6800, X800, 7800, and X1800/X1900 are marketed towards gamers with a wallet and cash. The power users, most sales though are made with the low end. I really wish you would read Cameron instead of telling everyone this and that is crap before you have read review after review of the cards in question, because I have.

That is debateable though, for the 6200 and 7300GS.

Well I wont argue with the X1300, but the rest were designed for games, even the 6200. Compare the 6200 scores with say a 9600XT it beats it, its right between 9600XT and 9700 score wise.

6200TC-2.5k
6200- 4.2k

Turn overdrive on for the 9600xt and it gets 4.1k.  I think it is safe to say they are on par in 3DMark03.

BECAUSE THE 6600 IS A 3D CORE. The X1300, X1600, X300, X700, and I believe the 6200 are not designed for gameing. They were designed for photo editing, movie watching/editing, and moderate gameing. This is why if you have one of these cards, you will see a drastically less 3DMark.

Cheers
Cameron

dude they were all designed for gaming there just crap there no better at photo or video than the "gaming cards" so they have to be sold on the video features.  I fail to see how a graphics card makes photo editing better aswell unless it included some kind of colour calibration.  you have been got by the marketing speak

dude they were all designed for gaming there just crap there no better at photo or video than the "gaming cards" so they have to be sold on the video features.  I fail to see how a graphics card makes photo editing better aswell unless it included some kind of colour calibration.  you have been got by the marketing speak

Well I ment that they were made with the fact that games wouldn't be played often on them. Not that they were suppost to be like the Fire GL cards

Cheers
Cameron

Well I ment that they were made with the fact that games wouldn't be played often on them. Not that they were suppost to be like the Fire GL cards

Cheers
Cameron

or to fool the gulibe who think that there fx60 is for spread sheets. lol  :P

Oh me me. The FX60 could never preform in gameing like the Pentium D can. And its sooo much hotter too. Man why would anyone throw money away on a processer that isnt any better than a celeron

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is all sarcasm do not listen to a word of this post.

Cheers
Cameron