Madonion Futuremark 2003

[NDC]

Well, I downloaded this new version everyone seems to be talking about and I must say I was shocked to see how much my system was struggling on some of the scenes. I was getting like 3~5 frames on certain seens! 1800+ processor with TI-4200, 1GB RAM should show acceptable performance under all games toay. My score was 1,312 vs. 9,300 on 3DMark 2002! Can you imagine how jerky the screen would be on a GF2 card which many people use today? One thing I tell everyone when they want to ugrade their video cards to something in $500+ for gaming.... "Go and buy yourself a gaming console!"

[BBA]

I got 1605 3DMARK03, vs 12015 3DMARK2K1SE.
Running P4 @ 2.7 GHz, GF4 TI4200 @ 315/600.

I am getting a 9700 Pro pretty soon..so we'll see how it does then.

[Mortis]

Yea... it brought my system to a crawl, too. I went from a 13,000+ (I finally broke 13) in 3DMark01fe to a 1599 (this with my VidCard slightly OC'd) in 3DMark03. I thought about maxing out my system to try and get higher... but dont really have the interest with this BenchMark. If you dont have a Card that is DX9 Compliant, you will be lucky to break 18/1900.

I plan to continue using 3DMark01 until I upgrade. However, both the 9700 and FX Cards dont offer enough (my opinion) for the money to upgrade now or any time soon. My Current Card is more than enough for now with current and immediate future Games.

I suspect FutureMark's latest Utility Release is going to motivate many HardCore Gamers and System Builders to upgrade for "scores" purposes... this is the sense I have read from different Forums and Discussions. I think it wise to save money for now and wait until the games force us to upgrade or until new card prices become much more reasonable.

As for the actual test itself... I have read a lot of disention about it and disappointment. I dont really have an opinion yet concerning it in respect to Fairness or accuracy- will wait for more reviews. But, I didnt like some of the visuals/Genres and definately didnt get the one where the Trolls just decided to take a NoseDive... in this respect- chosen visuals, I did expect more.

My thoughts...
Mortis

[GohanSSJ]

Originally posted by NDC
Can you imagine how jerky the screen would be on a GF2 card
Yep :(

I got a GF2 and when it started up it already adviced me to use 2001 SE, the demo didnt work and it only ran 1/4 tests.

Still you have to understand that they make this to let people for 1 see what is possible, you remember that shooting seen from 2001, now that was based on Max Payne, but the graphics of Max Payne itself werent even half as good as from 3D benchmark 2001.

My point is that although its very hard to run these kind of graphics will only be used in like 2 year.

I'm using a Geforce 2 mx400, 384mb of memory and a Athlon 1 gig, yet i can play No one lives forever 2 perfectly on 800x600, and this game has 1 of the best graphics today!!!

Anyway these tests are made for the best video cards around, and this is what it makes it so good, do we really need to know how well a old video card compares to the newest nVidia and Ati cards?
No we want to know which video card to buy, and to see the difference between each video card we need a test which takes them to the max, the got the exact scores.

[dusty]

I got around 4700 running my 2000+ and radeon 9700 pro

this is the post at Techimo about the Beanchmark.
HERE (http://www.techimo.com/forum/t52360.html)

Rick

[BBA]

I switched to a 9700 Pro and got 4650.
It's basically DX9 dependant.

[dusty]

Yes, it is very much DX9 dependent.

Rick

[BBA]

Yep...and now I am up to 5600 marks from tweaking and driver changes.

[Mntsnow]

lol BBA. I remember when we were all bragging when we were over 9000 with the older versions of the bench.

[GohanSSJ]

5600 is still a very good score, and much better then mine :D