Low 3D Mark 2001 score

I tested 3d mark 2001 on my pc, specs below, and i only score 9500 on the benchmark. What's wrong? Is it my PSU? Its the Q-tec 550Watt double fan psu. Ive been told its not that good but i should still get a higher score than that right?

An Antec (or ANY brand PSU, for that matter) will give you more headspace for future upgrades but it will not give you one single extra 3Dmark (in the same way that you will not get extra points for having an aluminium case ).
1. install 3dmark 2001SE;
2. extra points will be gained with o/c-ing CPU and videocard;
3. extra points will be gained with a "clean" system (remove as much of the background programs as possible, disconnect network and internet, defragment HD, etc.)
4. choose fastest settings in control panel (some nice threads can be found on www.guru3d.com forum);
5. compare the score with other comparable machines in the rankings of futuremark - is 9500 really that bad, btw?
Hans
PS: Some scores that can be found on the internet: "typical": 10,000, "topscore": 16,000 (13,000 for non-ultra), 12,000 (on a 3.2 Pentium-based system) ... I guess that 9,500 is NOT really that bad ... but there is always room for improvement

Similar Messages

GF4MX440-T8X(8890) 3D Mark 2001 Score

Purchased GF4-MX440 based card based on Tom's Hardware's VGA performance chart(s).
3D Mark 2001 score for a card based on this chipset should be around 5600. However, I am only getting 3600, which a lot less than I was expecting.
(My other computer has a GF2MX200 based card and the numbers 3D Mark 2001 reports 2300 is consistant with Tom's numbers.)
FIC AT31, AMD AthlonXP 1900+, 1 stick of 256MB DDRAM, XP Home.

Hold on there, you start talking "word problems" with hoses and trains leaving the station and my eyes glaze right over
What I was going on was your statement about "...how could 128 vs 245....Soyo (Via chip?) vs. ECS (SIS chip)....." make a 10-15% difference.....
and your "signiture," which says your GF4MX440 is on the ECS board with a Duron.......
System1: FIC AT31, AMD AlthonXP 1900+, ELSA GF2MX200, 256MB DDR, WinXP
System2: ECS K7S5A, Duron 1.3, MSI GF4MX440-T8X, 196MB SDR, Win98SE
System3: ECS K7S5A, Duron 1.1, CreativeLabs TNT2 Ultra, 128MB SDR, Win98SE
.......I failed to see that you seem to be saying here:
"The fact that I was getting essentually the same 3D Mark 2001 score (3700) on XP1900+/256-2100DDR and Duron1.3/196-133SDR systems........."
........that you did take the card and move it to 2 different machines and run the benchmark.......
.....so, yes, I agree with you, it would seem that the card is the limiting factor....at least between those two motherboard/CPU combos you tested in.
So the next thing to look at, I think, would be the original Tom's test....what were the conditions of that test? For instance, was the score of 5000 while running in "AGP8x" mode?
Your statement..........".....The nature of a video benchmark is to minimize the effect of overall system performance has, and maximize (measure) pure video rendering performance....." is not exactly true.....
.....It only minimizes the performance effects caused by the system.....when all cards are tested in the same system. If you do not have EXACTLY the same system-setup, you will not get the same results.
That's why Tom's (and all the others) specify exactly what the "Test Setup" was, right down to the brand and CAS-value of the RAM.
In your statement....."What is important (or essential) is that the overall system performance be adequate to feed the video card with data so as not to starve the video card of test data...." seems to assume that there is a simple threshold you can cross (in CPU power maybe?) where anything above some Ghz number automatically excuses the overall system configuration from being considered as a possible cause of a performance bottleneck.
But I'm mostly arguing a principle here, that we not too hastily excuse our systems from examination.
But maybe it really is your card that's at fault? What about the "SE" version of the MX440? I saw someone here mention they had unintensionally purchased the "SE" version on a card....which I had not heard of.....so I went and looked into it....
The "SE" version of the MX440 was designed with the same idea as the "m64" version of the TNT2.....instead of the TNT2's full 128-bit memory architecture, the "m64" was designed as an economy model with a 64-bit memory achitecture, which sliced into it's performance very noticably.
nVidia has done the same thing with the "SE" version of their GeForce4 MX440, cutting the MX440's 256-bit memory architecture down to a 128-bit.
The guy I saw here on this forum mentioning he had bought one accidentally, was talking about an MSI card too, ....I don't remember for sure, but I think he said it did NOT state this on the box, but the driver identified the chip on his card to be the "SE" version.
Could that be what's going on?
Stenn

K8 Diamond and NX6600 GT Low 3D Mark 05 Scores

I have a K8 Diamond with a MSI NX6600GT and a athlon 64 3500+ non overclocked i'm using the MSI drivers and i only get a score of 3248 3D Marks, isn't that a bit low?
Thanks,
Smokey87

Quote from: Thunder on 21-May-05, 21:19:31
By the way, did you guys pay for 3DMark05?
Na.

Low 3D Mark Score. (Fixed it)

Hi! I just ran 3D Mark 2001 SE on my system and I got aprox. 6000 3D Marks. How is this possible, when on my old PC with GeForce 4 and AMD Athlon XP 2000+ I was able to get 13 000?
I have all the drivers installed and there are no conflicts in Windows Device Manager.
Anti-alaising and tripple buffer, etc. are all disabled in nVidia driver pad and "Performance" is selected.
EDIT: It was just a bad run. Now I get 15300, so its OK.

You thought about going for faster ram?

High-units watermark reached but cache does not shrink back to low-units mark

Here is our config:
    <caching-scheme-mapping>
        <cache-mapping>
            <cache-name>Cache2</cache-name>
            <scheme-name>Scheme2</scheme-name>
        </cache-mapping>
    </caching-scheme-mapping>
    <caching-schemes>
        <distributed-scheme>
            <scheme-name>Scheme2</scheme-name>
            <service-name>Service2</service-name>
            <backing-map-scheme>
                <local-scheme>
                    <eviction-policy>LRU</eviction-policy>
                    <high-units>700m</high-units>
                    <unit-calculator>BINARY</unit-calculator>
                    <expiry-delay>2h</expiry-delay>
                </local-scheme>
            </backing-map-scheme>
            <autostart>true</autostart>
        </distributed-scheme>
We're running on two storage 4 GB JVMs.
We run a load test that will eventually make caches reach 700 MB (734003200 kb) on each JVM/node.
When the high-unit is reached (as advertized in JMX console), prune is triggered (CachePrunes is incremented in JMX console) but cache size (Units) stays around limit, never falls to (default) low-units mark (587202560 kb).
Is this normal behaviour? I thought when high-units mark was reached, size was brought down to low-units mark.

I think that it is something wrong with kernel and graphic drivers but i'm not able to solve it from the beginning of using of Arch by me.
I'm not so sure this issue is software-related only because in my case it seems the laptop screen enters power-saving mode (10-min timeout) on its own without any events logged (as shown by dmesg) so my next thought was OK, I'm going to get rid of this issue disabling the screen power-saving timeout in the BIOS and set it to never power down or something like that and from then on managing power mode manually; ie: when I want to power down I will just use systemctl suspend/hibernate which work fine ... problem is: there are no related options in my BIOS for such timeout.
The only timeouts I have are in /etc/systemd/logind.conf set to 30min (#IdleActionSec) (commented) by default so these are not in effect because the screens goes blank after 10m which is less than the (default) 30m in logind. Maybe setting loggind to 9m (un-commented) to catch the event before the machine-default one ?
IdleActionSec=9min
IdleAction=suspend
Will check it and report back.

Low CPU mark score with a64 3000+

I get around 650 to 680 cpu mark score with my system:
MSI Neo Plat
1Gig of PC3200 KINGSTON Ram
A64 3000+ @ 2ghz
Leadtek 6800
I've updated the latest nforce drivers from MSI and the bios is 1.2
I think it's way to low since I had 300 cpu mark score with my lousy Athlon 1.4Ghz thunderbird.
I see that other a64 3000+ users get around 800 to 950 cpu mark score. Why is mine too low? Bios settings? What should I check?
I see even a MSI Kt800 user with 840 cpu score!

Quote
Originally posted by evilpanda
I get around 650 to 680 cpu mark score with my system:
MSI Neo Plat
1Gig of PC3200 KINGSTON Ram
A64 3000+ @ 2ghz
Leadtek 6800
I've updated the latest nforce drivers from MSI and the bios is 1.2
I think it's way to low since I had 300 cpu mark score with my lousy Athlon 1.4Ghz thunderbird.
I see that other a64 3000+ users get around 800 to 950 cpu mark score. Why is mine too low? Bios settings? What should I check?
I see even a MSI Kt800 user with 840 cpu score!
Could you please post a link for the software benchmark that you are referring to? I can't seem to find the right one. I got something called CPUMark but it is scoring mine at like 3400 which isn't in the correct range based on what you've said so it's probably a different software. Thanks for your help. I just want to see where mine falls out.

Extremely dissapointing 3DMark 2001 score

I just built my dream system consisting of a 3ghz 800fsb P4, 875P-Neo LSR, and 512x2 Kingston DDR400 CL2.5. I am running a MSI GF4ti 4200 VTD 8X video card. So I get everything up and running, and I bench it with 3DMark 2001 se to start... and the final score was 9450 marks ;( with no antialiasing or anisotropic filtering at a 1024 by 768 resolution/85hz refresh rate. Even when I overclock my video card to ti4400 speeds I still can't break the 10,000 mark. This is the second system I have built and the last was a 1.3 t-bird system. I am only getting about 1200 marks higher than my old 1.3 athlon system. Am I missing something here? From what I have seen on the various forums and published benchmarks I should be getting in the 12-13,000 range easy at stock speeds. What do you guys think could be the inhibiting factors? I don't know much about tweaking, so any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I also read that for stock un-overclocked systems, the Neo mobo prefers CL 3 ram instead of CL 2.5 ram, could this cause that much of a decrease in performance? Sorry for such helpless newbie questions, but I guess that is what I am . Just to reiterate, I am not looking to overclock at this point, I just want everything to run optimum at stock settings.

Ok problem solved. I was reading the various other threads when I came across this one http://www.msi.com.tw/program/service/forum/index.php?threadid=20708&boardid=10&styleid=1&sid=f95e8c77bfed03ad575ae34495cf2b30 After reading this I remembered that I was missing a driver for a similar component, the SM bus controller, what ever that is. My mobo manual didnt have anything written about it that I could see. I new this was an issue that needed to be taken care of but figured a fresh installation of windows would fix that too. Then after the fresh install and the dissapointing scores again I checked my device manager, and sure enough it was an unknown device that needed a driver. So I checked for a driver in the Win XP cd, and then the Neo-LSR cd, and it kept saying, "No suitable drivers could be found". Then I remembered that it was doing this crap with the onboard LAN driver also. So, I took the cd out closed the intall wizard, and put the mobo cd back in and let the disc detector bring up the interface for the drivers and utilities, and sure enough in the driver section of the cd, there was the INF files I needed. I feel like an idiot X( . I just didn't know what it was. Anyway, long story short I am benching around 12,700 and with the video card conservatively oc'd to 275/550 I am hitting 13,500 pts. Thats why I paid to upgrade! Now I just need a beefier video card. Thanx too all for the suggestions

Low 3dmark 03 / Aquamark score

For some reason im getting low scores for these 2 programs, im not sure why.
Anyone have any ideas?
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2729106
my CPU score seems extremely slow.
Ive also tried installing the intel chipset drivers (latest ones) but still no luck...
Same with aquamark:
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1621912558
only 8,000 for the CPU test... many of them have 9,000-10,000 at 3.25GHz

the other card was a 5900XT with 56.72 drivers.
ok ill give it a go with the 3 tests and see what the outcome is...
here are the results from the 5900XT (as i can only publish 1 result with 03)
Main Test Results
3DMark Score   5439 3DMarks
CPU Score   631.0 CPUMarks
Detailed Test Results
Game Tests
GT1 - Wings of Fury   174.0 fps
GT2 - Battle of Proxycon   39.3 fps
GT3 - Troll's Lair   31.6 fps
GT4 - Mother Nature   31.7 fps
CPU Tests
CPU Test 1   65.4 fps
CPU Test 2   12.0 fps
this was done at 2.6GHz, no overclocking
the 9800 pro has:
3DMark Score   5914 3DMarks
CPU Score   559.0 CPUMarks
Detailed Test Results
Game Tests
GT1 - Wings of Fury   198.4 fps
GT2 - Battle of Proxycon   37.6 fps
GT3 - Troll's Lair   33.9 fps
GT4 - Mother Nature   38.2 fps
CPU Tests
CPU Test 1   62.0 fps
CPU Test 2   10.0 fps
this was done at 3.25GHz, FSB on 250MHz, RAM on 333. 250 fsb made it to 400.
note the huge difference? almost 100 marks.

Post Your's 3DMark 2001 scores HERE

I would like to verify my 3DMark 2001 SE (v.330). Post your's results with complete system description (drivers versions, ram timings, overclock settings (if any), ect.)
Here is my Baby:
- Athlon 3200 (2210 MHz - NC core, no OC)
- MSI K8N NEO Platinum (1.4 bios)
- 2x 512Mb PC3200 Kingston ValueRam (KVR400X64C2.5/512) at 2.5-3-8-3-1T (stock speeds)
- MSI 6800GT (stock speed)
- WD Caviar 80GB SATA 8Mb cache
- Tagan Tg-480 (480W)
- SB Audigy 2 ZS
- Other standar stuff
My 3D 2k1 score: 21435 (with above system&settings, all stock)
Run at:
- Win XP + SP2
- Dx: 9.0c
- ForceWare: 66.70
NOW YOUR'S RESULTS...

MSI K8N Neo Platinum (1.5b2 beta BIOS)
Athlon 64 3000+ @ 2.4GHz (10 x 240)
Radeon 9800 Pro @ 450/375
2x512MB Crucial PC3200 @ 240MHz @ 3-3-3-8 1T
Catalyst 4.9
Score: 23,077
URL: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8134558

PoSt YoUr 3D mArK ´03 sCoRe HeRe

I´m sorry guys, but before I posted a bechmark test with the video card overclocked (my brother´s fault ), but now everything is ok, ALL the hardware at stock config. Here´s a new COMPLETE test:

Quote
Originally posted by Deathstalker
Devil,
If you do a seach of these forums, you will find plenty of 3DMark2001 and 3DMark2003 Benchark threads in this forum if you just use the Forum's Seach Utility.
Screenies do nothing for me. Anyone can make one of those with Photoshop. Post a link to Futuremark's Compare in ORB.
Take Care,
Richard
LOL, It´s real. Didn´t know the real power of this video card, don´t you?
Then, I will post my score in future mark to demostrate that´s true.

3d mark 2001 se???

I install 3d mark but it does not start it gives an error: you ve not direct 8.1!!!
but I m sure I have....
can you help me..

so, i had a friend, i remember, he has the same problem. and this is what helps. its the 3dmark01se - earlier version- build 300. if install dx 9.0 is installed to build 300, then is says dx 8.1 need to be installed. so you have two choices,
first, download the new version of 3dmark01 se build 330, it has 41 MB.
or second download only patch for 300-330 build, it has aprox. 3 MB.
i think this can help you.

PC MARK 4 Scores with MSI boards

Hi,
I was really surprised when I PCmarked my machine, have seen scores like 4765 on a p4 3.0 prescott with one gig on an Epox board rig, 4823 from an Abit, 4829 from biostar... with less ram than I've got.
MSI PT880
P4 3.0 Prescott-1:1 2.5 3-3-8 4x512 CorsairVS DDR400-X800pro-on air - 3807
p4 3.0 at 3.3 -6:5 2.5 3-3-8 - 3887
p4 3.0 at 3.2 1:1 2.2 3-3-8 - 4102
Although my PCmarkGraphics scores were tremedious. 21000... is that possible?
Any one have some scores they could share with MSI boards as a point of comparison?

i pulled a 4917 running 3.6ghz with stuff running in background im streaming music from my pc to others so if i turned that off probly would jump to over 5000. And checked my futurmark manager my other speed scores
3.6Ghz=4917
3.75Ghz=5449
3.8Ghz=5495
best one at
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2650080

What should my 3d mark 2001 be?

Hi there, I just installed a MSI K7N420PRO useing two sticks of ddr 256mb. I have them in bank 1 and 3. My 3d bench score was 2400 useing the intergrated graphix. Is that about right???

I was hopeing for more lol... It won't be for a few months b4 I get a new agp card. Thanks

W520 long boot time 1 min 30 sec and low Windows Experience Index score 4.6

Hi
W520 said is EE (Enhanced Experience 2), booting in 1 min 30 sec !! that's long for me !!
Is there I can change to make it boot faster or that is normal?
Also, Isn't the processor Windows assessment score should be greater than 4.6 and
for the memory greater than 7.2 ??
Solved!
Go to Solution.

4-5 minute boot is sloooowww!! 90 seconds is even slow on a new laptop. My 4.5 year old Core2Duo at 2GHz with a 7200rpm HD boots Windows 7, including a bunch of programs at startup, in less than a minute. When I get a W520 I'm expecting it to take less than that.
W520 i7-2720QM | 32 GB RAM 1333 MHz | FHD 1920x1080 | Quadro 1000M | Windows 7 & Ubuntu 14.04
Crucial M500 480GB mSATA + 2 x 1 TB Hitachi Travelstar 7200 rpm | BIOS 1.38

In-Order Queue Dept problem

MSI 645 ULTRA (MS6547) in sisoft sandra shows an error message:
IOQD set too low, performance wil suffer...
in the BIOS cannot set this option...
3d mark 2001 score before this broblem : 8190
after: 6700 !!!
Please help me...
bios ver.: 1.7
vga: MSI gef 3 ti200 (MS 8850)
cpu P4 1,6A
256 Mb 333 DDR ram (SisoftSandra memory score: 650!!!!Mb/sec)
Maxtor 40 & 60 Gb 5400 rpm Hdd
Sb live sound card

Quote
Originally posted by Stoker
Hi
With Bios Version 1.7, you will get an error, in the DMI pool, also your performance will suffer.
There is two way's to fix this:
a) If you can get Bios Ver 1.7a, made by one of the user's you will rectify this problem, I had this ver but unfortunately I had to format my hard drive and I lost it all.
b) Use Ver 1.5, this version seem to work best for everyone.
Thank You I try the 1.5 bios... & waiting for the correct new bios... :(

Low 3D Mark 2001 score

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for