3dmark respectable scores?

[bcampbell91]

hey i just downloaded a program ive heard a lot about for a long time, 3dmark, i got the 2005 versoin cuz the 06 one was givin me some issues. anyways i was wondering what some more experienced people with the program would say what they would consider to be poor decent and respectable scores on the program, and what users can do to increase thier score?

[mszo]

I've heard a lot about it also...but I have never gotten a straight answer as to what it actually does. Maybe someone can inform me?

[DaveW]

If i remember correctly it tests your computer's setup by running a string of 'Real Time' movies, like being in an old rail shoot em up, but without a gun. It tests things like renderring capability and so forth, allowing you to see what your computer is capable off, and at the end, gives you a little numerical value that is basically your computer's score, and helps form a basis of comparrison between yours and other computers.

There was a slight slandering off the name last year when Nvidea (i think) were accused of making their chips 'recognise' 3d mark and return a false score substantially higher than they deserved. Although i can't remember what became of it, i'm sure someone else here can pick up the story and finish it.

-Dave

[Elum!nal]

It shows how good is your videocard ;)

[bcampbell91]

i was aware of this but was wondering more or less what scores are considered decent like if a 5000 is a good or a bad score i think i got a 4100 or something along those lines or how i could compare that score to those of other comps.

[Slug Toy]

for this kind of thing, it depends on what your video card is and what the rest of your system is. ill give you some examples.

these score are on my p4 3GHz machine with 512MB of ram

my old radeon 9600xt (525/600)got about 1800 in 3dmark05
my old 6600gt (540/1200) got about 2300
my current 6800ultra (455/1150) gets about 4500 (last check was something like 4563)

for newer stuff like the 7900 or the x1900 combined with an fx-60 or intel 955, im pretty sure they're topping 10000 in 3dmark05. thats for a single card too. i must say though, that to be indicative of performance for newer games coming out, 3dmark06 is more suited because of the heavier shadermodel 3 and physx support.

for some idea of what a 3dmark score means in terms of what games you can play and at what settings, heres what my last tests got me. when i had my 9600xt, the only good game i had was half life 2, so i did the counterstrike stress test. at 1280x1024 and max settings except 4x AA and 8x AF, i could get about 40fps. my 6600gt was able to play battlefield 2 at 1024x768 with some fairly high quality settings except for antialiasing and the more advanced lighting and shadowing. i could also get away with about 100fps in the counterstrike stress test at 1280x1024 and maximum quality settings. i couldnt play half life 2 lost coast at very high settings with the 6600 though. my 6800ultra on the other hand blew everything away. i could play lost coast at 1280x1024 with max settings, and battlefield 2 at 1024x768 with max settings. i even tried fear out with my 6800 and i can do 1024x768 with max setting except no soft shadows, and 4x AA and 16x AF.

as for nvidia's 3dmark cheating. i never heard anything about that, and i havent seen anything to support those claim either. im sure someone would have pointed out odd scores somewhere along the line. if anything that may have been a rumour from the previews of the geforce 6 or 7 series before they were officially released.

bcampbell, your score of 4100 is pretty good if you have something like a 6800 or maybe an x800 or x850 along with something like a p4 3GHz or an amd 3200+. although the mid range cards of the geforce 7 and x1000 series will probably get that score too, maybe higher. you can see that it gets kind of confusing trying to match a score to a set of hardware because of all these depencies. im willing to bet that you have an x800 or x850 though because they dont support shadermodel 3 and that might explain the trouble with 3dmark06.

anyways, hopefully i answered some things here and gave some good examples. if you want me to be more specific about anything, or if i missed anything, just ask.

[bcampbell91]

thank u very much, if u were wondering im running an x800, 1 gig of ram and an amd 3000+ so im pretty impressed that u were that close. this is on a slightly different subject but does anyone have any favorites or suggestions for a good value midrange sli card? ive built some sli systems before, but havent been able to game on em cuz theyve been for people that were paying me to build them thier systems. ive only had ati cards in the past but really wanna switch to a dual gpu setup with nvidea cuz i think its far ahead of crossfire. so ya what are some suggestions for a gpu for about 150$ that would make a nice sli system?

[Slug Toy]

if you're set for nvidia and around $150 (per card im assuming) you may want to look at the 7600gt. that will get you the benefits of the 7 series, plus some pretty heavy pixel power. i see one from evga that has a 600/1560 clock setting which is a pretty good overclock already (stock is 560/1400), and its $229 but that might be canadian dollars... which would be about $190 US. that one is from newegg in case you want to find it again.

so thats what i say. 7600gt and just look for the highest frequencies and best price.

[DaveW]

Here's something about 3DMark and it includes that nvidea cheatting allegation. (http://www.opentechsupport.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14909)

-Dave

[bcampbell91]

thanks dave,
thats one of the card ive been eyeing its seemed like a good deal that carried quite a bit of power, say i was to go without sli right now and future proof myself by buying one card for about 300$ and then getting another to run sli later? what card would u recommend if i go that route, and how would that single card compare to dual 7600s?

ben

[Slug Toy]

if you want to future-proof yourself, you want a 7800 or 7900 honestly. they both have double the pixel pipelines over the 7600. on top of that, the 7900 has even better clock speeds than the 7600. i would say that the 7900gtx will stay competitive longer.

on the other hand, the x1900xtx also has an impressive showing to say the least, and i think its a little cheaper than the 7900. its obviously slightly different in performance, but it at least matches the 7900gtx in general performance.

what i would suggest doing is looking at the games you want to be able to play. if they are heavy in to textures like halo or is an openGL game like doom3, go nvidia because they hold strong there. if the games you are looking at are heavy in to shaders like in fear, then ati is the way to go right now. most new games are shifting away from textures because they take up a lot of bandwidth and arent that flexible anymore. shaders are much more versatile and are basically code, so it executes better and uses comparatively less bandwidth.

also, take a look at some prices. the 7900 and x1900 series are new and expensive... perhaps out of your range. if you move down to the 7800 and x1800 level, those cards are more affordable and the same performance rules apply. nvidia still has good texture and openGL performance, and ati still does good with shaders. you just wont have the newest and best hardware.

to boil this down to something a little less confusing:

-for really good performance, go 7900 or x1900, preferably x1900 right now
-to stick with the $300 budget, go 7800 or x1800, preferably x1800
-if you really want sli instead of crossfire, then your choices are restricted to the 7900 or 7800

i cant give any recommendations on what brand to check right now, but i can look into that tomorrow. im really tired right now and i dont feel like doing any more research today. just let me know if you want any brand opinions... ill check back here tomorrow and give you some more info if you need it.

[Slug Toy]

for the sake of keeping myself occupied, i went ahead and checked out some cards and prices. heres what i see, keeping in mind that this is in canadian dollars:

-7900gt is in the $300 range, and there are some pretty high factory overclocks too
-7900gtx is in the $500-$600 range, which is probably too high, but there are some overclocked models
-x1900xt is in the $450-$500 range, slightly high, and no factory overclocks that i see
-x1900xtx is in the $500-$600 range, lots around $500 though, and again no factory overclocks
-X1800xt is all over the place, from $350-$500, youd be just as well off to go to a x1900xt
-7800gtx is anywhere from $400-$700, lots around $500, so youd be just as well off to go to either of the 7900's

it looks like the budget card in all of thses would be the 7900gt. the x1900xtx and 7900gtx are comparable in price, but pretty high. in my opinion, the x1800 and 7800 are still retardedly high considering there are better things out. id say the 7900gt is the way to go both because you want sli eventually, and also because its the cheapest. you could probably wait a while and the prices will come down a bit, but keep in mind if you wait too long, you might as well go to the geforce 8 series.

thats my thoughts on the situation. i gotta cut this short because im taking off momentarily, but that should keep you on track.

[bcampbell91]

thanks slug toy,
im not exaclty made of money yet so the 7900gt will be fine for gaming as an upgrade from an x800pro! plus when theyre like 150$ next year and its starting to get outdated, i pick up another plug it in and im running graphics thats as good as any single card out there, so i guess this seems like the best performance to price ratio in the longrun. thanks again for all the help.