Squeezing every last point out of 3DMark2001SE
 

I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

Kai

"Kai Robinson" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a 1.6Ghz
CPU?"
3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:54:13 +0100, "Kai Robinson"
wrote:

I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)


Easier to pop in a new card... ;)

With out major OC... I think the fastest 3DMark01 is over 20,000 -
AMD64-FX51 + ATI9800XT


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Clock´n Roll wrote:
"Kai Robinson" skrev i en meddelelse
...
I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've
been spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just
that little bit more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings
to 2-2-5-2, enabling 4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse
width to 8. Clocking the card to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this
is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top speed) and running the processor at
1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally got the result i was
after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge amount -
especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the
Ram timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting
8767 - with most of the difference being made in the Game benches,
Single Texturing Fill rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light
High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these
cards? :)

You should ask:"Anyone else managed to get a score this high with a
1.6Ghz CPU?"
3Dmark2001 in my oppinion is more a CPU test than a GPU test.

My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.

My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.

While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
near as significant as the GPU.
--
~misfit~

You're an extremely sad individual... - shouldn't you maybe get a life son?
I mean there's better things in life to do; as it stands you just sound like
a bit of a loser....

Get it sorted, aye?

"Kai Robinson" wrote in message
...
I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

Kai

Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?

By replying to my post with an insult - it just proves that you're a ******.


"Gordieee" wrote in message
...
You're an extremely sad individual... - shouldn't you maybe get a life
son?
I mean there's better things in life to do; as it stands you just sound
like
a bit of a loser....

Get it sorted, aye?

"Kai Robinson" wrote in message
...
I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2,
enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the
card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a
huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 -
with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0
vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)

Kai

"Darthy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 07:54:13 +0100, "Kai Robinson"
wrote:

I write this at 7:42am - and i still havent gone to sleep yet. I've been
spending hours tweaking this system in hopes of getting just that little
bit
more out of my system. After changing my Ram timings to 2-2-5-2, enabling
4-way bank interleaving and upping the pulse width to 8. Clocking the
card
to 240/490 (and bearing in mind this is 5ns stuff - thats 400Mhz top
speed)
and running the processor at 1604Mhz (153 x 10.5 Multiplier) - i finally
got
the result i was after. Now it may not be much - but to me this is a huge
amount - especially for a 'budget' GeForce 3 Ti200.

Previously - the best score i got at the same settings (except the Ram
timings), was 8158. With the ram timings enabled, i'm getting 8767 - with
most of the difference being made in the Game benches, Single Texturing
Fill
rate (766.5 vs 746.4 MTexels/sec) and 1 light High Polygon count (29.0 vs
27.9 MTriangles/sec)

Every other score was virtually identical.

Thing is though - can i do better? :D

Anyone else managed to get a score this high with one of these cards? :)


Easier to pop in a new card... ;)

With out major OC... I think the fastest 3DMark01 is over 20,000 -
AMD64-FX51 + ATI9800XT


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Oh I will be popping in a Radeon 9500 when it arrives & i was asking if
anyone else with a GeForce 3 managed to get such a high score as that.

And although 600 odd 3d marks might not look like much - i can certainly
feel the difference in Unreal II, everything plays so much more fluidly.
Although whether thats to do with the Ram timings or the card - i dont know.

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...


My GF4 ti4200 with a CPU running at 2.1 GHz gets 12,000.

My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets 2,500.

While the CPU does have an influence on the 3DMark score it isn't anywhere
near as significant as the GPU.
--
~misfit~



surely these figures are a typo. 2500? or is that 12500?

"cowboyz" skrev i en meddelelse
...

"~misfit~" wrote in message
...
My g/f's FX5200 with a CPU at 2.2 GHz and twice the L2 of mine gets
2,500.

Right.... :-D

"Kai Robinson" wrote in message
...
Dont you have a bridge to go and live under?

By replying to my post with an insult - it just proves that you're a
******.

just send the header to with a complaint

if you feel like it