st0lve Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 its c, I just downloaded it... O here is le picture: Quote
-Stratesiz- Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 2432 and it ran like shit. Quote
Thrik Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 Your card also needs to support pixel shading 2.0. That rules out anything not on this list, pretty much. Quote
InsaneSingingBlender Posted September 30, 2004 Report Posted September 30, 2004 it does that for me too stolve :evil: Quote
st0lve Posted October 1, 2004 Report Posted October 1, 2004 damn silly program, I hate this stuff. Quote
wacko Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 4989 on 66.77 nividia drivers on a 6800gt Quote
JynxDaddy Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 I got 1840 marks. with my 9800xt and p4 2.4 ghz. fuck that shit, GAMES run awsome, you know... doing stuff, not sitting back with your thumb up your ass. Quote
Mazy Posted October 4, 2004 Author Report Posted October 4, 2004 Thats why I dont really care that much about how many 3Dmarks I get, as long as it runs stuff good then Im happy. The 3Dmarks are purely intended for the overclocking tards that need to have a better score than everybody else.......just to have it. It is however a quite nice way to compare performance on different computers, even though Im not trusting these scores blindly Quote
Urban Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 2178.. not great.. but games run fine for me Quote
CrazyMAC Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 1399 2ghz 768 9800pro ??? should i be worried!?£$~ seems alittle low to me Quote
Urban Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 mac.. i have a 2500+ 768 9800pro i would be Quote
wacko Posted October 4, 2004 Report Posted October 4, 2004 what I don't get is my machine is not much better then any of the previous. Only a AMD 64 3200+ and a 6800GT and thats not much different/better then urbans or mazy's machine. I think that 3DMark is a bogus way to benchmark thing because what gets me is that the first demo is not in my opinion as dense and poly intensive as doom 3 and i can run that at full everything with 45+ framerate. Yet in that first demo my Avg FPS was like 13 FPS. So i don't think its a great way to gage things Quote
Mazy Posted October 4, 2004 Author Report Posted October 4, 2004 what I don't get is my machine is not much better then any of the previous. Only a AMD 64 3200+ and a 6800GT and thats not much different/better then urbans or mazy's machine. I think that 3DMark is a bogus way to benchmark thing because what gets me is that the first demo is not in my opinion as dense and poly intensive as doom 3 and i can run that at full everything with 45+ framerate. Yet in that first demo my Avg FPS was like 13 FPS. So i don't think its a great way to gage things was thinking the exact same thing its not that detailed (or looks more demanding than most of the stuff in doom3), and at really bad times it went down to like 2 fps. however all the other tests ran great (40fps). but then again, i dont really trust the 3dmarks that much Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.