Though it isn't exactly a game, those of you who know about this program know that it is pretty much used to test your computer's gaming performance. You'll find a list of mirror here (http://www.futuremark.com/download/?3dmark03.shtml), but all the servers have been (and probably still are) suffering from extreme demand of this 171MB download. Think the best thing is to wait for FilePlanet for this one.

Whev....

Again long time of testing and comparing(boasting) with friends. :D
And they still own only 2000 :rolleyes:

I haven't looked into the comparison engine yet.

But 3dmark2k1se was right next to worthless when compared to actual games. Yeah, it was pretty right on when you're playing Quake3.

But a bunch of other games didn't use the bandwidth of your memory like that. So, it would give an Athlon system a considerably lower score, when it pulled the same frames per second on Unreal Tournament 2003.

They were putting a lot of weight onto bandwidth; both memory and videocard. And not all games depended on it as heavily.

I have yet to see what 2k3 is like. I don't expect it to be much different. I put more faith in 6 or 7 different games, because it's much more difficult to spread around the cash necessary to weight down your score for a particular component.

ejsmith:
In that case i'm happy to inform you that 3d mark 2003 is mostly graphic card based; the diference between an Athlon 1ghz and a Pentium 3,06ghz are like 300 points (and so far Radeon 9700 Pro scores 5500 points)

But.... On the downside, if you don't have a DX9 graphic card that score will go down, FAST. A Geforce 4 4600 scores like 2500 points. And if you don't even have a DX8 card, your score will be something like 200 points...

To sum it up; it's still a useless test... :D

[ February 13, 2003, 08:16: Message edited by: Fallen Paladin ]

Tested my computer with it today. Guess what?

AMD AthlonXP 1800+
256 DDR RAM
GeForce Ti-4400
MSI-Ultra ARU (Mainboard)
Seagate Barraquda (Harddisk)
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1

722 points! Holy ****! And the bloody test nudged most of the time! That test is from... fluffy teddy-bear. With an earlier version of the test, it would had been thousands. :confused: Gotta get those optimized drivers from nVidia...

Just out of curiosity, how much does additional 256 RAM add to the score?

[ February 27, 2003, 11:21: Message edited by: Virne ]

Extra RAM would probably do nothing. It is your "crappy" GeForce 4 (MX?) which gives you the low score. But don't worry, I'll post my GeForce 2 results here later today :p .

Mollusken... Ti, Ti... So the fault is not there. Ti-4600 was the flagship product of nVidia just few months ago, before Ti-4800 came out. The difference with 4400 and 4600 is only small decrease in bandwith in case of the first mentioned.

[ February 27, 2003, 20:13: Message edited by: Virne ]

183 points :D . I'll buy a new computer after my year in the army is over ;) .

Wooah, they must have changed the scoring system dramatically. I tried the 2001 or 2002 release (can't remember) and scored about 6500 IIRC.

It´s not that; the program just has lots of new features, and the textures must be pretty heavy. I don´t even want to guess what matrixes hide in there...