Announcement

**SteveC** · 12 February 2003, 17:01

Just been thinking - what right to nVidia have to come along and trash a piece of software just because they don't like it? Imagine if say Volvo came along and started raving on that Sony car stero head units were crap and unreliable just because they happened to sound better in a Ford than in a Volvo? Sony would sue them in an instant!

**Jon P. Inghram** · 12 February 2003, 17:53

But... 3DMark03 is an empty-headed animal food-trough wiper, and also smells of elderberries.

I've seen 64kB demos that pack more "coolness" than the stuff that's seeped out of FutureOnion's various orifices.

Ok, maybe I should just stop talking about it, there's that old saying "If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything."

**Paddy** · 12 February 2003, 23:46

But... 3DMark03 is an empty-headed animal food-trough wiper, and also smells of elderberries.

And more witches!

**SteveC** · 13 February 2003, 03:30

Shame that the bit where Parhelia falls down on its DX9 capabilities mean that it can't run that new Nature demo, even with DX9 drivers

It requires Pixel Shaders v2.0 but Parhelia can only do 1.3... unless there could ever be some sort of workaround?

**Nuno** · 13 February 2003, 07:15

I´m sure that there will be a new 3dAnalyze that will trick the app reporting PS and VS 2.0 capabilities. The Nature demo in 3dmark2001 ran on a KyroII with that one!

**Nuno** · 13 February 2003, 07:46

Just to add someone already found a way to cheat: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=42604

If that entry gets deleted, it´s a GF4 Ti4600 scoring 9753

**SteveC** · 13 February 2003, 08:22

Nuno - my Parhelia gets over just 9000 points and that's no intentional cheating!

**Greebe** · 13 February 2003, 08:25

I was waiting for that

**Nuno** · 13 February 2003, 08:32

LOL! So after all this time of waiting this thing still is severely flawed!

So, care to share the bug?

**agallag** · 13 February 2003, 09:18

Woohoo, I got a big 1150ish 3Dmarks. It was kinda fun watching the troll section go at 1-3fps. What a pile of decomposing donkey crap.

**fleabus2** · 13 February 2003, 09:46

Hi:

MadOnion/Futuremark tests:
System, test & 9700 defaults
No O/Cing, tweaking cheating.
Desktops at 1600x1200 32bit 85Hz

3Dmark2001SE: 14731 marks
3Dmark03: 4632 Marks

**SteveC** · 13 February 2003, 10:03

Originally posted by Nuno
LOL! So after all this time of waiting this thing still is severely flawed!

So, care to share the bug?

I have mentioned it somewhere else in this thread, but basically the 3rd 3d test and the 2nd CPU test are black screens for me. I get 180 FPS of blackness instead of the normal 1-3 FPS I should be getting

**Greebe** · 13 February 2003, 10:05

Careful there Steve... Omie might call this a feature

**Kooldino** · 13 February 2003, 10:22

Originally posted by lecter
In my case (Audigy+analog speakers), the first sound test cannot be heard, the other 2 are fine....

ditto.

I got 950ish marks. Pretty pitiful.

Also, I only ran it once, but did anyone else have it bomb out halfway though the power point presentation of a demo?

**Kooldino** · 13 February 2003, 10:24

Originally posted by Nuno
1671 with a XP1600+@1800+ and a GF4 @ 300/626.

Don´t really know, but this thing has a unpolished, unfinished feeling about it. 3dmark2000 had prettier scenes than game 1. Game 2 and 3 also run much slower than expected. That doom3 alpha leak looks better and run faster, and this says preety much about how unoptimized 3dmark code is.

That pixel shader 1.4 -> 1.1 fallback is also nonsense, why not 1.3?

I feel the same way...my Doom3 alpha leak was at least playable. And looked a lot better, IMO.

Announcement

3DMark 2003

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment