3D Mark 99 MAX on G400

[voyager]

This is my very tweaked G400 Dual head system: G400 Overclocked to 142.5/190Mhz,
RAM tweaked with G200CLK. Motherboard is
a Shuttle Hot-649A dual motherboard with
two Celeron C366s over clocked to 578Mhz
(105Mhz FSB), Tests run under Windows 98
with DirectX 6.1. Only one CPU is active
in Win98.


Test G400 Cel 578
Rendering Platform Matrox Millennium G400 Dual Head - English
Resolution 640*480
Color Depth 16-bit Color
Frame Buffer Triple buffering
Refresh Rate 84 Hz
CPU Optimization Intel(r) processor
3DMark Result 4702.84 3DMarks
Synthetic CPU 3D Speed 5437.10 CPU 3DMarks
Rasterizer Score 2280.23 3DRasterMarks
Game 1 - Race 46.19 FPS
Game 2 - First Person 47.90 FPS
Fill Rate 202.48 MTexels/s
Fill Rate With Multi-Texturing 205.42 MTexels/s
2MB Texture Rendering Speed 385.81 FPS
4MB Texture Rendering Speed 314.77 FPS
8MB Texture Rendering Speed 219.61 FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed 168.40 FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed 127.49 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 3-pass 133.72 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 2-pass 171.99 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 1-pass 280.12 FPS
Processor Type Intel Celeron A
Processor Speed 578 MHz
L1 Cache size 32 KB
L2 Cache size 128 KB
Physical Memory 256 MB

Test Max800
Rendering Platform Matrox Millennium G400 Dual Head - English
Resolution 800*600
Color Depth 16-bit Color
Frame Buffer Triple buffering
Refresh Rate 71 Hz
CPU Optimization Intel(r) processor
3DMark Result 4600.50 3DMarks
Synthetic CPU 3D Speed 5415.54 CPU 3DMarks
Rasterizer Score 2451.12 3DRasterMarks
Game 1 - Race 45.15 FPS
Game 2 - First Person 46.89 FPS
Fill Rate 237.41 MTexels/s
Fill Rate With Multi-Texturing 238.74 MTexels/s
2MB Texture Rendering Speed 344.49 FPS
4MB Texture Rendering Speed 269.41 FPS
8MB Texture Rendering Speed 185.34 FPS
16MB Texture Rendering Speed 141.99 FPS
32MB Texture Rendering Speed 94.90 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 3-pass 110.71 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 2-pass 141.71 FPS
Bump Mapping Emboss, 1-pass 239.74 FPS
Processor Type Intel Celeron A
Processor Speed 575 MHz
L1 Cache size 32 KB
L2 Cache size 128 KB
Physical Memory 256 MB

The results are created with
3DMark(tm) 99
(www.3dmark.com). Tests are
performed without independent
verification by Futuremark
Corporation and that
Futuremark Corporation makes
no representations or
warranties as to the result
of the test. All products
used in the test were
shipping versions available
to the general public.
3DMark is a trademark of
Futuremark Corporation Ltd/Oy



------------------
Greg

[Guyver]

arbymo,

Unfortunately my memory is the limiting factor. My Processor likes 133 just fine, probably could even go higher except the PCI Bus divider wouldn't like it.

I really didn't have to tweak too much as 129 FSB at 1/4 divider comes out to 32.25Mhz (well withing the 33Mhz spec for PCI) - 133FSB would be better at 33.3.

The AGP divider @ 2/3 is at 86Mhz... I can force AGP 2X but get system degredation at that point. At 1X86Mhz I get 149Images/Sec in the final reality benchmark (16MB) on my 8MB Mystique G200. At 133FSB it would be 88.66666.... Only a couple Mhz faster - but that could equal 1 to 3 FPS... Plus my PCI would be a little faster. I've been able to run my cache anywhere from 2-8 - haven't tried 1.

My settings for G200Clk.exe are

G200CLK.EXE /4 12 /200 /2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

I'm getting no artifacts or blips or crashes...

Also I dropped the voltage down to 1.9V and added a second CPU Fan (from an old PC Power and Cooling Pentium/AMD cooler) using some double-tack tape (about 1/2" to 3/4" circle) tacked it onto the center circle of the P3 intel Fan) and plugged it into the same power connector I use for the 3rd case fan and Hard Drive fan. My CPU after (3-4 hours of 3DMark Max Demo running continuously along with Prime95) is only 34-35 Celcius. Right now after stopping both, it is now back down to 33.5 celcius.

I think I'm going to try and get some PC133SDRAM and shoot for 133FSB!
PIII450@600 Here I come!

Oh - I downloaded the latest 3DMark99 Max and it was build 200 as well. Registered it and my numbers were comperable. 4001 3Dmarks @ 640x480, 8840 3D CPU Marks were the average out of several (7-10) test cycles...

Anyone else have any other ideas to try and get my G200 faster - besides getting out and pushing? Are any of my settings on G200Clk more of a detriment than benefit?

Thanks for any ideas/help!

LB

------------------
Running an ABIT BX6 R2, PIII-450 @ 581Mhz, 128MB (64x2) PC100SDRAM (running @ 129), Matrox Mystique G200 8MB, SBLive! Value, Adaptec AHA-2940UW (Dual Channel)
All kinds of other SCSI and ATAPI goodies....
-------------
Waiting for my G400Max Impatiently, increasing system performance to give it a good home.....

[Guyver]

Old version - I'm not sure. I've got build 200, am currently downloading latest.

Processor is currently running @ 39C. 1.95V, L2Cache @ Forced 4 Latency (auto liked to place @ 8).

Just ran FR - even though I know it is really not fully accurate over 5...

Got 5.45 - 16MB AGP Test - 149Frames/Sec.

AGP 1X @ 86Mhz - can force to 2X and it will run...However my scores drop at that point... Hmmm. Will re-test and post after downloading latest 3DMark99Max.

------------------
Running an ABIT BX6 R2, PIII-450 @ 581Mhz, 128MB (64x2) PC100SDRAM (running @ 129), Matrox Mystique G200 8MB, SBLive! Value, Adaptec AHA-2940UW (Dual Channel)
All kinds of other SCSI and ATAPI goodies....
-------------
Waiting for my G400Max Impatiently, increasing system performance to give it a good home.....

[arbymo]

Thanx for the info Guyver ..
Good luck with the PC133
for my G200 .. the best settings were to avoid any memory optimization and just go for the higher clocks .. a big difference ..
My G200 maxes out at 213 sclck if I use the suggested memory opt. .. then i ran it without any memory opt. but at higher speeds .. at 220 sclck it's faster ..225 is much better .. if you're lucky u could get up to 230 or even 235 and maybee if you have the higher speed 7 ns SDRAM ( mine has 8 ns )
i can run 3Dmark max at 235 .. but it hangs in q2
just my opinion.

------------------
GigaByte 6BXE, celeron 300A@464, 128 PC100 RAM,
G200 8 M SD @112.5 core. driver 4.51, bios 1.6 and holding

[Guyver]

Well just thought I'd drop an update. After leaving my system unattended for most of the weekend running Prime95, and SETI@Home, I was relieved to find my system running cool and comfortable @ 38.5C to 39.5C for the last 53hrs... I moved the 2nd CPU fan around and made it a pusher to push air from above the G200 (which has a 4500RPM PII Fan mounted to it already on the down side), through the air-column of the PIII casing. Now air blows in from the front of the PIII, with a rising air-current from the 2nd fan below it, towards the 2 exhaust fans (1 extra case exhaust, and 1 Power Supply exhaust fan)...

All told the system reads at 35-36C, with the CPU at 36.5 to 37.5C....


------------------
Running an ABIT BX6 R2, PIII-450 @ 581Mhz, 128MB (64x2) PC100SDRAM (running @ 129), Matrox Mystique G200 8MB, SBLive! Value, Adaptec AHA-2940UW (Dual Channel)
All kinds of other SCSI and ATAPI goodies....
-------------
Waiting for my G400Max Impatiently, increasing system performance to give it a good home.....

[tylau]

Hi maggi,
You are a bit lowly this time around, I got all 640x480x16 and 800x600x16 in 3D Mark 99 MAX at 5200 3D Mark and 8100 CPU Mark, I also using a 504MHZ CPU though. May be because of my V400 is doing...

[Maggi]

Hi Guys !

Time to pop back in


Rubank:

There are more than one kind of anisotropic filtering ...

In order to properly support it, Anisotropic Filtering needs to have both the Min and the Max filters enabled. We only support the Min filters ... was the reply on my request about that issue.

It seems that 3DMark99 MAX needs the magnifying filtering in order to run its anisotopic filtering test.

Tylau:

I really don't get it why you got THAT high CPU Marks ... and what's a V400 ?

Anyway, do you dare to post high res scores ?

Everybody knows of the G400's 'relative poor' performance in lower resolutions, and despite having lower overall scores I'm still way ahead with my texture rendering fps ...

Anybody else with +450 fps in 2MB texture rendering ?

I guess I should try the old 3D Mark 99 again

------------------
Cheerio,
Maggi

I used to have some posts in my record and hopefully some of the guys 'n' girls will still know me and my system ...

[This message has been edited by Maggi (edited 07-13-99).]

[box]

Maggi:

Their CPU-Marks are so high, coz it's PIII's, so 3DMark's SSE optimizations kick in...

My old K6-2 450MHz scored 7600+something CPU-Marks, due to 3DNOW!, so I wouldn't say their results surprise me.

[Maggi]

Thank you, box !

That would explain it, but then remains one question:

Why is my texture rendering performance so far ahead ?

More and more I think that 3DMark99 is NOT the best tool to compare systems that are based on different hardware ...

------------------
Cheerio,
Maggi

I used to have some posts in my record and hopefully some of the guys 'n' girls will still know me and my system ...

[tylau]

OK, OK, this 32MB texture test makes it down, that is true. A v3 running at 400MTexel/s is something kicking anybody's ass within at least not more than 1024x768, I admitt.

[Maggi]

Hi tylau !

do you have some 3DMarks for 1600x1200 at hand ?

I'm interested in those on a V3 ...

------------------
Cheerio,
Maggi

I used to have some posts in my record and hopefully some of the guys 'n' girls will still know me and my system ...

[Steve C]

Does anyone know how the final 3dmark result is calculated?

Cheers,

Steve

------------------
Yeah, you know the score...
(ICQ: 29468849)

[Scytale]

Well Steve, I think they determine the chipset by querying the driver and then connect to their online database to get the (well known) results for that card. Sometimes it takes a while to setup this connection so they show nice graphics in between.

[Steve C]

LoL! Ah dear, I liked that one scytale! How come on my S3 Virge, the graphics are not so nice then?

------------------
Yeah, you know the score...
(ICQ: 29468849)

[Scytale]

Come on Steve, we all know why the Virge doesn't show nice graphics. Geez...