Announcement

**EchoWars** · 22 November 2000, 11:51

My PIII 933 gets about 3600 or so (haven't run it in a while), so it seems to me that you are in the ballpark.....

**Helevitia** · 22 November 2000, 12:00

You score for 3dmark2k seems on par to me. I overclocked my chip(700@924) nad vid card(g400 vanilla) and got around ~3400. Actually, I thought the same thing since Maggi was continuously getting higher scores than me until I realized he was O/C just about everything. Your computer is running great.

Dave

**SteveC** · 22 November 2000, 16:00

beats me... (the score that is!)

------------------
Cheers,
Steve

"Life is what we make of it, yet most of us just fake"

**Electric Amish** · 22 November 2000, 16:09

Yeah, that score beats me as well.

Athlon Classic 700@700 and a vanilla G400 runs about 2600 on 3dmark.

amish

**drzaius** · 22 November 2000, 20:18

you guys don't have your G400 o/c do you?
because with my celeron 566@707 and G400 32meg @ 170/190 i get 3004.

PS. i have tweaked the crap outta my system though, and have Directx 8, which gives about a 200-300 point increase (for me atleast)

[This message has been edited by drzaius (edited 23 November 2000).]

**Hamlet** · 23 November 2000, 04:22

3DM2k isn't really reliable. I Get about the same score with my Athlon 1Ghz. My friend with an A650 got 3100...

Have u upgraded to 1.1? That's said to be a little more accurate atleast.

The reason I could say it's not very reliable is that my system wipes ass with any other A1Ghz I've been up agains, both D3D/OGL. In everything except 3DM.

So, try benchmarking with something else.

------------------
Athlon 800@1GHz/MSI 6167/128mb/7200rpm UD66/SB128/G400Max/Win98/Win2k/RH6.2/Be5

**Excalibur** · 23 November 2000, 10:43

Hmm. Seems this isn't as straightforward as I thought. I can't cite a specific example at the moment, but I've definitely gotten the impression that I was running slower than everyone else. Seems that maybe that isn't the case after all?

How are people getting those 3DMark2K scores listed on MadOnion.com with their G400s? I mean 4000+ scores. Overclocking their cards?

I don't even know how to overclock my card, so naturally I don't do it.

Also, why do I see that just about everyone I've looked at has a score for 64MB Texture test, but with mine, it says it's not supported by hardware. Huh? I thought G400s topped out at 32MB on-board, so it must be something else... ?

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB (Mushkin)PC133 CAS2 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

**Indiana** · 23 November 2000, 11:35

Originally posted by Excalibur:
How are people getting those 3DMark2K scores listed on MadOnion.com with their G400s? I mean 4000+ scores. Overclocking their cards?

I don't think scores much higher than 4000 are possible on the G400/Max, no matter if oc'ed or not or what CPU is used. There are quite some ways to get faked/artificial high 3DFart2000 scores, you know...

Also, why do I see that just about everyone I've looked at has a score for 64MB Texture test, but with mine, it says it's not supported by hardware. Huh? I thought G400s topped out at 32MB on-board, so it must be something else... ?

This test is testing the AGP texturing performance, on a 32MB card (like your MAX) the 32MB and 64MB texture tests are done with the use of textures that are located in the non-local AGP RAM.
There are several reasons for not being able to run the 64MB test, most often it's one of the following two:
1. you have your AGP aperture set to a too low value (try 128MB).
2. You run Win2K - unfortunately the 64MB test won't run under 2k because of a bug (feature?) in the Microsoft AGP gart-driver.

BTW, I get 3520 3DMarks with my G400vanilla 16MB/DH (that is heavily oc'ed to 164MHz core and 205 MHz Mem-speed) on a Duron800@1045 - so you're not that much off.

[This message has been edited by Indiana (edited 23 November 2000).]

**Excalibur** · 23 November 2000, 11:43

Indiana - Thanks for the reply. I guess faked results are possible, but one would have to beg the question WHY? Why would someone want to fake results? And so many? There are a lot of scores on MadOnion for processors similar to mine (830-870 MHz) that have these higher scores.

As far as the texture question, goes, I'm running Win98SE, so it's probably not the second thing you mentioned, but I can't set my AGP aperature higher than 64MB. (Intel 815 chipset) Same problem on my earlier board (Giga-byte w/BX chipset) - no higher than 64MB. So that's limiting me in that regard?

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB (Mushkin)PC133 CAS2 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

**Indiana** · 23 November 2000, 16:20

As for the 4000+ G400 scores: I saw some unrealistic high G400 scores as well the last time I looked at 3DMarks site, but they were multiple entires by just two or three different individuals by then.
And for the question why: To some it's enough to have a good 3dMark score (even if it doesn't correspond to the actual performance). Besides, the old "mine is longer/bigger/thicker/..." can be found always and everywhere.

As for the AGP-aperture: Yes, I think this is the culprit - although I don't relly understand it: 32MB onboard mem + 64 MB AGP mem makes 96MB total. This should be more than enough for 64MB of textures.
You can see your actual amount of available texture memory when looking at 3DMark2000's SystemInfo under the Gfxcard tab.

Perhaps you could provide other benchmarks (Sandra, Q-III,...) if you're still not sure about your systems performance.

**Excalibur** · 24 November 2000, 19:09

Indiana -

3DMark2000 reports:

Total Video Memory: 32698KB
Total Texture Memory: 56354KB

Not sure why that's not higher...

As far as my overall system goes, this IS an open issue on a newsgroup right now (though the responses are slowing down...) about my system's strangely slow performance. It seems that, benchmark-wise, the CPU & memory scores are much too low for the machine I've put together. Very frustrating, and I'm soliciting all kinds of input.

Anyhow, I installed the Quake 3 demo and ran the timedemo (001) for some results. Not sure how these rate:

Quake 3 Timedemo 001
=======================================
Fastest 15.9 seconds 84.7fps
Fast 14.7 seconds 91.7fps
Normal 15.3 seconds 87.8fps
High Quality 16.0 seconds 84.2fps
Custom
- Video Mode 1024x768
- Color Depth 32 bit
- Full Screen On
- Lighting Lightmap
- Geometry Detail High
- Texture Detail [Max]
- Texture Quality 32 bit
- Texture Filter Trilinear
59.3 seconds 22.7fps

Seems strange that it's maxing out around 85fps... sounds suspiciously like my refresh rate. But performance-wise, I have no idea how this compares.

As far as Sandra 2000 goes, here are some scores:

CPU Benchmark: 2148 / 1066
CPU Multimedia: 2501 / 3336
Memory Benchmark: 365 / 394

As I said, I've been told that these scores, especially the memory scores, are much too low for the hardware I'm using, but there don't appear to be any other settings to change, unless there's some fundamental wrong with either something like my power supply (someone suggested to me that maybe my power supply needs replacing, but I can't get more information about this...), or Windows 98SE, but I don't see what. It's a new install with very little "junk" installed.

I'm reaching the end of my rope on this one. I spent a bunch of money upgrading this thing, and it's just not performing how it's supposed to.

Though it seems that folks around here seem to think that my non-overclocked G400, at least, seems to be running in the right ballpark.

Hmm.

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB (Mushkin)PC133 CAS2 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

**Excalibur** · 24 November 2000, 20:23

I just realized that I didn't install the TurboGL driver for the Quake 3 demo, so I just did that and re-ran the benchmarks. Not a big difference, but I guess this is the better way to benchmark it (?):

Fastest - 12.7s / 105.9fps
Fast - 14.5s / 93.1fps
Normal - 15.3s / 87.9fps
High Quality - 29.2s / 46.1fps
Custom (as above) - 60s / 22.4fps

FWIW...

- Excal

------------------
PIII-866MHz @ 866MHz, ASUS CUSL2 MoBo (v1002a BIOS), 256MB (Mushkin)PC133 CAS2 RAM, MGA G400 MAX AGP 32MB; not overclocked; PD 6.14 / BIOS v1.6 - 25, SBLive! 5.1, Windows 98SE, DX7.0a and lots of other goodies that would just be showing off to list.

**kjliew** · 25 November 2000, 02:27

Excalibur,
On the 3DMark AGP 64MB texturing test, I think the developers at MadOnion screwed up with the test. By nature DirectX should be able to use combined local and non-local memory for texture storage. But it seems to me that in 3DMark, the texture memory for AGP texturing test has to come from either local memory or non-local memory, NOT BOTH. In your system, this cannot be satisfied, hence the test won't run.

With the i815 AGP aperture limit of 64MB, there is little hope for any of such system to run 64MB AGP texturing test. Even 64MB card won't do any good. More than 64MB is needed here.

BTW, 440BX supports up to 256MB for AGP aperture size. There should not be any problem for 64MB AGP texture test on such platform, unless the BIOS limits the aperture size to 64MB. Some earlier version of 440BX or AT-size 440BX do this.

**Indiana** · 25 November 2000, 12:42

Originally posted by Excalibur:

As far as Sandra 2000 goes, here are some scores:

CPU Benchmark: 2148 / 1066
CPU Multimedia: 2501 / 3336
Memory Benchmark: 365 / 394

365/394 MB/s in the Mem test did seem low to me for 133MHz/CAS2 at first glance as well, but then I have an AMD chip which has better mem-throughput than the P-III.
If you look at the results for the P-III@1GHz with PC800-RAM (I guess this is RDRAM) you're again not that much off...

Note that people with oc'ed system WILL get
better memory-performance due to the higher FSB.
As for the CPU values I can't say if they're appropriate or not, someone with a (non-overclocked!) P-III at similar speed should do.

I have to test Q-III, but in High-quality I got 49.8 fps with the 6.14 ICD, no TGL (again on a faster CPU - Duron@1045 - and a oc'ed G400 vanilla)

Announcement

Why Isn't My G400MAX as Fast as Everyone Else's?

Why Isn't My G400MAX as Fast as Everyone Else's?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment