Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Sep 1, 2011.
it's an old benchmark
I was sarcastic most of the test were super choppy at 5 FPS, I think some of the GPUs at the time were more powerful than my IGP only the CPU test were better at 10-20 FPS
Anyway I don't think I could get less than 50 even after underclocking, my computer is too much powerful for 3Dmark06.
Could you please clarify what constitutes a valid score?
Do we simply need some number for the four graphics tests (other than N/A), and a number for 3DMark score?
Or, do we need to complete all the tests, or what?
61 and dropping. Who knows, I may just win.
156,000 i win, okay not even close but i cant be bothered to try dropping my score so ill just submit my 156k and call it a day
i should mention that was done on an 8600GTS 256mb + 2500k stock i didnt even try. good luck to whomever gets the lowest score.
I doubt your score is valid, if the test details don't show, then I am convinced, but N/A seems could simply mean that you didn't run all tests.
Yeah, I would like some clarification on this aswell, and also regarding the fact that if the fps is just too low, the test either doesn´t show on the online result, or in some of them it shows as N/A.
Do we need ALL tests to have an actual fps value i.e 0.9, 1.0 to be valid , or it can be hidden as long as we completed all tests and have a 3dmark score? Thanks a lot.
Got mine down to 10. Not sure if I can get lower than that. http://screencast.com/t/a1cTl5WxYXHu
Geez guys you are getting really nice scores !! i guess ill try to beat my 16 score LOL
Of all the scores I have seen, this is the only one where less than one (zero) are displayed.
When I get .5FPS, for example, the results simply will not show up in ORB.
Just one question..How does a VIA/S3 Uni chrome pro run a DX9 Bench if it doesn't have support for DX9. I'm curious cause I looked it up but I'm not sure...
i just managed 16, and i think there is still room for improvement
I have a pentium 1 133mhz I can try but I doubt it would even run the program
like an asrock skt 7 mobo and duron 950MHz and 128MB ram winXP and to finish it off GF4 440MX 64MB AGP
It is silly that notebooks are baned. Could you tell me WHY?:shadedshu
The GF4 MX440 cards didnt support DX8 let alone DX9!!! So good luck running any of the tests with one of them!!!
Slowest DX9 cards on the market are the NVidia 5200 & the ATI 9550 - both of which I own!!! ( I knew there would be a day when they would be useful!! )
You are not the only one with both. Plus my friends and I got a hold of a lot of very old processors and boards. Including an Athlon XP-M Mobile. Can't wait till we start.
I just managed a 0, and it ran all the tests as you can see from that image below, but it says the result is invalid, maybe it was so slow it didn't render a single frame on those tests?
is this result valid?
i managed to score 21 3DMarks with some real downclock both cpu + vga..
good luck everybody!!!!!!!!!!
OK, on my P4 AGP X800 I score 8990 on latest drivers, and 7952 on ATI Catalyst 4.5 which is the earliest drivers that cover x800 series.
Now, I will develop a nice .pss Programmable SmartShader effect to really slow things down!
BLIMEY! It is REALLY HARD to slow this thing down. I got it down to 1196... so a factor of 8... but I need to go another factor of 1000x. I think finding an old PCI DX9 or IGP is the only way to go. This X800 is way too fast! LOL. BTW, many IGP's are not fully compatible with things like pixel shader 2.0... so that might explain some of the N/A's.
i don't believe it is possible to go sub 10.
If you have less than 0.05 fps in a test the test will appear as N/A.
Someone here managed to get 0.05-0.1 fps in every test and got a score of 10. I have multiple runs with 10 and the fps on gt1 is 0.2 on some and 0.3 on others.
I managed to get my system on extreme load and i got 6 frames on gt1, 2 frames on gt2 and 1 frame on each of the other 2 tests. 5hours later the run was finished and 3dmark outputted this: http://imageshack.us/f/10/lolce.png/
I uploaded this result anyway and it appears to be 0 3dmark.
I have the free version, so in order to display the pixel filtrate tests results it had to run all the previous tests. Also someone claimed a 5 3dmark score result, in the page you can clearly see the 0fps, which cannot happen since every result under 0.5fps won´t display on the results page.
EDIT: it is possible to go sub 10, i just managed i guess the minimum frame rate it tracks is 0.01 fps?
Looks like the "rules" of the game should change, so that it isnt necessarily "slowest" but "slowest but still registers all indices in 3dmark03". That would therefore require balanced tweaking rather than just running some CPU/GPU eating background task.
Cue Springsteen, cause I'm going down. Down to 8. These tests take FOREVER to load. Over five hours to get a GPU and CPU score.
Yes, if the only measure is the ORB result.
If one is allowed to post a screenshot of the 'Details' showing all tests were actually completed (I would like clarification on that point) despite the fact the ORB does not list them, as is the case when sub-1FPS framerates are achieved, then perhaps not.
However, I believe detailed rules should be posted, not simply saying what is or is not allowed, but also what the results must and must not show.
Separate names with a comma.