3D Mark 2001 Results

[HannibalX]

I have two very similar systems that both have older hardware but both run very well for my purposes. Just for fun I scratch loaded both machines with XP Pro, updated all the drivers, installed all patches from MS, etc. and then benchmarked them with 3D Mark 2001.

My results were almost what I expected, but slightly off. Below are the systems and their 3D Mark 2001 scores.

System #1:
Antec TX640B Case
Antec TP 2.0 430 PSU
Machspeed V880DAS (Socket 462)
AMD Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton) @ 2.2 GHz (Default)
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB (AGP 8X)
2x512 Patriot DDR400 Cas 2 Memory
40GB WD ATA133 IDE Hard Drive
120GB WD ATA133 IDE Hard Drive
2xSony DVD Burner/CD Burner Combo (IDE)
Onboard 7.1 Sound
Onboard 10/100 NIC

3D Mark 2001: 14066

System #2:
Antec Titan 550 Case
Antec TP 2.0 550 PSU
ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 (Socket 939)
AMD Athlon 64 4000+ (San Diego) @ 2.4 GHz (Default)
ATI Radeon X1600 Pro 512 MB (AGP 8X)
2x1GB Patriot DDR400 Cas 2 Memory
40GB WD SATA Hard Drive
400 GB WD SATA Hard Drive
2xNEC DVD Burner/CD Burner Combo (IDE)
Onboard 7.1 Sound
Onboard 10/100/1000 NIC

3D Mark 2001: 14007

I expected System #2 to be slightly faster but it turned out to be the opposite. I know the X1600 video card is the bottle neck and that a PCI-Ex16 video card would really wake the system up - but I'm not planning on spending any more money on either of these systems. They were built from basically all the spare parts in my PC closet.

 

[HannibalX]

Who else still has old systems clugging along? Lets see some more benchmarks!

 

[Ackmed]

01' gets more of a boost from CPU and ram speeds, than video cards. Cause of the res, and it not liking SLI/Crossfire very well.

Looking back, my first score was 5512. With a Thunderbird 1.2gig@1.28, 256megs PC133, and a GeForce 3 at 245/555. Heh, my GeForce2 Ultra did 315 on the core.

Last time I ran it was with a X1800XT, an A64 at 2.6gig. Got 30634. I still like to use it to test memory and stability. Its the last 3dMark I took any stock in what the score was. Ive got 4 pages of entires. Fun to look back and see all the hardware Ive hard in the past several years.

 

[Farmer]

These systems are old? Shows how crappy my system is.

 

[HannibalX]

They aren't really old to me either, but most readers here on AnandTech would consider them old.

 

[Nohr]

38750 on my overclocked Core 2 Duo and 7900GS.

 

[betasub]

:laugh: at the way the old Futuremark analyser identifies your E6300(?, 7x400?) as a 2.8GHz Celeron with 400(!)MHz FSB.

 

[imported_blacken]

Wow. That 'is' a crappy score for the x1600. I don't think you'l find PCIe x16 will do anything more for that than AGPx8. It is said that AGP can't utilize anything past x4 - supposively there isn't an AGP (or PCIe) videocard that can produce the bandwidth to fully use it. Some of the most recent AGP cards even trade performance scores with PCIe

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: blacken
Wow. That 'is' a crappy score for the x1600. I don't think you'l find PCIe x16 will do anything more for that than AGPx8. It is said that AGP can't utilize anything past x4 - supposively there isn't an AGP (or PCIe) videocard that can produce the bandwidth to fully use it. Some of the most recent AGP cards even trade performance scores with PCIe

The X1600 Pro AGP 512 is not that great of a card really. The core runs at 500 Mhz and the memory runs at 600 Mhz (on my card at least - a Saphire).

 

[emilyek]

14k is low.

I could get 20k on my prescott @ 3.4g and 9800pro.

 

[HannibalX]

20k is low. I can get 50k on my Cray.

I'm not trying to set any speed records here, I was just curios what these machines scored since they are very similar. They have had zero tweaks or overclocks of any kind. Just Widows patched, all the new drivers and 3D Mark.

 

[morgash]

the x1600pro has always been a mild upgrade from a 9800pro mainly becuase of HDR and shader model and such, not because of performance. The 9800pro has twice the memory bandwith, twics the raster operators and texture units, and only one less vertex unit. Sure the x1600 technically has 12 pixel pipes while the 9800pro only has 8 but the 9800 has 1 RO for every pipe, the x1600 has 4 pipes for every RO, doesnt work very well. I'm downloading 3dmark01 right now, gonna give it a shot, I remember my old voodoo 3 16mb tearin this benchmark up

morgash

*EDIT* O and if i had to guess I would say that instead of 512mb of ddr3, they threw some ****** RAM at lower speeds than stock to cut costs, so instead of the 512mb helping any at all, it actually slows the card down.

 

[Stumps]

hmmm I still use 2001 for some testing purposes

A64 3000+@2.87GHz skt 754
GA-K8NS PRO
BFG 7800GS 0C @550/1350
1GB DDR400 7-3-3-2.5 2T

24580 3DMarks

P4 3.06@3.45GHz skt 478
GA-SINXP1394
1GB DDR400 7-3-3-2.5
ASUS V9999GT 6800GT

17801 3Dmarks

AXP 3000+@2.33GHz skt 462
GA-7N400 PRO
1GB DDR333 6-2-2-2
GV-N68128DH 6800

16606 3Dmarks

AXP 2800+ (2.25GHz 256kb L2)
GA-7VAXP
1GB DDR333 6-2-2-2
GV-R9700PRO

15210 3Dmarks

I recently had a chance to test a couple of my systems after doing a few video card swaps.

 

[AgonxOC]

I get between 32K and 33K Marks in 01. Specs in sig...

Alex

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: AgonxOC
I get between 32K and 33K Marks in 01. Specs in sig...

Alex

shens

 

[WaTaGuMp]

28744 on my 4600+ 8800GTX all stock.

 

[AgonxOC]

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: AgonxOC
I get between 32K and 33K Marks in 01. Specs in sig...

Alex

shens

Dude you got me? Shens? BTW the BABY is beatutiful....

Alex

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: AgonxOC

Originally posted by: Stumps

Originally posted by: AgonxOC
I get between 32K and 33K Marks in 01. Specs in sig...

Alex

shens

Dude you got me? Shens? BTW the BABY is beatutiful....

Alex

Thanks.

BTW what is your real score...it should be around 18k-20k just going off the hardware that I have been using , it should at least be close to a stock 7800GS which on a P4@3.45ghz gets around 20k.

from my testing over the years, 2001 doesn't seem to scale well with later DX9 generation video cards...I only ever use it these days to get a quick idea of where my system should be...the other 3Dmarks take too long to run and I have a short attention span.

 

[AgonxOC]

Hahahaha. I am using a Pentium M @ 2.8 GHz which is faster than a 3.2 GHz FX 57... No joke. I could even get higher with higher GPU clocks and tighter timings... I know this guy who hits 36K with 625/625 MHz in the X800XT PE and 2 2 2 5 @ 233 MHz in the RAM same 233 MHz x 12 as mine, but the GPU and tighter RAM jumps it ~ 3K Marks.


Alex

 

[Conky]

36735 on an E6400 running at 3200Ghz and a stock PNY 7900GS.

Weird thing is right after I ran this, I downloaded the "ForceWare Coolbits 2.0" to overclock the videocard and after I overclocked it from stock settings of 450/1320 to 480/1380 it actually ran 3DMark2001 slower. Oh well, I am not real big on overclocking my videocard anyway.

 

[AgonxOC]

32256

Alex

 

[Yreka]

Ill try and run some of my older systems at work tomorrow.

Home computer got 63,361 (Rig in sig).

Kinda fun watching the old demos max out at 999fps hehe

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: Yreka
Ill try and run some of my older systems at work tomorrow.

Home computer got 63,361 (Rig in sig).

Kinda fun watching the old demos max out at 999fps hehe

Sweet system you have there! :thumbsup:

 

[Yreka]

tyvm