KEC wrote:

Runs fine on my 7 64bit machine.. Should run fine on Vista.. […]
Show full quote

smeezekitty wrote:

Anyone know why it doesn't start on my vista machine.

Runs fine on my 7 64bit machine.. Should run fine on Vista..

Does it give an error?

Maybe do the normal checks like redo the AGP driver, Display driver, reinstall DX... Maybe install or run it as administrator..
I've had some of the 3Dmarks be picky on 2000 and 2003 about installing without compatibility mode or being run as admin.
Maybe install with compat for XP or even 98..

When I try to launch it, Vista switches off Aero and the process runs in task manager but no window.
Setting it to compatibility mode windows 98 makes it crash with 3DMark MFC Application has stopped working

This is a PCI-E system. Display driver seems to work because other benchmarks/games work. Tried run as administrator and no effect.

Strangely, 3dmark 2000 works fine

smeezekitty wrote:

When I try to launch it, Vista switches off Aero and the process runs in task manager but no window. Setting it to compatibility […]
Show full quote

KEC wrote:

Runs fine on my 7 64bit machine.. Should run fine on Vista.. […]
Show full quote

smeezekitty wrote:

Anyone know why it doesn't start on my vista machine.

Runs fine on my 7 64bit machine.. Should run fine on Vista..

Does it give an error?

Maybe do the normal checks like redo the AGP driver, Display driver, reinstall DX... Maybe install or run it as administrator..
I've had some of the 3Dmarks be picky on 2000 and 2003 about installing without compatibility mode or being run as admin.
Maybe install with compat for XP or even 98..

When I try to launch it, Vista switches off Aero and the process runs in task manager but no window.
Setting it to compatibility mode windows 98 makes it crash with 3DMark MFC Application has stopped working

This is a PCI-E system. Display driver seems to work because other benchmarks/games work. Tried run as administrator and no effect.

Strangely, 3dmark 2000 works fine

I had that exact same problem once.. Wish I could remember how I fixed it but I'm sure it was something dumb like reinstalling DX
or not having the latest version of 2001se.. Make sure you using build 330, when I first downloaded it I ended up with build 300..

I'll keep thinking about it.. Maybe I can jog my memory:)

Oh and switching off Aero is normal. Does that with 7 also...

Pentium 4 1.8(northwood), i845E chipset, Nvidia Geforce FX5500 (128-bit DDR 256mb).

3570k@4ghz, 32gb@2000mhz, integrated hd4000@1300mhz, windows 7

ih8registrations wrote:

3570k@4ghz, 32gb@2000mhz, integrated hd4000@1300mhz, windows 7

Did you have any problems getting it to run on 7?

If you mean 2001se, it complains about needing 128mb of video memory even though there's 2.3gb available and changes colors scheme but otherwise runs all the way though.

XP 32 bit under VirtualBox 4.3.10 r9301 on above 3570k, caveat of pixel shader test doesn't render correctly and point sprites crashes.

This is the score I get on my Pentium III 1400 with Matrox Parhelia.

I don't think it's too bad considering the graphics card isn't really gaming oriented.

P4 630, D915GAG, 2 gig DDR, Geforce 210.

CPU scaling with the AGP and PCIe GeForce 6800GT. The card seems to max out at around 26K with the faster CPUs I tested. The A64 @ 2.8GHz and Dothan at 2.66GHz can both hit around 38K with a GTX-260, so the faster processors definitely have some wiggle room here. I used GeForce Driver 307.83 on all platforms. It may not have been the best choice for such an old card, but it did fine as a CPU scaling test.

6800GT AGP, P4 Willamette overclocked to 2.12GHz, 472MHz FSB, i865, 2GB PC3200:

6800GT AGP, PIII-S overclocked to 1585MHz, 151MHz FSB, VIA 694X, 1.5GB SDR-151.

6800GT AGP, Athlon XP 2400+ (Thoroughbred, 2.0GHz, 266MHz FSB), nForce2, 2GB PC2700:

6800GT AGP, Athlon XP 2800+ (Barton, 2.08GHz, 333MHz FSB), nForce2, 2GB PC2700:

6800GT AGP, Pentium 4 3GHz (Northwood w/ HT, 800MHz FSB), i865, 2GB PC3200

6800GT AGP, Athlon 64 3700+ (S939 Venice, 2.2GHz), nForce3, 2GB PC3200

6800GT PCIe, Pentium 4 520 overclocked to 3.73GHz, 1066MHz FSB, nForce4 Intel Edition, 2GB DDR2-667:

6800GT PCIe, Athlon 64 X2 4600 (939) overclocked to 2.8GHz, ATI XPress 200 chipset, 2GB PC3200. 3DMark01 only uses a single CPU core.

6800GT PCIe, Pentium M (Dothan, overclocked to 2.66GHz, 533FSB), i915, 2GB DDR2-533.

Will have to set up my Wolfdale Core2 board sometime and see if this old card can break 30K!

I've been tinkering with a Pentium M setup quite a bit lately and have been extremely impressed with it. The stability, compatibility, efficiency, performance--it's all there. The performance is just amazing--at 2.66GHz it comes very close to the single-threaded performance of my Opteron 185 @ 3.0GHz, and it easily outperforms my P4 520 @ 3.73GHz. All while pulling ~25w from the board!

I temporarily removed the rig's GTX-260 and put in an 8800GTS (G80), so that I could do a quick 3DMark01 run against the 3GHz Opteron system under Win7.

Opteron 185 @ 3GHz, 8800GTS, Win7 x64:

Pentium M @ 2.66GHz, 8800GTS, Win7 x86:

Now, both CPUs with a GTX-260 under WinXP.

3GHz Opteron, GTX-260, XP:

2.66GHz Pentium M, GTX-260, XP:

I think I may replace my trusty old PIII-S/6800GT with the PM and GTX-260 as my dedicated XP box. The motherboard/chipset is extremely stable. The i915 chipset has DDR2 and PCIe support, and the SATA controller is AHCI compatible. The very strong single-threaded performance makes Windows feel very responsive. The machine runs all of my old XP games maxed out without dipping below 60fps, which just feels insanely smooth compared with what my 1585MHz PIII and 6800GT could pull off.

Had Intel made these CPUs available for desktop users back in the day (and preferably with a 667MHz+ FSB), they probably would've had to bury the P4s right next to the E.T. carts!

Some very strange results from Win7 on a Tualatin. I tested a PCI Radeon 9250 and an AGP 9800 Pro.

-The PCI 9250 scores higher in Win7 than it does with XP.
-The AGP 9800 Pro scores much lower under Win7. Performance is just about cut in half
-Under Win7, the 9800 only scores ~150 more points than the PCI 9250. And take a look at the D3D7 game tests. The 9250 somehow manages to outperform the 9800Pro, and sometimes by a large margin. The 9800 only pulls ahead in GT4.

PCI Radeon 9250, Windows 7

Radeon 9800 Pro, Windows 7

PCI Radeon 9250, Windows XP

Radeon 9800 Pro, Windows XP

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Some very strange results from Win7 on a Tualatin. I tested a PCI Radeon 9250 and an AGP 9800 Pro.
-The PCI 9250 scores higher in Win7 than it does with XP.

That's weird, as Win7 was comparatively slower than WinXP in my case. Results tabulated below for the signature rig under WinXP, Vista & Win7.

gandhig wrote:

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Some very strange results from Win7 on a Tualatin. I tested a PCI Radeon 9250 and an AGP 9800 Pro.
-The PCI 9250 scores higher in Win7 than it does with XP.

That's weird, as Win7 was comparatively slower than WinXP in my case. Results tabulated below for the signature rig under WinXP, Vista & Win7.

Yup, was definitely the first time I saw Win7 beat XP with identical hardware. On a PIII, no less. But Vista/7/8 are quite unpredictable when it comes to 3D'01.

Here are a few more:

Mobile AMD A6-3400M APU (1.4GHz quad-core) with integrated Radeon HD 6520G (win7):

Mobile Core i5-4200U (1.6GHz dual-core) with Radeon R7 M265--a weak ass GPU with only 16GB/s of memory bandwidth.

I can't seem to get this to run in WinXP 64-bit, it just runs and sits in task manager and never comes up. Has anyone else here tried it in XP-64 that might offer some insight?

I was going to try putting XP on my big i7 system and running it that way to see what the results were, but it didn't work out the way I was hoping. Originally back when I had a 4-core i7 chip in that system, the older bios on this EVGA motherboard let me run XP-32 in there. But something about when I had to switch up to the new bios to support the 6-core gulftown i7 chip, they did something and now XP-32 won't install anymore, it gets to "Starting Windows" during setup and BSOD's on me and reboots, even with stock CPU/ram speeds/settings, and I even tried running it with hyper-threading off and down-clocking it to about 1.8 ghz with just 4 cores active, didn't help. So... XP 64 only or no XP on that system now.

That all aside, I've got a result to share with you from one of my project computers.

This is my Athlon64 Socket 754 project machine, aimed to be the fastest parts possible from 2005, and then a minor overclock on cpu, ram, and gpu to squeeze a little more performance out of it.

AMD Athlon64 4000+ mobile chip (in a desktop board), socket 754, Original: 2.6 ghz, Mine: 3055 Mhz
BFG "OC Edition" Geforce 6800 Ultra. Original: 425 core, 1100 mem, mine: 450 core, 1150 mem
2 x 256 MB (512 MB) Kingston DDR-333 ram, mine: 470 Mhz
Aopen AK89-MAX Motherboard

EDIT: Running Windows 2000 Professional SP4

Thread with more info about it is over here: Ultimate Socket 754 AMD System

Result.

Scaled down for forums, full size here: http://www.outfoxed.net/athlon-754/Athlon64-4 … 001se_maxed.jpg

I saw the other results up there above in this thread about the comparison of windows 7 vs windows XP and how XP is running better and resulting in higher scores for this test, has anyone other than me tried running it in windows 2000?

I got 26083 3dmarks in 2001se in windows XP on the same system, but then here I get 28.5k in windows 2000, possibly windows 2000 is the max performance for this benchmark?

Mau1wurf1977 wrote:

I gave up on the AOpen board and using the Gigabyte GA-5AX with ALI chipset. The Direct3D test completed sucessfully. Might be s […]
Show full quote

I gave up on the AOpen board and using the Gigabyte GA-5AX with ALI chipset. The Direct3D test completed sucessfully. Might be simply a case of ALI chipset being a better / more stable for Windows? Got a few crashes on the AOpen board, even while installing Windows. Might be a hardware issue. But I'm getting another VIA chipset board soon, so I can investigate further.

Here are the result:

Gigabyte GA-5AX
128MB Apacer PC100 CL3 memory
Asus Geforce 4 Ti4800SE
AMD K6-III+ 400 MHz clocked at 100 x 4 = 400 MHz
Windows 98SE
43.45_win9x_english
DirectX9.0c-x86-x86_64-Dec2005

Test result:

Test bench:

Wow... what in the world am I doing wrong? Is windows XP bogging me down? My MVP3 chipset?
Mine is
EPoX MVP3G5
768mb cl2 pc100
K6-III 450
GeForce 5950
Win XP

and my 3dMark 2001se is only 1029, less than half of yours. I'm so tired of this audio issue too. Removed the audio all together and still got the same score though. Showing AGP 4x at 2x speed.

I7 4770K @4.7, Uncore 45x; GTX780 Ti; Windows 7 Sp1

I've got another submission here.

My current LGA775 system, custom-loop water cooled seen here: http://i.imgur.com/AcdZW4o.jpg

Intel E7300 dual core (poor overclocker sample.. have to feed it tons of voltage, oh well), @ 4.0 ghz
BFG water cooled 8800 GTX (with small Overclock, +13% core, +12% memory)
Dual channel DDR2-1066 @ 1066 Mhz
Vista Ultimate x64

Resized some for the forums.. sorry it's hard to read, link to the bigger version at the bottom.

Big version: http://www.outfoxed.net/2001se/E7300_@_4ghz_- … 5_+_8800GTX.jpg

kithylin wrote:

Intel E7300 dual core (poor overclocker sample.. have to feed it tons of voltage, oh well), @ 4.0 ghz BFG water cooled 8800 GTX […]
Show full quote

Intel E7300 dual core (poor overclocker sample.. have to feed it tons of voltage, oh well), @ 4.0 ghz
BFG water cooled 8800 GTX (with small Overclock, +13% core, +12% memory)
Dual channel DDR2-1066 @ 1066 Mhz
Vista Ultimate x64

Damn, that's a great score for a C2D and 8800 on Vista--the worst performing OS (for 3DMark01) out there!

I've noticed that there are certain CPU architectures 3DMark01 seems to really like, and Penryn/Wolfdale is one of them. In fact, in 3DMark01 they seem to be as fast per MHz as Nehalem!

PIII Tualatin, Pentium M Dothan, and Haswell are also very 3D'01 friendly. Overclocked Tualatin slightly outperforms Thoroughbred at the same clock speed. Dothan easily beats Athlon 64 at equal clock rates. And Haswell, despite being only ~5% faster than Sandy/Ivy Bridge in most modern apps, manages to be around 30% faster in 3DMark01.

I believe it may be related to the processors' cache performance.
-While Thoroughbred has far more memory bandwidth available to it, the L2 cache is only 256KB and 64-bits wide. Tualatin may be stuck with PC133 on an antiquated SDR FSB, but it has 512KB of very fast (256-bit) cache.

-Athlon 64 has extremely fast, low latency access to main memory, but its L2 cache is only 512-1024KB in size and 128-bits wide. Pentium M Dothan, on the other hand, has a 2MB, 256-bit wide cache.

-Penryn/Wolfdale CPUs may lack an L3 cache and integrated memory controller, but they have 3-6MB of extremely fast, very low latency L2 cache. Nehalem's L3 cache is a bit slower than Wolfdale's enormous L2.

-While Haswell's L2 and L3 caches are similar to Sandy/Ivy Bridge, the L1 cache is twice as fast, which seems to give it an edge in 3DMark01. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to matter much in modern applications.