AOA Forums

AOA Forums (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/)
-   Benchmarking (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/49-benchmarking/)
-   -   Got it installed, now please help me run it - GRRR error (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/benchmarking/15379-got-installed-now-please-help-me.html)

stigweed 3rd March, 2003 11:42 PM

Got it installed, now please help me run it - GRRR error
 
My 3dmark2k3 experience has sucked so far as anyone who read my previous thread will see. Anyway now I've got it installed.

Another thread says it is intended to work on "entry level", DX8 cards. I have a Radeon 9000, the 9th highest scorer on 3dmark 2k1 and a DX8.1 compatible card. You would think that would be good enough. I know they're ment to be pushing new technology but seriously where's the backwards compatibility??? The card is 6 months old! It evens runs the Doom 3 alpha sweetly and UT2k3 with ease but because it "does not support stencil buffer" even though its a fully DX8 compliant card, it cannot perform any of the tests. I WANT EYE CANDY!!! I didn't spend 2 weeks downloading this at 2.5kb/sec every evening and weekend to find my brand spanking new graphiucs card has been deemed out of date.

I'm running Catalyst 3.1 drivers and DX9 (DX8 wouldn't even run the frontend). Can anybody help me? is this a freak error, would you recommend roling back the drivers?

marcofra2000 8th March, 2003 05:31 PM

CAT. 2.5 gives me more fps than any other cat. drivers with no FSAA and AF. You might want to try it. Here is a link to it if you have xp:

http://mirror.ati.com/support/produc...usdrivers.html

Win ME:

http://mirror.ati.com/support/produc...usdrivers.html

The ones for Win 98 are too old.

 

stigweed 8th March, 2003 07:39 PM

thanks. i'll try the 2.5s I thnik I've ogt them lying around here somewhere. I get the feeling it won't work though.

stigweed 9th March, 2003 09:42 PM

No it didnt make a difference. Supposedly the only true DX requiremnt is DX7 compliance. DX9 is needed for the higher stuff but my card is 100% DX8 compliant and refuses to run.

I should start some kind of budget card anti-discrimination petition. I get the feeling no one would join it though.

Looks like it's time for another upgrade

marcofra2000 9th March, 2003 09:45 PM

Probably is because you have the 64 mb version?, Try to save money, the rad 9700 pro is now 300 dollars, try to get the 9500 pro and do the hacking thing.

stigweed 9th March, 2003 10:52 PM

300 dollars is steep ~ £230? Although with pc stuff, price conversions seem to involve just swapping £ with $ and leaving the numbers the same. Consider then that my card cost £70. It may be that its cos its a non-pro version. I guess if I can run Doom3 I am happy and don't really need to run 3dmark2k3. just annoyed i spent so long downloading it.

marcofra2000 9th March, 2003 10:56 PM

Benchmarking with games is way better than using a benchmark like 3dmark03. I think the Radeon 8500 LE is faster than the one you have I believe and I think is by the same price.

stigweed 9th March, 2003 11:09 PM

yeh, its faster but as i understood at the time of purchase, being the 9xxx chip it had more advanced DX features but a lower clock speed. At the moment Unreal Tournament 2003 is gorgeous and smooth so I won't be upgrading yet.

Depending on how the prices are going I may ship some of my better hardware out through ebay to fund further MHZage.

Liquid3D 19th March, 2003 12:50 AM

Not trying to disausde you from benchmarking, BUT the statement was/is true, although your card run's at a a slower clock speed, it's offers more advanced graphics features then the 8500 series. Don't get me wrong, for pure frame rate madness, the 8500 is technically faster then the 9000 (I have one I bought new few years ago in closet) BUT what's important is the HOURS of enjoyment playing $50 games. Not the 7min of stress running a Free demo (you can't even play it) And all the while your praying your overclocked system/card get's through 3DMark2003 just to get those few extra points. Sure you can be proud of your score, but there's always some lunatic out there with too much money, and access to Liquid Nitrogen who'll beat everyone's score, so it's all relative? How much will be enough?

That's why reviewers use UT3, Serious Sam, Return to Castle..., Jedi Knight II, Quake III. etc in their reveiws. Otherwise thye would employ 3DMark2003 and nothing else. Besides 3DMarl2001SE is amore accurate measurement of current standards anyway. DX9 is a future becnhmark. Can you name the number of games currently running under DX9 besides the demo? If my Tyan Tachyon 9700 Pro were to be RMA;d right now, I'd pull out my Radeon 8500, instead of my Leadtek GF4 Ti4400, even thought the Leadtek smokes the radeon in FPS, because the ATI core is more advanced, and LOOK's better! Just like your ATI core is more advanced then it's predecessor.

hoppy800 17th June, 2004 04:28 AM

Can someone help me?

I downloaded the 3DMark 2003 from AOA files and I can't even open it. There is no extension to it at all. Did anyone else have this problem? If so please help!

Gizmo 17th June, 2004 07:35 AM

If it doesn't have an extension, them something funky happened with the download, most likely. It should be a .EXE file.

Pitch 17th June, 2004 10:14 PM

Random~


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:44 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0