PDA

View Full Version : Question about Ti4200 benchmarks.


archagon
January 12th 04, 02:12 AM
Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
will deter its performance as well.

So the question is, what are the REAL average benchmarks? Do my
benchmarks fit into that area? And is there any way I can perhaps
improve performance? (my CPU currently runs at 117.5 degrees F - if
that's too hot, how can I make it cooler?)

Thanks in advance.

Yeremein
January 12th 04, 03:45 AM
> Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
> from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
> P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard.

Hm. My XP2500+/Ti4200 scores just over 11k stock. Even still, it's not
a huge difference we're talking about here. I'd just make sure there
isn't a bunch of junk running in the background (media player tray
icons, IM programs, and the like).

From my experience, 3DMark benchmarks seem to be skewed upward by
overclockers and tweakers. For all I know, the people getting high
scores are using ridiculously high LOD bias settings (I set mine up to
+12 using RivaTuner once--it was hilarious; nothing was textured--the
matrix guy's head looked like a yellow grape wearing glasses).

Darthy
January 12th 04, 04:52 AM
On 11 Jan 2004 17:12:33 -0800, (archagon) wrote:

>Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
>getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
>from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
>P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
>video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
>upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
>will deter its performance as well.

That's about right... 10,000~11,000 Many people getting 12000~13000
are overclocking.

With my ATI9800PRO, I'm getting over 16,000 something. But 3DMarks
are crappy games.. they don't do much.

Playing games like UT2003 with the settings MAXED out is far more
noticable over the Ti4200 - with settings on half and no FSAA.


--
Remember when real men used Real computers!?
When 512K of video RAM was a lot!

Death to Palladium & WPA!!

Mr. Green
January 12th 04, 06:34 AM
Processor temp is definitely okay if you're using a stock heatsink. I would
have been lucky to get my AthlonXP to idle that cool until I got a
ThermalTake Volcano for K7.

I'd reccomend a different heatsink if you're worried.


"archagon" > wrote in message
om...
> Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
> from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
> P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
> video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
> upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
> will deter its performance as well.
>
> So the question is, what are the REAL average benchmarks? Do my
> benchmarks fit into that area? And is there any way I can perhaps
> improve performance? (my CPU currently runs at 117.5 degrees F - if
> that's too hot, how can I make it cooler?)
>
> Thanks in advance.

Alan
January 12th 04, 09:37 AM
> "archagon" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> > getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
> > from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
> > P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
> > video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
> > upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
> > will deter its performance as well.

best way to see what is limiting your score is to run the test at 1024x768
and note down the score
then repeat the test in 640x480. if the lower resolution produces a
substantially higher score then your benchmark is graphics card limited and
fitting a new graphics card will improove performance. if however the score
stays the same then the score/performance is limited by some other weakest
link in your system. this could be ram or processor speed.
if thats the case youd see more benefit from upgrading whatever was holding
you back
hope this helps

alan

archagon
January 13th 04, 12:27 AM
"Alan" > wrote in message >...
> > "archagon" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> > > getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
> > > from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
> > > P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
> > > video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
> > > upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
> > > will deter its performance as well.
>
> best way to see what is limiting your score is to run the test at 1024x768
> and note down the score
> then repeat the test in 640x480. if the lower resolution produces a
> substantially higher score then your benchmark is graphics card limited and
> fitting a new graphics card will improove performance. if however the score
> stays the same then the score/performance is limited by some other weakest
> link in your system. this could be ram or processor speed.
> if thats the case youd see more benefit from upgrading whatever was holding
> you back
> hope this helps
>
> alan

Went from 10700 to 13443.
So I'm fine then?

zmike6
January 13th 04, 07:34 AM
On 11 Jan 2004 17:12:33 -0800, (archagon) wrote:

>Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
>getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
>from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
>P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
>video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
>upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
>will deter its performance as well.
>
>So the question is, what are the REAL average benchmarks? Do my
>benchmarks fit into that area? And is there any way I can perhaps
>improve performance? (my CPU currently runs at 117.5 degrees F - if
>that's too hot, how can I make it cooler?)
>
>Thanks in advance.


I have a similar basic "problem" with a Ti4200 (128 MB version, which
has slower video RAM) running on an AMD 2600+ AthlonXP, I "only" get
about 10300. If I overclock I can gain a few hundred points but my
4200 overclocks really badly and shows corresponding artifacts. As
best I can tell, my memory bandwidth is hurting me as my motherboard
only supports 133 FSB. Folks with similar systems and 166 FSB seem to
have about a 1000 point jump on me. Of course it could be something
else too. But you are not alone in wondering where that extra
500-1000 points that "should be there" are hiding.

archagon
January 14th 04, 12:56 AM
zmike6 > wrote in message >...
> On 11 Jan 2004 17:12:33 -0800, (archagon) wrote:
>
> >Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> >getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from 12000-13000
> >from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the following config:
> >P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard. My motherboard, CPU, and
> >video drivers are up to date. The problem is that I'm planning to
> >upgrade to a high-end ATI card soon, but I'm worried that something
> >will deter its performance as well.
> >
> >So the question is, what are the REAL average benchmarks? Do my
> >benchmarks fit into that area? And is there any way I can perhaps
> >improve performance? (my CPU currently runs at 117.5 degrees F - if
> >that's too hot, how can I make it cooler?)
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
>
>
> I have a similar basic "problem" with a Ti4200 (128 MB version, which
> has slower video RAM) running on an AMD 2600+ AthlonXP, I "only" get
> about 10300. If I overclock I can gain a few hundred points but my
> 4200 overclocks really badly and shows corresponding artifacts. As
> best I can tell, my memory bandwidth is hurting me as my motherboard
> only supports 133 FSB. Folks with similar systems and 166 FSB seem to
> have about a 1000 point jump on me. Of course it could be something
> else too. But you are not alone in wondering where that extra
> 500-1000 points that "should be there" are hiding.

Goody that I'm not alone. However, my FSB I think is...lessee...800 :D
So that can't be it.

~misfit~
January 18th 04, 09:15 AM
Yeremein wrote:
>> Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
>> getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from
>> 12000-13000 from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the
>> following config: P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard.
>
> Hm. My XP2500+/Ti4200 scores just over 11k stock. Even still, it's
> not a huge difference we're talking about here. I'd just make sure
> there isn't a bunch of junk running in the background (media player
> tray icons, IM programs, and the like).
>
> From my experience, 3DMark benchmarks seem to be skewed upward by
> overclockers and tweakers. For all I know, the people getting high
> scores are using ridiculously high LOD bias settings (I set mine up to
> +12 using RivaTuner once--it was hilarious; nothing was textured--the
> matrix guy's head looked like a yellow grape wearing glasses).

11,985 here. ti4200/128MB, XP1800+ O/Ced to 2.1GHz. Graphics card not O/Ced.
--
~misfit~

Karpanta
January 18th 04, 09:20 AM
Version of detonator drivers is very important.

AMD TB XP 2600+/GF4 4200 64 without overclocking

53.03 --- 10400
43.02 --- 11500

"~misfit~" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> Yeremein wrote:
> >> Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
> >> getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from
> >> 12000-13000 from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the
> >> following config: P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard.
> >
> > Hm. My XP2500+/Ti4200 scores just over 11k stock. Even still, it's
> > not a huge difference we're talking about here. I'd just make sure
> > there isn't a bunch of junk running in the background (media player
> > tray icons, IM programs, and the like).
> >
> > From my experience, 3DMark benchmarks seem to be skewed upward by
> > overclockers and tweakers. For all I know, the people getting high
> > scores are using ridiculously high LOD bias settings (I set mine up to
> > +12 using RivaTuner once--it was hilarious; nothing was textured--the
> > matrix guy's head looked like a yellow grape wearing glasses).
>
> 11,985 here. ti4200/128MB, XP1800+ O/Ced to 2.1GHz. Graphics card not
O/Ced.
> --
> ~misfit~
>
>

~misfit~
January 19th 04, 06:23 AM
Mine's 43.0.0. I just used the driver that was on the CD with my card.

I thought the 53.xx drivers were for the FX series of cards anyway.
--
~misfit~

Karpanta wrote:
> Version of detonator drivers is very important.
>
> AMD TB XP 2600+/GF4 4200 64 without overclocking
>
> 53.03 --- 10400
> 43.02 --- 11500
>
> "~misfit~" > escribió en el mensaje
> ...
>> Yeremein wrote:
>>>> Hello! I'm a bit worried about my Gf4 Ti4200 64MB benchmarks. I'm
>>>> getting 10700, but the average is supposedly anywhere from
>>>> 12000-13000 from what I've seen. I'm using 3dMark 2001SE and the
>>>> following config: P4 2.8Ghz, 512MB RAM, Albatron motherboard.
>>>
>>> Hm. My XP2500+/Ti4200 scores just over 11k stock. Even still, it's
>>> not a huge difference we're talking about here. I'd just make sure
>>> there isn't a bunch of junk running in the background (media player
>>> tray icons, IM programs, and the like).
>>>
>>> From my experience, 3DMark benchmarks seem to be skewed upward by
>>> overclockers and tweakers. For all I know, the people getting high
>>> scores are using ridiculously high LOD bias settings (I set mine up
>>> to +12 using RivaTuner once--it was hilarious; nothing was
>>> textured--the matrix guy's head looked like a yellow grape wearing
>>> glasses).
>>
>> 11,985 here. ti4200/128MB, XP1800+ O/Ced to 2.1GHz. Graphics card
>> not O/Ced. --
>> ~misfit~