![]() Preserved Topic: 3DMark2001 Benchmark |
|
---|---|
Author | Thread |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Eagleshieldsbay, Sweden |
![]() My gfx is Geforce 3 ti200 delxe and a AMD Athlon XP1800+ 1.533 Ghz processor. |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Happy Hunting Grounds... |
![]() Woaha! Long time no hear, OlssonE. Where you been? |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Eagleshieldsbay, Sweden |
![]() Had no computer for a week. Then my internet connection screwed up! |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Czech Republic via Bristol UK |
![]() where can we get it? |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Eagleshieldsbay, Sweden |
![]() The printer or the prog? |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Deeetroit, MI. USA |
![]() My cousin just got a GeForce 4 ti2000...scored somewhere in the 9,000's... |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Eagleshieldsbay, Sweden |
![]() jummy! |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Czech Republic via Bristol UK |
![]() p4 1.6ghz geforce 2 mx 400 512mb pc 800 rimm win2k directx 8.1 win2k pro......damn win2k pro sucks at this stuff |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Eagleshieldsbay, Sweden |
![]() Tweaked and got 5716! |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Dublin, Ireland |
![]() |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Belgrade, Serbia |
![]() Windows 2000 and XP are based on Windows NT kernel, which is a very good kernel (especially as far as memory management is concerned). Windows 2000 doesn't perform well only when playing games, because all drivers (incl. driver for graphic card) run with "special restrictions" (in order for OS to remain stable). And that's why some people still use Windows 9x (since games will run a little bit faster), but that doesn't mean that Windows 2000 can't run games (and IMHO differences in speed are minimal). On the other hand Windows XP doesn't have any "problems" running games... |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: Czech Republic via Bristol UK |
![]() if you look back at the site it warns that win2k is significantly slower on games play etc and to expect lower marks than on true windows platforms ie those not based on the nt kernel. |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: Brisbane, Australia |
![]() But isn't XP based on NT ? |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Belgrade, Serbia |
![]() |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: The Soft Cell |
![]() Hmmm, I've been considering upgrading to windows 2000 myself ever since I got a free learning edition of maya. I don't play games on my pc but will all my other software run ok? its mainly graphics packages with some music software. Also my brother installed XP on his system and said it slowed everything right down to an unbareable level, even his printer. I think he had the same problem with ME. is 2000 also resource intensive? |
Maniac (V) Mad Scientist From: Belgrade, Serbia |
![]() Most applications (incl. games) will run fine under Windows 2000/XP (personally I didn?t have any problems with both operating systems), especially in Windows XP since it also has compatibility mode that can emulate older versions of Windows. As far as resources are concerned, NT kernel is relatively resource hungry (CPU, memory and HDD), so if you really have an old computer don't upgrade. |
Paranoid (IV) Inmate From: The Soft Cell |
![]() My brother has so many files on his pc that I cant really see him going to the trouble of backing it all up so he may well have upgraded. I'm running a PIII 500mz cpu here which has always been fine for the stuff I do (as I said, I dont play games) but I would consider upgrading if I thought it was required for windows 2000 |
Nervous Wreck (II) Inmate From: Carinthia |
![]() My ATI Radeon 8500 with a P IV 1,4 GHz and 512 MB Ram got under WinXP 8021 3D Marks. |
Bipolar (III) Inmate From: I live inside my Xbox |
![]() I have a 466mhz Celeron |
Maniac (V) Inmate From: soon to be "the land down under" |
![]() Hmm, not bad, 4894. Mind you that's on my laptop, and laptops haven't really been known as gaming platforms so I'm happy with that. |