Upsetting PCMark...
- Thread starter PotGuy
- Start date
maybe i was a bit ott... soz 
2.6 p4, 80gb ata100, 512mb generic & i added 512 mb crucial ram, agp x4 radeon 9600xt (replaces geforce 4), rubbish hp oem motherboard, and a 230W taiwanese psu of some sort. stellar isnt it?
im just annoyed because it cost me £1000 (£1000?!?) and 2 years down the line it cannot even hold a reasonable fps on enemy territory, let alone any new games. Even in hl2 it refuses to go above 20 fps on lowest settings
2.6 p4, 80gb ata100, 512mb generic & i added 512 mb crucial ram, agp x4 radeon 9600xt (replaces geforce 4), rubbish hp oem motherboard, and a 230W taiwanese psu of some sort. stellar isnt it?
im just annoyed because it cost me £1000 (£1000?!?) and 2 years down the line it cannot even hold a reasonable fps on enemy territory, let alone any new games. Even in hl2 it refuses to go above 20 fps on lowest settings
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 0
I pay no attention to these "benchmark" programs... In fact, once they started putting stupid adverts into thier screens like "this would have finished by now if you had an XYZ computer" 
I stopped using them. I mean really.... 1 minute into the test and they are telling me if I had an XYZ computer I would have finished the test... ??? 
Right... So, a rather rich mate of mine bought one of those "super pc's" and ran the same test...
and got the same message...
How can a benchmark program give impartial results if its sponsered to the neck by pc company's???
I stopped using them. I mean really.... 1 minute into the test and they are telling me if I had an XYZ computer I would have finished the test... ??? Right... So, a rather rich mate of mine bought one of those "super pc's" and ran the same test...and got the same message...
How can a benchmark program give impartial results if its sponsered to the neck by pc company's???
PotGuy said:Worst computer ever. PCMark 05 gave my comp 1361I got 1fps on the demos
I would dispute the claims by previous posts that you shouldn't trust your score - this is true for the vast majority of benchmarking software, but 3Dmark really is the industries most reputable graphics cards benchamarking software - That's why every games magazine in the world uses it for Gods sake!
There are many reasons why your score might be so low-
You might not have enough graphics card RAM -256MB is recommended, although a 128mb with lots of shared AGP aperture would also do the trick (Remeber both your graphics card and your AGP aperture or bottlenecked by your Pentium 2.6 - which is a little slow)
You have an aging graphics card - 3DMark05 specifically targets the very latest graphics cards with directx 9 technology. If you only have a Radeon 9600, as generally respectable as those cards are that's probably why it is strugling. Use 3dMark03 instead of 05 - That was designed for your graphics card.
You may only have a 5k rpm Hard drive - or it may severely need defraging... or you could have an OS fault... LOTS OF REASONS. Chances are your PC is just getting on a bit - 3DMark05 REALLY pushes even the very latest top end technology. Either that or you payed for a supposed 'gaming PC' from PCWorld! Hahahahahahaha.....(NEVER trust what chain stores will sell you. They will make a PC spec look okay, but then skimp on generic RAM, rubbishy Hard Drives and poor motherboards - because they know anybody smart enough to check out those little details would probably be building their OWN PC at home anyway)
This is what I got with my PC for about £600:
Athlon 3200+ xp
Geforce 6800 128mb (Plus 256mb shared)
1028mb 400mhz DDR-RAM
200gb 7k Seagate Hard Drive
3DMark05 Score: 4444
3DMark03 Score: 11,000 something
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2005
- Messages
- 13,573
- Reaction score
- 1,888
PotGuy said:
Potguy, in your first post you said PCMark05, can i ask did you mean 3DMark05?
I agree with tomsega, 05 is designed to push the latest rigs hard, so to try it on your rig is asking a lot... It was you who said its 2years old remember.
You need to remember that your graphcs card is a little old and you only have 4xAGP. Thease two things will limit you score.....
I also think your M.B maybe a ristricting factor. sorry.
i did mean 3DMark05 - sorry
im just peeved that i spent £1000 on a crap system. I didnt know anything about computers back then anyway, but it is just so SLOW! I will try it on 3DMark03 and see how things turn out.
Sorry to waste your time and everything, but i was kind of surprised
im just peeved that i spent £1000 on a crap system. I didnt know anything about computers back then anyway, but it is just so SLOW! I will try it on 3DMark03 and see how things turn out.
Sorry to waste your time and everything, but i was kind of surprised
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 77
- Reaction score
- 0
yeah.... benchmarks... how useful.Lets all assume everyone uses the EXACT same hardware at home as the "test rigs" and everyone tests thier PC's in the same conditions... there are far too many variables... But what do I know, after 20 years building computers...
I really cannot be bothered with "benchmarks" and again... nobody answers the question of hardware sponsorship being linked to reviews and/or benchmark "scores"
Chris Pickering
Monkey Island Fanboy
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2005
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm completely against the whole benchmark thing nowadays. A few sets of crappy scores really made me worry about my PC's performance. That combined with atrocious frame-rates with the FEAR demo made me very worried indeed! Yet attempting to play Half Life 2 at close to maximum settings felt quite wonderful, with everything as smooth as a babies bottom.
Though in my case I know it's a 3D card thing! I'm still chugging along with a FX5500
Though in my case I know it's a 3D card thing! I'm still chugging along with a FX5500
Yeah, I had that problem with the FEAR demo, too. It really ****es me off when lazy designers make games that rely on pushing YOUR hardware rather than being inherently artistic and well designed. Half Life 2 looks WAAAY better than Battlefield 2, but we all know which one is a complete ******* to run...
Anyway, in response to the previous post, although some benchmarking software is completely subjective and unapplicable to everyday life, I think 3DMark is pretty reliable - it quite simply produces a score based on the frame rates your PC was able to achieve running a Directx9 heavy demo. Having said that, 3DMark seem proud of the fact that it ONLY really tests your graphics card and nothing else.... there is almost no noticable variation between PC's with the same graphics card even if you compare one with an athlon64 2800 to an Athlon64 4000 - Whereas surely games rely heavily on BOTH....?
Anyway, in response to the previous post, although some benchmarking software is completely subjective and unapplicable to everyday life, I think 3DMark is pretty reliable - it quite simply produces a score based on the frame rates your PC was able to achieve running a Directx9 heavy demo. Having said that, 3DMark seem proud of the fact that it ONLY really tests your graphics card and nothing else.... there is almost no noticable variation between PC's with the same graphics card even if you compare one with an athlon64 2800 to an Athlon64 4000 - Whereas surely games rely heavily on BOTH....?
Just while we're on the subject of the whole graphic-quality-to-neccesary-power-ratio thingy, DON'T BOTHER DOWNLOADING THE STARSHIP TROOPERS DEMO!
It is sheite! Sure it's impressive having 150 monsters on screen at once, and I know it's unfinished, but this game is UGLY! And after a while all those monsters seem like individual chores. I was rolling my eyelids after 5 minutes of playing! Why somebody would think to make a movie-game (with cut-scenes from the movie and everything) when the movie was rubbish and over 5 years old is beyond me.
Little rant there. Its just cus it took me 3 hours to download and I was hoping it would be good. Bugger.
It is sheite! Sure it's impressive having 150 monsters on screen at once, and I know it's unfinished, but this game is UGLY! And after a while all those monsters seem like individual chores. I was rolling my eyelids after 5 minutes of playing! Why somebody would think to make a movie-game (with cut-scenes from the movie and everything) when the movie was rubbish and over 5 years old is beyond me.
Little rant there. Its just cus it took me 3 hours to download and I was hoping it would be good. Bugger.