PCGH_Carsten

Didn't find it back then. Have you already added it?

Yes sir! That's another aspect of the problem. It's not required by the rules to actually use the latest version.

Oh, btw: It's not "bugged", merely tweaked to the utmost extend - the rendering, frames etc. are all absolutely normal.

Nice to see some share my confusion If i get it right from jmke: It'd be an legit score?

I can assure you, they are. It's just the driver. But this is exactly why i first posted the score here and did not submit it directly - to have this cleared up by a mod/crew.

I'm asking after having read the rules and finding nothing which would illegalize a score like the attached one. It was achieved with a driver that caused nvidia to be accused of cheating and has, compared to other scores, a quite apparent diverging distribution of Fps in the individual game tests. No the question: Is this score valid so that i can go for an entry?

[x] All for separate categories of those cards. (even though it'll cost me some points)

uhm, pah-leeeese?

OMG ROFL!!! YMMD (Wow, almost a whole posting in internet acronyms...)

http://www.hwbot.org/browseHardwareVideoCards.do?gpuFamilyId=9 Quite obviously, the first two entries do not belong here but in the S3 category. Thanks!

Does that also apply to the ORB? I mean, if there's an entry in there flagged as "validation: ok", then one should be safe to assume, that that's the case, shouldn't one? Result Info Your system (No Score) Compared system Validity OK Because - if you only provide a link to the FM ORB, there's no screenshot showing the ominous "benchmark was not run at the default setting" sign - even the original run prior to the result submission into the ORB would have. You would have to go through the submission and look for usage of compressed ord 32 Bit Textures. For example, that this (which you should be familiar with): http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=2100888&compareResultType=6 Everything's in order according to Futuremark (and to my own assumptions, too), albeit a screenshot-only submission would show otherwise. Thus, you are penalizing only people unable to use a registered version of 3DMark 2001 SE, because they're the ones whose scores would get blocked. The very same score submitted via ORB-Links would be legal. From the current rules of 3DMark 2001 SE submission: "have a valid screenshot (see example below): clearly show 3Dmark score, 3Dmark subtest scores, 3Dmark settings, processor in CPU-Z, videocard in GPU-Z, unless you provide a futuremark orb link" Conclusion: Please either ban according card-models (3dfx < Voodoo4 4500, Nvidia < Geforce, all Kyros, MAtrox < Parhelia, Ati < Rage128) completely from 3DMark 2001SE submissions or allow them to run at their individual defaults - IMHO even 3dfx-cards should be allowed to compete against each other in their own defaults, but that's positively debatable. With this, I'll rest my case.

But that doesn't prevent Windows 7 or Vista from installing a DX11 runtime.

I am sure, if you talk this over internally and give it a good night's sleep or two, you'll come up with a pratical and fair solution - maybe a ranking, but not hwboints? :-) I'll keep benching my old cards anyway - if i cannot post them here, I'll look for alternatives. (not supposed to be a thread or something like that)

I'm sorry. I was just curious if there's any chance, it'll be worth investing some time to submit "oldtimer-scores" or not. Didn't mean to harm anyone specific and just wanted to avoid getting all my scores blocked.

You can - open up a poll and let the users decide.

Will love it too!

Since they give a valid Vantage-Score in the ORB, i see no reason that they shouldn't be allowed. Plus, they have a quite fixed performance, so yes, you can tell if it's an Ageia Physx-card or a Geforce with PhysX-drivers.

Wrong category. It's in Voodoo4 4500 and belongs into Voodoo5 5500 - so says the ORB-Link given. http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=601502 http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?compareResultId=8199387&compareResultType=6

I got my result blocked (mod said, it wasn't possible), hence this thread.

So you're really going to kick every single Matrox pre-Parhelia, TNT-class, Rage-class, Kyros, 3dfx pre-VSA100 and not to mention a plethora of IGPs out there? Wouldn't it be more sane and less work to revise the rules a tiny bit and allow 32-Bit-Textures in 3DMark2001?

Ok, thanks a lot guys. P.S.: But you should really think it over - i mean, whose scores from modern-day hardware will be affected if we can have some competitive fun with the old stuff?

I understand now. What a shame for all the G400, TNT, TNT2 scores out there. What about Aquamark? Will you also block everything below Geforce 3/Radeon 256 b/c they do not support 4x Aniso?

Sorry, I still don't understand. Is your rule > Turricans rule? Because every single screenshot shows "the benchmark wasn't run on default" (see below for explanation).

And what about 16-MB-cards? There are a few of results in both the 16 MB TNT and TNT2 M64 category. • http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_994 • http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_1411 • http://www.hwbot.org/quickSearch.do?hardwareId=GPU_996 (some in here also) I'm not against "legalizing" this as an exception (also, TNT2-cards cannot run AM3 with default 4x Aniso…) but there should be a generally applicable rule to follow.

Yep, and noticed nothing unusual. No error, nothing. Thanks for fixing!