HiI've just upgraded my system to the spec listed in my signature but feel slightly dissapointed with the scores obtained in 3DMark2001.With the standard configuration, i got a score of 10886. When deciding on which mobo to go for, the Neo2 was chosen based on test results up in the 13000's running on equivalent setups.The 9600pro is currently running the latest ohmega drives.Now, do you think i'm being over critical with my score or should i have good reason to be concerned.Your opinions would be most welcome.Gary

3dMark scores have more to do with your overall system setup than just a few components like video or motherboard.For one, you should make sure you're running the latest BIOS revision for the MSI motherboard. The next thing you should do is make sure before testing that all your sliders for the ATI (Both open gl and direct 3d) are set way left, or maximum performance. Set the Apeture to 128mb if you haven't done so already within the BIOS, and make sure 8X AGP is on.Believe it or not, running programs like Cacheman and Tuneup Utilities (to name a few) actually can INCREASE scores even though most think they only optimize your OS. The faster your system runs (smaller pagefile and cache) the higher your scores. To give you an example, here are my scores from both 2003 and 2001 3dMark Tests.I must say before continuing, that my Radeon 9800pro scores were always low, no matter how optimized my system was. I don't know why, however since that is my second computer, I don't ponder on it much.2003 Patch 303 scoreshttp://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1290937 2001SE Scoreshttp://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6864026

I wouldnt always worry about 3D Mark scores, just see how its runs FS and other games.

I beg to differ. Those tests aren't important, granted...but they do gauge the speed of a system quite well.For instance, my 9800Pro on my 3.06P4 is about 1500 points slower in 2003 than my 3.44P4, Ultra system. It directly reflects the same in FS. My 9800pro fps running FS9 is slower than my 5900Ultra, which is similiar to what 3dMark was telling me when I benchmarked both computers.Also, those tests are a good reflection of stability in my opinion. If they crash, then usually your system will crash under the same load while playing any game. I knew once I got through the tests, my system was stable....for the most part.HehMikeP4 2.4C @3.44 285FSBAsus P4C800 Deluxe1gb Corsair XMS PC3500 Asus V9950 FX5900 Ultra 256mb 500/950SB Audigy2 Platinum ExWatercooled baby!!!Pics: http://community.webshots.com/user/chksix2002

Sisoft's Sandra benchmarking is excellent as well, not only can you test for a whole bunch of things, but you also have a burnin wizard. This is great for overclocking your system then stress testing it, seeing what the temperatures etc were like during the time it was running since it keeps historical records.

I agree with Stratus. Sandra is another wonderful benchmarking utlity.MikeP4 2.4C @3.44 285FSBAsus P4C800 Deluxe1gb Corsair XMS PC3500 Asus V9950 FX5900 Ultra 256mb 500/950SB Audigy2 Platinum ExWatercooled baby!!!Pics: http://community.webshots.com/user/chksix2002