|
|||||||
| Notices |
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
Jun 11, 2005, 09:08 AM
|
#1 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 63
 |
On par score? 3dmark05
I got 5911 with the rig in my sig, all is stock with no overclocking, 3dmark05 on default settings. Is this an on par score with what I should expect?
I also run the stress test on CS:Source with fps_max 101 I get 88.07fps average with: (I set command fps_max 101 in console because my monitor is 100hz and 100fps is max) 1280x960 High settings 6x AF 16x AA These are with cat 5.6 Any feedback appreciated, thx  |
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 12:54 AM
|
#2 |
|
........
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,009
|
sounds about right, the PE's usually break 6k at stock. in this review, it scores 5700
http://www.hardwarexl.com/index.php?...1&limitstart=2 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 01:01 AM
|
#3 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,501
|
Ya seems right... My X800XT is at 5500 so that 400 xtra seems correct
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 04:13 AM
|
#4 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 63
|
I was told my amd64 3200+ bottlenecks my x850xt. If this is the case how come I get a better score than that review and they use a Intel 540 @ 3.21Ghz.
 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 04:16 AM
|
#5 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,501
|
because 3dmark is a GPU test, not CPU. I can run it on a 1.5 ghz and my score would be 5300 instead of 5500... the diff ain't that much (at stock of course...)
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 04:32 AM
|
#6 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Infinity
Posts: 3,682
|
Thats a good score, my scores in sig
6800GT |
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 05:08 AM
|
#7 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 63
|
I was also referring to the benchmarks they did with cs:source, hl2 etc
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 06:00 AM
|
#8 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,501
|
 dude your AMD owns Intel evevn at those speeds. Amd is the better gaming CPU and only a EE edition intel can beat you, and that's tough.your amd might bottleneck at low resos but at higher ones, turst me you got nothing to worry about! |
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 08:01 AM
|
#9 |
|
DriverHeaven Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 63
|
cool, sry for all the questions but im not very up on hardware
 im more of a software man  . You said my amd64 3200+ which runs at 2ghz is faster than the 3.2ghz of intel in games? I dont seem to understand why that would be since I thought higher was better? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005, 05:24 PM
|
#10 |
|
F.U.B.A.R.
|
AMD chips can process alot more work per clock cycle than Intel chips can. So because of that, they are better for gaming. But if you're going to burning a DVD or playing two instances of the same game (like one of the guys here at my work) then you'll want to have Intel because of the Hyper Threading technology gives you better use of your CPU under those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2005, 02:43 PM
|
#11 |
|
Uber Coffee Drinker
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Gatineau, Quebec
Posts: 2,254
|
I've got the same card in AGP and got very similar results. CS:S is very CPU intensive and chances are that you really are bottlenecking. I've got a P4 Prescott running at 3.6Ghz and I'm bottlenecking pretty severely in that and most other games run very smoothly.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11, 2005, 02:40 AM
|
#12 |
|
DriverHeaven Extreme Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,501
|
Well I switched to X850XT PE and well, in 05 I get 5600 on a stock 3ghz intel Northwood and 116 in CS source at max settings... Not too bad and not to different from you
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2005, 07:36 AM
|
#13 |
|
DriverHeaven Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6
|
I have a AMD 64 3500+ and a x850xt. At both stock i get somewhere around 6000 points. Now im running my AMD at 2,6 Ghz and my x850xt at 590/1180 wich gives me a score of 6744. Clocking makes a big diff.
|
|
|
|
