Your 3DMark scores - Page 2

Last message on previous page:

Yeah, man. You should be getting like over 10K 05 Marks...

are you sure thats 05 and not 06???

Heh. No. It's 05. Quite high for a 7900GS actualy. Thinking about vmoding it.

About 5700 in 05 and i cant member 06

AGP is not dead by a far green mile imo Slava. AGPx8 isn't even fully saturated yet. Though the 8800GTS/X may put it to rest.

3DM05 precisely slices your CPU and GPU scores. It seperates them well. Most of the X19xx's score 9k - 10k. I think it's about time to trade my overclocked "to hell" 79GS in for a 8800GTS and a 12 - 14k score. What do you think?

________________________
Digitalcaveman

15901 3DMark06 1-21-2007
EVGA 680i Motherboard w/Zalman Copper Cooling
Intel QX6700 C2E Quad Core @3.3Ghz OC stable 12x mult
OCZ Flex HLC DDR 2 PC 9200 2 GB Ram 5-5-5-18
BFG 1KWatt SLi Power Supply
nVidia Dual 768Mb 8800 GTX x 2 in SLi Mode
Western Digital Raptor 150GB x 3 in Raid 0 or Raid 5 array
Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD TFT Display
Bose AM7 Surround w/Onkyo Receiver

12000? Hmm...

I've been snooping around numerous sites looking for 3DMark 2005 results for the
X1950 Pro. Just bought & installed one in my system but the result at 1024x768
with default settings seems way below par, namely 5265. Wondered if anyone knew
why.

Btw, the 1950 card was 156 UKP from dabs.com. Was this a reasonable price?

Well the first thing i saw was the P4 2.66 (bottle neck). Secondly all the settings you mentioned are wierd...and I have no idea why its wierd . You may have to format your entire pc. Your GPU clocks are fine though. Thats what they should be at. The AGP aperture size is fine.

Im just wondering why none of this shows up on ur system info.

oh and 156 is not bad overclockers have the sapphire 512mb version at 152.

not in 3dmark05.

AGP is not dead by a far green mile imo Slava. AGPx8 isn't even fully saturated yet. Though the 8800GTS/X may put it to rest.

3DM05 precisely slices your CPU and GPU scores. It seperates them well. Most of the X19xx's score 9k - 10k. I think it's about time to trade my overclocked "to hell" 79GS in for a 8800GTS and a 12 - 14k score. What do you think?



X19XX's score 9-10K? Maybe on a slow or old CPU, My X1900XT Scores around 12800 Stock, and 14100 Overclocked.

EDIT: Yeah, my X1900, the 8800GTS in my Sig has been returned because it just didnt seem like a big enough leap over my 1900.. Guess i need to update that.

not in 3dmark05.

i used to get 5000 in 3dmark05 with a p4 2.5. changed it to a e6600 and now i get 10000+

yeah and you changed your gpu too.

Ok. Here goes.

3dmark05= 10160
3dmark06= 4509

SYSTEM

AMD 4000+ (O.C. to 3mhz)
MSI K8N Platinum 2 (fsb 250mhz)
OCZ Platinum Rev2 pc3200 (2.5,3,3,6) 1T
Raptor 150
GPU visiontek 1950 Pro AGP OC'd to 670 core, 1377mhz mem

While I'm here. Does anyone know how to overclock a 1950 pro, both the core and the memory. I have seen people post scores on 3dmark that have oc'd both, but I have not identified which program they are using. I have had to use an old version of ATI tool to overclock the core. Thanks!

Awesome!

I will try it when I get home. I have been trying to find something that works since I purchased the card.

You are the first to reply with something that may work. Thanks so much!

Thankyou very much everyone for all your replies! 8) Extremely
helpful. Sorry for the late response...

Instead of replying separately to each comment, I'll do just one post
with individual quoting, keep things a bit neater. Btw, as I type
this, I'm in the process of reinstating the XP disk and have just put
on the X1950 driver suite; afterwards, I'll clone the existing 36GB
10K U320 onto a fresh 146GB 15K U320, download/install SP2 and then
should be ready to redo the tests, though one moderate pain has
occured: one of the four 512MB DIMMs has died (anyone got a 512MB
PC2100 DIMM they don't need? Or 1GB DIMMs?), so I'm currently left
with 1GB RAM - not enough to run 3DMark 2006 do you reckon? Am hoping
it'll be sufficient to run the 2005 suite ok though.


blade85 writes:
> Well the first thing i saw was the P4 2.66 (bottle neck). ...

I'd kinda assumed that, if the OS could use both CPUs, and them being
XEONs, it ought to do reasonably well compared to stock P4s; as I
understand it, don't XEONs run their cache at core speed?. The PCMark
tests I ran with XP and the orig 36GB disk seemed to bare this out,
with various compression/conversion/virus-scan/etc. scores that were
pretty good compared to much newer CPUs. Once I get the XP setup onto
the 146GB 15K, I'll run the tests again.

Btw, is there much scope do you think for upgrading the CPUs to
anything better, even if only in terms of L2 size? Though I guess
normal sources would be hellishly expensive for such a chip with
2MB+ L2.


> ... You may have to format your entire pc. ...

All things considered, looks like I'll have to use XP to get the best
from the hardware anyway; an admin friend at SUN said Win2K was not
exactly the best at exploiting XEON CPUs and as an OS variant was
never really intended as an OS to manage systems doing intensive
crunching. Geared more for networks, serving & suchlike. Also quite
possible 2K doesn't support the hyperthreading, but don't know for
sure atm; will find out shortly.


> ... Your GPU clocks
> are fine though. Thats what they should be at. The AGP aperture size
> is fine.

I gather in theory the BIOS ought to offer a size of 512, but it's not
there. Perhaps a BIOS update would fix this? Will check.


> oh and 156 is not bad overclockers have the sapphire 512mb version at
> 152.

Cool! It was a launch offer at dabs.com; yeah, I wouldn't normally
buy from DABS, but it was too good to miss (local stores - if it was
in stock at all - had the X1950Pro at more like 220, a huge
difference). The exact cost was 156.66 each, 7 shipping (I bought two
of them; the 2nd was the main xmas present for my brother for his
Athlon 2400+ PC which currently [brace yourselves!] has a GF MX440 -
boy is he in for a shock! 8D). Quick check... the price seems to a
have dropped a tad since then, price now is 149.84 with VAT included.

Oh, goes without saying, I would certainly have liked to have bought
an 8800, but a) I didn't want to (and couldn't) spend more than about
150 quid, b) no AGP version, c) my system isn't PCIe. I've read a few
threads about the plus/minus tradeoff of just getting a new system
instead of going for what might be the last generation of AGP card
(am very familiar with such concepts from my dealings with SGI users
over the years). However, the system didn't cost me very much at all,
so a typical complete replacement cost was out of the question. The
system was one of the 138 Dell 650s used to do the recent Captain
Scarlet all-CGI series; after the project ended, all the PCs (and
everything else, right down to the phones, tables, chairs, etc.) were
sold off. One guy bought pretty much everything, sold most of the
dual-XEON units to studios in Soho, auctioned the rest (typical
eBay/company 2nd-hand price is about 700 for a decent Dell 650). Then
he ran out of time, having made so much dosh he was moving house; he
had two system left, both the same spec (dual-XEON P4/2.66, 2GB RAM,
36GB 10K U320, gbit, Quadro4 900XGL, etc.), so I bought them for 250
each (not bad IMO). I sold one of them for 500, which paid for the
gfx card purchases. 8)

Heh, probably also not a surprise to you all, but the main reason why
I went for the X1950 is this jealously guarded box sitting on my desk
which says Oblivion on it. 8D First game to finally make me decide
spending some dosh on a decent PC gfx card was worthwhile (consoles
seem to be a bit lacking for this sort of game; not that I have zip
to play, have a whole stack of PS2 games I'm wading through - anyone
played The Suffering? Creepy as hell...)

The main reason why I bought the Dell at all though was for video
encoding. Wanted something fast but inexpensive; figured 250 for
a decent dual-XEON was a good deal.


Slava writes:
> That's a very detailed post Smile

I was afraid the response would be, it wasn't detailed enough...
Apologies if I rant, I type fast, get carried away.


> 1. Slow RAM. PC 2100? Ummm... now... Come on, friend...

True, it's old, but really that much of a bottleneck? I'm not
convinced. Other tests give good results for tasks that are far more
straight CPU/RAM intensive, which would show up any serious RAM
bottleneck I would have thought. However, if I'm talking cobblers
here then presumably the PCMark results will give me a suitable red
face.

Hmm, any of you run the STREAM test on your systems at all? Just
curious.


> 2. Win2K? Uhmmmm.... Dude! COme On! Install Win XP SP-2 ... like ...
> dude, put your life on hold and install it. I don't care what it
> takes. Just do it.

I would have liked to, but the system didn't come with the CD, but
does have an original legit CoA of course (sticker on the top), so
all I need is the media. Did a quick check, to my surprise there are
quite a few original unused Dell WinXP CDs on eBay, so I've just this
moment bought one, 7 quid total, reasonable I suppose. Thus, will do
a full reinstall when it arrives; in the meantime, I'll continue with
the existing XP setup which looks like it was a clean install, but
one can never tell of course. Hmm, a reinstall would be good anyway
though as the current setup is only SP1; the CD I've bought is SP2.


> 3. Set your AGP Aperture to 128 Mb (really, this is not a typo)

Surely it should be set to match the RAM on the gfx card if possible?

Though I gather one must have sufficient main RAM to account for it.


> As for your HyperThreading, I am not sure what the deal with dual
> Xeons is. Could be that since there are 2 physical CPUs HT has to be
> disabled? (Since if it were enabled you would have a quad CPU
> machine.) ...

Not sure about this one; the dude at SUN reckoned quite possibly
Win2K just doesn't support it, but will know for sure soon enough
when I rerun the tests.


> ... You may want to call Dell about this and find out. ...

Ha! Erm, didn't have such a good experience asking Dell for info last
time I called. Unless one is an original customer, they can be rather
tetchy (or even downright rude); in my case I was asking about
remaining warranty if any on a Dell-badged 146GB U320 disk - the guy
who answered seemed grossly offended at the very idea that such disks
are even available 2nd-hand. He practically told me to *^@# off.


> ... Perhaps
> you need a BIOS update. ...

Yes, I've been wondering about that. Are such updates done 'live'
under XP? Or via floppy? Off to dell.com...


> ... Also, I totally do not remember if Win2K
> supports HT... If it does not then your BIOS setting is irrelevant.

Yup, suspect this may be spot on.


> Open your Task manager and see how many processes are running and
> what kind of processes. I've seen machines with up to 64 processes
> running at the same time, some of which took up insane amounts of

Very good point. Not something I've looked into before. Last time I
was an admin (Salford Uni VR lab, quite in late 2003), it was still
all 2K on the PCs I ran (had some good ones back then though, several
dual-XEON Intergraph Wildcat 6210s, cost 8K each!), so my knowledge
ain't exactly XP-updated - guess I need a BIOS update too.


> memory and CPU time. You must make sure that you run a clean machine,
> so read up on Windows processes, then go to Control

Yup, ok, will do! Found a site with a guide to disabling such stuff
under 2K, so there's bound to be an equivalent site for XP.


> Finally, make sure that visual quality settings in the driver control
> panel are set to default levels (Performance). Then benchmark.

Yes, I did that. The one thing I did get right I guess, hehe.


Btw, general question to all: is it known whether NVIDIA will
release any more AGP cards? eg. an AGP version of the 8800? Or
anything beyond that?


Cheers!

Ian.

Good example sirheck. I don't think the cpu effects the gpu score by much or at all. Notice 3DM gives seperate scores for both.

Quick update...

Slava wrote:
> As for your HyperThreading, I am not sure what the deal with dual Xeons is. Could be
> that since there are 2 physical CPUs HT has to be disabled? (Since if it were enabled
> you would have a quad CPU machine.) ...

Just finished sorting out cloning XP onto the 146GB 15K and installing SP2 (system
now has 2 x 146GB/15K Fujitsu drives; am very much looking forward to what scores
I get for disk-related tests; have always been a SCSI-only user).

Sure enough, the system info now shows four processors in the listing, so I guess it
sees it correctly now. Just tidying things up, more shortly...

Yay, now it looks normal! New screenshot of the 3DMark2005 system info panel:

http://www.futuretech.blinkenlight [...] 50Pro2.gif

Looks like Win2K does not indeed understand HyperThreading. I ran the 3DMark2003
suite first; the CPU numbers went up a lot and several main tests shot up a fair chunk
aswell, though the fill rate numbers stayed much the same as expected:

[code:1:565d196c0d]
3DMark2003 (1024x768, default settings):

Win2K/SP4 WinXP/SP2
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

Overall: 11671 13969

GT-1: 183.1 243.8
GT-2: 102.2 117.9
GT-3: 76.2 87.7
GT-4: 76.7 95.7

CPU: 207.0 587.0
CPU-1: 28.2 60.6
CPU-2: 2.9 11.3

Fill/S: 3876.7 3893.3
Fill/M: 6722.3 6777.6

VERTEX: 39.4 56.5
PIXEL 2.0: 121.3 177.2
RAGTROLL: 50.7 63.0
[/code:1:565d196c0d]

Now for the 2005 results, Win2K vs XP:

[code:1:565d196c0d]
3DMark2005 (1024x768, default settings):

Win2K/SP4 WinXP/SP2
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^

Overall: 5265 6101

GT-1: 20.9 23.1
GT-2: 13.1 17.0
GT-3: 34.1 37.1

CPU: 1134 3357
CPU-1: 0.8 1.8
CPU-2: 0.8 2.8

Fill/S: 4436.7 4440.9
Fill/M: 6905.2 6921.7

PIXEL SH: 329.1 371.5
VERTEX/SIMP: 129.7 130.7
VERTEX/COMP: 52.2 55.4
[/code:1:565d196c0d]

The CPU results have shot up, 3X faster than for Win2K.Some general results
have gone up a decent amount (eg. GT-2) but overall still not as fast as I'd
expected. Maybe as an earlier poster said it's the slow main RAM. Anyway,
meanwhile I'll look into a BIOS update, etc.

Now running 2006 suite...

Ian.

3DMark06 Score: 9552

Dual X1950 XTX 512MB
Dual Opteron 170 running at 2.75GHz

Ok, so a little wierd following up my own post, but just for completeness, and for those
who like me spend ages searching for info and not finding answers, I eventually worked
out what was holding back the Dell 650.

The earlier poster was correct, it was without doubt RAM speed. Though the dual XEONs
aren't too shabby for theoretical crunch power, the DDR266 really slows them up. In the
meantime, I upgraded my brother's PC to an Athlon64 3400+ (oc'd to 2.64GHz) with the
same X1950Pro AGP gfx and it easily outperformed the Dell (it achieved 9764 for
3DMark05, 55% faster than the Dell) and was also faster for video encoding.

So, after much umming and ahhing, I decided to replace the Dell. The new system is
an Asrock AM2NF-VSTA mbd, Athlon64 X2 6000+ (priced dropped 50% the week
before I bought everything, so timing was perfect), 4GB of DDR2/800 RAM,
and the same 4 x 147GB 15K U320 disks that were in the Dell. And most important of
all, I kept the same X1950Pro AGP that I had in the Dell, though I did oc it to 641/783 by
replacing the stock cooler with the very awesome ACCELERO X2. Here are the results,
and remember this is with the _same_ gfx card!...


[code:1:5c0e0412ea]
System A: Dell Precision 650: Dual-XEON P4/2.66GHz, 4 x 512MB PC2100 DDR266 ECC
System B: Athlon64 3400+ (@ 2.64GHz, 220/12), 2 x 1GB PC3200 DDR400 @ 440MHz(K8Upgrade-1689)
System C: Athlon64 6000+ (@ 3.12GHz, 208/15), 4 x 1GB DDR2/800 dual-channel @ 780MHz
[/code:1:5c0e0412ea]

TMPEGEnc test = video conversion results in minutes and seconds for
converting an 800-frame PAL MJPEG AVI into MPEG2. I originally
bought the Dell for this purpose, so the 6000+ results are very satisfying.

"C.B." = CineBench 9.5

[code:1:5c0e0412ea]
Dell 650 Athlon64 Athlon64 X2
2 x P4/2.66 3400+/2.64 6000+/3.12

3DMark2006: 4781 4589 5571
3DMark2005: 6314 9764 11094
3DMark2003: 14250 15990 17810
3DMark2001: 18665 24668 36087
C.B. 1/Render: 259 392 464
C.B. N/Render 518 N/A 853
C.B. Shading: 272 414 511
C.B. SW-L: 1086 1770 2178
C.B. HW-L: 1831 3349 4472
TMPEGEnc: 4:38 2:57 1:43
[/code:1:5c0e0412ea]

But far more impressive are the real-world results for Oblivion...

Test Descriptions:

1. Dense forest location at night, focus on the centre of the ruins.

2. Bottom of the stairs in Merchants' Inn, focus on the inn keeper.

3. At wooden door to City Isle (inside), Market District, N.E. corner,
focus between the two vertical red flags on far building.

4. Talos Plaza, west city entrance, inside the plaza, focus on the
head of the dragon statue.

5. Behind (north east) of the Wawnet Inn, standing on the rock,
facing, a) the Inn, b) east to the city, c) [url=http://www.futuretech.blinkenlights.nl/misc/obliviontest5c.jpg]north to the horizon
above the hill texture 'seam'[/url], and d) the end of the pier.

6. Signpost outside the city, facing S.E.

And here are the results:

MEDIUM DETAIL: 1024x768, 4X AA, no AF, Texture Preference = High
Quality, MipMap Detail = Performance, in-game settings at default
(all results are fps):

[code:1:5c0e0412ea]
| Dell650 Dual- | Athlon64 3400+ | Athlon64 X2 6000+
Test | XEON P4/2.66 | 2.64 (220/12) | 3.15 (210/15),
Num | DDR266, PC2100 | DDR400, PC3200 | DDR2/800 (394)
----------------------------------------------------------
1 | 36 | 48 | 48
2 | 25 | 39 | 63
3 | 18 | 26 | 40
4 | 21 | 34 | 49
5a | 28 | 45 | 71
5b | 50 | 80 | 125
5c | 61 | 91 | 149
5d | 36 | 54 | 89
6 | 26 | 53 | 67
[/code:1:5c0e0412ea]

HIGH DETAIL: 1600x1200, 6X AA, 16X AF, Texture Preference = High
Quality, MipMap Detail = High Quality (and remember this is with
the same gfx card!):

[code:1:5c0e0412ea]
| Dell650 Dual- | Athlon64 3400+ | Athlon64 X2 6000+
Test | XEON P4/2.66 | 2.64 (220/12) | 3.15 (210/15),
Num | DDR266, PC2100 | DDR400, PC3200 | DDR2/800 (394)
----------------------------------------------------------
1 | 6 | 42 | 45
2 | 25 | 38 | 50
3 | 14 | 24 | 37
4 | 19 | 32 | 50
5a | 13 | 42 | 58
5b | 31 | 74 | 81
5c | 23 | 86 | 88
5d | 14 | 46 | 53
6 | 6 | 36 | 48
[/code:1:5c0e0412ea]


Conclusions: the Dell was perfectly playable at low/medium res with
medium quality settings, but with the res/quality cranked up, the
Dell's slower RAM really hurts. I was certainly never expecting to be
able to play Oblivion at 1600x1200 at high detail levels with the gfx
card I'd chosen! The 3400+ system also does rather well and confirms
THG's recent article about what happens if one puts a good gfx card
in an older reasonable-speed single-core system. My brother is looking
forward to playing Stalker, which runs very nicely on it.

Thanks for all your help everyone! So there you have it. RAM speed
is critical, which, btw, is partly why I bough an AM2 mbd (could not
find any AGP LGA775 board with full DDR2/800 support).

Also, my new setup actually beat an overclocked Core2Duo review
system with an overclocked X1950Pro PCIe for 3DMark06. 8) (ie. for
the gfx card I have, a better CPU would not have helped anyway)

Cheers!

Ian.

3DMark05 : 12500
3DMark06 : 8696

Win XP SP2 32
S939 4200+ @ 2.9
AsRock 939Dual-Sata2
BFG 8800 GTS OC2 (580/1800)
1.5GB DDR400