• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

3Ghz C2D 2160 Bottlenecking a 512GTS ?

cjph

cjph

cjph

Associate
Joined
22 Aug 2007
Posts
376
Hi
I have the spec as below - I replaced a 320mb GTS G80 (overclocked to 600/900Mhz) with a 512mb GTS G92, all other specs remained the same. The 3Dmark06 score for the o/c G80 was 10400 ish, and the new card is 11280 ish at stock. However, upping the GPU / memory to 750/1100MHz hardly increased the score (11380 ish) - is the cpu (ie the limited cache) holding back the card ? I have not increased the shaders as yet (only used ntune, Rivatuner next) but would have expected a bigger increase with those clocks.

Am not complaining as all games are showing a marked improvement esp Crysis demo (I know 3Dmark is not a very good measure), just have seen people with much higher scores for similar clocks and wonder if there is something holding it back.

cjph

Specs
Gigabyte 965P-DS3 / C2D 2160 o/c to 2.97GHz / 2Gb PC6400 / 8800GTS 512 / Win XP SP2
 
I had similar results when I went from a 640mb to a 512mb GTS. Hardly any improvement in 3dMark06 and Crysis benchmarking tool, even after some useful overclocking. Getting better frame rates in COD4 though.

Came to the same conclusion as you that my CPU must be a bit of a bottleneck now. Suprising though as it's running at 3.2ghz. :confused:
 
wolvers69 said:
I had similar results when I went from a 640mb to a 512mb GTS. Hardly any improvement in 3dMark06 and Crysis benchmarking tool, even after some useful overclocking. Getting better frame rates in COD4 though.

Came to the same conclusion as you that my CPU must be a bit of a bottleneck now. Suprising though as it's running at 3.2ghz. :confused:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply - I can only think the 800MHz FSB and limited cache hold back the 2xx0 C2Ds more than I have read in the past - time to start reading up on Q6x00 processors . . .

cjph
 
3dmark 2006 score is highly dependent on the CPU so that score is fine considering you get performance penalty for 1mb L2 as well.

You got a healthy gain in crysis, that's what counts.
 
ignore the 3D Mark scores. If you're getting a decent fps improvement in most of your games then that's the main thing. I was disappointed when I went from a 320MB GTS to a GT 3D Mark wise but games are much smoother. You get loads of bonus points for having quad core etc but little if any performance increase in game.
 
Thanks for the replies - will continue the clocking and enjoy the smoother games and graphical options.

cjph
 
That score sounds about right for your spec.

If you want a marked improvement in 3D06 then a quad-core will reach 16k+
 
zytok said:
You get loads of bonus points for having quad core etc but little if any performance increase in game.
Click to expand...

Yep - there is a large cpu score component in 3dmark that affects the score .

However you don't get much performance increase in-game.
 
Last edited:
your spec seems the same as mine, except you have a GTS512 and i have a GT, and we get about the same scores... but if you're getting better frame rates, then just ignore 3dm06...

'sides, i thought 3ghz on a C2D killed any CPU bottlenecks...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom