Conroe above 3.6Ghz is USELESS for games on current tech

[Durzel]

Controversial topic time.

Disclaimer: This doesn't necessarily apply to 8800GTX...

Compare these 3DMark06 results:

Conroe @ 3.6Ghz, X1900 Crossfire @ 680/800, Catalyst 6.8

[size=5][b]3DMark Score	11335 3DMarks[/b][/size]
SM 2.0 Score	4713 Marks
SM 3.0 Score	5145 Marks
CPU Score	3117 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon	36.314 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest	42.243 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley	0.982 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley	1.583 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)	49.688 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0)	53.222 FPS

Conroe @ 4.3Ghz, X1900 Crossfire @ 680/864, Catalyst 6.9

[SIZE=5][b]3DMark Score	11672 3DMarks[/b][/SIZE]
SM 2.0 Score	4684 Marks
SM 3.0 Score	5066 Marks
CPU Score	3766 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon	36.29 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest	41.769 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley	1.193 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley	1.902 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)	49.025 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0)	52.297 FPS

Gained about 650 points on the CPU tests going from 3.6Ghz to 4.3Ghz, but lost FPS and points on the other tests - presumably because the 3.6Ghz run was done on a totally fresh install of XP with nothing else installed except updates, whereas the 4.3Ghz run is on my everyday XP install with various things installed.

Sobering reading though, just goes to show you don't really need exotic cooling to get the best out of the current cards on the market.

 

[Nelly]

No better with the latest Catalyst Drivers?

 

[FreeStream]

Well here, on a single X1900XTX my score went like this: (2005)

2.4ghz, 650/775 = 11.5k
2.8ghz, 650/775 = 12.5k
3.425ghz, 650/775 = 13.8k
3.425ghz, 709/845 = 14.4k

Good to me...

 

[Durzel]

You got 14.4k in 3DMark06 with a single X1900XTX? What's your secret?

 

[Durzel]

No better with the latest Catalyst Drivers?

Haven't tried the beta Catalyst 6.10 yet.

 

[Kesnel]

Try running the cards at 680/800 in both tests. The x1900 memory gets really werid with scores on 3dmark when you're pushing it.

It just doesn't add up that the shader scores have gone down, I think this is the only explaination.

 

[w3bbo]

Are you sure it isn't because the memory strap changes above 400fsb?

 

[Scoobie Dave]

Interesting, so splashing out on phase change is not worth all the hassle then after all.

 

[Durzel]

Try running the cards at 680/800 in both tests. The x1900 memory gets really werid with scores on 3dmark when you're pushing it.

It just doesn't add up that the shader scores have gone down, I think this is the only explaination.

675/792 was the closest I could get without going over 680/800 (strange frequency multipliers I guess)

Conroe @ 4.3Ghz, X1900 Crossfire @ 675/792, Catalyst 6.9

[size=5][b]3DMark Score	11301 3DMarks[/b][/size]
SM 2.0 Score	4494 Marks
SM 3.0 Score	4873 Marks
CPU Score	3776 Marks

Detailed Test Results

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon	34.641 FPS
2 - Firefly Forest	40.254 FPS

CPU Tests
CPU1 - Red Valley	1.197 FPS
CPU2 - Red Valley	1.906 FPS

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0)	47.149 FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0)	50.312 FPS

Pretty consistent results really.

I'm killing all non-essential processes, systray programs, etc. I'm also setting 3DMark06.exe to "High" priority.

With the exception of the install of XP which is now a "proper" install rather than with nothing installed at all, and the fact I'm now using a 3007WFP monitor instead of a CRT (could this lag the score at all?) nothing has really changed.

 

[marscay]

not really any surprises there to be honest, once the cards have a refresh it'll be a different story though.

conroe power will be put to use

 

[Durzel]

Still doesn't really explain why my actual graphics tests are now lower than what they were with the same cards, same memory (at same timings), same everything really.... unless my Windows install is bodged somehow (it hasn't been installed for very long though)

 

[marscay]

how many times did you run the tests??

it's not that far out that something is wrong, or maybe your gpu mem was throttling slightly @ 864 *shrug*

 

[Kesnel]

Hmm, quite strange. Try rerunning the tests at 3.6Ghz maybe, might be the install.

 

[NathanE]

It wasn't an accurate test and no conclusions can be drawn from it. The driver versions are different as is the GPU's overclock. Remove those two extra variables and then you'll be left with just the one, Conroe clock speed.

 

[Richdog]

Goodness grief man... you make a sensationalist thread called "Conroe above 3.6Ghz is USELESS for games on current tech" and then provide... 3DMARK results? Appalling... worse than useless in fact.

Sorry... but either thange the thread title to "Conroe above 3.6Ghz is USELESS for 3DMARK on current tech", provide actual game benchies from the latest games, or hang your head in shame.

 

[ramdor]

Yeah, because processors have nothing else to do in games other than feed gfx to a gfx card... AI, physics, collision detection, net code... to name but a few.

Richie.

 

[The Asgard]

I would totally agree and I think 3.6 is too high. I would imagine anything over 3G's is pointless.

 

[FreeStream]

I would totally agree and I think 3.6 is too high. I would imagine anything over 3G's is pointless.

Well, I don't agree, the mem bandwidth at 440x8 is awsome and kicks ass.

Faster the better, always...

 

[Richdog]

I would totally agree and I think 3.6 is too high. I would imagine anything over 3G's is pointless.

How can any CPU speed be "too high"?

 

[Things change I've changed]

I find this intresting but redo the tests with the same drivers and use something else intead of 3Dmark, like the fear fps test etc, I want to see what the difference would be in real world terms.