good 3DMark06 score?

SooTyLaD · 27 Apr 2007 at 08:28

here is my system:

• Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 "LGA775 Conroe" 2.40GHz (1066FSB)
• Noctua NH-U12F (Socket LGA775/754/939/940/AM2) HS/F
• Gigabyte GA_965P_DS3P (Socket 775) PCI-Express DDR2 Motherboard
• CellShock 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2 PC2-6400C4 800MHz Dual Channel Kit
• BFG GeForce 8800 GTS OC2 320MB GDDR3 HDTV/Dual DVI (PCI-Express)
• Western Digital Raptor 150GB WD1500ADFD 10,000RPM SATA 16MB Cache
• Western Digital Caviar SE16 500GB 5000AAKS SATA-II 16MB Cache

its newly built and i ran 3dmark06 with it all as it comes and got 9313... hows that sound for that spec?

gonna be overclocking it today but nice to know all is well before i begin

Tk7 · 27 Apr 2007 at 08:58

Looks pretty good for stock. I have a E6300 and a non overclocked 8800gts. At stock my 3dmark06 was about 8700.

With the cpu at 3ghz and the 8800 clocked to 550mhz core and 1700mhz memory, I get about 9300.

SooTyLaD · 27 Apr 2007 at 09:37

excellent thanks

oh i meant to ask, back in the day there used to be all sorts of catalyst drivers and whatnot which could really drastically affect the score, these days to people just use the latest of the nvidia site?

Tk7 · 27 Apr 2007 at 09:46

The nvidia drivers are all i'm using, the latest Vista 158.18 ones. Not tried any others, but then i've always gone with the manufacturers ones (was on an old x800 Radeon before)

Obviously there is a lot in these forums about nvidia drivers, but i've not had any problems with them yet.

nbkpsycho · 27 Apr 2007 at 11:07

Get that system clocked and you will get 10k easy mate

LoadsaMoney · 27 Apr 2007 at 12:29

Sounds about right that, i get 9004 with mine, but ive got the slightly slower OC1.

zytok · 27 Apr 2007 at 12:39

LoadsaMoney said:
Sounds about right that, i get 9004 with mine, but ive got the slightly slower OC1.

How come you're not oc'd Loadsa? You should be able to get tons more out your rig than that...... :confused:

james.miller · 27 Apr 2007 at 12:45

when you've got an 8800 and a c2d, overclocking doesn't seem to make much of a difference in gaming lol. i don't bother clocking my gtx at all, it just doesnt do anything.

zytok · 27 Apr 2007 at 12:57

after reading an article on benchmarks of popular games running on a GTX/GTS on different C2D's I'm now tempted to agree.

FEAR, BF2142, Oblivion, Quake4, and Far Cry were all virtually identical fps between a 4300 @ stock and a 6800 @ stock. Only HL2 and Company of Heroes showed much of a difference but even then it was only 10-15%.
Always assumed that overclocking would make a huge difference but it seems that most of today's games are GPU limited rather than CPU.

zytok · 27 Apr 2007 at 13:47

QuiKsiLVeR said:
excellent thanks

oh i meant to ask, back in the day there used to be all sorts of catalyst drivers and whatnot which could really drastically affect the score, these days to people just use the latest of the nvidia site?

I got a huge boost on 3DMark05 going from the 97.92's to the 158's!

LoadsaMoney · 27 Apr 2007 at 16:27

zytok said:
How come you're not oc'd Loadsa? You should be able to get tons more out your rig than that......

Im not into overclocking, and games run brilliantly as is at stock, so theres no need.

IceShock · 27 Apr 2007 at 16:33

good score. sounds 100% exact for your spec.

I know what you mean when you say you dont overclock.

a conroe and a 8800 have as much power for anyone really, but some people are greedy like me and overclock

waylander07 · 27 Apr 2007 at 17:32

Which is really a bit weird as mine only gives 9400.

Something is obviously well wrong somewhere...

C2D 6600 @ stock
PNY 8800GTX @ Stock
Asus P5N32 E
2Gb OCZ 2n1066SR @ 1066

LoadsaMoney · 27 Apr 2007 at 17:34

AA/AF on, have you got everything set to performance in the Nv control panel.

Archibald0 · 27 Apr 2007 at 18:03

i got 10501 on the 158 drivers, specs in sig

i thought that was quite low for a gtx and e6600 at stock?

waylander07 · 30 Apr 2007 at 13:36

I'm only getting 10400 with SLI!!!

think I may have a theory though, the HDD that my OS lives on, junked itself last night, so I'm now wondering if that's been hauling everything else down with it.

Ordered a new drive, so I'll see what I get when I reinstall Vista...

Sir Random · 30 Apr 2007 at 14:23

Archibald0 said:
i got 10501 on the 158 drivers, specs in sig

i thought that was quite low for a gtx and e6600 at stock?

That's about right for an E6600 and GTX at stock (575/900)

I just googled your Superclocked eVGA, and it's clocked at 621/2000 so you should be scoring a lot more than 10.5k

I get 10.7k at stock, and 12.2k overclocked (CPU@ 3.15, GTX @ 635/2000)

Archibald0 · 30 Apr 2007 at 16:00

Sir Random said:
That's about right for an E6600 and GTX at stock (575/900)

I just googled your Superclocked eVGA, and it's clocked at 621/2000 so you should be scoring a lot more than 10.5k

I get 10.7k at stock, and 12.2k overclocked (CPU@ 3.15, GTX @ 635/2000)

hmm thats what i thought, il try overclocking my cpu at some point
ive never done it before and i keep putting it off

zytok · 1 May 2007 at 12:23

Archibald0 said:
i got 10501 on the 158 drivers, specs in sig

i thought that was quite low for a gtx and e6600 at stock?

can get about that on a 4300 and a GTS though as pointed out previously, don't believe the extra performance from overclocking benefits much other than benchmarks.

Tooks · 1 May 2007 at 13:34

My spec as below, but with the GTS clocked to 620/1800 scores 10554 in 3dmark06, so I would expect a GTX to be scoring a lot more.

Mind you, your cpu is stock, and it's only a benchmark - games are where it's at!!