Poor 3870x2 benchmark

Bradmax57 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:00

after finally getting it installed heres what i got, first one is 3870x2 with q6600 at stock

3DMark Score 11717 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 4991 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 4962 Marks
CPU Score 3524 Marks

second is 3870xt x 2 CF with q6600 @ 3.6ghz

3DMark Score 18348 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 7487 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 8478 Marks
CPU Score 5038 Marks

obviously i understand the cpu score being much higher in the second one but th sm2 and sm3 scores?

nyzrox · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:02

im guessing the q6600 at stock just bottlenecked the x2

RavenXXX2 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:04

^^^ Spot on.

J.D · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:07

You are CPU bound. The more you push the CPU speed up the more of the power of the card will be released.

It's because of the resolution of 1280x1024. The CPU is more in control at this resolution and the 2.4Ghz is limiting what the card can release.

The faster that CPU is pushed the more SM2 and SM3 scores will raise.

Bradmax57 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:23

yeah thanks, at 3.4 just got under 18k bit better

gareth170 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:26

if u higher the res it won't be cpu bottlenecking.. i have the same problem at low res in some games....

J.D · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:28

Bradmax57 said:
yeah thanks, at 3.4 just got under 18k bit better

RESULT!!

.

J.D · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:28

gareth170 said:
if u higher the res it won't be cpu bottlenecking.. i have the same problem at low res in some games....

That's the poor default resolution of 3dmark that does this though.

gareth170 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:33

J.D said:
That's the poor default resolution of 3dmark that does this though.

but if he as 3dmark pro he could higher the res....

J.D · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:36

gareth170 said:
but if he as 3dmark pro he could higher the res....

Sorry I should have answered that better.

I mean the default resolution to compare scores is 1280x1024 and when trying to see if you are scoring right then you refer to the 3dmark06 scores thread and all benchmarks are done at the default low resolution.

I've stated in another thread that as the average screen size is 1680x1050 here at OCUK (from a poll) that we should raise the bar on the 1280x1024 as we are moving forward all the time in technology but still this low resolution is getting used and I think it's pointless.

Bradmax57 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:40

http://service.futuremark.com/results/showSingleResult.action?resultId=5123013&resultType=14

getting better

Adam_D200 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:45

Cool, at stock speeds on the default 3dmark 06 test I pulled 13100 on a stock Q6600 on my p5e and asus 3970x2.

Glad to see that once I get to grips with clocking the system the score will leap up.

Do you mind telling me what sort of settings you had to change to get the cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz?

Bradmax57 · 8 Feb 2008 at 13:51

Adam_D200 said:
Cool, at stock speeds on the default 3dmark 06 test I pulled 13100 on a stock Q6600 on my p5e and asus 3970x2.

Glad to see that once I get to grips with clocking the system the score will leap up.

Do you mind telling me what sort of settings you had to change to get the cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz?

just increased the fsb and also vcore to 1.4

Adam_D200 · 8 Feb 2008 at 14:39

Just installed the asus ai gear and clicked the mild auto overclock setting (2.52 on cpu)

Now boosted 3dmark to 13700

Can't wait to get it to 3ghz, cpu speed seems to make a big difference!

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=5123809

Scougar · 8 Feb 2008 at 14:47

Depending on your motherboard, but normally on Core2Duo's/Quad's you are increasing the FSB in the bios. With the extra frequency, you need a tad more voltage (normally about 0.1v extra), and sometimes a little on the northbridge (don't ask me for a figure as I don't know on voltage for NB).

This should EASILY see you to 3Ghz

Just make sure you have sufficient case cooling and cpu cooling, and stability test your system (give it a good long 8 hour thrashing with some utilities).

Matthew

perox · 8 Feb 2008 at 14:59

For 3.2 on my Q6600 I literally just upped the FSB, didn't need to touch any voltages.

Bradmax57 · 8 Feb 2008 at 15:19

perox said:
For 3.2 on my Q6600 I literally just upped the FSB, didn't need to touch any voltages.

yeah i think mine maxes at about 3.2 with no volt adj

HangTime · 8 Feb 2008 at 19:40

J.D said:
I've stated in another thread that as the average screen size is 1680x1050 here at OCUK (from a poll) that we should raise the bar on the 1280x1024 as we are moving forward all the time in technology but still this low resolution is getting used and I think it's pointless.

I agree in terms of doing casual comparisons on forums etc, but from Madonion's perspective, they couldn't really set 3dm06 to have a higher default res because then it would be out of reach for many people at the time, e.g. those with TFT monitors of 19" and smaller.

J.D · 9 Feb 2008 at 07:03

HangTime said:
I agree in terms of doing casual comparisons on forums etc, but from Madonion's perspective, they couldn't really set 3dm06 to have a higher default res because then it would be out of reach for many people at the time, e.g. those with TFT monitors of 19" and smaller.

Very true and good point. I was just wanting pure GPU scores without anything at all holding it back and even through the majority have 1680x1050 capable monitors it would exclude those who don't and I can't say that's fair.

It was just an idea as not everyone wants to OC and yeah in the instances that this occurs then someone helping could run at higher resolution with a comparable system to help take the CPU out of the equation.