• 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.

very poor performance inno3d 8800gt

maddness

maddness

maddness

Soldato
Joined
13 Dec 2003
Posts
6,560
Location
UK
Hi there, i recived my inno3d 8800gt today but having some problems with it, i installed it and naturally used the latest drivers 169.04 and gave 3dmark a whirl and it maxed out at 5-8fps (3dmark 06) see results below, i tried the drivers on cd after seeing this fella with some similar problems and it runs much better :confused:, scores still seem on the low side to me. I did a complete format and installed vista 32 all updates and drivers and still exact same problems, 169.04 gives ~ 1000 3dmarks and 167.26 gives ~7500, i was expecting in the region of 10000 tbh.

I tired 3dmark 2001 and 169s give 10k marks and 167s give 39k

system is of the following spec

E6300 @ 3.0GHz (6 x 500) (7 x 500 most of the time)
Asus Maximus Formula (602 bios)
crucial ballistix @ 500MHz
Antec Quattro 850w psu

im a bit puzzled, and will try the card in another system tomorrow / later
its not only 3dmark thats causing the problems its other stuff like 3d screensavers, 25-30fps with 169.04 and 120-130fps with 167.26

any ideas?

i was going to try windows xp later to see how that fairs

(temps are around 62 degrees idle)

(control panel settings i double checked and set them performance settings)

169.04's
2002797998200608866_rs.jpg


167.26's
2002711920031159197_rs.jpg
 
Mine hits 8200 but my cpu is clocked 1ghz lower than yours and is a E2140, yet in games like the Crysis demo i see very noticable improovmant ie much smoother and 10fps more.
 
you not tried 169.01 or 169.02? i was originally using 163.69 and found the difference very slight going from a gts to the gt, until i used those drivers. that said, crysis in dx9 runs like a bag of spanners yet in dx10 it eats it all up nicely. for the record im getting 11300 in 06 via vista32
 
6 x 500?!? For *oi langauge!* and giggles try 7x 400 and put your v core up a bit.
 
Mr_T said:
6 x 500?!? For *oi langauge!* and giggles try 7x 400 and put your v core up a bit.
Click to expand...

3GHz is better than 2.8GHz last time i checked
besides it does 3500MHz (500x 7)

anyways it looks like its Asus board / drivers / bios related

i tried it in a cheap 965 board at stock cpu with the 169.04's

heres the result, im pleased in a way

2006328486252809201_rs.jpg
 
I have an Inno3D too mate , i ran driver cleaner (ati & nvidia) in safe mode then installed 169.04's

Hope you havent got a duff card mate.
 
Different CPU that time? Also clocked at 1.1ghz, you still have that option turned on to save power i'm guessing.
 
Big.Wayne said:
I think its your PSU!

nVidia 8800GT + Antec Quattro PSU = Lack Of Power!
Click to expand...

hmm, in the other system i did try another psu (shuttle 400w) psu and it was running smooth as silk and e4300 @ stock 200 x 9 (1800MHz) scored 7500Marks, could be a combination of things, pci-e 2.0 and the antec causing the problems, but it still doesnt explain why the inno drivers are working much better than the rest of the drivers. Guess i can try the other psu in this system or run it via the molex.

Also I am not getting no driver error or sentinal message

i tried all the bios revisions in the meantime

401
505
602

and still same issues

i'll try the shuttle psu in here and try again, thanks for your help guys.
 
Last edited:
also on another note, i installed rivartuner and can not get the new overclocked values to stick, it always reverts to defaults when i click apply :confused:

gpu-z has never shown the clocked values
 
Possible for a faulty 8800GT or a PSU. More likley the card as GPU-Z wont read clock values and PSU maybe because it won't stick to new values..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom