Well that doesn't make sense...

[Hlebio]

I downloaded 3DMark05 and ran it and got an end score of 8893. What do you guys think of this score? Is it decent? About right for my rig? (See sig)

Anyway, a day or two later I decided to do it again but with all my graphics settings on low. This time however I got a much lower score.. can't remember what it was exactly but it was something like 8650.

Now obviously I know benchmark scores will vary a little but THAT much, AND I'd lowered all the settings lots..

 

[Hlebio]

Not sure how to give a link to my result..

This work? http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=12&projectId=1983771

My CCC settings:

Anti-Aliasing - Let the application decide
Anisotropic Filtering - Let the application decide
CATALYST A.I - Advanced
Mipmap Detail Level - High Quality
Wait for vertical refresh - Always off
Adaptive Anti-Aliasing - Not Enabled

Those were the settings when I got the 8893 score. When I got the much lower score I had either disabled or put the settings down to their lowest.

 

[Hlebio]

Okay got a link that I think works.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1998120

How is this score? Spec is in my sig (no overclocking whatsoever) and I used the settings I stated two posts above except I turned mipmap detail to lowest..

 

[Hlebio]

That's a much better score, mate. You're scoring pretty much exactly the same as me (compare URLs in sig) when I have my CPU and GPU overclocked.

Time to get clocking away and hit 10k, though 11k should be within reach seeing as you're getting 9k at stock.

Cheers mate.

I reckon you're right, but I gotta ease myself in to this overclocking business....

Will I need new fans and cooling equipment to overclock as much to be seeing any differences in speed?

 

[Hlebio]

Cheers for the advice, sounds good.

Don't suppose you have MSN mate?