What the ****, Higher clock means lesser score :-/

4T5 · 21 Mar 2009 at 16:00

So I recently purchased an E6600(conroe) & swapped out my Intel Xeon X3210 (kentsfield) Quad core below are the results of some mild clocking

E6600 @ 2997.03mhz Exact same other hardware gets around 500 points less in 3D 06 than the Quad @ 2.4Ghz :confused:

+

What the **** is that all about then ?

I have no heat issues at all as I have a Freezer strapped to it that I have modded with 2 fans, 1 front & 1 back with an 80mm case fan behind them exhausting, Although a bodge it is Uber effiecent, Stressed the 6600 barely goes over 50c :cool:

The Quad on the other hand used to reach 65c still sweet but as you can see temps really shouldn't be an issue.
I can't fault the CPU as it runs cool uses less power & runs around 12-14c lower than the Quad & will Easily go over 3Ghz but what the hell is going on with the 06 score. I know I shouldn't take a lot of notice of the score but it's just a niggle that maybe I have something not quite right.
Any help is Greatly appreciated

reflux · 21 Mar 2009 at 16:07

You swapped a Q6600 for an E6600? :confused:

The reason you're getting a lower score with the E6600 is that 3DMark 06 loves quads. Dual cores have to be clocked around 500mhz faster than a quad to get a similar score, iirc. But I'm not sure why you went back to an E6600, as both CPUs should overclock to similar levels; bear in mind the Q6600 is simply two E6600s taped together

4T5 · 21 Mar 2009 at 16:30

Intel Xeon X3210 is Not a Q6600, It only took a mild clock & ran at up to 65c, I sat it at 2.4Ghz for temps below 60c after a 3 hour gaming session.
The Dual seems more suited to my gaming & runs at 3.0Ghz at a tad over 50c.
The dual cost me 55 quid & I have the Quad sitting on my desk with an estimated value of 90 quid.
Even as it stands I have a 3Ghz CPU peaking at 50c rather than 2.4Ghz @ over 60c & I will have cash back.
Horses for courses & all that & I have the fun of clocking :cool:

reflux · 21 Mar 2009 at 16:34

Ah my mistake, it's the 2.13ghz model, not the 2.4ghz model. Fair enough.

-)G(-Sawyer · 21 Mar 2009 at 19:26

I had my E6600 @ 3.5 for over a year with good temps and no problems, why not try going higher. As for 06, why not just check out the game benchmark scores instead of the total score as the two CPU test will always be a lot higher on a quad.

4T5 · 21 Mar 2009 at 19:57

I plan on going higher & reckon 3.5 should be no prob, I am just waiting for my AS5 to burn in & I'll push it a bit more.

randal · 21 Mar 2009 at 20:01

Give it some more voltage. I had similar problems with my E6600 when I was ramping it up, despite being stable at higher speeds benchies were lower. Bumped the voltage a bit and the performance fell back in line with the higher clock speeds.

pastymuncher · 21 Mar 2009 at 20:02

It was still a quad you had before and 06 will use the extra cores. My E8500 at 4.5Ghz still can't beat the Q6600 i had at 3.6Ghz. 3DMark does'nt mean much anyway.

matja · 21 Mar 2009 at 20:08

Just a curiosity - whats the difference between a Q6600 and a X3210 @ 2.4, apart from the fact that the Xeon can probably do it on lower a lower vcore? I thought they were both Kentsfield cores.