just thought i would post my 3d mark basic score on here and see how everyones is too
my score was 3275
All i did was install and ran the test i didnt change anything
Printable View
just thought i would post my 3d mark basic score on here and see how everyones is too
my score was 3275
All i did was install and ran the test i didnt change anything
On standard settings my score is P5424.
system: i7 2600K, 16MB DDR3 1600MHz, 6950 2GB GPU.
If your score is from your i5 I would say that is low. On my older Q6600 with a 4870 I scored 4548.
It might also be interesting to see what other 3DMark scores also give us these days. Although I wanted to try the really old ones but 03 wouldn't run on Win 7 64bit. I've not tried to get 01 running yet, but would be funny to see what it could produce.
If interested here are some comparison scores I made recently between my Q6600 and i7 2600K
Looking at these results 3D Mark '11 doesn't really have enough score spread for me to really show differences between systems enough. 3D Mark 05 seems to show the difference much more, and when running the tests it seemed to definitely be more CPU based, although mostly only one core.
My score was P5247
I don't really understand the scores though :)
What was your grpahics score Harrison seeing as we have the same GPU.
Graphics Score
4806
@ Morcar can you edit your first post with all scores like this:
1) Harrison P5424
2) Witcher P5247
3) Morcar P3275
Then just knock people of the spots when others give benchmarks?
Just ran it again as I didn't write anything else down the first time. My GPU score was 5089. Although my card is an XFX 6950 2GB DD XXX so is factory overclocked.
I also noticed that unlike previous 3D Mark versions 11 seems to really take advantage of multicore CPUs, which might be why the i7 scores higher thanks to its HT.
Also got a slightly higher overall score of P5442 this time.
And full results for comparison are:
3DMark Score
P5442
Graphics Score
5089
Physics Score
8974
Combined Score
5088
GraphicsTest1
22.91 FPS
GraphicsTest2
25.22 FPS
GraphicsTest3
30.68 FPS
GraphicsTest4
15.42 FPS
PhysicsTest
28.49 FPS
CombinedTest
23.67 FPS
And I don't know if this works, but here is the link for my results: http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2759458
The site states my score is low compared to similar systems! :lol: Saying my Physics score is very low. :unsure: When looking at the targets mine are all slightly over the targets other than this score which they have a target of P9000, whereas I score P8974, which you can't say is exactly that far below can you, so I'm not that bothered.
Ah yeah mine is just bog standard and not overclocked. I think the i7 would score higher anyway as even though they are pretty much neck and neck I do remember the i7 does have better benchmarks, just not that much? Game wise anyway
Either way nice scores m8, just downloading Lost Coast on my steam account and will try that as well.
my stock settings
is P3442
Processor
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif Intel Core i5-2500K Processor Processor clock
3409 MHz Physical / logical processors
cores 4
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Vendor
NVidia Corporation # of cards
1 SLI / CrossFire
Off Memory
768 MB Core clock
675 MHz Memory clock
1800 MHz Driver name
Driver version
8.17.12.8562 Driver status
FM Approved
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600) Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD3-B3 Memory
16384 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
640GB WDC WD6402AAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device
3DMark Score
P3442
Graphics Score
3178
Physics Score
6731
Combined Score
3102
GraphicsTest1
15.16 FPS
GraphicsTest2
15.18 FPS
GraphicsTest3
19.47 FPS
GraphicsTest4
9.42 FPS
PhysicsTest
21.37 FPS
CombinedTest
14.43 FPS
slightly overclocked P4039
Processor
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif Intel Core i5-2500K Processor Processor clock
4111 MHz Physical cores 4
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Vendor
NVidia Corporation # of cards
1 SLI / CrossFire
Off Memory
768 MB Core clock
800 MHz Memory clock
2000 MHz Driver name
Driver version
8.17.12.8562 Driver status
FM Approved
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600) Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD3-B3 Memory
16384 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
640GB WDC WD6402AAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device
3DMark Score
P4039
Graphics Score
3742
Physics Score
7695
Combined Score
3620
GraphicsTest1
17.86 FPS
GraphicsTest2
17.88 FPS
GraphicsTest3
22.93 FPS
GraphicsTest4
11.07 FPS
PhysicsTest
24.43 FPS
CombinedTest
16.84 FPS
GPU must be holding your scores back a bit I reckon, then again my i5 is at 4.6ghz though.
@ Harrison Your Score is Low Compared to Similar Systems. We all get that lol :)
I hadn't noticed your CPU was overclocked to 4.6GHz. That does make the scores interesting considering mine isn't OC'd at all yet. Currently I don't actually need to OC it as it's running everything I've thrown at it so far without any issues. But I might bump it up to 4GHz at the weekend to see what that does to the scores. I definitely have a lot of headroom to OC as it idles on stock at 29 degrees and has never gone over about 55 degrees under 100% load yet.
Cool, looking forward to seeing how we compare in that test as it really is mainly the CPU that differ in out setups. We even have identical ram. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Witcher1979
The CPUs definitely are very close in performance for gaming. I nearly got the 2500K myself because of that, but opted for the 2600K in the end because I use the system for video editing and rendering, and a lot of photoshop, so its extra features were very useful to me. For anyone just gaming I would recommend saving the money and definitely getting the i5 2500K instead as its performance to price ratio just can't be beaten at the moment.
I was reading somewhere that the HT will start to be used more and more in the next couple of years with new games and it will see a larger gap in performance. However at the moment for gaming they definitely are pretty close, with the majority not using more than 2 cores most of the time.
Maybe its a secret collaboration with the hardware makers to try and make us all attempt to hit their targets by continuing to upgrade!Quote:
@ Harrison Your Score is Low Compared to Similar Systems. We all get that lol :smile:
Processor
Processor
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif Intel Core i5-2500K Processor Processor clock
5014 MHz Physical cores 4
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Vendor
NVidia Corporation # of cards
1 SLI / CrossFire
Off Memory
768 MB Core clock
850 MHz Memory clock
1999 MHz Driver name
Driver version
8.17.12.8562 Driver status
FM Approved
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600) Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD3-B3 Memory
16384 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
640GB WDC WD6402AAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device
3DMark Score
P4310
Graphics Score
3969
Physics Score
8925
Combined Score
3813
GraphicsTest1
18.93 FPS
GraphicsTest2
18.95 FPS
GraphicsTest3
24.27 FPS
GraphicsTest4
11.76 FPS
PhysicsTest
28.33 FPS
CombinedTest
17.74 FPS
Christ what volts did you use to get 5ghz, I doubt that is stable btw :) I think it would BSOD on IBT and Prime at that speed without upping those volts a lot hehe
@ Harrison, yeah 4.6ghz overclock compared to your stock lol :) Would have thought mine would have been higher but I guess not hehe. Not sure if HL is a great benchmark really as it does not tax anything so nothing is really being pushed. Unless we 1920x1080 and max all settings maybe.
not touched volts just upped multi to 50 and turned fans on
Is that stable at 5GHz? What CPU cooler you using? And what temps you getting?
I ran it maxxed out with all settings right up and it returned 262fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witcher1979
HAHA that will BSOD in seconds under Prime or IBT :)
whats IBT what settings do you need it set to
as this is standard
im using corsair h50-1 watercooler with 2 fans push pull with artic cooling mx-2 paste this gets to 63c max
Intel Burn Test.
Stick that on high m8, and run 10 tests. That should pretty much tell you if it is stable. Then give a screenshotQuote:
Originally Posted by johnim
Watch the temps, keep in mind under normal use you would never stress the CPU that much. I will warn you though very few get 5.0ghz stable. If you have then freaking well done m8. Last time I checked my GFLOPS were 121 and each test was about 63 seconds long. Good luck
i prefer OCCT to IBT
but i cant join in as i only have dx 10.1 :(
heres occt any way.
http://www.ocbase.com/perestroika_en/index.php?Download
Well pretty much all overclockers will say 10x tests on IBT at high settings then 12 hours on prime.
Anyway my 10x IBT on high:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/2043/ibti.jpg
Might even try to raise mine to 4.8 over the weekend :thumbsup: I had a struggle with 4.8 last time but I think I could get it stable at 4.8.
I reckon johnim's machine blasted into space running tests on that 5.0ghz lol
stock 460 sli and 5ghz nice jump
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif Intel Core i5-2500K Processor Processor clock
5014 MHz Physical / logical processors
1 / 4 # of cores
4 Graphics Card
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Vendor
Micro-Star International Co ., Ltd. # of cards
2 SLI / CrossFire
On Memory
1024 MB Core clock
725 MHz Memory clock
1800 MHz Driver name
Driver version
8.17.12.8562 Driver status
FM Approved
General
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600) Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD3-B3 Memory
16384 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
640GB WDC WD6402AAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device
Detailed scores
3DMark Score
P6806
Graphics Score
6747
Physics Score
8905
Combined Score
5290
GraphicsTest1
32.3 FPS
GraphicsTest2
32.0 FPS
GraphicsTest3
41.02 FPS
GraphicsTest4
20.1 FPS
PhysicsTest
28.27 FPS
CombinedTest
24.61 FPS
That is a huge jump m8, think I might get another 6950 over the next couple of months lol :)
Just make sure to run 10x ibt on high setting though sir.
3Dmark11
P9483
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2760087
3Dmark Vantage
P31294
http://3dmark.com/3dmv/3893100
Processor
Intel Core i7-975 Processor Extreme Edition
Processor clock
3998 MHz
Physical / logical processors
1 / 8
# of cores
4
Graphics Card
AMD Radeon HD 6990
Vendor
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
# of cards
2
SLI / CrossFire
On
Memory
4096 MB
Core clock
830 MHz
Memory clock
1250 MHz
Driver version
8.920.0.0
Driver status
FM Approved
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7601)
Motherboard
Intel Corporation DX58SO
Memory
16384 MB
Module 1
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 2
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 3
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 4
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
160GB INTEL SSDSA2M160G2GC ATA Device
LOL holy batman. Do you game on low settings much m8?
not fair buzzfuzz
not stable mate got to 9 then errored but wont keep it over 4ghz any how
top temp 64c
Processor
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif Intel Core i5-2500K Processor Processor clock
5014 MHz Physical / logical processors
1 / 4 # of cores
4
Graphics Card
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 Vendor
Micro-Star International Co ., Ltd. # of cards
2 SLI / CrossFire
On Memory
1024 MB Core clock
846 MHz Memory clock
1999 MHz Driver name
Driver version
8.17.12.8562 Driver status
FM Approved
General
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7600) Motherboard
Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z68X-UD3-B3 Memory
16384 MB Module 1
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 2
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 3
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Module 4
4096 MB Corsair 9 @ 667 MHz
Hard drive model
640GB WDC WD6402AAEX-00Z3A0 ATA Device
Detailed scores
3DMark Score
P7775
Graphics Score
7846
Physics Score
8968
Combined Score
6136
GraphicsTest1
37.33 FPS
GraphicsTest2
37.03 FPS
GraphicsTest3
48.35 FPS
GraphicsTest4
23.38 FPS
PhysicsTest
28.47 FPS
CombinedTest
28.54 FPS
I need crossfire, actually m8 9 passes aint to bad. Would probs be ok. Ah 64 under water, nice temps as well.
Nice system buzzfuzz. Way out of my price range though. :lol: Upgrading to the hex core Intels any time soon? ;)
@johnim. That is a nice score boost you got there. Comparing your results with your older ones you now have the physics score level with my i7 so that is impressive. At the same time it is showing what HT is achieving with the stock i7.
Also noticed you OC'd your graphics cards to for that last one, and added another card. Did you just ave one spare or go out and get another? :lol: What was the GPU temp rise like? I thing the CPU must have been bottlenecking the GPU before though when you look at the huge jump in the graphics score, as I wouldn't have expected that score to more than double just from SLI as it never fully doubles performance.
Makes me want a 7990 now!
@harrison
the first tests were with a single 460 768mb card
then i swapped with my other 2 460s 1Gb in sli physics is from gpus
got too 60c as the are msi cyclones
http://www.msi.com/product/vga/N460G...e-1GD5-OC.html
@witcher1979
backed down to 4.6 and why differnt speeds and times to yours
got to 55c for this
Nope, most games run 1920 by 1080 or 1920 by 1200 with the highest settings possible, and even at stock settings, she won't even come to terrible FPS.
She does however raise a slight tornado inside, 6990's have a pretty extreme fan on it.
Well maybe this summer, but I don't think so since my job is on thin ice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Witcher1979
I did make a little mistake compared to all others, but it is enough to sit it out on the bench a while, rather than being on the field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrison
I have seen this before, something to do with AVX. Do me a favour and test with this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
http://www.gigaflopd.com/downloads/ibt/
High settings again, first time it reports it should be 110-120 odd on the gflops. You can stop the test when you get first result back, let me know how you get on with that one.
same mate use core temp for temps an vid went too 1.38v
It is nothing to worry about, I think it is down to how the memory works, you may not have the memory running at its full speed or it is just because you have 16gb of ram. Long as your benchmarks are good don't worry about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
yea not to worry every thing set to auto exept multi @46 and ram @1600 :thumbsup:
Nice m8, same settings as me 4.6ghz and 1600 on the ram :) I was looking on another forum about low gflops and some said it can be down to win7 not being fully updated. Have you fully updated since that new build? I take it you did a fresh install.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
Either way don't worry about it.
lol, this program is broken, doesn't support more than 1 core on AMD's :lol:
My GPU is severely pants though and kills the rest of the potential my pc has.
Score is P2337 3DMarks
Processor
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif AMD FX-8150
Processor clock
3612 MHz
Physical / logical processors
1 / 8
# of cores
4
Graphics Card
http://ecom.futuremark.com/ecom/images/getit_orb.gif NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450Vendor
Unknown # of cards
1SLI / CrossFire
Off Memory
1024 MBCore clock
783 MHzMemory clock
1804 MHzDriver name
Driver version
8.17.12.9036Driver status
Not FM Approved
General
Operating system
64-bit Windows 7 (6.1.7601)Motherboard
ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. SABERTOOTH 990FXMemory
8192 MBModule 1
2048 MB OCZ 9 @ 533 MHz
Module 2
2048 MB OCZ 9 @ 533 MHz
Module 3
2048 MB OCZ 9 @ 533 MHz
Module 4
2048 MB OCZ 9 @ 533 MHz
Hard drive model
2,000GB AMD 2+0 Stripe/RAID0 SCSI Disk Device
Detailed scores
3DMark Score
P2337
Graphics Score
2102
Physics Score
6540
Combined Score
2084
GraphicsTest1
10.19 FPS
GraphicsTest2
9.97 FPS
GraphicsTest3
12.85 FPS
GraphicsTest4
6.2 FPS
PhysicsTest
20.76 FPS
CombinedTest
9.69 FPS
@witcher1979
Have you fully updated since that new build? i dont update cloggs up system :thumbsdown:
I take it you did a fresh install. yes fresh 64x ultimate
thanks any how for looking
John, you're best bet is to run IBT only, without any other programs.
I just found out that while running Intel Desktop Monitor, IBT crashes the whole system.
So I ran the test without it and result:
http://www.amibay.com/picture.php?al...pictureid=1314
cheers buzzfuzz will try again tmoz :thumbsup:
Just increased my i7's ratio to 40 to make it 4GHz and as it was only a 200MHz increase I wasn't expecting much for 3D tests, and I was right. 11 scored P5491 so hardly any different to before. The only major increase was i the physics score, up to 9539.
The results do however now state "Your Score is Comparable to Similar Systems" with a green plus, which I'm happy about.
If you want to see the minimal improvement, have a look at http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2761457
I could increase it a lot more as it was only hitting about 55 under load, and I love these K CPUs because the speedstep still idles the CPU at the same 1.6GHz, so the idle temps are the same as before. ;)
I just can't seem to get over that magical mark of 10000.
Whatever I do, with memory or processor beyond these settings, is crash or no start at all.
The only thing I could do is take off that yellow sticker on the 6990, but that would be end of warranty.
Tried 3dmark 2011...
got bored waiting for it to finish. What rating is that :D
I think you will all phear my 3D Mark score.
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2761903
:)
:bowdown::bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by McVenco
:thumbsup2:
Hmm, I can imagine that a GT520 is a bit of an entrylevel card.
But even so, with an E8400, this score is a bit too low, appart from the E8500, it's one of the fastest Core Duo processor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McVenco
Got any tips on improving the score, apart from overclocking?
hi McVenco a faster gpu will help as thats letting you down
Quote:
Originally Posted by McVenco
Yeap 3D mark is more GPU intensive, so upgrading that GPU will give you better scores.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
- Latest BIOS
- Latest chipset drivers
- Latest video drivers
- Tweaking all timings, that's not over clocking, but check bus speed, memory timings, HDD settings, make sure they are correct and at it's maximum level, but within the manufactures limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McVenco
That is very true. Motherboards especially are not always very good at setting optimal settings when running on auto. Often ram times will be set to their default for the motherboard and not the specific ram you have installed, so you might be running it underclocked.
Well, I just bought this GT520 last week as an upgrade for my old 9400GT. I'm not interested in playing the latest games so this card is more than sufficient for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnim
IMHO it shouldn't be a bad match with the CPU/motherboard at all, as far as my basic hardware knowledge goes. So why buy a blistering fast Radeon 6950 for a mere Core2Duo with 800MHz DDR2 memory?
Anyway, I'll see what some upgraded drivers/bios/settings can deliver. When I see a sufficient increase in my 3DMark score I'll post it :)
As a reference for you, I found that a 6950 didn't offer any major improvements over a 4870 when running on my Q6600 system, so I think anything more powerful that the 4870 would definitely be held back on any core2duo or core quad based system.. so I would say that is the fastest reference card to consider for a system of that era. BTW, the 4870 performance is meant to be comparable to the newer 6870 or a 460 which are good prices these days for the performance they can deliver.
I think I found some information about why your GT520 gave such bad results, based on this review quote I found (it is comparing a 4870, but the information is still relevant:
Quote:
going to the 520 from the 4870 you will see a huge loss in performance. the 520 gt is a workstation card it was never designed with gaming in mind. the extra gig of ram will not really help at all. it will help the card display larger resolutions and store textures better but it does not have the power to process them efficiently. they add the extra gig as more of a false sale point to make the card seem more attractive.