PDA

View Full Version : Extremely low 3dmark06 scores with 8800GTX


Niot
06-23-07, 09:31 PM
The following setup:
8800GTX (stock)
E6600 (stock)
2GB ddr800

only got 7544 marks in 3dmark06. I'm using the free edition and I the driver 158.22. I set the IQ in the control panel to "performance". I restarted before each run and turned off the security programs. But they still have just a couple of processes running in the background to prevent them being modified by other malicious programs. But they shouldn't be taking up so much resource.

I need some help here, I have tried everything to fix this.

hirantha
06-24-07, 12:20 AM
make sure the your clock speeds of the card is not lowered by any chance and also see if you have high setting for AA and AF by going to CP

Niot
06-24-07, 02:46 PM
The clock speeds are fine. I have already set the sildebar to performance. I ran memtest for 10 passes and there were no errors. I got 5335 marks for PCmark 2005. Is that normal or too low as well?

Niot
06-24-07, 06:12 PM
I just noticed that the nvidia control panel reports that the FSB is at 1292 mhz, the cpu core frequency is at 3876 mhz and the memory bus frequency is also at 1292 mhz.

Shouldn't the fsb be at 1066 and the processor be at 2400? I think maybe the motherboard or the processor is defective?

Because this is what happened. The thermal paste that the Intel heatsink came with failed to work, the system kept shutting down after a few seconds of power up. Then I went into the bios and realized that the core temperature reached 100 degrees C. Then I applied the arctic silver paste and now it's cool. Could the processor or MB have already been burnt?

Niot
06-24-07, 08:17 PM
Nevermind, it's fixed. CPU was underclocked.

Niot
06-24-07, 11:15 PM
No offense, but why would you run "performance" mode with a setup like that?
Because in benchmarks you want to get a score as high as possible. They don't really reward you for running with your hands tied to the back by running with good image quality. Just the framerates count.

As I said, the problem was with the underclocked processor, because the Gigabyte motherboard has this feature that can cap the processor multi at 6x, even when using intense programs.

JasonPC
06-24-07, 11:34 PM
What's the score with the problem fixed?

Aren't benchmarks meant to be held to a certain level of image quality so that all hardware configurations can be given an apples to apples comparison?

Ambrose
06-24-07, 11:36 PM
So what's your new 3DMark06 score?

That's exactly the system I intend on building before the end of this summer.

daforce
06-25-07, 12:30 AM
My setup when stock gets around 9400 I believe. Overclocked it gets around 11400 or so.

Curious what he gets now.

SlieTheSecond
06-25-07, 07:23 AM
Because in benchmarks you want to get a score as high as possible. They don't really reward you for running with your hands tied to the back by running with good image quality. Just the framerates count.

Do you play games like that? Tone down all the graphics, and use drivers that display worse graphics just so your fps can go up to ridiculous numbers?
(no offense intended, but I can't see why people care so much about something as trying to get their benchmarks higher when what you are looking at gets worse. That does not make your computer bench higher than other peoples hehe)

Imo frame rate only counts to make the game smooth. Then how the game looks counts. And regardless if you run good image quality or bad image quality. Your benchmark is not going to change the good image quality by benchmarking bad image quality. If anything, that sets you up for a let down when you think you have an amazing highly score that relates to poor performance in games.
(not your rig, your rig will be fine. But other people with not as good of a rig)

Niot
06-25-07, 08:22 AM
So what's your new 3DMark06 score?

That's exactly the system I intend on building before the end of this summer.
I got 10258 for 3dmark and 6681 for pcmark.

If you are getting one before the end of the summer it will probably be the E6750. Slightly faster.

Do you play games like that? Tone down all the graphics, and use drivers that display worse graphics just so your fps can go up to ridiculous numbers?
(no offense intended, but I can't see why people care so much about something as trying to get their benchmarks higher when what you are looking at gets worse. That does not make your computer bench higher than other peoples hehe)

Imo frame rate only counts to make the game smooth. Then how the game looks counts. And regardless if you run good image quality or bad image quality. Your benchmark is not going to change the good image quality by benchmarking bad image quality. If anything, that sets you up for a let down when you think you have an amazing highly score that relates to poor performance in games.
(not your rig, your rig will be fine. But other people with not as good of a rig)
No, I thought that I was getting low marks because the image settings are too high. So I lowered them. But lowering everything had a 25 point increase and it also fluctuated, so that didn't help.

In games I prefer to max things out in the game settings but not in the control panel. Because there is this thing with the minimum FPS. The review sites always show the average FPS, but we need 24 frames or higher to see continuous motion, so that means the minimum FPS must be that high. And the framerate varies widely from time to time in games. So I'm content with just 4X AA and a little AF (8X at most). Also since I don't see any difference in using the filter optimizations in the control panel, I turn those on too.

What's the score with the problem fixed?

Aren't benchmarks meant to be held to a certain level of image quality so that all hardware configurations can be given an apples to apples comparison?
The people who are getting the highest marks are all using the lowest level of image quality.

LordJuanlo
06-25-07, 11:09 AM
Just for comparison, I get about 12200 with my card overclocked to 615/2000 and my cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz. With the card at stock speed (575/1800) I get around 11400 (the CPU overclocked too)

Niot
06-25-07, 11:34 AM
Just for comparison, I get about 12200 with my card overclocked to 615/2000 and my cpu overclocked to 3.4ghz. With the card at stock speed (575/1800) I get around 11400 (the CPU overclocked too)
The CPU's clock speed greatly affects the scores. Especially at that high level. Also for comparison I got 7544 marks when the cpu is at 1.6Ghz.