Post Your 3Dmark 05 Scores Here !!! - Page 10

Sierra_abx · 10-03-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandog

No, I got a score over 5000 in the CPU test. I have the $19.95 special from FM that I got for $9.95 upgrade price. I think I can select different tests but I just run everything at default so as to fair (hoping all does the same).

3DMark05 v1.1

Oh, I thought you were talking about the individual CPU tests.

Most people who run 3DMark do not use default speeds. It's fine, however, if you don't overclock. 05 is like 03, very video card-dependent. I feel 01 is still the best system bench, even though it's a DX8 test. There's a lot of useful information that comes out of 3DMark. Most people don't even know what the individual tests are testing. Also, 3DMark can tell you a lot about other things, like memory performance, etc.

Sierra_abx · 10-03-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghostrider

@Sandog: Another reason why some people drop the CPU test: Not all OCs are stable. If their system can run the graphics tests that produce the score it's ok. If the system will crash during the CPU test: Who cares - they already got their high score. So some of them may run the benchmark as short as possible, save the result and shut down the system as fast as possible.

This is not really true. I leave my benching computer on all day. And you will not be able to complete all the gaming tests in 3DMark05 if your system is unstable.

Pointhore · 10-03-2004, 06:01 PM

Stock 2.8 and overclocked X800XT PCIe using geil Pc3200 value ram. 5710
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=82910

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandog

Also you guys running those X800 XT P.E.'s around 600MHz, are you sure you have not bad pixels in those benchies? I can run 3DMark05 fine with artifacting. I find it hard to believe these 100MHz OC and no artifacts. I have water cooling also.
Thanks and lets keep this shootout as honest as possible.

With my X800XT PE I dont get artifacts at all. With the X800XT PCIe, I will get artifacts if I push it too hard. I think it's the 2.0ns ram.

**Sandog** · 10-03-2004, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pointhore

Stock 2.8 and overclocked X800XT PCIe using geil Pc3200 value ram. 5710
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=82910

With my X800XT PE I dont get artifacts at all. With the X800XT PCIe, I will get artifacts if I push it too hard. I think it's the 2.0ns ram.

Thanks Pointhore, you are lucky to have both. I would have bought an X800 XT P.E. if one was available in PCIe but as it turns out I can run my PCIe at P.E. speeds. I can even run at 560/560 all the time perfect which is much higher than I ever expected so I am extremely happy with my PCIe card (Sapphire).
I tried 580/580 just for the sake of 3DMark05 and thats when artifact appeared so now I don't go above 560/560 and usually run at default speed.

**Sandog** · 10-03-2004, 06:19 PM

Sierra Bound,

The thing that has me excited is all the booing I heard about Prescott from nearly everybody but my CPU scores are hundreds above the Northwood scores that I have seen so far. I compared my 3.4 Prescott/200FSB to a 3.4 Northwood/200 FSB and definately won by hundreds of points. I wanted to know what kind of CPU scores an FX-53 was getting in 3DMark05.

Edit: I should say 'what kind of CPU scores a stock FX-53 was getting"

Pointhore · 10-03-2004, 06:57 PM

This isnt at stock but it is a screenshot of a FX-53 242Htt @ 2.66 using PC4200 6-3-4-2.5 timings.

Sierra_abx · 10-03-2004, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandog

Sierra Bound,

The thing that has me excited is all the booing I heard about Prescott from nearly everybody but my CPU scores are hundreds above the Northwood scores that I have seen so far. I compared my 3.4 Prescott/200FSB to a 3.4 Northwood/200 FSB and definately won by hundreds of points. I wanted to know what kind of CPU scores an FX-53 was getting in 3DMark05.

Edit: I should say 'what kind of CPU scores a stock FX-53 was getting"

In the CPU test, Intel will often outperform AMD. But on a clock-for-clock basis, the FX is of course faster than the Prescott. In real gaming, I don't think there's much of a contest. The FX will win hands down. This is assuming most of the other hardware is the same.

**Sandog** · 10-03-2004, 07:09 PM

Thanks again Pointhore, I got 5235 but that was at 3.580GHz, not 3.4GHz. So it looks like the FX-53 is just a couple of % better.

HiJon89 · 10-03-2004, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sierra_bound

This is not really true. I leave my benching computer on all day. And you will not be able to complete all the gaming tests in 3DMark05 if your system is unstable.

I don't know about 05 but in 3DMark03 with my 3.2 at 3.95 it would complete the game tests but crash during CPU tests. In 3DMark2001 you can disable certain tests so I was able to run it at a higher OC

**Sandog** · 10-03-2004, 08:10 PM

I always run 3DMark at default settings especially if I am going to post scores so somebody can see. It might take longer to run all the tests but how does is work for me if I am interested in a piece of hardware that scored 8K 3DMark05 simply because the guy disabled certain tests or ran at 640x480? I am not trying to play a saint here which I'm not but just trying to let everybody know they should not take peoples score very seriously. Being I have an Intel board I have very little options for tweaking, mainly video card but I never tweak FM software, (not saying anyone in particular is either). I do notice now though that all the information is placed on the compare systems so it might be seen what you run 3DMark at but sometimes that info looks wrong for mine like bus speeds and chip speeds. For example mine always shows 200FSB.

jqwhite · 10-03-2004, 10:54 PM

The last post that I put on this thread was my first 05 score which was horriable and I was very depressed. That was on my 9800Xt on the 4.8 cat's. I took the talk of others and installed the Beta 4.10's. This score, although still small is over a 1,000 pts. better. Yet if I run 01, or 03, those scores are lower than the 4.8's got me. I am confused. Why can a driver do good for one test and bad for the other. If this is the case then this benching thing, isn't really benching. 3 different tests and all take a different drive to get a better score?!?!?!?! That is messed up

Drufuss · 10-04-2004, 02:09 AM

Hiya!

Ran the test for the first time yesterday and my old´n trusty PIII-rig did

3864 points!

Greetings

Dru

gottaloveit · 10-04-2004, 12:39 PM

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you got that score with a p3? how is that possible? you turn all the settings all the way down or something?

Ghostrider · 10-04-2004, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gottaloveit

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you got that score with a p3? how is that possible? you turn all the settings all the way down or something?

Well... if it's a 1.4GHz PIII and a high-end grafics card....

Sierra_abx · 10-04-2004, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gottaloveit

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you got that score with a p3? how is that possible? you turn all the settings all the way down or something?

I think he has an X800Pro.

10-03-2004, 06:19 PM	#140
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,184	Sierra Bound, The thing that has me excited is all the booing I heard about Prescott from nearly everybody but my CPU scores are hundreds above the Northwood scores that I have seen so far. I compared my 3.4 Prescott/200FSB to a 3.4 Northwood/200 FSB and definately won by hundreds of points. I wanted to know what kind of CPU scores an FX-53 was getting in 3DMark05. Edit: I should say 'what kind of CPU scores a stock FX-53 was getting"
(Offline)

10-03-2004, 07:09 PM	#143
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,184	Thanks again Pointhore, I got 5235 but that was at 3.580GHz, not 3.4GHz. So it looks like the FX-53 is just a couple of % better.
(Offline)

10-03-2004, 08:10 PM	#145
Sandog DP45SG/Q9650 Join Date: May 2003 Location: Alabama Posts: 6,184	I always run 3DMark at default settings especially if I am going to post scores so somebody can see. It might take longer to run all the tests but how does is work for me if I am interested in a piece of hardware that scored 8K 3DMark05 simply because the guy disabled certain tests or ran at 640x480? I am not trying to play a saint here which I'm not but just trying to let everybody know they should not take peoples score very seriously. Being I have an Intel board I have very little options for tweaking, mainly video card but I never tweak FM software, (not saying anyone in particular is either). I do notice now though that all the information is placed on the compare systems so it might be seen what you run 3DMark at but sometimes that info looks wrong for mine like bus speeds and chip speeds. For example mine always shows 200FSB.
(Offline)

10-04-2004, 02:09 AM	#147
Drufuss CUSL2-C -> P5Q ? Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Österreich Posts: 2,763	Hiya! Ran the test for the first time yesterday and my old´n trusty PIII-rig did 3864 points! Greetings Dru __________________ System specs: Asus P5Q Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83 GHz @ 3.42 GHz 4 x 2GB DDR2-Ram PC2-1066 Corsair Dominator @ 800MHz 3 x Seagate 7200.ESII 500GB SATA Sapphire HD4870X2 2048MB Soundblaster Audigy 2 ZS, Hauppauge HVR4000 DVB-S/S2/T, Dlink DWL-G510, Logitech Z-5450 5.1 THX Wireless Enermax Modu82+ 625W Win XP MCE 2005, openSuse Linux 11 64bit, Vista Home Premium 64bit CUSL2-C ruled! ..äh... RulEd! Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.
(Offline)

10-04-2004, 12:39 PM	#148
gottaloveit Registered User Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 145	whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? you got that score with a p3? how is that possible? you turn all the settings all the way down or something? __________________
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode