3DMARK how does your computer score ?

[Susurrate]

The new pc is alive!!!

This is completely stock.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7969750

and this result is from when I enabled an option in the bios to allow the computer to overclock itself up to 10% if the cpu came under full load.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=7970084

[smib]

What mobo do you use?

[Susurrate]

Originally Posted by smib

What mobo do you use?

Gigabyte ga-ep35-ds3l http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813128337

[jmsprovan]

without any tweaking: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=8014322

i thought it was quite good for the amount i paid for this

[nist7]

meh:


The low CPU score is to be expected, stock is 2.6 and OCed to 3.0 And 3.0GHZ seems to be the ceiling for the 5000+ Brisbane as I've tried going higher but it just won't stay stable. The CPU/mobo needs an update and I think I may be seduced into the Wolfdale pretty soon: stable 4GHZ on air sounds too delicious

Although I'm quite baffled at the abysmal SM2.0 score, shouldn't it be similar to the HDR/SM3 score?

edit: Oh ya, the GPU is slightly OCed. And word on the street is that the GTX 260 is a OCing beast. When I upgrade the CPU I'll turn up the heat on the GPU as well.

[awdrifter]

I think I posted this on my build thread, but here it is again.

Q6600 @3.4ghz
HD4850 @810/1087

[pepitko]

behold, feel free to laugh on my behalf 506 points!! Well, I use xbox for games and my Macbook Pro for everything else, so this is my 4-year old PC, but worth upgrading, lol.

Actually, I've been planning on getting a new pc for this x-mas anyway. Can you guys please give me some advice? I would be looking at a mid-ranged set-up, don't need the ultimate gaming machine, but obviously not the cheapest option, and no not planning on getting the awful pig vista. Are those quad-cores worth the extra $$?

[fluke667]

Originally Posted by pepitko

Can you guys please give me some advice?

Look at the post above yours that setup is relatively cheap AND powerfull even without overclocking.
If you want something with a low power consumption the combination AMD 780g chipset + AMD 4850e CPU + AMD 4670 GPU is pretty unbeatable. (<50watt idle, 110-120watt full load)

[nist7]

Originally Posted by pepitko

Are those quad-cores worth the extra $$?

From what I've heard quad core is a waste of money unless you plan to have alot of applications open and running at the same time. Otherwise, for people like me that runs games and then watch some movies and poke around the net, dual core is more than enough.

[awdrifter]

Quad core is getting more affordable and newer games like GTA4 is actually recommending quad cores now. So if you're going to keep your PC for another 4 years, I would say it's worth the money.

[Crazyjeeper]

Originally Posted by awdrifter

Quad core is getting more affordable and newer games like GTA4 is actually recommending quad cores now. So if you're going to keep your PC for another 4 years, I would say it's worth the money.

Agree, I'm waiting for Q9550 prices to come down to the 200 mark.

I'll run 3Dmark again once my second 8800GT arrives.

[nist7]

Ah, it looks like GTA IV is the first game ever to be written to take full advantage of the quad core architecture. So that's at least 1 game that can actually use all 4 cores, heh.

While prices are dropping all the time for computer parts, I think there is still a noticeable price gap between quad and dual cores at this point in time, which is especially noticeable with the Intel chips, over $150 difference between comparable dual and quad cores at similar speeds (E8400 is $165 on newegg, Q9550 is $320). And unless the market shifts significantly over to quad cores, there will still be dual cores being made and obviously those will be quite a bit cheaper than the quads or otherwise there would be no point in buying dual cores if the two prices are too similar.

The question is whether or not there is significant and noticeable increase in performance during game play. Peptiko mentioned he is looking for a mid-level gaming rig, so unless a quad will give you 10+ FPS increase on average (bringin choppy ~20FPS up to a playable ~30FPS) I'm guessing the performance won't be noticed unless all the other parts of the system are decked out as well, namely the video card that hand support the graphics. But of course I'm not sure if there have been any benchmarks out comparing dual and quad core performance for GTA IV, but it'd be interesting to see just how how much of an improvement the quad would have over the dual and then try to decide whether it is worth the extra money.

But for pepitko, who is looking for a mid-level gaming rig, I think dual-core is good enough. Obviously, it's his money and his choice, and if he can find a cheap quad then all the power to him. Unless, of course, dual cores are being phased out and every single game from here on out being released will perform significantly better on quads than duals.

edit: eh, may have to start a new thread instead of hi jacking this one

[Hemily]

i only got 7098 on 3dmark 06

i got a fairly cheap computer though...

AMD Phenom 9950
4gb Corsair Dominator PC8500
Asus GeForce 9800GT 1024mb DDR3
Asus M3A78-EH motherboard

and i had MSN, AIM, YIM, mIRC and Firefox running, on my dual monitor setup.

[matt2000]

I nearly choked when my PC (with its pair of graphics cards) only got a 4900 score on 06 after a complete format.

I'm actually starting to think the format was a bad idea, might restore the image and go back to the way it was before. It was slow and clunky, but everything was there and it all worked. I can't even get windows to install my scanner now, even with the correct drivers.

[Crazyjeeper]

Mine just did 11895.

E8400 @ 3.0
8800GT SLI

[nist7]

Originally Posted by Crazyjeeper

Mine just did 11895.

E8400 @ 3.0
8800GT SLI

I've been eyeing the E8400 for an upgrade from my good ol' Athlon. Word is that they're OC stable up to 4GHZ on air I've also been hearing that 3dmark is quite CPU-dependent, and that a good CPU will help with the overall score as well.

[Crazyjeeper]

Originally Posted by nist7

I've been eyeing the E8400 for an upgrade from my good ol' Athlon. Word is that they're OC stable up to 4GHZ on air I've also been hearing that 3dmark is quite CPU-dependent, and that a good CPU will help with the overall score as well.

Yeah, I only beat my brother's rig by 50 points because he has a Q6600. My 8800GT SLI destroys his single 8800GTS 512.

[Labcoatguy]

Yeeeaaah, Thinkpad T40 with a Mobility Radeon 7500, is politely turned away at the velvet rope.

[GerFix]

I'm bored, so I ran '06 on my 18 month old monster, with about 87 other processes running at the same time:





CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme QX6850 3.0Ghz 1333FSB 4x2Mb - not overclocked
Fan: Zalman CNPS9700NT
Mobo: Asus Blitz-Extreme P35 DDR3
RAM: 2 x 1GB OCZ Platinum PC3-12800 1600Mhz EB XTC 7-7-7
Graphics: MSI 8800Ultra OC Overclocked 660mhz 768Mb
OS: Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 32bit
Storage: 2 x Western Digital WD7500AAKS 750Gb 16Mb SATA II
Case: Zalman Fatal1ty FE-ZE1 Case Black

[pepitko]

thanks people for your advice, I think that quad-core is unnecessary for me as I play all the latest games on my x360 anyway..