On par score? 3dmark05

m|Ke · Jun 11, 2005, 03:08 PM

I got 5911 with the rig in my sig, all is stock with no overclocking, 3dmark05 on default settings. Is this an on par score with what I should expect?

I also run the stress test on CS:Source with fps_max 101 I get 88.07fps average with: (I set command fps_max 101 in console because my monitor is 100hz and 100fps is max)

1280x960
High settings
6x AF
16x AA

These are with cat 5.6
Any feedback appreciated, thx

e v o · Jun 12, 2005, 06:54 AM

sounds about right, the PE's usually break 6k at stock. in this review, it scores 5700

http://www.hardwarexl.com/index.php?...1&limitstart=2

Sandok · Jun 12, 2005, 07:01 AM

Ya seems right... My X800XT is at 5500 so that 400 xtra seems correct

m|Ke · Jun 12, 2005, 10:13 AM

I was told my amd64 3200+ bottlenecks my x850xt. If this is the case how come I get a better score than that review and they use a Intel 540 @ 3.21Ghz.

Sandok · Jun 12, 2005, 10:16 AM

because 3dmark is a GPU test, not CPU. I can run it on a 1.5 ghz and my score would be 5300 instead of 5500... the diff ain't that much (at stock of course...)

TJ- · Jun 12, 2005, 10:32 AM

Thats a good score, my scores in sig

6800GT

m|Ke · Jun 12, 2005, 11:08 AM

I was also referring to the benchmarks they did with cs:source, hl2 etc

Sandok · Jun 12, 2005, 12:00 PM

dude your AMD owns Intel evevn at those speeds. Amd is the better gaming CPU and only a EE edition intel can beat you, and that's tough.

your amd might bottleneck at low resos but at higher ones, turst me you got nothing to worry about!

m|Ke · Jun 12, 2005, 02:01 PM

cool, sry for all the questions but im not very up on hardware

im more of a software man

. You said my amd64 3200+ which runs at 2ghz is faster than the 3.2ghz of intel in games? I dont seem to understand why that would be since I thought higher was better?

CDsDontBurn · Jun 12, 2005, 11:24 PM

AMD chips can process alot more work per clock cycle than Intel chips can. So because of that, they are better for gaming. But if you're going to burning a DVD or playing two instances of the same game (like one of the guys here at my work) then you'll want to have Intel because of the Hyper Threading technology gives you better use of your CPU under those circumstances.

daedal · Jun 13, 2005, 08:43 PM

I've got the same card in AGP and got very similar results. CS:S is very CPU intensive and chances are that you really are bottlenecking. I've got a P4 Prescott running at 3.6Ghz and I'm bottlenecking pretty severely in that and most other games run very smoothly.

Sandok · Jul 11, 2005, 08:40 AM

Well I switched to X850XT PE and well, in 05 I get 5600 on a stock 3ghz intel Northwood and 116 in CS source at max settings... Not too bad and not to different from you

laserkatten · Jul 24, 2005, 01:36 PM

I have a AMD 64 3500+ and a x850xt. At both stock i get somewhere around 6000 points. Now im running my AMD at 2,6 Ghz and my x850xt at 590/1180 wich gives me a score of 6744. Clocking makes a big diff.

Jun 11, 2005, 03:08 PM	#1
m\|Ke DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62 Rep Power: 0	On par score? 3dmark05 I got 5911 with the rig in my sig, all is stock with no overclocking, 3dmark05 on default settings. Is this an on par score with what I should expect? I also run the stress test on CS:Source with fps_max 101 I get 88.07fps average with: (I set command fps_max 101 in console because my monitor is 100hz and 100fps is max) 1280x960 High settings 6x AF 16x AA These are with cat 5.6 Any feedback appreciated, thx __________________ [color=White][color=green][/color][/color]AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Socket 939) Epox EP-9NPA+ nForce4 (Socket 939) (PCI-Express) GeIL 1GB PC3200 Sapphire ATI Radeon X850XT 256MB (PCI-Express)

Jun 12, 2005, 06:54 AM	#2
e v o HardwareHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,037 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	sounds about right, the PE's usually break 6k at stock. in this review, it scores 5700 http://www.hardwarexl.com/index.php?...1&limitstart=2 __________________

Jun 12, 2005, 10:13 AM	Thread Starter #4
m\|Ke DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62 Rep Power: 0	I was told my amd64 3200+ bottlenecks my x850xt. If this is the case how come I get a better score than that review and they use a Intel 540 @ 3.21Ghz. __________________ [color=White][color=green][/color][/color]AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Socket 939) Epox EP-9NPA+ nForce4 (Socket 939) (PCI-Express) GeIL 1GB PC3200 Sapphire ATI Radeon X850XT 256MB (PCI-Express)

Jun 12, 2005, 10:32 AM	#6
TJ- DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Infinity Posts: 3,679 Rep Power: 0	Thats a good score, my scores in sig 6800GT __________________ new sig comming soon

Jun 12, 2005, 11:08 AM	Thread Starter #7
m\|Ke DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62 Rep Power: 0	I was also referring to the benchmarks they did with cs:source, hl2 etc __________________ [color=White][color=green][/color][/color]AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Socket 939) Epox EP-9NPA+ nForce4 (Socket 939) (PCI-Express) GeIL 1GB PC3200 Sapphire ATI Radeon X850XT 256MB (PCI-Express)

Jun 12, 2005, 07:01 AM	#3
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	Ya seems right... My X800XT is at 5500 so that 400 xtra seems correct

Jun 12, 2005, 10:16 AM	#5
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	because 3dmark is a GPU test, not CPU. I can run it on a 1.5 ghz and my score would be 5300 instead of 5500... the diff ain't that much (at stock of course...)

Jun 12, 2005, 12:00 PM	#8
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	dude your AMD owns Intel evevn at those speeds. Amd is the better gaming CPU and only a EE edition intel can beat you, and that's tough. your amd might bottleneck at low resos but at higher ones, turst me you got nothing to worry about!

Jun 12, 2005, 02:01 PM	Thread Starter #9
m\|Ke DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 62 Rep Power: 0	cool, sry for all the questions but im not very up on hardware im more of a software man . You said my amd64 3200+ which runs at 2ghz is faster than the 3.2ghz of intel in games? I dont seem to understand why that would be since I thought higher was better? __________________ [color=White][color=green][/color][/color]AMD Athlon 64 3200+ Venice (Socket 939) Epox EP-9NPA+ nForce4 (Socket 939) (PCI-Express) GeIL 1GB PC3200 Sapphire ATI Radeon X850XT 256MB (PCI-Express)

Jun 12, 2005, 11:24 PM	#10
CDsDontBurn Lurking DriverHeaven Join Date: May 2003 Location: Southern California Posts: 22,779 Rep Power: 235 System Specs	AMD chips can process alot more work per clock cycle than Intel chips can. So because of that, they are better for gaming. But if you're going to burning a DVD or playing two instances of the same game (like one of the guys here at my work) then you'll want to have Intel because of the Hyper Threading technology gives you better use of your CPU under those circumstances. __________________ Her First Day \| A year later

Jun 13, 2005, 08:43 PM	#11
daedal Uber Coffee Drinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Gatineau, Quebec Posts: 2,250 Rep Power: 0	I've got the same card in AGP and got very similar results. CS:S is very CPU intensive and chances are that you really are bottlenecking. I've got a P4 Prescott running at 3.6Ghz and I'm bottlenecking pretty severely in that and most other games run very smoothly. __________________

Jul 11, 2005, 08:40 AM	#12
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	Well I switched to X850XT PE and well, in 05 I get 5600 on a stock 3ghz intel Northwood and 116 in CS source at max settings... Not too bad and not to different from you

Jul 24, 2005, 01:36 PM	#13
laserkatten DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6 Rep Power: 0	I have a AMD 64 3500+ and a x850xt. At both stock i get somewhere around 6000 points. Now im running my AMD at 2,6 Ghz and my x850xt at 590/1180 wich gives me a score of 6744. Clocking makes a big diff. __________________ 3700+ @ 2.62GHz / 4*512 Corsair VS @437Mhz 2,5-3-3-7/ Sapphire x850xt @582/600 3Dmark 05: 6802