Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

test results with amd64x2 3800+ and 8800gts evga

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 6, 2007 8:03:40 AM

3dmark 2006 -9236 1280x1024 resolution
3dmark2005- 14251 1280x1024 resolution
gpu at 630 memory at 1900
cpu at 2750,memory at 460mhz.
wait for your opinion?
its a good score?
January 6, 2007 8:49:15 AM

Nice Work but as you know that Graphic Card needs a better CPU...
by the way ,what is your memory model ??
January 6, 2007 8:52:07 AM

a8n sli premium
amd64x2 3800+@2600 cooling with thermalright SI128+akasa 12cm
2x1024 ddr500 supertalent@520
evga 8800gts stock
2x250gb samsung sata2ncq
plextor px760a,px116a2
leadtek pvr2000
creative x-fi gamer
js 9940 speakers
case chieftec lcx01b with 6 fans antec and akasa,with filters
psu antec neohe500
samsung 940bf tft
logitech g15
logitech mx revolution and func1030 alienware
webcam logitech
printer hp 8050 photosmart
January 6, 2007 9:37:54 AM

I'll bench my 8800GTX on a very similar system to yours and see what happens :p 


Cheetsy
January 6, 2007 9:56:49 AM

not realy same sistem,its little diferent,what is you score in 2006?
January 6, 2007 10:00:33 AM

Yes, our systems are a little different, but that's why I didn't say it was the same system, I said it was similar!

I haven't benched it yet, ill get round to it in the next few hours, ill let you know as soon as its done.


Cheetsy
January 6, 2007 10:02:37 AM

ok i wait a score.
January 6, 2007 10:56:57 AM

PX7800GT

What was the point of what you posted? I don't beleive he was asking that question. You could have been a little more honest and said something like "in benchmarks, a Core 2 CPU would yield slightly better results, but in gameplay, you won't notice the difference". His video card does not NEED a better cpu, but, a better CPU would raise the synthectic benchmark and slightly raise in game FPS.

I am not trying to come across as hostile, but, I am tired of threads being hijacked. With what you typed, you will have clowns come in here, and start flaming. What I said was honest, and simply saying his video card requires a better cpu was not true.

wes
January 6, 2007 11:00:42 AM

no just curios,many people trust in core 2 duo,but its not realy good inreal life gaming,its a joke with much money.
January 6, 2007 11:15:40 AM

Don't get me wrong. You could get a E6300 and spend an equivalent amount of money as the 3800X2 setup, and it would outperform the X23800 setup in all cases.

Will it be noticed in games? No. In one case Flight Sim X, it might make a difference, but, that game is a coding catastrophe from what I have been reading, and when it gets updated and patched it will probably won't matter which one you have.

I don't mind people making reasonable posts with a little data, and not just being one sided. But, when someone just says something like the other guy said, it annoys me.

Recap, Core 2 would not bottleneck the GPU as much as the X2 series, but, in games you won't notice the difference between a setup using the same video card and either of the 2 cpu's.

wes
January 6, 2007 11:22:57 AM

Quote:
PX7800GT

What was the point of what you posted? I don't beleive he was asking that question. You could have been a little more honest and said something like "in benchmarks, a Core 2 CPU would yield slightly better results, but in gameplay, you won't notice the difference". His video card does not NEED a better cpu, but, a better CPU would raise the synthectic benchmark and slightly raise in game FPS.

watch THIS man. the GeForce 8800GTX NEEDS the fastest cpu & you WILL see a BIG performance difference...think more man!
January 6, 2007 11:41:57 AM

So,

What you are telling me is, you can notice a difference between 108 and 118fps? 59.4 and 59.9FPS? 81 and 75FPS? 33 and 34FPS? 21.xx and 22.xx FPS? No, you won't notice. At the lower setting the differences are larger, but you will not NOTICE the difference. That is what I am saying, the difference is there, but, the human eye cannot see it. As long as the fps stay above 30fps the eye cannot percieve it.

Just look at the 8800gtx with AMD and Intel on the same benchmarks. At 1600x1200 the difference is close. There, the cpu doesn't make that big of a difference because it is (edit) -MORE- GPU limited. Alot of people are now playing at higher settings. And, if you aren't..... what is the big deal if you are getting over 200fps or over 100fps? It makes no difference. You will not see it during game play unless you benchmark it.

On the other hand, if one at the same settings is below 30fps, while the other is well above, then, you can say the card requires the Core 2 cpu in order to play a game..... but in all the cases in this benchmark, Core 2 IS NOT REQUIRED. Sure, they get higher benchmarks, but, as I said, you will not notice the difference between the two using the same video card and running at the same settings.

wes

Edit: if you said the the 8800 series needs the fastes CPU to achieve it's highest performance, then I would agree with you 100%. But, my point is, as I have stated many times, you won't notice the difference. Flight Sim X may, or may not, be the only exception to this..... but I have been unable to find and comprehensive benchmarks comparing the two. So, just rephrase what you are saying, and then it will be true, otherwise, what you are saying is false.
January 6, 2007 11:52:19 AM

do you have perfectly right,my rig its good for now,maybe in the future(6 months)cheapest price i solve this problem.anyway when a i chose the future platform ,is 680sli and 6400 conroe and 2x1024 ddr1000
January 6, 2007 11:58:08 AM

You don't need to upgrade to Core 2 for gaming aat the moment. All games should be playable on your rig with a good video card for quite a while. The only change you might want to look at when you upgrade, is the motherboard. ATI will have RD600 out, and it should cost less and perform as well while being cooler than the 680 chipset. But, just a thought. The system will be smoking with either chipset, it might smoke a little more with the nvidia chipset though :wink:

wes

Edit: unless you plan to SLI, then 680 it is. But, in my experience, SLI was not needed for me, and a single of the fastest cards at the time was always enough to run any game I wanted.
January 6, 2007 11:59:40 AM

Quote:
So,

What you are telling me is, you can notice a difference between 108 and 118fps? 59.4 and 59.9FPS? 81 and 75FPS? 33 and 34FPS? 21.xx and 22.xx FPS? No, you won't notice. At the lower setting the differences are larger, but you will not NOTICE the difference. That is what I am saying, the difference is there, but, the human eye cannot see it. As long as the fps stay above 30fps the eye cannot percieve it.

Just look at the 8800gtx with AMD and Intel on the same benchmarks. At 1600x1200 the difference is close. There, the cpu doesn't make that big of a difference because it is GPU limited. Alot of people are now playing at higher settings. And, if you aren't..... what is the big deal if you are getting over 200fps or over 100fps? It makes no difference. You will not see it during game play unless you benchmark it.

On the other hand, if one at the same settings is below 30fps, while the other is well above, then, you can say the card requires the Core 2 cpu in order to play a game..... but in all the cases in this benchmark, Core 2 IS NOT REQUIRED. Sure, they get higher benchmarks, but, as I said, you will not notice the difference between the two using the same video card and running at the same settings.

wes

Edit: if you said the the 8800 series needs the fastes CPU to achieve it's highest performance, then I would agree with you 100%. But, my point is, as I have stated many times, you won't notice the difference. Flight Sim X may, or may not, be the only exception to this..... but I have been unable to find and comprehensive benchmarks comparing the two. So, just rephrase what you are saying, and then it will be true, otherwise, what you are saying is false.


And what PX7800GT failed to notice was that the OP's CPU was clocked to 2750mhz, which should make it very competitive with the E6300/6400.
January 6, 2007 12:05:07 PM

Good point. I noticed it, and true, if it were clocked at stock speeds it wouldn't perform as well, but, you still wouldn't be able to see the difference.

As you said though, @ 2750 the cpu will have more than enough power for games with that card.

wes
January 6, 2007 12:16:54 PM

i mantain the cpu at 2500 all the time,and memories at 500mhz,ratio 1:1
and videocard at default,this frequence is just for benckmark.i keep this sistem
January 6, 2007 12:25:29 PM

Good choice :wink:

wes
January 6, 2007 1:05:14 PM

Quote:
So,
As long as the fps stay above 30fps the eye cannot percieve it.


That's bollocks

On any fps you WILL notice the difference between 30 and say 90fps.

The human eye may not be able to see it, yet the system will run noteably smoother which is obvious to anyone who isn't blind.

So where the heck are these benchmark results that where mentioned at the start of this rant?
January 6, 2007 1:23:55 PM

the human eye can not perceive anything above 30fps?
Where did you get that piece of shit fact? Im sure you are referring to movies being at close to 30fps and they look nice and smooth...BUT they have motion blurring to compensate for such a low fps, this tricks the eye into thinking its fluid motion. Games do not implement motion blurring, and humans can perceive more than 60fps.
January 6, 2007 4:26:52 PM

its ok.i understand ,i keep this rig its very good,thx
January 6, 2007 6:05:43 PM

Skittle and Colonel_Curley,

Well, for the 30fps, it appears I was wrong. I was going off of what older science data I had read and not the computer related pages which I just read which prove that. The consensus seems to be that no one knows, but they speculate around 72fps. That being said, anything over the refresh rate of your monitor you won't see anyway.(if I am wrong on this you two, could you please just tell me, and avoid attacking me?).

As for the benchmark I was referring to, it was in the link I was responding to. The guy posted the link to the old Toms article talking about the 8800GTX and the cpu needed to release full potential. The FPS I quoted were the 1600x1200 FPS with the GTX and one was Core2, one was AMD. And, I still stand by those number though, the differences are so close, or the FPS are already so high, that you won't see the difference in them.

Quote:
watch THIS man. the GeForce 8800GTX NEEDS the fastest cpu & you WILL see a BIG performance difference...think more man!


wes

Edit: go up the PX7800GT and click on "THIS" and you will get to the benchmarks..... you probably have already seen them as they are a little old. I thought the link information would transfer in the quote and it didn't.
January 7, 2007 7:14:41 PM

I have a c2d e6400 on a GA-965P-DS3 with an eVGA 8800gts and corsair 620W psu and 2x1ghz corsair xms2 ddr2 800...

In 3dmark06 (unregistered so it just ran whatever settings is stock) I scored right around 8000...

The stock FSB is 266mhz with a multiplier of 8...I bumped this up to 366 with a ram multiplier of 2.5 to bump my ram up to 915, this game me a clock speed of 2.9GHz...this brought my 3dmark06 score up to 8800

I o/c'ed my gpu to 600/902 I think it was, and my 3dmark06 score was 9750...this still seems low?

I actually dropped all the settings back to stock because my cpu temp was 55 C (9 degrees over the stock fsb temp)...but that kinda sucks that I shelled out all this money and am only scoring a measily 8000...any ideas or does it sound right?
January 7, 2007 7:54:15 PM

Talk about highjacking :!:
a b Î Nvidia
a b } Memory
January 7, 2007 7:56:15 PM

Quote:
PX7800GT

What was the point of what you posted? I don't beleive he was asking that question. You could have been a little more honest and said something like "in benchmarks, a Core 2 CPU would yield slightly better results, but in gameplay, you won't notice the difference". His video card does not NEED a better cpu, but, a better CPU would raise the synthectic benchmark and slightly raise in game FPS.

watch THIS man. the GeForce 8800GTX NEEDS the fastest cpu & you WILL see a BIG performance difference...think more man!

Yeah...ummmm over 100fps your not gonna see nothing.....i run with vsync....so 75 is good for me....also....what do you expect with a new cpu vs an old cpu? in the end.....you may never even see the difference.....sure its good for bragging rights(or oblivion....but thats just a small portion of the gamers...)....but what good is that......modern CPU's are so damn fast...it does not matter to the average user.......
January 8, 2007 3:58:57 AM

OK OK ,i was wrong ,my bad & please forgive me...
Quote:
...it does not matter to the average user...

i see no average user here in TGForumz... :twisted:
January 8, 2007 7:14:14 AM

do you have perfectly right,but your vga is old ,at this rig its good a 8800gts minimum.
January 8, 2007 8:12:58 AM

Shortfuse Wrote:

Quote:
"I have a c2d e6400 on a GA-965P-DS3 with an eVGA 8800gts and corsair 620W psu and 2x1ghz corsair xms2 ddr2 800...

In 3dmark06 (unregistered so it just ran whatever settings is stock) I scored right around 8000...

The stock FSB is 266mhz with a multiplier of 8...I bumped this up to 366 with a ram multiplier of 2.5 to bump my ram up to 915, this game me a clock speed of 2.9GHz...this brought my 3dmark06 score up to 8800

I o/c'ed my gpu to 600/902 I think it was, and my 3dmark06 score was 9750...this still seems low?

I actually dropped all the settings back to stock because my cpu temp was 55 C (9 degrees over the stock fsb temp)...but that kinda sucks that I shelled out all this money and am only scoring a measily 8000...any ideas or does it sound right?"





That seems about right at stock speeds. 2.9ghz isn't very much for the 6400. I had a 6400 running at 3.2ghz with stock cooling. My CPU temp was always below 40C idle. If you are getting temps that hight, I suggest you look at how your case cooling is configured. You should be in a push pull configuration, if you are using air cooling. What I mean is, a fan or 2 or 3 sucking in air from the front of the case and a few fans exhausting the air out the back, top, and or side panel. This allows cooler air to be constantly running over your components giving you more headroom to overclock. Make sure you have more than one front fan, though. You would ideally have one that sucks air in and over the hard drives, and another one sucking air in and over the motherboard. I can't stress how important it is to have proper cable management inside your case, as well. If you have a jumble of wires hanging around in your case, you will not get proper air flow.

I've scored over 9000 in 3dmark06 with the 6400 and 2 7900gt's in sli configuration. I now have a QX6700 and I'm awaiting the arrival of my two eVGA 8800gtx's!!
January 8, 2007 9:43:33 AM

Quote:
...but your vga is old...

Damn...you call 7800GT an old Graphic Card ?? 8O 8O
i thought that old means GeForceFX & ATI 9xxx Series Cards...
Maybe you are so High-End or i am so Low-End...
January 8, 2007 10:27:17 AM

My New system in my signature gets about 8400 at stock speeds. (Havent overclocked yet, waiting for a tuniq tower 120 before do this.)
January 8, 2007 10:28:35 AM

Quote:
Shortfuse Wrote:

Quote:
"I have a c2d e6400 on a GA-965P-DS3 with an eVGA 8800gts and corsair 620W psu and 2x1ghz corsair xms2 ddr2 800...

In 3dmark06 (unregistered so it just ran whatever settings is stock) I scored right around 8000...

The stock FSB is 266mhz with a multiplier of 8...I bumped this up to 366 with a ram multiplier of 2.5 to bump my ram up to 915, this game me a clock speed of 2.9GHz...this brought my 3dmark06 score up to 8800

I o/c'ed my gpu to 600/902 I think it was, and my 3dmark06 score was 9750...this still seems low?

I actually dropped all the settings back to stock because my cpu temp was 55 C (9 degrees over the stock fsb temp)...but that kinda sucks that I shelled out all this money and am only scoring a measily 8000...any ideas or does it sound right?"


That's about right.
January 8, 2007 1:26:25 PM

Quote:

That seems about right at stock speeds. 2.9ghz isn't very much for the 6400. I had a 6400 running at 3.2ghz with stock cooling. My CPU temp was always below 40C idle. If you are getting temps that hight, I suggest you look at how your case cooling is configured. You should be in a push pull configuration, if you are using air cooling. What I mean is, a fan or 2 or 3 sucking in air from the front of the case and a few fans exhausting the air out the back, top, and or side panel. This allows cooler air to be constantly running over your components giving you more headroom to overclock. Make sure you have more than one front fan, though. You would ideally have one that sucks air in and over the hard drives, and another one sucking air in and over the motherboard. I can't stress how important it is to have proper cable management inside your case, as well. If you have a jumble of wires hanging around in your case, you will not get proper air flow.

I've scored over 9000 in 3dmark06 with the 6400 and 2 7900gt's in sli configuration. I now have a QX6700 and I'm awaiting the arrival of my two eVGA 8800gtx's!!


I actually have the Antec P180b (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16811129017) which separates the power supply and hard drives into their own thermal compartment at the bottom of the case with one fan in between the drives and psu pushing air out the back around the pus which also has an exhaust fan. As far as up top, I guess I have some wire cleaning to do and I ought to add another fan or two. I have one exhaust fan pushing out the top and one pushing out the back, but nothing for intake. I guess those two factors combined are giving me the high temps along with the massive 8800gts

Another thing, I used the stock thermal paste that came with the retail cpu, which was already applied. I do have some artic silver here that I bought with the computer and decided not to use. Should I clean off the intel paste and apply some new stuff?
January 8, 2007 1:32:10 PM

shortfuse use articsilver 5,its the best in domain,i use this paste amount 2 years ,its ok,what cooler do you have?
January 8, 2007 2:29:11 PM

ShortFuse wrote:
Quote:
I actually have the Antec P180b (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E1681...) which separates the power supply and hard drives into their own thermal compartment at the bottom of the case with one fan in between the drives and psu pushing air out the back around the pus which also has an exhaust fan. As far as up top, I guess I have some wire cleaning to do and I ought to add another fan or two. I have one exhaust fan pushing out the top and one pushing out the back, but nothing for intake. I guess those two factors combined are giving me the high temps along with the massive 8800gts

Another thing, I used the stock thermal paste that came with the retail cpu, which was already applied. I do have some artic silver here that I bought with the computer and decided not to use. Should I clean off the intel paste and apply some new stuff?


You should definitely clean off the stock crap. Get some metal polish and apply it to both the heatsink and the CPU top. It'll help make a better seal when you use the Arctic Silver 5 thermal paste. You really should get a couple cans in front so you can pull in some cooler air. All you are really doing now is pushing out hot air and not allowing airflow to cool your components.
January 8, 2007 5:18:03 PM

Quote:
shortfuse use articsilver 5,its the best in domain,i use this paste amount 2 years ,its ok,what cooler do you have?


I have the stock retail c2d cooler...is this considered artic silver 5: Arctic Silver AATA-5G Thermal Compound - Retail

So I'll install another 12cm fan in the front like the case guide says you should do, but I don't have a place to install another intake fan except using a drive bay fan, is this a good idea?

Lastly, I've heard of people using a pci exhaust fan below the exhaust fan of the 8800gts, I assume this is a good idea also?
January 8, 2007 6:10:39 PM

its not good ideea ,try a big cooler,something like thermalright si 128 or zalman series 7000,its very good or schythe infinity with paste reccomended
artci silver,and results are greatful
January 8, 2007 7:53:12 PM

Korbin,

I have heard that you should not use metal polish on either the heatsink or the IHS. The reasoning I have been told is because the polish leaves a layer of molecules on the surface, which will cause it to cool less efficiently. I understand the theory, but, not sure if it really makes enough of a difference to worry about it. Do you have any links on this?

Thanks
wes
January 13, 2007 1:37:45 AM

Quote:
Korbin,

I have heard that you should not use metal polish on either the heatsink or the IHS. The reasoning I have been told is because the polish leaves a layer of molecules on the surface, which will cause it to cool less efficiently. I understand the theory, but, not sure if it really makes enough of a difference to worry about it. Do you have any links on this?

Thanks
wes


Wikipedia: "The preferred way to remove typical thermal grease from a component or heat sink is by using isopropyl alcohol."

It's in Wikipedia, so it must be True.
March 4, 2007 10:37:02 AM

hi,just convert to core 2 duo ,its good,but its not big difference.intel my old love.
March 4, 2007 4:37:01 PM

Well talking about bottlenecking I am running:

Windows XP
Pentium D 2.8ghz 800mhz fsb
2gb Ram
8800GTS 320mb

Ok, now i put the settings to high on battlefield 2142 get about 10-25 fps,
medium about 30-50 fps, I have been told I should be able to run it high with 80fps so where is the performance losss??, only answer i can think of is bottlenecking..

Now i am also running:

Windows Vista Basic
Pentium 4 HT 3.0ghz
1gb RAM
7950GT OC

Now I have been told i should be able to run bf2142 atleast med graphics but i get 10-25 fps which is unbearable just will get owned.
Even on CSS i am only getting 30-60fps, the weird thing is I can change all the settings to the lowest and get the same exact frame rates
March 4, 2007 6:01:12 PM

in my curent rig not exist bottlenecking ,i have e6600 and 680i sli cpu at 3ghz daily use,work great, my score in 2006 is 10500.
!