Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Lower 3DMark score with OC?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
January 6, 2007 8:17:18 PM

Can anyone tell me why I might get a lower 3DMark score with overclocking?

My stock system scored 3122 on 3DMark 06.

I then increased Vcore, raised the FSB to 333, set memory to 1:1, and increased memory timing to the recommended 4-4-4-12 (I also set Vdimm to 2.1V according to Corsair specs).

I ran 3DMark 06 again and got 2887.

Did I do something wrong? Is the system choking down?

More about : lower 3dmark score

January 6, 2007 9:30:30 PM

no thats overclocking.

sometimes it fcuks with things

turn it down a little and retry.
January 6, 2007 10:24:16 PM

Beware of pci bus. lock it to 100mhz and re-check drivers performance settings.
Related resources
January 6, 2007 10:50:14 PM

Well, something else is going on now. I returned the computer to it's original settings, and now I'm getting 2823.
January 6, 2007 11:04:35 PM

What are the individual scores; SM2, HDR, CPU? It isn't just the total score that needs to be looked at, but the parts. For example, the cpu score might go up because of the overclock, but the gpu scores go down because something else is happening.

Things that can cause scores to stay dropped after returning to original specs are; burned ram, burned video card, and burned motherboard, or a BIOS setting that got changed without being noticed. I had a BIOS setting change without my noticing once, so I pay particular attention to that.
January 6, 2007 11:11:42 PM

Quote:
when overclocking and raising voltages up system can overheat and it that case the extreme heat slows down computer, cause more power leakage (so errors even more possible) while reducing life of your system quite a bit.



i know.
January 6, 2007 11:18:47 PM

Quote:
when overclocking and raising voltages up system can overheat and it that case the extreme heat slows down computer, cause more power leakage (so errors even more possible) while reducing life of your system quite a bit.


That's why smart overclockers moniter the heat levels and stress test every step of the way to check for errors. Then if heat is becoming a problem or errors start, the settings can be backed down before damage happens.

Dumb overclockers run the settings to the highest they've ever heard of, don't pay attention to heat, and wonder why there's smoke coming from the top of their now dead PC.
January 6, 2007 11:44:47 PM

Quote:
Can anyone tell me why I might get a lower 3DMark score with overclocking?

My stock system scored 3122 on 3DMark 06.

I then increased Vcore, raised the FSB to 333, set memory to 1:1, and increased memory timing to the recommended 4-4-4-12 (I also set Vdimm to 2.1V according to Corsair specs).

I ran 3DMark 06 again and got 2887.

Did I do something wrong? Is the system choking down?


How much did you raise the vcore? Also, did you tried memory at stock speeds? What about temperatures? What Heatsink/fan are you using?
January 7, 2007 1:59:07 PM

I initially increased the Vcore to approx 1.35v, according to Wusy's guide. Subsequently I was able to return it to default, which I think is about 1.2v on my mobo. Core Temp was giving me core readings of 45-50C during normal conditions (playing WoW or just surfing). When I tried running dual Prime95 in torture mode, the temps went over 60C, at which point I stopped the tests. I am using the stock cooler, which I thought would be sufficient. There's an article on this board about a E6400 O/C to 3.1 GHz with stock cooling, so I thought I would be OK at 2.67 GHz.

Spread spectrum and auto speed enhancements are disabled.
January 7, 2007 2:38:46 PM

1.2v? As far as I know the default is 1.3v
The stock fan is not giving you good results. Is not recommended anywhere.

The only thing I can say is that maybe you can find somebody with the same board and try to ask him because from this point, I cant really help anymore.
January 7, 2007 3:19:52 PM

Core Temp is showing VID of 1.3250v, but the BIOS shows a voltage around 1.2v, sometimes a little less. CPU-Z is also showing me voltages between 1.144v and 1.2v. Does that sound wrong?
January 7, 2007 3:24:21 PM

Quote:
Core Temp is showing VID of 1.3250v, but the BIOS shows a voltage around 1.2v, sometimes a little less. CPU-Z is also showing me voltages between 1.144v and 1.2v. Does that sound wrong?


mine does the same thing, i wouldnt worry too much.
January 7, 2007 3:34:59 PM

Quote:
Core Temp is showing VID of 1.3250v, but the BIOS shows a voltage around 1.2v, sometimes a little less. CPU-Z is also showing me voltages between 1.144v and 1.2v. Does that sound wrong?


mine does the same thing, i wouldnt worry too much.

OK that's comforting. But then, when Wusy's guide says to increase Vcore to 1.375v, does that mean that I should set it as +0.05 in BIOS, or +0.175? In other words, should I use 1.325 as the reference, or use the actual readings from BIOS and CPU-Z?
January 7, 2007 3:36:57 PM

set it in the bios.
January 8, 2007 1:32:23 PM

Quote:
set it in the bios.


I understand to set it in BIOS, my question was from which voltage reading to I made the adjustment to reach a specific target voltage?

VID says 1.325v, does that mean that's the voltage the CPU should be running at? If I use that as a starting point, then I would need to adjust voltage by +0.05v.

If I use CPU-Z or BIOS voltage readings as a starting point, then I would need to ajust by +0.175, which is 3.5x higher.
January 8, 2007 10:21:57 PM

Quote:
set it in the bios.


I understand to set it in BIOS, my question was from which voltage reading to I made the adjustment to reach a specific target voltage?

VID says 1.325v, does that mean that's the voltage the CPU should be running at? If I use that as a starting point, then I would need to adjust voltage by +0.05v.

If I use CPU-Z or BIOS voltage readings as a starting point, then I would need to ajust by +0.175, which is 3.5x higher.

up the vlts for the cpu in small increments, run and test your sys
to make sure its stable.

then go up a little more. and retest.
you can sometimes reach a higher oc with a slight vlt bump,
and not neccesarily a big vlt bump.

cpu-z will sometimes read different vlts than what bios is.

i always go by the bios when upping the volts.
January 9, 2007 8:21:56 PM

The Vcore fluctuations youre experiencing are called Vdroop this is an issue present in many motherboards but most of it all in Asus motherboards. There is a Vdroop mod you can try, in which the real Vcore would be the exact same as the one set in BIOS at all times.
It doesnt really matter what Vcore youre using as long as youre stable.

Lock the PCIe frecuency at 100Mhz and PCI at 33.33Mhz, then check in CPU-Z if your link width is at x16. If it isnt it might need a little SB voltage help.
January 10, 2007 10:42:37 PM

Quote:
Lock the PCIe frecuency at 100Mhz and PCI at 33.33Mhz, then check in CPU-Z if your link width is at x16. If it isnt it might need a little SB voltage help.


Thanks for the tip, I am going to do that. I don't think it's running x16 right now, but I wasn't sure what link width meant so I didn't change anything.

UPDATE: I installed my new motherboard (Asus P5W DH), and things are back to normal. I'm fairly certain my MSI mobo was defective, and that the mobo was causing the strange problems I was experiencing. With the new motherboard I immediately gained 100 3DMark points, even with the default settings. With some overclocking, I saw gains in my score. I set back to default for now until my Zalman 9700 arrives, after that I'm shooting for 3.2 GHz :) 
January 10, 2007 11:04:06 PM

Congrats! Sure that board had some problems. Make sure you Squeeze all the juice of that system! :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
January 12, 2007 3:24:32 PM

Thanks :) 

Last night I installed my new cooler and got her running at 3.2 GHz. I had a problem with keyboard/mouse responsiveness (I'm using a wireless set with USB connection). This morning I increased ICH voltage a notch, and it seems to have fixed the problem.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing very big gains in 3DMark. About 3100 points stock and 3300 points with the overclock. I'm pretty sure that my video card is the bottleneck. Based on this, I may decided to turn things back down until I get a better GPU in the future. For now, I only play WoW and it's running great, so I'm not in any hurry for another upgrade.
January 12, 2007 6:37:00 PM

Bufff, change the videocard brother, that thing aint gonna last long ;) 
January 12, 2007 7:13:36 PM

All futuremark benchmarks are 90% (rough estimate) GPU. Aquamark 3 is about a 50/50 CPU/GPU benchmark so you'll see huge gains when you upgrade/OC your CPU. You'll only ever see a few hundred (tops) points gain in Futuremark with the CPU. Upgrade/OC the graphics card and you'll see a nicer jump. Hope that helps :) 
January 12, 2007 7:55:56 PM

Quote:
Bufff, change the videocard brother, that thing aint gonna last long ;) 


...and it's only 2 weeks old :roll: Still better than my last one though!
January 13, 2007 1:04:32 AM

Sorry, didnt intent to make you feel bad :oops: 

Still, if you are really enjoyining your card and your games play perfectly, is OK, dont follow your 3dmark scores, those are hard-core programs...
a c 239 K Overclocking
a b } Memory
January 13, 2007 2:11:10 AM

You'd score higher with a better video card, your C2D OC can only accomplish so much with a low capability graphics card, the score fluctuation could occur from the video card overheating, try pulling the heatsink cooling fan and check for heatsink seating on the GPU DIE, and replace the thermal compound with Artic Silver 5, then you can carry your OCing onto the video card, and squeeze what you can out of that.
January 13, 2007 6:50:52 PM

u need to tune the system -- try running sandra mem bandwidth at different memory settings. u may find u need to raise the latencies or lower the voltage to increase your performance
January 13, 2007 6:52:06 PM

physically feel the ram - if its hot - u got it too fast or too much volts - if its not "turn it up"

put a crab cooler on the memory!
!