Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3DMark06 = 12750 --> Decent?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
January 9, 2008 3:02:54 AM

I just put together a build for my brother. He's running a micro ATX with poor flow on the CPU side, so we were limited with regard to OCing. The specs are as follows:

Gigabyte G33-based micro ATX
Q6600 OCed to 2.7GHz
EVGA Superclocked 8800GT (650MHz, I believe)

3DMark06 = 12750. I know this isn't a mind-blowing score, but is it pretty much in line with the above specs?

More about : 3dmark06 12750 decent

January 9, 2008 3:14:46 AM

i seen another guy i dont know his setup he was overclocked he had 13150 benchmark so ur right on the money pretty much
a c 143 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 3:39:48 AM

It is mind-blowing. :)  It's among the best 7% PCs measured, maybe even better.

I'm a few points under 12000, with stock Q6600 (2.4 GHz) and overclocked 8800GTX (at 621 MHz). Your score is in line with the specs IMO.
January 9, 2008 4:02:12 AM

I would say your pretty much in line with what I have seen. I have a q6600 overclocked to 3.6ghz on an eVGA 780i with 2x eVGA 8800GT in SLI, I hit 18329 today with it.
a c 143 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 4:34:42 AM

Wow, that's gotta be in the top 1% :o 

I wonder if a RAID 0 would increase your score to 20K or more.
a c 169 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 4:58:15 AM

i saw some one with QX9560+2GB DDR2 1066 +2x 8800GTX and well u dont want to know what he got :D 

25k :o  :o  :o 
January 9, 2008 5:18:39 AM

Wow...5.5 GHz plus?!
January 9, 2008 5:33:27 AM

jjblanche said:
I just put together a build for my brother. He's running a micro ATX with poor flow on the CPU side, so we were limited with regard to OCing. The specs are as follows:

Gigabyte G33-based micro ATX
Q6600 OCed to 2.7GHz
EVGA Superclocked 8800GT (650MHz, I believe)

3DMark06 = 12750. I know this isn't a mind-blowing score, but is it pretty much in line with the above specs?


I got exactly the same score with the system in my signature, my GPU clock is also the same 651MHz. Your score looks above average considering your quad is clocked under 3GHz.




By systemlord at 2007-12-10
a c 169 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 10:10:25 AM

i got a little more thant it , i got near 13k (and then when i reinstalled the windows i got more thant 13k, but i dont remember how much was it exactly )
January 9, 2008 10:53:08 AM

Ive seen a 8GHZ celeron..... i know i know its a celeron, but still.
January 9, 2008 11:40:10 AM

Quote:
Why is it everyone has to ask if their score is oK?? Theres an online comparison chart that compares you with hundreds of people with similiar systems. Thats not good enough?


Don't be a Bytch. I prefer to do my comparisons with real people.
January 9, 2008 12:01:12 PM

jjblanche said:
Don't be a Bytch. I prefer to do my comparisons with real people.



I to like to compare will people that I can talk with to get more information like you just got by all of us. The charts don't tell you that your 3DMark score has a lot to do with you processor or that even a wimpy 2900XT can beat any 8800 series card even if the 2900XT can't compete with the 8800 series cards in actual gaming. You'll have to get used to MrsBytch she is our... :lol: 
January 9, 2008 12:43:39 PM

Hi i have a Q6600@3,42GHz, P5K-E Wifi, 2 GB RAM 800, 2x500RAID0, ASUS 8800GT core@700 memory@1005, OS: Vista Ultimate 32bits

3DMARK06 : 14033 With eMule running!

Is too High?

January 9, 2008 12:57:57 PM

My system scored a 12802 stock. Looks like yours is right on the money.

Q6700
BFG 8800 GT OC 625/900
2GB DDR2
Asus P5E

I've overclocked the CPU to 3GHz and video card and pulled out a 14470. I'm going to try to break 15k soon.
January 9, 2008 1:04:23 PM

I just realised how much the vista performance index is such a ripoff 3d mark, even in the way they try to sell you upgrades from their partners :p 

..So what's your vista index? :) 
January 9, 2008 1:08:36 PM

My Vista index is 5.7, I haven't seen anything higher than that before. It's kind of messed up that the 2900XT is scoring so high in 3Dmark, if only that power could be utilized in actual games.
January 9, 2008 1:33:15 PM

Your score sounds about right...

I got 13150 with:

Core 2 Duo E6600 @ 3,6Ghz
Asus P5B - Deluxe
4Gb Crucial Ballistix 6400
Sparkle passive cooled 8800GT @ 700/1000
a c 115 U Graphics card
January 9, 2008 2:04:56 PM

Q6600 @ 3.0Ghz (should be able to take it up to 3.6 in the near future)
Patriot Extreme PC-9200 4x1024
Dual 8800GTS-512
16835 3DMark06 under XP x64
January 9, 2008 2:10:29 PM

14,716 with rig in sig. Looks spot on, though a higher clocked quad would easily take you to 14,000.
January 9, 2008 2:22:28 PM

I like to use the 3DMark06 to help check if I have my rig running the best it can at whatever given OC I have. Look at your cpu and SM scores. 3DMark06 is heavily GPU dependent so obviously the better the GPU, assuming it is not help back by the cpu, the better the global score. My Q6600 at 3.46ghz gets a little over 5300 for a cpu score. The 8800GTS 640 SM scores are 5100 -5200. Globally I scored 13,044. Single GTXs and G92s score in the high 5000s to very low 6000s. Changing your drivers, cleaning out the registry, and shutting down nonessential processes can improve scores by a several hundered points or more if you are lower than similiar spec'd/OC'd systems. ie.My old FX60@3ghz/8800GTS 640initially got 8800+ after doing the above my score jumped to 9883. You can compare your scores against score scores of other CPUs and GPUs using TH guides. That should give you a idea as to how well your CPU stacks up to available chipset/GPUs, how much potential you have and maybe whether an upgrade is warranted. ie. At 5300+ my Q6600@3.46 is working much faster than a stock QX9650 at 3.0 that scores 4357.
January 9, 2008 2:31:59 PM

It's funny you mention the QX9650 runs at 4357 stock. I don't remember the actual score, but I know the Q6600 running at 2.7 scored somewhere between 4100-4300 on the CPU test. Maybe the 45nm's really aren't that much faster than Kentsfield, clock for clock.
January 9, 2008 2:39:37 PM

You'd get a lot more if you could overclock the CPU slightly more. I get about ~13k with my E4600 at 3.5Ghz.

To answer your question. That is a GREAT score.
January 9, 2008 3:04:26 PM

This particular Q6600 is in my brother's micro ATX (damn micro ATX!!). On the CPU side, airflow is very restricted. To make matters worse, when we did the build, we used the stock intel cooler (if I could go back in time, I would have bought him something a little nicer). 2.7 GHz and 1.175 (in BIOS; CPU-Z much lower) runs at 71*C hottest core, full load. We can do 2.8ish, but that requires around 1.23 in BIOS, and the temps start to get uncomfortable at that point. Even 71*C full load is a bit more than I would have wanted it to be, but certainly not out of specs. At 2.7, though, the Q6600 is not going to bottleneck for quite some time.

Regardless, my brother is more than happy with the numbers he's getting. Hell, I would have been satisfied with 11K. 12750 certainly exceeded my expectations, and even my hopes.

That being said, I'm building up a system for myself tonight, full ATX in a proper Antec 900 with uber-ventilation and a Zalman 9700. Q6600 + 8800GTS 512 G92 and G.Skill 2x2gig. Once I get that baby up and running, I'll do a 3dmark and see what numbers I can pull. I'll be running Vista Ultimate x64, so hopefully I wont take a performance hit because of that.
January 9, 2008 3:12:27 PM

Well a stock Q6600 should be around 3600-3700...stock Q6800 @2.9+ghz is 4100ish so at 2.7ghz you are doing pretty good. The Yorkies run much cooler so their advantage is in their ability to reach much higher OCs. For that matter in games quad at the same clock speed are actually faster than the C2D's but the latter OCs much higher... so ultimately are faster. Obviously, benchmarks don't translate directly to real world use mainly because programs are not optimized to take advantage of the potential. It simply illustrates what the future may hold as it is begun to be utilized.
January 9, 2008 3:55:33 PM

How about these results w/ radeon 3870x2, OCed q6600 and Vista?



I just posted it in another thread but thought I could add to the epenis discussion

EDIT: JJBLANCHE is right, I thought it was the same setup as the test done at 2650x1600 which got 9573 3d marks
January 9, 2008 4:02:24 PM

Very nice. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that Q6600 looks like it's running at 3.3 GHz (ie: far from stock).

You know, I really like ATI cards. I've been an nVidia guy for years, but only because they've outperformed ATI in raw numbers. If ATI can get a card out there that can perform within 5% of nVidia, with filters enabled, I'll be right there.
January 9, 2008 4:03:14 PM

By the way, badgtx, what kind of frames per second are you getting in contemporary games?
January 9, 2008 4:11:08 PM

On the newest games can't go max settings and be playable, but one step down usually works great. The 320 MB of RAM on my 8800GTS probably has something to do with that.

Hoping for a graphics upgrade soon, seriously thinking about the 3870x2, however, dual GPUs always scare me. I still hear people complaining about the Geforce 7950gx2 and lack of driver support. Hoping the 9800GTX isn't as crappy as people are now forecasting.
January 9, 2008 4:17:44 PM

My Rig is E2180 @ 3Ghz and BFG 8800GT OC @ 700/2000. Rest is in my info.

3DMark Score 11399 3DMarks

SM 2.0 Score 5125 Marks

SM 3.0 Score 5439 Marks

CPU Score 2569 Marks

My goal was a budget gaming system, I think I got what I wanted, the 2180 only cost me $90. The 88GT was $237.
January 9, 2008 4:43:29 PM

anyone realize the 29k system uses two 2900xts? :pt1cable:  :pt1cable:  :sol: 
January 9, 2008 5:18:52 PM

yeah i did notice that, but i think i remember his CPU was really clocked high and they are in a competition... so maybe using liquid nitro for cooling?... hehe
January 9, 2008 5:22:45 PM

This is prior to the OC in my sig.

Vista 32bit 11129 @2.4
XP 32bit 11757 @2.4

Still to test @3.0Ghz
January 9, 2008 8:45:50 PM

ginbong46 said:
yeah i did notice that, but i think i remember his CPU was really clocked high and they are in a competition... so maybe using liquid nitro for cooling?... hehe


His CPU was OCed to over 5.5 GHz. The fastest clock I've seen on a consumer CPU.
January 11, 2008 5:06:44 AM

Well, I just built up my system today: Q6600, 4 gig G.Skill, and an 8800GTS 512. Unfortunatly, my CPU is stuck at 2.8 GHz. If I try to OC beyond that, windows gives me a boot error. I've tried a number of things. It might be the RAM, I'm not sure.

Nevertheless, I was able to pull a 3dMark of 12865, which was over 100 marks better than my brother's PC, which has 2 gig, an 8800 GT Superclocked, and a 2.7GHz Q6600.
January 11, 2008 5:45:16 AM

jjblanche said:
Well, I just built up my system today: Q6600, 4 gig G.Skill, and an 8800GTS 512. Unfortunatly, my CPU is stuck at 2.8 GHz. If I try to OC beyond that, windows gives me a boot error. I've tried a number of things. It might be the RAM, I'm not sure.

Nevertheless, I was able to pull a 3dMark of 12865, which was over 100 marks better than my brother's PC, which has 2 gig, an 8800 GT Superclocked, and a 2.7GHz Q6600.


Sometimes overclocking with 4 GB of ram holds you back, try 2.8 with 2GB and see if that does the trick.
January 11, 2008 11:14:20 PM

Why is that systemlord?? I have E6750@3.4 4 gigs DDR2800 and a 8800GT with a bench of 12640 on 3-D 06
January 11, 2008 11:41:19 PM

Hey guys

E6850 @3.5
2 x 3870

January 11, 2008 11:52:38 PM



MicroATX setup as well. Gigabyte G33, Q6600 @ 3.0ghz, 8800GT @650mhz, 4GB of RAM under Vista Ultimate 64bit.
January 11, 2008 11:54:57 PM

Hey, well I don't know what to say, Everything is running stock except the CPU. I have had no luck at all usng overdrive to oc my cards. Not stable at all. When I had one in it was fine but once I went crossfire nothing but problems.
January 12, 2008 12:25:53 AM

Just goes to show how processor-dependent graphics are ...
January 12, 2008 12:46:40 AM

systemlord....many, many thank yous. I was about to pull the mobo and send it back. As a last ditch effort, I pulled one stick out and ~vollah~ I'm magically able to overclock past the 2.8 GHz wall. I'm currently at 3.6 GHz, 1.43125v (BIOS), 1.408v (idle; CPU-Z), and 1.376 (full load; CPU-Z). Do these voltages sound okay? Hottest core is at 66*C under full load (Prime95 small-FFTs).

The system is rock stable so far, with zero errors after over 5.5 hours of Prime95 small-FFTs. I plan on running small-FFTs for 12-16 hours total. I also want to test the remaining RAM, given that my original problem was a RAM problem. Which of the Prime95 tests is good for RAM? I've heard in-place large FFTs, and I've heard custom. Not sure which to go with.
January 12, 2008 6:50:54 AM

jjblanche said:
systemlord....many, many thank yous. I was about to pull the mobo and send it back. As a last ditch effort, I pulled one stick out and ~vollah~ I'm magically able to overclock past the 2.8 GHz wall. I'm currently at 3.6 GHz, 1.43125v (BIOS), 1.408v (idle; CPU-Z), and 1.376 (full load; CPU-Z). Do these voltages sound okay? Hottest core is at 66*C under full load (Prime95 small-FFTs).

The system is rock stable so far, with zero errors after over 5.5 hours of Prime95 small-FFTs. I plan on running small-FFTs for 12-16 hours total. I also want to test the remaining RAM, given that my original problem was a RAM problem. Which of the Prime95 tests is good for RAM? I've heard in-place large FFTs, and I've heard custom. Not sure which to go with.


Use this guide: http://www.playtool.com/pages/prime95/prime95.html

Basically you need to create shortcuts and add -A1, -A2, -A3 to the end of each shortcut (excluding the main Prime95 shortcut). That way you can have 4 instances running. Then you assign each instance a processor affinity (which core you want it to run on). Once you do that, you run a Blend test on 1 Prime95 instance and run Small FFTs on the other 3. This maxes out all cores while using a lot of RAM.
January 12, 2008 8:07:34 AM

peterock73 said:
Why is that systemlord?? I have E6750@3.4 4 gigs DDR2800 and a 8800GT with a bench of 12640 on 3-D 06



I said "sometimes" overclocking with 4GB of Ram is tough, Some mobo's just don't like 4 sticks of Ram with a very high OC. Some of the best OC's in the world are done with only one stick of Ram. Example check out the post under this one. :D 
January 12, 2008 8:30:16 AM

jjblanche said:
systemlord....many, many thank yous. I was about to pull the mobo and send it back. As a last ditch effort, I pulled one stick out and ~vollah~ I'm magically able to overclock past the 2.8 GHz wall. I'm currently at 3.6 GHz, 1.43125v (BIOS), 1.408v (idle; CPU-Z), and 1.376 (full load; CPU-Z). Do these voltages sound okay? Hottest core is at 66*C under full load (Prime95 small-FFTs).

The system is rock stable so far, with zero errors after over 5.5 hours of Prime95 small-FFTs. I plan on running small-FFTs for 12-16 hours total. I also want to test the remaining RAM, given that my original problem was a RAM problem. Which of the Prime95 tests is good for RAM? I've heard in-place large FFTs, and I've heard custom. Not sure which to go with.



Your welcome. :D  Your temps are awesome for that high of an OC, you got a great chip there that only needs 1.43v to get to 3.6GHz. My E6600 needs 1.55 Vcore at 3.6GHz with temps no higher than 68C hottest core. I knew that your wall at 2.8GHz didn't seem right, the max core temps for your processor is 70C so your just fine. Most of the highest OC's in the world are only possible with just one stick of Ram. Congrats on your nice OC!
January 12, 2008 11:42:25 AM

You guys are going to laugh....

So I'm about to take a picture of the remaining stick of RAM for ebay, when I notice a little sticker on there "test voltage, 2.0-2.1" So I go onto new egg to check the specs, and I realize I was looking at the wrong bloody RAM! (listed as 1.8-1.9). So I just pop the other stick back in, up the voltage to 2.06, and it boots right up, at 3.6 GHz no less (doh!).
January 12, 2008 9:36:00 PM

jjblanche said:
You guys are going to laugh....

So I'm about to take a picture of the remaining stick of RAM for ebay, when I notice a little sticker on there "test voltage, 2.0-2.1" So I go onto new egg to check the specs, and I realize I was looking at the wrong bloody RAM! (listed as 1.8-1.9). So I just pop the other stick back in, up the voltage to 2.06, and it boots right up, at 3.6 GHz no less (doh!).



It happens to everyone at one point or another, knowbodys perfect. Seems like there was enough RAM voltage for only one stick of RAM to run but not two. Imagine that you sent your mobo in only to get a bad mobo in-return, things could have been worse. You got lucky by deciding to try one last thing by removing one stick of RAM, just remember to always trouble shoot your components to be sure what really is the problem.

Make sure you run Prime95 for at least for 24 hours, this might seem like overkill but its not. Also how cold or warm does it get where you live from season to season? Would you say that its pretty cold for your time of year? The reason I ask is I OC'ed my system when it was cold in winter, then summer came and my system was running a lot hotter so I had to lower my OC because of the increase in temperatures.
January 12, 2008 10:36:46 PM

Temps in the house are a pretty constant 18-21*C all year round. I ran small FFTs for 17 hours, no errors. Figured out the RAM issue, added the extra stick, ran large FFTs for two hours and got a reboot. Pushed both the RAM and the CPU up one notch on the voltage. Large FFTs have now been running for 6 hours, no errors. I'm going to run large FFTs for another 2 hours, then run blend overnight. Assuming blend shows no errors in the morning, I'll run small FFTs again for another 8ish hours. If it passes that, I'll assume I'm stable.
January 12, 2008 11:02:15 PM

I find that Orthos is even more rigorous than Prime95. When I went from 2 to 4 x 1GB, it was the only test that that helped me tweak my settings to be rock stable (24 hrs Orthos stable) and I never have had a crash or BSOD at my OC settings.
!