4850 3DMark06 Scores - disappointing?

Just popped in my new 4850 and ran a 3DMark06 run in XP on DX9. I'm kind of disappointed with the results:

TOTAL SCORE: 10067
SM 2.0 Score: 4340
SM 3.0 Score: 5035
CPU Score: 2238

I have the following specs:

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+BE @ 3.0GHz
MSI K9A2 Platinum 790FX
Corsair HX520W
Visiontek HD4850
4GB OCZ SLI-Edition DDR2 800

I expected something more around 12,000 or so with such an amazing videocard. On the Return to Proxycon test, frames dipped into the 20's on several occasions. The CPU tests have never been good. What I found baffling regarding the CPU tests is that my old Athlon 3700+ Sandy @ 3.2 scored around the same as my OC'd 5000+ BE. To me that seems odd.

I can't even beat a stock E8400 and an 8800GT according to Futuremark bench results. That can't be right....can it??

Temps for my 4850 idle at 71C and reach 85C under load, which seems in line with everyone else. I just really expected higher scores. I'm gonna run Vantage in Vista later to see how that fairs.

Those scores looks very low to me, lower than what the card can do...

CPU bound more or less, on my 8800GT i get 11k with an e2180 at 2.8ghz
7500 at the stock 2ghz.

Who cares? It's 3dmark, the world's most irrelevant benchmark. Try the Crysis GPU test.

Who cares about benchmarks. Your CPU is holding back the score. My E4600 @ stock and 8800GT @ stock don't break 10k. Just a couple hundred below it.

That's why DX10 is so much faster than DX9 eh?

Funny thing is DX10.x doesn't have anything to do with 3DMark06 Now maybe if it was DX10 Vista would pwn XP!

Well guys, my 2600 XT also showed that strange behavior on my computer. Maybe it's because of my computer's configuration:
2GB DDR2 800
Athlon x2 4800+ (2.5 GHz)
HD2600XT 512 MB

I have both Vista and XP installations. On XP, my graphics card shows about 10% less performance than on Vista. So I have had the conclusion that it doesn't support DX 9 as well as DX 10.
Please don't kill me OK?

In fact it's Crysis
It works terrible on XP (non playable) with medium settings, but works pretty fine (playable) on Vista with the same settings.
Resolution for both are 1280x1024.
Sorry don't ask me framerates, I didn't measure.
Just on XP I wasn't able to aim the gun before being killed by Koreans and on Vista, I'm about to finish the game.
I'm not too much of a gaming enthusiast. It's my first graphics card which I can consider "up to the time".

Did you do a full reinstall of the OS when you put in the dual core processor?

I'm currently running the latest BIOS v1.4.

I think you may be right, but what really bothers me is that it's a dual-core processor that has been overclocked to a nice number. The processor was released how long ago...what October of last year, right? When was 3DMark06 released? 2006. How come my dual-core processor cannot score any better than my single core processor?

Thats just the Demo,btw

See, that's what has me concerned. Why are 8800GT's, which are good cards, but not as good as 4850's out scoring my 4850?

I had the exact same problem. your CPU would be bottlenecking it in 3Dmark06, but If you ran real games on it I doubt it wouldn't make any difference at all from your previous card. From what I observe these cards are not very good with 3dmark06, but they rock in games. how is 3dmark06 with sm2.0 and 3.0 supposed to use 800shaders? plus the fact that 2.0 relys on high GPU clocks.

Y-o-u a-r-e c-p-u l-i-m-i-t-e-d

Your all wrong. I can get higher scores than him with a 8800GT and an 65nm athlon x2.

I think if I (E8400@3.8 ghz,single 4850) got around 300 less than the guy with the Q9450@ 3.9 ghz and single 8800GT,I think I would call the impressive,considering hes got just about twice the processor.

Not to mention mine is stock speeds. My SM3.0 score is better anyway

I'm going to give it a go on Vista Dx10 this evening. Will be in about 3 hours from now. I'm also going to increase the OC on my processor to 3.2GHz which i have reached stable easily before. I just set it back to 3.0 for the fact that I can lower the voltage.

considering that i get 9991 max on 3dmark06 under vista with a x2 5600+ 3Ghz and 2900pro at 827/1900Mhz.(crap gigabite mb doesnt help) i would think something is off. i know the x2 5000+ be is capable of 3.1-3.2 and the 4850 smokes my card. i would think you should be atleast 11k+ with a good overclock on that cpu and gpu. now grant it 3dmark is for bragging rights only(come on we all like to brag about it) i would be more worried about real world performance. personally when i get new equipment i like to start fresh with a complete reinstall. perhaps your having a software conflict. if your cpu does have a decent overclock it shouldnt be holding your gpu back. http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1928.html "The speed of the CPU should lie somewhere between 2600 and 3000 MHz; any lower, and the new graphics chips lose considerable performance."
anyways good luck and good gaming!

No seriously, he is CPU limited, a AMD x2 dosent perform at good as a core2 clock for clock. this is why he is not at said scores.
And to the guy who says he can get over that easy with the same stuff, i urge you to tell him how you did that cause obviously you have miracle hands.
on my 8800GT + e2180 @3Ghz(stock voltage) I get 11k 3dmark 06, where my cpu is holding me back.
Youre perfectly fine on your score there as is, if you want it higher you need to OC your CPU, That is what is holding you back, nothing else.

I understand that the benchmarking sites always use the top of line CPU's, and I don't expect to get 20,000 or 30,000. I just thought with the equipment I have, I should get higher than 9K. I've run it 4 times now and cannot break 10K again. That first run must have been an anomaly.

I ran the Crysis benchmark (High Settings: 3 loops / 9 time period):

1024x768/No AA - AVG. FPS=41.56

1024x768/4x AA - AVG. FPS=37.2

1280x1024/No AA - AVG. FPS=40.805

1280x1024/4x AA - AVG. FPS=31.65

My FPS took a major hit with 4x AA at 1280x1024 which is surprising since everything we have read about the 4800 series is that you practically get 4x AA for free. Apparently, I do not.

I don't believe in free AA.

From Futuremark's product description:

"VirtualMark is based on the Futuremark industry standard benchmark, 3DMark. With our vast database of over 15 million results, VirtualMark is able to accurately predict the performance of almost any imaginable computer configuration."

Wow...apparently not Futuremark...

Looking at Anandtech's review of the 4850 and the Crysis benchmark specifically, it appears I'm actually getting better FPS then they are at 1280x1024. Maybe it's all in my head....

I wonder if I should pick up a second for CF....

I won't take sides, but you will find that comment quite controversial.