I got ~9200 score on the default settings in 3D mark '06 with my new EVGA GTX 260 Core 216 superclocked card. I have:
- eVGA GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked
- Athlon X2 4800+ socket 939, 90nm (2.4ghz, stock)
- 4GB DDR400 pc3200 OCZ RAM
- Asus A8N-SLI Premium nforce4 mobo
- Windows XP SP3
- Latest NVIDIA Drivers 178.something released Oct 15th, 2008
Is a 3D Mark 06 score of 9200 normal or appropriate for this setup?
(( DEFAULT 3dmark 06 settings, 1280x1024 etc. Just installed it and clicked run ))
I was a bit dissapointed with performance on some games. I have a 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 and while BioShock, Call of Duty 4, Spore, and RS: Vegas 2, all run fine, newer games such as Crysis Warhead and Assassin's Creed don't show the performance I would have hoped.
I noticed benchmarks online show FPS of 35fps low and 51fps average on Crysis Warhead on DX9 Mainstream settings @ 1680x1050 on the same GTX 260 Core 216 ... of course, that uses a Intel Core2 Quad core processor extreme... however, I seem to get around 25fps on the same setting average, and dip into the teens for the lows... that's about HALF of the performance showed on those benchmarks...
So I am wondering - is this normal performance for this card on my system? Is my X2 4800+ really holding me back on performance that much?! Or do I have a setting set wrong?
Just wondering if 9200 is a pretty low score and how much of a difference the processor make with all of this. Because right now I am a bit disspointed with my system performance, and guessing I am not going to be able to run Far Cry 2 as well as I was hoping when it releases next week...
- eVGA GTX 260 Core 216 Superclocked
- Athlon X2 4800+ socket 939, 90nm (2.4ghz, stock)
- 4GB DDR400 pc3200 OCZ RAM
- Asus A8N-SLI Premium nforce4 mobo
- Windows XP SP3
- Latest NVIDIA Drivers 178.something released Oct 15th, 2008
Is a 3D Mark 06 score of 9200 normal or appropriate for this setup?
(( DEFAULT 3dmark 06 settings, 1280x1024 etc. Just installed it and clicked run ))
I was a bit dissapointed with performance on some games. I have a 22" monitor @ 1680x1050 and while BioShock, Call of Duty 4, Spore, and RS: Vegas 2, all run fine, newer games such as Crysis Warhead and Assassin's Creed don't show the performance I would have hoped.
I noticed benchmarks online show FPS of 35fps low and 51fps average on Crysis Warhead on DX9 Mainstream settings @ 1680x1050 on the same GTX 260 Core 216 ... of course, that uses a Intel Core2 Quad core processor extreme... however, I seem to get around 25fps on the same setting average, and dip into the teens for the lows... that's about HALF of the performance showed on those benchmarks...
So I am wondering - is this normal performance for this card on my system? Is my X2 4800+ really holding me back on performance that much?! Or do I have a setting set wrong?
Just wondering if 9200 is a pretty low score and how much of a difference the processor make with all of this. Because right now I am a bit disspointed with my system performance, and guessing I am not going to be able to run Far Cry 2 as well as I was hoping when it releases next week...