Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

3dmark06 score: 7759

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
December 13, 2008 7:18:16 PM

does this sound about right? I have a 9600 gt a 2x 64 bit amd 4600+ (2 cores at 2.4 ghs) and 2 gigs of ram on vista. My sm 2.0 score is: 3614 and my sm 3.0 score is: 3877/ CPU is 1574. Should I be expecting better results or upgrading ram help or downgrading to xp a lot?

More about : 3dmark06 score 7759

December 13, 2008 7:41:00 PM

Your CPU is holding you back a bit. Is this a hand made computer? If so you may want to think about overclocking it. A simple boost to 2.7/8 Ghz will give a significant boost in performance gaming wise.
December 13, 2008 8:01:51 PM

yup,. and think about some more RAM (using 2 stick is the best) like byuing 2x2g.

Customisbetter is right to, an OC is needed here but its still a 9600gt. not a racing card !
Related resources
a c 186 U Graphics card
December 13, 2008 8:30:58 PM

Your results are about right, do n`t worry too much.
Agree with customisbetter, your CPU is holding the score back, but not by too much. Try checking out the overclocking Forum for advice on overclocking if you wish to pursue that approach.
If you`re using Vista the extra memory suggested by boulard83 would be a help, maybe less in 3D Mark than real use, but a help nonetheless.
Downgrading to XP will require a reinstall of EVERYTHING, games, apps and drivers. It can take a while, do not consider this option lightly!
December 13, 2008 8:45:17 PM

XP will only gain you 100 or so points . Not worth it IMO. It def will not improve your framerate either. Stick with Vista but you MUST have 4 gb of ram with VISTA. Start with that first.
a b U Graphics card
December 13, 2008 8:50:05 PM

Definitely agree with customisbetter. Vista absolutely needs 4GB of RAM if you want things to run smooth as butter. Your CPU will hold back your 3dMark scores, but your score sounds on par with the setup you have.

No reason to downgrade to XP unless A) You hate Vista, B) Your stuff won't run on Vista
December 14, 2008 5:10:25 AM

so upgrading the video card to say a 9800 gt wouldnt increase performance due to the cpu holding my graphics back? Im only getting about 30 fps during heaviest fighting on team fortress 2 when I run it with anti aliasing and 1152x870 with high graphics/detail. If I run it with higher resolution it dips to the 20s. And on ut 2004 it tips to 40-50 sometimes in certain maps (like glacier assault) under 1600 x whatever the res is at that.
December 14, 2008 5:11:50 AM

also for some reason I cant change ut 2004 anti aliasing in the menu and when i change it in game profiles on nvidia control panel it doesnt change it. And its not hand made, its a gateway i just upgraded the psu and added a video card. (9600gt).
December 14, 2008 6:01:22 AM

^Yeah, at this point, you can save for a new motherboard and CPU or you can buy a hihgre end AMD processor. I would vote for the former.
an e5200 is $85 and a decent p35 motherboard is under $90 nowadays. Your frames will increase about 25-40% if you go this route. That would also leave room for other upgrades down the line.

If you are strapped for cahs, check Gateway and see if your motherboard supports the Athlon x2 6000 CPU which can be had for $75. That would also give you significant increase in performance.
December 14, 2008 7:36:20 AM

I took it again and this time only got a score of 6764 3DMarks and the cpu was 1291. The fact steam, mccafee and a download on firefox were in the background could have influenced it? Also, what I find weird is this guy with only a two core 5000+ (so a couple hundred more mghs) got a cpu score of like twice as much:
http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?c...

either gateway is not telling me something or I dont know. Maybe it's the cache that is 512 on each core together to 1 meg.
December 14, 2008 8:09:37 AM

yep. i have an e5200 and a 9600GT. on stock, i pull low 10k's . oc'd i get 12 or 13k. your CPU is definitely bottlenecking.

lol just read customisbetter's SIG... isnt that 2.75ghz bottlenecking a 4870??? sorry for the thread hijack..
a c 86 U Graphics card
December 14, 2008 2:21:11 PM

Pershing121 said:
this guy with only a two core 5000+ (so a couple hundred more mghs) got a cpu score of like twice as much:
http://service.futuremark.com/resultComparison.action?c...

either gateway is not telling me something or I dont know. Maybe it's the cache that is 512 on each core together to 1 meg.
that guy had the 5000+ oced to 3.1GHz and secondly that's vantage not 3dmark06...
December 14, 2008 5:36:22 PM

V3NOM said:
yep. i have an e5200 and a 9600GT. on stock, i pull low 10k's . oc'd i get 12 or 13k. your CPU is definitely bottlenecking.

lol just read customisbetter's SIG... isnt that 2.75ghz bottlenecking a 4870??? sorry for the thread hijack..



Lol. Yeah i know my cpu is a dud. Its a weird prototype CPU between the two steppings. So the resistors and crap under the die are the same as the L2 stepping, but the critical temperature and overclock potential of the M0 stepping. It kinda sucks. I did buy it off Ebay for $80 a long time ago tho...
So yeah, it looks like a l2 but it cannot go past 2.75 Ghz at all. I keep it at 2.7 for stability.

@TS
When benchmarking, NEVER NEVER NEVER run antivirus ro steam or anything that you dont have to. In fact, most antivirus usually needs to be uninstalled before benchmarking as it still runs in the background when you think its not running. That could really affect your CPU score a whole lot.
December 17, 2008 5:05:40 AM

ok I bought a 1 gb 9800 gt to see the difference and it is like less than 1000 points.
December 17, 2008 5:07:54 AM

But I think its still worth it due to source stuff not going under 30 fps now while it was 25 before. DO you guys agree thats worth the extra 50 bucks?
December 17, 2008 5:10:10 AM

or should I take it back and get the cheaper 512 mb version for like 30 bucks less?
!