Benchmark seems VERY low
Tags:
- Benchmark
-
Components
Last response: in Components
a-fogle
February 16, 2010 4:47:02 PM
I am unsure where to post this, but I've seen some other benchmark threads throughout Tom's. Anywho, I recently decided to upgrade my graphics card and power supply (to accomodate the new card) and I did not notice a significant gain in performance. I believe there is an issue within my system, and I would appreciate outside opinions. Here is my setup:
Mobo: Asus M2N32 SLI-Deluxe Wifi
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6400+ (stock, not overclocked) at 3.21 GHz
RAM: 8GB Corsair XMS2 (5-5-5-18) DDR2 800 (PC2-6400) (although recently it is showing 7.5GB usable, don't know how or why, used to show full 8GB)
HD: Western Digital Caviar 320GB (16MB cache)
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium
Lite-on DVD-RW Drive
Antec 900 Case
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
NEW: Graphics: BFG GeForce GTX 275 OC Edition - 896MB @ 448-bit - 648MHz core clock, 1440MHz Shader, 2304MHz effective mem clock
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 750W PSU - 4x+12V rails @ 25A each
OLD: Graphics: XFX GeForce 9600GT - 512MB @ 256-bit - stock settings
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU - 2x+12V rails @ 22A each
I have not run 3dMark06 with the old setup, but with the GTX 275 and the new 750W PSU, 3dMark showed me around 7100. This seems AWFULLY low compared to other systems with HALF as much ram, same graphics card, and same or similar CPU. I don't know what I should try and diagnose, but this is quite aggravating. All drivers are up to date, and I never get BSOD, so I do not believe my system is unstable, but perhaps something isn't correct. I do know that the GTX 275 should be supplied with sufficient power with both 6-pins connected as they are.
Any help? Thanks. Maybe people know of comparable systems? Like I said, a mark of 7100 overall seems very low with the graphics card and decently clocked CPU.
Mobo: Asus M2N32 SLI-Deluxe Wifi
CPU: AMD Athlon 64 x2 6400+ (stock, not overclocked) at 3.21 GHz
RAM: 8GB Corsair XMS2 (5-5-5-18) DDR2 800 (PC2-6400) (although recently it is showing 7.5GB usable, don't know how or why, used to show full 8GB)
HD: Western Digital Caviar 320GB (16MB cache)
Creative Soundblaster X-Fi Titanium
Lite-on DVD-RW Drive
Antec 900 Case
Windows 7 Pro 64-bit
NEW: Graphics: BFG GeForce GTX 275 OC Edition - 896MB @ 448-bit - 648MHz core clock, 1440MHz Shader, 2304MHz effective mem clock
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 750W PSU - 4x+12V rails @ 25A each
OLD: Graphics: XFX GeForce 9600GT - 512MB @ 256-bit - stock settings
PSU: Antec Earthwatts 500W PSU - 2x+12V rails @ 22A each
I have not run 3dMark06 with the old setup, but with the GTX 275 and the new 750W PSU, 3dMark showed me around 7100. This seems AWFULLY low compared to other systems with HALF as much ram, same graphics card, and same or similar CPU. I don't know what I should try and diagnose, but this is quite aggravating. All drivers are up to date, and I never get BSOD, so I do not believe my system is unstable, but perhaps something isn't correct. I do know that the GTX 275 should be supplied with sufficient power with both 6-pins connected as they are.
Any help? Thanks. Maybe people know of comparable systems? Like I said, a mark of 7100 overall seems very low with the graphics card and decently clocked CPU.
More about : benchmark low
a-fogle
February 16, 2010 6:41:53 PM
Normal? Really? I saw people with similar setups, some with less RAM, and getting a mark of 12000+. I tried CODMW2 on single player (because I'm at college and our network is fairly slow), and my FPS was quite low on one of the first levels. On COD4, I used to dip quite low into the 20s on a couple maps with my 9600GT. Same thing with this GTX 275, so I don't get it. I thought about running FRAPS to see what I get in MW2, but I think I'll still be disatisfied. My brother in law just upgraded to a Core i7, overclocked to 3.5GHz (I think), 6GB DDR3 1600 ram, and he has 2xGTS 250 1GB in SLI and he marked at over 21000. I don't see how he got that much performance gain over me. COD4 and MW2 are really the only games I play at the moment, but I feel as if my current setup is more than sufficient to run at max settings with no noticeable video lag.
Related resources
- Raid 0 benchmark seems low - I need more speed! - Forum
- My Q8400 CPU benchmark very low Please help - Forum
- GTX 460 very low Graphics benchmark score - help? - Forum
- Graphic Benchmarks Very Low, a10 7850k - Forum
- i7 4790k scoring very low benchmarks - Forum
theholylancer
February 16, 2010 6:56:10 PM
ok exact setting on the 06? 12000+ may be on a lower res or setting and that will affect the score
also, that cpu could very well be bottle necking the 275, which is a powerful card...
i would say maybe try to play a game with different res (eg 800 * 600 vs 1600*1200) and if there is a no or minor drop in performance (even if running at say 10 fps) then it would mean that you are cpu limited and thus this upgrade only solves 1/2 a issue at best.
that ancient thing is a K8 derivative, which is based on the 2004 model from amd... the i7 obviously would have slaughtered it since the core 2s slaughtered it already...
and looking at the compat of that mobo, it seems that you can't even try to run a newer Ph II on it (K10 core)
also, that cpu could very well be bottle necking the 275, which is a powerful card...
i would say maybe try to play a game with different res (eg 800 * 600 vs 1600*1200) and if there is a no or minor drop in performance (even if running at say 10 fps) then it would mean that you are cpu limited and thus this upgrade only solves 1/2 a issue at best.
that ancient thing is a K8 derivative, which is based on the 2004 model from amd... the i7 obviously would have slaughtered it since the core 2s slaughtered it already...
and looking at the compat of that mobo, it seems that you can't even try to run a newer Ph II on it (K10 core)
a-fogle
February 16, 2010 7:13:58 PM
Sorry, I forgot to mention the settings of 3dMark. I ran it with just the default settings (since I'm using the free version) which is like 1280x1024 or w/e. I normally use my 22'' LG (1680x1050 of course).
Saint: Like I mentioned, I haven't run tests to check FPS on MW2. On COD4, sometimes it will dip into the low 20s, and sometimes hover around 20. If you're familiar with the game, on MP, maps Creek and Ambush are the worst, to be exact. I still need to try something like FRAPS for MW2.
To reply overall, I have read a few things that suggested my CPU may be bottlenecking, which was my greatest fear. And yes, I am aware the 6400 is socket AM2 which is now becoming obsolete. I also understand the Core i7 is fairly brand new and quite the dominating CPU, but I just couldn't see my highly clocked CPU getting that low of a score. Perhaps when it all boils down, the CPUs in my series have low cache values. I wasn't trying to say the Athlon 64x2 is anywhere close to a Core i7, it just seemed quite low. I thought about running tests with the 9600GT I still have and seeing what 3dmark outputs.
Saint: Like I mentioned, I haven't run tests to check FPS on MW2. On COD4, sometimes it will dip into the low 20s, and sometimes hover around 20. If you're familiar with the game, on MP, maps Creek and Ambush are the worst, to be exact. I still need to try something like FRAPS for MW2.
To reply overall, I have read a few things that suggested my CPU may be bottlenecking, which was my greatest fear. And yes, I am aware the 6400 is socket AM2 which is now becoming obsolete. I also understand the Core i7 is fairly brand new and quite the dominating CPU, but I just couldn't see my highly clocked CPU getting that low of a score. Perhaps when it all boils down, the CPUs in my series have low cache values. I wasn't trying to say the Athlon 64x2 is anywhere close to a Core i7, it just seemed quite low. I thought about running tests with the 9600GT I still have and seeing what 3dmark outputs.
cjl
February 16, 2010 7:15:57 PM
3dmark is much more CPU bound than most games. As a result, your CPU is heavily bottlenecking in 3dmark, even though it's probably a less severe bottleneck in games. You would probably see a performance improvement in games by going to a faster processor, but not as much as 3dmark would imply.
For an example of this, my 4870 quadfire system scores 17k in 3dmark06 with my CPU at 3.33 GHz (i7), while at 4.2GHz, it scores 27k. In games, there's almost no difference.
For an example of this, my 4870 quadfire system scores 17k in 3dmark06 with my CPU at 3.33 GHz (i7), while at 4.2GHz, it scores 27k. In games, there's almost no difference.
a-fogle
February 16, 2010 8:17:12 PM
I know you can't compare the i7 to the Athlon 6400+. That's like comparing a Lamborghini to a Honda Civic. I was more comparing what I saw results from similar setups. I'm fairly convinced it's the CPU, just wish I would have known. I'm going to return the new PSU and graphics card because there's no point in keeping them for now. I'm on a tight budget for a while , so I'll just get back the money it took away anyhow. I knew the GTX 275 was a massive card, just never thought my CPU would drag it down so much. But again, I understand it's based off of 5-6+ year-old technology. And also, I realize the 2xGTS 250 totals 2GB ram at 256-bit, and results in a few more stream processors than the 275 has. Hopefully very soon I can build a new system, and probably go with the i7.
cjl
February 16, 2010 9:55:43 PM
megamanx00
February 16, 2010 10:38:14 PM
Well, that score seems more than a bit low. I got a higher score with my two 3850s and my old Athlon X2 5000@ 3.2Ghz. Heck I got a higher score with one 3850 (around 8k with the overclocked CPU). Certainly seems like something is amiss. So
1) Did you uninstall the old drivers for the 9600GT and install newer drivers for the GTX 275?
2) Check to see if the clock speeds on the card are increasing under load rather than staying at their idle speeds?
Personally I would do a clean install to try and eliminate a corrupt XP install or any driver issues as the cause. If you do return parts though you may want to consider simply adding a second 9600GT to run in SLI. An Antec Earthwatts 500W is more than sufficient for that, and in fact was more than sufficient for your system with a GTX275.
1) Did you uninstall the old drivers for the 9600GT and install newer drivers for the GTX 275?
2) Check to see if the clock speeds on the card are increasing under load rather than staying at their idle speeds?
Personally I would do a clean install to try and eliminate a corrupt XP install or any driver issues as the cause. If you do return parts though you may want to consider simply adding a second 9600GT to run in SLI. An Antec Earthwatts 500W is more than sufficient for that, and in fact was more than sufficient for your system with a GTX275.
a-fogle
February 16, 2010 10:49:03 PM
Megaman: Yes, graphics drivers are up to date (nvidia's latest is 196.21). Also, I have Windows 7, not XP. Also, I used to have 2x9600GT but recently sold one to a relative. The dual 9600GT didn't seem to perform significantly either. This is why I was considering a CPU bottleneck. I never considered running 3dmark on that setup, so I can't revert back. I can, however, run it with the single 9600GT just to compare with only changing graphics. Since you got a higher score with a lower end CPU clocked at the same frequency, I'm quite confused now. Also, I contacted Antec and they recomended a higher PSU than the Earthwatts 500 even for the GTX 260 (I considered this before I bought the 275). However, a friend of mine is somehow running the GTX 285 2GB SC edition on the same EA-500 PSU. So idk... I didn't think the EA-500 would be able to support any of the GTX 200 series because of the amperage they draw. Also, I checked Nvidia System Monitor AND Rivatuner.... Both showed the 275 running at full settings when in-game. I contacted BFG about the dynamic power settings and it is normal. The idea is it reduces wear and tear on the card when not running heavy video applications. Ultimately, I can't really afford to do a re-install of Windows 7, as I am quite busy with school. I will continue some research, but it is puzzling to me how my PC marks lower than your system, megaman.
megamanx00
February 17, 2010 12:40:23 AM
^ Yes I meant Windows 7. Just so use to re-installing XP I suppose
. For Vista I keep an image of a fresh install but haven't had to use it much, thank goodness. It could be Win 7 doesn't like your system, so I just don't know. It's true that an Athlon 6400 X2 would bottleneck a GTX275, but it shouldn't be by that much. Like I said, I got a better score with a 5000+ X2 and a single 3850. Then again I did score it in XP so perhaps your choice of Windows 7 has something to do with it. I have most of my benchmarks, and work related stuff on my XP partition while only using my Vista partitions for games and the web ^_^.
Well, see if your scores go up using the 9600GT. If they do, then it's possible that something is wrong with the GTX 275. If not, then it may indicate another problem. Good luck.
. For Vista I keep an image of a fresh install but haven't had to use it much, thank goodness. It could be Win 7 doesn't like your system, so I just don't know. It's true that an Athlon 6400 X2 would bottleneck a GTX275, but it shouldn't be by that much. Like I said, I got a better score with a 5000+ X2 and a single 3850. Then again I did score it in XP so perhaps your choice of Windows 7 has something to do with it. I have most of my benchmarks, and work related stuff on my XP partition while only using my Vista partitions for games and the web ^_^.Well, see if your scores go up using the 9600GT. If they do, then it's possible that something is wrong with the GTX 275. If not, then it may indicate another problem. Good luck.
a-fogle
February 17, 2010 2:01:19 AM
Okay, so I haven't tried the 9600GT yet... But I downloaded FRAPS to test performance in MW2. FRAPS showed swings anywhere from 20-90 FPS on multiplayer. the 70-90 FPS range occurred in areas of less activity and detail (such as rocks, corners, etc... expected areas). In areas of more wide open detail, buildings, etc., I was averaging between 20-30 FPS. Granted this was on only one map, but I'm pressed for time at the moment. I tried single player, and it was even WORSE (which may support the argument behind CPU bottleneck). On one of the first levels, I was AVERAGING between 11-15 FPS... this is god awful. Remember these all occur with the GTX 275. Something seems terribly wrong..... My friend with the AMD x2 6000+ (model right below my CPU), same Antec 500W Earthwatts, same exact 8GB Corsair RAM, and motherboard directly below mine (M2N32 SLI Deluxe, no wifi).... not sure how he managed basically the same setup..... He is running all of that with the 2GB GTX 285 and he has no complaints about the game. I will ask him tomorrow to see if he will run 3dMark. I'm getting quite frustrated.
theholylancer
February 17, 2010 11:41:06 AM
a-fogle
February 17, 2010 2:37:03 PM
Sorry, I forgot to mention it. The friend with the GTX 285 uses a 26'' Monitor, so I believe that is 1920x1200 res. Cool n' Quite has been off, as far as I know. I use the Antec 900 case, and it has a top 200mm fan, front 2x120mm fans, rear 120mm fan, and I have a side window mounted 120mm fan. The front fans are intake, the side panel is intake, and the top and rear fans are exhaust. My system usually runs fairly cool. I can check nvidia system monitor and even after gaming CPU temps stay in the 50s or 60s C. I don't know if this is a significant issue, but my motherboard also is not recognizing memory at full capacity. The two DIMM slots (I believe channel A) nearest my CPU will register a full 4GB of ram, but once I install an additional 1 or 2 sticks, to total 6 or 8GB ram, I lose .5GB for no reason. This then has the BIOS registering 5.5 or 7.5GB, instead of full capacity. This wasn't the case a few weeks ago. I sent Asus an inquiry, no reply yet. The only things I have changed are PSU and graphics card, but neither should affect the RAM problem. All power cables from PSU appear to be connected correctly.
theholylancer
February 17, 2010 2:45:20 PM
hmmm weird...
who knows maybe a partially failing something somewhere is causing this
how about taking out 4 GB of ram (only use 4 GB matching ram and set it at the correct timing and voltage)? the imc on board may be getting glitched out over the long use, 50 or 60 c is kinda hot for a K8 chip in my books, what cooler are you using?
who knows maybe a partially failing something somewhere is causing this
how about taking out 4 GB of ram (only use 4 GB matching ram and set it at the correct timing and voltage)? the imc on board may be getting glitched out over the long use, 50 or 60 c is kinda hot for a K8 chip in my books, what cooler are you using?
a-fogle
February 17, 2010 3:04:00 PM
a-fogle
February 17, 2010 3:31:28 PM
theholylancer
February 17, 2010 3:44:43 PM
make sure he uses the same setting as you, get him to use the demo version with the fixed res and etc and what nots
this is really weird if your systems are really that similar, unless ofc his athlon is a newer cheap K10 rather than a older expensive K8
maybe get him to send you a ss of the benchmark with cpuz open and do it ur self and see the exact things inside...
this is really weird if your systems are really that similar, unless ofc his athlon is a newer cheap K10 rather than a older expensive K8
maybe get him to send you a ss of the benchmark with cpuz open and do it ur self and see the exact things inside...
a-fogle
February 18, 2010 4:36:34 PM
theholylancer
February 18, 2010 5:25:22 PM
new cpu time... it's chocking that 275
just grab a 955 BE + mobo and ram and you should be good to go
if you want to save some , grab a MSI 790GX-8D that has both DDR2 and DDR3 and a 955 BE
I would try not to get any DDR2 only stuff now, but if you must there are plenty of early Ph IIs that are DDR2, or just buy a new Ph II and drop it into a am2+ ddr2 mobo or a am3 ddr3 mobo
just grab a 955 BE + mobo and ram and you should be good to go
if you want to save some , grab a MSI 790GX-8D that has both DDR2 and DDR3 and a 955 BE
I would try not to get any DDR2 only stuff now, but if you must there are plenty of early Ph IIs that are DDR2, or just buy a new Ph II and drop it into a am2+ ddr2 mobo or a am3 ddr3 mobo
theholylancer
February 18, 2010 5:50:26 PM
a-fogle
February 18, 2010 7:31:42 PM
I appreciate all of the suggestions ^^. Unfortunately, I am currently on a tight budget but I'll DEFINITELY be in the market soon. I'm fed up with not having the gaming experience I want, plus I like having the newest in tech. And I completely agree on the CPU raping the GTX 275. Good price for the video card, but I think I'll still return it... got bills to pay lol. Such a downer knowing no matter what I buy, the CPU is my ultimate nemesis here.
a-fogle
February 23, 2010 11:28:51 AM
So my buddy with the 3Ghz Athlon x2 6000+ and GTX 285, just ran 3dMark on his 26'' monitor on same settings and scored an 11,500. If my CPU is bottlenecking, his definitely should. I just bought my CPU exactly 2 years ago (give or take a week or two) and he upgraded maybe a year ago. Also he ran his test with only 4GB ram, if it matters. And again his mobo is basically the same edition. So his comp with a CPU and mobo both the step right below mine, and just a lot better graphics card, scored over 4000 more marks................??
theholylancer
February 23, 2010 1:02:28 PM
JDFan
February 23, 2010 1:14:08 PM
a-fogle said:
So my buddy with the 3Ghz Athlon x2 6000+ and GTX 285, just ran 3dMark on his 26'' monitor on same settings and scored an 11,500. If my CPU is bottlenecking, his definitely should. I just bought my CPU exactly 2 years ago (give or take a week or two) and he upgraded maybe a year ago. Also he ran his test with only 4GB ram, if it matters. And again his mobo is basically the same edition. So his comp with a CPU and mobo both the step right below mine, and just a lot better graphics card, scored over 4000 more marks................??The 285 is quite a bit faster than the 275 so even with the bottleneck caused by the CPU will score higher in the synthetic benchmarks - even though in actual game performance you'd both probably get close to the same performance since your CPU is a bit better and will let your 275 perform closer to it's capability. Either way though the scores you are getting are pretty low - Here's my Phenom II X3 720 (unlocked to an X4 and OC'd to 3.2 GHz.) with a 5770 GPU results -

SO with a better CPU your scores will definitely improve (since the 5770 should be slightly under the 275 in performance)
a-fogle
February 23, 2010 1:33:59 PM
JDFan
February 23, 2010 1:39:08 PM
a-fogle said:
I agree that my score is pretty low. I don't understand how a comparable system could possibly outscore mine by 4000. I don't know if I have a motherboard issue or what, but something doesn't make sense.What is the breakdown of the scores on the 2 systems and which scores vary ? - that should give you an idea of where to look for the cause !
a-fogle
February 24, 2010 12:10:11 AM
JDFan
February 24, 2010 1:04:27 AM
a-fogle said:
I guess I didn't really ask for a breakdown. I do know that his CPU scored 2900 something and mine scores around 2250. No way his CPU should outscore mine at stock settings.Well if his CPU is outscoring yours are there any background processes running that might be interfering with the benchmark performance while it is running (figure any background app might be using system processes and slowing the benchmark.)
a-fogle
March 9, 2010 3:32:30 AM
I know this is quite late for a reply, but I mentioned discovering an issue where my motherboard and OS will not recognize my full 8GB memory. All sticks tested full capacity individually. I submitted a ticket to AsusTek and one of the reps suggested my CPU's memory controller may be faulty and using some RAM for extra cache. Not sure how common of an issue this is, but if it's the case, glad to see I have a POS CPU lol
theholylancer
March 9, 2010 1:00:01 PM
Ummm well since A64s did have the memory controller on board...
it is possible or maybe the mobo vender is not pushing out better bioses
I know for a fact that when the i7-900s released, most new X58 mobos had issues, minor or major, in supporting populating all 6 banks of ram and going with a 12 GB system.
that was fixed when they got a few new bios out the gate and everything is fine out.
granted since your rig is old, maybe it is simply failing controller in the CPU...
it is possible or maybe the mobo vender is not pushing out better bioses
I know for a fact that when the i7-900s released, most new X58 mobos had issues, minor or major, in supporting populating all 6 banks of ram and going with a 12 GB system.
that was fixed when they got a few new bios out the gate and everything is fine out.
granted since your rig is old, maybe it is simply failing controller in the CPU...
megamanx00
March 9, 2010 4:56:04 PM
That sounds strange. It would be pretty weird, but I suppose it's possible. Your CPU may just have had it's last hura
. Still, if that were the case you would not have the full 4GB on each stick when you tested them individually. Still, that could simply point to a problem with the memory controller running things in dual channel mode. You either have a defective board, or a defective CPU. I don't suppose you have another board or CPU lying around to test em. Anyway, try running the memory in single channel mode and see if that does anything for now.
. Still, if that were the case you would not have the full 4GB on each stick when you tested them individually. Still, that could simply point to a problem with the memory controller running things in dual channel mode. You either have a defective board, or a defective CPU. I don't suppose you have another board or CPU lying around to test em. Anyway, try running the memory in single channel mode and see if that does anything for now. Related resources
- Benchmark scores seem really low Forum
- Memory benchmarking very low is Passmark software Forum
- SolvedSamsung 850 benchmark seems slow. Is it my motherboard? Forum
- My ATi Radeon 4870 3d Mark Results seem very low? Forum
- SolvedJust ran a benchmark on my SSD, and something seems seriously wrong here. Forum
- SolvedGPU clock speed seems low Forum
- SolvedSamsung television screen is very dark and seems to get darker the longer it is on. Forum
- Doom3 .. VERY LOW END Benchmarks GF4 PNY 4200 64mb 1.33Ghz.. Forum
- very low benchmarks in 3Dmark2003 and 2001SE Forum
- SolvedEE internet speeds unrealistically low, 1000+ ping, 0.16 Download and 0.4 upload, only seems to happen at certain times. Forum
- USB data transfer - seems very slow Forum
- Solvedgood video cards that will run on my power supply? Amps on 12v Rail are a bit low it seems Forum
- SolvedHWMonitor Voltage Values seems to too low. What does this say to my PSU? Forum
- SolvedIs a 500W PSU (corsair CX500) too low for my PC build? Is it dangerous, I've been running it for a few weeks seems good so far Forum
- SolvedIs a 500W PSU (corsair CX500) too low for my PC build? Is it dangerous, I've been running it for a few weeks seems good so far Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Components categories
!