2GB 560ti low 3Dmark scores

[Spence52490]

Hi everyone, this is my first post so sorry if it is in the wrong section, I've read the rules and this seemed like the best place. I just built my system and switched from a 6850 to a GTX 560ti because I didn't like the ATi card. I've ran the 3dmark test a few times in the past few days and I am achieving really low scores compared to other people with similar set ups.

http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2922130;jsessionid=cveat4bhy4x61ummssuhdwcyz

I OC'd it to around 976 clock speed and got a score in the 4600's but most people are getting around 5500 with just the 1GB model. What am I missing here? Today I switched from a FX4100 to a Phemon II X4 965 because I thought that would help a lot more but it really hasn't. I even OC'd the X4 to 3.8 I just feel like I should be getting better performance, am I wrong?

 

[Ohmybad]

switching from the 6850 to the 560 most likely is a driver issue? most of the times conflicting drivers will give you headaches. there is a program used to clean out your drivers, driver sweeper i think it's called.

 

[bystander]

A couple notes, as I'm not exactly sure what score you should be getting.

1) Their database will consider your card to be getting lower than expect results unless you are overclocked by a lot. Mostly their database is filled with people who are overclocked by large amounts to those overclocked in the most extreme manner. The average user never uses their program, and most of those who do never get their results saved, as only drivers which certified by their system are accepted, which are usually about 3-6 months old.

2) 2gb's of video ram will not increase performance unless the program needs more than 1gb. In the case of 3dmark, you will not gain any performance increase what so ever.

 

[Spence52490]

So am I just over reacting? Right now the only game's I've tested are Rift and the Mass Effect 3 demo. On Rift I'm getting 30-35 fps on Ultra with AA on full and the AF on full. A buddy of mind said he was running it on full tilt with a 460 at about 50-60 fps. Which is why I'm scratching my head.

 

[bystander]

Rift is CPU bound. He likely has an i5 or i7 system.

I was referring to 3dmark. It will compare systems with similar parts to comment on.

He also is either lying or on a low res, as I know a single 460 could not play on ultra with max AA at 1080p and get those numbers, at least in cities. Keep in mind that in the main cities, FPS goes way down, yet is much higher out in the wild.

 

[Spence52490]

Rift is CPU bound. He likely has an i5 or i7 system.

I was referring to 3dmark. It will compare systems with similar parts to comment on.

He also is either lying or on a low res, as I know a single 460 could not play on ultra with max AA at 1080p and get those numbers, at least in cities. Keep in mind that in the main cities, FPS goes way down, yet is much higher out in the wild.

He is using a athalon quad that he oc'd to 2.8 he also said it was in the beta that was just before the release. I'm actually supposed to be giving him my fx4100 lol. He did tell me mmo's are a little funky when it comes to setups. I guess I cant tell until I test another game.

 

[bystander]

He is using a athalon quad that he oc'd to 2.8 he also said it was in the beta that was just before the release. I'm actually supposed to be giving him my fx4100 lol. He did tell me mmo's are a little funky when it comes to setups. I guess I cant tell until I test another game.

Well, it's quite possible they changed the settings for ultra before and after release. Rift has settings that go WAY beyond ultra. Ultra is just some predefined settings and they pushed my 6950's on an i7 quite hard. Also, after release, with a lot more people around, your system will be pushed harder.