I'm right now in the process of updating my secondary rig to something a little more usefull that a bulky mp3 player. Yesterday I got the new videocard, a visiontek GTS-V, and right after I installed it I ran 3Dmark 2001 to see what it could do. From I had heard, the card is supposed to very overclocking friendly, so I installed the latest detonator drivers, downloaded nvmax and got at it.
Maybe I should add that the GTS-V is a lower clocked, value version of the regular GTS. It runs at 175/286 as opposed to 200/333 of a regular GTS.
I decided to first bring the card up to par with a normal GTS before I testing the limits. I got there without any conflicts [nvmax is a fantastic tweak tool], and thought it be a good thing to run 3Dmark again to see how much performance had increased. The results were not at all what I expected. Get this, despite the fact that I upped the core clock by 14% and the memory by 16%, my 3Dmark scores dropped 3%!
I have no rational explaination for this. I still haven't gotten the new processor, so the box is still pulling it's weight w/ an old PII-266 @ 333. Could this have anything to do with it?
Can somebody explain this to me? I am at a complete loss here...
No, the BX-6 series are all AGPx2, although I'm not so sure about the BX6-II, but that still doesn't explain why overclocking the card resulted in a drop in 3Dmark performance. From what I understand the major benefit from AGPx4 only materializes in T&L intense app's.
I just got my GTS-V, Visiontek Xtasy 5632, today. Paired with my Duron @1007mhz the GTS-V scored 2925 at stock clock, 3110-ish at 200/345, and 3260 at 200/365 in 3DMark2001's default benchmark. At 200/365 I noticed artifacts after one full run of 3dMark2001. Looking carefully I see artifacts at 200/350 so I have set my default clock to 200/345.
I was trying to test for artifacts with Artifact Tester 5 but this program found nothing even though artifacts are clearly visible.
Here is something that is interesting. Using GeForce Tweak I found that the card will overclock to 220/410 and actually operate (I don't recommend trying this). At that level of overclock nearly 30% of the screen is filled with incorrect pixels but no crash. (I didn't try this for more than about 10-20 seconds). I wonder if ram heatsinks will help. I've tried using a fan blowing directly onto the video card with no improvement so I may be at my card's overclocking limit already.
As for your problem, I can't really explain a decrease in performance. I could understand not getting any gains because your CPU is unable to keep up but a performance loss, no.
I'm sure you will see a huge improvement with the Celeron rig.
Hmmm... I just read through my first post and cannot help to wonder what happened. When I pasted it in there it appears to have cut out some random words. Sorry about that, I hope it is somewhat comprehensible anyway.
I think I have had my problem explained to me through another post at anandtech. Apparently the 3Dmark performance makes a slight dive with the newest detonator drivers, but the loss in fps is made up for by an increase in quality. Supposedly...
I have also come to realize not to expect any miracles with my PII, so I'll just have to wait until the slotKET arrives. I have everything else right here, but it's all pretty usless without it. It should be interesting to see what happens to it after I have install the new CPU. I'm expecting a 4-500% increase in performance compared to all the three-year old sh|t that was in the rig before. It's no where close to an XP system, but still not all that bad for less than a $200 investment...
Well, the heat level is fine. Usually I have been at par with normality , but lately I've been runnig an open box just because I ordered a lot of parts, but they never showed up on the same day.
I think that a part of the discrepancy lies in 3Dmark, and there is a part that applies to the drivers. The rest has to be caused by the the currently sucky hardware...
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by FooDog on 10/26/01 09:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>