Post your 3dmark06 HD 3K Series Results [Archive]

View Full Version : Post your 3dmark06 HD 3K Series Results

Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

freaksavior

12-31-2007, 06:41 PM

Updated As of 07/04/08 Thanks to freaksavior

Crossfire X

Quad Core

20292- BATOFF - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 776 Core 1125 Mem + 3870 X2 @ 823 Core 900 Mem - Vista

20701 - Megasty - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 776 Core 1125 Mem + 3870 X2 @ 822 Core 900 Mem - Vista

19033 - thequestor- Q6600 @ 3.5ghz 3870 @ 776 Core 1125 Mem + 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 900 Mem - Vista

Crossfire X

Dual Core

10010 - candle_86 - Athlon X2 2.4ghz 3870 @ 769 Core 1125 mem + 3850 @ 668 Core 828 Mem 1323Mem - vista

3870 X2 Crossfire

26323 - Francis69007- Qx9650 @ 4.5ghz 3870X2's @ 850 Core 900 Mem - Vista

20523- raovac- Q6600 @ 3.6ghz 3870 X2 @ 823 Core 900 Mem - Vista

3870 X2

Quad Core

23955 - Nitro-Max - Q6600 4.3ghz 3870 X2 @ 900 Core 1000 Mem - XP
19703 - kylew - Q6600 @ 3.96ghz 3870 X2 @ 930 Core 940 Mem - Vista
19064 - fitseries3 - Q6600 @ 3.7ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 901 Mem - Vista
18570 - Blacklash - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 901 Mem - Vista
17697 - warup89- Q6700 @ 3.6ghz 3870 x2 @ 800 Core 900 Mem - Vista
17496 - thequestor - Q6600 3.5ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 900 Mem - XP
17471 - ace80 - Q6600 @ 3.6ghz 3870 X2 @ 822 Core 900 Mem - Vista
17471 - mep916 - Q6600 @ 3.6ghz 3870 x2 @ 822 Core 900 Mem - Vista
16741 - fullinfusion - phenom @ 3.0ghz 3870 X2 @ 823 Core 900 Mem - Vista
16371 - azazel - Q6600 @ 3.3ghz 3870 X2 @ 822 Core 900 Mem - XP
16153 - Whilhelm- Q6600 @ 3.0ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 900 Mem - XP
15404 - azazel - Q6600 @ 3.0ghz 3870 x2 @ 820 Core 900 Mem - Vista
11395 - BadEviL2K - phenom @ 2.6ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1044 Mem - Vista

Dual Core

20866- trt740 - Xeon E3110 @ 3.8ghz 3870 X2 @ 918 Core 1041 Mem
20033 - fitseries3 - E8500 @ 4.8ghz 3870 X2 @ 850 Core 900 Mem
20032 - Kirby123 - E8400 @ 3.0ghz 3870 X2 @ 950 Core 954 Mem
19444 - CY:G - E8400 @ 4.3ghz 3870 X2 @ 900 Core 1098 Mem
18772 - DanishDevil - E8500 @ 4.5ghz 3870 x2 @ 823 Core 900 Mem - Vista
116671 - hogans - E6850 @ 3.8Ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 900 Mem - XP
115817 - Ati Addictive - E6600 @ 3.6ghz 3870 X2 @ 825 Core 901 Mem - Vista

3870 Crossfire

Quad Core

22094 - Deagle- Q6600 @ 4.15ghz 3870 @ 1026 Core 1323 Mem - XP
21551 - asb2106 - Q6600 @ 4.05ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1296 Mem - XP
20742 - InPaniC - Q6600 @ 4.05ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1296 Mem - XP
20523 - ManoWaari - Q6600 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1296 Mem - XP
20108 - Smallz750 - QX9650 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 845 Core 1201 Mem - Vista
19033 - freaksavior - Q6600 3.65ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1224 Mem - XP
18754- imperialreign - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1251 Mem - XP
18152 - lajchi - Q6600 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 823 Core 990 Mem - XP
17313 - Woody112 - q6600 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 812 Core 1224 Mem - Vista
17050 - Blacklash - Q6600 @ 3.5ghz 3870 @ 760 Core 1029 Mem - Vista
16881 - tamazoid - Q6600 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1143 Mem - XP
16484- Bytor - Phenom 9850 @ 3.2ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1350 Mem - XP
13607 - batmang - Phenom 9850 @ 2.6ghz 3870 @ 823 Core 1233 Mem - Vista
13175 - xmarine0311 - Phenom 9850 @ 2.5ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1188 Mem - Vista

Dual Core

20243 - Dr. Spankenstein - E8500 @ 4.3ghz 3870 @ 958 Core 1242 Mem - XP
20008 - ThatGuy16 - E8400 @ 4.6Ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1197 Mem - Vista
19475 - GrizzCUB - E8400 @ 4.27Ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1359 Mem - Vista
19273 - Erocker - E8400 @ 4.36Ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1296 Mem - XP
19232 - WOutZoR - Xeon E3110 @ 4.25Ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1260 Mem - Vista
18175 - adigehalil - E8400 @ 4.0Ghz 3870 @ 823 Core 1206Mem - vista
17987 - Tzitzibp - E8400 @ 4.0Ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1350 Mem - XP
17641 - philbrown23 - E6850 @ 4.06Ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1197 Mem - XP
17024 - trog100 - E8400 @ 4.0ghz 3870(ddr4) @ 850 Core 1200 Mem - 3870(ddr3) @ 850 Core 950 Mem - XP
16896- dark2099 - E7200 @ 4.0Ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1305Mem- vista
14686 - Bytor - Athlon X2 @ 3.55ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1359 Mem - XP
14429- dark2099 - E8500 @ 3.1Ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1305Mem- vista
14297- dark2099 - E4600 @ 3.4Ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1305Mem- vista
12381 - dark2099 - Athlon X2 @ 3.2Ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1305Mem- vista

3870

Quad Core
lemnad

19891 - lemnad- Q6600 @ 3.9ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 999 Mem
16487 - asb2106 - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 1147 Core 1278 Mem - XP
15314 - The Haunted - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 1080 Core 1323 Mem
15137 - Kup - Q6600 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 972 Core 1404 Mem
14150 - spiro -Q6600 3.52ggh 3870 @ 931 Core 1341 Mem
14080 - d0s - Q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1296 Mem - XP
13865 – xkm1948 -Q6600 3.6gh 3870 @ 857 Core 1386 Mem - XP
13781 - uber_cookie -Q6600 3.6gh 3870 @ 877 Core 1305 Mem
13720 - xkm1948 - Q6600 @ 3.6ghz3870 @ 857 Core 1350 Mem - XP
13397 - Random Murderer - Q6600 @ 3.2ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1242 Mem - XP
13325 - thequestor- Q6600 @ 3.5ghz3870 @ 776 Core 1125 Mem - XP
13282 - freaksavior - Q6600 @ 4.8ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1188 Mem - XP
13116 - lajchi - Q6600 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 823 Core 945 Mem - XP
13013 - Kei - AMD phenom @ 3.0ghz 3870 @ 931 Core 1350 Mem
12814 - ToeMoss - Q6600 @ 3.3ghz 3870 @ 823 Core 1197 Mem
12142 - borgfish - Q6600 @ 3.0ghz 3870 @ 796 Core 1170 Mem - XP
12334 - PashaM - Q6600 @ 2.4ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1125 Mem
12071 - zaqwsx- Phenom @ 2.8ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1247 Mem - XP Home
11850 - jbunch07- Phenom @ 2.7ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1215 Mem - Vista
11821 - wiak - phenom 2.7ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1278 Mem - XP
11533 - batmang - AMD Phenom @ 2.6ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1260 Mem - XP
11402 - BadEviL2K - AMD Phenom @ 2.4ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1044 Mem
11372 - jpierce55 - AMD Phenom @ 2.4ghz 3870 @ 843 Core 1242 Mem

Dual Core

[B]14319 - The Haunted - E3110 @ 4.3ghz 3870 @ 1080 Core 1323 Mem - XP
13873 - barr3l rid3r - E8400 @ 4.3ghz 3870 @ 1005 Core 1245 Mem - XP
13403 -erocker - E8400 @ 4.32ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1296 Mem - XP
13378 - Trog100 - E8400 @ 4.4ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1287 Mem 3dmark - XP
13138 - sneekypeet - E6400 @ 3.9ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1386 Mem - Xp
12819 - Dr. Spankenstein - E6600 @ 3.7ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1287 Mem - XP
12639 - MagnusLL - E6750 3.6ghz 3870 @ 931 Core 1251 Mem - XP
12610 - DanishDevil - E8500 @ 4.2ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1314 Mem - Vista
12605 - Bytor - Athlon X2 @ 3.55ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1359 Mem - XP
12565 - gerrynicol - E8400 @ 3.8ghz3870 @ 865 Core 1387 Mem - Vista
12557 -oily 17 - E6850 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1314 Mem - Vista
12427 -htc - E6850 @ 3.8ghz 3870 @ 904 Core 1251 Mem - Vista
12412 - total90 - E8500 @ 4.0ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1260 Mem - Vista
12306 - magibeg - Q6600 2.9ghz 3870 @ 855 Core 1271 Mem
12287 - fafa21 - E6750 @ 3.7ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1296 Mem
12212 - Darknova - E8400 @ 3.7ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1305 Mem - XP
12198 - entilza - E8400 @ 3.6ghz 3870 @ 843 Core 1251 Mem
12172 - casper250c - E4500 @ 3.3ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1386 Mem
11936 - mikek75 - E6750 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 843 Core 1251 Mem - XP
11758 - Stige - E6750 @ 3.6ghz 3870 @ 918 Core 1314 Mem - XP
11740 - gerrynicol - E6320 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1387 Mem - Vista
11615 - rzrbackpic - E6400 @ 3.3ghz3870 @ 864 Core 1242 Mem
11605 - freaksavior - E4300 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1377 Mem - Vista
11332 - Darknova - E2180 @ 3.7ghz 3870 @ 810 Core 927 Mem - XP
11321 - TRIPTEX_MTL - E4400 3.0ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1224 Mem - Vista
11303 - Dop3KinG - E6300 @ 3.2ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1296 Mem - Vista
11229 - warlock - E6420 2.8ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1179 Mem
11107 – Lillebror - e6400 @ 3.39ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1152 Mem – Vista Ultimate
11107 - alexp999 - e6600 @ 3.03ghz 3870 @ 850 Core 1296 Mem
11035 - Darknova - E4400 @ 3.1ghz 3870 @ 810 Core 1251 Mem - XP
10952 - department76 - Athlon X2 @ 3.5ghz 3870 @ 862 Core 1200 Mem - Vista
10886 - Lillebror - E6400 @ 3.4ghz 3870 @ 789 Core 1152 Mem
10818 - kenkickr - Athlon X2 @ 3.3ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1386 Mem
10783 - miloshs - Athlon X2 @ 3.2ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1287 Mem
10631- Spirou - P4D @ 4.6ghz 3870 @ 931 Core 1341Mem - XP
10603 - ace80 - E6750 @ 2.66ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1188 Mem - XP
10337 - -iceblade^ - E2160 @ 3.0ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1179 Mem - Vista
10332 - reverze - Athlon X2 @ 3.0ghz 3870 @ 857 Core 1251 Mem - XP
10250 - laszlo - Athlon X2 @ 2.8Ghz 3870 @ 837 Core 1251Mem - XP
10452- dark2099 - Athlon X2 @ 3.2Ghz 3870 @ 864 Core 1296Mem- XP

10059 - -=CrAnSwIcK=- - Athlon X2 @ 3.0Ghz 3870 @ 820 Core 1044 Mem - XP
10027 - blacktruckryder - Athlon X2 @ 2.8ghz 3870 @ 877 Core 1314 Mem - XP
9704 - Steevo - Athlon X2 @ 2.7ghz3870 @ 864 Core 1233 Mem - Xp
9567 - Makaveli - Opteron @ 2.8ghz 3870 @ 776 Core 1125 Mem - XP
9541 - Silverel - Athlon x2 @ 3.2ghz 3870 @ 715 Core 945 Mem - XP
9402 - Steevo - Athlon X2 @ 2.6ghz 3870 @ 816 Core 1224 Mem - XP
9152 - candle_86 - Athlon X2 2.4ghz 3870 @ 891 Core 1323Mem - vista
8541 - 0elemental0 - Athlon X2 2.4ghz 3870 @ 777 Core 1125 Mem - XP

3850

Quad Core

12867- nflesher87 - q6700 @ 3.8ghz 3850 @ 803 Core 1017 Mem - XP
12250- nflesher87 - q6600 @ 3.8ghz 3850 @ 769 Core 1017 Mem - XP
11114 - Warlock - q6600 @ 2.4ghz AGP 3850 @ 776 Core 999 Mem - Vista

Dual Core

12187 - ghost101 - E8400 @ 4.2ghz 3850 @ 864 Core 999 Mem - Vista
11891 - Erocker- E8400 @ 4.2ghz3850 @ 769 Core 1053 Mem - XP
1688 - fwhomeboy - E6750 @ 3.6ghz3850 @ 796 Core 999 Mem
11271 - repsol23 - E6700 @ 3.15ghz 3850 AGP @ 837 Core 1026 Mem - XP SP3
11511 - unsmart - E6300 @ 3.5ghz 3850 @ 837 Core 1044 Mem - XP
11417 - tigger69 - E6750 @ 3.6ghz 3850 @ 837 Core 999 Mem
10899 - Richard Shepherdson - E6400 @ 3.2ghz 3850 @ 783 Core 1062 Mem - Vista
10793 - CH@NO - E8200 @ 3.7Ghz 3850 @ 715 Core 999Mem - XP
10693 - NastyHabits - E6750 @ 3.2Ghz 3850 @ 762 Core 891Mem - XP
10606 - nflesher87 - E2200 @ 3.35 3850 @ 789 Core 1008 Mem - XP
10561 - King Wookie- E6550 @ 2.88ghz 3850 @ 769 Core 1062 Mem - XP
[10249 - mitchy24 - E6750 @ 3.6ghz3850 @ 715 Core 873 Mem
10022 - ArmoredCavalry - E6750 @ 3.2ghz 3850 @ 715 Core 891 Mem
9822 - mandown - Athlon x2 @ 2.75ghz3850 @ 850 Core 1098 Mem - vista
9812 - Graogrim - E2200 @ 2.8ghz3850 @ 729 Core 936 Mem
9727 - erocker - Athlon X2 @ 3.2ghz3850 @ 715 Core 945 Mem - Vista
9597- InnocentCriminal - Athlon X2 @ 2.8ghz 3850 @ 823 Core 945 Mem
9530 - Joe23 - Athlon x2 @ 2.8ghz 3870 @ 810 Core 1225 Mem - XP
9012 - Devguy - Athlon X2 @ 3.0ghz 3850 @ 742 Core 999 Mem
8691 - Murasame - E6400 @ 2.13ghz3850 @ 668 Core 828 Mem - Vista
8451- candle_86 - Athlon X2 2.5ghz 3850 @ 668 Core 821mem - xp
8226 - mnm222876 - Athlon X2 @ 2.4ghz3850 @ 668 Core 828 Mem - XP
8072 - thermopylae_480 - Pentium D 945 @ 3.75 3850 @ 715 Core 945 Mem - XP

Single Core

7134 - repsol23 - Pentium 4 @ 4.24 3850 (AGP) @ 810 Core 1026 Mem - XP

5062 - Morgoth - P4 @ 3.6ghz3850 (agp) @ 822 Core 900 Mem - xp

4869 - maerean_m - Athlon Xp @ 2.2ghz3850 (agp) @ 715 Core 909 Mem - xp

3850 Crossfire

Dual Core

17431 - blTb - E8400 @ 2.88ghz3850 @ 749 Core 1098 Mem - vista

3650

Single Core

3450
1566 - unsmart - Sempron @ 1.98ghz 3450 @ 594 Core 495 Mem - XP

3977 - gamalrizaldi - Athlon 64 3000 @ 2.7Ghz 3650 @ 722 Core 792 Mem - Vista

Post your 3d mark 06 score of your 3000 series card!

Please be sure to include a picture of cpu-z and gpu-z!! Otherwise your score will NOT be valid

here is mine

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/freaksavior/3dmark06X1280.jpg

If you appreciate what i've done, hit the thanks button

i just want to clairfy something ( and i know we really are already doing this) but i just want people to know, if it has ANYTHING to do with the 3xxx series cards then please, please ask as that is one of the MANY reasons for this thread. Since the card is so cheap, yet so great performance then as erocker said, this thread has a lot of usefull info and the more info the better it becomes, so if you got a question related to 3xxx cards in anyway please post your question.

Display Drivers (http://www.filehippo.com/download_ati_catalyst/3799/)

TT VS ZALMAN (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=763691#post763691)

*2* 10926 - WarhammerTX - unkown - XP
*2* 18420 - REVHEAD - Q6600 @ 3.7ghzUnkown - Vista

kwchang007

12-31-2007, 06:44 PM

Whoa overclocked jumped it 5000 points? Yeah I know I don't have one but that's impressive.

Thermopylae_480

12-31-2007, 06:49 PM

Whoa overclocked jumped it 5000 points? Yeah I know I don't have one but that's impressive.

Max settings, not max overclock.

freaksavior

12-31-2007, 06:49 PM

huh?!?!

i changed it to run at stock (3dmark stock) and then 1920x 1200 and 8 aa

Thermopylae_480

12-31-2007, 06:49 PM

I know, I caught it too. I apologize.

kwchang007

12-31-2007, 06:49 PM

Max settings, not max overclock.

Yeahh just figured that out XD. Is that overclocked or at stock?

Hawk1

12-31-2007, 06:51 PM

Yeah, thought he meant max OC on the card/vs stock speed also.

freaksavior

12-31-2007, 06:52 PM

sorry for the mix up.

thermo, could you change the title to

Post your 3dmark06 HD38X0 results

Thermopylae_480

12-31-2007, 06:56 PM

Just change what you say in your post. That'll make it a lot more clear.

trog100

12-31-2007, 07:38 PM

i only have the freeware version.. so i could only do the defaults..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/20063870.jpg

trog

freaksavior

12-31-2007, 08:09 PM

@ trog, whats your core and mem? is it stock?

mine is at 830 core 1278 mem. i'm about to run 3mark 06 again.

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/evyce/

just ran 3dmark and

http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/freaksavior/3dmark0611k.jpg

trog100

12-31-2007, 10:25 PM

840/1250-ish.. the higher 2006 score at the low default resolution is purely down to a higher cpu clock.. at a higher resolution the cards will not be affected by the cpu speed.. at the same clocks they would score the same..

my cpu would have been at 3.8 gig..

trog

Stige

01-02-2008, 02:39 AM

Getting a HD3870 myself this week and cant wait tbh :)

freaksavior

01-02-2008, 02:43 AM

post your 3d mark 06 when you do plz

Steevo

01-02-2008, 03:40 AM

I will, mine should be here Thursday.

reverze

01-02-2008, 04:14 AM

Does 9600 seem low for my rig with a 3870 @ stock?

Makaveli

01-02-2008, 05:34 AM

Here is my Score

http://img.techpowerup.org/080102/Clip_72.jpg

reverze

01-02-2008, 05:37 AM

Hmm..

Yeah..

9600 Stock for my rig is def not right with a 3870 and x2 6000...

Makaveli

01-02-2008, 11:08 AM

I think it is your processor is only running 200mhz faster than mine if its at stock.

trog100

01-02-2008, 01:34 PM

Hmm..

Yeah..

9600 Stock for my rig is def not right with a 3870 and x2 6000...

its not far out if your cpu and card are at stock.. u could get another 1000 points if u want to.. its what overclocking is for..

trog

reverze

01-02-2008, 04:18 PM

Hmmm..

Think I can break 11k on air?

I'm sure it will be possible once we get some even better drivers..

Makaveli

01-02-2008, 05:32 PM

ya I think so to. My score went down like 50point from the 7.11 drivers.

I think another few drivers revisions and we both be breaking 10k stock.

trog100

01-02-2008, 06:30 PM

Hmmm..

Think I can break 11k on air?

I'm sure it will be possible once we get some even better drivers..

my 6000+ at 3.350 gig and the card at 850/1250 just about made 11000.. no problems.. thow i do run an artic pro cooler as the norm..

so yes u might do..

trog

reverze

01-02-2008, 09:22 PM

Yeah..

well I am waiting for my ZALMAN VF900 which will be here friday and I got my pencil mod tools ready so.. I guess it shouldn't be too big of a problem..

Should I try it on XP though, I heard that will gain me like 500 more points compared to benching on Vista..

freaksavior

01-02-2008, 10:24 PM

when you get the cooler post pictures and 3d mark, i have considered buying one.

reverze

01-02-2008, 10:37 PM

Well if NewEgg would stock screwing around and ship the damn thing out..... :mad:

Stige

01-03-2008, 01:01 PM

My 3870 is now at 925/1315 100% stable.

3DMark06 scored 12624.

0elemental0

01-03-2008, 01:06 PM

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~js101096/screen.JPG

trog100

01-03-2008, 01:26 PM

My 3870 is now at 925/1315 100% stable.

3DMark06 scored 12624.

it must have a little help voltage wise thow.. he he he

just for those who wonder..

trog

ps.. seem to be good for about 550 extra points over a core running at say 840-ish

Stige

01-03-2008, 01:41 PM

it must have a little help voltage wise thow.. he he he

just for those who wonder..

trog

ps.. seem to be good for about 550 extra points over a core running at say 840-ish

If I increase the Memory by 10 it starts showing artifacts and if I up the Core it will just freeze.

Gonna see about doing the pencil mod when I cba taking the GFX out again.

Makaveli

01-03-2008, 03:22 PM

ya I was gonna say that stige must have increased the voltage, i've haven't seen cores hitting over 900+ without some kinda Vmod.

reverze

01-03-2008, 05:26 PM

Stige,

are you on air with your vmod?

Stige

01-03-2008, 05:50 PM

Stige,

are you on air with your vmod?

I have no vmod, it's all default, cooling, voltages etc.

I'm still PLANNING on doing the pencil mod :(

reverze

01-03-2008, 06:46 PM

wait...

how exactly do you propose your getting those clocks without a vmod and default cooling? lol

Stige

01-03-2008, 07:04 PM

wait...

how exactly do you propose your getting those clocks without a vmod and default cooling? lol

I'll grab you a screenie on next 3DMark run ;)

reverze

01-03-2008, 08:12 PM

Please do!

an explanation on how your getting those clocks with it as well! :toast:

Stige

01-03-2008, 08:58 PM

Sorry this will take a while, right now I'm in process of trying to get my Eve Online to work with 2 accounts at the sametime which is giving me hard time, after I get that sorted out I will do it!

Steevo

01-04-2008, 04:27 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4511678

9000 Points at stock with card, and 2.58Ghz CPU speed.

That link is no longer vaild, however at 855 core and 1210 memory I get this.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4512092

9263

Ati Addictive

01-04-2008, 11:58 AM

Nothing really special of a 3870! it only stay s cooler than a X2900XT. In all the benchmarks i have seen so far the X2900XT remains the battleship of ATI.

trog100

01-04-2008, 12:20 PM

the 3870 is very special.. it has 95% the fire power of the battleship but comes at the price and fuel consumption of a light cruiser.. :laugh:

trog

joe23

01-04-2008, 01:08 PM

Ati Addictive

01-04-2008, 02:06 PM

the 3870 is very special.. it has 95% the fire power of the battleship but comes at the price and fuel consumption of a light cruiser.. :laugh:

trog

So it remains slower, people who have a fast system don´t catre about the the amount of energie it cost only about prestations:roll:

trog100

01-04-2008, 02:51 PM

So it remains slower, people who have a fast system don´t catre about the the amount of energie it cost only about prestations:roll:

i recon the only people that dont care about energy costs are the ones young enough to have parent paying the power bills.. he he he

i wish i didnt have to care but sadly i do.. i aint "green" just "poor" :)

trog

Steevo

01-04-2008, 03:09 PM

Amen.

Steevo

01-04-2008, 03:12 PM

Just ordered a two gig kit for my system as I have been running low on RAM. $130 for OCZ Platinum 2.3.2.5 kit.

Plus a new wired gaming mousie, and Saitek keyboard. This wireless set is killing, or getting me killed I should say.

0elemental0

01-04-2008, 03:26 PM

Hi,

attached please see my 3dmark06 score. Specs as follows:

- Athlon64 X2 3800+ @ 2.8 GHz (F3-Stepping)
- 2GB DDRII 800 (Dual Channel Mode)
- GeCube Radeon HD 3870 X-Turbo III @ 810/1126 MHz (GPU/VRAM) --> GPU Tempature goes not higher than 85 °C
- Samsung HD501LJ 500 GB SATA2 HDD

at stock clocks my 3870 with the vf900 doesnt go above 66'c in any test...not in atitool cube, or hours of tf2.. i idle at 38'c. i liked that cooler on my gecube x1950xt..but it was never as quiet as i wanted it to be.

Stige

01-04-2008, 03:32 PM

http://koti.mbnet.fi/stige/3dmark06_omega.png

Highest the temps went during 3DMark06 was 68C.
And apparently RivaTuner is a bit off with the clocks according to GPU-Z.

Also you can add about 700-800 to that score if I changed to Catalyst 7.12 and shut down all the background crap.

All this was done with pure Stock Gear, apart from vDroop mod on the motherboard.

freaksavior

01-05-2008, 04:27 AM

i don't mind the chit-chat but if your going to post about your 3dmark score, please include a picture......i wanted this so people can get an idea of what they can expect from 3dmark.

anyway continue on and btw Stige, very nice

freaksavior

01-05-2008, 04:45 AM

sorry for double post but updated first post with who has top and lowest score.

reverze

01-05-2008, 04:53 AM

I just dont understand how your getting those clocks with stock and no editing of the card lol

freaksavior

01-05-2008, 04:28 PM

ati tool, oc the card.

set the card to about 75% fan speed (little loud but cools well) then you should be able to hit 830 core 1250 mem

Ati Addictive

01-05-2008, 04:48 PM

i recon the only people that dont care about energy costs are the ones young enough to have parent paying the power bills.. he he he

i wish i didnt have to care but sadly i do.. i aint "green" just "poor" :)

trog

Haha Thrue man my parants pay for all the energie :laugh: sorry your poor dude BUT ROCk on:rockout:

Stige

01-05-2008, 05:39 PM

ati tool, oc the card.

set the card to about 75% fan speed (little loud but cools well) then you should be able to hit 830 core 1250 mem

I'm running 55% Fan Speed which is about the same as my loudest Case Fan and it doesnt bother me at all, I can sleep like a baby even though it might be a bit loud for some people here.

Makaveli

01-05-2008, 07:55 PM

Nothing really special of a 3870! it only stay s cooler than a X2900XT. In all the benchmarks i have seen so far the X2900XT remains the battleship of ATI.

You have any links showing this, cause I keep hearing it. But the benchmarks i've seen don't support your statment.

Random Murderer

01-05-2008, 08:09 PM

They say a picture is worth a thousand words... this is worth just one: PWNT.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v630/Bobdole666/pwnt.jpg

Darknova

01-05-2008, 08:10 PM

10117. No screenshot (don't even bother making them to be honest) but that's exactly what I got.

Stock speeds. E4400 @ 3.1 etc. etc.

Makaveli

01-05-2008, 09:45 PM

lol Random resize your photo dude. For those people with smaller monitors. Side scrolling is annoying :P

gerrynicol

01-05-2008, 10:34 PM

11134 no gpu z though

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/Gerrynicol/new-1.jpg

Dr. Spankenstein

01-05-2008, 10:58 PM

This is an old score. She's got more, but I've got my system torn down for a rebuild.:o

http://img.techpowerup.org/071226/BestSingle.jpg

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 03:19 AM

10117. No screenshot (don't even bother making them to be honest) but that's exactly what I got.

Stock speeds. E4400 @ 3.1 etc. etc.

sorry dude but i'm not going to count you unless there is a screen shot.:ohwell:

edit: ok, i'll add you beacause i just updated the "requirements" but please oh please include a screen shot, just for the record.

Random Murderer

01-06-2008, 03:22 AM

sorry dude but i'm not going to count you unless there is a screen shot.:ohwell:

when are you gonna update? :D

reverze

01-06-2008, 03:26 AM

Can I just post my futuremark link, or do I got to run the benchmark again with a screenshot?

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 03:28 AM

when are you gonna update? :D

Just did

and

For me to have you in the list please include the following

futuremark link or screen shot
cpu-z
and one of the following (as of now) gpu-z or CCC

^^
Can I just post my futuremark link, or do I got to run the benchmark again with a screenshot?

reverze

01-06-2008, 03:30 AM

heh...

Alright, I'll just wait to run it again when I get my VF900 and Pencil mod I guess :pimp:

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 03:35 AM

^^ cool. i'll add you to the list when you post your stuff.

reverze

01-06-2008, 03:57 AM

changed my mind :toast:

http://img.techpowerup.org/080105/3870score.jpg

3870 at 857 core and 1251 mem
cpu @ stock
stock fan @ 100%

gerrynicol

01-06-2008, 11:35 AM

Not a big deal but my procs running @ 3.2Ghz

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 02:11 PM

^^

thanks for that, i fixed it.

Updated.

trog100

01-06-2008, 02:49 PM

*4* Stige...

something odd with that one aint there.. with the core and memory up where he says they are and with his cpu at the speed it is.. the score should be around 13000-ish..

trog

trog100

01-06-2008, 03:35 PM

one more.. i recon the score wants splitting into how many cpu cores are being used.. the quad guys are getting an unfair advantage.. they have a couple of extra cpu scores added to the total..

all normal crap running in the background.. no pencil or volts mods.. stock cooler running at 70% fixed with riva tuner.. it would not game at these speed reliably thow..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/3d3870.jpg

trog

reverze

01-06-2008, 03:43 PM

*4* Stige...

something odd with that one aint there.. with the core and memory up where he says they are and with his cpu at the speed it is.. the score should be around 13000-ish..

trog

I still don't get how he is getting those clocks with stock cooling and not volt mod...

reverze

01-06-2008, 03:47 PM

Also...

CPU-Z sais his proc is a Core 2 Duo E6750, and according to the picture in the background of 3DMark06, it sais his proc is a Core 2 Duo E6700...

trog100

01-06-2008, 04:11 PM

Also...

CPU-Z sais his proc is a Core 2 Duo E6750, and according to the picture in the background of 3DMark06, it sais his proc is a Core 2 Duo E6700...

the claim to fame isnt the score.. mine would do nearly that at stock speeds with my cpu at 3.6 gig ..

the claim to fame is the way over the top "stable" core and memory clocks..

i dont believe them.. sorry..

trog

Ati Addictive

01-06-2008, 04:13 PM

OMG you are all using a HD 3870 i am using a X2900XT look at my score!
what are you doing with such a card
DDM06: 12 444
http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/usersys/cmpxYp1gk2Sd/view/

you can see the score if you scroll down a little bit on the page

Darknova

01-06-2008, 04:18 PM

I'll get a screenshot in a while. I only ran 3DMark to see how much of an improvement I got over my 1950XT so I never saved anything.

Ati Addictive

01-06-2008, 04:19 PM

And how mush did you inprove than? with the new drivers

Darknova

01-06-2008, 04:20 PM

And how mush did you inprove than? with the new drivers

6.4k to 10.1k

The only thing I changed was the graphics card. Both used the 7.12 Cat drivers.

reverze

01-06-2008, 04:22 PM

the claim to fame is the way over the top "stable" core and memory clocks..

i dont believe them.. sorry..

trog

I don't believe them either, Trog.

Atleast not on stock with no Vmod.

Ati Addictive

01-06-2008, 04:23 PM

6.4k to 10.1k

The only thing I changed was the graphics card. Both used the 7.12 Cat drivers.

that pretty good actually ATI is going to OWN nvidia because ATI spending more time in there drivers:nutkick: so we are going to get a lot better results

Ketxxx

01-06-2008, 05:13 PM

*12* 0elemental0 - Athlon X2 2.4ghz 3870 @ 777 Core 1125 Mem 3dmark 85541

:eek: typo :p

mikek75

01-06-2008, 05:49 PM

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/k75mike/3D0634820-1200.png

Heres mine, CPU 3.4ghz - 3870 820/1200

EDIT: Dunno why its saying that it wasn't run at default benchmark sttings, I only have the free version and I just let it run with what it comes at. Also, speedstep is on, hence the 6x multiplier!

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 07:40 PM

you guys are confusing me.....whats wrong with the list again?

mikek75

01-06-2008, 07:45 PM

That entry reads 85541, which would be some record, lol

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 07:47 PM

OH! ok

fixed

edit: updated

please put comments if you think something in my list isn't accurate or fair.

mikek75

01-06-2008, 08:03 PM

Only one thing I would suggest, maybe have separate tables for single/dual/quad core CPUs as that seems to play a big part in the scores. Of course, that means more work so quite understandable if you don't want to. Other than that, good job!

freaksavior

01-06-2008, 08:04 PM

i kinda agree, but looks like only 1 quad atm

mikek75

01-06-2008, 08:09 PM

True....give it time though!

unsmart

01-07-2008, 02:30 AM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080106/Capture003707.jpg

With some better cooling and Vmod I should be getting over that 800mhz mark:)

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 03:10 AM

For me to have you in the list please include the following

futuremark link or screen shot
cpu-z
and one of the following (as of now) gpu-z or CCC

? :wtf::shadedshu

trog100

01-07-2008, 03:12 AM

Heres mine, CPU 3.4ghz - 3870 820/1200

EDIT: Dunno why its saying that it wasn't run at default benchmark sttings, I only have the free version and I just let it run with what it comes at. Also, speedstep is on, hence the 6x multiplier!

your score is "unbelievably" high relative to your claimed card speed and claimed cpu speed..

which will inevitably lead people to look at it with suspicion.. soooo how do u get such a high score... ????

in fact any score that looks out off line should be questioned.. yours is out of line by 700 or so points.. :)

its all very predictable.. your cpu at the speed it is and your card at the speed it is should score noticeably less..

trog

ps.. the futuremark id is conveniently covered up as well which dosnt help..

erocker

01-07-2008, 03:14 AM

Some of you guys should be posting in the 3d06 thread! I'm suprised no one here with a quad has gotten over 14,000 points yet?! I can't wait to have an ATi card again.:(

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 03:20 AM

Yeah, I'm surprised Random Murderer's score wasm't MUCH higher. I'm usually beat by a couple grand in CPU points when I'm pitted against a quad.

Quote:
Heres mine, CPU 3.4ghz - 3870 820/1200

EDIT: Dunno why its saying that it wasn't run at default benchmark sttings, I only have the free version and I just let it run with what it comes at. Also, speedstep is on, hence the 6x multiplier!

your score is "unbelievably" high relative to your claimed card speed and claimed cpu speed..

which will inevitably lead people to look at it with suspicion.. soooo how do u get such a high score... ????

in fact any score that looks out off line should be questioned.. yours is out of line by 700 or so points..

its all very predictable.. your cpu at the speed it is and your card at the speed it is should score noticeably less..

trog

Mostly because it was run @ 1280x786.

trog100

01-07-2008, 03:44 AM

erocker

01-07-2008, 03:45 AM

Yeah, I'm surprised Random Murderer's score wasm't MUCH higher. I'm usually beat by a couple grand in CPU points when I'm pitted against a quad.

Mostly because it was run @ 1280x786.

That's cheating...:shadedshu

Stige

01-07-2008, 03:49 AM

i recon there are one or two dodgy scores in this thread.. and DR your answer is meaningless.. u could perhaps tell me why your score is so high as well..

randoms is about right.. whats the secret dude.. ???? what am i doing wrong..

trog

I believe you are refering to me as the other one but I will not try to convince you by any means.
It's upto you what you believe and what you dont, if you think it is a Photoshop then I will just stay out of this thread.

erocker

01-07-2008, 03:50 AM

i recon there are one or two dodgy scores in this thread.. and DR your answer is meaningless.. u could perhaps tell me why your score is so high as well..

randoms is about right.. whats the secret dude.. ???? what am i doing wrong..

trog

You are right trog... there is something not right with your computer somewhere... You shutting down all programs, things tweaked, good PSU, etc.??? Your score should be higher.:wtf:

erocker

01-07-2008, 03:50 AM

I believe you are refering to me as the other one but I will not try to convince you by any means.
It's upto you what you believe and what you dont, if you think it is a Photoshop then I will just stay out of this thread.

Actually, I haven't even seen it, and this post convinces me that it probablly is photoshopped!:laugh:

trog100

01-07-2008, 03:53 AM

That's cheating...:shadedshu

he he he he.. back to my dodgy score comment.. a quad will simply get 4 x the cpu score as opposed to x 2 by the way.. it dosnt make any other difference.. 2006 is single threaded it just runs a cpu test for each core..

trog

erocker

01-07-2008, 03:56 AM

You are right trog... there is something not right with your computer somewhere... You shutting down all programs, things tweaked, good PSU, etc.??? Your score should be higher.:wtf:

This stuff, plus be sure to unplug as much of your USB stuff as possible(especially your drives!) You want your system to be as minimal as possible when benching.

Steevo

01-07-2008, 04:31 AM

I am at 2.5Ghz on my 3800+ and my card was rocking 855 core and 1210 memory for my score.

JC316

01-07-2008, 04:53 AM

Man, I am kind of shocked at the lower scores. Isn't the 3870 supposed to out perform the 2900XT? My quad is clocked higher, but I am making 13.3K in 06 with my pro/xt. Must be my CPU speed.

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 04:57 AM

i recon there are one or two dodgy scores in this thread.. and DR your answer is meaningless.. u could perhaps tell me why your score is so high as well..

randoms is about right.. whats the secret dude.. ???? what am i doing wrong..

trog

ps.. i see your specs say CF.. if so what are u doing wrong.. he he

How is it meaningless when his FM results say: "You did not use benchmarking settings". It's clearly stating that he ran at a different res. That explains HIS higher score for his specs.

Random's is low. Look around.

If you'll look a little closer while your in "witch hunt" mode, you'll also see that is says "Crossfire available (disabled)".:p

mikek75

01-07-2008, 05:32 AM

@Dr Spankenstein & trog100, you two really need to wind your necks in beforeyou start accusing people of deliberately cheating. I normally bench using 3d05, which defaults to 1024*768 and is stretched on my 1440*900 monitor. I had no idea that 3d06 selects 1280*800 BY DEFAULT on my screen, and as you know, the free version does not let you change these settings. I have repeated the run for the record, making sure that nothing is hidden (although it wasn't deliberately concealed in the first place). So, maybe there needs to be a separate section for widescreen monitors, in order to protect everybodies e-penis!

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/k75mike/3D0634820-1200run2.jpg

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 07:36 AM

I wasn't accusing. I was merely giving an explanation to trog as to why your score seemed a bit high based on your specs and settings. It was not an attack. It was directed at trog so that he would "call off the dogs"!

Now for your part, you CAN alieviate the problem by uninstalling the drivers for your monitor and reboot to let the window PnP drivers take over. You get to bench 3DM05 & 06 at the accepted res and noone can squawk about things looking "fishy". Really, do you think you are the "only guy" with a widescreen monitor who runs 3DM benches. Look at my System Specs, I'm running one as well...

Whew...I feel like a camp counselor here.

No harm, no foul....eh fellers!?!

Darknova

01-07-2008, 09:18 AM

Ok, new Screenshot. Sorry for the delay.

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/3D063870810.jpg

Random Murderer

01-07-2008, 12:12 PM

Random's is low. Look around.

no it's not, I'm cpu bottlenecked. D0s scored over 14000 with his card at close speeds to mine, but his q6600 was at 3.8GHz.
i could manage a little over 13k, but no way is my poor b3 gonna hit 3.8 on air.

Darknova

01-07-2008, 12:23 PM

Overclocked :)

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/3d0638708102.jpg

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 12:40 PM

So it remains slower, people who have a fast system don´t catre about the the amount of energie it cost only about prestations:roll:

Dont confuse performance in a synthetic benchmark as "Real world". Whichever card you or anyone else prefers to have purring away in their systems, there are one or two facts you can be sure of, outside of synthetic benchmarks, they are:

1. The HD3870 is cheaper.
2. The HD3870 is more efficient (lower fabrication, less voltage)
3. The HD3870 produces less heat.
4. The HD3870 to date has had only one REAL driver update, the 2900XT took 3-4 updates before it reached it's max potential.
5. In around 60-65% of games the HD3870 is a little faster than the 2900XT (although in some cases that is dependant on res and detail level).

There, and all that coming from an NVidia fanboi :D

Random Murderer

01-07-2008, 12:43 PM

Dont confuse performance in a synthetic benchmark as "Real world". Whichever card you or anyone else prefers to have purring away in their systems, there are one or two facts you can be sure of, outside of synthetic benchmarks, they are:

1. The HD3870 is cheaper.
2. The HD3870 is more efficient (lower fabrication, less voltage)
3. The HD3870 produces less heat.
4. The HD3870 to date has had only one REAL driver update, the 2900XT took 3-4 updates before it reached it's max potential.
5. In around 60-65% of games the HD3870 is a little faster than the 2900XT (although in some cases that is dependant on res and detail level).

There, and all that coming from an NVidia fanboi :D

the 3870 is one hell of a card, for sure, especially for the price. i almost thought about trading mine away for a 2900pro 1GB, but decided not to, and now i'm beating that same card in synthetic benches as well as actual games :roll:

Wile E

01-07-2008, 12:45 PM

trog100

01-07-2008, 01:17 PM

This stuff, plus be sure to unplug as much of your USB stuff as possible(especially your drives!) You want your system to be as minimal as possible when benching.

we will have to dissagree.. i recon my score is where it should be.. one thing is for certain.. i aint "cheating" to get it higher.. he he

shutting down all the stuff dosnt make enough difference to warrent doing it.. years ago it might have now it dosnt.. plus i aint running anything that consumes cpu or grafix power..

soooo if my system is doing what it should be doing at the clocks it has.. that leaves another answer.. ????

my system and randons compare well allowing for his quad factor.. he has two extra cpu scores.. he has four i have two..

trog

trog100

01-07-2008, 01:23 PM

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 01:47 PM

@mike75

you should be able to change the res even in the free version of 3dmark

trog100

01-07-2008, 01:52 PM

is my machine underperforming.. ?????

its not under performing in the fur bench.. my score was 3360 (now higher over 3400) near the top for the 3870 card unmodded..

it dosnt under perform in super pi.. about very low 13 seconds at 3.8 gig.. high 12s at 3.9 gig i cant quite manage 4 gig.. shame..

it dosnt under perform in the lghtsmark thing.. i have the highest ati score..

it dosnt under perform in the crysis bench..

why should i think it under performs in 2006 guys.. i find the odd cheat more likely but would be happy to be proved wrong..

with my cpu at 3.8 gig.. pretty high

fsb at 1900.. pretty high

memory at 950.. reasonably high

my card at 895/1275 (now penciled he he) higher than most..

i get around 12600 in 2006 at its default settings..

when i see lesser clocks both on cards and cpu get noticably higher scores i am bound to ask "why" or "how"..

i aint witch hunting.. just wondering.. and allowing for human nature.. he he

sooo i recon scores that stand out need some explanation as to why they stand out from the presenter.. be it either lower than they should be or higher.. otherwise the whole point of knowing what we should expect to get loses its point with weirdo scores being presented..

trog

ps.. i cant change the default resolution in my freeware 2006 freak.. it comes as it comes..

ps.. 2.. i have read around.. i do more of that than most.. my comments aint based on ignorance.. else i wouldnt make em..

ps.. 3.. the scores i think "questionable"

2... seems a little high for the clocks.. i would just like to know the secret if there is one..

3.. its just impossible for the clocks.. its wrong.. fake..

5.. again wrong for the clocks.. tooo low for the (very questionable core and memory speed).. i dont believe em.. he was ask to back up his card speed he has failed to do so..

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 02:13 PM

^^

oh, that sucks!!

run 3dmark again with some screenies plz

tigger

01-07-2008, 02:56 PM

heres mine-

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/Untitled2.jpg

btw,my screen is 1440x900 and 3d06 runs at default 1280x1024.

trog100

01-07-2008, 03:01 PM

there really is no problem with being ask why or how.. i was ask exactly this way back in the thread.. i gave a simple and understandable answer.. the accusations only occur when the simple and understandable explanation isnt forthcoming..

if u think something looks odd freak (errr freakish.. he he) ask em to explain it.. its your thread.. u are doing the work.. if they dont comply dont post their score.. u are the boss..

thanks for the thread..

trog

The Haunted

01-07-2008, 03:48 PM

Just got my new hardware, here is my score. :toast:

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/3dmark06run3.jpg

yogurt_21

01-07-2008, 03:54 PM

Man, I am kind of shocked at the lower scores. Isn't the 3870 supposed to out perform the 2900XT? My quad is clocked higher, but I am making 13.3K in 06 with my pro/xt. Must be my CPU speed.

no the 2900 is just better optimised for 3dmarks. thats why it still holds the record while being slower in games.

yogurt_21

01-07-2008, 04:03 PM

this is getting silly.. my wide screen dosnt affect my score.. i dont see how yours affects your score..

but if my machine really is under performing i need to find out why..

trog

lol at 1280x800 he's running 1,024,000 pixels during the bench vs 1,310,720 by the default res. that's 23% less pixels!!! if this were alcpones 3dmark thread his score never would have been added.

so he may not be cheating deliberatly, but he needs to get it fixed before he posts results. otherwise it's not an accurate comparison.

mikek75

01-07-2008, 04:18 PM

Right, first off, My post this morning was made at 0545 after a sleepless night, and I found the tone not to be inquisitive, Trog, but accusative, which pissed me off as I don't intentionally cheat at anything. My apologies for being snappy!

Thanks to Dr S and Wile, rolling back to the Generic PnP monitor did allow me to run the tests at the default of 1280*1024, never knew about that so nice one for informing me. With the settings as before this bought my score down to a more normal (believeable?!?!).....
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/k75mike/PNP3d0634820-1200.png

So in order to save a bit of face I upped my clocks to 843/1251, which returned a bit better....
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/k75mike/PNP3d0634843-1251.png

I need to work on my CPU clock, can't seem to get over 425FSB on my vanilla P5K, though I'm still learning about this Intel malarky....

NOTE TO FREAKSAVIOUR, Please amend my score, I stand corrected!

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 04:24 PM

thats better, i was in the process of updating it anyway. and no offense but i was actually about to move your score to the bottom without a #

unsmart

01-07-2008, 04:48 PM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/Capture004969.jpg

Heres my highest stable run:( My core is holding the mem back I think,though it's higher then I was thinking it would go:rockout:
My F'en NB wont go over 415 now use to do 418 I need to Vmod it or replace MOBO to get to 3g+:(
Anyway is there a chance you could list the 3850s on there own and not to start anything just wondering why we can't use Rivatuner to validate.

trog100

01-07-2008, 04:59 PM

thanks mike.. your current score is entirely believable.. u need to up the voltage to your northbridge to get a higher fsb.. the mobo is running out of steam not the cpu..

trog

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 05:25 PM

if i haven't already, then im going to say it again (and almost all are doing this so thank you)

Include a picture of
3dmark score
cpu-z
ATI tool, CCC, Rivatuner, gpu-z (or anything that will show the core and mem of the video card)

whoops, my bad trog, you already did.

trog100

01-07-2008, 05:28 PM

lol at 1280x800 he's running 1,024,000 pixels during the bench vs 1,310,720 by the default res. that's 23% less pixels!!! if this were alcpones 3dmark thread his score never would have been added.

so he may not be cheating deliberatly, but he needs to get it fixed before he posts results. otherwise it's not an accurate comparison.

does that mean my 1680 x 1050 widescreen is running more pixels than it should be then.. or am i loseing the plot somewhat here.. :rolleyes:

trog

mikek75

01-07-2008, 06:06 PM

@Freaksaviour, for the record, my score as shown in the list was achieved with the clocks at 843-1251.

@trog100, no dice with upping the northbridge voltage, went up (in steps) all the way to the max of 1.7v, still won't post reliably above 425. I got it to 435, but a couple of reboots later it failed. Also tried upping the CPU PLL voltage (clock generator?) and FSB termination voltage (no idea what that is), no change. I'm wondering whether my memory just doesn't like to clock, I really miss the dividers on my old AMD rig! I've set my DDR800 down to 667, but thats all I can do as far as I know....Any other ideas?

tigger

01-07-2008, 06:15 PM

A slightly better one-

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/Untitled2985.jpg

sneekypeet

01-07-2008, 06:15 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/resultanalyzer.jsp?projectType=14&XLID=0&UID=13247137

I believe that puts me in 5th place without a OC on the card.

BTW every program but CPU-z reads my OC as 4.0GHz, but CPU-z is correct in this pic.

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/Hd3870_06stockcard.jpg

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 06:24 PM

^^ is it at 4.0 or 3.5?

and updated the list..if anything is wrong let me know (just dont be knit picky)

tigger

01-07-2008, 06:27 PM

the new score is with these clocks freaksaviour

core-770
mem-999

thanks.

sneekypeet

01-07-2008, 06:27 PM

its at 3.5GHz, here I will edit in the wierd issues that comes with this Bloodiron and my CPU ....This only happens once I pass 500 FSB( that a topic for another thread!

Here thaey are all playing fair now....but 3D06 reads it as 4GHZ tho...so did 05...here is the actual X3.

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/PlayingFair3.5ghz854.jpg

devguy

01-07-2008, 06:29 PM

tigger

01-07-2008, 06:37 PM

I have a 3850 too devguy,look at the differance between our scores,that chip is not bottlenecking your card is it? I got 9800 with my card stock.

trog100

01-07-2008, 06:42 PM

Here's the best I can offer for other HD 3850 owners out there. I know the resolution is 1440x900 but for whatever reason, I can't change it to 1280x1024. However, the difference between the two performance wise is so trivial that I still believe it gives others a good idea of how it performs.

i still aint quite in the flow with this wide screen monitor thing.. as far as i know (could be wrong) the card renders at whatever resolution its set at and the monitor interploates this to fit its screen size.. my monitor has 1680 x 1050 pixels.. if i run a resolution lower than this the monitor plays clever tricks and blurs its pixels to match the selected resolution.. this should not affect the 2006 score..

would a smaller monitor do something different..

clue me in someone please.. :)

trog

sneekypeet

01-07-2008, 06:47 PM

IDK, I can run the test at 1024X768 and see if my scores are better, because I dont think the test can run 1280X1024 on a 15" monitor running lower than stock testing res.

tigger

01-07-2008, 06:51 PM

Well on mine which is 1440x900 it looks blurry at 1280x1024,so im guessing it IS 1280,just stretched to fill the screen.It should'nt affect the score i dont think.

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 06:51 PM

devguy

01-07-2008, 06:51 PM

I have a 3850 too devguy,look at the differance between our scores,that chip is not bottlenecking your card is it? I got 9800 with my card stock.

Well, obviously my A64 x2 is bottlenecking my machine. I knew that when I bought it, but it was either spent the dough for a Phenom 9500 (A rip-off at $250, now a good buy at $190) or spend -$10 for this AMD 4000 (100.99 for processor + 2GB Corsair RAM, sold Corsair Ram for $70 and am getting a $40 rebate). Therefore, I decided to wait for the Phenom X3 in March (I have a lovely AMD 790FX mobo waiting for it).

As for this X2 chip, any past 3.125 and this machine don't work. I've had voltage at 1.475 and it didn't help. Even though temps are fine (around 45C load), I'm scared to go past 1.5 on air. My mobo is sure to run at a higher bus speed, would dropping the multiplier and cranking the bus increase my chances?

sneekypeet

01-07-2008, 06:54 PM

i still aint quite in the flow with this wide screen monitor thing.. as far as i know (could be wrong) the card renders at whatever resolution its set at and the monitor interploates this to fit its screen size.. my monitor has 1680 x 1050 pixels.. if i run a resolution lower than this the monitor plays clever tricks and blurs its pixels to match the selected resolution.. this should not affect the 2006 score..

would a smaller monitor do something different..

clue me in someone please.. :)

trog

To answer your question, here is the opening shot of 3D06 on my ladies SIMS(lol SLI) gamer

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/stock_on_15.jpg

Note the resolution here. Max of what the 15"HP (HPvs15 is the model#) monitor can do.

tigger

01-07-2008, 06:57 PM

Its worth a try,no harm in trying.

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 07:05 PM

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 07:06 PM

off topic, but whats the max vcore (safe) for an e4300? i was going to put it at 3.6ghz and 1.6vcore but idk if thats to high or safe. i was just going to do it for the bench.

and if i put my core and mem above 1280 and 840 my monitor goes black....why?

1.6V is safe but just for benching tho, I would not go above that on an Allendale but I used to put 1.6V through my old one.

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 07:08 PM

ok, i tried it and it won't post! arg! i wanna hit 3.6 to bench....what about the fsb volage? whats safe for that? its at 1.4

tigger

01-07-2008, 07:09 PM

I had my 6300 allendale at 1.57v for benches.It should be fine as long as you keep it cool.

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 07:10 PM

ok, i tried it and it won't post! arg! i wanna hit 3.6 to bench....what about the fsb volage? whats safe for that? its at 1.4

what are your increments? If you have seperate FSB voltage that IS your answer :)

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 07:11 PM

i have vcore at 1.625
fsb voltage at 1.45
and nb vcore at 1.45 and it won't post.
fsb 400 x 9 = 3.6

mikek75

01-07-2008, 07:12 PM

Do you have a seperate FSB voltage?

Not as far as I can see, the voltage options are cpu v, cpu v ref, cpu v damper, cpu pll v, dram v, fsb termination v, northbridge v, northbridge v ref. Anything take your fancy?

tigger

01-07-2008, 07:13 PM

Its the fsb termination,try that,try the nb on 1.55v too if you can.

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 07:14 PM

Not as far as I can see, the voltage options are cpu v, cpu v ref, cpu v damper, cpu pll v, dram v, fsb termination v, northbridge v, northbridge v ref. Anything take your fancy?

OK, raise your fsb termination, is it a +100 or 500mv??

mikek75

01-07-2008, 07:16 PM

Hang about, I'll just have a butchers...

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 07:16 PM

it won't go about 400fsb i guess.

mikek75

01-07-2008, 07:23 PM

@Tatty, the FSB Termination Voltage goes 1.2,1.3,1.4 or1.5. There was a warning in the manual that setting this too high can damage the chipset and CPU:eek:

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 07:26 PM

@Tatty, the FSB Termination Voltage goes 1.2,1.3,1.4 or1.5. There was a warning in the manual that setting this too high can damage the chipset and CPU:eek:

Thats normal and says it on every board, what you on now? I would say go one higher to start with, you should not need to go above 1.4 for that FSB in any case, if it's set at 1.2 go 1.3 initially.

mikek75

01-07-2008, 07:31 PM

trog100

01-07-2008, 08:08 PM

Well, it was on Auto, which I took to mean the lowest number, 1.2v. I tried it at 1.3, no change (tried earlier on). I'll give it a go at 1.4v, see what gives. You don't think it might be my CPU needing more volts? Its at 1.4875v for 3.4...

mine needs 1.5 to reach 3.6 and be stable.. 1.6 to reach 3.8 and be stable.. 1.7 to reach 3.9 gig and be not totally stable.. he he

i have abit guru and do it all from windows.. it does allowing me to make quick and easy changes to find out things.. u could also try upping your memory voltage..

i would also suggest switching off the speed step thing in the bios.. its normal to do so..

i am stuck at just under the 500 fsb area.. with a 9 x multiplier the chip would go to 4.2 gig or so.. but its x 8 jobby is holding things back..

trog

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 08:13 PM

updated list....(got a new score he he)

mikek75

01-07-2008, 08:17 PM

Well sod it, I don't know what to think anymore....set it at 1.525v and still couldn't get it to post at 450FSB, with the NB and FSB termination voltages bumped to max too. My RAM is already at 2.1v, can't seem to find any info as to a safe max for these DIMMs. I reckon its cos I got the el cheapo version of the p5K....

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 08:17 PM

Well, it was on Auto, which I took to mean the lowest number, 1.2v. I tried it at 1.3, no change (tried earlier on). I'll give it a go at 1.4v, see what gives. You don't think it might be my CPU needing more volts? Its at 1.4875v for 3.4...

Yeah I would try a combination of the 2, increase volts to say 1.55V and go to 1.3 or 1.4V on the FSB, then just set your FSB initially to 3.5gig, keep ram speed in mind also.

JFITZ

01-07-2008, 08:17 PM

i'll post mine as soon as I get my 9600 BE in.

trog100

01-07-2008, 08:20 PM

To answer your question, here is the opening shot of 3D06 on my ladies SIMS(lol SLI) gamer

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/stock_on_15.jpg

Note the resolution here. Max of what the 15"HP (HPvs15 is the model#) monitor can do.

so its clever enough to detect the monitors max resolution and swop down from its default.. assuming u didnt do that.. i tended to assume it just wouldnt run.. never had a monitor that couldnt handle its default.. so i have never given it much thought.. he he

still.. things are simply explained thanks for the screenshot example..

trog

sneekypeet

01-07-2008, 08:42 PM

I was wondering after you had posed the question , just to see for myself....Easy enough to get a screenie. No problem!

mikek75

01-07-2008, 08:43 PM

Yeah I would try a combination of the 2, increase volts to say 1.55V and go to 1.3 or 1.4V on the FSB, then just set your FSB initially to 3.5gig, keep ram speed in mind also.

I've hit a wall I think....Been all the way up to 1.625v with fsb term v at 1.4 and 1.5v, upped RAM to 2.2v, just won't do it! I've set the RAM to 667 which is my lowest setting, as I say, I miss AMD's dividers! I managed to get 3.480 ghz, but after a couple of reboots it wouldn't POST. Cheers for your time though bud!

trog100

01-07-2008, 08:46 PM

one more freak.. i cant see me doing much better things are pretty well maxed out..

core has a mild pencil mod raising the core voltage from 1.35 to 1.4.. i could take it way higher but cant be arsed to risk frying the poor thing it gets pretty hot at 1.5 volts.... he he

gpu core at 895.. memory at 1275.. cpu at 3.8 gig.. E6750 two core chip..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/3dlast.jpg

trog

ps.. still wondering about the doctors lesser clocks giving him a noticably higher score thow.. he he he

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 09:07 PM

I've hit a wall I think....Been all the way up to 1.625v with fsb term v at 1.4 and 1.5v, upped RAM to 2.2v, just won't do it! I've set the RAM to 667 which is my lowest setting, as I say, I miss AMD's dividers! I managed to get 3.480 ghz, but after a couple of reboots it wouldn't POST. Cheers for your time though bud!

So it couldnt be ram timings? have you set them to 5-5-5-15 just to be safe?

Random Murderer

01-07-2008, 09:07 PM

I've hit a wall I think....Been all the way up to 1.625v with fsb term v at 1.4 and 1.5v, upped RAM to 2.2v, just won't do it! I've set the RAM to 667 which is my lowest setting, as I say, I miss AMD's dividers! I managed to get 3.480 ghz, but after a couple of reboots it wouldn't POST. Cheers for your time though bud!

you're on an asus board you say?
disable hyperpath3 and enable SPDtimings for your ram. this should help immensely. :toast:

freaksavior

01-07-2008, 09:09 PM

little confused trog.

Do you have a e6700 or 6750 or both?

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 09:13 PM

mikek75

01-07-2008, 09:21 PM

Random Murderer

01-07-2008, 09:25 PM

@Tatty, been running 5-5-5-15 and tried 5-5-5-18 (which is one of the SPD timings). Wits end, LOL

@Random Murderer, don't have a Hyperpath3 in my bios, tried leaving RAM on auto, same result. VERY frustrating!

not auto, SPDtimings. there's a difference. maybe your board doesn't support it, but most newer asus boards do.

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 09:32 PM

Mikek, I have just realised we are trying to overclock an E6750!!! for some strange reason I thought it was an E4300 :o So FFS dont stop trying! there is NO way the chip is maxed so it can only be 2 things, either your motherboard and it's settings or memory, so like I said, if you ensure that your memory's timings are set real loose then that should take them out of the equation if you are on the lowest divider.

Next, I have done some googling on your board and overclocking it.......................

Do you have the FSB Frequency setting in BIOS? and if so is it set to 333mhz? 2ndly, peg voltage back to 1.525V, thats more than enuff on a 6750 to get 3.6gig.

Can you lock your PCI-E? otherwise it will be overclocking with the FSB rise, if on auto set to 100 manually.

If you have an entry in BIOS called "Transaction Booster"....make sure it's disabled.

CPU voltage reference may need to be set manually, just go an increment up.

Next....hopefully you are not on BIOS version 0805!!

FSB STRAP TO NORTHBRIDGE MUST BE 333

I wont throw too much at you at this stage, suffice to say we WILL get you to 3.6Gig, tey the few items I have mentiuoned above first, look for the settings as it may just be one setting stopping you going forward, your board can reach 500FSB even with its fairly limited BIOS so dont give up! then have a BIOS read here:

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=9&artpage=3034&articID=626

Come back to me if this lot dont work.......I have plenty more for ya! :p

mikek75

01-07-2008, 09:36 PM

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 09:37 PM

Now have a read of this muvvaa:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=143133

Then tomorrow night I will test you on it all and we can move forward! ;)

Tatty_One

01-07-2008, 09:39 PM

No, nothing doing there, DRAM Timing has two options, Manual or Auto, no memtion of SPD anywhere. Grrrr...

There is something called Transaction Booster, no idea what thats supposed to do. I have a feeling its my RAM thats holding me back, I don't think its capable of running much faster than DDR850....Just a feeling.

Go through everything I mentioned first, the transistion booster needs to be disabled etc, and your ram is capable of 900mhz+.....strap at 333???

I am off to bed now, need me beauty sleep! we can continue tomorrow, we will get there, even if I have to drive down and sort the fookin thing meself!

mikek75

01-07-2008, 09:43 PM

mikek75

01-07-2008, 09:44 PM

LOL, cheers. I might hold you to that!

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 10:23 PM

Hey mikek75,

Did you ever get your refresh rate sorted?

trog100

01-07-2008, 10:54 PM

Just so we can put this to rest, what form of proof do you require?

Link (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4371289) for comparison.

Look at it yourself, although it is unfortunate that FM can't read these cards speed...

p.s. take a screenshot of our comparison. I'm sure someone will be able to decypher what's going on.

i dont want "proof".. stop being so bloody defensive.. way back in this thread someone ask me why my score was higher than theirs.. i gave them a simple explanation.. how about u giving me the same consideration..:)

i only have the one cpu freak.. E6750.. not sure how its got to be called a 6700.. :)

trog

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 10:57 PM

Not being defensive, chum. Just looking for the snide comments to end.:toast:

Please humor me and provide a screenie of our comparo.

trog100

01-07-2008, 11:11 PM

humour me and tell me how u get such a good score.. i am genuinely curious..

trog

Dr. Spankenstein

01-07-2008, 11:13 PM

trog100

01-08-2008, 02:19 AM

Yhgpm.

BTW, the single reason to benchmark is for competition. If we gave ALL our secrets* away, we'd all score the same! We could save ourselves many hours of watching dancing sprites and flying boats and just plug our hardware specs into a grid: "Hey, my system can get 15,000 3DM06 marks! WHOOPEE!"

*secrets, not "cheats" as you're so fond of referring to them!:p

for the good of all.. we might learn something usefull..

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4371289

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=4577912

trog

Random Murderer

01-08-2008, 02:28 AM

for the good of all.. we might learn something usefull..

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4371289

http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=14&projectId=4577912

trog

the 2nd link doesn't work.
and i don't get it. i've looked at the result screenie on page 3 and his orb link 20 times, but i don't see this "secret" he speaks of... everything looks normal...

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 02:29 AM

the 2nd link doesn't work.
and i don't get it. i've looked at the result screenie on page 3 and his orb link 20 times, but i don't see this "secret" he speaks of... everything looks normal...

...my point exactly!;)

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 03:06 AM

@ trog100

Must look like this. Copy this link that appears after you click "UPDATE".;)

trog100

01-08-2008, 03:08 AM

...my point exactly!;)

interesting thow.. the second probably needs logging into.. not important thow.. all the info is in the first one..

i dont see a secret.. i still see a wee mystery thow.. each grafix test consistently scores a little higher for no valid reason.. the cpu test scores a little lower for a very valid reason.. its going slower..

we have two identical cards mine is clocked higher.. mine should score more but for some reason it dosnt..

i dont think hardrive speeds affect the tests.. memory speed might but not by much.. running after a fresh reboot is normal.. 2006 can give odd low scores for no apparent reason sometimes.. a reboot always cures this..

so i have to admit to being completely baffled as to why a slower clocked card and slower cpu is churning out more frame rates..:)

if your system is going faster than someone else's its easy to say why something scores higher.. when its going slower it gets difficult... he he he

how is your fur bench score DR.. ???

still as curious as i was.. but thanks for cooperating.. :)

trog

ps.. i only have the freeware 2006.. it dont kinda let me do much at all.. getting very late over here off to bed.. catch u tomorrow..

yogurt_21

01-08-2008, 03:10 AM

does that mean my 1680 x 1050 widescreen is running more pixels than it should be then.. or am i loseing the plot somewhat here.. :rolleyes:

trog

ummm if your 3d06 defaults to that it would be the first time I've seen a screen do that. ( as usually its that the monitors default driver isn't capable of the verticle pixel amount on widescreens and 1080 is obviously higher than 1024 so that shouldn't happen). but yes you'd be running 1,782,000 26% more pixels slowing your performance and lowering your score.

@ dr. spankenstein your 2.0 looks normal to me
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4371289

check it vs my 2900 at 940 core and see what i mean

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4479694
while my quad give me an obvious score advantage it shouldn't affect the game scores at all, infact with your extra 100MHZ your cpu should be giving your game tests a bit more performance than mine. but the stream processor architecture has always favored sm3.0 over 2.0. it's just the way the drivers are optimised.

unsmart

01-08-2008, 03:11 AM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080107/Capture005502.jpg
pencil mod Vcore to 1.287v I'll probably up it to 1.3 in a few days. Whats a good under $30 HSF for this?
My CPU is killing my score :banghead:

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 03:24 AM

@ yogurt 21,

Thanks for dropping the link on us. And your perspective.

A most respectable single card score! You crush my CPU score by 2100 points!:respect:

yogurt_21

01-08-2008, 03:29 AM

lol yeah but the quad counts for like 70% of that and the other goes to my watercooled bios vmoded card lol. so in short mines good for checking 2.0 to 3.0 but I really "cheat" when it comes to voltages and cooling. lol

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 03:38 AM

i only have the freeware version.. so i could only do the defaults..

http://www.cavecom.com/pics/20063870.jpg

trog

Just go back in and select the "Published" box, click "UPDATE", copy the link that appears. Post.

dont see a secret.. i still see a wee mystery thow.. each grafix test consistently scores a little higher for no valid reason.. the cpu test scores a little lower for a very valid reason.. its going slower..

Again, give US some numbers to compare and the specs you wre running the test at.

we have two identical cards mine is clocked higher.. mine should score more but for some reason it dosnt..

It's been proven that some memory speeds kick in a higher latency. Maybe you've crossed over that point.;)

i dont think hardrive speeds affect the tests.. memory speed might but not by much.. running after a fresh reboot is normal.. 2006 can give odd low scores for no apparent reason sometimes.. a reboot always cures this..

There has to be some difference though. Try running 3DM from your floppy drive! (Shouldn't affect your score too much!):rolleyes:

so i have to admit to being completely baffled as to why a slower clocked card and slower cpu is churning out more frame rates..

Could be lots of things. I asked these same things to Random Murderer: What strap are you in? What FSB are you running at? What's your RAM running at?

if your system is going faster than someone else's its easy to say why something scores higher.. when its going slower it gets difficult... he he he

How would we know! You're about the only one here who hasn't submitted a screenshot with the pertinent information. CPU-Z, GPU-Z, CCC or Riva. Give us something to compare.

how is your fur bench score DR.. ???

Don't know. I'll try and post up.

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 03:42 AM

The_Real_DeaL31

01-08-2008, 04:25 AM

i just hit 10k in 3dmarks06 with a hd3850 woot woot hehe

mikek75

01-08-2008, 04:38 AM

Hey mikek75,

Did you ever get your refresh rate sorted?

Nope, still obstinately stuck at 60HZ! I have high hopes for Cat8.1 though, lol

Tatty_One

01-08-2008, 07:56 AM

Also, just to comment on one earlier point, in 3D Mark 2006 memory places a reasonably significant (ish) part, an extra 100mhz on the memory speed can give you MUCH more than 100 points, those of you with decent memory dividers in BIOS might like to try this as a little example:

Set your CPU speed at say 3.2Gig and run your mem really low on the lowest divider, then run the test, then set your CPU at 3gig and run the memory on higher (at least 200mhz higher to compensate for the 200mhz drop in CPU speed) but both memory speeds with the same latency, then compare your scores, this only really works on a dual core because on a quad, the CPU score takes a more signifcant drop with the reduction in cpu speed.

I can only speak for myself but my first run with my 8800GTS 512mb got me 17,022 points, to be safe, the memory divider I had on was running my memory at 1120mhz at 4-4-4-10, the next day, whilst playing around I set the card and the CPU to exactly the same but upped my VMem voltage and ran my memory at 1380mhz on 5-5-5-15 (2.45V :eek:), I scored 17,211, almost a 200 point increase, had I run the memory at 1120mhz on 5-5-5-15 rather than the 4-4-4-10 I think you would have seen a 400 point improvement.

trog100

01-08-2008, 02:25 PM

How would we know! You're about the only one here who hasn't submitted a screenshot with the pertinent information. CPU-Z, GPU-Z, CCC or Riva. Give us something to compare.

my first post didnt have anything in except the 2006 score.. the other two show my card and cpu speeds thow.. CCC.. CPU-Z.. and the 2006 score at default settings..

u have enough info to work with.. just to refesh

my memory is running cas 5 at 950 mhz 1 to 1..

my fsb is at 1900.. cpu at 3.8 gig..

my card at 895 core 1275 memory..

i dont know how u are running your memory but pretty much everything on my system is running higher clocks than on your system..

things vary a bit but clock speeds are what its all about.. especially card clock speeds.. my extra card speeds should give me roughly 100 point over your score.. my extra cpu speed should me perhaps 50 points over your score..

i should be getting 150 points more than u.. but u are getting 200 points more than me.. so we have a discrepancy of 350 points..

so where does that come from.. its possibly from memory speed and latency variations.. i dont know your memory speeds or timings.. ?

to get my score up to where yours is i would in essence have to run my card at about 915 mhz.. pretty high clocks..

soooo... both these scores are reasonable scores.. yours is better than mine.. i am simply interesting in finding out why at lower cpu and card speeds u score more than i do..

pure research.. nothing more.. :)

trog

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 03:45 PM

my first post didnt have anything in except the 2006 score.. the other two show my card and cpu speeds thow.. CCC.. CPU-Z.. and the 2006 score at default settings..

I see that now, my bad!:o But now, going by your screenshot your card shows to be running 895/1275. Mine is at 877/1287. So yes, your card's core is slightly faster. For the record, the card's core goes up in 13.5MHz increments, so you're only getting 891 (Check with RivaTuner!;)) I'll conceed the 13MHz core.
Your card's mem is running slower, which we all know contributes to the bandwidth that the card can transfer information. I've seen quite large gains/losses from the same core speed with different mem speeds. So your theory loses a little credence there.

And 50MHz CPU speed isn't such the huge difference that you make it out to be.

I've had variations of 200 points between different runs for no apparent reason.

I think both our scores are where they should be. In fact, your score and mikek75 seem to be scaling quite proportionately, seeing as you both have the same CPU.

There is ALOT to be said about having, what can only be described as, a "balanced" system. It's not always a matter of jacking your FSB to the max or cranking your memory as tight as a drum.

There are others that will support me in this statement since I'm fairly new to all this myself. I don't claim to have all the answers, but to get your knickers in a twist over (what in the end analysis) amounts to 200 3DMark points seems a little zealotous.

Just sayin'...

Lillebror

01-08-2008, 04:23 PM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080108/3dmark06_standard clocks.jpg

Everything at standard - Havent overclocked Cpu yet.. hoping for 11k when its overclocked! :D

InPaniC

01-08-2008, 04:42 PM

Hi,

i love this HD3870, much more power than 2 2900XT´s and very cold on wakü:

(Vista costs so damn CPU points...) And its CF of course :)

http://www.imgbox.de/users/public/thumbnails/v53063u39_t.gif (http://www.imgbox.de/?img=v53063u39.jpg)

trog100

01-08-2008, 04:56 PM

I see that now, my bad!:o But now, going by your screenshot your card shows to be running 895/1275. Mine is at 877/1287. So yes, your card's core is slightly faster. For the record, the card's core goes up in 13.5MHz increments, so you're only getting 891 (Check with RivaTuner!;)) I'll conceed the 13MHz core.
Your card's mem is running slower, which we all know contributes to the bandwidth that the card can transfer information. I've seen quite large gains/losses from the same core speed with different mem speeds. So your theory loses a little credence there.

And 50MHz CPU speed isn't such the huge difference that you make it out to be.

I've had variations of 200 points between different runs for no apparent reason.

I think both our scores are where they should be. In fact, your score and mikek75 seem to be scaling quite proportionately, seeing as you both have the same CPU.

There is ALOT to be said about having, what can only be described as, a "balanced" system. It's not always a matter of jacking your FSB to the max or cranking your memory as tight as a drum.

There are others that will support me in this statement since I'm fairly new to all this myself. I don't claim to have all the answers, but to get your knickers in a twist over (what in the end analysis) amounts to 200 3DMark points seems a little zealotous.

Just sayin'...

my knickers aint in a twist.. my score does scale very well with mikes.. yours dosnt.. its factors like this that make me look extra close at your score..

the cpu speed difference isnt 50 mhz.. its 100mtz.. u are correct my gpu speed according to riva tuner and gpu-z is 891.. still significantly higher than yours.. the very small memory speed difference is totally insignificant which is why i dont mention it..

my system is well balanced more so than yours.. basically u dont have the faintest idea do u.. u are clutching at straws trying to find a reason for your higher than it should be relative to mine score.. he he he

i aint new to this.. my 2006 score is consistent it doesnt vary by 200 points at random..

my system should score higher than yours.. it dosnt.. why.. neither of us knows..

it seems we aint gonna find out either.. :)

the next time someone asks u why your scores are higher than he thinks they should be.. be honest.. just say.. they are high arnt they.. as to why i have no idea.. he he

:toast:

trog

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 05:26 PM

@ ghost. could you please post a screen shot.

@ Lillebror, if you oc your cpu you could get a lot higher score (and oc the card too :) )

@ inpanic, thats a very VERY nice score! how did you exactly get that? it seems really high though.

@trog100 and Dr. Spankenstein. could you two stop arguing please? (correct me if i am wrong, but you seem to be arguing)

InPaniC

01-08-2008, 05:29 PM

@freaksavior: Its not enough, my cards run so badly without voltmod (29 C° under load :O ) and my C2Q is also not very rare. (3600@1.39, 3800@1.47). And the most badly is that XP have a problem with my CF, dunno why :cry: . I will try it later with voltmod, hope i can get 21k with vista. But a QX will ne :D

(Sry for my bad english, its not my strange).

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 05:30 PM

oh, your running crossfire?

InPaniC

01-08-2008, 05:32 PM

oh, your running crossfire?

Yes, i said it in my last post :) 20k with 1 3870 is impossible.

Lillebror

01-08-2008, 05:34 PM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080108/3dmark06_overclock.jpg

Upped the cpu a tad, and a little bit to the card.. Its just weird.. I dont get anything on my monitor before i get into windows, so i can't even enter my bios with this card :S Anyone have this problem?

Dr. Spankenstein

01-08-2008, 05:35 PM

@trog100 and Dr. Spankenstein. could you two stop arguing please? (correct me if i am wrong, but you seem to be arguing)

Agreed!:toast:

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 05:39 PM

@ Lillebror, thats better;)

you should be able to beat me actuall, i'm # 5 and my cpu is a5 3.4 for the bench, so you should hit 3.4 easy, just tweak the card a little bit.

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 05:42 PM

i just prefer a screen shot.

orb will work...i guess :|

yogurt_21

01-08-2008, 06:04 PM

Am I a "cheater" because I pencil-modded my card?!?:confused:

no my point is in both compnents and cooling, I paid alot more for my score than you paid for yours. so if you were to go by $ per point you'd win lol.

mikek75

01-08-2008, 06:05 PM

Upped the cpu a tad, and a little bit to the card.. Its just weird.. I dont get anything on my monitor before i get into windows, so i can't even enter my bios with this card :S Anyone have this problem?

Its a problem with DVI, quite a few ATI cards seem to be affected, something to do with VESA timings IIRC. Not all monitors are affected either, which makes it harder for them to pin it down. A workaround is to use a DVI to VGA adaptor (you'll need a VGA monitor too, of course). Not elegant but it works! Some people say that using a 18+1 DVI cable helps too.

Lillebror

01-08-2008, 06:17 PM

Its a problem with DVI, quite a few ATI cards seem to be affected, something to do with VESA timings IIRC. Not all monitors are affected either, which makes it harder for them to pin it down. A workaround is to use a DVI to VGA adaptor (you'll need a VGA monitor too, of course). Not elegant but it works! Some people say that using a 18+1 DVI cable helps too.

Would it help to use a dvi to vga adaptor and then a vga to dvi adaptor? or should i just buy a hdmi to dvi adaptor and then use a hdmi cabel? :D

Sorry for offtopic

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 06:18 PM

i tried hdmi to dvi for my tv and it wouldn't work at 1920x1080i :(

Lillebror

01-08-2008, 06:19 PM

Im only using 1280:1024, so i dont think thats gonna be a problem for me :)

mikek75

01-08-2008, 06:23 PM

Would it help to use a dvi to vga adaptor and then a vga to dvi adaptor? or should i just buy a hdmi to dvi adaptor and then use a hdmi cabel? :D

Sorry for offtopic

Dunno, might work.... Not got an old CRT knocking around then? My monitor has both inputs, but then again I can see the BIOS with DVI, LOL. Like I say, not all monitors are affected, very frustrating if yours is....

Random Murderer

01-08-2008, 07:16 PM

new score (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=597558&postcount=55)

gerrynicol

01-08-2008, 07:19 PM

Last update from me, unless I get a better proc, upped it to 3.3(wouldn't boot at 3.4 :( )

And an I the only one running vista? :(

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4592582

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/Gerrynicol/new-2.jpg

Tatty_One

01-08-2008, 07:20 PM

new score (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=597558&postcount=55)

LMAO! :rockout:

sneekypeet

01-08-2008, 07:24 PM

new score (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=597558&postcount=55)

That score is already in the list!!!!!!???????:confused:

@ freak mine is not a 4.0GHZ run its at 3.5GHZ ...7 multi X500FSB!

Random Murderer

01-08-2008, 07:25 PM

That score is already in the list!!!!!!???????:confused:

13025?

sneekypeet

01-08-2008, 07:28 PM

new score (http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=597558&postcount=55)

Check your link again than BRO as it is linking to the old score...:shadedshu:shadedshu

Random Murderer

01-08-2008, 07:39 PM

Check your link again than BRO as it is linking to the old score...:shadedshu:shadedshu

clear you browser's cache and try again.

freaksavior

01-08-2008, 07:46 PM

updated list...anything wrong with it?

should i add a 3850 specific section?

sneekypeet

01-08-2008, 07:47 PM

@ ramdom...it works my bad.

@ freak thanks for the update!

unsmart

01-08-2008, 11:28 PM

updated list...anything wrong with it?

should i add a 3850 specific section?

I think one list with different colors for CPUs and GPUs would work so we can still see where everyone stands overall but could easily separate the hardware used for each score.l

Random Murderer

01-09-2008, 12:46 AM

I think one list with different colors for CPUs and GPUs would work so we can still see where everyone stands overall but could easily separate the hardware used for each score.l

yea, something like green for amd, blue for intel, and of course red for ati.
also, i think a section specifically for 3850's is a good idea.

and btw, i have a new score - 13025.

sneekypeet

01-09-2008, 02:05 AM

http://img.techpowerup.org/080108/3D0612Krun.jpg

Dr. Spankenstein

01-09-2008, 02:17 AM

Nice score! :toast:
This is fun, isn't it?!?:D

sneekypeet

01-09-2008, 02:41 AM

Im trying to have fun, but I had to put my card back on air to stabilize this notso good B2 CPU...its a bit toasty having them both OC on the same loop!

freaksavior

01-09-2008, 03:08 AM

i'l update this in the morning, its getting late here.

Dr. Spankenstein

01-09-2008, 03:13 AM

Im trying to have fun, but I had to put my card back on air to stabilize this notso good B2 CPU...its a bit toasty having them both OC on the same loop!

I imagine that would make for a warm loop. What block were you using?

sneekypeet

01-09-2008, 03:57 AM