3Dmark06 compared to similar systems

K

kaiweiler

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
314
I know I know, synthetic benchmarks don't mean much and blah blah blah
BUT I just noticed my system scores what I thought was quite good, but on the low end of similar systems.
Does this score seem right for my setup? Why are other similar systems getting up to over 17k??

13155.jpg


Q6600 at 3Ghz
Abit IP35 Pro
8800GT at 700/1750/1003 w/ 169.32 drivers
4x1gb DDR2 667Mhz
 
You would probably improve your score a bit if you used DDR2-800 or 1066. I remember reading some reviews on some Dell XPS systems (MaximumPC, methinks) and they used DDR2-667, and lost a noticable margin of performance because of the slower (and cheaper) memory used. I want to say around 10-15% or so, but don't quote me on that...
 
I think it just looks at components not clock rate... so you could be up against someone running a Q6600 at 4+Ghz under phase change with an 8800 GT volt modded under watercooling. Nothing wrong with your score. Just one more reason to ignore 3DMark entirely.
 
I did a run with my rig when I first got it. Scored right around 12,500. I then OC'd the cpu and my score jumped up 2000 points. I would say that a lot of the higher systems that are similar to yours have been oc'd, multiple graphics cards, and probably run on water, if not something even cooler.

I would say that's a pretty good score for a stock setup. You have a quad core, decent video card, and plenty of ram. I would say if you did a little work you could hit the 16k-17k range without too much trouble.
 
ah I see, I didn't realise that 3dMark didn't take clock speed into consideration when comparing to "similar" systems.
And I'm also using Vista x64 which doesn't help my score much.
Ah well, good enough for me, I'm not a big numbers cruncher, just wanted to make sure nothing was out of the norm :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top