I know it does not mean much but with everything in my sig at stock speed, I did 13900 in 3dmark06 which I think is a bit low (just guessing) is there something that could be wrong, my memory timing were wrong but other than that I don't see what it could be.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
Another low 3dmark06 thread
- Thread starter Caddish
- Start date
Damn...not to make you feel any worse but I just scored 12575 with the rig in the sig. That seems way low for your system.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 7,437
Low because your CPU is going so slow. Overclock your CPU a bit and you should see some nice improvements on your 3dMark06 score.
Also the HD5850 is a monster over clocker that you could possibly over clock to 1GHZ on the core.
Just need to tweak your system good.
Also the HD5850 is a monster over clocker that you could possibly over clock to 1GHZ on the core.
Just need to tweak your system good.
E6600 and 8800GTX's were getting 12,000 back in the day.
There's a problem with his score that's beyond overclocking.
His score, as is, should be around 17k - 18k.
+1
You will be surprised what simple tweaking secession will do to 3Dmark/Vantage scores.
To me 14k seems reasonable for that rig but who knows, Go look for reviews on the 5850 they should be some 3Dmark testing with your 860
Yes I remember my friend E8400 + 8800 GTS doing 13 000 2-3 year ago so yeah I agree with Utopia it's a bit low
I'll try overclocking everything a bit when I have time but I'm not sure I thrust the mATX board for that I've red somewhere some part of the mobo have a hard time
I'll try overclocking everything a bit when I have time but I'm not sure I thrust the mATX board for that I've red somewhere some part of the mobo have a hard time
Here's someone who did a log of their PC build with an i7 860 and a 5850. He benchmarked '06 at stock speeds and got ~20k.
http://blog.arogan.com/2009/10/gamer-pc-core-i7-860-p55-ati-radeon-hd.html
Your PC is comparable, except he has 8 gigs of DDR3. . .
http://blog.arogan.com/2009/10/gamer-pc-core-i7-860-p55-ati-radeon-hd.html
Your PC is comparable, except he has 8 gigs of DDR3. . .
not that much but I wanted to brag a little but I did 1k more than a 3year old 1.3k rig I was a littble bit disapointed, anyway I just rerun it everything at stock speed and I did 18.5k which feel a bit better[edit] awesome I have supersonic fan it reached 675 000 rpm
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2008
- Messages
- 7,437
People still care about 3D Mark? Amazing.
Not sure where it ranks in poplarity in modern benchmarks but in terms of competitive benchmarking it seems to be very popular.
Many people still run 3D Mark.
another-user
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2006
- Messages
- 984
that still seems off to me.
i ran 06 on my freshly built system and got 15067. im running on a phenom 2 955, 5770, asus m4a79xtd, and 2x2 corsair at 1333.
i ran 06 on my freshly built system and got 15067. im running on a phenom 2 955, 5770, asus m4a79xtd, and 2x2 corsair at 1333.
People still care about 3D Mark? Amazing.
It is one of the most if not favored benchmarks for overclockers. This might not be the forum that favors this kind of competitive benchmarking ranking system for it but that does not mean its still not used/cared about.
If the score seems a bit off from what people say, Have you tried a fresh install or have a fairly well managed os currently?
It is one of the most if not favored benchmarks for overclockers. This might not be the forum that favors this kind of competitive benchmarking ranking system for it but that does not mean its still not used/cared about.
If the score seems a bit off from what people say, Have you tried a fresh install or have a fairly well managed os currently?
It's hard for me to give two squirts of piss about a benchmarking application that spits out numbers arbitrarily. Scores are influenced by variables that do not effect actual performance running actual games.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2001
- Messages
- 12,790
3dmark06 is such a terrible benchmark lol. I got like 22K with my 4850's in crossfire, upgraded to 4870x2 quad crossfire and my score went up to like 23K... At the same time my vantage score nearly doubled.
Shadowssong
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2009
- Messages
- 1,969
SONDA IS BACK??? OMG YESSHH!!!! How are the 5770/4770's doing?
Anyways back to your regularly scheduled thread.
A 500MHz increase in CPU clock speed can result in a massive score increase, but in actual games it usually amounts to very little if anything. My favorite example is an oldie, but a goodie. The AMD/ATI Radeon HD 2900XT scored higher than the 8800GTX/8800Ultra in 3D Mark. However in reality it was inferior in just about every way imaginable. 3D Mark also stopped running an actual game engine years ago. As far as I am concerned it's synthetic nonsense with arbitrary numbers that have no translation into anything real world.
Any time "3dmark" is mentioned anywhere on [H] we always get several of these.
We know where you stand. We've all seen it. Over, and over. I mean really, dozens of times. I'm sure you can punch "3dmark" into a Video Card search on [H] and you'll find a large history of 3dmark flame bait.
The OP even recognized it:
I don't know if people enjoy harping on 3dmark, or if they want to make sure everyone in the community is completely aware that 3dmark shouldn't be a valid benchmark.
It's a difficult science to troll a hardware community, but 3dmark is truly the Achilles' heel.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
why act like that? nobody is saying this is a substitute for a game benchmark. people just run it so they can make sure their pc is doing what its supposed to and compare scores to those with the same hardware.People still care about 3D Mark? Amazing.
in this case its clear that his scores are way too low for his hardware so he is concerned. theres no reason to act like you just did because all he is doing is seeking advice.
i agree. People like to bag on 3dmark.
sweetreddyd
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 144
3Dmark IS pretty much a joke. I went from tri-sli GTX260s, to a diamond, visiontek, and XFX 5870 in tri-fire.
I GET THE EXACT SAME 3DMARK SCORE.
Tell me 3dmark is an accurate non-arbitrary number slinging benchmark, go on, tell me.
My tri-fire setup curb stomps my tri-sli setup, and they get the same scores. 3dmark has become totally synthetic, it's good for exposing serious problems with your system(which will likely be just as obvious running another program), and little else.
I GET THE EXACT SAME 3DMARK SCORE.
Tell me 3dmark is an accurate non-arbitrary number slinging benchmark, go on, tell me.
My tri-fire setup curb stomps my tri-sli setup, and they get the same scores. 3dmark has become totally synthetic, it's good for exposing serious problems with your system(which will likely be just as obvious running another program), and little else.
Given how 3D Mark responds to drivers and hardware I wouldn't be concerned unless there are performance issues with actual games and applications. 3D Mark itself is NOT a good indicator that anything is wrong with any given system. That's been my point all a long. 3D Mark isn't good for anything.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
that makes sense if your score is only off by a few hundred points or maybe even a little over a thousand compared to similar systems. when you are off by 3000-4000 points or more then yes that does indicate there is a problem somewhere. there is nothing wrong with using 3Dmark just to gauge if your system is working properly. it has always been a consistent indicator for me and my scores match those with similar configurations.
+1
As for what SweetRed said, Did you compare the full results other than the simple numbers it gives? What were if they were the difference in each test it does? There are many variables that can do that.
I still use 3Dmark 04/05/06 when I tweak builds. I have been using Vantage more now a days though I will say that.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
There is NOTHING wrong with using 3dmark as a dipstick to test your system is configured correctly.
Example: I had my system running with single-channel ram for a year (and never realized it because I hardly ever see my boot screen). I had this nagging question at the back of my mind the whole time because my 3dmark scores were around 9000, and the scores I had seen online were about 11,000. I was also confused because benchmark results from websites in games were a little higher than what I was getting.
I didn't notice until I upgraded a drive in my system this year, and I finally got a careful look at the boot screen. I moved one stick to the correct slot, and BOOM - my 3dmark scores increased to the 11,000 range, and suddenly my performance matched that of review sites.
So, let this be a lesson for ya: 3dmark is a great way to see if your system is properly configured, and also: check to make sure your ram is running in dual-channel.
Example: I had my system running with single-channel ram for a year (and never realized it because I hardly ever see my boot screen). I had this nagging question at the back of my mind the whole time because my 3dmark scores were around 9000, and the scores I had seen online were about 11,000. I was also confused because benchmark results from websites in games were a little higher than what I was getting.
I didn't notice until I upgraded a drive in my system this year, and I finally got a careful look at the boot screen. I moved one stick to the correct slot, and BOOM - my 3dmark scores increased to the 11,000 range, and suddenly my performance matched that of review sites.
So, let this be a lesson for ya: 3dmark is a great way to see if your system is properly configured, and also: check to make sure your ram is running in dual-channel.
i think 3dmark06 is a good cpu benchmark.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=12401394
for a 3d benchmark it really is dated.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=12401394
for a 3d benchmark it really is dated.
cannondale06
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 16,180
its a system benchmark.
it is a system benchmark, but the only thing i find relevant is the cpu results.
the gpu scores depend a lot on your cpu.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,808
you may be CPU bottle necked...whats your system specs? ..
evolucion8
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 917
Please, 3DMark06 is so CPU bound that will not stress enough any current GPU. Is a good thing to detect some changes in performance when overclocking or optimizing timings. Try to tight your timings a bit and run some memtest to see if there's any errors in the timing setup. With that CPU at stock speeds, you should score more. Heck, I score 17280.
sweetreddyd
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2009
- Messages
- 144
I have an I7 @ 3.8 I'm not complaining the score is too low
It's just not a fair comparison when you can cheat the test so badly while gaining nothing that would be like real - life framerates (physX) thats not to say I hate 3dmark, , it is nice for exposing problems with the system, like I had a bad xfx 5870 and the only two clues I had were green dots in aero, and 3dmark 06 wouldn't run the cpu test even after a reformat(which was odd)
Exchanged the 2nd card at microcenter, bam, 3dmark works fine. Artifacts gone. So I do believe it has it's uses(I'm not in the camp of people who seem to vehemently hate it), but I cringe when I post my 31k 3dmark score and people say lol my gtx 295 is faster, when it's because of an over-inflated cheat test. I even cringed a bit when I realized the best 260 run I ever had was so close to my current rig, because in actual gaming it's a quantum leap behind. 3dmark used to be a very good indicator of what cards were actually faster, and now it's far too easy to fudge.
I think had futuremark gone with a different physics middleware it would still be taken slightly more seriously, especially if the physics score didn't figure so heavily into the final test outcome, and it was based more on framerates achieved in the game tests.
It's just not a fair comparison when you can cheat the test so badly while gaining nothing that would be like real - life framerates (physX) thats not to say I hate 3dmark, , it is nice for exposing problems with the system, like I had a bad xfx 5870 and the only two clues I had were green dots in aero, and 3dmark 06 wouldn't run the cpu test even after a reformat(which was odd)
Exchanged the 2nd card at microcenter, bam, 3dmark works fine. Artifacts gone. So I do believe it has it's uses(I'm not in the camp of people who seem to vehemently hate it), but I cringe when I post my 31k 3dmark score and people say lol my gtx 295 is faster, when it's because of an over-inflated cheat test. I even cringed a bit when I realized the best 260 run I ever had was so close to my current rig, because in actual gaming it's a quantum leap behind. 3dmark used to be a very good indicator of what cards were actually faster, and now it's far too easy to fudge.
I think had futuremark gone with a different physics middleware it would still be taken slightly more seriously, especially if the physics score didn't figure so heavily into the final test outcome, and it was based more on framerates achieved in the game tests.
cause your cpu is at 3.8
I've seen 3D Mark scores be off by a few thousand points while in game performance matched other similar systems perfectly. I don't believe 3D Mark is an accurate indicator of anything. That's just my experience. As always your mileage may vary.