Post your 3dMark 2005 scores here. (Link to list in 1st post)

i'm currently number 3 in single card (512MB).
But with my computer down I feel so useless!
 
Scratch that other score mentok, my new one is:

8002 :cool:

Man this laptop flies :D Clocks were 477/1310, still cant publish my score though :(
 
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1480865

8841 @ 500/1390 running 81.95
3dmark seems to report my mem/core clock all funky becuase i could never pass 500 :( or at least i never tried [H]ard enough to :p
not too shabby eh?
btw, i was running on "Restore Driver Defaults" meaning application controlled AA, no AF, and quality for image settings :D
 


so close to breaking 7k fjnjefawuifabfhbaweuoffb

score: 6860 588/575 x800xt aiw agp
 
No real difference with 5.13 here. 6763 3DMark05. Heh, I got two more points on my previous score, yay. I'm guessing they fixed something or other that may be affecting you though. Most releases are a month or so apart, this one surprised me because I just found out that they had a 5.12 and installed it just the other day. Apparently it was just under two weeks for them to come out with 5.13.

BTW, mentok, if you'd like to put my card's clocks on there, they're 540 core, 590 memory. Don't know if you just didn't want to bother since I'm not overclocking or if it's just because you didn't know what stock for a X850XT-PE was. No big deal really. I plan to in the not so far future get better cooling and change those numbers anyway. ^_^

EDIT: Oooh, with the newer version, their stupid control panel only requires about 10 seconds or so to start. The old one took forever. I would have sworn in the area of a minute. I still miss the old fashioned method of just adding some advanced panels to the display control panel. At least it now doesn't feel like it takes forever when I just want to start the thing up and change some minor little setting.
 
Nazo said:
BTW, mentok, if you'd like to put my card's clocks on there, they're 540 core, 590 memory. Don't know if you just didn't want to bother since I'm not overclocking or if it's just because you didn't know what stock for a X850XT-PE was. No big deal really. I plan to in the not so far future get better cooling and change those numbers anyway. ^_^
Click to expand...

I used to look up the stock speeds for people who did not tell me the speeds, but I am too lazy now.
I will add the specified speeds, thanks.
 
Hows this for my setup? Asus a8n32-sli, opteron 148 CABYE OC'd @ 270x11 2.9ghz, 2x1gb gskill HZ pc4000, Single XfX 7800gt @ 500/1.20, wd4000kd SATA

3dmark05 - 8127

AA & AF turned off, high performance setting
 
Nazo said:
No real difference with 5.13 here. 6763 3DMark05. Heh, I got two more points on my previous score, yay. I'm guessing they fixed something or other that may be affecting you though. Most releases are a month or so apart, this one surprised me because I just found out that they had a 5.12 and installed it just the other day. Apparently it was just under two weeks for them to come out with 5.13.
Click to expand...

I don't know, they've been doing lots of dual-core optimizations lately and it in effect has been improving performance on hyperthreaded systems like mine as well. At least, I'd like to think so, because a 130-point jump in performance would otherwise be weird...

edit: Oh, BTW Mentok, I just noticed that 3DMark05 has been incorrectly displaying my core and memory as being stock speeds (540/587) the entire time when they're really 594/614. So you might want to update that. :)
 
PWMK2 said:
I don't know, they've been doing lots of dual-core optimizations lately and it in effect has been improving performance on hyperthreaded systems like mine as well. At least, I'd like to think so, because a 130-point jump in performance would otherwise be weird...

edit: Oh, BTW Mentok, I just noticed that 3DMark05 has been incorrectly displaying my core and memory as being stock speeds (540/587) the entire time when they're really 594/614. So you might want to update that. :)
Click to expand...
Hmm, that reminds me. I was playing around with a utility called ATI Tray Tools (not to be confused with ATITool) and in the advanced tweaks I saw a second on multithreading. You might want to take a look at that, but, I see a warning attached that it's not considered 100% stable yet, so be careful if you do. Personally, I explicitely turned it off since I don't have HT or a dual core, but, I do wonder if it could actually help with systems that do.

BTW, isn't your score a tad low for an overclocked X850PE? I can only guess based on the notably lower CPU score that it's actually managing to be CPU limited, but, I wouldn't have thought a 3GHz P4E could be limiting. Heh, sounds like it's time for better cooling and some overclocking if you ask me. d-: I still see a lot of X850XT PE users above me, so if I ever started to feel like my system was doing especially well, it would have knocked me down a peg or two to see that list. I'm doing just about what one should expect from a stock X850XT PE (but I'm proud to say that at least my system properly demonstrates that AGP isn't dead just yet.)
 
wow. i was playing with my friend's 6800GS last night and i got higher then every single 6800GS on the list without even OCing my 3700 sandy. will OC both of them and see what i get, i have a feeling i can break 7000. i didnt read the thread after list was updates so may be someone has higher score then me, then sorry lol

EDIT: wait i think there is someone who got 6600 with their GS but not on the list... damn, i guess i'll get my crown later on tonight
 
54YW4T said:
what tweaks and stuff like that did you do?
Click to expand...

Well, the card does not benefit from more CPU, so 3 GHz versus 2.5 Ghz made no difference. I did the standard driver tweaks with Coolbits, played with the memory timings with A64 Tweaker. The RAM I used is 2-2-2-5 DDR 3200 that can run to 310 FSB, 1T. I ran it at 250 FSB, 1T and basic timings of 2.5-3-2-7. I also adjusted all the other timings, but that would take a little too much to summarize. There is also a tweaked BIOS on the card. I was trying for 7K, that would take at least 550 on the core.
 
aop said:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/aop13/3dmark05_tulos.png

I can't publish my results because of my extraordinary CPU. Just look at the CPU-Z window and you will notice few strange things.
Click to expand...
Er, what are we supposed to see? Sorry, I'm just not quite clear on what's extraordinary exactly. I'm guessing those model numbers aren't what they are supposed to be or something?
 
Nazo said:
Er, what are we supposed to see? Sorry, I'm just not quite clear on what's extraordinary exactly. I'm guessing those model numbers aren't what they are supposed to be or something?
Click to expand...
Since when did a 3000+ have a multiplier of 11? :p

What is it, an engineering sample?a messed up mobo? I'm interested :D
 
Ah, I'm no expert on which one is which. Probably a botched job on the bridges or whatever they're using these days I bet.
 
Mr. K6 said:
Since when did a 3000+ have a multiplier of 11? :p

What is it, an engineering sample?a messed up mobo? I'm interested :D
Click to expand...
If he's the same person I read about a while ago... his CPU is detected with the 11x Multiplier and reads 3000+.

It's glitched so if he changes it, it won't go back to 11x unless he clears the CMOS..

This is, if he's the same person I am thinking of from a while back.
 
aop said:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/aop13/3dmark05_tulos.png

I can't publish my results because of my extraordinary CPU. Just look at the CPU-Z window and you will notice few strange things.
Click to expand...

Nazo said:
Er, what are we supposed to see? Sorry, I'm just not quite clear on what's extraordinary exactly. I'm guessing those model numbers aren't what they are supposed to be or something?
Click to expand...

Well... the code name, package, revision, and technologly fields in CPU-Z are blank. They are not being found by his computer. Therefore Futuremark cant tell what socket, ect, his processor is.

Edit: by the time I typed a response, 3 ppl had better ones...... :(
 
Lol, sorry. Anyway, it's not so unusual to see a Venice hit 2.4GHz, so I'd say those results are probably valid even if you can't publish (well, theoretically someone could try to cheat, but, I really don't understand the point if you aren't near the top of the list or something.)
 
That CPU has multipliers 4-11x usable, also multipliers like 9.5x and 10.5x work. I have tested it in three motherboards, 2x Asus A8N SLI and 1x Epox 9NDA3+. Multipliers 4-11x worked in both Asus A8N SLI boards and multipliers 5-11x worked in Epox 9NDA3+. I bought it last summer and my friend noticed that strange thing when we were testing it on his Asus A8N SLI because my Epox 9RDA3+ had some booting issues and I wanted to know which one is borked the CPU or the mobo.

edit: Futuremark website says that it's "Unknown" CPU so I can't publish any of my scores.
 
Guys stand back. Its about to get stupid up in here. All safety goggles on. Flame suit on - check. Finger over reset button - check. Prepare to meet your maker!

5163 ...argh nevermind. Back to the cave...sigh.

comp in sig:
 
venice @ 2.5
6800GS @ 500/1250
2x512 ram

5916

- In the control panel I put the quality to maximum up from the default. Would this affect my score alot?
 
pancakes said:
- In the control panel I put the quality to maximum up from the default. Would this affect my score alot?
Click to expand...
It should. Generally you're supposed to use minimum quality settings for benchmarking. I mean, it's sometimes useful to benchmark with higher quality settings, but, for comparison's sake everyone needs to use the same thing.
 
That looks about right now. Just about right on the average 6800GS now. BTW, are you overclocking? I hear the 6800GS does really well when it comes to overclocking, and I see some people with even higher 6800GS scores due to this. Heh, I have to admit I'm generally a little curious about the thing since I missed out on it (if it had been out when I was looking at video cards I would have seriously considered it.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top