dragonfly April 8, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 8, 2008 Just ran mine on XP32, 11192 or something similar to that. I'm @ 3.14 and stock card. I lost my SS somewhere though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 11, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 11, 2008 Just ran mine on XP32, 11192 or something similar to that. I'm @ 3.14 and stock card. I lost my SS somewhere though In yo face! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 11, 2008 Just ran mine on XP32, 11192 or something similar to that. I'm @ 3.14 and stock card. I lost my SS somewhere though In yo face! LOL I'm at 3.14, you're at 3.4... wait until exams are over and I'm going to break 5!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 11, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 11, 2008 Pardon the ignorance but..."ss"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 11, 2008 Screen shot, to show all the pretty details of how Bush beat me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 11, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 11, 2008 (edited) Just ran mine on XP32, 11192 or something similar to that. I'm @ 3.14 and stock card. I lost my SS somewhere though In yo face! LOL I'm at 3.14, you're at 3.4... wait until exams are over and I'm going to break 5!!! Actually for everyday i run at 3.2 and the 3.4 run was just for fun. For 3.2 score look at a earlier post. Seems our scores are typical of a intel C2D running around 3.2, no matter what the cache size is, I really thought cache played a bigger role in gaming. Any other easy benchies where we can test cache sizes, like some real games? Hehe saying your at 3.14 and I'm at 3.4 is a cop out. You should say your at $2xx and I'm at $7x. Edited April 11, 2008 by bushwack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 11, 2008 Of course it's a cop-out! Your 8800GT is probably slightly better than mine at that resolution too. However, I think mine's better for what I do (1920x1200) since I've got AA and AF on for all my games... that is, for CoD4. lol Anyway, I guess we could bench crysis, ut3, fear and oblivion, but I have none of the aforementioned installed, so let's just say you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 11, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 11, 2008 I should play with the OC on mine a bit but currently I'm happy with where it's at and know that the "performance" increase is most likely only noticeable in the benchmarks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 11, 2008 Not sure what you're running dwEEziL, but I noticed a difference going from 2.4 to 3.1 for sure. MUCH snappier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 11, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 11, 2008 Not sure what you're running dwEEziL, but I noticed a difference going from 2.4 to 3.1 for sure. MUCH snappier. I noticed a big difference going from 1.8 to 3.2, on my pocketbook! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 11, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 11, 2008 Well, I'd say a 700MHz performance increase should make it snappier...and a 1.4GHz increase would be even more so. I'm running an Intel C2D E6750 Conroe at 2.66GHz (stock) and a EVGA nVidia 8800GTX with 768MB DDR3 ram and core clocked at 575MHz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boiler April 11, 2008 Share boiler Member April 11, 2008 guys, seriously, this is all a moot point because when I build my next gaming computer this coming fall it will DESTROY all of your scores in 3DMark you may bow down to my pending computing superiority now if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 11, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 11, 2008 And then you'll proceed to sell it in 2 months so you can get something for your wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boiler April 11, 2008 Share boiler Member April 11, 2008 And then you'll proceed to sell it in 2 months so you can get something for your wife. ha ha, you're hilarious yes, my previous rig was sold for the betterment of the marital household, HOWEVER the proceeds were used to purchase a 50" 1080p HDTV, so I think it was a decent trade off. My next one shall not meet such a fate. She'll go before it does Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 11, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 11, 2008 /me puts this thread up on his blog and PM's Mrs. boilersax the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebits April 11, 2008 Share ebits Member April 11, 2008 Got tired of Vista blue screen of death and went back to xp32. Updated Score is 13596 3DMark06 Score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 12, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 12, 2008 Got tired of Vista blue screen of death and went back to xp32. Updated Score is 13596 3DMark06 Score Hax! how did you get by without using the default rez? Our graphic score are almost exactly the same but you whipped me on the CPU tests. Does that mean our GTs are topped out? Or that 3dmark doesn't use more then 2 cores for the graphic tests? Anyway you can re-run the tests at standard resolution or does your monitor only support one resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebits April 12, 2008 Share ebits Member April 12, 2008 Got tired of Vista blue screen of death and went back to xp32. Updated Score is 13596 3DMark06 Score Hax! how did you get by without using the default rez? Our graphic score are almost exactly the same but you whipped me on the CPU tests. Does that mean our GTs are topped out? Or that 3dmark doesn't use more then 2 cores for the graphic tests? Anyway you can re-run the tests at standard resolution or does your monitor only support one resolution? I bought 3dmark06 for 15 bucks from their website and changed rez to 1360x768 from the 1280x768 Got a coupon by doing a search for promotional codes. I haven't oc'd my vid card yet but don't plan on it cuz everything runs fine. Each test is performed is category specific. The native rez and max for my monitor is 1360x768 but I can run 1280x768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EbilDustBunny April 12, 2008 Share EbilDustBunny GC Alumni April 12, 2008 I just built my new PC last night.... still a work in progress. but here's my PC Mark score. 8392 I still need to finish building my cooling system, get a new gfx card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwEEziL April 12, 2008 Share dwEEziL Member April 12, 2008 Based on your gpu alone I'd say, as you thought, it's your bottleneck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo April 12, 2008 Share Cujo Member April 12, 2008 ebits score cannot directly compare to anyone of ours as it's a completely different res. we are all pushing far more pixels. also, he has a quad core and in over-all score his comp will always be better than dual core so long as the vid cards remain similar. btw, it was mentioned that 3dmark doesn't show cache differences all that much. very true. most games benefit far more from cache differences. for sure, css really shows an advantage with more cache as it's a very cpu limited game. most other games do as well though i haven't seen a recent test on recent games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly April 12, 2008 Share dragonfly Member April 12, 2008 I think the biggest thing to remember in all of this is that I can still pwn ebits and bush in UT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 13, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 13, 2008 We need a couple more benchmarks to see what cache means in gaming. CSS: 1600x1200 (a standard rez i think everyone can run), all setting on max and 4x AA and 4x anio. Aquamark 3: standardize test like 3dmark just kinda old. My scores: CSS: 209.79 Aquamark3: gfx 28473 / cpu 15703 / 143360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo April 13, 2008 Share Cujo Member April 13, 2008 (a standard rez i think everyone can run), hardly. only those with 24" or larger widescreens or older larger crt screens can run that res. a common res would be 1280x1024 as every 17 or 19" lcd uses that as native res. also, anything larger than a 20" widescreen can run that res. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack April 13, 2008 Share bushwack Member April 13, 2008 (a standard rez i think everyone can run), hardly. only those with 24" or larger widescreens or older larger crt screens can run that res. a common res would be 1280x1024 as every 17 or 19" lcd uses that as native res. also, anything larger than a 20" widescreen can run that res. I may have been wrong but I was just thinking since my old 19" CRT and my 22" LCD could run 1600x1200, that there was a 6 year timeline that everyone could fit in. 1280x1024 seems a odd rez since it not the common 4:3 nor 16:10 widescreen. How about 1280x960? Seems kinda low by todays standards doesnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now