Tek-Almighty August 8, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member August 8, 2008 Are you talking 3DMark06?... A pentium? hmmm.. Like I said, my previous best with 1 8800 GT and my dual core Athlon was mid 9000s... Maybe my computer is stuck in a time warp. Actually, I checked the 3Dmark website, and my computer was in the 95% for people with approx. the same setup. You must be magic, bush! I'm hiring you to build my next setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack August 8, 2008 Share bushwack Member August 8, 2008 Are you talking 3DMark06?... A pentium? hmmm.. Actually, I checked the 3Dmark website, and my computer was in the 95% for people with approx. the same setup. [/quote The true name of the intel chip I'm running is a Pentium 2160. Sure it's a C2D with only 1 meg cache but they used the Pentium moniker to confuse people into spending more to get their "new" C2D chips and not their "old" Pentiums. Man I'm so jealous over that mobo you have tek, I need to start selling tea . How much better does your system game now? I'm played Bioshock last night and at high setting I had to bump my rez down to 1440x900 to make the game more playable but I still don't think that's enough. Seemed to play better at 1280x960 on my old crt. How much difference does the extra 8800gt make? Man I wish I bought a sli board now... No pics Tek? What about the case again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo August 8, 2008 Share Cujo Member August 8, 2008 lol, when you said pentium you had me goin too. the important thing is the "core" architecture which provides the performance increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly August 8, 2008 Share dragonfly Member August 8, 2008 Nice setup tek. Bush, I ran Bioshock @ 1920x1200 with 2x or 4x AA + AF, everything else maxed. I did run it in vista 64x though, instead of XP. It ran smooth for me on my PC (8800GTS 640 112SP's @ 575mhz if I remember correctly). Anyway, just stopping in on dialup to say hey and nice pc tek. I will still beat you at UT, 2 cards or 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty August 9, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member August 9, 2008 I really like bioshock, b/c it is a good test of CPU and GPU power. Very balanced. At some point with my old Athlon dual core and 2 x 8800GT, I dipped into the 30's for FPS...and that was at 1680 x 1050. I found that for most of the levels, a second GT improved performance about 20%... I haven't installed bioshock yet on new build, but I think the CPU change is gonna boost me into the 70's and 80's as far as FPS goes for most of the game. IMO, i think every game should come with a decently balanced bench utility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly September 7, 2008 Share dragonfly Member September 7, 2008 (edited) Alrighty, setup: E8400 @ 3.0 Asus P5Q Pro 2x2gb OCZ Reaper @ 1066 HIS 4850 XP sp2 Everything stock 3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702 SM 2.0 - 4843 SM 3.0 - 5752 CPU: 2821 I dont have the details like fps cause it only let me view it online. Yay. Not bad for everything stock and relatively new drivers for the 4800s. Edited September 7, 2008 by DarkArchon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 7, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 7, 2008 (edited) Alrighty, setup:E8400 @ 3.0 Asus P5Q Pro 2x2gb OCZ Reaper @ 1066 HIS 4850 XP sp2 Everything stock 3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702 SM 2.0 - 4843 SM 3.0 - 5752 CPU: 2821 I dont have the details like fps cause it only let me view it online. Yay. Not bad for everything stock and relatively new drivers for the 4800s. Bout freakin' time! Nice...I was wondering how the 8800 GT would compare with the 4850. I will run a single 8800 and see what the numbers are. Most of the online stuff I see, the 4850 is winning by 10-15%. *edit. Just ran in non-SLI mode, single 8800 GT; with everything at stock, I just got Overall: 12055 SM 2.0: 5672 SM 3.0 5351 CPU: 2822 Interesting. I will have to run SLI again to see if I get similar improvements. That is about 1000 more than I thought a single 8800GT would get me. What chipset is your mobo? Oh, and what hard drive you using? Edited September 7, 2008 by Tek-Almighty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly September 7, 2008 Share dragonfly Member September 7, 2008 Nice. Yeah, I'm not even set up yet in town. My PC is at the church Um, I have 2 500gig AAKS WD HDDs. Not in raid or anything. The chipset is p45. I like the 4850. You're getting higher sm2 scores for sure - all the nvidia cards seem to though. I'll start oc'ing probably next week, starting with the cpu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo September 7, 2008 Share Cujo Member September 7, 2008 tek my sm2 score is much higher but sm3 is about the same. i thought for sure the 4850 would be faster than a 8800 ultra but maybe not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack September 7, 2008 Share bushwack Member September 7, 2008 Alrighty, setup:E8400 @ 3.0 Asus P5Q Pro 2x2gb OCZ Reaper @ 1066 HIS 4850 XP sp2 Everything stock 3DMark06 v1.1.0: 11702 SM 2.0 - 4843 SM 3.0 - 5752 CPU: 2821 I dont have the details like fps cause it only let me view it online. Yay. Not bad for everything stock and relatively new drivers for the 4800s. Doesn't seem that much of a difference from your old system, why did you sell it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 8, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 8, 2008 tek my sm2 score is much higher but sm3 is about the same. i thought for sure the 4850 would be faster than a 8800 ultra but maybe not... I don't think the 4850 is faster than 8800 ultra but definitely faster than the 8800 GT (which is what I have) in almost every online bench I've ever seen. Right now, ironically, the single fastest card i've seen (granted, I haven't seen any really good tests of the 4870 X2) is still the 9800 GX2. Anandtech.com did a nice review of the Nvidia GTX280 when it came out and the only things that beat it were the 4870 in crossfire (in most benches), 8800 in SLI, 9800 in SLI, and the 9800GX2. I find that funny, because the 9800 GX2 is available street for about $200 now...if it scaled well in all games, you could have a kick-butt quad GPU system for $400. I would be interested to see Dark run crysis, with same settings as me, through the included benches. I bet, the 4850 would do better...800 stream processors, even running at lower clocks, probably does better with shader-heavy games like crysis. What's your hardware setup Cujo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly September 8, 2008 Share dragonfly Member September 8, 2008 (edited) Yeah, I have yet to OC anything Bush. I sold it cause a kid from my church wanted to get into gaming, and it's always fun to build, so I basically built this machine for about $200 when all was said and done. I went with the 4850 over the 8800GT or 9800GTX just cause I wanted to give ati a try. I havent gamed much yet (and may not get to this year) so it's just fun to have a new setup. I also wanted something a little smaller and lighter so it's easier to move. I find it funny that tek got 1 more point for the cpu though way to go! I'll get crysis on and running some day soon. Just not today. Oh, and Bush, Ima beat 12k too. Dont worry. Edited September 8, 2008 by DarkArchon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 8, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 8, 2008 Yeah, I have yet to OC anything Bush. I sold it cause a kid from my church wanted to get into gaming, and it's always fun to build, so I basically built this machine for about $200 when all was said and done. I went with the 4850 over the 8800GT or 9800GTX just cause I wanted to give ati a try. I havent gamed much yet (and may not get to this year) so it's just fun to have a new setup. I also wanted something a little smaller and lighter so it's easier to move. I find it funny that tek got 1 more point for the cpu though way to go! I'll get crysis on and running some day soon. Just not today. Oh, and Bush, Ima beat 12k too. Dont worry. To be honest...my 3dmark scores went up from my initial install about 3 weeks ago...I got a slight bump on my broken-in system. Let me know when you start to OC. I am a complete noob to OC in the core2duo world...so I need some hints on all that. I've read online guides, etc...but would like to have real person input. Also, part of my advantage could be a slight bump in the score due to my HDD, which is a 150gb raptor x. I bet that helps to negate the 10% gain your 4850 should be getting you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly September 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member September 11, 2008 Aight Tek... Crysis -no patch -initial drivers for the 4850 -1680x1050 -all settings on "high" -XPsp2 w/ all stock (gpu and cpu) Benchmark_GPU: Average(ish): Play Time: 55.60s, average FPS:~36 Min fps: 24.96 Max fps: 42.63 Average Tri/Sec: -33706988, Tri/Frame: -936386 Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98 I guess the most important stats are the first eh? Anywho, there ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 11, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 11, 2008 Aight Tek... Crysis -no patch -initial drivers for the 4850 -1680x1050 -all settings on "high" -XPsp2 w/ all stock (gpu and cpu) Benchmark_GPU: Average(ish): Play Time: 55.60s, average FPS:~36 Min fps: 24.96 Max fps: 42.63 Average Tri/Sec: -33706988, Tri/Frame: -936386 Rec/Play Tris ratio: -0.98 I guess the most important stats are the first eh? Anywho, there ya go. Hmmm...well according to the online world (pshhh...what do they know?), the Geforce owns the world of crysis... Avg fps (on high, @ stock, single 8800GT) is 37.41 Avg fps (on high, @ stock, SLI 8800GT) is 47.95 . so there we have it. nice scaling there NVidia... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfly September 11, 2008 Share dragonfly Member September 11, 2008 Hehe, didn't you see the flash when the game starts? nVidia - the way it's meant to be played. I dont mind that your GT is beating my 4850. I like it, and 1 fps isn't really noticable. AND the drivers are still very very new for my card. Yours have been out for a while. Thanks for the comparison! OCing here I come... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo September 12, 2008 Share Cujo Member September 12, 2008 (edited) hard drives have nothing to do with 3dmark 06 btw. here's my current config: ASUS P5Q Deluxe Intel E6600 @ 3.2GHz w/ 1.5v 2 x 2048MB PC2 8800 GSkill @ 1066MHz (5-5-5-15) w/ 2.1v EVGA 8800GTX SoundBlaster X-Fi Platinum 2 x WD1500ADFD RAID 0 4 x WD5000AAKS RAID 0+1 Tt Armor Aluminum Tower Enermax Galaxy 1000W DXX DELL 2405FPW recent changes include swapping the p5k for a p5q and swapping the 4x1gb ram for 2x2gb higher clocked. Edited September 12, 2008 by Cujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 12, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 12, 2008 (edited) hard drives have nothing to do with 3dmark 06 btw. Doubt that very much.. HDD speed has everything to do with every performance bench... If it makes games FPS rise slightly...then why not game-like benches (e.g. 3D mark)? I have documentation of this...loaded doom3 on my raptor and on 7200rpm wester digital 250... about 15 fps difference between two drives...same hardware. Never tested again...with that config, but unless it was a one time fluke...I think faster HDD means slight improvement of FPS. Personal experience. Edited September 12, 2008 by Tek-Almighty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo September 12, 2008 Share Cujo Member September 12, 2008 lol, the game will load faster but it's impossible for a hard drive to increase fps unless there is something wrong with the hard drive causing it to eat cpu cycles. if your hard drive is frequently accessing while in game then you likely don't have enough ram which would cause page swapping which would hinder performance. the only other way a hard drive could affect fps is if the game loads data on the fly. most games however load all the level data into ram before you start so this would never come up. if you were playing a game which loaded data on the fly the difference in speed of hard drive would make a negligible difference in fps. you'd see a similar frame hit while the data is loading and then your frames would be back to normal. as for a 3d benchmark. each stage is loaded into ram while the loading screen is on. after that the system only accesses the needed data from the ram. there should be no hard drive access of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 13, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 13, 2008 I read an entire article...prolly 3 years ago in Maximum PC magazine about this very topic. They were testing FPS rate differences between various drives, raid setups, etc... They were testing loading times (which I already know are influenced by drive speed, cache, yada yada) as well as overall FPS (when graphics power was not and issue-as benches were run at super low res.). They too found increases in FPS for 10k drives. Granted, they were nominal (<5% or so). I'm not saying you don't have a valid point, and lord knows you have scads of experience with computers/hardware/benching/games...I'm just saying. So I've seen it personally, and I know others have tested it. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwack September 14, 2008 Share bushwack Member September 14, 2008 I have to agree with Cujo, I don't see how a hard drive could affect frame rates unless it's loading textures off the HD during game play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 14, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 14, 2008 I have to agree with Cujo, I don't see how a hard drive could affect frame rates unless it's loading textures off the HD during game play. I'm not saying that you don't both have valid points...I"m not saying everything that Cujo said isn't common sense...I know that HDD speed is last in the gaming performance continuum...I'm just saying, I know that (barring aforementioned flukes) I've seen an increase in FPS performance on the same game, same system, using two diff. HDD. I also know that others have tested this and seen similar differences. If HDD performance doesn't make a diff (other than loading times)...then why the fark are millions of high performance gamers buying into the idea and getting raptors and setting up raid 0...? Strictly for the loading times, or because they believe it gives them increased performance? I don't know many people who are willing to pay a 100% price to storage premium for loading times... No, they believe it will give them better performance, gaming and overall. That's why a lot of ppl here are running raid 0 with a pair of raptors...or just running raptors. I didn't claim the increase was stellar...I just said it was possible... http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?art...1746&page=6 there's one. I'll try to find some more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Preacher September 14, 2008 Share Preacher Member September 14, 2008 The performance boost to price ratio isn't enough to justify the added monies in my opinion. Maybe if I was gaming in a sponsored tourney or if I had cash to burn I could see it, but for the average message board troll like myself, the gaming increase is simply too minimal to justify the hastle of setting up a RAID array and spending twice as much for half the space to get 1-5 fps in a game. I would rather dump more money into cooling and video card. But hey that's just me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo September 15, 2008 Share Cujo Member September 15, 2008 (edited) gamers buy the hard drives for level load times mainly. also, it adds to the "i have the best pc" factor. i bought my raptors for the speed in loading apps, games and data transfers. yes, it was probably stupid but i'll probably stupidly buy an ssd drive shortly as well. i don't understand at all how game performance can be affected by hard drive speed. i can see hard drive cpu usage affecting gaming performance but not speed. btw, i have a hard time respecting that review when the numbers don't match the graph output. somehow the bar on the seagate for raid 0 is longer than the bar for a single drive when the fps is 85.2 vs 88.3... figure that one out. also, each test was run once so... the single drive tests were well within a standard margin of error and with no repition it's impossible to read much into that. the raid 0 and 1 teests go back to my hard drive cpu usage. it's likely the raid controller may have had an easier time with the firmware in the raptors than with the seagates. anyway, MANY, MANY holes in that review. http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.as...hreadid=2221141 edit for second link: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244415-3...0rpm-hard-drive Edited September 15, 2008 by Cujo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tek-Almighty September 16, 2008 Share Tek-Almighty Member September 16, 2008 I concede. I will revisit this one day when I have time, with a tougher game than Doom 3. I'm not saying that you're not right...I'm just saying I know what I saw...one time. 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