3dmark05 Scores. Why are they so low?

[HomeyFoos]

I'm pretty literate when it comes to computer equipment, but some stuff I just never had to learn about. Benchmarking PC's was one of them. Recently, Ive become interested in building a performance system and so I thought I should start with learning about how this all works. I downloaded the trial copy of 3dMark05 and ran the tests. I scored 2965 and then 2956. This surprised me a little as I read about other people's scores and they all seemed higher. I don't have a slouch system. It's not great, but for some reason, I thought I would get better performance out of it. Here are my specs...

Pentium 4 3.0 Prescott Socket 478
Asus P4S800D-X Mobo
3gigs of PC3200 400mhz Ram - 2 Corsair 1 gig sticks and 2 Kingston 512k sticks
BFG 6600GT AGP Factory OC'd
Antec 500w Smart Power 2

Now, I'm perfectly fine if someone tells me that this is a scrub system. I know it's not top of the line. But I think it could be considered above average. Is 2956 an above average score?

Also, I realize that AGP systems and socket 478 Intel chips are not prevailant any longer. So, when it comes time for me to spend on these parts, I know I'm looking at a PCI-e Mobo, DDR2 Ram, a 7 series NVidia card or an 800 series ATI card. I guess I'm just trying to understand how the 3DMark05 benchmarking works and why my system scored so low compared to other's systems. And is there a way to get more performance out of my current configuration that I am not aware of (overclocking would be one, but I have only read articles on it recently and have not tried it)? Any help in understanding this would be appreciated.


Thanks,


homeyfoos

 

[Leper Messiah]

prescott 3.0 is your main problem there. Most people with higher scores have A64's running high, so that gives them a bit of a boost. I know my winchester at 2.6 did 3400 with an over clocked 9800pro...


benchmarks don't matter though. As long as you're happy with your performance its all good.

 

[v8envy]

You're about 20% short of 3600 3dmarks in 3dmark05. Make sure 3dmark isn't testing your CPU as part of the tests, a sock 478 P4 is not going to do too well there.

Also make sure your box isn't overheating and throttling down.

 

[Sc4freak]

3DMark doesn't count the CPU tests in the final score, though.

 

[Conky]

3Dmark05 is mostly about the videocard. The previous poster(Leper) saying it was the Intel cpu is mistaken. You have a really good score for such an old videocard. Definitely above average.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool
3Dmark05 is mostly about the videocard. The previous poster(Leper) saying it was the Intel cpu is mistaken. You have a really good score for such an old videocard. Definitely above average.

It was at 450/400 I dunno. If he's got everything installed right, what else could it be? Most of the time 6600GTs get like 3500+

 

[Unkno]

hmmm, two suggestions: look at the temperatures; check if your AGP is set to 2x/4x (might make a difference...)

 

[gac009]

I had really low scores myself untill I figured out that after doing a repair install for xp that I forgot to reinstall the AGP drivers for the mb.

 

[toyotacamry]

I'd say 3d mark 05 is more dependent upon the card than it is the CPU (as long as its not a peice of crap, I don't know much about Intel CPU's so I couldn't tell you if yours is decent, but it looks fast). For example, overclocking my AMD 3800x2 by 400 mhz did not raise my score at all, but overclocking my x850 video card raised it around 1000 points. Another OVERLOOKED aspect is the drivers. Make sure your drivers are up to date, and check if theres options for direct 3d ( like quality options). I own many video cards, both ATi and nVidia and I'd say they all have an option for image quality or something similar. Always wanna make sure thats on low. And try running 3d mark 01 and 03 to give you your ego a boost. And a score near 3000 isn't bad at all, considering quite a large majority of people with PCs can't even run 3d mark 05. I'd reccomend OCing your card if your score bothers you, and you can easily get 400-1000 points from it. Make sure you have adequete cooling though. For overclocking your card, go to http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm and download Powerstrip Trial version. Install, and right click the bottom right tray, and then go into the performance section. I'm not sure how much further you can OC it since its already overclocked, but try upping both the core and the memory by 10 mhz each, save the settings, and run 3dmark05 and see how big of a difference it makes. If it doesn't go up at all then something else is causing the problem. Also, Gac009 is right, make sure all drivers are installed and up to date.
I have an AMD 3800x2 and 1gb Kingston with 2-3-2-6 latencies, at 200 mhz. The x850pro at stock gets around 5200, and when I overclocked it (I haven't seen anyone overclock theirs as much as mine) I get 6250. The default timings are 510 mhz core, and 520mhz memory. I overclocked that to 597mhz/ 627, and it runs semi-stable w/ stock cooling. I gained about 1050 points from it. I still find myself stumped when other PCs out bench my PC (not just 3d mark but other apps too), but I live with it. And, try removing the ram with the lower latencies (my guess it would be the 1 gig sticks) and stick with the low latency 512x2 . Then, boot up your pc, open up 3d mark05 and then taskmanager. Set the priority of 3d mark05 to "high" and kill explorer (the windows gui). Then , close task manager, run 3dmark 05 , get your score, open up task manager, go to run and type in explorer and you're free to go. Please post back and let us know how it goes.

cheers

 

[imported_goku]

Originally posted by: toyotacamry
I'd say 3d mark 05 is more dependent upon the card than it is the CPU (as long as its not a peice of crap, I don't know much about Intel CPU's so I couldn't tell you if yours is decent, but it looks fast). For example, overclocking my AMD 3800x2 by 400 mhz did not raise my score at all, but overclocking my x850 video card raised it around 1000 points. Another OVERLOOKED aspect is the drivers. Make sure your drivers are up to date, and check if theres options for direct 3d ( like quality options). I own many video cards, both ATi and nVidia and I'd say they all have an option for image quality or something similar. Always wanna make sure thats on low. And try running 3d mark 01 and 03 to give you your ego a boost. And a score near 3000 isn't bad at all, considering quite a large majority of people with PCs can't even run 3d mark 05. I'd reccomend OCing your card if your score bothers you, and you can easily get 400-1000 points from it. Make sure you have adequete cooling though. For overclocking your card, go to http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm and download Powerstrip Trial version. Install, and right click the bottom right tray, and then go into the performance section. I'm not sure how much further you can OC it since its already overclocked, but try upping both the core and the memory by 10 mhz each, save the settings, and run 3dmark05 and see how big of a difference it makes. If it doesn't go up at all then something else is causing the problem. Also, Gac009 is right, make sure all drivers are installed and up to date.
I have an AMD 3800x2 and 1gb Kingston with 2-3-2-6 latencies, at 200 mhz. The x850pro at stock gets around 5200, and when I overclocked it (I haven't seen anyone overclock theirs as much as mine) I get 6250. The default timings are 510 mhz core, and 520mhz memory. I overclocked that to 597mhz/ 627, and it runs semi-stable w/ stock cooling. I gained about 1050 points from it. I still find myself stumped when other PCs out bench my PC (not just 3d mark but other apps too), but I live with it. And, try removing the ram with the lower latencies (my guess it would be the 1 gig sticks) and stick with the low latency 512x2 . Then, boot up your pc, open up 3d mark05 and then taskmanager. Set the priority of 3d mark05 to "high" and kill explorer (the windows gui). Then , close task manager, run 3dmark 05 , get your score, open up task manager, go to run and type in explorer and you're free to go. Please post back and let us know how it goes.

cheers

Despite that being seemingly complicated, that is about exactly what I do..

 

[rise]

its the intel.

 

[Munky]

Most 6600gt's score between 3000 and 3500 in 3dmark05, but some score lower, so I wouldnt worry about it, and your score will probably be a bit higher on a A64 system.

 

[Sc4freak]

I find it highly unlikely that a 3.0 Prescott will bottleneck a 6600GT.

Intel may be bad, but it isn't that bad. It isn't like a A64 3000+ is going to double his performance.

In fact, Intel processors are known to have been favoured in 3DMark, see here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/...her_of_all_cpu_charts_2005/page30.html

As you can see, the P4 3.0E is in league with it's A64 3000+ counterpart, with the 3.0E performing only 2 points slower than the fastest 3000+ and the slowest 3000+ performing 13 points below the 3.0E. All well within the margin of error, and this is already with a 6800GT, not a 6600GT.

I am so sick and tired of people implying that Intel processors are so horribly slow compared to its AMD counterpart. Yes, AMD holds the performance crown. But the delta is not that large, unless you are trying to run a 7800GTX SLI system at 640x480. In most CPU tests, they run with a very powerful video card at a relatively low resolution. Only then can a large performance difference be seen (in the THG CPU chart, the FX-57 got 212.9fps while the P4EE 3.4 gpt 176fps in FarCry). But when you raise the resolution, and turn on more eye candy, the difference diminishes. What does it matter if you get 210fps over 170fps? At those framerates, I doubt you could tell the difference.

 

[Madodese]

Two questions.

1) How does the x700pro compare to his 6600 video card? Reason I ask is that my setup netted me double what my old 9500pro got me (think it was 3500 or so but may have been 2900...) and my rig bites.

- No OC -
AMD Athln 2400 XP
Via nvidia nforce2 st
radeon x700pro
1gig no-name ram

2) If I read correctly, didn't Toms Hardware run the 3dmark05 at 800x600 screen size? So if you're running it at your normal screen size, and your normal is larger than 800x600 you'll see a lowered score too, ya?

Thanks,

Madodese

 

[imhungry]

The 6600GT beats the x700pro in most tests, the x700pro however, will probably win in HL2, of course.

I remember my stock 6600GT with a S478 2.66ghz or 2.8ghz Northwood being close to 3.0 / 3.2k stock...so I donno what's going on there.

Make sure fast writes is ENABLED, as well as 8x AGP. And try running the test again with just a gig of ram, without the two 512mb sticks, although it might not do anything, worth a try.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

i have the same cpu with a 9800pro stock. i only get 2470. id say yours is just about right.

 

[imported_synchro]

I ran 3DMark 05 with my old 6600GT OC BFG card and I was right around 3100.
Your sfores are in line with the rest.

I grabbed an x800 256mb card and juiced it a bit, now I'm around 5000 on 3dMark 05.

 

[Sc4freak]

Originally posted by: Madodese
2) If I read correctly, didn't Toms Hardware run the 3dmark05 at 800x600 screen size? So if you're running it at your normal screen size, and your normal is larger than 800x600 you'll see a lowered score too, ya?

Madodese

No, they ran at 1024x768, which is the default.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: HomeyFoos
I'm pretty literate when it comes to computer equipment, but some stuff I just never had to learn about. Benchmarking PC's was one of them. Recently, Ive become interested in building a performance system and so I thought I should start with learning about how this all works. I downloaded the trial copy of 3dMark05 and ran the tests. I scored 2965 and then 2956. This surprised me a little as I read about other people's scores and they all seemed higher. I don't have a slouch system. It's not great, but for some reason, I thought I would get better performance out of it. Here are my specs...

Pentium 4 3.0 Prescott Socket 478
Asus P4S800D-X Mobo
3gigs of PC3200 400mhz Ram - 2 Corsair 1 gig sticks and 2 Kingston 512k sticks
BFG 6600GT AGP Factory OC'd
Antec 500w Smart Power 2

Now, I'm perfectly fine if someone tells me that this is a scrub system. I know it's not top of the line. But I think it could be considered above average. Is 2956 an above average score?

Also, I realize that AGP systems and socket 478 Intel chips are not prevailant any longer. So, when it comes time for me to spend on these parts, I know I'm looking at a PCI-e Mobo, DDR2 Ram, a 7 series NVidia card or an 800 series ATI card. I guess I'm just trying to understand how the 3DMark05 benchmarking works and why my system scored so low compared to other's systems. And is there a way to get more performance out of my current configuration that I am not aware of (overclocking would be one, but I have only read articles on it recently and have not tried it)? Any help in understanding this would be appreciated.


Thanks,


homeyfoos

Wow, your score is low. With a 2.2ghz 220FSB Athlon XP and an overclocked 6600GT I get 3789, and even at stock speeds it wouldn't drop down to under 3000.

I'll run a score at stock 6600GT speeds and see what I get.

 

[professor1942]

Take out that gig of Kingston and make sure you are running in dual channel mode - I bet your score will go up.

 

[Fox5]

Ok, ran my 6600gt at stock...and wow, scores dropped a lot. For a relatively stock 6600gt, 2900 seems about right.

 

[HomeyFoos]

Wow guys,

Thanks for all the info. It certainly is alot to digest. Just so you know, I ran another test after I posted here and turned off all extra applications and my score did go up a bit. I'm at right around 3100 now.

For the record, my 6600GT is currently at 525 on the core and 1100 on the mem. That is out ofthe box. I enabled 'coolbits' and 'coolbits2' and have looked at the overclocking sliders but am hesitant to do anything. I mean, I want to, I've just never done it before and have a fear of messing it. It's irrational, because I've done quite a bit more with PC's but I just got the card and I guess I'm a little tenative.

I've read conflicting things but someone said I should enable fastwrites. Is this correct? I'm certainly not doubting the person as they SURELY know more than I do. But it's kinda hard because you hear so many things.

Regardless, I'll keep tweaking this thing and reporting back as long as you guys will listen. Thanks again for all the input. This forum is pretty amazing.



homeyfoos

 

[Fox5]

I use the overclocking built into nvidia's drivers (and enabled through a registry key) where it automatically finds the fastest stable overclock.
I'd say enable fastwrites in your bios, but don't change anything in the drivers. Nvidia cards usually use fastwrites, while ATI cards typically disable use of fastwrites. I think fastwrites just allow the cpu to bypass main memory and directly access the video card, however because main memory bandwidth is so high now (3.2GB/s to 6.4GB/s versus the 2.1GB/s of AGP8x) whereas when fastwrites first came out most people had 800MB/s of main memory bandwidth and AGP was over 1GB/s of bandwidth fastwrites don't really effect performance anymore.

Oh, and make sure you are using nvidia's 3dmark05 profiler settings that set everything to fastest. Something turned on like quality anisotropic filtering would really kill performance.

 

[HomeyFoos]

Well, I tweaked my bios a little and was able to get a score of 3124. My CPU outperformed my GPU, however. It scored a 3380. I'm going to post a link and I'm not sure if you guys can see it, but it's the results from my latest test.

My 3DMark05 Score after my MOBO Tweaks

I did find it odd that my CPU did so well in the Second Test. I scored a 2.8 FPS and from what I read, most people will never get to 2 fps on that test. I don't think it's my P4.

I haven't tried OC'ing my card anymore than it already is (525 and 1050 (I said 1100 earlier and that was my mistake)). Any idea how much more I can get out of my core and memory? I was going to try 540 and 1065 but those are just random numbers to me. I'm sure there is a proper way to to calculate how much each slider should be moved over, I just don't know what it is. So I'll tweak and test, etc.

Also, Fox5, how do you go about getting the software to find the best OC numbers? I made the same registry changes to enable 'coolbits' 1 and 2.


thanks,

homeyfoos

 

[professor1942]

Enabling fastwrites makes almost no difference. I just tried a little comparison in Aquamark:

fastwrites disabled: 60,458
fastwrites enabled: 60,766

3dMark05 was similar, but I forgot the exact numbers. I get just over 3400 with my vanilla 6800 128 MB.