3dmark06 score

[BAMAVOO]

I get 9000 with core2duo @ 2.8 ghz. 4 gig of ram, 8800 gts 640. I thought it was kind of low, but guess not.

 

[slightlyhuman]

just an update.

upgraded to an e2140 (kingston N5 ram) and OC'd to 3.0ghz. ran 3dmark06 and hit 11k easily.

<3 this cpu.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: beatle

Originally posted by: swtethan
*stretches out*



<--- 14,500

vista64



and yes, the processor has a lot to do with it also

Odd that you're only about 150 points higher than my system: Q6600 @ 3.2, 8800GT @ 700/975, 32-bit XP.

not odd at all. he's using vista 64.

 

[JPB]

Originally posted by: swtethan
*stretches out*



<--- 14,500

vista64



and yes, the processor has a lot to do with it also

 

[raddreamer3kx]

I get around 7500.Something is wrong here.My previous card was a 2900 pro,I uninstalled all the drivers with driver cleaner.

Specs:
core 2 duo 6300@stock speeds
2 gigs
8800GT XFX Extreme

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Yes, I ran all tests at default resolutions, even though my monitor is set to 1680x1050.

The results are actually comparable with other people on Futuremark ORB.

I believe that some MB's might have problems with PCIe 2.0, and might require a BIOS update.

Interesting. I have practically the same system, minus the motherboard, and just ran mine, bone stock, no drivers but the latest Nvidia ones (at least the ones from about a week ago), and got 11,749.
Pretty close to your score.....but your 6600 is OC'd and mine still stock. Is my EVGA 680i making that score difference?
I am also getting my 2 gigs of RAM from just two sticks of Corsair, don't know if that matters.

Regardless, my old rig with a 9700 PRO only got an 816. BIG difference, even though I'm untweaked so far.

 

[alcoholbob]

get low 9000s with an X850XT? Are you serious?

 

[adairusmc]

14051 on my system.

 

[spinejam]

14689 here! (see sig)



http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3801013

05 here:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=3691988

OS: WinXPPro SP2 32bit

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Yes, I ran all tests at default resolutions, even though my monitor is set to 1680x1050.

The results are actually comparable with other people on Futuremark ORB.

I believe that some MB's might have problems with PCIe 2.0, and might require a BIOS update.

Interesting. I have practically the same system, minus the motherboard, and just ran mine, bone stock, no drivers but the latest Nvidia ones (at least the ones from about a week ago), and got 11,749.
Pretty close to your score.....but your 6600 is OC'd and mine still stock. Is my EVGA 680i making that score difference?
I am also getting my 2 gigs of RAM from just two sticks of Corsair, don't know if that matters.

Regardless, my old rig with a 9700 PRO only got an 816. BIG difference, even though I'm untweaked so far.

Overall score might, or might not mean much, translated to frame rates in games.

Compare your 3DMark06 feature test frame rates to mine here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2119665&enterthread=y

 

[bryanW1995]

spinejam, are you using xp or vista?

 

[Keysplayr]

I get 10,800 with E6420 @ 3.0GHz and 8800GTS 640 @ 600/1800

 

[swtethan]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995
spinejam, are you using xp or vista?

its xp,

 

[RussianSensation]

12,278 with Q6600@3.4 and 8800GTS 320 @ 621/1800

All these scores show a large preference for quads which doesn't translate to real world. That's why 3dmark06 sucks.

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
12,278 with Q6600@3.4 and 8800GTS 320 @ 621/1800

All these scores show a large preference for quads which doesn't translate to real world. That's why 3dmark06 sucks.

I wouldn't say it sucks. But the results must be interpreted properly, with analysis of the feature tests.

Quads with 4 fps versus Duos with 1 fps does not mean much.

But the Canyon Flight at 20 fps vs 50 fps makes a world of difference.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Yes, I ran all tests at default resolutions, even though my monitor is set to 1680x1050.

The results are actually comparable with other people on Futuremark ORB.

I believe that some MB's might have problems with PCIe 2.0, and might require a BIOS update.

Interesting. I have practically the same system, minus the motherboard, and just ran mine, bone stock, no drivers but the latest Nvidia ones (at least the ones from about a week ago), and got 11,749.
Pretty close to your score.....but your 6600 is OC'd and mine still stock. Is my EVGA 680i making that score difference?
I am also getting my 2 gigs of RAM from just two sticks of Corsair, don't know if that matters.

Regardless, my old rig with a 9700 PRO only got an 816. BIG difference, even though I'm untweaked so far.

Overall score might, or might not mean much, translated to frame rates in games.

Compare your 3DMark06 feature test frame rates to mine here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2119665&enterthread=y

I'll check that out. Oh, and I mis-quoted my score, it was actually 11,949, not 11,749.
Edit: Just noticed you had an E6600 and not a Quad. Mine's a Quad, so that's probably the reason for the scores being close. Your graphics scores were slightly higher than mine...I guess you have your card overclocked over what it came?

 

[spinejam]

14707 here! (see sig)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=3898074


05 here:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=3691988

OS: WinXPPro SP2 32bit