Just upgraded to an 8800GTX.

[BroadbandGamer]

I went from 5700+ on my X1900XTX to 8080 with my new BFG 8800GTX.

 

[Nightmare225]

Yes, its extremely CPU dependent. At least, the 3DMark test is.

 

[Madellga]

I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

 

[BroadbandGamer]

Originally posted by: Madellga
I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

:Q

How are you getting such a high score? I thought my CPU was pretty good. :frown:

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer

Originally posted by: Madellga
I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

:Q

How are you getting such a high score? I thought my CPU was pretty good. :frown:

Well his score is right.. I get 11130 with Conroe@3.6GHz and GTX stock.
4400+ is a very good cpu. Just not that good as a Conroe especially an O/Ced one ..
I got major differences from the two cpus.. I like you had a 4400+@2.8GHz and I switched for a 6600@3.6GHz O/Ced now.. Don't believe what you read that cpu does not play a role @16x12 or above. I measured differences up to 25-30% @16x12, and if you don't see it with your own eyes you cannot believe it
It's one of the few times that 3dmock says the truth about the cpu power..

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer

Originally posted by: Madellga
I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

:Q

How are you getting such a high score? I thought my CPU was pretty good. :frown:

Well his score is right.. I get 11130 with Conroe@3.6GHz and GTX stock.
4400+ is a very good cpu. Just not that good as a Conroe especially an O/Ced one ..
I got major differences from the two cpus.. I like you had a 4400+@2.8GHz and I switched for a 6600@3.6GHz O/Ced now.. Don't believe what you read that cpu does not play a role @16x12 or above. I measured differences up to 25-30% @16x12, and if you don't see it with your own eyes you cannot believe it
It's one of the few times that 3dmock says the truth about the cpu power..

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123831

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/8800nvidiareviewx120/36.php

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/391/23/

CPU scaling benchmarks with actual games don't support your 25-30% @ 1600x1200 claim. 3DMark06 is not even remotely relevant to what you will see in games @ 1600x1200 anymore. First of all, by default it runs at 1280x1024 with 0AA/0AF, which no one with an 8800GTX should be running their games at. Second, 3DMark06 has a CPU benchmark that solely relies on the CPU to render the screen. Yeah, sounds real world to me...

3DMark06 MAY be a relevant benchmark for entire system performance (I'm sure your OC'ed Conroe will encode movies/music way faster then a 4400+), but it certainly falls short of being a good test for isolating 3D video performance as it's name would imply.

 

[videopho]

FYI...
You may down load the latest dx-9 (October patch) from M/S.
It may not increase your score but it does bring stability to some games.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: jim1976

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer

Originally posted by: Madellga
I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

:Q

How are you getting such a high score? I thought my CPU was pretty good. :frown:

Well his score is right.. I get 11130 with Conroe@3.6GHz and GTX stock.
4400+ is a very good cpu. Just not that good as a Conroe especially an O/Ced one ..
I got major differences from the two cpus.. I like you had a 4400+@2.8GHz and I switched for a 6600@3.6GHz O/Ced now.. Don't believe what you read that cpu does not play a role @16x12 or above. I measured differences up to 25-30% @16x12, and if you don't see it with your own eyes you cannot believe it
It's one of the few times that 3dmock says the truth about the cpu power..

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123831

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/8800nvidiareviewx120/36.php

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/391/23/

CPU scaling benchmarks with actual games don't support your 25-30% @ 1600x1200 claim. 3DMark06 is not even remotely relevant to what you will see in games @ 1600x1200 anymore. First of all, by default it runs at 1280x1024 with 0AA/0AF, which no one with an 8800GTX should be running their games at. Second, 3DMark06 has a CPU benchmark that solely relies on the CPU to render the screen. Yeah, sounds real world to me...

3DMark06 MAY be a relevant benchmark for entire system performance (I'm sure your OC'ed Conroe will encode movies/music way faster then a 4400+), but it certainly falls short of being a good test for isolating 3D video performance as it's name would imply.

qft

 

[IndyJaws]

10900 w/ rig below

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123831

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/8800nvidiareviewx120/36.php

http://www.guru3d.com/article/Videocards/391/23/

CPU scaling benchmarks with actual games don't support your 25-30% @ 1600x1200 claim. 3DMark06 is not even remotely relevant to what you will see in games @ 1600x1200 anymore. First of all, by default it runs at 1280x1024 with 0AA/0AF, which no one with an 8800GTX should be running their games at. Second, 3DMark06 has a CPU benchmark that solely relies on the CPU to render the screen. Yeah, sounds real world to me...

NitroM I 've many times these benches and I know very well about cpu/gpu limited resolutions.. Where exactly am I supposed to see differences between a 4400+ and a E6600? All I see are differences in clockspeed between Conroes.. I'm talking about 4400+ vs Conroe, where the main difference is, and I have done my tests to confirm that. You can always check AT's benchmarks of Core duo2 and I'm pretty sure you've done it..

3DMark06 MAY be a relevant benchmark for entire system performance (I'm sure your OC'ed Conroe will encode movies/music way faster then a 4400+), but it certainly falls short of being a good test for isolating 3D video performance as it's name would imply.

But I didn't say that this synthetic crap is depicting the real world gaming picture I said it's one of the little times that shows good scaling in cpu performance as far as concerns the difference between a 4400+ vs Conroe..

 

[imported_Crusader]

Your CPU is good.

Pay no attention to 3dmark. Its worthless.

 

[nitromullet]

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your statement:

Don't believe what you read that cpu does not play a role @16x12 or above. I measured differences up to 25-30% @16x12, and if you don't see it with your own eyes you cannot believe it It's one of the few times that 3dmock says the truth about the cpu power..

...which sounds as if you are saying that 3DMark06 is giving you the truth on what you can expect from OC'ing your CPU. However, you are essentially saying that 3DMark06 does a good job of showing off CPU overclocks, although they don't really translate to much in the real world. Don't get me wrong, your OC and 3DMarks are impressive, and I would probably have my Conroe clocked a bit too if I had had better luck with my 680i board (I think I'll wait for rev. 2 of the Asus boards). That being said, the OP really doesn't need to worry about his 3DMark06 score since it doesn't count for much when it comes down to it, which is really what this thread is about and the main point I was making.

While not exactly a comparison between an OC'ed 4400+ and an OC'ed C2D, you probably remember this article from HardOCP a while back that got everybody's feathers ruffled when they compared an FX-62, E6700, and an X6800 and saw almost no differences with even a 7900GTX, which is a much lesser card than a 8800GTX....

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxobmV3cw==

 

[jim1976]

Originally posted by: nitromullet
Ok, perhaps I misunderstood your statement:

Don't believe what you read that cpu does not play a role @16x12 or above. I measured differences up to 25-30% @16x12, and if you don't see it with your own eyes you cannot believe it It's one of the few times that 3dmock says the truth about the cpu power..

...which sounds as if you are saying that 3DMark06 is giving you the truth on what you can expect from OC'ing your CPU. However, you are essentially saying that 3DMark06 does a good job of showing off CPU overclocks, although they don't really translate to much in the real world. Don't get me wrong, your OC and 3DMarks are impressive, and I would probably have my Conroe clocked a bit too if I had had better luck with my 680i board (I think I'll wait for rev. 2 of the Asus boards). That being said, the OP really doesn't need to worry about his 3DMark06 score since it doesn't count for much when it comes down to it, which is really what this thread is about and the main point I was making.

While not exactly a comparison between an OC'ed 4400+ and an OC'ed C2D, you probably remember this article from HardOCP a while back that got everybody's feathers ruffled when they compared an FX-62, E6700, and an X6800 and saw almost no differences with even a 7900GTX, which is a much lesser card than a 8800GTX....

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTEwOCwxLCxobmV3cw==

Now that I read my statement, I'm a bit confused myself.
I couldn't care less about 3dmock, I'm just using it for my system performance and comparison mostly or compare similar systems to mine to spot differences.

I have seen those benches too, and honestly I considered them uber crap, it was a big surprise in my eyes. I play @16x12 and even with AA enabled I have found major differences in games like Oblivion,Doom3 engine and many others using as a test card my ex-x1900XTX. My results were more consistent with AT gaming benches @16x12.
I have no reason to pimp Intel I'm just stating my experiences between my previous AMD cpu and my current.

 

[Madellga]

The 3dmark score itself is worthless. If I understood correctly, the OP just wanted to know if the score his machine got was correct compared to others.

This is a worth question - I recall my scores with the 7950GX2 being half of what they should be, due to a bug on the 965P chipset, as explained by Gary on the mobo forum.

3DMark was on this case an easy way to check if the hardware/software was properly set and performing.

I sometimes use it just to compare different settings on my machine - it's a rule of thumb, just to know if it got faster or slower.

 

[Kyanzes]

Originally posted by: BroadbandGamer

Originally posted by: Madellga
I get around 11000 on my 1st rig.

:Q

How are you getting such a high score? I thought my CPU was pretty good. :frown:

It's pretty good all right, only he has the best

 

[tilki]

Guys I just bought a Winfast 8800GTS and put it in the following system:

Win XP SP2 (with latest updates)
Abit AB9 motherboard
2 x 1024 MB 800 MHz RAM
97.02 NVidia driver

But I try to install it, I get the following message: "the software for this hardware did not pass the Win Logo test to verify its compatibility with XP".

Has anybody experienced the same problem? What do I do?

 

[Zenoth]

Try RTHDRIBL for video benchmarking. It's the abbreviation for Real-Time High-Dynamic Range Image-Based Lighting for DX 9.0. Believe me that one can show what your GPU can deal with, and what it can't do efficiently. I think the web-site hasn't changed: http://www.daionet.gr.jp/~masa/rthdribl/

Much more relevant than 3DMark05/06. As mentioned, the 3DMark benchmark series is more about a general view on your system's performance, not actually about in-game performance only.

 

[adairusmc]

That score seems about right to me. I score about 9040 with my setup - a 8800GTX at stock, and a Athlon X2 4800+ OC'd tp 2.7 Ghz.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: tilki
Guys I just bought a Winfast 8800GTS and put it in the following system:

Win XP SP2 (with latest updates)
Abit AB9 motherboard
2 x 1024 MB 800 MHz RAM
97.02 NVidia driver

But I try to install it, I get the following message: "the software for this hardware did not pass the Win Logo test to verify its compatibility with XP".

Has anybody experienced the same problem? What do I do?

I got the same error when installing the drivers myself. Just select "Continue Anyway" and it should proceed with the install.