My 3DMark06 Score. Is This Good or Bad?

[Pez D Spencer]

Previously I had been running dual eVGA 7800GT cards in SLI. Last week I stepped up my 7800GT's to 7900GT CO Superclocked cards through eVGA's step-up program.

With my 7800GT's I was getting 6900 or so in 3DMark06. With my 7900GT's I am only getting about 1000 points more and hovering around 7900 or so. I figured that I would be pushing 10000 with these 7900's.

So is 7900 a decent score in 3DMark06 or what? See my sig for the rest of my system specs. Truthfully, I noticed a slight improvement in framerate in my games with my 7900GT's versus my 7800GT's but the improvement is not what I expected. I figured that I with my 7900GT's I could really crank up some AA in my games. Because the native res of my monitor is 1920x1200, AA killed my FPS with the 7800GT's and unfortunately AA still kills my FPS with the 7900GT's. Of course if I lower my res to 1280x1024 I can crank the AA wide open, but it blows to have to choose between blurry textures with smooth edges or crisp textrues with jagged edges.

For example, I can run Doom 3 at 1920x1200 with everything absolutely maxed with AA off and get a consistent 60 FPS frame rate. However if I turn on AA at all any well lit areas completely destroys my FPS. Don't get me wrong AA isn't that big of a deal but to me it really makes things look a lot better and more realistic.

Thanks for any input.

 

[Frostwake]

Sure youre not using supersampling AA?

 

[firewolfsm]

well, your 7900s scored 7900...maybe this is a new naming system? ;}

 

[Nextman916]

What drivers are you using?

 

[Pez D Spencer]

Im using the 84.43 drivers. They were the newest beta drivers as of a week or so ago.

I have "Image Settings" within the driver profiles set to High Performance because that way I can crank up most everything within my games and get a better frame rate versus setting everything within the driver profile for image quality and then trying to crank up the in game settings. As far as I can tell, putting the driver settings to high performance doesn't really affect image quality at all. At least as far as I can tell.

But like I already said. I figured I would be getting nearer to 10000 with these newer cards and my CPU/RAM setup.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Question 1: Why would you spend hundreds of dollars for a useless upgrade like that? Why not wait a few years until your card really does need upgrading?
Question 2: Why do you want to use FSAA with such a high resolution and such small pixels? You say it makes it more realistic, but I doubt it's anything more than a placebo effect. I'll never understand why people run below native resolution so they can turn on AA... makes no damn sense.

 

[Pez D Spencer]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Question 1: Why would you spend hundreds of dollars for a useless upgrade like that? Why not wait a few years until your card really does need upgrading?
Question 2: Why do you want to use FSAA with such a high resolution and such small pixels? You say it makes it more realistic, but I doubt it's anything more than a placebo effect. I'll never understand why people run below native resolution so they can turn on AA... makes no damn sense.

First of all, if you had actually READ my posts, you would have saw that I STEPPED UP my card through eVGA's step up program. Actually I only paid 20 dollars per card to upgrade. Im not trying to sound like an assh0le but why can't people simply read posts before they reply and start running off at the mouth?

Secondly, FEAR at 1920x1200 even WITHOUT AA turned on chugs along at 30 or so FPS and is too choppy for my tastes. The result is that you have to lower the resolution which introduces jaggies requiring the use of AA to remedy this. As a matter of fact, the developers even say themselves that FEAR is not meant to be run at high resolutions and that people should run a lower resolution and turn on AA to sharpen the image.

Also, I don't know what planet you're from, but a few YEARS to upgrade? With DX10 and PhysX right around the corner I think it will be more like MONTHS until the next upgrade.

As far as it being simply a "placebo" effect, if you look at the screenshots below you will see that AA is quite effective. These are cropped from a Doom 3 screenshot at 1920x1200 without AA and with AA at 8x.

Doom 3 without AA:
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/2454/doomwithjaggies9kc.jpg

Doom 3 With 8x AA:
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/8513/doomnojaggies2rl.jpg

This my friend is definitely NOT my imagination and even at 1920x1200 AA DOES make for a better visual experience.

 

[jiffylube1024]

That's about the improvement you should expect. 7900GT is equal to a 7800GTX in performance; you're going from a 20-pipe card to a 24-pipe card. It's diminishing returns...

 

[Bateluer]

You could check Futuremark's database to see what other SLI 7900GTs score with your CPU.

 

[morgash]

just volt mod both of em to 1.3 volts(since i assume ur usin stock coolers on both of em) OC em up to about 560/1700 (7800GTX 512 speeds) and call it a day.

*EDIT* i would recommend RAMsinks if ur gonna go to 1600mhz or higher on the RAM. really i would reccomend two vf900's as they appear to work in most SLI boards. then u could vMOD to 1.4, vmem to 2.2 and hav em runnin at 650/1900 easily. i have a normie 7900gt so my core maxes out at 625mhz on 1.4 volts(655 on 1.5) but my meme easily hits 1950 stably for hours on end and 2ghz for an hour ot two.(vf700Cu with OCZ pure copper RAMsinks)

 

[Ika]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Question 1: Why would you spend hundreds of dollars for a useless upgrade like that? Why not wait a few years until your card really does need upgrading?
Question 2: Why do you want to use FSAA with such a high resolution and such small pixels? You say it makes it more realistic, but I doubt it's anything more than a placebo effect. I'll never understand why people run below native resolution so they can turn on AA... makes no damn sense.

Answer 1: so he can sell them on FS/T and people can buy them cheaper.