9770 in 3dMark06

[A72CUTLAS]

First the specs of my machine;:thumbsup:

ECS KN3 SLI2 nForce 590 SLI MB
AMD Athlon XP x2 5600+ stock @ 2.8Mhz
EVGA 8800 GT OC running stock w/Akimbo Cooler
A Data Extreme edition 2GB kit(2x1GB) x2=4GB total
Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATA 3.0GB/s HDD
HiPower 650w PSU

Given these parameters, am I in the ballpark of where I should be RE: 3DMark score? If not, where is the bottle-neck? I don't believe it could be the graphics or Ram. Maybe the CPU? And if so is this an overclockable chip that could reach for the stars?

Now I'm neither a hardcore gamer or benchmarker, I just like to build and play with 'puters, trying to get the most out of what I've got. If anyone has any comments/suggestions don't hesitate to offer them. I'm wide open for help.:sun:
The Dawg

 

[james1701]

Its your CPU. If you had a quad core, you would be in the 11000-12000 range. You can OC you 8800 and get a little higher score. But I think your score is about right.

 

[Gikaseixas]

your CPU is the limiting factor there but it's good by today's standards. You're at almost 10k marks, very good for the setup you have. A faster cpu would help the score to go up a bit, specially a quad core cpu.

 

[driftwood07]

this is just a shot in the dark here but...when i first ran 3dmark06 on my board w. sli pci-e slots i scored in the 9000's with my setup, which i knew had to be low, i then realized while looking through
the logs that 3dmark06 generates after the test showing all your stats the pci-e bus speed was only 4x. I did a little research and it turned out that one of the pci-e ports was 16x and the other 4x (for cost savings i assume) and i happened to be using the 4x . i switched to the 16x and i went up to 13,000

 

[betasub]

driftwood: very nice, but what CPU was driving your gfx card to 13000 3dmarks?

 

[Pelu]

is just fine... my rig scored 11k... but it sorta feels like 5k computer when playing...

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: Pelu
is just fine... my rig scored 11k... but it sorta feels like 5k computer when playing...

get a better Motherboard (one that supports AM2+ so u can extract all the speed out of your Phenom) and overclock you cpu to 2.5 if possible.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: A72CUTLAS
First the specs of my machine;:thumbsup:

ECS KN3 SLI2 nForce 590 SLI MB
AMD Athlon XP x2 5600+ stock @ 2.8Mhz
EVGA 8800 GT OC running stock w/Akimbo Cooler
A Data Extreme edition 2GB kit(2x1GB) x2=4GB total
Seagate Barracuda 500GB SATA 3.0GB/s HDD
HiPower 650w PSU

Given these parameters, am I in the ballpark of where I should be RE: 3DMark score? If not, where is the bottle-neck? I don't believe it could be the graphics or Ram. Maybe the CPU? And if so is this an overclockable chip that could reach for the stars?

Now I'm neither a hardcore gamer or benchmarker, I just like to build and play with 'puters, trying to get the most out of what I've got. If anyone has any comments/suggestions don't hesitate to offer them. I'm wide open for help.:sun:
The Dawg

Your score is definitely appropriate for your hardware.

The CPU is holding it back, but the quad-core idea a couple people have mentioned is irrelevant for 3DMark and most games. A faster dual-core CPU would bring greater benefit than a slower quad-core.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The CPU is holding it back, but the quad-core idea a couple people have mentioned is irrelevant for 3DMark and most games. A faster dual-core CPU would bring greater benefit than a slower quad-core.

That's true for most games, but not for 3dMark 06. For instance, here's my score, with the same exact video card as the OP, but in my Q6600 system: 13,769, and that's with the 8800GT at it's stock speed of 650/1900.

 

[driftwood07]

Originally posted by: betasub
driftwood: very nice, but what CPU was driving your gfx card to 13000 3dmarks?

e8400 @ 3.6 , 8800 gt , 2 gigs 6400
I ran the test both at 3Ghz and 3.6Ghz on cpu without a huge difference, but the
4x to 16x pci-e slot made a major difference.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
The CPU is holding it back, but the quad-core idea a couple people have mentioned is irrelevant for 3DMark and most games. A faster dual-core CPU would bring greater benefit than a slower quad-core.

That's true for most games, but not for 3dMark 06. For instance, here's my score, with the same exact video card as the OP, but in my Q6600 system: 13,769, and that's with the 8800GT at it's stock speed of 650/1900.

I'm sorry, I did not articulate my thought correctly. I meant to say that between 2 CPU's based on similar architecture, the faster dual-core is more effective at most games and 3DMark 06 than the slower quad-core. For example, an E8400 vs Q6600. Or has my thinking regarding this become outdated?

 

[betasub]

Originally posted by: driftwood07
e8400 @ 3.6 , 8800 gt , 2 gigs 6400
I ran the test both at 3Ghz and 3.6Ghz on cpu without a huge difference, but the
4x to 16x pci-e slot made a major difference.

Makes sense. e8400 @ 3.6 >> Athlon x2 5600+ stock @ 2.8Mhz.

Pushing your e8400 to 3+GHz makes it less likely to limit the 8800GT. Obviously the PCIe bus can be a problem if it's stuck at 4x (results at 8x are much closer to full-speed 16x).

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
I'm sorry, I did not articulate my thought correctly. I meant to say that between 2 CPU's based on similar architecture, the faster dual-core is more effective at most games and 3DMark 06 than the slower quad-core. For example, an E8400 vs Q6600. Or has my thinking regarding this become outdated?

Concerning games, all but two or three games on the market, you're absolutely correct. But 3dMark06 is completely multithreaded, at least in the two CPU benchmarks, so it's going to score exactly twice as high in the CPU tests, assuming the two processors are running at the same speed, and have the same amount of cache. Not only that, but alot of people think that it gives too much credit to the processor speed (whether dual or quad), which I agree with.

As far as two CPU's of the same architecture, at different speeds and with different amounts of cores, I can't say for sure, except that the dual-core would need to be running considerably faster, to score as well as the quad, with both using the same video card. The problem is that I'm not exactly sure how much faster.

 

[james1701]

14033 is my best with 06 Here is the orb.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=4248230

I dont know how true it is, but I have heard with this program you need to get a dual core up over 3.4ghz to equal a 2.4ghz Q6600. I have never had a dual core, so I dont know if its true or not.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Well, just by the samples posted in this thread, we see that james1701's system w/Q6600 @ 3.2ghz scores 14033 w/8800gt oc, and driftwood07's E8400 @ 3.6 ghz w/8800gt scores 13000. This indeed backs up myocardia's assertion that quad-core contributes to a higher score, to a greater degree than I imagined.

 

[A72CUTLAS]

It seems from what I gather here is that if I wanted to up my score, I need to get a Quad-core, and an Intel at that. No one seems to be promoting the Phenom. Am I to understand that the AM2 socket doesn't support the Quads, only the AM2+'s. If so this means another major upgrade. Maybe I'll settle for what I have right now. Thanks agin for all the responses.

 

[Sylvanas]

Originally posted by: A72CUTLAS
It seems from what I gather here is that if I wanted to up my score, I need to get a Quad-core, and an Intel at that. No one seems to be promoting the Phenom. Am I to understand that the AM2 socket doesn't support the Quads, only the AM2+'s. If so this means another major upgrade. Maybe I'll settle for what I have right now. Thanks agin for all the responses.

Your score would go up aswell if you had a Phenom. AM2 boards can take a Phenom but a BIOS update is required check your mobo on the vendors website.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: A72CUTLAS
It seems from what I gather here is that if I wanted to up my score, I need to get a Quad-core, and an Intel at that. No one seems to be promoting the Phenom. Am I to understand that the AM2 socket doesn't support the Quads, only the AM2+'s. If so this means another major upgrade. Maybe I'll settle for what I have right now. Thanks agin for all the responses.

You don't need a quad-core to increase your score. You need a more powerful processor, whether dual or quad.

I'm assuming "AMD Athlon XP x2 5600+ stock @ 2.8Mhz" is Athlon 64 () which, while not noted for being a great overclocker, you should be able to get another 10% or so out of it.

A Phenom would also increase your score, but unless you can simply drop it into your current motherboard, in many folks' opinions it's simply not worth the $$. The best bet would be to get a C2D and new motherboard.

Of course, this all begs the question: why? If your current computer is doing everything that you need it to do, there's not really a point in upgrading. 3DMark is, well, just a benchmark, and one that many people do not take seriously.

 

[A72CUTLAS]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: A72CUTLAS
It seems from what I gather here is that if I wanted to up my score, I need to get a Quad-core, and an Intel at that. No one seems to be promoting the Phenom. Am I to understand that the AM2 socket doesn't support the Quads, only the AM2+'s. If so this means another major upgrade. Maybe I'll settle for what I have right now. Thanks agin for all the responses.

You don't need a quad-core to increase your score. You need a more powerful processor, whether dual or quad.

I'm assuming "AMD Athlon XP x2 5600+ stock @ 2.8Mhz" is Athlon 64 () which, while not noted for being a great overclocker, you should be able to get another 10% or so out of it.

A Phenom would also increase your score, but unless you can simply drop it into your current motherboard, in many folks' opinions it's simply not worth the $$. The best bet would be to get a C2D and new motherboard.

Of course, this all begs the question: why? If your current computer is doing everything that you need it to do, there's not really a point in upgrading. 3DMark is, well, just a benchmark, and one that many people do not take seriously.

That last statement hits it on the head for me... I'm no HC gamer OR Benchnarker, so maybe I'll just do what I do, and if I come across something I like but can't play to the fullest, I'll have a reason to upgrade other than "but baby... I really wan't to!!PLEASE???wine:whine)".
Thanks to all for the reality check. Especially Gazzelle.