FutureMark 3DMark06 Benchmark Overview [Now with Download Link]

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

gac009

Senior member
Jun 10, 2005
403
0
0
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: gac009
Originally posted by: MBrown
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
Originally posted by: gac009
1951 with the rig in the sig.

SM 2.0 990
CPU 1095

I know its not a top of the line pooter, and it never was, but I thought some people would be interested in seeing how a bottom middle range rig would do.
Click to expand...
Do you have hyperthreading turned off?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


nope hyper threading is on, why? is that a low score?
Click to expand...
I think so. It must be your video card slowing you down.

Your P4 3.0 did better than my 3500 winchester @ 2.4 GHz in the CPU tests. Then again you are overclocking yours to 3.75GHz
Click to expand...



Ahhh, well I never did get those last 4 pipes working. :p
 
O

otispunkmeyer

Lifer
Jun 14, 2003
10,442
0
0
Originally posted by: Ackmed
It likes dual core CPU's. Which is why a lower "rated" X2 will score higher than a higher "rated" single core CPU, such as a highly overclocked single core P4. Which is pretty dumb to me. By their logic, a 4000+ 6800GS will be less of a gaming machine than a 3800+ X2 and a 6600GT. I think we all know that is not true. There is a huge boost in the overall score for a dual core CPU, when in real games, its not even close to the same amount.

Another problem with this version is that they decided against HDR+AA for NV cards, because its not supported. But for DST24 when the X1K cards dont support it. And DF24 is required in order to use fetch4 and DFC.

Looks like another bomb of a "benchmark", and its relegated to being a stress test for overclocking stability instead.
Click to expand...


well put.

i heard that ATI thing was something they couldnt do regarding 24bit something or other, and hardware FP blending, and ATI implement some kind of work around to get by, and this is what is hurting them
 
R

ricleo2

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2004
1,122
11
81
6210 on my system. I believe I will try overclocking for the first time later tonight. This thread is very interesting.
 
DAPUNISHER

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
32,293
33,119
146
Originally posted by: gac009
Ahhh, well I never did get those last 4 pipes working. :p
Click to expand...
Ithought HT might provide a nice boost in the CPU test, but it doesn't appear to be the case. Unless you are experiencing clock throttling....



 
J

jim1976

Platinum Member
Aug 7, 2003
2,704
6
81
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
Originally posted by: Ackmed
It likes dual core CPU's. Which is why a lower "rated" X2 will score higher than a higher "rated" single core CPU, such as a highly overclocked single core P4. Which is pretty dumb to me. By their logic, a 4000+ 6800GS will be less of a gaming machine than a 3800+ X2 and a 6600GT. I think we all know that is not true. There is a huge boost in the overall score for a dual core CPU, when in real games, its not even close to the same amount.

Another problem with this version is that they decided against HDR+AA for NV cards, because its not supported. But for DST24 when the X1K cards dont support it. And DF24 is required in order to use fetch4 and DFC.

Looks like another bomb of a "benchmark", and its relegated to being a stress test for overclocking stability instead.
Click to expand...


well put.

i heard that ATI thing was something they couldnt do regarding 24bit something or other, and hardware FP blending, and ATI implement some kind of work around to get by, and this is what is hurting them
Click to expand...


While I don't disagree with these opinions, everyone should admit that the gains from dual core cpus(which undoubtely are the near future OF CPUS) are here in many games and in some of them by a significant amount. And what they are doing here with the cpu test rating will be the case soon with the SMP games. Maybe not by such a margin right now but pretty soon it will be.
So this justifies in some part their logic to "overrate" the dual cores. We should keep in mind that 3dmark06 is made for 06 not for today for the most part.

BTW my score is 4943 (4400+@2.75GHz + 256 GTX @500/1350)
 
S

selfbuilt

Senior member
Feb 6, 2003
481
0
0
No effect of new Cat 6.1 on my X800XTPE score (CCC set to performance)

Cat 5.13
3DMark06: 2155
3DMark05: 6465

Cat 6.1
3DMark06: 2156
3DMark05: 6461

X800XTPE stock (520/560)
A64 @2.3GHz (S754)

Clearly not too impressive on ATI hardware, but at least no specific 3DMock hacks in the latest driver update.
 
Yreka

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer
Originally posted by: jEnus
Decided to overclock the cards....

8004

SM 2.0 Score 3652 Marks
SM 3.0 Score 3536 Marks
CPU Score 1977 Marks
Click to expand...


WOW
Click to expand...


Are those with GT's or GTX's ?

Sig says GT, but Futuremark says GTX
 
R

RajunCajun

Senior member
Nov 30, 2000
213
0
0
;)My score was 2563 with my m170 laptop noted below. Of course much of what I saw was a slide show, but comparing scores I think I'm OK.

:confused:But I believe it borked my DirectX. During install 3dMark06 said it needed to update DirectX files from 12/05 to run. So I clicked OK and it was done. But now the new Star Wars demo doesn't run, stating some files were corrupt. Anyone else have this problem?

256mb Go 6800 Ultra @ stock speeds (450mhz, 1.06ghz) = NV42 = 6800GS!
Forceware 82.10
Windows MCE 2005
 
P

professor1942

Senior member
Dec 22, 2005
509
0
0
Originally posted by: MBrown
People with P4's with HT are getting their moneys worth.
Click to expand...

What, higher numbers in some synthetic benchmark that is completely irrelevant to actual gaming? I fail to see the 'getting money's worth' there... :p
 
Yreka

Yreka

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
4,084
0
76
Ok, that makes sense.. We have almost the same rig other than that, I was trying to figure out where my other 800-1000 points were going ;)
 
A

Ackmed

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2003
8,499
560
126
Originally posted by: jim1976
While I don't disagree with these opinions, everyone should admit that the gains from dual core cpus(which undoubtely are the near future OF CPUS) are here in many games and in some of them by a significant amount. And what they are doing here with the cpu test rating will be the case soon with the SMP games. Maybe not by such a margin right now but pretty soon it will be.
So this justifies in some part their logic to "overrate" the dual cores. We should keep in mind that 3dmark06 is made for 06 not for today for the most part.

BTW my score is 4943 (4400+@2.75GHz + 256 GTX @500/1350)
Click to expand...

Huh? A dual core adds *about* a 20% increase in the final score. Of course that depends on the kind of CPU it is. That does not happen in real games, at 1280x1024. If it gives the same boost in score at 1600x1200, or even higher, then it is giving really false information. Because that will not correlate into higher frames in games by the same percentage. As I said earlier, 3dmark06 will give a higher score, for a [/i]slower[/i] performing PC. And that is just wrong.

You say 3dmark06 is not made for today, but for 2006? It is 2006.

Thats just one issue with this version of 3dmark. NV cards cant do HDR+AA in the tests, so it skips all SM3 tests when AA is selected. So when people try to compare scores between a NV card and ATi card with AA selected, the ATi card is doing SM3 with HDR+AA, when the NV card is only going SM2. Just as FS did, this gives out serious misinformation.

The benchmark is flawed in several key areas. I dont understand how people can think its accurate, or feel like they have to upgrade because of a low score.
 
P

professor1942

Senior member
Dec 22, 2005
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Ackmed
Huh? A dual core adds *about* a 20% increase in the final score. Of course that depends on the kind of CPU it is. That does not happen in real games, at 1280x1024. If it gives the same boost in score at 1600x1200, or even higher, then it is giving really false information. Because that will not correlate into higher frames in games by the same percentage. As I said earlier, 3dmark06 will give a higher score, for a [/i]slower[/i] performing PC. And that is just wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree, this thing is borked.

The only use I can see for it is seeing how much difference it makes when you overclock your video card. The cpu scoring methodology is laughable (and I am not just being sour here, as I do get quite a nice cpu score).
 
V

Vesper8

Senior member
Apr 29, 2005
253
0
0
has anyone had it crash running on xp64 ?

i still can't get mine to run past the 1st test on a 6600GT with the latest whql forceware drivers.. but i am running xp64-bit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom