Upgraded my video card. Benchmark results surprisingly bad

[JediKnight]

Ran a PassMark performance test (no idea if this is a good benchmark or not - but it's a starting point) on my system. Surprised by low results with my newly upgraded video card (XFX Radeon 7850HD Core edition 1GB). This is by no means a top-end card, but I don't think I should be getting scores this low.. although I may be wrong.

DX10 and DX11 results are not good at all - slower than an Intel integrated card for DX11??!

Am I expecting too much, or is there something wrong here?

 

[notty22]

Wow, 24 posts since 7/2000. Hi longtime lurker, you need to tell us the specs of

This computer ! Meaning your rig components.



edit: And O/S and if you have updated DX components from Microsoft.

 

[DominionSeraph]

You should be around the same speed as a 6950.

 

[JediKnight]

I think at one point they removed all old posts from the forum. Somewhat explaining my low post count

My machine's an older one.. but I was hoping to get a bit more life out of it before building a new one (was very seriously considering doing so over the holidays.. but decided against it at the last minute as I hadn't done enough research).

Core2 Quad 6700 @ 2.66GHz
4GB DDR2 RAM
XFX Radeon 7850HD Core edition 1GB
2x500GB Seagate HD @ 7200 RPM (not RAIDed)
Corsair CX500 PSU

It's a HP Pavilion elite m9250, with the video card and PSU upgraded (all other components are stock). Still running Windows Vista.

 

[notty22]

I would run other benchmarks, like Uningene Heaven.
Also, try to run the DX update from microsoft.
Your DX9 results show a higher % tile.
Your clock speed is low, which effects some game engines aspects, what resolution are you running?

 

[Termie]

Run 3dMark11: http://www.3dmark.com/3dmark11/download/

While the total score will be greatly affected by your slow CPU, the graphics score should be about 5000, and if it's around that, you know the system's ok.

Comparisons: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2048/9/

 

[ockky]

My initial guess is that your motherboard has an older 1.0 pci-e slot instead of the newer 3.0. Just a guess due to limited info.

Edit for clarification: The 7850 you have is made for the a 3.0 slot, but can still be used by a slower 1.0 slot.

 

[shabby]

The cpu and pcie 1.1 mobo is holding you back, i'd sell the 7850 and upgrade the whole system.

 

[SPBHM]

The cpu and pcie 1.1 mobo is holding you back, i'd sell the 7850 and upgrade the whole system.

I highly doubt that this is the main reason...

also, test in more things, passmark is hardy the best way to compare gaming performance,

16x 1.x should be at least as good but probably better than 4x 3.0?

 

[shabby]

I highly doubt that this is the main reason...

also, test in more things, passmark is hardy the best way to compare gaming performance,

16x 1.x should be at least as good but probably better than 4x 3.0?

Im not sure what passmark does in the dx10/11 tests but it probably saturates the pcie bus and is the reason why his scores are low in those two tests. But yes, pointless benchmark try some games.

 

[JediKnight]

Run 3dMark11: http://www.3dmark.com/3dmark11/download/

While the total score will be greatly affected by your slow CPU, the graphics score should be about 5000, and if it's around that, you know the system's ok.

Comparisons: http://www.legitreviews.com/article/2048/9/

Here's the result:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5516801

 

[JediKnight]

I would run other benchmarks, like Uningene Heaven.
Also, try to run the DX update from microsoft.
Your DX9 results show a higher % tile.
Your clock speed is low, which effects some game engines aspects, what resolution are you running?

I'm normally at 1920x1080..
Where do you get directx updates? Stupid question.. but I don't see anything in Windows update, and a google search says Vista's restricted to 10.1. Which is curious because dxdiag says I'm running dx11?

 

[notty22]

DirectX11 Released For Windows Vista

• Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems (KB971512)›

 

[DominionSeraph]

>Vista
Oh God, what are you doing? Upgrade to XP at least.

 

[JediKnight]

DirectX11 Released For Windows Vista

• Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems (KB971512)›

Ahh. Odd that MS has outdated info on their website about this. And the outdated info is one of the top google search results!

Here's the other benchmark result:
Heaven Benchmark v3.0 Basic

FPS:
56.9
Scores:
1434
Min FPS:
22.4
Max FPS:
113.8
Hardware

Binary:
Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 7 2012
Operating system:
Windows Vista (build 6002, Service Pack 2) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6700 @ 2.66GHz
CPU flags:
2666MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 HTT
GPU model:
AMD Radeon HD 7800 Series 8.14.01.6278 1024Mb
Settings

Render:
direct3d11
Mode:
1920x1080 fullscreen
Shaders:
high
Textures:
high
Filter:
trilinear
Anisotropy:
4x
Occlusion:
enabled
Refraction:
enabled
Volumetric:
enabled
Tessellation: disabled

 

[Termie]

Here's the result:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5516801

Ok, great. I think your card is doing fine, although you may be slightly held back by your motherboard's PCIe interface, and of course greatly held back in they physics tests by your CPU. Overall, though, I don't see a cause for alarm. Also, 3dMark11 provides a handy bar graph that shows that you're right in the middle range for your hardware setup.

Your GPU is operating at about 70% the speed of my 7870 clocked at 1000/1200, which should theoretically be about 20% faster. So you're losing another 10% of performance, probably due to your motherboard's slower bus.

Here are your scores versus mine:

7850/q6700 | 7870/i7-860
3dM: P4454 | P7081
GS: 5208 | 7174
PS: 3353 | 7260
CS: 2796 | 6249
GT1: 21.0 | 31.27
GT2: 24.15 | 35.15
GT3: 33.68 | 45.69
GT4: 17.26 | 21.78

It's possible that adding the DX11 Windows software will help some of those scores - depends how 3dMark11 uses DX11.

Edit: I'm using the beta 11 drivers, which improve performance about 10%. That may explain the extra delta entirely. My conclusion: your card is working perfectly.

 

[JediKnight]

I'm kind of surprised my CPU is such a bottleneck.
Tried the Metro 2033 frontline benchmark:
Settings:
Options: Resolution: 1280 x 720; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: High; Antialiasing: MSAA 4X; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Results:
* Average Framerate: 49.40
* Max. Framerate: 140.04
* Min. Framerate: 4.42


If I enable "advanced PhysX" (everything else the same), results change dramatically:
* Average Framerate: 20.00
* Max. Framerate: 148.52
* Min. Framerate: 5.52

 

[Termie]

I'm kind of surprised my CPU is such a bottleneck.
Tried the Metro 2033 frontline benchmark:
Settings:
Options: Resolution: 1280 x 720; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: High; Antialiasing: MSAA 4X; Texture filtering: AF 4X; Advanced PhysX: Disabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled

Results:
* Average Framerate: 49.40
* Max. Framerate: 140.04
* Min. Framerate: 4.42


If I enable "advanced PhysX" (everything else the same), results change dramatically:
* Average Framerate: 20.00
* Max. Framerate: 148.52
* Min. Framerate: 5.52

Two things:

(1) your CPU is nearly 6 years old - why wouldn't it be a bottleneck? It's actually amazing that it's still as functional as it is.

(2) you have an AMD video card - you can't run PhysX on it. So you're running PhysX off your CPU in Metro 2033, which is going to cause it to tank.

So basically, like I said, everything's fine with your GPU.

 

[Arkaign]

I know EXACTLY that PC. I advise the following :

Grab a good midrange case, grab a dirt-cheap G41 mobo like this one :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...ab=true&Page=3

And this cooler :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16835103065

With this ram :

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820144496

Why that combo?

Well, #1, I've used that mobo with both Q6600 and Q6700 CPUs, and it overclocks well with no heat/stability issues. There were much better S775 mobos out there, but they're no longer available new, and the good ones are still expensive used, and a used S775 mobo that might have seen many years of torture is not a good bet. Particularly affected seemed to be P35 mobos. So, this is only $45 "wasted", and you can get more than easily out of the Q6700+G41 combo later (keep your old CPU cooler to go with it). Also if you check ebay, you can get some decent $$ reselling your HP mobo + DDR2 memory, it will probably cover a lot of this.

That memory is 8GB of nice quality C9 1600 DDR3, so you can re-use it when you can afford a full system rebuild. No sense in buying DDR2 at this point in time.

And of course that CPU Heatsink+Fan combo is fantastic for the cash, and re-usable with all popular sockets out there (just keep the instructions and mounting gear in the box).

With that mobo+ram, just set the fsb at 333 instead of 266 stock, and the 10x q6700 will run at 3.33ghz. You may need a tiny voltage bump to get there, but it may well do it without touching that.

You will get :

Decent CPU performance increase
Double the ram of higher bandwidth, reusable
Faster PCI-Express variant
Nice cool/quiet operation and a great cooler to reuse
Case that will work well with future upgrades

All for cheap. Really the best no-compromises upgrades from a C2Q are the i5/i7 quads, but that's talking a good bit more $$$. The i3, well it's actually pretty good, but I hesitate really to recommend a dual at this juncture, even with pretty effective hyperthreading on the table.

 

[Arkaign]

Yep, checked .. same-era HP Elite mobos routinely sell for $80-$140. A lot of people insist on getting a PC repaired exactly to original spec, and are willing to pay silly $ to do so. So you may be able to break even or better.

If you wanted a more robust P45-series board (more features, higher voltage stability, etc), they are $75-$100 new old stock on Ebay.

 

[SPBHM]

G41 is PCIE 1.1, just like what he have, also it's limited to 4GB of DDR3 according to intel
also that board look seriously weak, I had a (apparently) better but similar board, and it would work stable at 3ghz with the 65nm quad for gaming and cinebench, but as soon as you started playing around with linx... no way, and that was with only around 1.3v, the max stable was around 2.8GHz with undervolt, these cheap boards are not designed for 65nm quad overclocking,

if you want to keep the lga 775 stuff, but want some improvement, look for a good used p45/x48 board (x38 should also be good)...

but I don't know, even a cheap Core i3 will beat the 65nm C2Q even when overclocked (for gaming)

 

[BrightCandle]

If you are unhappy with that level of performance and you would like to utilise the card fully you may want to take a trip into general hardware and have the guys there spec you something to your budget. I have no doubt that relatively light investment in CPU, MB and RAM will allow you to get that card running at its peak. Some games will work just fine as you are and be GPU limited whereas those that are heavy on the CPU will likely run a bit less well.

There are people around here who still run these machines but today's Ivy Bridge CPUs have effectively brought twice the performance and mostly with improvements in instructions per clock cycle.

 

[tweakboy]

Hey brigthcandle, Why dont you OC more ? Your hexa @ 4.4 loses to my 3820 in Aida64 benchmarks except one. So make up for it and OC to 4.8 my friend. Your under water so 4.8Ghz shouldn't be a problem.. gl