Standard Def Steve wrote:

The Ultimate Phenom II build is finally complete. This thing is a monster: 351 fps on Windows 7! I'm sure it would be around 25-30 frames faster under XP, which would put it well ahead of my 4GHz Q6700.

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4070MHz, GTX 680, 16GB DDR3-1760 CL9, Asus Crosshair IV Formula (890FX), onboard audio, Win7 64

That *is* a beast. 359 Scorches my somewhat similar AMD build:

15) 269.4 FPS, tincup, AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8ghz, ASUS Crosshair V Formula (990FX), ASUS HD 7870 2gb @ 1100/1450mhz, 8gb DDR3 2133 CL9, Onboard audio, Win 7

Doom 3 must love the GTX 680 and all 16gb of that ram...

tincup wrote:

15) 269.4 FPS, tincup, AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8ghz, ASUS Crosshair V Formula (990FX), ASUS HD 7870 2gb @ 1100/1450mhz, 8gb DDR3 2133 CL9

how much o/c do you have on that fx? mine is a 6200 and has only like 3,8ghz standard freq but is somewhat too warm anyway(and loud); how do you cool that 4,8 ghz down? is the asus 990fx mobo better than say a gigabyte 990fx mobo? do you really drive ram at over 2ghz? does it make a difference even compared to say 1600 or 1866?

The FX-8350 is OCd @ 4.8 (goes higher but it's nice/stable like this), cooler; Noctua D14 w/3 fans (stays cool and is quiet enough), ram; G-Skill 2133 variety (9-11-11-28 timings). The GPU is nothing special but OCd it performs like the 7870 LE (XT) version.

do you know what temps you get under load? i personally was thinking about ocing mine to 4.1-4.4 ghz with a SILENTIUMPC FORTIS 3 HE1425 (im on the stock cooler now); ever tried to downclock ram to like 1600 cl9 and seeing how much benchmark result would drop?

sorry, no load temps handy, but I seem to remember 7-8 degrees F below threshold at max. Idle depends on ambient temp - HD Monitor reads about 48-50-deg F right now. And no, I haven't played around with ram. I haven't really touched the configuration for about a year now - just cleaning and maintenance.

thx for the intel; i guess ill have to try it myself then ;p problem is i got some nestly kingston ram 😒 but then again the slow cache may cause even fast ram to respond slowly

tincup wrote:

That *is* a beast. 359 Scorches my somewhat similar AMD build: […]
Show full quote

Standard Def Steve wrote:

The Ultimate Phenom II build is finally complete. This thing is a monster: 351 fps on Windows 7! I'm sure it would be around 25-30 frames faster under XP, which would put it well ahead of my 4GHz Q6700.

Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4070MHz, GTX 680, 16GB DDR3-1760 CL9, Asus Crosshair IV Formula (890FX), onboard audio, Win7 64

That *is* a beast. 359 Scorches my somewhat similar AMD build:

15) 269.4 FPS, tincup, AMD FX-8350 @ 4.8ghz, ASUS Crosshair V Formula (990FX), ASUS HD 7870 2gb @ 1100/1450mhz, 8gb DDR3 2133 CL9, Onboard audio, Win 7

Doom 3 must love the GTX 680 and all 16gb of that ram...

Are you running Doom3 v1.3 or v1.0?

Clock for clock, Phenom II is a little faster than the FX. It just can't clock quite as high as the FX. Similar to the P3 vs P4 situation. 😀

Doom3 can use up to 2 cores. I wonder if Windows is assigning two "cores" from the same Bulldozer module to run the benchmark? Each module shares FPU resources, which would explain the reduced performance.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Are you running Doom3 v1.3 or v1.0?

Clock for clock, Phenom II is a little faster than the FX. It just can't clock quite as high as the FX. Similar to the P3 vs P4 situation. 😀

Doom3 can use up to 2 cores. I wonder if Windows is assigning two "cores" from the same Bulldozer module to run the benchmark? Each module shares FPU resources, which would explain the reduced performance.

Hmmm. I thought it was v1.0 but according to version.inf (root folder) it's 1.2. install is straight from the CDs but seems to have gotten updated. Yet version.inf on Disk1 says v1.0. I'll try reinstalling...

Regarding cores - can they be assigned manually?

EDIT: reinstalled off CDs and now have v1.0. Not sure how I had 1.2 before since I don't have any patches other than v1.31 in my patch library. Well. No difference from 1.2 in timedemo (250s), but if I disable special effects in Advanced it gets up to 324.6, though I think we're all benchmarking with them on @ 1028x768 Ultra/No AFF

tincup wrote:

Hmmm. I thought it was v1.0 but according to version.inf (root folder) it's 1.2. install is straight from the CDs but seems to […]
Show full quote

Standard Def Steve wrote:

Are you running Doom3 v1.3 or v1.0?

Clock for clock, Phenom II is a little faster than the FX. It just can't clock quite as high as the FX. Similar to the P3 vs P4 situation. 😀

Doom3 can use up to 2 cores. I wonder if Windows is assigning two "cores" from the same Bulldozer module to run the benchmark? Each module shares FPU resources, which would explain the reduced performance.

Hmmm. I thought it was v1.0 but according to version.inf (root folder) it's 1.2. install is straight from the CDs but seems to have gotten updated. Yet version.inf on Disk1 says v1.0. I'll try reinstalling...

Regarding cores - can they be assigned manually?

EDIT: reinstalled off CDs and now have v1.0. Not sure how I had 1.2 before since I don't have any patches other than v1.31 in my patch library. Well. No difference from 1.2 in timedemo (250s), but if I disable special effects in Advanced it gets up to 324.6, though I think we're all benchmarking with them on @ 1028x768 Ultra/No AFF

Interesting. I guess the massive slowdown started with v1.3 then. I can't help but think something is lowering your system's results though. Any CPU running at a blistering 4.8GHz (except for Netburst based stuff) should be able to do more than 269 fps. Perhaps incorrect thread scheduling is to blame.

The CPU scheduler in Win8 and 10 is "FX-aware" and can properly schedule around Bulldozer's 2-integer, 1 FP modules. Microsoft released a patch for Win7 that made it a little smarter with FX CPUs, but AFAIK it's not as effective as the native implementation found in Win8+. I've never owned any Bulldozer architecture processors so I can't say how much of a performance improvement the Win7 patch gives.

Sounds reasonable. I'm going do a little research into the CPU side.

EDIT: located two FX hotfixes from microsft I didn't realize existed - helps with AMD core handling under W7. Installed those, and "UnParked" cores with Manage Parked CPU. No real change in Timedemo, but hey, gave me something to do for a bit. 🙄

need to figure out why SLI isn't working to give any boost

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound

candle_86 wrote:

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound

Nice! 😀

Skyscraper wrote:

candle_86 wrote:

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound

Nice! 😀

Yea I'm happy with it now.

candle_86 wrote:

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound...

Two can play this game 😉
LINK
178,5FPS
Win XP SP3
Haha 😁

PS. I got 7900 GTX Duo (or 7900 GX2), ie. the really LONG 7950 GX2 :
LINK

TOGII of GPU's 😉

agent_x007 wrote:

Two can play this game ;) Win XP SP3 Haha :D […]
Show full quote

candle_86 wrote:

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound...

Two can play this game 😉
Win XP SP3
Haha 😁

PS. I got 7900 GTX Duo (or 7900 GX2), ie. the really LONG 7950 GX2 😀

You guys still haven't caught up with my old 3.13GHz Socket 939 score. 192fps on WinXP with a GTX 260 and uber low latency memory.

Yeah, the video card isn't period correct, but Doom3 is so CPU limited once you reach a certain level of video performance that I'm sure the performance wouldn't be much different with a pair of 7900GTX in SLI.

agent_x007 wrote:

Two can play this game ;) LINK Win XP SP3 Haha :D […]
Show full quote

candle_86 wrote:

Finally, Doom 1.0 makes a big difference glad I borrowed the original disks 🤣

177.1 FPS
X2 6000 - M2N-E SLI - PNY 7900GTX SLI - 8gb DDR2 800 (3gb useable) - Windows XP SP2 - Forceware 92.91 - Onboard sound...

Two can play this game 😉
LINK
Win XP SP3
Haha 😁

PS. I got 7900 GTX Duo (or 7900 GX2), ie. the really LONG 7950 GX2 :
LINK

TOGII of GPU's 😉

🤣 ok ill play your game 😜

X2 6000 14x215 - M2N-E SLI @ 215FSB - 8gb DDR2 860 - 7900GTX SLI - Windows XP Pro SP3 - 92.91 - Onboard Audio

Standard Def Steve wrote:

You guys still haven't caught up with my old 3.13GHz Socket 939 score. 192fps on WinXP with a GTX 260 and uber low latency memory.

Yeah, the video card isn't period correct, but Doom3 is so CPU limited once you reach a certain level of video performance that I'm sure the performance wouldn't be much different with a pair of 7900GTX in SLI.

@candle_86
Let's kick it up a notch (or two) 😀
LINK
198FPS 😁
Pentium XE 965 @ 5,02GHz - ASUS P5K64 WS - 4gb DDR3 1673MHz - 7900 GX2 (SLI) @ 600/702 [GPU/VRAM] - Windows XP Pro SP3 - 307.83 - Onboard Audio

Uber low latency ?

Got that covered 😎

agent_x007 wrote:

@candle_86 Let's kick it up a notch (or two) :) LINK 198FPS :D Pentium XE 965 @ 5,02GHz - ASUS P5K64 WS - 4gb DDR3 1673MHz - 79 […]
Show full quote

Standard Def Steve wrote:

You guys still haven't caught up with my old 3.13GHz Socket 939 score. 192fps on WinXP with a GTX 260 and uber low latency memory.

Yeah, the video card isn't period correct, but Doom3 is so CPU limited once you reach a certain level of video performance that I'm sure the performance wouldn't be much different with a pair of 7900GTX in SLI.

@candle_86
Let's kick it up a notch (or two) 😀
LINK
198FPS 😁
Pentium XE 965 @ 5,02GHz - ASUS P5K64 WS - 4gb DDR3 1673MHz - 7900 GX2 (SLI) @ 600/702 [GPU/VRAM] - Windows XP Pro SP3 - 307.83 - Onboard Audio

Wow. That's some kind of incredible. I don't even want to know how much power a 5GHz Pentium D sucks down, but you beat me! My Opteron 185 will not go 15MHz over 3.13GHz without crashing so I don't think I'll be able to beat that score.

BUT...can you clock that thing even higher and beat my Core Duo score? Keep in mind that Core Duo is very different from Core 2 Duo...it's really just a dual core Pentium M. The T2600 was released two months before the PXE 965. 😀
I was able to hit 225.4fps with my T2600 @ 3.08GHz (page 22 for details/screenshot).

My CPU has a FSB Wall around 420MHz (ie. it won't even boot with it), and upping the multi = a lot lower FSB = a lot lower effective memory bandwidth, so yeah... I probably can't do much more than 198FPS with this setup.

IF I had a BA watercooling - MAYBE, highly depends on VRM's temps under load.

Basicly : 100% load on this, is enough to make VRM's on most (if not all) MB's go "bye bye..." 😁
At 5,02GHz I can't stress it more than ~70% for 2 min, because it will throttle/shutdown (VRM's can't handle the current because air cooling them is impossible at this kind of power levels).
With 1,55V on Vcore and ~5GHz I usually see around 450W from the wall under CPU test alone (can spike higher), if it gets higher than that - it will throttle (or shutdown). Idle power is around 250-270W 😀
Oh, and all of that^ happends while using 750W Bronze eff. PSU (with 230V AC) (OCZ ZS-750).