Ok well we have a 3dmark99 and 3dmark01 threads, this is to cover 3dmark03-3dmark06
Please include CPU, Video Card, OS, Memory and if overclocked list overclocked speeds
Please include an ORB link or a screenshot just in case anyone has any questions
All GPU's are OC'ed, and use Silencer Coolers (NV4 and ATI3 to be exact) 😀
Here's a picture of them together (Warning : High Resolution pictures) :
Fronts : LINK
Backs : LINK
Last edited by agent_x007 on 2016-05-11, 17:35. Edited 1 time in total.
All GPU's are OC'ed, and use Silencer Coolers (NV4 and ATI3 to be exact) 😀
Here's a picture of them together (Warning : High Resolution pictures) :
Fronts : LINK
Backs : LINK
I will keep track yes, both here and in a spreadsheet once a week ill upload new scores to it.
Also as for scores, use default settings for 3dmark what ever it selects during first start up so 03/05 10x7 and 06 12x10.
i7-4930K @ 4.6GHz
GTX-970, overclocked to roughly GTX980 levels of performance (see screens for clocks)
32GB DDR3-2133 CL9 quad-channel
Asus Rampage IV Gene
Win7 SP1
Mrau,27228,AMD FX(tm)-6200 Six-Core Processor@3.8 GHz, AMD Radeon HD 6670@800/900,16GB DDR3 1600@1333 CL9, Windows 8.1
cant submit the result though, i'd upload it here, but i cant see any button for this, though im sure it can be done - any help?
So I've been too busy getting systems actually working to participate in any kind of benchmarking (or do any gaming - i seem to spend 4x time fixing and 1x time playing). Recently put a CrossfireX system in XP after Windows 7 performance was disappointing to say the least. Running 3DMark03 has helped me to a) confirm my setup is working and b) know where it makes a difference and why you don't get 2x performance boost (which I'd read about beforehand). I also played with overclocking the somewhat modest CPU (but the only AM3 one I have). I don't know how much (if any) the CPU is holding back the dual GPU setup.
CPU: Athlon II X2 250 (3Ghz stock speed)
RAM: 4GB something-or-other
Mobo: Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P (rev. 1.0)
OS: XP Pro x64 Edition
GPU: 2x ATi Radeon HD 4850 512MB (Sapphire)
The CPU OCed to 3.8GHz (FSB increase from 200MHz to 255MHz) without breaking a sweat before becoming unstable. I didn't bother tweaking voltages as I guessed it was the boring RAM that was holding it back. But I was fairly impressed with the 25%+ clock improvement. I've got screenshots but I thought graphs would be more useful:
As I can only upload 5 attachments, I have not included the overall CPU scores chart but no need as it's simply 1526 at stock speed and 1852 OC. That's a 21% increase, which is almost in line. This is reflected in the individual test results.
Looking at the game results we can see which ones are more affected by the CPU and which ones are GPU dependent. There is almost no improvement in Wings of Fury (GT1) from having the 2nd GPU. It looks like this is down to the CPU limiting the bandwidth, as overclocking does improve the score by 21% so there is definitely room for improvement. Battle of Proxycon (GT2) and Trolls Lair (GT3) are significantly improved by CrossfireX, 68% and and 61% respectively at stock speeds, 78% in both cases with overclock. There is only a 26% improvement with the 2nd GPU in Mother Nature (GT4) at stock speeds but a 46% improvement with OC.
Fill rates is where it's clear what effect CrossfireX has - an obvious doubling of the statistics by adding a second card - but nothing takes advantage 100% of this feature so that's why you don't see double improvement across the board.
Finally, the Pixel Shader 2.0 scores are clearly GPU-dependent, improving by 90%.
So I would suggest that 3DMark03 is a great tool for measuring whether something is working - it is known that it's not a completely rounded measure of performance but it's pretty good imho as it covers many bases. 3DMark2001 confused the hell out of me because overclocking took the results from about 22k to 40k, while adding the second GPU made almost no difference at all.
Now all I need is a Phenom II X6! Now where's that £120 I left lying around...
Edit: crap. Forgot to keep the orb link. And I'll update what the actual RAM is later.
Last edited by brassicGamer on 2016-06-12, 14:46. Edited 1 time in total.
Check out my blog and YouTube channel for thoughts, articles, system profiles, and tips.
Motherboard is a P4P800dlx with SE bios. I used to get this HD3850 up to 891/1980 but the heatsink on the PCIe bridge chip has come off so
can't do those speeds at the moment.
I tested three different CPUs with a GTX 560. All of them were clocked at 3GHz, which gives you a good idea of each chip's IPC. I used WinXP on the Pentium D and Opteron. Windows 7 on the C2Q.
Screenshots are available if you want them. I didn't post them here because Vogons limits me to 5 attachments.
One thing that really jumped out at me was the 3DMark05 CPU score. The C2Q and i7 absolutely demolished the Opteron and Pentium D (I tested the i7 in my first post on this thread). The C2Q was 3.6x faster than the Opteron and 4.8x faster than the PD. The i7 was an astounding 11x and 14.7x faster, respectively.
94 MHz NEC VR4300 | SGI Reality CoPro | 8MB RDRAM | Each game gets its own SSD - nooice!
theres probably a "reward" for additional instruction sets?
The thing is, back in 2005 SSE3 was the newest instruction set. All of the CPUs I tested had SSE3. 2005's CPU test was multithreaded, but I think it could only realistically take advantage of 2 cores. Going back to instructions sets, I suppose it could all boil down to SSE2 performance. Starting with Core 2, Intel really kicked up the performance of the SIMD unit.
386SX wrote:
Standard Def Steve wrote:A Core i7 and a Pentium III. […] Show full quote
Standard Def Steve wrote:The thing is, back in 2005 SSE3 was the newest instruction set. All of the CPUs I tested had SSE3. 2005's CPU test was multithre […] Show full quote
mrau wrote:
theres probably a "reward" for additional instruction sets?
The thing is, back in 2005 SSE3 was the newest instruction set. All of the CPUs I tested had SSE3. 2005's CPU test was multithreaded, but I think it could only realistically take advantage of 2 cores. Going back to instructions sets, I suppose it could all boil down to SSE2 performance. Starting with Core 2, Intel really kicked up the performance of the SIMD unit.
386SX wrote:
Standard Def Steve wrote:A Core i7 and a Pentium III. […] Show full quote
