VOGONS


Ladies & Gentlemen I present to you BlackMagic

Topic actions

Reply 20 of 25, by Oldskoolmaniac

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Stock voltage is 1.425 and mines at 1.440 not much of an increase VRMs are cool to the touch.

Motherboard Reviews The Motherboard Thread
Plastic parts looking nasty and yellow try this Deyellowing Plastic

Reply 21 of 25, by Imperious

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
agent_x007 wrote:
Would you like to test that theory ? […]
Show full quote
Imperious wrote:

My HD3850 ended up in a Asrock 4-coredual-sata with an overclocked E5200@3.4ghz. That definitely maxed out the video card.

Would you like to test that theory ?

3DMark 01 SE HD 3850 mini.png

😎

EDIT : And score after GPU OC...

3DMark 01 SE HD 3850 OC mini.png

You have actually proved my point, as an increase in the GPU core clock made only a minor difference. Your score increase over mine with the Pentium M is all CPU based.
A good example of this is that my Nature score is higher at 443fps.
3dmark06 would be a better test for this, at a certain point more cpu power will make only a minor difference.

Atari 2600, TI994a, Vic20, c64, ZX Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC464, Atari 65XE, Commodore Plus/4, Amiga 500
PC's from XT 8088, 486, Pentium MMX, K6, Athlon, P3, P4, 775, to current Ryzen 5600x.

Reply 22 of 25, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Imperious wrote:

You have actually proved my point, as an increase in the GPU core clock made only a minor difference. Your score increase over mine with the Pentium M is all CPU based.
A good example of this is that my Nature score is higher at 443fps.
3dmark06 would be a better test for this, at a certain point more cpu power will make only a minor difference.

My point was to show you how much E5200@3,4GHz, may bottleneck 3850.
I agree, that in newer tests (or in high res.) there probably be no difference at all, between my E5800@4GHz, and E5200@3,4GHz.

Now, moving on to Dothan scores :
If I see correcly, you overclocked 3850 to 850MHz/972MHz => Good for you 😀 (nice OC !)
But here's a thing : If I were to compare it to my non-overclock score (and btw. I underclocked my GPU to real stock clocks of 3850, that is to 668/828) :

"Car" Low - 441,9 vs. 697,5 (+57,84%)
"Car" High - 129,5 vs. 218,8 (+68,95% [!])
"Dragon" Low - 665,7 vs. 962,9 (+44,64%)
"Dragon" High - 312,5 vs. 458,3 (+46,66%)
"Lobby" Low - 378,6 vs. 492,1 (+29,98%)
"Lobby" High - 160,1 vs. 217,3 (+35,73%)
In all these tests (excluding "Nature", which I discuss in a moment 😉), my stock clocked (668/828) card scored at least 30% higher, compared to yours with OC.

As to "Nature" test :
Stock (668/828) vs. OC (850,5/972) :
353,7 vs. 443,4 (+25,36%)
That's with +27,32% GPU, and +17,39% on VRAM.

From my point of view, everything is fine because my score is in line with my OC :
353,7 vs. 429,4 (+21,4%), for 789/1053 OC or +18,11% on GPU and +27,17% on VRAM.

In short : Dothan@2,7GHz, didn't bottlenecked your 3850 in Nature test (it's either that or I got a problem with my chipset/memory performance).
BUT in ALL other tests... yeah, not so much.
I would like to see those E5200 @ 3,4GHz with 3850 numbers now (or send me a PM ?).

157143230295.png

Reply 23 of 25, by Imperious

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I agree with what You are saying. The Nature test is very GPU dependent, the other games tests more CPU dependent.
A Bottleneck, whether it be cpu or gpu, involves many variables that can affect the results.

I wish I could properly publish my old results from the Asrock motherboard, but I turfed it in the bin a couple of years ago due to major cold
start problems, and fortunately I have since proved the HD3850 wasn't the culprit there. If You or anyone has the 3dmark2001se resultbrowser.exe then
I could get the full results back, but certainly I can't find that file on the web anywhere. What I can still do, whilst it's setup still, is do another run at Your underclocked speeds
and compare that. I did use to save all my results in the 3dp files, but without resultbrowser they are impossible to read.
This is as good as I can do at the moment, and Yes, your 4ghz AGP monster kills the Asrock I had. All but one of those Dothan scores is with a 7800gs

Atari 2600, TI994a, Vic20, c64, ZX Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC464, Atari 65XE, Commodore Plus/4, Amiga 500
PC's from XT 8088, 486, Pentium MMX, K6, Athlon, P3, P4, 775, to current Ryzen 5600x.

Reply 24 of 25, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Thank you for scores.
I asked on Futuremark forum for resultbrowser2001.
They didn't have it in their archives 🙁

EDIT : This is your lucky day 😀
I found it !
I copied it to google drive.
Here's download link for (resultbrowser2001se.exe - version you need for 3DMark01 SE) : LINK

157143230295.png

Reply 25 of 25, by Imperious

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Thankyou very much for that, I'll make sure to copy that rare program to numerous places for safekeeping. I have attached the Asrock motherboard 3dp files for You to peruse.
Meanwhile, Today I received a very nice HD3870 PCI-e in the Mail, I gave up looking for a decent priced 512MB HD3850 as the AGP card values has affected the PCI-e models.
Anyway, I ran it at 668/900 (can't go lower for the memory in ATI Tray Tools) with my I5-750 @ 4017. The Nature test results are very close to the AGP 3850 at similar speeds.

Atari 2600, TI994a, Vic20, c64, ZX Spectrum 128, Amstrad CPC464, Atari 65XE, Commodore Plus/4, Amiga 500
PC's from XT 8088, 486, Pentium MMX, K6, Athlon, P3, P4, 775, to current Ryzen 5600x.