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 ?).