The 3DMark 06' Result Thread

[Smokey21]

I'm no nvidia fanboy but I'm pretty damn sure you can't really comment on ATI vs Nvidia release dates after last years fiasco with the x1800's

You mean like the 6800Ultra? Or the 5800Ultra?

[Zad]

Right, well, here goes. This is a first run, still with bits and bobs still running in the background. Config is as per the system setup on the left. Briefly: X2 3800@2.4GHz, 2GB@480MHz, 7800GT Exteme @ 450/1050 and 465/1120.

3DMark'05 on the same setup gave 7324. 7649 with the GPU at 465/1120. Stats below are at 450/1050 then 465/1120.

Main Test Results
3DMark Score 4018 (4160) 3DMarks
SM 2.0 Score 1591 (1651) Marks
SM 3.0 Score 1565 (1638) Marks
CPU Score 1798 (1781) Marks ( Lower, but within the bounds of error)

Graphics Tests
1 - Return to Proxycon 12.5 (13.0) FPS
2 - Firefly Forest 14.0 (14.6) FPS

CPU Tests
1 - Red Valley 0.572 (0.570) FPS
[noticed that the 3DMark software lists CPU1 and CPU2 but the web site doesn't]

HDR Tests
1 - Canyon Flight (SM 3.0) 13.4 (14.0) FPS
2 - Deep Freeze (SM 3.0) 17.9 (18.8) FPS

GPU will do 475, but shows a drop off in 3DMark05 score (7475 to 5132) system hangs at 480. At 465/1120, 3DMark06 polygons seem to "flash" very occasionally, ATITool will sit at that speed all day and not report any errors and I haven't seen any errors in '05 at that speed (temperature reporteed at 59C). It looks like having 512MB video memory helps quite a bit here.


Mike

(P.S. There are some suspiciously high scores on the 3DMark06 site, SLi type scores but declaring only a single card)

[Madafwo]

I resent being called A willy waver... *sulks*

However, I can kinda see where you're coming from, I was just showing the progression from stock to OC'd.... not an expert at all this by any means... anyway, enough whining.

I'm off to go enjoy todays games at acceptable frame rates and worry about tomorrow when my student loan comes in and I can spend it on whatever is out then.. at leats its not my own hard earned cash I'll be spending.

P.S. Has anyone else noticed the site giving incorrect Core speeds? 450Mhz isn't even my stock speed so I don't know where it came from.

[kempez]

You mean like the 6800Ultra? Or the 5800Ultra?

@ that

Was referring to how long it took ATI to come out with their x1800 lineup after saying it would be "out next month" for around 6months

[kalniel]

Well today I'll get my hands on the test so will help make the 7800 gen people feel better about themselves.

As an added bonus I will only run with 'real' settings - no optimisations, no performance settings etc. Just on my usual full IQ, stable, conservative system setup - that gave me several hundred less score on 05, so we'll see how much it reduces it for 06. Assuming my monitor decides to play at 1280 of course... (never tested )

[streetster]

meh, 6600gt seems to be half as good as a 6800gt

1214 for me *sigh*

managed 3915 in 3dmark2005

everything is at stock

[mattio]

right thought it would be a good idea to start this up he we go with mine

[Hulkster316]

got a score of 3306 with a 7800gt and a 4000+ cpu . Score seems a bit low does RAM have an effect on the score only have a gig of bog standard RAM ?

[autopilot]

But the question is, is it a pretty demo? I want a pretty show!

[Smokey21]

But the question is, is it a pretty demo? I want a pretty show!

Yeah it's not bad.

Just shy from 5k, with some higher clocks:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=38637

[Zad]

The HDR version of the canyon / monster flythrough is quite pretty, the shadows look a lot better now and the water ripples are more convincing. Although at 14fps it's a little too clunky to look really good. The final test, the antarctic camp, is very impressive and looks ok at 18fps, better than pre-rendered quality used to be perhaps 3-4 years ago.

Hulkster, I think your drop is because you "only" have a single core CPU. The 2k6 benchmark seems to use the extra horsepower of the 2nd core more than the previous benchmark. Having a standard overclocked card probably doesn't harm my score either.

Mike

[alexander]

I thought my PC was ok...

I only get 3382 with what I thought was a good 7800GT.... Time to buy some new stuff?

[ufster]

damn my x850xt doesn't stand a chance! I hate these benchies, no matter what futuremark tells me to believe I play quake 4, battlefield 2 and fear just fine (maybe I should go crossfire- or is it a waste of money on "obsolete" technology ?)

[kalniel]

Can't remember breakdown exactly, but running out of the box with no optimizations I get something like.

total : 2446
SM2.0: 950ish
SM3.0: 880ish
CPU: 1540ish

(system to the left, everything at default and stable (2T) settings.)

PS Zad, are you really running your memory at 3-3-2-5? Very unusual timings! I've got the same type but haven't overclocked.

[Zad]

Yep, 2-3-2-5 seemed to fail very close to 200MHz even with slightly raised voltage, 2.5-3-2-5 ran to around 240 but wasn't 100% stable. Dropping it to 3-3-2-5 made it solid, priming, folding etc. I'm sure it could probably push to quite a bit faster but as I'm running the standard heatsink/fan on the CPU I don't really want to push it too far just yet, although the CPU is running 29 at idle, 38 on load and the heatsink feels cool to the touch.

Have a look here for lots of G.Skill ZX info: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=77205

Running 2T timing seems odd for just 2 sticks, that must slow things down?

Mike

[kalniel]

Yeah 2T makes it a few % slower, but unfortunately that's the price of my motherboard (the performance gain from being able to wait and then buy a better gfx card later was far more than a few % though!)

Have you tried running 2-3-3-6 or 2.5-3-3-7? What struck me as odd about your timings was the last number, which seems too low for your set. If you increase this you might be able to run more stably with tighter CAS, which is more important (but not as important as 1T).

Anandtech have a review on the ram as well, and they manage 240 at 2.5-3-2-7, and 258 at 3-3-2-8!
http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2676&p=6