Announcement

**Mehen** · 8 July 2008, 11:26

3dmark is pretty CPU bound. Although a really good card, it is its price/performance that is creating the buzz.
You'll notice more of a difference in actual games as opposed to 3dmark.

**DukeP** · 8 July 2008, 13:45

Well, yes. But.

Its the same GPU.

Only thing changed, is more memory, vista 64bit (instead of xp) and the GPU.

My CPU score dropped a few % - thats ok. But the GPU didnt really improve (difference small enough to be called a fluke).

Hmm. Perhaps a new driver might correct it - the current one is a beta/hotfix.

~~DukeP~~

**Marshmallowman** · 8 July 2008, 18:46

You still have both the 3870 and 4850 in the computer?

Do you have the correct one set as primary?

If your motherboard is crossfire compatible, you could try enabling that

**Marshmallowman** · 9 July 2008, 00:19

apperently this 8.7 beta version gives 4850's a major boost

http://downloads.guru3d.com/ATI-Catalyst-8.7-Beta-Vista-32|64-bit-download-1982.html

I have not yet tried them myself.

**Evildead666** · 9 July 2008, 06:23

You should have a better score under Xp than Vista for sure...
It looks like the 4850 is being run under Vista and the 3870 under XP...
also, aren't the 3870's clockspeeds higher than the 4850's (not talking about shaders, but pure clockspeed for simple algorithms...)

Can you upload the text file or something, i'm having a hard time deciphering the values

It could also be an improper driver install, a mix of previous drivers and such...

edit : Also, 3DMark 06 doesn't change values much from one genereation to the next of hardware...
3DMark Vantage should give a better view of the differences...

**DukeP** · 9 July 2008, 07:02

Here is a Link (4850) and here is another: Link (3870).

I havent had that much time to game yet, but it does feel much faster. Perhaps its only the CD mark thats giving me these low scores.

Not that the new 3dmark Vantage yields better resuslts: Vantage (4850)

In fact, compared to others, I seem to get around half...

I have used the ATI "remove all ATI" deinstaller, before installing drivers from get go.

~~DukeP~~

**Evildead666** · 10 July 2008, 07:09

The drivers from both camps are optimised for 3DMark series, and as such cannot be considered to be functioning to their full potential.

Is there enough power for the card ?
What PSU are you running ?

Otherwise, i'd try to reinstall the drivers again, or a WHQL set of drivers....
3DMark is a good way of seeing if the system is stable, and it should recognise as much of the hardware characteristics as possible, if it isn't somethings wrong.
I noticed the MHz values for the cards were a bit off, and very off in one them, 4 and 9 MHz for core and mem...

**DukeP** · 10 July 2008, 14:38

I am running a corsair 520 watt PSU. It should be more than adequate?

I noticed the MHz values where a bit skewed as well. According to the control panel, it IS running at the right pace, but hey. Worse things happen in software.

Ive heard that a new driver should be forthcomming soon (tm). Ill install that and see whats happening.

But: I have checked out other users of 3Dmark. And the ones who really beat my card, is the ones with highed bus frequencies. Im running at 266MHz, there appears to be much to be gained from upping to 400 or 533 MHz.

Ill try a gentle overclock tomorrow.

~~DukeP~~

**Evildead666** · 11 July 2008, 06:15

Graphics proggies, mostly games, benefit greatly from a high FSB.
Thats why the extreme chips allow dropping the multiplier by a half or one, and then upping the FSB to compensate...

You're running at 1066 FSB (4x266 quad pumped).
You should be able to hit 1333MHz FSB if your memory is up to it, and you're NOT running a standard stock Intel CPU Cooler...
When you up the FSB, the RAM will go up too, unless you drop the CPU/RAM multiplier..

For example, I was at 1333fsb, 4x333MHz, with my memory at 1:1 ratio CPU:RAM at DDR2-666 (=DDR-1333 speed)
Then I upped the FSB to 1600, 4x400, and the memory went up to DDR2-800, still at a 1:1 ratio...
My memory is DDR2-800, and will not go even a couple of MHz over 800, also because i'm mixing 1Gb sticks with 512Mb sticks...

It'll mostly be trial and error, but you just have to make sure there isn't too much extra heat...

The PSU should be fine....

**DukeP** · 11 July 2008, 13:26

Hey Evil.

You are right. First I just typed in 400MHz as the frontspeed, and the system chuggered merrily away @3.6GHz. Thats a healthy 50% overclock without changing more than 1 parameter.

But. While doing 3Dmark06 I noticed that the CPU temp rose drastically, as well as the powerdrain (from 75 watts to 135 watts). I found this to be a bit drastic.

So I lowered the front bus to 333MHz, which meant that the cpu was running at 3GHz. A not too shabby overclock, at 25%. THis didnt affect the temperature too drastic, and I could see the auto system setting the ddr3 ram at a reasonable 7-7-7-16 timing.

So. Did this change the 3Dmark06 results?

Yes and no. THe results are interesting..

Old setting:
New setting:

Notice whats changed and whats not. So yes, this GPU is heavily CPU dependent...

Whats your thoughts?

~~DukeP~~

**Mehen** · 11 July 2008, 19:22

My thoughts: while you are probably still cpu limited for 3dmark, you probably aren't for most games.
Try the Crysis benchmark and see how much clock speed changes it. Then you won't be as tempted to run your cpu into the ground

3GHz-ish should be all you need.

Announcement

New GPU - lousy results - any ideas?

New GPU - lousy results - any ideas?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment