| Thread Tools |
3rd November 2004, 17:24 | #1 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| 3DMark05 - Benchmark Review In the following article we will test 3DMark05 to find out exactly how the generated score depends on the main hardware components of the computer system. http://www.overclockers.com/articles1133/ good write-up, in 3DMark05 only the videocard matters
__________________ |
3rd November 2004, 18:12 | #2 | |
Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
| Quote:
1852 vs 1116 (9600XT/FX5900XT)
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II | |
3rd November 2004, 21:48 | #3 |
Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
| Add a second stick of 512 memory; I have to lower both Core and Memory on the 9600XT a few Mhz, which cancels out the gain.
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II |
3rd November 2004, 22:24 | #4 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| please explain to me how more system memory correlates to lower OC on GPU/MEM for GFX ? (btw I have no idea what the word correlates means, but I sense it might fit in this sentence.. edit:to correlate: in wederkerige betrekking staan)
__________________ |
3rd November 2004, 23:40 | #5 |
Member Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,738
| I used a single stick and got the scores I post: NF7-S XP2600+M 1x512; 215x11.5; 3-3-3-11; 9600XT 601/351 3DMark05 1852 2x512; 213x11.5; 3-3-3-11; 9600XT 600/345 3DMark05 1859 I use 2x512 and have to lower the OC settings. Both are identical memory and purchased in pair. However, the article explains well regarding 3DMark03 scores higher with 9600XT OC'ed than FX5900XT OC'ed as I have experienced.
__________________ lazyman Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II |
4th November 2004, 11:04 | #6 |
Posts: n/a
| I believe Cranox also had a similar problem; not with his memory but with his cpu overclock: higher cpu overclock resulted in a lower stable vidcard overclock. |
4th November 2004, 11:49 | #7 |
Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,021
| more components running close to their limits is quicker failing?
__________________ |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RIP Keith Suppe , Liquid3D | jmke | WebNews | 16 | 7th September 2009 12:16 |
Asus Mars GTX 295 benchmark review | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 6th September 2009 08:45 |
Left 4 Dead: GPU and CPU benchmark review | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 19th November 2008 15:02 |
Call of Duty 5 World at War: Graphics cards benchmark review | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 13th November 2008 16:15 |
Review Roundup - Hours of Reading Fun | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 10th March 2008 10:38 |
Futuremark Begins Development of New Vector Graphics Benchmark | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 15th February 2006 09:42 |
Futuremarks 3DMark05 Benchmark as HDTV Videos | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 25th October 2004 14:10 |
3DMark05 Preview & Download Links (282Mb) | jmke | WebNews | 7 | 1st October 2004 12:18 |
Enthusiasts get top 3DMark05 scores with ATI's graphics cards | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 1st October 2004 10:29 |
Futuremark debuts smartphone benchmark | jmke | WebNews | 0 | 11th July 2004 21:51 |
Thread Tools | |
| |