-
Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!
PC Mark 2002 compare your scores !!
- Thread starter squale
- Start date
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Location
- Coral Springs, FL
Do you have a link? Here are mine: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1348175
CPU: 7308 Mem: 6589 HDD: 1167
Edit: I don't understand how you beat me so bad on the mem if we both have Kingston HyperX at an fsb of 200 MHz.
CPU: 7308 Mem: 6589 HDD: 1167
Edit: I don't understand how you beat me so bad on the mem if we both have Kingston HyperX at an fsb of 200 MHz.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
squale said:
To be honest, not particularly. Your memory and hard drive scores are low. Your dual channel memory subsystem should score at least a 1000 points higher and the GXP75, although somewhat aged, should post a couple hundred higher. Here are the scores on my single channel rig:
Processor: 8009
Memory: 8316
Hard drive: 1076
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1350871
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
AccordinglyDone said:
That is the effect of the three factors, firstly, he is running the memory 10% faster, at 220MHz. Secondly the optimization of the memory controller in Intel systems is generally superior, and thirdly the quad pumped P4 FSB allows the CPU to utilize all the bandwidth the memory subsystem makes. The double pumped fsb of the Athlon was great when they were introduced, as memory as was single data rate SDRAM at that point, and adequate when DDR was introduced, nearly saturating the bus.
The benenfits of dual channel DDR are largely lost on an Athlon due to the fact that the FSB is almost entirely saturated in single channel mode. The memory bandwidth has quadrupled since the introduction of the Athlon, but the fsb was only twice as fast as necessary at introduction and has not been upgraded beyond memory clock rate advancements since. The P4 bus seemed like massive overkill at introduction, but serves us well now that the throughput of the memory subsystem has increased.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Location
- New Jersey
AccordinglyDone: He has a P4, you have AMD. You almost tied him in cpu even though your cpu is 700mhz less. However, P4 kills AMD in mem bandwidth. And it doesnt help that he has dual channel ram, heh.
A better example would be larva (who doesnt have dual channel ram) but still kills you in ram scores. However, youre not too far from him in CPU even though he's 1ghz higher.
EDIT: asdf, larva posted a much better explanation before me. Heh, oh well. And i lost my PCMark scores.
A better example would be larva (who doesnt have dual channel ram) but still kills you in ram scores. However, youre not too far from him in CPU even though he's 1ghz higher.
EDIT: asdf, larva posted a much better explanation before me. Heh, oh well. And i lost my PCMark scores.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
His Athlon is dual channel also, but as noted above the saturated fsb is preventing the additional bandwidth possible from the dual channel architecture from being realized. As such it is just as realistic to compare it to the dual channel P4 rig. The fact that the dual pumped fsb is inadequate at this point (along with the other factors mentioned above) is responsible for the lack of memory bandwidth, but this is not a trivial point as the fsb limitation also impacts application performance. This is the primary factor in producing the lead that P4s are demonstrating currently, as the Athlon fsb and chipsets need significant advancement to fully capitilize on their very competive CPU performance.
- Thread Starter
- #8
Re: Re: PC Mark 2002 compare your scores !!
I know the harddrive might be slow but the memory seems fast to me..
also, I was running this benchmark with Norton Anitvirus active scanning in the background, remote administrator server, MBM 5, and a couple other background programs.. would that make a big difference?
larva said:
I know the harddrive might be slow but the memory seems fast to me..
also, I was running this benchmark with Norton Anitvirus active scanning in the background, remote administrator server, MBM 5, and a couple other background programs.. would that make a big difference?
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
- Location
- Sedro Woolley, WA.
This was my only Bench of PC Mark 2002 with that combo right after I got my first 8RDA+ up and running. Not that impressive but I was happy with the HDD score http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=972764
- Joined
- May 20, 2003
- Location
- Coral Springs, FL
Oh ok thanks guys. I read his sig wrong and thought his fsb was 200.
- Thread Starter
- #12
Maxvla said:
and how is that overclock set up? with what memory, what timings, and what ratio.. 1:1, 5:4.. etc.?
How high can a 2.4c compared to a 2.8c usually overclock?
I can't seem to get my 2.8c above 250fsb (3.5ghz)..
right now I just ran PC Mark 2002 again with the following setup:
2.8c @ 3.5ghz, 250/200 fsb 5:4 ratio.. Memory timings: 2-3-3-7
vDIMM = 2.65v vCore = 1.625v
cpu = 8500
memory = 9764
harddrive = 629
Should I go with 250/200 5:4, OR 230/230 1:1... those two settings are about the most I can get out of each ratio I believe..
is that crappy?
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Location
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada
my marks for pcmark02 using setup in sig
CPU: 8206
MEMORY: 10569
HDD: 1252
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1407460
CPU: 8206
MEMORY: 10569
HDD: 1252
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1407460
