3dmark probelem - Faster CPU, same score?

[Illah]

OK, before I was at 164x10.4=1722 and after alot of tweaking I got to 9000 3dmarks.

Now I'm at 164x11.5=1886 and I set the card to the same settings and I get 9000 3dmarks?

What's up here? Granted the first was after a clean install and all that, but NO change with 164 more MHz on the CPU? Could it be that since the FSB didn't change (it's the max my mem can do) that it's bottlenecking the CPU? Sandra reports me as being faster...

So what do you think it is?

XP-1600 @ 164x11.5 for 1886 MHz
PC2100 @ 164/328 max timings
Gainward GF3 GS @ 245/535 (I know, I must have got a dud...)
And yes, there's noAA, the vsync is off, etc...

Other than the CPU speed nothing has changed. Am I missing something here? One thing to note is that before I was using NVMax and coolbits to OC, now I'm using RivaTuner. Is there some obvious setting or whatever that I'm not seeing?

--Illah

 

[Nikoror]

Probably it's because you didn't change the fsb. When I oc my cpu(athlon@1200) 140x9.5=1330 i got 350 3dmarks more, and when I oc 133x10=1333 I got 10 more Basically cpu speed isn't so important unless you cange fsb->you cange the agp frequency as well. Sandra should give you a better score becuase it test your cpu and 3dmark test your gpu.

 

[Illah]

Hmm, I know that but 3dmark, and video in general, is very CPU dependent. Even on stock systems a Ti 200 on a XP-1600 vs. XP-2200 I think the 2200 would be faster...

--Illah

 

[takiwa]

3dmark, and video in general, is very CPU dependent.

It's more dependent on memory, even more specifically, memory timing. You're maxed at 164 with the fastest timings? get better RAM that will clock higher with aggressive timings is all I can advise. I'm in the same spot as you with my memory, been there for a while now. I just don't have the money to go faster right now

 

[snyper1982]

still, it seems like it would score at least a little higher. i mean granted, he didnt raise the FSB, but its runing 164 mhz faster at the same FSB, seems like it should raise the score at least a little imo.

 

[Nikoror]

I think that if you re-install/did you defrag?/ you will get the marks that come with the extra mhz.

 

[Tactics]

I think that if you re-install/did you defrag?/ you will get the marks that come with the extra mhz.

A reinstall of your O/S might help, but only because it cleaned out your registry and would free up some memory. Unless your using a scratch disk, a defrag won't do much for video scores.

However, you might want to verify your running in AGP 4x, I know alot of people end up running 2x because its the default of their mobo.

edit: After thinking about it, I remember reading a post about FSB vs Multipler affects on video scores. Might want to search around..

Tac

 

[Illah]

Well, I've OCed vid cards before, my AGP is 4x, all those 'standard' things I've already been through... Hmmm. I guess all I can do is mess with is some more. Bus what irks me is that there is NO improvement. Literally none. 9000 +/- 50 points with or without the extra 164 on the chip. Wouldn't there be something?

--Illah

 

[Tactics]

I'd bet my money on a big bottle neck somwhere. But I only have guesses as to where it could be.

Tac

edit: Perhaps you should try another program. Get a Q3 FPS demo test or something.

 

[roYal]

I think that if you re-install/did you defrag?/ you will get the marks that come with the extra mhz.

i was just about to say that. IF you re-install, you don't have to format. You can just choose a minimal installation, and it'll save all your video settings, desktop settings, etc... Also, you can defrag, stop all the processes you're allowed to, do a fresh boot, etc... That should give you the extra score.

 

[takiwa]

Illah, it's your RAM timing, plain and simple. If you want to test this, set it at 150x10 (slow timings) and run it, then at 150x11 (slow timings). Your score should be roughly the same (there will be always be a variation in points, even when running 2 tests at the same speed, but it shouldn't be big). Now run at 150x10 with the fastest timings, and your score will be the highest out of all three. Try it and see...Your RAM timing is the bottleneck, so save yourself a re-install...

 

[Illah]

Damn... I already spend enough on this box so I guess I'll just deal with 9k till the nForce2's and DDRII400 comes out. With my 1886 (over 1900 with low ambients, but summer+afternoon sun+greenhouse effect in my apartment causes it to go unstable in the afternoon) and some nice super fast mem it'll be over 10K I bet you. I STILL can't find any vmods for my Gainward Ti200... I must have got the worst one ever! Heh. I guess my AGOIA Y makes up for it, with low ambients it can do a little over 1900 at 1.8 V

Any ETA on the nForce2's? I think the new mem is out already, it's called XMS right?

--Illah

 

[snyper1982]

no dude, i i think that xms ram is just a high end brand of corsair ddr. im not positive about that, but im pretty sure it is. i dont think ddr II is out yet.

 

[roYal]

even when ddrII comes out, it'll have the same bottleneck as rdram to where you can have high bandwidth, but will not be able to hit high fsb. There was some technical article i read that explains this by using calculations, but i can't find the article, sorry.

 

[Illah]

Well, it's 200/400 anyway... Even if it doesn't overclock much it's still be way faster than 95% of the current AMD machines. Most people don't hit 200+ FSB.

--Illah