PCMark05 Results ... [Archive] - XtremeSystems Forums

Magnj

06-28-2005, 09:08 AM

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/Magnj/pcm5.jpg
Detailed Test Results

System Test Suite
HDD - XP Startup 8.06 MB/s
Physics and 3D 170.53 FPS
Transparent Windows 1007.91 Windows/s
3D - Pixel Shader 132.9 FPS
Web Page Rendering 3.13 Pages/s
File Decryption 43.84 MB/s
Graphics Memory - 64 Lines 1428.68 FPS
HDD - General Usage 5.4 MB/s
Multithreaded Test 1 / Audio Compression 1447.71 KB/s
Multithreaded Test 1 / Video Encoding 179.6 KB/s
Multithreaded Test 2 / Text Edit 87.26 Pages/s
Multithreaded Test 2 / Image Decompression 12.34 MPixels/s
Multithreaded Test 3 / File Compression 2.53 MB/s
Multithreaded Test 3 / File Encryption 11.84 MB/s
Multithreaded Test 3 / HDD - Virus Scan 23.84 MB/s
Multithreaded Test 3 / Memory Latency - Random 16 MB 12.02 MAccesses/s

LilGator

06-28-2005, 09:37 AM

Don't laugh, this is my PC at work :p:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=617

http://xtremesystems.org/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=33265&stc=1

Venom21

06-29-2005, 01:59 AM

Mine:

(I need some CD-KEY :p: )

http://rotter.name/User_files/nor/42c267a50878d866.jpg

Dothan b1 2mb ch' @ 133*18
Aopen Gmem-LFS i855
256*2 Micron 2.5-2-2-5
X800 pro VIVO @ 16pp 520/550

Technonut

06-29-2005, 12:23 PM

5451

Poki

06-29-2005, 06:07 PM

4740 rig in sig (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=8356)

Frisch

06-29-2005, 06:54 PM

:sick: http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=13&projectId=6729

fatfreepork

06-29-2005, 09:18 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=8895

LenniZ

06-30-2005, 03:21 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=4072

eva2000

06-30-2005, 03:25 AM

well here's where i am... so far

Pcmark05 = 4,787
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=9867

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/3700_0515_MPM_2/MCW6002/Kingston/KHX3200K2/4_14/310/LDT3x/10x/284-237-2226-7-14-2222-1.67-1.3-1.6-3.16_3120_ds7dds1_7ns5.5/pcmark05_453-1209_4787_tn.jpg

Charles Wirth

06-30-2005, 04:07 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=3351

Not sure how I am still holding the #2 spot.

eva2000

06-30-2005, 04:33 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=3351

Not sure how I am still holding the #2 spot.
huh i thought you already achieved 9+ k in pcmark05 ???

LilGator

06-30-2005, 04:49 AM

^ PCMark04 ?

nando19

06-30-2005, 05:35 AM

Here is mine http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/10/pcmark6nu.th.jpg (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pcmark6nu.jpg)

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectdetails&projectType=13

SamHughe

06-30-2005, 06:51 AM

Mine is 4747.
Here's the link (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=8594)

SamHughe

Charles Wirth

06-30-2005, 08:36 AM

SamHughe, Welcome to XS!

agenda2005

06-30-2005, 08:55 AM

well here's where i am... so far

Pcmark05 = 4,787

At your clock speed on A64(2840MHz) and the high speed low latency memory you are scoring about the same thing as someone with P4 EE at 3200MHz. That is insane!
A 2800MHz A64 should give an EE at 4.2GHz a run for its money.
This benchmark is bogus to say the least. When A64 X2 users shattered the PCMARK 04, so the only thing they could do to save the intel users(after they clock the CPUs to the limit without catching up) is to re-compile the code and name it PCMARK05.

WHAT A BOGUS BENCHMARK.

I learnt Sandra 2005 was recompile with an intel compiler and that's why we are seeing Prescott having better scores on them. It's a SHAME on all these people.

SamHughe

06-30-2005, 09:01 AM

SamHughe, Welcome to XS!

Thanks! It is good to be here. Looks like there are alot of people here who know what they are doing.

SamHughe

eva2000

06-30-2005, 09:06 AM

At your clock speed on A64(2840MHz) and the high speed low latency memory you are scoring about the same thing as someone with P4 EE at 3200MHz. That is insane! you know why,

1. multi-threaded tests you'd win easily and boosts P4 systems
2. the hdd related tests skew the results i.e. raid 0 will give you at least 200+ extra pts

using my spreadsheet calculator http://i4memory.com/showthread.php?t=787

if i raid 0 my system my HDD Virus scan test will jump from 15.41MB/s to 32MB/s which equates to jump from 4787 to 5010! :eek:

dimcar

06-30-2005, 10:24 AM

And here is mine: 6118... The XE is FAASSST with this!
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=3351

Kristian

06-30-2005, 10:27 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1321

Just watercooled. My RAM sucks so I was limited to 214 mhz at 3 4 4 8......

I'll try a little more later tonight.

dimcar

06-30-2005, 10:33 AM

FUGGER, how do you know you have #2? Anyway to see it?

Charles Wirth

06-30-2005, 10:39 AM

Check the orb, project search under PCMark2005

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch

dimcar

06-30-2005, 10:47 AM

Thank FUGGER!!!
Its nice to compete in a new Benchmark!!! 2morrow i will make a RAID setup to see the difference!!! I will keep you informed!

oC|-TiTaN

06-30-2005, 12:00 PM

5218 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=8650)

Kristian

06-30-2005, 03:08 PM

7236

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=12248

EvlUndrWareNome

06-30-2005, 03:58 PM

At your clock speed on A64(2840MHz) and the high speed low latency memory you are scoring about the same thing as someone with P4 EE at 3200MHz. That is insane!
A 2800MHz A64 should give an EE at 4.2GHz a run for its money.
This benchmark is bogus to say the least. When A64 X2 users shattered the PCMARK 04, so the only thing they could do to save the intel users(after they clock the CPUs to the limit without catching up) is to re-compile the code and name it PCMARK05.

WHAT A BOGUS BENCHMARK.

I learnt Sandra 2005 was recompile with an intel compiler and that's why we are seeing Prescott having better scores on them. It's a SHAME on all these people.

No its not. It takes advantage of HT. And last I checked that wasn't "bogus". And didnt know if you knew, BUT AMD A64 doesnt have HT, only the X2 can make use of those isntructions.

-EvlNome

mr_knowitall15

06-30-2005, 06:29 PM

im amazed that theres not more people with higher scores than me... i ran at stock speeds, (3.4, 200fsb) with the vid card at 406/1.12 and got this http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=8862 . it may be worth mentioning that OCin the vid card gained me a mere 69 points over running everything at stock, compared to 04 where the vod card OC gained me about 200. i tried running at 4 ghz to see just how much this benchmark likes speed, but for some reason, the same settings i use for all the scores in my sig, with 1.4625VCore in BIOS, it crashes in PCMark05, dont know what the problem is. it always crashed at the same test, the one where it does video encoding and audio compression. upping the voltage didnt help. cant wait to get a new PSU, this P.O.S. thermaltake has 18 measly ****in' amps on the 12V Rail :slapass: :nono: :mad: . have a feeling that will help loads.

Peen

06-30-2005, 07:22 PM

I run all the tests, but never get a score. sometimes it crashes too :rolleyes:
says you must run system suite to get score, but im running all the tests available!!! stupid benchmarks

Kristian

07-01-2005, 12:19 AM

Well, mr_knowitall15 & Peen maybe you should downclock your systems a bit.

I too have expirenced that PCmark05 is more demanding to run than PCmark04. It crashed easier, but that's just because our systems are not 100% stable at the speed we are running those other benchmarks.

If I need to be 100% Prime95 stable (over night stable) I need to run no higher than 3.8 Ghz, but PCmark04 could be run at 3.93Ghz and PCmark05 can be run at 3.85 Ghz.

So try running stock speed and see if you can get a score before blaming the benchmark.

Peen

07-01-2005, 01:23 AM

I know when my system is stable, thank you. It runs prime95 24hrs+ and games all the time and encodes when its not gaming. It has never crashed once. Im blaming the benchmark :rolleyes:

Kristian

07-01-2005, 01:38 AM

Well do what you want, but I'd suggest start trouble shooting the problem instead of just blaming the benchmark.

Peen

07-01-2005, 01:43 AM

Well I wanted to try it, but its not a big deal and I dont really care what 4 digit numbers it gives me

Kristian

07-01-2005, 01:50 AM

Some people have problems with the harddrive virus scan failing. That could very well be because of a bug in the benchmark.

I had to unplug my firewire/USB disks otherwise the system would bluescreen during the hardware detection.

My point is I think it's unfair to blame the benchmark before trying the obvious things first.

But it's a free world.

Peen

07-01-2005, 01:59 AM

It works with a different video card, not sure why though. It ran all the tests but I guess the 3D parts were whacked somehow. All other benchies worked fine on it though. Only got 3970 with system in sig with stock 9800Pro :(

edit: Messed up video card settings screwed up 3d parts so low score, and my HD is dying so low score there too :(

Kanavit

07-01-2005, 02:29 AM

Here is mines. 2nd system specs:

a64 3400+ stock
1gb ram
Gigaybte Nforce3 250gb
PNY geforce 6800 GT

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=14148= 3358

Peen

07-01-2005, 02:39 AM

Heres mine http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=14145
but for some reason my videocards performance is extremely low on pixel shader part :eek:

Andrewv

07-01-2005, 03:01 AM

7236

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=12248

nice

Peen

07-01-2005, 03:12 AM

Fixed my 9800 Pro drivers, put Cat 4.12's on

got 4341 this time http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=14315

Poki

07-01-2005, 09:23 AM

w00t broke 5k with my 3000+ and 6600gt! Link (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=15415)

eva2000

07-01-2005, 11:13 AM

Pcmark05 = 4,935 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=15880)

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/3700_0515_MPM_2/MCW6002/Kingston/KHX3200/2x512/2_4/310/LDT3x/10x/282-235-2226-7-22-2223-1.62-1.3-1.6-3.4_0648_ds3dds1_8ns55ns/pcmark05_451-1210_4935_tn.jpg

[Cipher]

07-01-2005, 04:19 PM

Shakermaker

07-02-2005, 01:08 AM

Okay my score is 4158.
Compared to some of your results I feel really bad... ;-)

I'll upload a pic later.

eva2000

07-02-2005, 01:36 AM

']235s your memory maxxed Eva2000 ?
if not, get them maxxed ( combined with your cpu max ) :)
nah not max just slowly building up as i only had cpu for a few days but mem bandwidth doesn't make much diff in pcmark05

i just tried 283HTT/257mhz 2-2-2-6 and got 4944

Pcmark05 = 4,944
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=17687

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/3700_0515_MPM_2/MCW6002/Kingston/KHX3200/2x512/2_4/310/LDT3x/10x/283-257-2226-9-22-2223-1.62-1.3-1.6-3.4_0648_ds3dds1_8ns55ns/pcmark05_452-1210_4944_tn.jpg

pancake

07-02-2005, 08:07 AM

lol am i missing something... i got around 1400 with a x2 @ 2900 1gb g skill la

[Cipher]

07-02-2005, 08:11 AM

lol am i missing something... i got around 1400 with a x2 @ 2900 1gb g skill la

yes, you missed the bug.

check page 1 ( i think it's mentioned inside this topic )

Gray Mole

07-02-2005, 10:51 AM

Thought I'd run it on my 24/7 rig just to see how it fared...

3200 newcastle
Max3 mobo
9800xt
120gb ide
512 ddr 2.5-4-4-8

All bone stock on air

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=19049

3300 marks...not bad I guess for a rig that only surfs the net and plays a game here and there...

Not exactly 'Xtreme' but I'm a week away from the benching rig being done, so may as well bench what I've got lol

Peen

07-02-2005, 03:56 PM

I think I can break 5k easy with single cpu. I noticed 9800Pro seems to suck at this test, and impacts it pretty good. different vid card and some more cpu clocks should give me more then 5k maybe?? :) I noticed 6600GT's rock at this too

Sucka

07-03-2005, 12:36 AM

My best so far.

http://suckasd.com/computer/toledo/pcmark05.jpg

nando19

07-03-2005, 01:19 AM

']yes, you missed the bug.

check page 1 ( i think it's mentioned inside this topic )

Yeh I have been getting really low scores sometimes how do u fix the bug

eva2000

07-03-2005, 11:09 AM

cracks the 5k barrier with OCZ PC3500 PLAT LE BH-5 :D

PCmark05 = 5,009
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=21327

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/3700_0515_MPM_2/MCW6002/OCZ/PC3500PlatBH5/702_2/Yellow/1_2/LDT4x/11x/257-257-2226-8-19-2223-1.64-1.3-1.6-3.44_3120_ds3dds1_8nsF5ns/pcmark05_452-1210_5009_tn.jpg

SamHughe

07-03-2005, 02:56 PM

Here's my updated score: 5136 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=16386) (broke 5k with mild overclocking) :p:

SamHughe

kiwi

07-05-2005, 01:06 AM

pancake

07-05-2005, 03:29 AM

']yes, you missed the bug.

check page 1 ( i think it's mentioned inside this topic )

i cant see anything... anyone got a link to a fix???

TuKo

07-06-2005, 08:56 AM

6534 (X2 4400+ @ 2820Mhz)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=12734

mr_knowitall15

07-06-2005, 12:28 PM

I know when my system is stable, thank you. It runs prime95 24hrs+ and games all the time and encodes when its not gaming. It has never crashed once. Im blaming the benchmark :rolleyes:
i agree. i am able to run at the settings in my sig all day. 3dmark 03 and 05, AM3, PCmark04, sandra, all right after the other stable as can be. looking back though, 3DMark05 did the same thing to me until they came out with the patch. hopefully a revision of some sort will fix the weird problem :slap:

dimcar

07-07-2005, 06:12 AM

pancake

07-07-2005, 07:05 AM

extreme fast... damn thats twice as fast as the next highest score... infact its higher then 04 highest score

eva2000

07-07-2005, 07:25 AM

ramdisks are :cool: :D

paakkis

07-07-2005, 07:39 AM

4733 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=1418)
P4 570J Abit Fatal1ty AA8XE XFX 6800U/512MB

.sentinel

07-07-2005, 07:44 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=25487
AMD Athlon XP 2800 and FX5200

nando19

07-07-2005, 01:33 PM

New Score:14183

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=28449

Rig: 3,2 Xtreme Edition 840, 2x7800GTX, RAID 0 and.... Gigabyte i-RAM
It is a valid result, although the RAM Drive gives EXTREME FAST numbers.

Ramdisks are amazing can I ask where you bought that from or was it given to you for a review

dimcar

07-07-2005, 02:51 PM

Got it for review... Not yet available in the market.

TuKo

07-07-2005, 05:53 PM

About the iRam, what memory are you running on it ? PC3200 ? I've seen that Gigabyte updated his specs to support 8Gb, is this right ?

Kristian

07-08-2005, 12:40 AM

Got it for review... Not yet available in the market.

Does it run SATA II ? Otherwise you'd need quite a lot of those drives to get more than 1GB/S through put.

If it's not SATAII how have you configured it ?

GoriLLakoS

07-08-2005, 12:46 AM

Ι think he is using software....not hardware.....:)

Kristian

07-08-2005, 12:47 AM

Ι think he is using software....not hardware.....:)

Well the Gigabyte iRAM IS hardware. But the score seems a bit high for SATA.

nando19

07-08-2005, 02:23 AM

If it doesnt use sata II there would be a major bottleneck so I would say it should support sata II

Kristian

07-08-2005, 02:49 AM

It's just that in the specifications that have been made public nothing has been mentioned about SATA II support.

But I agree it seems stupid to make a drive like that and not make it SATA II

dimcar

07-08-2005, 09:05 AM

Does it run SATA II ? Otherwise you'd need quite a lot of those drives to get more than 1GB/S through put.

If it's not SATAII how have you configured it ?

Sorry for the misleading post.... I just got confused between many scores of iRam and soft ramdrive and having a job in the same time.... :confused:
This result IS with a soft ramdrive.. iRam is scoring lower...
Sorry again and Kristian sorry for not replying to your mail but i had TOO muck work today and a lot of meetings...

Kristian

07-08-2005, 09:56 AM

Sorry for the misleading post.... I just got confused between many scores of iRam and soft ramdrive and having a job in the same time.... :confused:
This result IS with a soft ramdrive.. iRam is scoring lower...
Sorry again and Kristian sorry for not replying to your mail but i had TOO muck work today and a lot of meetings...

That's ok. Which program are you using to make the ram disk ?

dimcar

07-08-2005, 10:11 AM

QSoft ramdisk

boshuter

07-08-2005, 05:40 PM

Andrewv

07-08-2005, 11:14 PM

My best so far.

http://suckasd.com/computer/toledo/pcmark05.jpg

nice 7200+

pifreak

07-11-2005, 09:51 PM

QSoft ramdisk

are you sure about that one ;)

dimcar

07-12-2005, 12:42 AM

are you sure about that one ;)

Maybe it is not QSoft... I cannot remember... anyway, FM has decided to ban results with ramdrives....

agenda2005

07-12-2005, 06:55 AM

you know why,

1. multi-threaded tests you'd win easily and boosts P4 systems
2. the hdd related tests skew the results i.e. raid 0 will give you at least 200+ extra pts

using my spreadsheet calculator http://i4memory.com/showthread.php?t=787

if i raid 0 my system my HDD Virus scan test will jump from 15.41MB/s to 32MB/s which equates to jump from 4787 to 5010! :eek:

Objetive reasoning should tell you why the benchmark is not a true measure of a processor capability. I know about HDD test. The benchmark is obviously skewed towards applications that run better on one processor than the competition. Thank goodness A64 X2 helps to debunk that.
Upon that the benchmark was compiles with an Intel compiler which is known to cripple performance on competitors CPUs (http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html).

Assuming you have the choice, thank goodness you have a clue about CPUs, will you rather pick a P4EE at 3200MHz over an Athlon 64 at 2840MHz, if both of them will not run an hair over that speed.

p0tempkin

07-13-2005, 01:02 PM

5604: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=33510

krille

07-14-2005, 03:57 PM

Obviously a bogus benchmark, not blaming FM though. Intel's the bad guy here. Sad, but ovious.

JBREAKS

07-15-2005, 06:08 AM

nice score

heater918

07-15-2005, 01:33 PM

3.4EE@3.9 5367 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=39227)

davidsk2001

07-18-2005, 08:42 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=5344

JfRsQ

07-18-2005, 09:17 PM

ORB - 4603 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=42613 ) with the system in sig

http://perso.ksurf.net/JfRsQ/PCMark05.JPG

eva2000

07-28-2005, 12:02 PM

smashed my old record with cpu still at stock speeds LOL

Pcmark05 = 5,765 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=52531)

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX57/G4Storm/Gskill/PC4400LE/2x512/799_800/5102_FIX/LDT5x/14x/200-200-2225-7-17-2223_1.36-1.3-1.6-2.84_3072_ds8dds1_7F5_hitachi/pcmark05_5765_494-1386_SLI_tn.jpg

eva2000

07-28-2005, 12:59 PM

How's breaking 6k on single core :)

Pcmark05 = 6,007 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=52577)

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX57/G4Storm/Gskill/PC4400LE/2x512/799_800/5102_FIX/LDT3x/11x/275-275-2.5337-7-17-2223_1.41-1.3-1.6-2.84_3072_ds8dds1_7F5_hitachi/pcmark05_6007_494-1386_tn.jpg

heater918

07-28-2005, 02:54 PM

Major

08-03-2005, 10:51 AM

see sig (work) 6,585

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=58269

J-Rock

08-06-2005, 09:40 PM

I need 4.4Ghz stable :(

BigStan

08-10-2005, 11:54 AM

My PCM05 score is 7243

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=65061

nando19

08-10-2005, 10:34 PM

I run this benchmark and am only getting 1500 Pcmarks on my Pentium D 830 but I looked at the details and noticed that the HDD tests are only gettting 0.001Mb/s anyone know how to fix this problem

BigStan

08-11-2005, 05:26 AM

I run this benchmark and am only getting 1500 Pcmarks on my Pentium D 830 but I looked at the details and noticed that the HDD tests are only gettting 0.001Mb/s anyone know how to fix this problem
Edit your boot.ini file - add the switch ~ /usepmtimer ~ right after the switch ~ /fastdetect ~ reboot and try PCMark05 again. Worked for me

IluvIntel

08-11-2005, 05:53 AM

5515 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=63791) for me, suprised I could get a 1.29Ghz Overclock on air inside a case and keep it stable enough for the test... can't unlock multiplier on CPU or disable C1 contol in Bios.

0verl0ad

08-11-2005, 01:57 PM

Pentium Mobile 730 @ 2678MHz (11*243); RAM 1:1 @ 2,5-3-3-7; 6800GT @ 420/1113MHz

4592 Punkte
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=45957

J-Rock

08-13-2005, 09:41 PM

My PCM05 score is 7243

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=65061

WOW!!! How did you do that. That is extremely high.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

IluvIntel

08-20-2005, 12:05 AM

This benchmark is heavily influenced by the kind of HD setup you have and the interfacing of it, just as much as the CPU almost.

If you had say for example, Raptors in Raid-0 config - you would get about a 1000 more points alone compared to single HD, pata or sata.

Vapor

08-20-2005, 12:12 AM

If you had say for example, Raptors in Raid-0 config - you would get about a 1000 more points alone compared to single HD, pata or sata.
That is QUITE wrong! <500 points gained going from 1 drive to 4 in RAID0 from what I've seen. HDDs only have a large effect when they're REDICULOUSLY fast (iRAM and software RAMDrives can only manage).

IluvIntel

08-20-2005, 12:15 AM

That is QUITE wrong! <500 points gained going from 1 drive to 4 in RAID0 from what I've seen. HDDs only have a large effect when they're REDICULOUSLY fast (iRAM and software RAMDrives can only manage).

Depends on the mobo,cpu and drivers.

For example this thread from my home forum spells it out using FX-57 cpu as an example AND they were not even using Raptors to get more than extra 1000 points with Raid-0 config.

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=4894616#post4894616

vhco

08-23-2005, 09:32 AM

How about...
PCMark05 - 7518 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=76277)

Vapor

08-23-2005, 09:30 PM

Depends on the mobo,cpu and drivers.

For example this thread from my home forum spells it out using FX-57 cpu as an example AND they were not even using Raptors to get more than extra 1000 points with Raid-0 config.

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?p=4894616#post4894616
I'm not a member and thus can't see that page....do you happen have a compare link of his? I'm in SERIOUS doubt that RAIDing a set of Raptors together could boost it 1000 points, especially from all the 100-400 point boosts I've seen.

.sentinel

08-23-2005, 09:41 PM

Someone try a dual opteron 275 dual core setup with 2 7800GTX you would pwn everyone. But why did futuremark ban ram disks. It is just like os tweaks.

eva2000

08-23-2005, 09:42 PM

I'm not a member and thus can't see that page....do you happen have a compare link of his? I'm in SERIOUS doubt that RAIDing a set of Raptors together could boost it 1000 points, especially from all the 100-400 point boosts I've seen.
that is my post on OCAU forums (nice forum to join ;) )

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showpost.php?p=4888213&postcount=48

yup single 120GB 1200JB = 5102 max for my FX-57, with 4x 80GB Hiatchi 7K80 SATAII NCQ raid 0 with FX-57 = 6,112

hdd is biggest difference you will find with pcmark05, even single 74GB Raptors give 300-400 more pts than regular SATA single drives due to their speeds

i have a pcmark05 calculator spreadsheet at http://i4memory.com/showthread.php?t=787, go through to virus hdd, general hdd usage and xp startup time changes and see diff in scores

FX-57
PCmark05 = 6,112
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=52639

Vapor

08-23-2005, 10:08 PM

Hmmmm, I was under the impression that RAIDing (even if they're 4 faster drives) simply wouldn't add that much (based off my RAMdrive results). Do you have a compare link to before you had the RAID0 array? I'd like to see if it gains anything in tests other than the labelled HDD tests.

eva2000

08-23-2005, 10:25 PM

nah don't have that exact compare url for pcmark05 but i have one with single 160GB Seagate 7200.7 NCQ drive of 5,118 but that was with single 7800GTX http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=46734

Vapor

08-23-2005, 10:31 PM

Good enough, I'll ignore the PS and 64 lines results as they're strictly graphics card related anyway.

Vapor

08-23-2005, 10:35 PM

Hmmmm, my analysis shows that nothing gains other than the three HDD tests. And to a large degree, I was right about the Raptors in RAID, they won't gain the same 1000 points. Why? Look at eva's Virus test....seriously slow in the 5118 run, my Raptor gets 3x that score but RAIDed Raptors don't go much past the 60MB/s he got with his RAID setup.

eva2000

08-23-2005, 11:02 PM

that 60MB/s is 4x 80GB Hitachi 7K80 SATAII NCQ raid 0 no raptors :)

Vapor

08-23-2005, 11:10 PM

I know...I get 48MB/s with 1 and RAIDed Raptors only get about 60MB/s....seems to level off (my RAMdrive only got 11MB/s or some crazy :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana: like that!). That's where the gain is to be found in RAIDing if you don't already have a good score. That seems to be why Raptors simply don't gain much by going to RAID.

shoe

08-25-2005, 11:43 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73309

8893, 2nd in the world.

mike

09-02-2005, 07:40 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73309

8893, 2nd in the world.
NICE.....

SamHughe

09-02-2005, 08:55 PM

Here's my updated score: 5136 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=16386) (broke 5k with mild overclocking) :p:

SamHughe

Wait a sec! My new rig scores only 300 more (5462 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=88723)) than my old rig? Great!

Charles Wirth

09-03-2005, 11:39 AM

Shoe's score has a 2GB ramdisk and still scored poorly.
I setup a ramdisk to play around with and scored 16K +

I am running 4x raptors now and playing with stripe size and registry settings for cache write back and size.

I can get a good startup and general usage at the cost of other scores going down. Something is screwy with PCM2K5 as the raptors should score much better in virus scan. I can get teh virus scan up but other scores go down as a result.

t800

09-05-2005, 01:14 AM

playing with stripe size and registry settings for cache write back and size.

What values exactly do you change in registry, to tweak cache write back?

davidw8818

09-10-2005, 01:36 AM

i got 4790 points with a 2.9ghz sandy ill post pics later

boshuter

09-10-2005, 07:07 PM

Heres my best score so far.... 7344 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=97419)

Good enough for 8th on the orb, overall :D This is with water cooled cpu, gpu on stock air/volts, and single raptor hdd.

eva2000

09-13-2005, 08:04 AM

boshuter

09-13-2005, 02:53 PM

it's cause raptors only support TCQ an dnot NCQ i think

here's my latest with my FX-57
pcmark05 = 6,149
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=87280

I stuck a 73gig 15k4 Seagate scsi in running on an LSI U160 controller and ran into the same problem Fugger is talking about. I got a lot better Windows loading score and general usage score, but the virus scan was way down. Overall the single 74gig raptor outscored the 15k scsi by about 60pts. The scsi would have killed it if I could figure out how to get the virus scan up with it.

g8ts

10-03-2005, 04:52 PM

IS this the same test you are all running :confused:
Thanks for the help,looking for a place to get real feed back on scores.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1280176

D_o_S

10-04-2005, 07:39 AM

it's cause raptors only support TCQ an dnot NCQ i think

here's my latest with my FX-57
pcmark05 = 6,149
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=87280

Raptors support TCQ, whereas SATA II drives support NCQ (different technology, you need a special controller for TCQ unless I am mistaken).

BigStan

10-04-2005, 07:54 AM

IS this the same test you are all running :confused:
Thanks for the help,looking for a place to get real feed back on scores.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1280176
No they are not the same. This thread is about PCMark05. The benchmark you ran was 3DMark05. They are different benchmarks.

eva2000

10-04-2005, 08:32 AM

Raptors support TCQ, whereas SATA II drives support NCQ (different technology, you need a special controller for TCQ unless I am mistaken).

NF4 controller supports TCQ and NCQ http://nvidia.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/nvidia.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=104&p_created=1098745453&p_sid=tXjCLbRh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MSZwX3Byb2RzPTAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0mcF9 jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9mbmwmc F9wYWdlPTEmcF9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1uY3E*&p_li=&p_topview=1

Question
Does nForce4 support command queuing?

Answer
nForce4 Ultra and nForce4 SLi can support tagged command queuing and native command queuing when used with SATA hard disks that support these features.

IluvIntel

10-13-2005, 03:34 AM

My latest with rig in signature:

Note - user is aka "RodneyJM" and "Rojama" :p: in other overclocking forums :p:

7315 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=133909)

Vapor

10-13-2005, 03:42 AM

TuKo

10-13-2005, 04:27 AM

Is the Sillicon Image faster than nVidia's for RAID0 setup ?

IluvIntel

10-14-2005, 04:14 AM

You, sir, can get a LOT more from the 3D tests and your X800XT.

How are you getting such high other scores from your 630 though??

Especially your memory, it should be lower than an A64's by a noticable amount.

If you would, could you run a Sandra bandwidth?

True, I could get more from the 3D tests, but don't want to at the moment with stock cooler on X800XT (waiting on new AC silencer 4 after bumping it and damaging a bracket... :slap: )

I did the benchmark with latest patch for PCMarkO5, creamed my old score of approx 5500. Seems pushing up the FSB with new bios for P5WD2 mobo really blows up the score... :cool:

Good thing about all of this as far as I'm concerned is that its all done with air/heatpipe cooling inside case and regular day-to-day background progames running. :p:

Prescott power in 6xx series punches hard with right hardware support and not at great clock speed either... :eek: :D

Vapor

10-14-2005, 04:59 PM

There's a certain point on the Asus boards where past that FSB you get very wrong scores (sends PLL timer out of whack, IIRC). Please run Sandra, I'd like to see if that's the case with you because there's no way your 6xx should beat a 3.1+GHz X2 in neither the multithreaded nor the memory tests.

Also, if you inch down your FSB, is there an inordinantly big jump at any one point?

IluvIntel

10-15-2005, 12:41 AM

There's a certain point on the Asus boards where past that FSB you get very wrong scores (sends PLL timer out of whack, IIRC).

At what point is this at ? and does this mean evey PCMark05 benchy you see with Asus Boards once the FSB has reached that point and beyond is a lie ?

Besides that, what scores are you getting in this benchmark ?

Please run Sandra, I'd like to see if that's the case with you because there's no way your 6xx should beat a 3.1+GHz X2 in neither the multithreaded nor the memory tests.

Don't know about the multithreaded tests... So why should'nt the Corsair 5400UL's on P5WD2 mobo pawn the 3.1ghz X2 in memory test?
Don't you know these Ram sticks are the fastest DDR2 in the world (at the moment) :fact:

Vapor

10-15-2005, 02:05 AM

At what point is this at ? and does this mean evey PCMark05 benchy you see with Asus Boards once the FSB has reached that point and beyond is a lie ?

Besides that, what scores are you getting in this benchmark ?

Don't know about the multithreaded tests... So why should'nt the Corsair 5400UL's on P5WD2 mobo pawn the 3.1ghz X2 in memory test?
Don't you know these Ram sticks are the fastest DDR2 in the world (at the moment) :fact:As a matter of fact, I am saying that scores in nearly any benchmark that has any sort of reliance on memory past a certain point on some Intel ASUS boards ARE a lie. If you had better cooling or pushed a little harder you could get 14k with only a small handful more FSB MHz.

And no matter how good your DDR2 might be, it's on an Intel platform which naturally has MUCH higher latency (due to the mem controller being on the NB and not on-die), which is mainly what the PCMark05 test tests. Your Intel setup is the ONLY one on the entire ORB that beats my X2 or others' FXs in the memory test. Intels simply aren't as good in this test.

And the multithreaded tests have EVERYTHING to do with it....a single core under no condition should beat a decently clocked dual core in those tests--further testament to the fact that your scores are borked (beside the fact that you said you bumped up the FSB a little and your scores went way up). If you want more proof...compare your results to a PD of similar clocks.

I score 7188 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73291) on a highly tweaked setup and medium OC'd X2 and GTX (which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but it is pertinent to the thread)....did you know that your 630 is the single core WR record holder by an overwhelming margin? :rolleyes:

If you would like contine, we should take this to PM.

IluvIntel

10-15-2005, 03:34 AM

As a matter of fact, I am saying that scores in nearly any benchmark that has any sort of reliance on memory past a certain point on some Intel ASUS boards ARE a lie. If you had better cooling or pushed a little harder you could get 14k with only a small handful more FSB MHz.

And no matter how good your DDR2 might be, it's on an Intel platform which naturally has MUCH higher latency (due to the mem controller being on the NB and not on-die), which is mainly what the PCMark05 test tests. Your Intel setup is the ONLY one on the entire ORB that beats my X2 or others' FXs in the memory test. Intels simply aren't as good in this test.

And the multithreaded tests have EVERYTHING to do with it....a single core under no condition should beat a decently clocked dual core in those tests--further testament to the fact that your scores are borked (beside the fact that you said you bumped up the FSB a little and your scores went way up). If you want more proof...compare your results to a PD of similar clocks.

I score 7188 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73291) on a highly tweaked setup and medium OC'd X2 and GTX (which has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but it is pertinent to the thread)....did you know that your 630 is the single core WR record holder by an overwhelming margin? :rolleyes:

If you would like contine, we should take this to PM.

I don't think we should continue anything... if you have a problem with Intel setups and benchmarks that measure memory performance then you should direct your comments to the software programmers concerned.

Vapor

10-15-2005, 03:49 AM

Fair enough....I'll let the PLL bug (this is a known hardware issue dude, I'm not disgruntled because you have a higher score--I applaud high performing systems, but yours isn't TRULY achieving its scores) muss up the ORB this time (I spearheaded a thing awhile back with THE SAME hardware bug that got 14k with a 560 when 200 MHz lower it got ~5.5k). I've reported these posts of ours and will let the mods decide what goes and what stays....I don't want it being a distraction.

Anyway, here's my 7188 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73291) again....I'm gonna get a clean benching install with some more registry tweaks in the coming weeks and run the updated version, I'll be aiming for 7250 then as I've got some cooler ambient temps and my CPU and GFX have some new life in them now :banana:

boshuter

10-15-2005, 07:43 AM

vhco

10-15-2005, 02:13 PM

PCMark05 v1.1.0 - 7654 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=137526)

IluvIntel

10-15-2005, 09:04 PM

Vapor is right..... that score is borked. Common sense shoud tell you that it's an unrealistic score for a single core cpu. I just got the patch and ran it at 4.3ghz with my 840 dual core and scored 7156 with an x850 card. This is a better score than I got before the patch, but nothing like the gains you got on the 630.

Regardless of who's right and who's wrong. I'm just a user who ran the program with the latest patch and thats the score the program spits out.
Why don't others who have a problem with this go and ask FUGGER and other top benchers to run the program with the new patch and see what they get...

Vapor

10-15-2005, 09:56 PM

Let's end the discussion here. I already reported this thread to the mods and they chose to leave it alone but let's not let it get out of hand....IluvIntel, no one is accusing you of cheating, you unfortunately have hardware that bugs out at certain settings. Do some research and you'll see that others have the same problem. It's very unfortunate when hardware doesn't work properly, but that's OCing for ya.

IluvIntel

10-17-2005, 01:53 AM

I ran the test a second time and got this:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=140384

If the PLL is so wrong on Asus mobo's then how come it did'nt go out of whack this time? or did it? and this is at 298mhz fsb not 293mhz as before.
Maybe they need to have another patch to work on, just after the last one was recently released.

Another question too, if the PLL is not reliable with PCMark05, then does this theory hold true for ALL of Futuremark benchies with overclocked Asus MoBo's?

boshuter

10-17-2005, 03:31 AM

IluvIntel

10-18-2005, 02:21 AM

Thats about in line with what I get with my 660. I didn't know it was only Asus boards, but i have noticed a lot of times my fsb or cpu speed shows up wrong in PCmark05 and 3Dmark05, haven't really noticed it in the other FM benches. I just attributed it to being oc'd to far. I just got a newer stepping 840 and can't submit any PCmark05 score because PCmark says I have an "unknown cpu" :confused:

I have the same problem with 3Dmark05 too, it shows cpu with 15x mult, but I have just run it with 14x. You would think the good people at Futuremark could make the detecting engine more accurate for out mobos.

[cTx]Philosophy

10-19-2005, 01:37 AM

dayum you guys are killinmg me badly i almost dont wanna post my measily 5000 score, And to think I thought I had a all round fast pc, sure showed me to sit back and shut up.. :(

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1093223

Did a restart and ran everything just as it was without cntrl alt del and got this
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=142878
Decent improvement I guess for not doin a dam thing cept restart

IluvIntel

10-19-2005, 04:21 AM

vhco

10-20-2005, 04:50 PM

PCMark05 v1.1.0 - 7678 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=144785)

[cTx]Philosophy

10-20-2005, 09:57 PM

Yeak intel I sure hope I get one soon, it seems that noone ever gets any answers from asrock about a bios release, I went as far as askin Bgtoe aout wha he can acomplish with the bios's we have now and he said hell have a look into it, no responce as of yet.. We still pray :)

BigPhillyEd

10-22-2005, 08:40 PM

First of all, after reading these forums, and being completely fascinated by all this hardware and computer stuff. I went out and bought everything for an extreme system of my own. Put it all together, and now I am hooked. I want to get evrything running sweet, before I start the overclocking stuff. But here are some scores, the only thing I modded was the V. Card timing.

Aquamark3: GFX 13,344 CPU 7,911 Total 72,397 @72.40 FPS
3DMark05: 7,692

Now my next question is, where do I go next to? I am installing a custom water cooling system, adding another video card for SLI, and adding another stick of RAM. Other then that any advise is more then welcomed.

BigEd

AMD 64 X2 3800+ stock
Asus A8N-Deluxe
1GB OCZ Performance Ram
XFX 7800 GT clocked to 486/1.12
2 Samsung Spinpointe 200GB HDD's

vanovich

10-22-2005, 10:05 PM

heres min with p4 830 duel core http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1205924
could imagane if this board had sli :D

ZEROKOOL

10-27-2005, 01:13 PM

:confused: :confused: :confused:
MAN!!!
:confused: :confused: :confused:
i have a 670 (3.8 G 2mb L2) 2 gb 666mhz ddr2 nforce 4 I.E 2 7800GTX BFG (460core /1300Ram) audigy 4 sound and i cant get more then 9500 on 3dmark 05 no matter what settings i use in nvidea or 3dmark program im using default 1024x768 resolution and 81.xx drivers (non beta) with xp pro SP2 any HELP!!!!! i want to atleast get 10k but so far i cant get close i see ppl on here qith 9k for 1 7800gtx and i got 2 in sli!! :fact:

Vapor

10-27-2005, 01:28 PM

How do I say this easily.....your score's borked. You also have the PLL bug. Your real score is thousands LOWER. Don't try to argue it, it's useless to argue--this is a PROVEN hardware bug. Sorry.

vanovich

10-27-2005, 02:33 PM

i think its more likely your mb? or that way yoiu ste it up

ZEROKOOL

10-27-2005, 02:45 PM

its because i have the intel edition huh? even at 3.8 the c19 blowz, i cant even oc the thing even with my 500watt pelt it would scopre higher if i had the amd with a fx even though its 1.2 ghz slower
?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????

Vapor

10-27-2005, 02:51 PM

I'm sorry....I misread your post....you're getting 9500 in 3DMark05? At 460/1300? Something's wrong....anyway, this is not the right thread, this is for PCMark05

ZEROKOOL

10-27-2005, 03:08 PM

LOL!!! sorry USER ERROR:

BigPhillyEd

10-27-2005, 03:21 PM

I can only tell you from experience. When I changed over to the 81.85( i think it is, its the newest version beta) I saw the biggest diffenerence. But I am not sure what changed between the versions, except for dual core. But I got a 40% increase with this driver. All I can say is try it.

Vapor

10-27-2005, 04:38 PM

40% increase? In PCMark05?

IluvIntel

10-28-2005, 02:44 AM

40% increase? In PCMark05?

Could be Futuremark software is not very reliable in calculating scores.

Vapor

10-28-2005, 03:55 PM

I was implying that he posted in the wrong section....a FPS increase of 10 fold on all the 3D tests would be needed to get a 40% increase in PCMark05. And no, there's nothing wrong with the software (at least related to the calculation of scores).

vanovich

10-28-2005, 04:24 PM

Vapor

10-28-2005, 04:59 PM

Patch ain't gonna do it....it's hardware.

The program could be restructured, but then they might as well just call it PCMark06 if they did that.

IluvIntel

10-29-2005, 05:09 AM

Patch ain't gonna do it....it's hardware.

The program could be restructured, but then they might as well just call it PCMark06 if they did that.

PCMark06... then so be it. :)

irfs

10-29-2005, 08:51 AM

6677

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/568/pc056pw.th.jpg (http://img405.imageshack.us/my.php?image=pc056pw.jpg)

Mikeyflan

10-29-2005, 05:26 PM

3650 here :(

I_G

11-03-2005, 09:35 PM

7106 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=158235)

:)

drcrawn

11-14-2005, 07:22 PM

edited:
5026 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=176420)
225.5 x13
2326 1t, ecc off

This seems kinda bogus, for example, I score basically the same in HDD startup test as I do on my other rig, yet this rig is SATAII, and easily boots up twice as fast as my other rig running SATA150 after POST. Weird.

Pyr0

11-14-2005, 07:25 PM

6769 is my highest so far
http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7511/untitled10bm.th.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/7511/untitled10bm.jpg)

ElDuderino

11-19-2005, 01:54 PM

7465 X2 4400 2970mhz 2x7800GTX :toast:

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/7595/74652970mhz1dy.th.jpg (http://img505.imageshack.us/my.php?image=74652970mhz1dy.jpg)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=181425

I will post more as they get better :banana:

eva2000

11-24-2005, 06:46 AM

Yay, I can publish now although it's shown as X2 cpu instead of Opteron dual core but still better than no publish :)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=185444

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0544XPMW/Hydrocool200EX/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/623_2BTA/LDT3x/10x/180/280-254-3328-8-18-2223_1.57-1.3-1.6-2.64_1552_dsN4dds1_8N5/pcmark05_7414_tn.jpg

eva2000

11-24-2005, 09:54 AM

2x 256MB BFG 7800GTX SLI powered Pcmark05 score!

Pcmark05 = 7,689
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=185640

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0544XPMW/Hydrocool200EX/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/623_2BTA/LDT3x/10x/180/280-254-3328-8-18-2223_1.57-1.3-1.6-2.64_1552_dsN4dds1_8N5/pcmark05_473-1350_SLI_7689_tn.jpg

sladesurfer

12-03-2005, 12:16 AM

Here's mine
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=191207

Alec

12-06-2005, 02:43 PM

2nd on the orb for 9800XT and athlon64 :woot:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=197759

mrjkwik

12-10-2005, 01:20 PM

had some questions for you guys. just ran the test. first time around was running at 2.6 and landed a 5471 (system). second time at 2.7 i got 5676.

hadware wise i'm running x2 4400+, osz 2x1gb platinum, and an asus 6800gt. wheres my bottleneck (new to oc'ing and benchmarking). i see most of you are running the 7800's, is my 6800 it? cooling? ect?

neoman

12-11-2005, 01:05 AM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=171625
Cant get any better becose of my ram :S

Vapor

12-11-2005, 02:48 AM

mrjkwik

12-11-2005, 09:09 AM

Ran the full set of test this time, at 2.6 (2.7 wasnt stable). I got a 5491. I'll list the rest, tried to do the online but then it locked up on me. Go figure.

PCMark 5491
CPU 5316 (X2 4400+ @ 2.6 11x219)
MEM 4667 (OSZ 2x1gb Platinum)
GRAPHICS 4093 (ASUS 256mb 6800GT pci-e)
HDD 5471 (WD 250gb sata)

if there is more that you need to help me out in that report, i'll run the test and try and post it.

Vapor

12-12-2005, 05:47 AM

I mean the individual test results....not the categorical results.

sladesurfer

12-13-2005, 11:16 AM

mrjkwik

12-13-2005, 04:25 PM

here's a pic of the results. linking it so that theres not a long pic in the post

http://www.mrjkwik.com/results.jpg

temps during the test never went over 42c this time, last time was like 45.

Vapor

12-14-2005, 11:24 AM

Yeah, most of your score falling behind is because of low graphics test scores and HDD (I'm comparing it to THIS (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=73291) run on the old PCMark05, so ignore my transparent windows score). The CPU and RAM intensive tasks are scaling perfectly with my 2.75GHz run so your score's all set and where it should be.

keopscav

12-14-2005, 12:36 PM

my score 6800

http://img323.imageshack.us/my.php?image=d8203925pcm053tv.jpg

Perc

12-19-2005, 03:00 PM

hmmm i gues i aint doing to bad. im on air atm my phasechange is broken but for what its worth heres a stock air cooled system runnin the 1800xt also stock air and no volt mods nothing just plain ole air...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8830603

peace perc,

Raid-XT

12-19-2005, 05:41 PM

Score 3d mark 05: 6297

standard GPU:520Mhz oc'd -> 582Mhz
standard Mem:1,08Ghz oc'd -> Mem:1,23Ghz

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1539301

http://img523.imageshack.us/my.php?image=3dmark05grakaocd8dr.jpg

Vapor

12-19-2005, 08:02 PM

PCMark05 fellas....

eva2000

12-19-2005, 09:22 PM

LOL what's all the 3dmark scores here for it's PCMARK05 thread :D

my latest with Opteron 170

Pcmark05 = 7,710
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=195265

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0544XPMW/Hydrocool200EX/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/280-254-3325-7-14-2223_1.57-1.4-1.6-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_492-1397_7710.jpg

Raid-XT

12-20-2005, 03:55 PM

PCMark05 fellas....

srr didnt read the thread right...

[cTx]Philosophy

12-24-2005, 04:07 PM

its newb but ill post it anyway
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=147218

arisythila

12-26-2005, 09:13 PM

Very nice! these scores are sooo high!

eva2000

12-26-2005, 09:19 PM

my latest 2x Ramdisk XP scores vs 4x 80GB Hitachi 7K80 SATAII NCQ Raid 0 score of 7,710

Opteron 170 @2850mhz at 1.6v
2GB OCZ PC4000EB @259mhz 3-3-2-5 7-14-2223 at 2.64v
512MB HIS X1800XT @742/881
4X 80GB Hitachi 7K80 SATAII NCQ raid 0

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/285-259-3328-7-14-2223_1.6-1.4-1.6-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_11074_tn.jpg

11,074 vs 10,962 and 11,074 vs 7,710
http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/285-259-3328-7-14-2223_1.6-1.4-1.6-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05compare/pcmark05_11074vs10962_tn.jpghttp://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/285-259-3328-7-14-2223_1.6-1.4-1.6-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05compare/pcmark05_11074vs7710_tn.jpg

3 way multi compare of 11,074 vs 10,962 vs 7,710
http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/285-259-3328-7-14-2223_1.6-1.4-1.6-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05compare/pcmark05.html

.

mike

12-27-2005, 09:52 PM

I know it's not nearly as good as EVA's score, but that's where I started a while ago unoptimized:

http://img473.imageshack.us/img473/3555/x2onwater9yu.th.jpg (http://img473.imageshack.us/my.php?image=x2onwater9yu.jpg)

Can't wait to tweak it!
EDIT:
MAn - just realized how pathetic those scores were - lemme make room to bench X2 in the next few days - boyoboy!

EVA - can you post your 3D scores again?

TY!

IluvIntel

12-28-2005, 02:05 AM

mikeguava, its not a good quality image, it won't expand to see the text. :(

eva2000

12-28-2005, 01:56 PM

mikeguava, 3dmark05 ?

in my sig :)

Wayway

12-29-2005, 11:28 PM

my pc score is 5065 will post screeny later

IluvIntel

12-31-2005, 02:57 AM

New one for me, see sig. :)

guess2098

12-31-2005, 12:58 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=222694
11437 with i-ram! but HDD score on eva2000's ram disk is better :)

OmegaMerc

01-01-2006, 07:13 PM

Installed and ran it - ran 11 tests, didnt give me a score claiming I had to choose tests in order to get a score...wtf gives? :rolleyes:

eva2000

01-01-2006, 07:23 PM

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=222694
11437 with i-ram! but HDD score on eva2000's ram disk is better :)
nice :D

GazC

01-02-2006, 03:51 PM

Here's my best score so far, from my experience running 05 so far, Multithreaded Test 3 is a little bit of a crap-shoot.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=225429

slimais

01-06-2006, 04:55 PM

a little something from NO-TEAM Latvia... :cool: deff_ins, vimba_zlobnaja & me... & big thanks 2 mrlobber, kiwi, Triton & RaimizA
This is Opteron 170 under Vapochill LS, DFI nF4 SLi-D, XFX 7800 GTX 256Mb v-moded, Mushkin Redline 3200, 2x36gb Raptor Raid0
it brings us to the nr.6 place in hall of fame :woot: but its still not published, i dont know why ORB refuses to make it available??? but that does not meater... it was just a beta testing :D next run is going to happen 1 weak later & with some improvements... like 4x36gb Raptor raid0, DI on CPU & Vapo on GPU... & maybe x1800XT 512mb
http://www.bildez.lv/bildes/someonesick/noteam/orig/1136610392.jpg

http://www.bildez.lv/bildes/someonesick/noteam/orig/1136609789.jpg

Kasparz

01-07-2006, 02:04 AM

Dram3.52V, and Vcore1.35V?
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=79509

slimais

01-07-2006, 07:44 AM

baac... paskaties uz MBM radiitajiem, taa ir tikai CPU-Z karteeja kljuuda meerijumos...

CPU-Z shows wrong v-core... the corect one is shown in MBM5 dashboard!! :P

FlyBoyGeo

01-10-2006, 08:20 AM

Here's mine: 10218 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1680254

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1934/102183dmark053tz.th.jpg (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=102183dmark053tz.jpg)

TiTON

01-10-2006, 10:43 AM

Here's mine: 10218 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1680254

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1934/102183dmark053tz.th.jpg (http://img235.imageshack.us/my.php?image=102183dmark053tz.jpg)

Wow.. I was going to say you got the WR w/ a score of 10218 in PCMark2k5, till i realized you posted your 3dMark2k5 score.:nono: This is a PCMark05Thread :fact:

:)

SAD

FlyBoyGeo

01-10-2006, 10:50 AM

Whoops......RTFT huh, sorry guys... :(

dimcar

01-14-2006, 03:19 AM

No2 on the world..
Intel 955XE @5GHz on single stage, 3xRaptor 74GB, 1xPOV 7800GTX 512MB (600/1800).

eva2000

01-22-2006, 06:57 PM

Pcmark05 = 7,973
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=248843

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/290-263-3325-7-14-2223_1.62-1.5-1.5-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_SLI_500-1386_7973_tn.jpg (http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/290-263-3325-7-14-2223_1.62-1.5-1.5-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_SLI_500-1386_7973.jpg)

chew*

01-22-2006, 07:19 PM

meh pc mark 05 is biased........Won't run on win 2k :(

eva2000

01-23-2006, 01:39 AM

time for winxp pro sp2 chew heh

Pcmark05 = 7,986
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=248877

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/290-263-3325-7-14-2223_1.62-1.5-1.5-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_SLI_504-1386_7986_tn.jpg (http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/Opteron170/CCWBE_0546XPMW/OCZ/PC4000EB/2_1/1114_3/LDT3x/10x/180/290-263-3325-7-14-2223_1.62-1.5-1.5-2.64_1552_ds8dds2_8N5/pcmark05_SLI_504-1386_7986.jpg)

vanovich

01-23-2006, 06:10 AM

IluvIntel

03-03-2006, 05:03 AM

im tring to run pcmark 04 and 5 . but after the test is finished, it comes up with a box saying to run system suite? and get no scores . i looked a bit into it and found out that test 3 grammer test fails . someone said it was instability , so i tried like 800mhz lower than my 24/7 settings . still same thing. has anyone else had this problem? ive installed enoder and mediaplayer 1o as i cant fin m.p 9.

It could be corrupt install of PCMark05, especially so if downloaded. Re-do, defrag, fix registry errors and try again.

I_G

03-03-2006, 10:47 AM

PCMark05=9355 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=277168) <---- And I'm still trying for those 21 points...

PCMark04=10314:) (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=3190691)

I_G

03-03-2006, 10:58 AM

im tring to run pcmark 04 and 5 . but after the test is finished, it comes up with a box saying to run system suite? and get no scores . i looked a bit into it and found out that test 3 grammer test fails . someone said it was instability , so i tried like 800mhz lower than my 24/7 settings . still same thing. has anyone else had this problem? ive installed enoder and mediaplayer 1o as i cant fin m.p 9.

I get that at 5168MHz. I lower the FSB to 322 and raise the Vcore to 1.5675 and it will usually complete. If it's having a bad night I sometimes have to go up to 1.5875 or1.6v.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=3190691

vanovich

03-03-2006, 02:46 PM

I get that at 5168MHz. I lower the FSB to 322 and raise the Vcore to 1.5675 and it will usually complete. If it's having a bad night I sometimes have to go up to 1.5875 or1.6v.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=3190691
thanks . ive got it oppe and running now . dam nice score you get there .heres a link http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=285959
at least im at the hall off fame :D

GoriLLakoS

03-03-2006, 03:32 PM

What the hell????

They let the scores with i-ram for 1 week...and then they take them all down.....the same again and again.....:D

I_G

03-03-2006, 10:59 PM

thanks . ive got it oppe and running now . dam nice score you get there .heres a link http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=285959
at least im at the hall off fame :D

WTG vanovich!!!

Congrats on the HOF!!

:party:

IluvIntel

03-27-2006, 09:29 PM

Update for me, but only slightly higher clock speed than before, however now less Vcore - 0.04v less. :)
I'm still running this benchy with passive cooled NB. :eek:

http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/7595/pcmark05503ghz232lb.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=318249

I_G

03-27-2006, 10:03 PM

Nice one IluvIntel! :toast:

Here's my latest update, as well:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=315709

vanovich

03-28-2006, 12:59 AM

IG ,isee your running crossfire ? what psu do you have ?kan you send me some scores on 3dmarks . and nice pc mark you have there ,are you using raid o with 4 disks and onboard raid controller?

IluvIntel

03-28-2006, 01:38 AM

Nice one IluvIntel! :toast:

Here's my latest update, as well:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=315709

Hey I_G, your no.1 on the ORB for P-D's, can you inch her further and be outright no.1 ? :woot:

Judging by the gear in your sig, that looks possible...:toast:

I_G

03-28-2006, 06:05 PM

IG ,isee your running crossfire ? what psu do you have ?kan you send me some scores on 3dmarks . and nice pc mark you have there ,are you using raid o with 4 disks and onboard raid controller?

Well, I've got it in my sig but I haven't been able to get it running yet. It seems I need to use SP2 to install Windows on Crossfire, so I'll have to do a clean install, and I haven't made time to backup all the work files yet. I'll probably just pick up a couple of drives and put it on there.

PSU = Enermax 600Watt
http://www.enermaxusa.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_42&products_id=66

There's a newer version 2.2 out with 22A on each rail. :)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817194005

Yep, 4 X 74GB Raptors in RAID 0 using the Intel ICH7R

I_G

03-28-2006, 06:09 PM

Hey I_G, your no.1 on the ORB for P-D's, can you inch her further and be outright no.1 ? :woot:

I don't think I've got enough sand in my bag to do it... :(

The current top guy is using a RAM drive (hopefully FM will take it down soon) and the other guy has a pair of dual core Opterons. Just too much pure power. :clap:

IluvIntel

03-29-2006, 02:03 AM

I don't think I've got enough sand in my bag to do it... :(

The current top guy is using a RAM drive (hopefully FM will take it down soon) and the other guy has a pair of dual core Opterons. Just too much pure power. :clap:

A pair of dual core opterons you say, so thats 4 physical cores operating.
Is'nt there any dual socket Xeon boards around that support the new dual core Xeons ? :hehe:
Fight server chips with server chips I say... :fact:
Remember, these dual core opterons are classed by AMD as server chips.
So we are comparing desktop chips to server chips... it seems on the ORB. :shrug:

K404

03-29-2006, 03:27 AM

why are I-RAM scores being taken down?

I took no.1 single-core (excluding Skywaver coz he went to quad-core) and I dont see why i-ram is unfair.

:)

K

kiwi

03-29-2006, 06:13 AM

I also think IRam should be allowed but they are not.

In my opinion, they should change the way score is counted so that using iRAM drive does not make such a huge score difference

Sam666

03-29-2006, 09:45 AM

Only 5k for this rig ( sig )

vanovich

03-29-2006, 01:40 PM

thanks I_G ,

Dualist

04-01-2006, 02:26 PM

Got this if you think it's ok..
Specs.. Dual 250 Opteron's, 4x Corsair 512mb, 2x 256mb 6800 Gainward Ultra's in SLi.
No overclocking yet, but will try harder soon. :D

K404

04-01-2006, 03:09 PM

Hey Dualist... sorry to rain on your first post but this is a PCMark05 thread...not 3Dmark05

:D

Not bad though, the memory timings would have made that harder to get :)

Dualist

04-02-2006, 12:31 PM

Doh.! :hitself:
Ran it as stock, got a lot of learning to do about memory timings and overclocking. But a good starting point though.
According to Sandra memory is 2.0-3-2-2 2CMD.

grahamwoolcott

04-07-2006, 01:14 PM

Considering my spec, my score was only 6725

This was all at stock speed and not a clean install ( two weeks )

But I still would have liked better

Cheers Peeps

IluvIntel

05-09-2006, 02:04 AM

Latest run with month old install of windows. No.1 single core P4 with X1900XTX & all air cooled. :D

6948 (http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=358448)

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3798/pcmark054881mhzx1900xtx697c832.jpg

IluvIntel

05-25-2006, 05:02 AM

First proper run with Presler 930 on auto vcore. X1900XTX using cat. 6.4 drivers.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=373630

http://img57.imageshack.us/img57/2521/pcmark059303843mhzx1900xtx3dde.jpg

X300

05-25-2006, 05:36 AM

own this with a Celeron D with A Other Celeron D:slobber:

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/5914/untitled8vm.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

vanovich

05-30-2006, 12:40 PM

;) update http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=377440
forst time ever at the top 5 .

I_G

05-30-2006, 08:24 PM

9254 PCMarks

WooHoo! Nice job, vanovich! :toast:

vanovich

05-31-2006, 08:33 AM

WooHoo! Nice job, vanovich! :toast:
thanks

kiwi

06-01-2006, 12:36 PM

Conroe, 2x raptor raid, single x1900xtx :)

You can only guess what would it do under dice/ln2, at least 12-13K

http://xs201.xs.to/xs201/06224/Pcmark9634.JPG

IluvIntel

06-04-2006, 06:02 AM

Now on Asus 975X board and still with auto vcore on 930.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=382562

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4647/pcmark059304071mhzautovcorex19.jpg

IluvIntel

06-08-2006, 05:06 AM

Oh more updates so soon, Its fun experimenting when you have the time...:D
Temps are at system idle.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=385310

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/5002/pcmark054176mhzx1900xtx738c864.jpg

eva2000

06-11-2006, 05:46 AM

nice

Managed to pull off my personal best score although it seems like only a minor improvement with my FX-60 @3407mhz vs @3113mhz.

New Pcmark05 = 8,650
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=388590

Old Pcmark05 = 8,383
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=309796

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX60/FrozenSS/OCZ/PC3200Gold/2_1/LDT5x/16x/233/213-243-2225-7-14-2223_1.62-3.48-1.4-1.5_3684_ds3dds1_7F5/pcmark05_493-1370_8650_tn.png (http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX60/FrozenSS/OCZ/PC3200Gold/2_1/LDT5x/16x/233/213-243-2225-7-14-2223_1.62-3.48-1.4-1.5_3684_ds3dds1_7F5/pcmark05_493-1370_8650.png)

Click on image below to see larger screenie for compare between 8650 vs 8383 Pcmark05 scores

http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX60/FrozenSS/OCZ/PC3200Gold/2_1/LDT5x/16x/233/213-243-2225-7-14-2223_1.62-3.48-1.4-1.5_3684_ds3dds1_7F5/pcmark05_8650vs8383_tnn.jpg (http://www.fileshosts.com/DFI/NF4_SLI_D/results/FX60/FrozenSS/OCZ/PC3200Gold/2_1/LDT5x/16x/233/213-243-2225-7-14-2223_1.62-3.48-1.4-1.5_3684_ds3dds1_7F5/pcmark05_8650vs8383.png)

Probably get a much higher score with ATI X1900 CF setup hehe.

mtzki

06-12-2006, 08:10 AM

PCMark05 is mostly about HDD speed. I got 9k with X2 4400+ @ 1.7 GHz underclock. :D

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=373033

2*Raptor 150 GB raid0.

IluvIntel

06-13-2006, 02:44 AM

Just when I thought it was all over with air cooled results for my Presler 930 B1 stepping. Now PCMark05 with higher clocks and less Vcore ! :woot:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=390010
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/3701/pcmark054266mhzx1900xtx733c864.jpg

mtzki

06-14-2006, 02:08 PM

Taking my previous comment one step further. :D

i-RAM & 4400+ @ 1.6GHz: 12237.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=390976

IluvIntel

06-15-2006, 03:06 AM

Matuzki, don't forget your CF X1900XTX has its influence....:rolleyes:

mtzki

06-15-2006, 10:51 AM

I wish it had more. In the 12.2k run i had something like 750/810 with CF. With the master card alone @ 500/600 and the same settings otherwise i got 11462 (http://service.futuremark.com/orb/projectdetails.jsp?projectType=13&projectId=391708).

TuKo

06-16-2006, 02:33 PM

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/769/1er28fg.jpg

Finally got a clean system to run PCMark05.

Yeah guys, this is 1k more than Matuzki on hall of fame ;)

Gautam

07-03-2006, 09:11 PM

http://mysite.verizon.net/gautamb/pcmock.JPG

mike

07-03-2006, 11:09 PM

http://mysite.verizon.net/gautamb/pcmock.JPG

what cha doing messing around with that???
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/1497/pcmark6ae.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

mtzki

07-04-2006, 02:36 AM

Nice to see you guys didn't need (a CFX3200 or a spin-off??? and) underclocking. The bot would be happy to eat those scores. ;)

Gautam

07-04-2006, 06:02 AM

Ooh...both of the PCMark masters arrive. What have I gotten myself into? :p:

What's the deal with the underclocking anyways?? How could that possibly help? Ack...maybe I shouldn't ask.

Alls I know is that this is a great stability test. If a system can pass this, it seems like it can pass just about anything. I think I'll be using it a lot more for that purpose, maybe along the way I can pick up some of the tricks you guys have. :D

mtzki

07-04-2006, 08:23 AM

Me a PCMark Master lol...well mikeguava sure is.

About this underclocking:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1467836#post1467836
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1469932#post1469932

And after that i did some i-RAM action.

By now i know this happens at least with other CFX3200 mobos too. Tried to contact a couple of DFI engineers but got no answer. I would sure like to know more.

hmm, to make my other comment clearer: you guys could consider taking podium positions here (http://www.hwbot.org/hallOfFame.do?type=result&applicationId=9). Conroes allowed. :)

IluvIntel

07-07-2006, 05:16 PM

Alls I know is that this is a great stability test. If a system can pass this, it seems like it can pass just about anything. I think I'll be using it a lot more for that purpose, maybe along the way I can pick up some of the tricks you guys have. :D

Thank you ! I haven't heard of many claiming PCMark05 one of the best stability test runs before. I agree totally !
Tough for any machine to run when overclocked. I'm sick of seeing superPi runs and people claiming how fast the machine goes... lol ! seriously they are really kidding themselves. :slap:

Better to run different codes on overclocked machine to see capability. Just my opinion.

New one for me with stock 3D clocks of X1900XTX. :) and Pentium D 930 air cooled

8120 - http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=408051

eva2000

07-08-2006, 11:29 PM

seems something is off with crossfire and pcmark05's 2D/3D tests - particularly 3D Pixel shaer ?

this is my

E6600@3861Mhz with X1900CF @732/864 = 10,043

vs

FX-60 @3407Mhz and 2x 256MB BFG 7800GTX SLI @541/1370 = 8,650

http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/1333FSB/667/429-536-54312-1.511-1.725-1.395-2.2/pcmark05_732-864_10043_tn.png (http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/1333FSB/667/429-536-54312-1.511-1.725-1.395-2.2/pcmark05_732-864_10043.png)

http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/1333FSB/667/429-536-54312-1.511-1.725-1.395-2.2/pcmark05_10043_vs_8650_1.png
http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/1333FSB/667/429-536-54312-1.511-1.725-1.395-2.2/pcmark05_10043_vs_8650_3.png

Gautam

07-09-2006, 06:04 AM

Something is definitely WAAAY off with my transparent windows. :(

And your pixel shader looks ok when compared to mine. Maybe Conroe can't totally sweep A64 X2?

kiwi

07-10-2006, 03:22 PM

Since when FM allowed i-RAM?

eva2000

07-10-2006, 03:42 PM

Something is definitely WAAAY off with my transparent windows. :(

And your pixel shader looks ok when compared to mine. Maybe Conroe can't totally sweep A64 X2?
Okay reran PCmark05 with E6600 @9x378fsb = 3406mhz for a comparison against FX-60 here's the results

Click on image for the individual component scores.

E6600 @3861Mhz = 10,043 (2x512MB X1900CF @732/864)
E6600 @3406Mhz = 9,584 (2x512MB X1900CF @732/864)
FX-60 @3408Mhz = 8,650 (2x 256MB BFG 7800GTX SLI @541/1370)

http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/533/378-378-44312-1.4418-1.725-1.395-2.2/10043vs9584vs8650_tn.png (http://fileshosts.com/intel/Intel975x/975xbx_results/E6600_1/swiftechG4/corsair/PC5400UL/268_284/E6600_2/1304_1067FSB/9x/533/378-378-44312-1.4418-1.725-1.395-2.2/pcmark05_10043_vs_9584_vs_8650.html)