|
which video card manufacturer
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 16:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Yeah that's right, 3dmark is quite a big program.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
18. March 2008 @ 16:40 |
Link to this message
|
ok well i was playing Crysis for awhile and on high graphics (not highest) im getting some lag mostly when shooting. should it lag with
AMD Athlon 64 x2 +6400 3.2ghz
2GB DDR2 800 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 3870
the only thing i have running in the background is AVG and im downloading a file but i doubt that would have anything to do with the lag. im gonna download fraps and check my frame rate though
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 16:59 |
Link to this message
|
You can't play Crysis on an HD3870 (or any graphics card for that matter) at resolutions higher than 1024x768 on the 'High' setting. You need to set "Shadows" and "Shaders" to low to be able to pull off the resolutions you play other games at.
|
Member
|
18. March 2008 @ 17:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's pretty good considering the CPU you use...
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 19:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
Like sam said, that's very good!
I get 11870 with a 3850! Whoo! lol
Go and overclock that card and watch that score go UP.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 19:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
Overclocking my card only added 5-6% to my 3dmark. A reasonable amount of 3dmark is your CPU, having a Core 2 Quad adds around 2000 marks to your score compared to a duo at the same overclock.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 19:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not really, my score went up about 600 only.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 19:35 |
Link to this message
|
Well that's a bit weird, because two of the results from people at my LAN party were a 3.6Ghz Core 2 Duo and 8800GTX scoring a touch under 12,000 and a 3.4Ghz Core 2 Quad and an 8800GTS G92 scoring over 14,000...
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 19:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's not an equal test. I'm with the exact same setup as before and getting only around 600 more with the CPU at the same speed.
It just might be that the video cards performed different, were overclock etc. I'll try disabling two cores and running the test.
Maybe I remember my old score wrong? Maybe I did do much better.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
Both GPUs were overclocked as far as they could be overclocked, so as far as I'm concerned that's as valid a test as any. The CPU test scores were double for the quad core because I watched one be tested. In one of the tests I make less than 1fps, but it was nearly 2fps on this quad core.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. March 2008 @ 20:11
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 20:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well I just checked the video card thread and I was barely getting 11k, so around 10,800. So my score went up around a 1000, which seems fair.
My CPU score did nearly double though.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 20:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
That seems a bit more reasonable, although still not as much as I'd expect. What is the comparative clock speed of your quad versus your old CPU?
Edit:
Actual scores are:
12509: C2D e6700 @ 3500 Mhz | 8800 GTX @ 615/1013
14700: C2Q Q6600, 8800GTS G92, frequencies unknown.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. March 2008 @ 20:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 20:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
3.6 Ghz E6750
3.6Ghz Q6600
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 20:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Interesting. Now I'm doubtful the frequency of Tiomat's Quad core starts with a 4, so where have the 2191 marks come from?
|
Member
|
18. March 2008 @ 22:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
o yea, what about that whole directx 10 on windows xp? any of you have directx 10 on windows xp?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 22:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
It's still in Alpha stage, so I don't want it. Also, DX10 doesn't offer support for Anti-Aliasing so I don't want it on any operating system.
|
AfterDawn Addict
2 product reviews
|
18. March 2008 @ 22:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
You can't have DX10 in XP. You CAN have lots of the DX10 effects emulated in XP though.
|
Member
|
19. March 2008 @ 21:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
ok 1 last question lol, how much should i shut down my computer. ive been told to do it everyday and ive also been told once a week and i was even told not at all. does it really matter if i shutdown my computer or not?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. March 2008 @ 21:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
The science in this is that shutting down and powering up your PC creates stress on the components by creating thermal cycles, i.e. things expand when they get warm, then contract again when they cool, stressing the material. While I see the logic here, I personally don't think it has much to do with anything if you use quality parts. The sort of temperatures PCs get to aren't enough to cause such stresses that should lead to premature failure. One area where the on/off cycles can be harmful is hard drives, but hard drives are rated for so many start/stop cycles that unless you power on/off your PC 20 times a day, they should last far longer on that than they actually do due to other reasons.
In short, I don't think it really does any harm shutting down and powering on your PC, and you're saving money on your electricity bill (and saving the planet) by turning it off - in the UK, using electricity at a cheap rate of 10.4p/KWh, turning a PC off for 8 hours every night rather than leaving it idling saves £40 per year per PC. In the US it's probably about $50, I'm not sure on the exact figure.
|
Member
|
19. March 2008 @ 22:49 |
Link to this message
|
lol wow i wasnt expecting such a detailed answer, but dont most parts last like x ammount of hours? like my PSU apparently lasts 100,000 hours so leaving it on 24/7 for a year would cost it 8,544 hours in life so it would last around what almost 12 years? man thats a long time for keeping it on 24/7 lol ok nevermind about that bad example lol what about with the cpu, they wont last near as long as any other parts. mine doesnt really say but on my older computer was about eh 3-4 years old when you could tell a significant difference in speed and id always leave that computer on.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. March 2008 @ 22:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
That's kind of my point, the ratings of most products are so high that you're likely to be years down the line before a product will fail within spec, no matter how much you use it. If a product goes wrong before the time, it was a faulty product, simple as that.
Because of the electronics involved, PSUs should really last forever, but it doesn't quite work that way, so you should probably expect 10 years from the better units. CPUs typically last between 10 and 15 years, not that often longer, especially not if overclocked.
Hard disks probably have the shortest lifespan, I wouldn't run a unit in continuous heavy service for longer than 5 years without wanting it entirely backed up, therefore making the drive a little pointless.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Member
|
20. March 2008 @ 03:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
alright sweet this all makes sense me to now, just wanted to get that cleared up. thanx alot every1 for all your help!
|
