|
The Official Graphics Card and PC gaming Thread
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 12:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
3DMark 06. My system scores a 17,000.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
3dmark06 is the typical standard. Vantage is less popular as it requires at least Win Vista or Win7.
In 3dmark06 my PC scores about 27,000. In Vantage it's 24,000. Today's average gaming PC scores around 10,000-12,000 in 06. Note, however, that the test is CPU-limited for a lot of people.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2010 @ 12:37
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 12:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
downloading it now.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
think it said the FPM was 32 and 34. it had 2 sets of numbers
how does this fair with others?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 13:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sounds about right for your system, high CPU score, low GPU score. You aren't likely to see much higher than that without a graphics upgrade. On the other hand, Jeff's system that scores 17,000 would score 22,000 if he were to use a Q9550 instead of his Phenom II. That's not saying he should, that's just what I know the same graphics setup can achieve with that CPU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 14:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by sammorris:
Sounds about right for your system, high CPU score, low GPU score. You aren't likely to see much higher than that without a graphics upgrade. On the other hand, Jeff's system that scores 17,000 would score 22,000 if he were to use a Q9550 instead of his Phenom II. That's not saying he should, that's just what I know the same graphics setup can achieve with that CPU.
LOL! Is that because 90% of all softwares favor intel, or because the processor is indeed that much better? :p
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Simply because an overclocked Q9550 is that much more powerful than an overclocked 940, and when you have something as powerful as two HD4870s, 3dmark06 is entirely CPU-limited. When I had a Q9550 and upgraded from two 4870s to four, my score only went from 21,500 to 23,500, that's how limiting it is. It took my i5 to get me to 27,000.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
So 9550 is 33% faster than 940, WOW!
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
|
23. March 2010 @ 15:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
well same clocks yes. at stock id say they are very equal.
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|. |
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 15:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
how does this fair with others?
I see nothing wrong there. Respectable score. The 8800 series is still pretty good for gaming too. Not ideal, but quite capable.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388 |
|
Red_Maw
Senior Member
|
23. March 2010 @ 15:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I use 3dmark 2006 since it came free with my MB XD 63c is excellent for an 8800GTS, that's about my record low under load, with the high being closer to 110C.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 15:41 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
So 9550 is 33% faster than 940, WOW!
Not too worried. 3.7GHz on mine is respectable speed and more than enough power to drive these cards. Later on here I might see a new CPU, probably i5. But first I'm getting a graphics upgrade. Twin 5850s pretty soon I think... saw just ONE in action and it was one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. I'm giggling like a schoolgirl at all the leet pwnage :P
This one was was on a stock 940 as well because the guy won't OC it. I can't say I blame him either. He wants everything to just work. But yeah that means I might have some decent headroom with my OC :)
Also, with the Q6600 and the 940BE both at 3.7GHz, the AMD is faster in games, snappier on the OS and booting, and runs cooler on the same voltage. The Intel is obviously faster in a few things, but not for my main use which is pure gaming XD
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 23. March 2010 @ 15:48
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 16:13 |
Link to this message
|
Omega: The main issue is not so much the stock performance but the overclocking. The Q9550 and X4 940 are a mere 6-8% apart at stock, but the 940 will only overclock by around 25% typically, whereas the Q9550 will do at least that, typically 30-45. In the instance I am comparing, Jeff's 940 is at 23%, whereas the Q9550 in question is at 41%.
Ultimately, both are respectable CPUs at this performance level, and while the Q9550 would be considered an upgrade, it would be too slight to ever suggest to someone who currently owns a 940. Heck, even an Athlon II 620/630 owner would be difficult to convince, and rightly so. The Core i5/i7 range represents the only noteworthy upgrade from AMD's current Quad lineup.
As for the 3dmark score, I would generally class 8 or 9 thousand as a reasonable gaming grade score, as that represents the typical performance of a brand new high-end gaming PC in late 2006, early 2007. An E6600 and 8800GTX stock would score around 9200 3dmarks. You will note that the brunt of the Q9550 has taken up the slack of only using the 8800GTS, and added an extra 1000 or so to the score, due to 3dmark's CPU limitations.
It is worth noting that while clock for clock the 45nm Yorkfield Intels are 20% ahead of Phenom IIs, the original 65nm Kentsfield chips are dead on equals. Thus, with the better memory performance of the AMD CPUs than FSB-limited Intels, you probably would see slightly faster operation on the Phenom than the Q6600.
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 17:42 |
Link to this message
|
Thanks for clearing that up. So in the industries best interest, both intel and Amd are head to head, except for some slight voltage differences. And for the enthusiast, Intel provides the best overclockers as of late. :)
To delete, or not to delete. THAT is the question! |
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
23. March 2010 @ 18:09 |
Link to this message
|
Generally for stock CPUs AMD and Intel are on even footing, AMD provide better CPUs at the cheaper end of the market, but have no truly high-end offerings.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 08:23 |
Link to this message
|
well i can see the big difference in the gpu's now this 8800 blows smoke at my 7600 it is awesome how much difference there is in the clarity and detail between the 2 cards. other than going i5 which i cant justify right now and the 6 core cpus coming along like they are i will wait for one of them a year down the road.so that means the only true upgrade for my system is a better GPU. why is there such a big difference from a 5770 and a 5870? talking $250-$350 more???? is there that much performance difference in them? and is a 5770 better than a 4850? i do like this one here.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150351
plus that about as much as i would want to spend on one when i do.
this would be about the max.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150447
and is ATI any better than Nvidia? i know thats like asking why intel is better than AMD.. i know its each and everyone opinion
in getting one of these cards, what kinda score would i be looking at?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2010 @ 08:42
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 09:06 |
Link to this message
|
Welcome to the world of graphics upgrades :D Your 8800GTS is at least 4 times as powerful as the 7600 it replaced, and it's now a relatively old card. Today's high-end cards like the HD5870 are 4 times as powerful as the 8800GTS itself.
The HD5770 is a midrange low-power (one PCIe connector) card. The HD5870 is the top-end new design, and is generally double the performance. ATI currently charge more than double the price because nvidia have nothing to compete in that area.
The HD5770 is marginally faster than the HD4850, but not by very much, typically 10% or less. The HD4850 is far less efficient, and is only DirectX10.1, missing the new features the HD5 series has, which is ATI's justification for the price being higher.
As for ATI vs nvidia, right now it's a little clearer cut, ATI are doing better than nvidia. The two trade blows like AMD and Intel do. However, nvidia have been in pretty dire straits lately as they have had serious production problems with their new product, which is due to be released this weekend. People aren't expecting that much from it. It'll be fast, but it'll be overpriced, and hugely inefficient, we're talking it using as much power as two of the rival GPU that can pretty much keep pace with it. Right now I'd say it's a bit like Intel with the Core 2 Quad versus AMD with the original Phenom, before the Phenom II came out, though perhaps worse than that. Who knows, things may improve for nvidia, but right now I'm remaining rather pessimistic.
|
AfterDawn Addict
15 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 09:09 |
Link to this message
|
The 5770 is essentially a die-shrunk 4870 with Dx11 tacked on. The 5870's little high-end brother is the 5850. The 5770 is in an entirely different(and lower) performance class.
On AMD vs Intel I actually like both in certain ways. Having owned and loved 3 different Core 2 based chips, you can't exactly call me biased :P
But I really prefer the overall structure and performance characteristics of AMDs due to my gaming roots. The Phenom II keeps consistently higher minimum framerates than my Q6600. Not an entirely fair comparison considering the age difference, but it's one of the very few reasons I could justify a full AMD build for almost no upgrade.
Due to their higher memory bandwitdth, AMDs tend to be snappier and more responsive doing OS-based tasks. Intels are more accustomed to number crunching than for responsiveness so both tend to have their shortcomings.
My most notable findings are that, except in a few games, my AMD has overkill horsepower for my cards. I actually match an i5 in a few instances. Don't get me wrong i5 is overall WAY faster, but each architecture will always have its strengths and weaknesses. Worth noting is that AMDs have almost ALWAYS had games specific code written into them(3DNow+). The very reason the Phenom I was actually okay at games... but not much else.
AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 4GHz(20 x 200) 1.5v 3000NB 2000HT, Corsair Hydro H110 w/ 4 x 140mm 1500RPM fans Push/Pull, Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5, 8GB(2 x 4GB) G.Skill RipJaws DDR3-1600 @ 1600MHz CL9 1.55v, Gigabyte GTX760 OC 4GB(1170/1700), Corsair 750HX
Detailed PC Specs: http://my.afterdawn.com/estuansis/blog_entry.cfm/11388
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2010 @ 12:05
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 09:15 |
Link to this message
|
I would love to borrow an HD5830 to test. The benchmarks for it are absolutely bizarre. Some sites report it as being worse than the HD4890, an 'HD5790' if you will. Others report it midway between the HD4890 and HD5850, where I would expect it to be.
As for the Core 2 vs i5, it's worth remembering that the i5 has significantly higher memory bandwidth due to the use of DDR3, along with finally doing away with the antiquated Front Side Bus and using an AMD-like QPI instead. As to how much snappier that makes things, I'd really want to wait until I have an SSD to test. Right now, whenever I find myself waiting, the hard disk is flat out, so it seems pretty obvious where the holdback is.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24. March 2010 @ 09:17
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 09:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
so i should look more into the 5770 than over the 4850 just for the fact of DirectX11?
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 09:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
Not really, DX11 has some cool new features, but a 5770 on its own isn't really powerful enough to make full use of them. You may as well stick with the 4850 for a cheap upgrade.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
24. March 2010 @ 10:09 |
Link to this message
|
|
first gen dxX cards are normally not great for that new dx, esp non-high end cards. I think the situation with nvidia now mirrors the whole ati siuation with the 2900GT launch. 6 month late, powerhungry, etc. But this time it should be more powerful.
MGR (Micro Gaming Rig) .|. Intel Q6600 @ 3.45GHz .|. Asus P35 P5K-E/WiFi .|. 4GB 1066MHz Geil Black Dragon RAM .|. Samsung F60 SSD .|. Corsair H50-1 Cooler .|. Sapphire 4870 512MB .|. Lian Li PC-A70B .|. Be Queit P7 Dark Power Pro 850W PSU .|. 24" 1920x1200 DGM (MVA Panel) .|. 24" 1920x1080 Dell (TN Panel) .|.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 11:03 |
Link to this message
|
|
so what would you all recommend then if not the 5770? im not gonna spend $350+ on a card either...lol
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 11:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well what are you going to spend? It's your choice of HD4850, HD5770, HD4870, HD4890 (if you can still find them), assuming the HD5850 is too much for you. There is also an HD5830, though we're unsure exactly how well that performs at the moment.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. March 2010 @ 11:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
well i dont want to spend more than 200 right now. plus i need to save some for that.so if a deal comes along the way on something bigger/better it might be possible.
|
