Futuremark: 3DMark06
- Thread starter trinibwoy
- Start date
Hubert said:
Thats what confusing
, it looks that way from benchmarks, but then when CPU's are overclocked there are gains in 3dmark. But then again the CPU we have seen that was overclocked was a 3.2 would like to see a fx-57 overclock would be able to get a better understanding of where the bottlenecks are.Jawed said:
and
Richteralan said:
and
radeonic2 said:
Is this really what is happening though ?
I just ran the test 3 times with my Fx-55 at 2200, 2400 and 2600Mhz. The cards are 2 x 6800GS at 485/1100.
format is MHz
Score SM2/SM3/cpu
*******************
2200Mhz
4066 => 2214/1935/731
2400Mhz
4401 => 2228/1936/938
2600Mhz
4503 => 2234 / 1938 / 1016
********************
400Mhz on an Fx-55 gives 20 points for SM2, 3 points for SM3, 300 points for the cpu test ( which seems reasonable).
Of course with dual top end cards with a touch of exotic cooling it might be different but I doubt 06 will become cpu "limited" for most folks before 07 arrives. Feel free to run your own tests to see for yourself. Certainly this seems less cpu affected ( I hate limited as it suggests a cap ) than 05 and is in my view a far better bench.
People seem to be writing their own version of history before actually doing any tests it seems ??
Last edited by a moderator:
Razor1 said:Speak of the devil hehe, Thx dizietsma
It truelly is pixel shader bottlenecked. This explains quite a bit
I am trying to pay for the pro version so I could run 1600x1200 as well but it seems stuck, the 1 minute it says it might take to process my payment has now last 25 minutes. I'm worried it has put me into the cpu test by mistake !!
Joe DeFuria
Legend
As expected, many people are probably comparing complete 3DMark scores (which includes the CPU test) and deciding it's not a GPU "benchmark." (In other words...people don't have the ability to separate out scores.)
That being said, the graphics tests do not necessarily indicate that it's the pixel shaders that are the bottleneck...only the graphics subsystem as a whole. (Could be pixel or vertex shaders, bandwidth limitations, or something else).
On a related note, the CPU score is simply weighted too heavily in the final 3D Mark score calculation. If it were given much less weight, then we wouldn't be hearing so many (valid) complaints about the CPU impacting the score "too much".
That being said, the graphics tests do not necessarily indicate that it's the pixel shaders that are the bottleneck...only the graphics subsystem as a whole. (Could be pixel or vertex shaders, bandwidth limitations, or something else).
On a related note, the CPU score is simply weighted too heavily in the final 3D Mark score calculation. If it were given much less weight, then we wouldn't be hearing so many (valid) complaints about the CPU impacting the score "too much".
So basically, I really did just spend several hundred dollars on a total dud that was marketed as a Ferrari.
This strikes me as bordering on unethical behavior by ATi.
I might as well have set my money on fire or purchased a Geforce FX or whatever that was.
This is about as bad as I have felt in a long time. Worst case of Buyers remorse ever.
This strikes me as bordering on unethical behavior by ATi.
I might as well have set my money on fire or purchased a Geforce FX or whatever that was.
This is about as bad as I have felt in a long time. Worst case of Buyers remorse ever.
Jawed
Legend
Jawed
Legend
In this pair of comparisons, the FX55 is running at 2.2 and 2.6GHz versus 2.0 and 2.5GHz for the Venice.
I think you're mistaking the graphics-limited SLI-ed 6800GS for the apparently not graphics-limited SLI-ed 7800GTX.
Or, in other words, 193 CPU points on the Venice is delivering a massive 590 SM2 points and 310 SM3 points.
Jawed
I think you're mistaking the graphics-limited SLI-ed 6800GS for the apparently not graphics-limited SLI-ed 7800GTX.
Or, in other words, 193 CPU points on the Venice is delivering a massive 590 SM2 points and 310 SM3 points.
Jawed
boltneck said:So basically, I really did just spend several hundred dollars on a total dud that was marketed as a Ferrari.
This strikes me as bordering on unethical behavior by ATi.
I might as well have set my money on fire or purchased a Geforce FX or whatever that was.
This is about as bad as I have felt in a long time. Worst case of Buyers remorse ever.
Stop whining.
I still have my order. I won't cancel it. You'll be happy with that card. It's better than a 7800 GTX 256 Mb IMO. And it costs the same.
Jawed
Legend
The Venice gains 193 points from 2.0 to 2.5GHz, while the FX55 gains 285 points from 2.2 to 2.6GHz.
So the cache is already factored-in to the benchmark results we're examining.
As to my own results, my X800XT is clearly far too GPU-limited to show up the CPU limits in 3DMk06. Not to mention the fact that I can't be arsed.
As I posted earlier, results posted in this thread indicate that the game tests are CPU-limited.
Jawed
So the cache is already factored-in to the benchmark results we're examining.
As to my own results, my X800XT is clearly far too GPU-limited to show up the CPU limits in 3DMk06. Not to mention the fact that I can't be arsed.
As I posted earlier, results posted in this thread indicate that the game tests are CPU-limited.
Jawed
Well, at first, I was pretty preplexed by why the CPU tests were factored into the final 3dMark score. Now it makes sense to me, though. Futuremark have taken past criticisms to heart WRT their benchmark not simulating a game properly by not doing any AI or physics calculations. Now the 3DMark score is much more of a measure of system performance instead of just GPU performance. Those that want to measure just the GPU performance are still free to just use the scores from the GPU tests. It's not like it's impossible now.
And as far as relative CPU performance between different types of CPUs goes:
A64/PIV w/o HT = 1 thread at a time
A64X2/PIV w/HT = 2 threads
PIV-D = 4 threads
XBOX360 = 6 threads
Notice the trend. And now that developers have seen how easy and beficial to performance it is to take advantage of the ability to execute multiple threads using an existing middleware tool, I think this is definately the way they are going to head.
And as far as relative CPU performance between different types of CPUs goes:
A64/PIV w/o HT = 1 thread at a time
A64X2/PIV w/HT = 2 threads
PIV-D = 4 threads
XBOX360 = 6 threads
Notice the trend. And now that developers have seen how easy and beficial to performance it is to take advantage of the ability to execute multiple threads using an existing middleware tool, I think this is definately the way they are going to head.
Jawed said:
What graphics limitated SLI GS ?
This is the overclocked 485/1100 XFX version which gives the 512MB GTX a good run for it's money
http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1564_6.html
so I don't think the GS is limited.
Last edited by a moderator:
