Surprsingly low vatnage score.

Hi, I just got my whitebook and ran 3d mark vantage. The results were very similar to a previous 5796 system with the same config, but with a 9800 gts instead. Is this normal?


Core 2 duo 8400 2.26 ghz
ATI 3870 X2 stock drivers
320gig 7200rpm HD
2gig ddr3 1066 ram
Vista 64 bit sp1

Vantage score:5778
GPU: 6423
CPU: 4441

 

LOL, vatnage! priceless!

Try some new drivers from ATI. And btw, where did you get this system from?

 

it got low becuase cpu is p8400?

 

yeah, it's probably due to the CPU. I'll probably get that same score for my setup, maybe a bit higher because it's a P8600.

 

If you want a more GPU intensive benchmark then just run 3DMark 06.
Vantage puts much more emphasis on the CPU und is also more optimized for Quad Core CPU's than 3DMark 06.

 

cpu or gpu?

 

Hmm I just ran 36mark06 and got the following:

SM2.0: 4498
HDR: 5857
CPU: 1956

3dmarks: 10378

Does this look right? Maybe I was just expecting too much out of the dual 3870s, but this score is only 1.5k more then my previous system which only had a single 9800gts. Again, its prb my CPU that is hold back the score, but I was told that the cpu is never the bottleneck and that I should just get the cheapest cpu config available.

 

Who did you order from? Out of curosity not going to bash or anything just for refrence points.

I am not an expert but will compare scores with you we can do it through email or PM if you want to see if we can get those scores up.

 

That last sentence is a lie. You'd be surprised at the difference the CPU makes in most games and benchmarks.

 

Would you mind providing some benchmarks if you can? Because at the time I was provided with some compelling evidence from many members on this forum that this was true.

If I had known that it was was up for debate, I would have bought a better CPU. -_-

 

make sure you are in fact running in crossfire mode and not sigle card mode.... (speculation of course) i couldn't tell you for sure because i dont have ati's at the moment.

 

I did some looking/poking around and there should be an option to enable CF in the ati control panel, but I do not have it. Do I need to enable it in bios first or something? I was under the assumption that it would automatically be turned on.

Not directed only at Johnksss btw, as I realize he does not have ATIs.

 

driver update may be help you go higher

 

Well I went up almost 1000 points going from 3.06Ghz to 3.3Ghz, which is about 4000 points per Ghz. Your 2.26Ghz machine is ~1Ghz lower than my CPU, and you're scoring about 4000 points lower than I am, so yeah, that seems about right if the score scales roughly linearly with CPU speed.

 

No that score is low IMO. I PMED you wiht my number. Im no expert but I wll help you however I can.

 

Sure.

First, in relevance to your 3d06 score, this shows how the speed and number of cores influence score:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-phenom-x4,1935-29.html

It's a long list, but to get to the point, keep in mind that the Q in front of the name is basically the Quadcore version on that Intel chip (ex. a Q6600 is the Quadcore version of the E6600 where both operate at 2.4ghz).

Also in that list, look at the E6400 (2.13ghz, 2mb cache) vs the E6750 (2.66ghz, 4mb cache) and notice the difference in scores.

Lastly, for this particular test, they're using a Single GPU solution, so the differences are relatively less dramatic than with two GPUs.

Now in terms of actual games, it becomes relative. For instance, depending on which games are in question and the settings used, you may not see much difference between a Core 2 Duo E6750 and an X6800, as seen here, and here (Depending on which settings you are using). But other games might show improvements with a better processor as seen here. In that article, the trend seems to be that higher resolutions blurs the performance line amongst the CPU.

But in your case, you are using a low end CPU with 3mb of cache and 2.26ghz vs a 2.8ghz and 6mb of cache (T9600). A similar comparison in desktop form would be an E6400 (2.13ghz, 2mb cache) vs an X6800 (non OC'd, 2.93ghz, 4mb cache). As this article suggests, upgrading from the former to the latter can lead to an average of about 20fps gained.

edit: miscalculation of averages, corrected.

 

yeah, kind of why when looking for the best...you have to spend dearly.... allot of test ran and recorded have been through over clocked systems with high grade cpu's.....

 

Yea but your numbers should still be higher. I dont know why they would choose that processor for the system. What are your temps?

*Meant to send this message in a PM* lol

 

Did a clean install of windows, using most current ati drivers. Got the following fps for crysis:

Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: VeryHigh ~~ Last Average FPS: 12.93


Run #1- DX10 1280x1024 AA=No AA, 64 bit test, Quality: High ~~ Last Average FPS: 29.63

Considering my CPU, these scores seem to be pretty good right?

 

At that reolution. ehh I would have thought them to be higher. Send me a PM whenevr you get a chance something I want to ask you about think I have an idea

 

those scores are up there for a 2.26 ghz cpu.

say hoop...what did you get for vantage?

 

It may be right score for your laptop becuase low cpu speed. I found this from rkcomputer.net. The different of the points between P9500 and X9100 are about 2k points. P8400 has L2 cache only 3mb then it affects the points too

 

Thank you for a very detailed and helpful post. I was able to carefully look over the articles and the benchmarks and a couple of things I noticed was that, L2 cache's affect on performance depends on the game, and as resolution increases, the load is taken of the cpu and more is put in the GPU.

Also from the benchmarks, can I infer that the upgrade from a p8400 to a p9500 (the 9500 is the highest cpu I would have been able to afford)would make a low difference in fps? But a X9100 would have a major impact on fps even on while playing with a high resolution?

Considering this, still think perhaps the 8400 was the right choice, even though it's considered crappy, due to the price/performance ratio. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong, but the x9100 is an increase of $715, which to my limited budget is not worth it.

 

i got 12480 in 3dmark06 with some vista tweak, spec in my sig, best bang laptop
somehow it wouldnt overclock the p9500, i changed the multiples from 11.5 to 12.5 in bios doesnt do a thing

 

Interesting, mind running some in game benchmarks?

Thanks.