Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dreiu

A bit worried...

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by dreiu

Hey all, me again with another question:

 

I was reading another forum, and I came across this member who has a MobileXP 2600 @ 12x215 (2580mhz) and some Kingston HyperX ram. He also has a 9800pro clocked to about the same speeds that mine was. Did not have his mobo listed.

 

Here is what baffles me. He gets a little above 20K in 3d mark01. I, with 250fsb only got like 19,600. What is the deally here? I was on a fresh install of XP. our 3dmark03 scores are pretty much the same (so video is not my problem).

 

I am not sure if I should be worried about this, but I am... so anybody got any suggestions as to why my score is neutered? thanks.

 

What is your 9800pro clocked at??? My 9800Pro at 506/419 will run 3DM01se clean and pull 22763

with the drivers get at highest quality and 23067 with the drivers at high performance. That is with

an XP2600 Mobile at 257x11.

 

Viper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^What he said. I can't think of anybody who knows these cards better than VJ(who helped me pick mine out @ 4AM a couple days ago). He could be running the drivers at a lower performance level, could be his sig isn't up to date and he's running more clock. Could be running a hacked driver like the omega's. Could be he just lied about the scores like a person Viper and I were discussing earlier. Could be he's timed tighter than you are memory wise and is using CPC to increase the bandwidth. There is just a myriad of variables. What type of Sapphire 9800 pro do you have? What ram is on the card? What core is it? Some of the black pcb Sapphires are terribly bad no matter what you do to them. So many questions......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by elts_drac

^What he said. I can't think of anybody who knows these cards better than VJ(who helped me pick mine out @ 4AM a couple days ago). He could be running the drivers at a lower performance level, could be his sig isn't up to date and he's running more clock. Could be running a hacked driver like the omega's. Could be he just lied about the scores like a person Viper and I were discussing earlier. Could be he's timed tighter than you are memory wise and is using CPC to increase the bandwidth. There is just a myriad of variables. What type of Sapphire 9800 pro do you have? What ram is on the card? What core is it? Some of the black pcb Sapphires are terribly bad no matter what you do to them. So many questions......

 

Like E_D said and another thing. 3DM01se is many times effected more by system speed than card

speed. It becomes system speed bottle necked easily.

 

If you are running with CPC disabled it really doesn't effect Sandra bandwidth all that much but

your 3DM01se score will take a rather large dump as will Open GL graphics.

 

Viper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea if CPC was on or off... whatever the default bios had it set at. As soon as I get my new stuff, I will order some new bios chips from elts_drac and use another bios.

 

As far as the video card is concerned, it is a red PCB, no idea what the core is (never took HS off), it has the good Samsung memory (I forgot what ns it was). It was clocked at 430/375 during those tests with no artifacting.

 

I am using a Sounfblaster Live! card rather than Soundstorm bc I dont want to put too much heat on the SB... maybe that has something to do with it?

 

Here is another thing... whenever I popped in CoD or other games I didnt really notice much of a difference between my old setup (crappy samsung memory 1 gig and Asus board with xp3000 @ 210x11). The only thing that increased was Aquamark and 3dmark01. Actually, CoD still boggs down at some areas (1600x1200 highest settings, no AA or AF), and that makes me want to throw my computer out of the window.

 

I will get an x800XT and just leave my computer alone for a while, I think I wasted enough money on it for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At that high fsb, anyone should whip up around 22-23K in 3dmark01.

 

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I know too may peeps (including me) that are right around 20,000 at 250fsb.

 

Bunch of thoughts - What IS your VGA card clocked at? Are your setting on highest Quality or set to performance? Have you adjusted the other settings for max score (futuremark forums have some great tips on this)? A lot of the higher scores are using OLDER cats drivers NOT the latest. They are generally faster but may have some glitches in the newer games. Try the new 4.7 Betas as it seems like your goal is over 20K and you are a gamer. Try older ones if you are looking for just score.

 

I'm currently at 20272 with a very similar setup to your 19600 on HO#2. Have you really thought about how friggin small that difference is percentagewize?

 

Compare your score against some of those InSmell chips that are running a lot higher Megahertz. Kinda funny how guys with 500-700 more Megahertz have lower scores, ain't it.

 

And One More:

Was at a bud's and he was showing off his 3D01 scores. When he ran it I saw artifacts all over the place. "Dude, look at the dang screen" I said. His response was "I'm just going for score".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, I am laughing at your friend. I would never do that just to get a high score. My scores never show artifacts (err, you know what I mean).

 

I really dont care what score I get, I just want to know why a superior OC will not do better than a much lower OC. That's all. In particular, 3D01, so that is why I keep rulin out the video card (because I said that we get almost the same 3dmark03 score).

 

Here's some more thoughts on video:

 

When I ran it at 430/375 I got something like 6500. When I ran it at 412/365 I got just barely under 6500. So I decided all those extra mhz's werent worth the minor improvement. But, anywho, I don't really think that those scores reflect my game play... didn't notice much of anything going from score of 15K (with a GF4Ti) to a score of just under 20K (with ye 'ol raddie). I also didnt notice a difference between my stock score of 5500 in 03 and my OC'd score of a little under 6500.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dreiu,

 

With your EB memory, try 11,3,2 cas 2.5 timings and use max voltage. Then just follow Lastvikings bios guide for the rest. Your goal should be in the 21K-21,5K range i think. More with overclocked 9800 Pro. At that speed, CPC off knocks about a thousand points off the score.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Mackanz

dreiu,

 

With your EB memory, try 11,3,2 cas 2.5 timings and use max voltage. Then just follow Lastvikings bios guide for the rest. Your goal should be in the 21K-21,5K range i think. More with overclocked 9800 Pro. At that speed, CPC off knocks about a thousand points off the score.

 

SO you say to crank the voltage to 3.3 volts? I would rather not run at those voltages day to day on passive cooling (and I cannot find a good way to hang a fan over them). Also, you say 11-3-2-2.5? Well, in the bios there are like 4 or 5 more numbers to mess with (dont know which bc I dont have my computer)... what about those? thanks for the input.

 

EDIT: I was just wondering, why did you suggest those timings? Are they typical for the EB's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dreiu

I have no idea if CPC was on or off... whatever the default bios had it set at. As soon as I get my new stuff, I will order some new bios chips from elts_drac and use another bios.

 

As far as the video card is concerned, it is a red PCB, no idea what the core is (never took HS off), it has the good Samsung memory (I forgot what ns it was). It was clocked at 430/375 during those tests with no artifacting.

 

I am using a Sounfblaster Live! card rather than Soundstorm bc I dont want to put too much heat on the SB... maybe that has something to do with it?

 

Here is another thing... whenever I popped in CoD or other games I didnt really notice much of a difference between my old setup (crappy samsung memory 1 gig and Asus board with xp3000 @ 210x11). The only thing that increased was Aquamark and 3dmark01. Actually, CoD still boggs down at some areas (1600x1200 highest settings, no AA or AF), and that makes me want to throw my computer out of the window.

 

I will get an x800XT and just leave my computer alone for a while, I think I wasted enough money on it for now.

 

CPC defaults to enabled so it you didn't change it was on.

 

If you 9800 is still running it's original shipping bios I can tell what core and chips the card has from

the bios 113- part Number shown in the ATI Control Panel under "Options - Details". If it has an

R350 core and Sammy 8E memory I would be interested in buying the card from you when you get

your x800.

 

Viper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by ViperJohn

CPC defaults to enabled so it you didn't change it was on.

 

If you 9800 is still running it's original shipping bios I can tell what core and chips the card has from

the bios 113- part Number shown in the ATI Control Panel under "Options - Details". If it has an

R350 core and Sammy 8E memory I would be interested in buying the card from you when you get

your x800.

 

Viper

 

Really? That is sweet, I will look for the part number in the ATi control pannel as soon I get my PC together.

 

I am pretty sure that it is a r350 bc it was bought before everyone started crapping about getting the 'new' cores. As far as the memory, last time I checked, I believe it has the 2.8ns sammy.

 

Just currious, why is it that this particular blend interests you (not that I am complaining)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by dreiu

Really? That is sweet, I will look for the part number in the ATi control pannel as soon I get my PC together.

 

I am pretty sure that it is a r350 bc it was bought before everyone started crapping about getting the 'new' cores. As far as the memory, last time I checked, I believe it has the 2.8ns sammy.

 

Just currious, why is it that this particular blend interests you (not that I am complaining)?

 

R360 cores didn't start showing up on 9800 109-A07500-xx reference PWA's until around mid Jan '04

builds. Cards built before about August/September '03 will normally have R350/Sammy RA-GC2A chips.

Samsung went out of production on the RA chips in Sept '03 and the switch to the 8E Samsungs took

place around that month with chip type used over lapping for a while until stocks of RA chips dried up.

 

Samsung 8E chips OC much better on average that RA chips do with 390's stone stock a virtual slam

dunk with the right bios. For pure OC ability the R350/8E combo is the way to fly. It should be noted

the latest crop of R360 cores seem to OC much better than the earlier ones did. Don't know if it's just

a "one lot wonder" or if all R360 will OC better from here on out. I am betting on the former though.

 

Viper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...