[09mlb86]

ok first off I built this:

CPU: AMD Atholon 64 X2 5600+

Memory: 2 x 1 Gig. Mushkin 800 Mhz with EEP Profiles (4 latency)

Graphics Card: HIS ATI Radeon X1950 Pro (Core Clock 590Mhz) Memory clock (about 1400Mhz)

Mobo: Ausus MVP

PSU: Muskin 550 W

HDD: WD Cavier SE16 250 GB


Running 3D benchmark 2006 Basic It scored a low 6400 (averaged after 6 tries). I was exspecting to do a lot better. My Vista Score Card has a base score of 5.3 (the processor being the bottleneck)

plays freedom fighters on highest setting w/ no problem...

Are my exspectation too high or is there something wrong?


Thanks :-}


09mlb86

[Advertisements]

If i used the catalyst controls or the BIOS to overclock my graphics card or memory, it scored worse.

sry forgot to add this

[09mlb86]

If i used the catalyst controls or the BIOS to overclock my graphics card or memory, it scored worse.

sry forgot to add this

[james_8970]

Hello,
Do you have the latest Cataylst (7.9).
These will optimize you card and increase frame rates (and "score"), however synthetic benchmarks mean nothing. Get a game such as Company of heroes, World in Conflict or Lost Planet and run the benchmark tool. Then google to find other peoples results. If you use the demo, only compare your results to other people using the demo. The demo is normally a earlier build of the game, thus not fully optimized for hardware, so you will normally receive lower scores then people with the real thing.
As long as your computer is performing at what you would like, it doesn't matter.
From what I have heard from other people these tests can vary by as much as +/- 500 points. I personally have never run any synthetic benchmarking programs because realistically, it's not worth it.
If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it, as it seems to be performing on high settings, although it won't on never games (assuming you play at high resolutions).
James

Edited by james_8970, 06 October 2007 - 05:52 PM.