|
|
3dmark with Ti4200 and 2600+ system
Just upgraded my GF4-Ti4200-equipped system's CPU to a t-bred
2600+/266 FSB model, now slightly overclocked to 2.22 ghz. I ran some benchmarks and am a bit disappointed with where I am. System specs are at the end of this post. In 3dMark 2001 I'm only getting 10600. In CodeCreatures, only 26.2 avg fps. VulpineGL is average 107 FPS. When this system had a 2000+ CPU, non overclocked, it did roughly 9400 3dmarks. Pure CPU benchmarks show this system to be performing about where it should, it's mainly the video benchmarks that are kicking my butt. Ideas: For one thing this CPU is only the 133 FSB version, this motherboard doesn't support the 166 FSB Athlons. Also I'm using the standard Windows XP drivers for the VIA chipset, not the newer 4-in-1 hyperions, 'cause I hear many folks have stability problems with those and the install sounds like a pain. I know the NForce 2 setups have better performance than Via KT333 but I still think I'm "short" at least 1000 3dmarks. System Specs & Settings: MSI KT3 Ultra2-C Athlon XP 2600+/266, at 16x139 = 2224 mhz. 512 MB DDR RAM CAS2 running in sync with CPU at 139 GeForce 4 Ti4200 at 264 core/466 mem (bad overclocker) 45.23 drivers for video Windows XP Home DirectX 8.1 |
If its any consolation I get over 15200 with my Ti4200 and an XP 1800
overclocked on my Abit NF7-s (it was that board and 3200 memory with fast timings that made such a difference). But to get that every part of the system is overclocked, the fan noise due to the heat (esp. in summer) is silly and running right at the 'edge' of a stable system is not very comforting. It is all slowed clocked down now so I get around 12500 all the time but even with the 3000 or so 'missing' it has made no actual difference in games, and that is what counts, also its very quiet :) If you believe that you are missing around 1000 points or so then I really wouldn't bother as that would translate to very little in actual gaming use. BTW my Ti4200 is always clocked to 300/600 and runs fine so if you are struggling with speeds above 264/466 then just be happy with a great system and run the games that its for. -- Regards Morgan My noisy drive is noisy no more... www.flyinglizard.freeserve.co.uk |
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:53:53 GMT, zmike6
wrote: Just upgraded my GF4-Ti4200-equipped system's CPU to a t-bred 2600+/266 FSB model, now slightly overclocked to 2.22 ghz. I ran some benchmarks and am a bit disappointed with where I am. System specs are at the end of this post. In 3dMark 2001 I'm only getting 10600. In CodeCreatures, only 26.2 avg fps. VulpineGL is average 107 FPS. When this system had a 2000+ CPU, non overclocked, it did roughly 9400 3dmarks. Pure CPU benchmarks show this system to be performing about where it should, it's mainly the video benchmarks that are kicking my butt. Ideas: For one thing this CPU is only the 133 FSB version, this motherboard doesn't support the 166 FSB Athlons. Also I'm using the standard Windows XP drivers for the VIA chipset, not the newer 4-in-1 hyperions, 'cause I hear many folks have stability problems with those and the install sounds like a pain. I know the NForce 2 setups have better performance than Via KT333 but I still think I'm "short" at least 1000 3dmarks. System Specs & Settings: MSI KT3 Ultra2-C Athlon XP 2600+/266, at 16x139 = 2224 mhz. 512 MB DDR RAM CAS2 running in sync with CPU at 139 GeForce 4 Ti4200 at 264 core/466 mem (bad overclocker) 45.23 drivers for video Windows XP Home DirectX 8.1 my ti4200 stock at 250/500 running on a XP2100 o/c to 2332 mhz gets 12636 3d marks ( 3dMark 2001) |
|
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:53:53 GMT, zmike6
wrote: Just upgraded my GF4-Ti4200-equipped system's CPU to a t-bred 2600+/266 FSB model, now slightly overclocked to 2.22 ghz. I ran some benchmarks and am a bit disappointed with where I am. System specs are at the end of this post. In 3dMark 2001 I'm only getting 10600. In CodeCreatures, only 26.2 avg fps. VulpineGL is average 107 Thats about right... If you want 15,000+ you'd have an ATI9800 or FX5900Itra FPS. When this system had a 2000+ CPU, non overclocked, it did roughly 9400 3dmarks. Pure CPU benchmarks show this system to be Still about right... The performance curve of 32bit CPUs comes down after 2000mhz (or AMD 2000+ class)... but computations in other areas may benefit. Ideas: For one thing this CPU is only the 133 FSB version, this motherboard doesn't support the 166 FSB Athlons. Also I'm using the Don't make much difference... but my OC 2500 should go up a bit when I get around to putting XP on it. standard Windows XP drivers for the VIA chipset, not the newer 4-in-1 hyperions, 'cause I hear many folks have stability problems with those and the install sounds like a pain. I know the NForce 2 setups have better performance than Via KT333 but I still think I'm "short" at least 1000 3dmarks. ??? Never had problems using 4-in-1 from VIA... the ones that come with WinXP are old... older than your board. Upgrade to latest. NForce2 systems are about 20% faster than VIA. But the KT333 chipset is very good... next serious upgrade is 64bit AMD. -- Remember when real men used Real computers!? When 512K of video RAM was a lot! Death to Palladium & WPA!! |
"zmike6" wrote in message ... Just upgraded my GF4-Ti4200-equipped system's CPU to a t-bred 2600+/266 FSB model, now slightly overclocked to 2.22 ghz. I ran some benchmarks and am a bit disappointed with where I am. System specs are at the end of this post. In 3dMark 2001 I'm only getting 10600. In CodeCreatures, only 26.2 avg fps. VulpineGL is average 107 FPS. When this system had a 2000+ CPU, non overclocked, it did roughly 9400 3dmarks. Pure CPU benchmarks show this system to be performing about where it should, it's mainly the video benchmarks that are kicking my butt. Ideas: For one thing this CPU is only the 133 FSB version, this motherboard doesn't support the 166 FSB Athlons. Also I'm using the standard Windows XP drivers for the VIA chipset, not the newer 4-in-1 hyperions, 'cause I hear many folks have stability problems with those and the install sounds like a pain. I know the NForce 2 setups have better performance than Via KT333 but I still think I'm "short" at least 1000 3dmarks. I doubt the chipset has anything to say about your result. I'm running on an older chipset (KT266A) and still I get better results than you do with a 1600+@1501mhz. You should upgrade to the 4-in-1 drivers - it's no pain to install them and they're most likely better. System Specs & Settings: MSI KT3 Ultra2-C Athlon XP 2600+/266, at 16x139 = 2224 mhz. FSB overclocking is far more effective than multiplier in this benchmark. I get better results with 10x150 (1501 mhz) than 10.5x146 (1530 mhz) with mine 1600+. 512 MB DDR RAM CAS2 running in sync with CPU at 139 GeForce 4 Ti4200 at 264 core/466 mem (bad overclocker) This is pretty poor. Many ti4200 cards are sold with stock core speed of 250/550. I believe this is the main reason you score low results. When I made my best result I ran at cpu: 1600+@1501mhz (150fsb) gpu: 308c/628m Sco 11365 45.23 drivers for video It's been a while since I ran benchmarks - but try other drivers as well - some are better than others. My favorite driver used to be 40.52. Windows XP Home I use WinXP Pro - probably no difference. DirectX 8.1 Same as I used when I benched. I have dx9 now. I have no idea if it does anything for this card. /sisy |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com