benchmark

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:50:20 +0100, "Mike"
wrote:

Hi,

I have done a test with 3Dmark05 after i suspected that my pc ran to slow
for it specs.

I have a AMD64 3400+ prossesor
512 mb memory
1 160 gb hd and 2 80 gb hd's
a TV card
an LG DVD RAM and LG DVD ROM
an geforce fx5900xt card from pixelvieuw
a Gigabyte MB K8VT800 PRO
2 conected Monitors
a wacomb mouse pad
a soundblaster card

I think i have mentioned the most

I know that my system has to start a lot of drivers and so on.And that it
starts up verry slow by that.

But my system runs to slow i guess.
After the benchmark test it gave only 987 3DMarks


for more details a send the report as a extra


Please do NOT post attachments, this is not a binary group.

FX5900 is not going to do well at all in 3DMark2005 due to
the way it's designed (and the way 3Dmark2005 is, too). It
won't even do very well in 3Dmark2003 for the same reason.
You'd get a better indication if it's working ok by benching
with 3Dmark2001 or a real game (benchmark).

Even so, consider that it's now 1.5 generations old and
~$150, due to the fact that it is not going to be
competitive with a new $200-500 card. It is quite fast for
DirectX8 games, sometimes even faster than cards scoring
MUCH higher in 3Dmark2003 or 2005, but @ DirectX9 it's not
holding up very well, although it should still be fine for
playing Doom3, Farcry, Half-Life 2 at the game
preset-detected settings, moderate resolutions.

No matter how fast your system is the FX5900 is going to
give you low numbers in 3DMark 2005. Around 1000 (your 987
is pretty close) is about right for FX5900XT.

So that's the story with the FX5900XT, if you feel other
areas of your PC are too slow, use a benchmark isolating
those other areas like CPU or memory.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:49:34 +0100, "Mike"
wrote:

sorry for the attachment

And what kind of benchmark u advise me for this then?
I think the prises ar a bit higher then u said.
I paid near the 200 ?for this card and the only bigger card that i can use
in my system is a 6800 but its prices begin at 350 ? that's to mutch for me



See what it gets in 3DMark2001, and whaever games you have,
if they have benchmark capability...

For CPU you probably don't need to do anything beyond
confirming that it's at the correct frequency, CPU-Z or
WCPUID may help there but probably your motherboard bios
lists that, almost all do if a slash screen isn't showing
instead.

Prices for those cards may vary a lot, at first they seemed
cheapest and the lowest priced vendors sold out, and with a
limited supply then only the higher-priced vendors remained.
IIRC I paid $160 half a year ago and just expected it'd be a
little lower by now but I suppose it could've even gone up
in price, in the past few months I'd seen several for around
$185 but it was harder to justify with Geforce 6800 and 6600
expected to hit streets and for 6600, be bridged to AGP
interface.

The 6800 cards are still a bit steep but the non-ultra
dipped down to $200 on Black Friday, haven't kept track of
them since then. The 6600 cards are more of a direct
performance-replacement for those wanting DirectX 9
benefits, but it might be too little to late to upgrade from
a FX5900XT to one, rather than waitng for your next
PCI-Express based motherboard. There can be some fair gains
on a FX5900XT if you overclock it enough, I have one that I
volt-modded to get a little bit more out of it, to the point
where it's the fastest card out there for DirectX8, but it's
still sluggish at some of the newest DirectX 9 games.

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 18:33:45 +0100, "Mike"
wrote:

So if i understand u.
U say,don't spend the extra bucks for a bigger card(i find them to expensive
honestly)

Well I wouldn't, but if you had need for another card (reuse
that card for something else) or to sell it to recoup some
of the cost, then you're getting better value for the
expense. Then again, if you MUST play some of the newer
games at high resolution, highest detail, 8X AF, etc, then
you may have no alternative than to buy a newer card.

And overclock this card.
Can i do the following thing?
Set a new cooler on it and overclock it to an 5900 Ultra card?

Usually, yes, though I don't know if there are any issues
particular to your specific card.



If i can do this,what firmware can i use?

Do some google searching for which firmware is best for your
make of card. Some use different TV-out/in implementations
so might need a different bios. Then again, you don't have
to use a different bios to start out, but I know with mine
the Ultra bios relaxed the memory timings some and allowed
higher memory clock, and possibly higher 3D GPU voltage, I
don't remember.

Is it the same what brand i pick or do i have to keep it with the same
brand? It's a pixelvieuw.

No, you don't "necessarily" need bios for a pixelview card.
I do not know which bios would be best for your card though.
I suggest first trying to o'c without changing the bios to
see how far it'll go.

I somewhere readed tu use the firmware of the 5950.whats the difference
between the 5900 and the 5950?

"Usually" doing so will relax some memory timings, which may
help a lot or only a little depending on the memory on your
particular specimen of card.

What's the best firmware i have to choose then?

You'll have to determine that yourself through research,
web-searches.


The rest of oveclocing i think that i can do.

Then for my CPU.
I asked what benchmark i can use to see if it works like it has to work.
Something i can look for error's in it.

Prime 95's Torture Test, run that for several hours.

So it can explain why my system is so slow.
Sometimes it seems my AMD 64 3400+ works slower then my AMD 1600+


I doubt it's the CPU, might be things running in the
background, software loading with windows. Otherwise you'll
just have to survey everything. If your Xp1600 was running
Win98 or 2K, the extra memory overhead or GUI special
effects can also cause a perceived slowdown, but in the
tasks themselves you should still have good performance.