*The Official Tech-Forums 3DMark06/03 Rankings*

Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

well i wish i could get my e6550 @ 3.6.
I live in mn and i have the tuniq tower 120 and plenty of case fans for cooling, but i guess my cpu sucks.

I have had my cpu at 3.2 since i had posted a score here, and now i have vista which has decreased my score.
But i just ran 3dmark now at got a score of 13,643 with my cpu at 3.3 and my gpu at 714/1694/1165.

Not bad of a score when running on vista!
 
Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

well i wish i could get my e6550 @ 3.6.
I live in mn and i have the tuniq tower 120 and plenty of case fans for cooling, but i guess my cpu sucks.

I have had my cpu at 3.2 since i had posted a score here, and now i have vista which has decreased my score.
But i just ran 3dmark now at got a score of 13,643 with my cpu at 3.3 and my gpu at 714/1694/1165.

Not bad of a score when running on vista!

When I was running 3.4GHz I couldn't push my video card past 710/1050. However I was able to squeeze out 715/1050 when I oc'd to 3.6GHz for some reason. 3DMark06 crashed at 720/1050. I'll try pushing my memory clock further too. Maybe I can push for 3.8 since I'm already up here. I had 1.375v for a stable 3.4GHz and now I'm at 1.475v for 3.6GHz. I don't want to go too much higher on my voltage so I might not be able to hit 3.8GHz. Especially being on air. I'm already hitting 59 Celsius with 3.6GHz.
 
Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

When I was running 3.4GHz I couldn't push my video card past 710/1050. However I was able to squeeze out 715/1050 when I oc'd to 3.6GHz for some reason. 3DMark06 crashed at 720/1050. I'll try pushing my memory clock further too. Maybe I can push for 3.8 since I'm already up here. I had 1.375v for a stable 3.4GHz and now I'm at 1.475v for 3.6GHz. I don't want to go too much higher on my voltage so I might not be able to hit 3.8GHz. Especially being on air. I'm already hitting 59 Celsius with 3.6GHz.

Is it really worth it to OC your computer to the point of being unstable just to have a 15% higher 3dbenchmark?
 
Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

lol...
imo no
i have it at 3.3 right now, ill try getting to 3.4 stable.
But if i keep getting bsods, ill just goto 3.2

@3.2, i dont have to lower timings or increase volt, which is hectic free, but then wats the point of oc right?

I just wich i could get to 3.6...i could barly get my fsb stable at 496, anything past that, it would boot have way then reboot.
 
Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

Is it really worth it to OC your computer to the point of being unstable just to have a 15% higher 3dbenchmark?

1) Why do you care?
2) Sure, if it's stable I'll keep it, if not then no.
3) I'll suicide run higher than that if I want
 
Re: The Tech Forums Official 3DMark06 Top List

[*b]15,142 | mnelson07 | [*color=blue]Q6600 @ 3.6GHz[/color] | [*color=seagreen]8800GT @ 715/1050[/color] | XP Pro 32bit Futuremark - ORB - Project Comparison[/b]

Yay further secured 5th place!

Nice. I think you can be pretty assured that I won't be stealing your score any time soon lol my GTX won't even touch core clock speeds like your GT can, and my q6600 isn't going higher than 3.6 any time soon. However once the 9800 series comes out, all bets are off :).

Oh by the way I hope you are only keeping your GT's memory that high as part of your suicide run. You don't have it that high 24/7 do you? Have you read about how the GT's memory controller wasn't made to handle more than 2000 MHz (yours is at 2100) and if kept higher than that, it could go bad?
 
Back
Top Bottom