*The Official Tech-Forums 3DMark 13 Rankings*

3439 | Mischa | I5 2500k @4.5 | GTX 560 ti 950/1900/2250 | W7 x64 | ORB

kc5M4jQ.jpg


@Twizted_3kgt I think upgrading the GPU was a good idea :)
 
Last edited:
Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.
 
Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.

As you can see from the 3dmark page I even clocked to 2,147,483,647 MHz and it still didn't help.
 
Just as I was saying. GPU over CPU. If you have a decent quad you need more and more GPU horsepower. Upgrading over the Q6600 will only bump up your score a coupe hundred. CPU performance will be more relevant to 3DMark 11 due to the physics benches. I notice a huge leap over my i5 in 11. 13 not so much.

Yep. My concern now is Crysis 3. First map, I can play Ultra averaging 30-40fps. Get outside with tons of physics and it goes to the teens. Even on medium settings. I think the Q6600 is finally bottlenecking a game for me.
 
It was the opposite for me. The only place I had a hard time with was the very beginning in the rain. I believe your GPU is still a problem if you are using any AA. Ultra for me with 2xAA gave me an average of 50fps everywhere. 30-40 makes sense for a 660ti.
 
Last edited:
 
4257 | fat.clown | i5-750 @ 3.2ghz| GTX 660 1050/1502 | W8 x64 | ORB

2qtyi6h.jpg

slightly overclocked gpu
4369 | fat.clown | i5-750 @ 3.2ghz| GTX 660 1074/1527 | W8 x64 | ORB
2drxnk8.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom