Page 55 of 101 FirstFirst ... 5 45 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 65 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 1503

Thread: POST YOUR 3DMARK2001 SCORES!!!!

  1. #811
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Nothing changed. 275/300. Even lowered the CPU clock speed. Just installed the latest drivers... wala! 12059.

    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5500479

    ED - w00t w00t! GP! I have you beat by 25 3dmarks with a much lower clocked 4200 and air!

    Just shows how much 3dmark likes memory bandwidth.. you really need to raise your FSB , man. I mean, my board doesn't even have dividers for 333FSB, yours does... the MSI KT3 ultra2 I take it? Hint: With CL2.5 PC2100, you need to raise the voltage to 3.0 and increase DCLK0 and 1 from AUTO to 0.5 or 1.0, whatever gives you stability. It does give you more bandwidth than 266MHz with tight timings. Lower burst length from 8 to 4, and if necessary elevate RAS precharge and RAS-to-CMD.
    Last edited by causticVapor; 01-01-2003 at 05:21 AM.

  2. #812
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    12215

    Managed a bit more out of it.

    CPU now up to 1.95, card up to 285/621.


    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5500622

    ED - vram speed corrected.
    Last edited by causticVapor; 01-01-2003 at 06:55 AM.

  3. #813
    Senior Member Grentarc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Wagga, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    759
    so the 42.10 is faster eh?.... may have t have a go with them myself... see if i can get closer to 12K...

  4. #814
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    12370

    After endless re-tuning and configuration, with 3dmark crashing to the desktop, I was finally able to reach a stable combination: 169FSB, with the mem @ 338 and 3.1v. Although the CPU is clocked lower (1.94), elevating the multiplier by 0.5 would push it above 1.97, the highest speed at which it is stable at. The card is clocked with all bus settings (AGP4x, fast writes, 1WS R/W) and 285/621.

    http://service.futuremark.com/servle...jectId=5500784


    Yes, GRentarc, apparently the new drivers are faster... even though I don't have DX9 installed yet.

    At least they're 2000 points faster than the old 35.x's I had installed before






    ED BTW --- what voltage are you putting into your DIMMs? (If your mobo has the options) I hear they're rated for PC166, so who knows, perhaps if you pump them up you could go to 170 or even 175 with a few timings relaxed here and there... hell the GF4 can take 85MHz bus speeds and more with ease!
    Last edited by causticVapor; 01-01-2003 at 06:58 AM.

  5. #815
    Ultimate Member Giblet Plus!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    2,821
    Originally posted by causticVapor

    And GP, I bet once your liquid cooling system is in you'll be breathing on my neck, or maybe not It'll be an intense battle between the two of us, I'm certain
    I think upgrading myself to win2k will probably help more. According to beeblequix, there's a 400 point difference betweeen 2k/xp and win9x.

    My ram is holding me back from getting over 144/145 ish on the fsb with advanced timings.
    This is where my signature would go if I wasn't so lazy.

  6. #816
    Member The_Shafer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Over the rainbow
    Posts
    144
    3dmark score = 9985

    The_Shafer
    The_Shafer@hotmail.com

    The Shafer

  7. #817
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Originally posted by Giblet Plus!


    I think upgrading myself to win2k will probably help more. According to beeblequix, there's a 400 point difference betweeen 2k/xp and win9x.

    My ram is holding me back from getting over 144/145 ish on the fsb with advanced timings.

    Again, as I said, raise DCLK0 and DCLK1 to 1.0 in the BIOS and you should be able to hit 166 FSB with an unlocked CPU.

    And why are you using WinME? ... You're right about native 32-bit OSes... and especially XP.. can utilize SSE itself

  8. #818
    Ultimate Member Giblet Plus!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    2,821
    Originally posted by causticVapor

    Again, as I said, raise DCLK0 and DCLK1 to 1.0 in the BIOS and you should be able to hit 166 FSB with an unlocked CPU.


    I use winME because I like the challenge. I only get BSODs when I push OCs too hard or install crappy hardware.
    This is where my signature would go if I wasn't so lazy.

  9. #819
    Ultimate Member Giblet Plus!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    2,821
    Originally posted by causticVapor

    Just shows how much 3dmark likes memory bandwidth.. you really need to raise your FSB , man. I mean, my board doesn't even have dividers for 333FSB, yours does... the MSI KT3 ultra2 I take it?
    No 1/5 divider on my board. I have the kt3 ultra "1" - the neglected early release model. I don't feel good running my pci freq over 40 mhz. I don't think my ti4200 likes it.
    This is where my signature would go if I wasn't so lazy.

  10. #820
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    That is unfortunate that you can only run your RAM at 166 asynch w/o raising your other busses. 0% performance gain. I can tell you however, Ive running the 8-KHA+ at 175 FSB with no Ti 4200 problems, Mem synch. Mem asynch at up to 200FSB. That gives the AGP bus a speed of 100MHz (400)!

    Being a Ti 4200, your card probably isn't holding you back... Heck, it can out-OC my verto with AS3. Why didn't you just get an EPoX in the first place? Costs less than an MSI and always out-OCs it.

  11. #821
    Ultimate Member Giblet Plus!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    2,821
    I didn't get epox because I was less educated in the beginning of 2002 than I am now.

    Once I unlock my XP2000 I'll give 166 fsb a try.

    Running asynch doesn't help anything, and my pc2100 has no chance of making it to 200 mhz.
    This is where my signature would go if I wasn't so lazy.

  12. #822
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Originally posted by Giblet Plus!




    I use winME because I like the challenge. I only get BSODs when I push OCs too hard or install crappy hardware.
    What? They're not there? Should be present in the Advanced chipset features section under memory... I'm sure you know how to go there ... the bottom methinks....

    Or just try seeing what settings have options of "Auto," "0.5," "1.0," or "1.5." It affects the timing offset in your banks. You could also try adjusting the impedance (manually configuring drive strengths) to straighten signal although I'd proceed with caution there.

    And as for WinMe, *cough* ll4m4...

  13. #823
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
    I didn't get epox because I was less educated in the beginning of 2002 than I am now.
    It's OK man! Same here. I thought the 8-KHA+ was the best board when the 8-K3A+ was already out. (March) Also, I got CL2.5 PC2100 when CL2.5 PC2700 was existent. Had I known, you would've seen me with the KT333, 1/5 divider, and DDR333 memory.

    But that doesn't mean my mobo isn't a kicker.. not by far If the chipset just had dividers for 1/6, I'm pretty sure the mobo's circuit layout could handle 200MHz FSB just fine. Waiting on the corsair Two weeks now


    Running asynch doesn't help anything, and my pc2100 has no chance of making it to 200 mhz.
    Running Asynch @ 200 does elevate your cardbusses to new peaks of Dante... ahem... speeds...

  14. #824
    Ultimate Member Giblet Plus!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    2,821
    Actually running asynch does nothing for the pci/agp bus, it only changes the mem bus. Hence the work asynchronous.
    This is where my signature would go if I wasn't so lazy.

  15. #825
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    3,922
    Originally posted by Giblet Plus!
    Actually running asynch does nothing for the pci/agp bus, it only changes the mem bus. Hence the work asynchronous.
    Nope. It subtracts from the memory bus only.

    Check in sandra and see for yourself.

    ED - now I see what you meant... running mem asynch OVER the FSB speed, not under it... remembering the KT333 has the exclusive option of running the mem at "166MHz" asynch...

    Still, if you go over 133 FSB it doesn't matter if you run the DIMMs at 100MHz, it'll be more stable for sure but your cardbusses will still be elevated. I.E. what I meant to say is that lowering your DIMM clocks to run asynch UNDER the FSB speed has no effect on the other busses.





    BTW I've discovered that setting the burst length down to 4 quad words really helps with high-memory-speed stability.
    Last edited by causticVapor; 01-02-2003 at 01:22 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •