Extremely worrying 3DMark results!

[lylo]

Ok, first of all let me start of by saying that I don't have the greatest computer in the world and I realise this, here are my specs:

Intel Celeron 1.8 Ghz.

768MB Ram (PC2100),

GeForce FX5200 (128MB, PCI)

Onboard AC97 Sound

I know little about hardware in computers (I'm more of a software techie than anything), but my motherboard is a IM845GL (Built by Trigem I think), with PhoenixBios.

My family bought this computer nearly 3 years ago and this is our first computer, ever since I've used it myself for gaming and have always yearned for more performance. This has gone to adding extra hardware (Ram and the video card) and ripping the guts out of the operating systems I use, which I do feel have brought results.

However, today for the first time I ran 3DMark2001 SE through the recommendation of a friend, and the results were a very worrying find.

The full results can be found at http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8625827

I only received 3305 points from the benchmarking tests! Like I said I'm no hardware expert but a mate who knows much more about the hardware side of things than I said those results aren't even funny and that I should be extremely worried about anything that may be going wrong with my system. He further backed this up with other user's results as well as his own which can be found at

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=2426058

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5100148

The CPU speed in these are slightly less than mine, although other areas, ram and video memory are much lower and yet the results of them came 500 points or so less than mine!

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6706063

This is the one though that got me feeling bad. In nearly every area this system is the same as mine, and is clearly less powerful than mine physically, a 1.4 Celeron to mine, a 1.8. 512MB to 768, and yet this guy scored nearly twice as many points as I did!

I know my system sucks but I know now for a fact that I should be gaining much more performance than I am, I'm also worried by one certain factor on there that I dont understand, every page but mine, the results show an FSB page of at least 100mhz or whatever, I have a FSB speed of 0mhz! What the hell does this mean?!

Whats strange to me is that for the two years or so I've played on this system I've always thought its been fine, I've had average to medium performance from modern games and good performance from older titles which I'd expect. But to find out there are less powerful rigs that are outperforming me by miles just.... I don't know what to think of it!

If anyone has any suggestions that do NOT involve buying new hardware (Because simply, I cant afford so and don't need the hassle right now), that may help me squeeze out more points from my system, please help me out. Surely what I'm getting from this can't be right...

...Surely?

Edited June 24, 2005 by lylo

[boooggy]

well i dont know what u find that worring....

your pc scores fine for its configuration. i know u said no buy for new hardware but i strongly recommend u a new grafic card. a nvidia 6600 or an ati 9600 would be nice and also not that expensive.

[Bâshrat the Sneaky]

nVidia's 6600 and ATI's 9600 cannot be compared: they're from a different generation. So if you'd go for that price range, I'd suggest you'd choose a graphics card with a nVidia 6600 GPU or an ATI X700 GPU.

[lylo]

well i dont know what u find that worring....

your pc scores fine for its configuration.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I said before, the reason I find it worrying is because there are actually less powerful systems out there than mine (In terms of the amount of RAM installed and the CPU speed) that manage to score nearly double what I did using the same benchmark tests. That can only suggest to me that something is wrong

Edited June 25, 2005 by lylo

[Metzen]

START > Run MSconfig > Diagnostic Startup > Apply > Close > Reboot

What's the score after doing that?

You might have some programs/virus's running the background eating resources.

[Marthax]

Between the first link (your own computer) and the other link (AMD) there's only a slight difference. Why? Because you have a better GPU, but a weaker CPU. The other computer has a weaker GPU, but a stronger CPU.

When dealing with graphics, AMD outperforms Intel, but since you have a better GPU then the other computer, your computer wins as GPU is the most important part when dealing with graphics. The CPU itself is also important, but the major thing that is needed when dealing with graphic intense situations is the GPU. That is why your computer manages to score a higher result. If the other computer would have the same GPU as you, it would outperform your result.

[lylo]

I appreciate you clearing that matter up for me Marthax, but take for example the final link on my original post, we BOTH have the same CPU's, Intel Celerons, with mine being about 300mhz or so faster than his/hers. We both have the same graphics cards, the FX5200, both with 128mb memory. I have 768mb ram where they have 512. And yet this person scores the highest marks out of all the links I posted.

Physically and down on paper, my system should out perform that one right?

EDIT: BTW Metzen, I just reformatted my system today lol, I've thrown Windows 2K on there, just out of curiousity really plus it was about time my rig could have done with a clean out. MSConfig doesn't work on 2K, although if I remember right there is an equivalent command for it.

I'm gonna install 3DMark 2001 on here later tonight and hopefully my results may show an improvement. Heres hopeing!

Edited June 25, 2005 by lylo

[Marthax]

Physically and down on paper, my system should out perform that one right?

That depends on what kind of memory each computer has. Size is not all that matters when it comes RAMs! For example. Take the Crucial Ballistix PC3200 512 Mb and a regular cheap Crucial Value 512 MB. The memories seem to be equal, but if you try them out in benchmarking, you will get amazed. The results are very different. Why? Because the Ballistix memory is so much faster then the Value one (they have better timings).

2-2-2-6 <--- Ballistix

CL=3 <-- Value

As you see here, the speeds are very different. This might seem as a very small difference, but in reality, it's quite huge.

Different kind of memories with different speeds. That can be one answer to your question. There are so many things that you have to look at carefully to be able to answer your question.

Also, do you have a computer that you have built on your own or is it a "brand" computer?

[lylo]

Unfortunately it IS a brand computer that was bought at some crap retail outlet over 2 years ago now.

Gotta wub e-Machines eh?

[glent]

I hate to dissapoint yor but that card is one of the worst Nvidia ever shipped! any old geforce 2 or 3 card will out perform it almost all tests I also had that card 6 months ago and I have since upgraded to a faster card, that aside the card will do ok on some recent games but dont expect much more than that

edit , did your friend overclock his card?

Edited June 25, 2005 by glent

[boooggy]

i agree with glent.

[theone8554]

Ok. I noticed that the motherboard brands are different. The ranking that got you dissappointed had an ASUS board. I have my desktop computer parts shop. I work with all kinds of brands of computer parts. I always tell my clients to buy a good motherboard. A good motherboard is easier to synchronize. Often a bad motherboard doesn't work well with it's components (such as graphic card, cpu, memory,,...ect). So first of all, i'll suggest you to buy a good motherboard, such as ASUS or INTEL. And it's also true that NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 sucks(I have Geforce 4 Ti). If you want to play games, you don't need the BEST card in the market. It's impossible to catch up with the newest products. Right now the toughest game in my opinion is the Half-Life 2. If your computer can run that game well, i am guessing it's decent enough for a long while. By the way, when you buy parts of computer, you pretty much have to buy them from good brands (Intel,ATI,ASUS). I think that's the problem with your computer. My computer is slightly better than yours in specs. (but i use all ASUS,SEAGATE,INTEL components) And technically it's old and sucks. But so far, there's not anygame that won't run well. Obviously it doesn't performe as great as the new "supermachines", but it's enough for me. I don't need a supermachine myself to brag about what i have.............i mean.....i have a lot of new parts in my store anyway.....................