Increase in VideoCard clocks by +5% adds +20% to 3DMark scores
That is my 'great puzzle' of the day.
Last time I took 3DMark seriosuly the company was called Mad Onion.... around 3DMark 2003SE I stopped believing in it.... now they are called Futuremark. Someone else on these forums got me back into 3DMark so figured I'd try and get my score 'up there' for a Radeon X800XL.
I knew that linear progression in 3DMark led to exponential increases in results (check the ReadMe), but wasn't expecting it to be so drastic as this.
Taking a ATI Radeon X800XL from 380/465 (underclocked) to 400/490 (stock defaults), which is about a +5% increase in performance for both GPU and Video RAM leads to a +20% increase in my 3DMark05 score.
From: 380 GPU / 465 VRAM giving 4,201
To: 400 GPU / 490 VRAM giving 5,168
So would going from 400/490 to 420/515 increase the 3DMark05 score by another +20% or so ?, to say around 6,200 ?
Now I ain't changed anything else, Driver forced texture quality, FSAA, etc is not in use. Geometry Instancing is even off, and using Catalyst AI 'Standard' only. Not AI 'Advanced'. Just stock default Catalyst 6.1 driver paired with the 'nForce4_amd_6.70_winxp2k_english.exe' driver on a Tyan K8WE (S2895, BIOS 1.02).
None of my hardware is 'modded' either. Not my scene anymore. I've had some 'weirdness' with my video card in the past, (search for other posts under my name) but in the last day or so of testing it has appeared fine.
The only variables during the test where the GPU and Video RAM clock speeds. Nothing else has changed to isolate the score change to just 3DMark.
I find this incredibly suspicious to be honest, and it wouldn't be the first time 3DMark has been caught in the spotlight for doing 'interesting' things with scores.
Perhaps TomsHardware could investigate this, if enough users can confirm it (via underclocking if desired, as it is safer than overclocking).
Has anyone else noticed this ?
Anyone else care to try and confirm or re-create the 'inflated score' inaccuracy.
That is my 'great puzzle' of the day.
Last time I took 3DMark seriosuly the company was called Mad Onion.... around 3DMark 2003SE I stopped believing in it.... now they are called Futuremark. Someone else on these forums got me back into 3DMark so figured I'd try and get my score 'up there' for a Radeon X800XL.
I knew that linear progression in 3DMark led to exponential increases in results (check the ReadMe), but wasn't expecting it to be so drastic as this.
Taking a ATI Radeon X800XL from 380/465 (underclocked) to 400/490 (stock defaults), which is about a +5% increase in performance for both GPU and Video RAM leads to a +20% increase in my 3DMark05 score.
From: 380 GPU / 465 VRAM giving 4,201
To: 400 GPU / 490 VRAM giving 5,168
So would going from 400/490 to 420/515 increase the 3DMark05 score by another +20% or so ?, to say around 6,200 ?
Now I ain't changed anything else, Driver forced texture quality, FSAA, etc is not in use. Geometry Instancing is even off, and using Catalyst AI 'Standard' only. Not AI 'Advanced'. Just stock default Catalyst 6.1 driver paired with the 'nForce4_amd_6.70_winxp2k_english.exe' driver on a Tyan K8WE (S2895, BIOS 1.02).
None of my hardware is 'modded' either. Not my scene anymore. I've had some 'weirdness' with my video card in the past, (search for other posts under my name) but in the last day or so of testing it has appeared fine.
The only variables during the test where the GPU and Video RAM clock speeds. Nothing else has changed to isolate the score change to just 3DMark.
I find this incredibly suspicious to be honest, and it wouldn't be the first time 3DMark has been caught in the spotlight for doing 'interesting' things with scores.
Perhaps TomsHardware could investigate this, if enough users can confirm it (via underclocking if desired, as it is safer than overclocking).
Has anyone else noticed this ?
Anyone else care to try and confirm or re-create the 'inflated score' inaccuracy.