Post your rig and 3dmark06 scores here!

@Modestah (11192)
United States
March 23, 2008 12:25am CST
Hey! This is pond boy, Modestah's son. I was just wanting to start a thread for people to share their configs, and benchmark scores! Here's my ol' rig,lol Dell XPS 400 Intel Pentium D 930, 3.0Ghz, 800mhz FSB, 2x2MB l2 cache. (Not bad back in 06 when I got the thing, but sloooooowwwwww now!) Msi Saphire Ati Radeon hd3850 512MB edition (peppy lil' sucker!) 2GB off brand ddr2 533Mhz Windows XP MCE05 160GB HDD LG 20x supermulti drive 375watt psu +325watt Ultra PowerPack (700watts total) 3dmark06 score 6766 (up from 3349 with my 7600gt oc'd!) Yeah, I realize my CPU is cutting my performance down by like 4000 marks, I am saving up to get a q9300 quad system.
1 response
@zeloguy (4913)
• United States
23 Mar 08
700 watts... wow it doesn't sound like you have enough to use that much power and may be overkill there... 400-500 watts is plenty enough. I have three hard drives, two burners, and a CD drive and still don't even use near my 400 watt power supply. 2GB for WinXP is great but if you are heading to Vista you need at LEAST 4GB and make sure your MB can handle that much RAM. How can you do with only 160GB HD... wow. I have 1TB (1000 MB) with three hard drives (two SATA and one IDE [for backup]). Your benchmark scores sound decent enough although right now for the money the dual-cores are outperforming the quad-cores when it comes to a price/performance standpoint. Hopefully when AMD gets their butt in gear with their quad-cores the prices will come down but for right now my dual-core does most all jobs beautifully. Your L2 cache being at 2MB is good (better than some dual-core 1MB caches [I don't understand that at ALL]. I believe the quad-cores are coming with 4-16MB of cache which will really speed things up. The thing obviously that is slowest in computers and people don't realize sometimes is the hard drive. Samsung is really making a case for solid-state hard drives which I will be writing about a bit later... they last longer, no moving parts and I believe they are like 33% more fast than conventional SATA drives. AND their MTBF rates are higher as well.... Sounds like you have a solid system there! Thanks Zelo
@Modestah (11192)
• United States
23 Mar 08
PB here. Yeah, probably is a bit overkill on the PSU, but I needed more power then my Dell psu provided for my new video card, so I bought the powerpack for like $40 online,hehe. At least 4GB for vista? 32 bit operating systems can't even address a full 4GB, from the way I understand it the OS ropes off some of the 4GB for internal ops, and will only let you address between 3-3.5GB of RAM, largely dependent on the ram amount of your video card. Yep, the 160GB is a bit stingey, but I don't have alot of video on my drive, so it's mainly taken up by games, and music (which I do rip to WMA lossless, though. I've only used like 64GB so far. SSD's do look promising, though right now they are obscenely high priced, like $600 for 64GB?. But in time that'll change. What CPU\Gpu combo do you have?
1 person likes this
@zeloguy (4913)
• United States
24 Mar 08
32GB SSDs are under $200 and that is more than enough to run a Linux-based computer. I have an old laptop that has a 10GB HD running Win-98... there's not much room to put anything else on there. As for the RAM I am not sure but as far as I understood it, all 4GB is addressable with two sticks of 2GB of memory (not one stick of 4GB) but I have a 64-bit system so..... Thanks Zelo