3DMarks too low?

[hukuis]

I have a slightly odd situation. I just upgraded my computer from
128MB of PC-133 RAM to 512MB of PC-3200 DDR (running at 276 mHz DDR),
and I have noticed a huge increase in performance in all my games. I
can now run Unreal Tournament 2004 at 1024x768 with all settings maxed
and no lag whatsoever. I can do the same for Medal of Honor: Allied
Assault, and Command and Conquer: Generals. I am running Halo at 26.5
fps at 800x600 and all settings maxed. My question is this: why
aren't I seeing any improvement in my 3DMark01SE benchmarks? My
benchmarks before the upgrade were around 6700. My most recent
benchmark was 6777. I have tried overclocking my CPU and video card,
but this hasn't yielded more than 5 or 6 points.
_____________________
Here are my system specs:
AMD Athlon XP 1900+ (at 2000+ with 138FSB)
ECS Elitegroup K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
512MB PNY Optima DDR400 (CL2)
ATI Radeon 9000 (at 305/425DDR with PowerStrip 3.0)
Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM Ultra ATA-100
Windows XP Home Version 2002 (with SP2)
DirectX 9.0b

I hope someone can find a solution to my problem. Is it even
important so long as I can play games at a decent clip?
Thanks,
-Hukuis

 

[Inglo]

I have a slightly odd situation. I just upgraded my computer from
128MB of PC-133 RAM to 512MB of PC-3200 DDR (running at 276 mHz DDR),
and I have noticed a huge increase in performance in all my games. I
can now run Unreal Tournament 2004 at 1024x768 with all settings maxed
and no lag whatsoever. I can do the same for Medal of Honor: Allied
Assault, and Command and Conquer: Generals. I am running Halo at 26.5
fps at 800x600 and all settings maxed. My question is this: why
aren't I seeing any improvement in my 3DMark01SE benchmarks? My
benchmarks before the upgrade were around 6700. My most recent
benchmark was 6777. I have tried overclocking my CPU and video card,
but this hasn't yielded more than 5 or 6 points.

3dmark doesn't give much of a damn about the rest of your system besides
your video card. Using 3mark01SE the only of the tests that should see
much of an improvement from what you upgraded are the car chase and
dragothic and then I wouldn't imagine much difference. In games more
RAM will mean less stalls and no swapping, though I don't see how you
can possibly max all settings on UT2K4 with your set up.

What do you mean you're running 276 MHz DDR? Are you overclocking the
ram by 76 MHz? Or are you running at 2x138? It kind of sounds like you
put some good RAM into an old motherboard. You can have the fastest
memory in the world but if your mobo doesn't make effective use of it,
you won't see much difference.

 

[JD]

It just means 3D mark 01 doesn't make use of much ram size. I bet though
that if you timed the load time of 3D mark it would be a lot faster?

 

[Good Man]

It just means 3D mark 01 doesn't make use of much ram size. I bet though
that if you timed the load time of 3D mark it would be a lot faster?

it's also another case of benchmarking schmenchmarking. why worry about
what a test says if you notice clear, undisputable improvements in your
system????

 

[Sleepy]

I have a slightly odd situation. I just upgraded my computer from
128MB of PC-133 RAM to 512MB of PC-3200 DDR (running at 276 mHz DDR),
and I have noticed a huge increase in performance in all my games. I
can now run Unreal Tournament 2004 at 1024x768 with all settings maxed
and no lag whatsoever. I can do the same for Medal of Honor: Allied
Assault, and Command and Conquer: Generals. I am running Halo at 26.5
fps at 800x600 and all settings maxed. My question is this: why
aren't I seeing any improvement in my 3DMark01SE benchmarks? My
benchmarks before the upgrade were around 6700. My most recent
benchmark was 6777. I have tried overclocking my CPU and video card,
but this hasn't yielded more than 5 or 6 points.
_____________________
Here are my system specs:
AMD Athlon XP 1900+ (at 2000+ with 138FSB)
ECS Elitegroup K7S5A Pro (rev. 5)
512MB PNY Optima DDR400 (CL2)
ATI Radeon 9000 (at 305/425DDR with PowerStrip 3.0)
Seagate Barracuda 80GB 7200RPM Ultra ATA-100
Windows XP Home Version 2002 (with SP2)
DirectX 9.0b

I hope someone can find a solution to my problem. Is it even
important so long as I can play games at a decent clip?
Thanks,
-Hukuis

Your new memory has allowed you to overclock the FSB by 5mhz
so yes you should get a higher score in 3dmark but dont worry about
it - games are where it counts. Youre getting quicker loading and reduced
hdd access during play. You can play UT2004 at 1024 max settings and its
smooth so clearly your system is setup right. Now ditch that 9000 (nice core
overclock btw) and get a 9600pro and youre sweet for HL2 - you know you want
to
oh and watch those temps if thats a Palamino

 

[farmuse]

ram does help the benchmark, but you video card is the limiting
factor, recommend no less than a 9800pro ~

 

[hukuis]

Thanks for the reassurances guys... to answer some of your questions,
my FSB is set to 138, which gives me a RAM clock of DDR 276. I'm not
quite sure why or how I am running UT2004 with maxed settings, but I'm
getting 47 fps in the timedemo. I understand that my RAM will not
operate at maximum speed in this board, but it was aquired in a trade
and for upgrade purposes I asked the trader (trade-ee?) for DDR400 to
get the most out of it in future upgrades. My processor is a palomino
core, but i'm using Arctic Silver III and my temps are well within a
comfortable range. I'm planning on upgrading my processor to a B-core
Athlon XP 2400+ and overclocking to the 2.4-2.6 range. My next video
card upgrade will be to a sapphire 9800SE which I plan on softmodding
into a 9800 Pro.
Thanks for the help,
-Hukuis
_________________

 

[JD]

Maybe upgrade your motherboard first reusing all your other components, then
go for a more glorius processor when you can afford it. The 2400 won't be
much of a step up over the 1900 and you still won't be all that fast
exactly.

Thats my opinion anyway.

 

[hukuis]

Maybe upgrade your motherboard first reusing all your other components, then
go for a more glorius processor when you can afford it. The 2400 won't be
much of a step up over the 1900 and you still won't be all that fast
exactly.

I plan on upgrading to an Athlon 64 motherboard combo with a 3000+
overclocked to 2.2gHz, and until then I'll have a 600-800mHz boost in
performance with my 2400. I'm doing some work at a local computer
store and by the time I'm done i'll have enough to build a whole new
system.
Thanks for the input,
-Hukuis