No announcement yet.

A Cliche Unusually Low Test Score Thread

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Cliche Unusually Low Test Score Thread

    Ya, low test scores for, what I consider, a pretty high performance (or at least high expense) machine. Recently bought a lot of new hardware, but still using some old. Spent $340 on the graphics card and around $230 (maybe, don't remember) on the processor. Aw hell, here's a link to the newegg wish list where I got all of my new stuff.

    To get all of the basic solutions out of the way, yes I have all of the newest drivers for all of my hardware. In fact, I had to reinstall some graphics drivers because I was scoring lower on the simple and medium 3D graphics test than the complex. And I installed some 'fixes' for my CPU after getting errors while running PerformanceTest. I also have closed every other program besides PerformanceTest during the benchmark (except some random Symantec processes, which were annoying me but I gave up on trying to disable them during testing). My CPU is NOT overclocked, unless it came overclocked from the package. It is running at 28C while idle or doing simple tasks, typically around 30-32C when playing demanding games and such things.

    I assumed my CD ROM would score low, since it's pretty old and wasn't top-of-the-line when I got it any way. Other than that I was hoping for some decent scorage.

    One thing that seems weird is that I scored pretty low on the 2D graphics test, lower than the 3D. Is it normal (or even plausible) to score lower on the 2D tests?

    Gonna go upload the HTML results to my angelfire account so you can look at the results and my PC specs easily.

    Link to Exported PerformanceTest results (Only thing I can think of to add is that my graphics card has 512MB, I'll provide anything else you'd want though).

    Any solutions, suggestions, or pointing outs of me having too high of expectations for my machine would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks in advance.

    Edit: Also, I'm running at 1280x1024 resolution with 2 monitors, would that effect the tests? I also read some threads here about SLI video cards scoring low on the 2D tests, but I'm using a single ATI card, so I guess that can't be it.

    More Editing: I read a lot more threads, and decided to run a test with my second monitor disabled and the resolution at 800x600. But I only scored 7 points higher on the 2D Graphics test, so I suppose that is not the problem. I also read that WindowsBlinds may have drivers that will effect the test, which I have installed but not running of course. Should I consider uninstalling it? (P.S. Waaay too many threads here boasting "awesome," "kick ass," or "tubular" PCs/scores. Especially since half of them turn out to have a 6000+ score on the CD Mark.)

  • #2
    Yes I agree there are quite a few people posting very high scores. Which is not a bad thing. As we don't mind people competiting to have the fastest, most optimised machine.

    But the bad thing is that people are not fully disclosing their hardware and configuration. In some cases people aren't even posting the version of the PerformanceTest software they are using. Which makes a sensible comparsion impossible. So many of these claims should be ignored. If it gets too bad we start deleteing posts (something we don't do at the moment). We fliter out the sillier results from our baseline database already.

    In answer to your question. There is no reason why the 2D score can not be lower than the 3D score.

    Your scores don't look so bad overall.



    • #3
      Oh well. Hopes crushed.

      I don't feel like starting another thread about this so I'mma put it here. Wouldn't it be more accurate to leave processes that you typically run on your machine all the time on while running PerformanceTest? What's the point of getting the highest score possible for your machine if it's not going to run like that any other time besides benchmarking?


      • #4
        In fact it is OK to leave most processes running. The only stuff you really need to stop is anything using CPU time, accessing the disk or holding a really large % of available RAM.

        It also depends on what you are trying to measure. Some people might want to measure the effect of background tasks, others might not.



        • #5
          This score's OK. Only the RAM tests look a bit slow - I wonder if you have slower memory than your MB will support.

          The 2D and 3D scores are not directly comparable.

          A CD score of 6000+ is not using a physical CD/DVD drive, but a virtual drive loaded into system memory. Whilst this is a valid test if you want to benchmark a virtual drive, it is not a valid test if you are claiming that you have tested a physical CD/DVD drive.