Pentium 4 Extreme Edition odd 3DMark06 score

GeforcerFX

GeforcerFX

Posts: 1,123   +580
So i had a 915 intel mobo running a 2.8ghz prescot P4 with 1mb of L2, this unfortunetly became my main gaming system since my dual core AMd's board PCI-e slot became defunc. Well this sytem was decent once i put my 9600 GSO in, it could play pretty much anything i threw at it, I saw the opportunity to use this with some cheap upgrades for the next few months and save up and move ontto a quad core SLI'd system. I found a a Pentium 4 EE in ebay for like $50 its the socket 775 Gallitain core (better then prescott core version other then slower bus), 3.4ghz 800fsb 512kb L2 2mb L3 respectivaly, but in 3dmark 06 it score lower than the previous prescott core, the prescott scored 797, the EE scored 723, and has not gone above 750 in over 6 tests, the Sm2 and SM3 scores are a lot higher both higher by about 500 points and so is the 3dmark score (one was 4334 for the prescott, the EE scored 4892. this EE should be at least over the 1000 mark in my mind on the CPU score, it does so much better in TDU (single threaded game) then the prescott did, i am sorely confused?
 
I'm a bit surprised it runs in that board at all. I guess this is an early EE, still a 32 bit CPU...(?) The 915 chipset is only 32 bits, with a FSB, (max) of 800Mhz. The Matx variant, "915GAG", only had a FSB of 533Mhz.. I think that some Pent EEs have a 1066FSB. Could this be giving you trouble?

The later, (EOL) "Cedar Mill" cores, (Celeron or P-4), are 64 bit, (EMT instruction), and it's plainly stated that they won't run in 32 bit hardware.

I don't believe that the 915 boards support "hyperthreading" either.
 
well it all supported

i have the 915gav (full ATX), and yes it's one of the early P4 EE, it's a galitain core, those were 800 FSB, and one was 1066fsb but it hada 3.46 were as mine has 3.4, mine does have hyperthreading and the 915 does support it, actually the 915 is not all bad, full x16 PCIe support, the cpu stays cool and it has a good amount of RAM for XP (even though i have another 2gb on the way) it does a whole heck of alot better in free CPU benchmark 2, and i know this booard supports this CPU i checked in the ark, and when i boot the post logo changed form a P4 HT logo to a P4 EE HT logo.
 
GeforcerFX said:
i have the 915gav (full ATX), and yes it's one of the early P4 EE, it's a galitain core, those were 800 FSB, and one was 1066fsb but it hada 3.46 were as mine has 3.4, mine does have hyperthreading and the 915 does support it, actually the 915 is not all bad, full x16 PCIe support, the cpu stays cool and it has a good amount of RAM for XP
Click to expand...
You're getting ahead of me, I have a 915GAG pushing 6 years, and it's a wonderful board, very stable and reliable.

The 32 bit issue with RAM will come into play with the board itself, before it even gets to Windows. So, look forward to only showing about 3.25 GB of RAM in Windows.

Does this thing perform better than the Prescott in most games, or just the one?
 
yeah

i new the 32 bit would come into play, i have 3 1gb (2 on the way) and i was just gonna use an old 256mb stick that i have laying around, conveniently all have the same timing. Yes this thing performs amazingly better, i know the CPU is better, in the other bench mark it did the test in 35 seconds, which is 10 seconds faster then the Prescott, and it is only 4 seconds slower than my core 2 duo laptop. I was just wondering why 3d mark hates the thing so much? i also have a 925 mobo laying around and a buddy of mine sent me a 3.8ghz Pentium 4, which should be here any day now, wana c how that one performs. But it performs better in black ops, mw2, g-mod, tf2, and Bad company 2, no changes in any pre 2005 games.
 
Well, the only thing I'm coming up with is perhaps you might to need to reinstall the chipset driver, or possibly the driver to the video card. I think the 3D mark is partly dependent on that, as well as the CPU. Then there's the BIOS which might need an update. Personally I'd leave that alone unless you consider this a dire emergency.

That said, I'm far from the resident benchmarking wizard here, so you might want to wait for some other opinions.
 
so i checked out toms hardware charts for 2006 and wouldn't you know it thats the score there listing so i guess this CPU is way slower than i thought it was, well it's still performing much better then that 2.8 was. and the 3.8 is even faster then the EE so i am cool with everything know, guess the gallaitain core is just slower then prescott, cycle for cycle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back