The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

UndeadPixel 2.2, Just tried it. Looking pretty dead. I only tried it for a couple minutes. But everything seems to be pointing toward DEAD, so...I'll just live with it. Besides....one dead pixel out of 2,304,000 isn't bad at all

Thanks by the way for the new utility

 

I NEVER would have dreamed up something like that unless I had A LOT of money LOL! Im about as cheap as they come. Stabbing my monitor doesnt seem like a good idea LOL LOL! I might just have to consider that though.

EDIT - I suppose when all else fails...hit it with a hammer LOL. Err...pencil

A genuine thanks

Kevin

 

Well if you use the napkin that should prevent you from scratching the screen or damaging it. I have done this with several monitors now and the success rate is maybe 50/50. Go on, give it a try. It can't hurt

 

Estuansis: That technique did not work for any of the six dead pixels on my 3007. Neither did any of the other methods. Not saying they never work, but success is far from guaranteed with ANY method.

 

Sam,
I don't see why not! Why would they take what should be a warranty issue, and pay someone else to fix it? Almost all my customers call me if they need anything or have a problem. Many have bought more then one computer from me anyway. I register all the components in my name, to resolve any question of warranty issues. That way I can honor the warranty and don't have to depend on them to register anything. All my advertising is strictly "Word of Mouth", and I have a good following. Most of them won't buy any component for their computer, without consulting me first! The majority of my customers are Professional people. Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and such, and the word gets around those communities! As the money tightens, my business goes up! LOL!!

Russ

 

Sophocles,
I use the defaults as a tool, when I am overclocking a video card. I just use it to check my progress without having to remember settings. I note that the "Point of Diminishing Returns" seems to come sooner with a graphics card than it does with a CPU! My 9500GT has a Core clock of 550, a Shader clock of 1400 and a memory clock of 1600. I have mine OC'd to 594 CC, 1512 SC and 1728 MC, respectively! I went as high as 605, 1540 and 1760, but the difference was only 243 3DMarks. Not worth the additional stress on the components! From stock, to my settings shows a very good and useful improvement!

You are right though, as 03 is a bit long in the tooth, but it also better suit's the games I actually play. I also included the results of 06, which for a 7750BE @3.2GHz, are quite good! I'll post some 3DMarks again after I set the resolution to 1680x1050.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

As 3dmarks age, 06 included, they become excessively CPU-reliant, and ultimately become a benchmark of CPU performance, not games performance. Whether you play top end titles or not is irrelevant, all the games you use have to be as old as 3dmark03 for it to be a valid test. With your current CPU, your maximum limit in 3dmark06 standard for the CPU would probably be about 13,000, so you shouldn't be hitting the CPU bottleneck yet. The reason your overclock didn't net you much performance was that while you upped the core speed by 10% or so, memory and shader clocks only got 3-4%, which is why you only got 4-5% extra performance.

 

Sam,
It's just easier to see the changes you make with 03! Stock the card ran at 13749 3DMarks, now it runs the same test at 19504! Regardless of either 03 or 06, it's about twice as fast as the 7600GT I had in the E6750, and it makes all the games I play look and feel much better! Pretty much the same as Sandra 2005 vs Sandra 2007 did!

Russ

 

Then it's also completely wrong. The 9500GT is a giant leap from the 7600GT and an admirable card for a casual gamer like yourself, but a 5% increase in clock speeds will never result in a 20% performance gain.

 

Yeah a new video card once in a while definitely can't hurt. The 9500GT isn't exactly my first choice but it's definitely a solid card for someone like you Russ. The 7600GT was solid for a really long time too and I even had games like Oblivion and FEAR running quite decently on it. The 9500GT should be a relative powerhouse in comparison

EDIT: Sam is right though. I know 3DMark 03 has always had badly skewed results(13,000 Pts on my X850XT) but I can't see such a large increase from OCing.

I now no longer trust Guru3D. They showed a 9600GT getting a 9700 3DMark 06 with an E8400. LOL Mine got over 10,000 with my 7750BE.

 

Estuansis,
I can't explain it either, but I ran the tests bone stock and then compared the results to my overclock. I'm going to run some tests with all the goodies turned on and at my Monitor's 1680x1050 and see what I get then!

Russ

 

I've seen weirder from 03 so it's not entirely impossible for it to happen. I had an X850XT that outscored my X1800XT on nearly the same hardware.

3DMark 06 will give you more accurate results.

 

I stopped trusting Guru3D a long time ago, for bias.

 

there's not much talk about 3.5 Enclosure's but I picked this bad boy up today at my local micro center for $30 bucks

http://www.shop4tech.com/item6914.html
along with a WD2500aajs 250gb 8MB Cache sata 3.0Gb for $30 bucks also (Oem)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136113
could have got the 500gb $15 more but it was'nt a green power any way like how it's working out got it hooked up to my system now with a torrent seeding back can't really tell any speed different bein outside of pc case bein hooked up to 1 of my esata port...my reason of buying it is for my dvr box to record to a external drive not the drive inside the case itself

my storage at the time

 

Hehe, I had a WD2500AAJS, Still do. Reasonably good drive, very quiet, average performance, but solidly reliable.

 

Estuansis,
That's the whole point of using 03 when you OC a video card. It's much easier to see small improvements as well as large! You aren't looking for accuracy, you are looking for tangible results that aren't the doing of the CPU! Put a 940 Phenom II in it and the results will be quite different, as Sam pointed out! I've run the tests, and I'll post them later!

Russ

 

I think you're missing the point. 3dmark03 was not at all adapted for modern hardware, so its results are completely arbitrary and unreliable. The reason the variance in 3dmark06 is small is because that's the ACTUAL performance difference you get.
3dmark03's result is so much higher because it's completely wrong.
If I swapped out a CPU for one 10% more powerful and got double the performance figures (which is in essence, what you've got) there's so little accuracy, what's the point of a tangible result? Surely you can see a measure of performance has to be accurate to at least some degree.

 

Sam,
Fair enough, so using 06 I get 5245 3DMarks with the screen set to 1680x1050, or about 2400 lower than at the default setting! Turning on Non maskable AA drops that to 4372 3DMarks, which for me is still about three times faster than the 7600GT was!

Russ

 

take this with a pinch, but ouch! http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/13848/1/

 

3DMark 03 is pretty unreliable if you ask me. Any small changes can skew its results drastically.

Your 06 scores look solid though. Good video OC.

EDIT: Core i5 huh? Ouch, AMD might be in trouble again... Let's see some Phenom IIIs