my 3dmark score any remarks ?

i just scored 11394 on 3d mark 06 , is it good or bad ? or normal for my rigmy 3dmark score any remarks ?
The Athlon is holding your PC back. I get 15320 with an Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6Ghz and a 192 core GTX 260 XXX edition.my 3dmark score any remarks ?
:S , i'll check know on how to o'c it :(
I have to agree with him. You will see a huge jump if you switch to a fast current intel dual-core, and a bit of a jump if you can overclock your cpu. With the machine in my sig, I got 14762. Your video card is a decent amount faster than mine, so the cpu seems to be the issue. That score is about right for your system though, as I got right at 10000 with my old 2.6ghz athlon 64 x2 and my video card.
i cant upgrade now , and it seems that o'cing is a bit hard , so i'll have to wait till i upgrade the motherboard and cpu to a quad/phenom:? , i feel sorry for the gpu didnt think that my cpu would be such a bottleneck
3dmark is highly processor based when you get your score above 8,000. Amds score very low in 3dmark
AMD Phenoms get beat by Intel Core 2 Duos in pretty much everything. He will see the benefit when he upgrades, i made the jump from an AMD X2 as well.
yea i noticed , in the cpu test i only got 1-2 Fps . what is a decent intel quad core for a reasonable price? , would i notice such a huge imporvement in gaming ?am running crysis all high . 1650 res. 4 x AA , and getting around 25-40 Fps , and all other games with flying numbers
If you must have quad then a Q6600 is the best value for money.
[QUOTE=''sentenced83'']yea i noticed , in the cpu test i only got 1-2 Fps . what is a decent intel quad core for a reasonable price? , would i notice such a huge imporvement in gaming ?am running crysis all high . 1650 res. 4 x AA , and getting around 25-40 Fps , and all other games with flying numbers [/QUOTE]



Thats normal, graphics cards cant generate fast graphics. The thing is though, that test is doing alot of measurements, thats where the processor is struggling. A quad core would be faster, not an amd though. Amd just cant hold its ground in processors.
You probably won't notice as big a difference in performance in real games as you did in the benchmark if you upgrade. On my 2.6ghz athlon x2 with my video card, I was averaging 33fps @1680x1050 on all high settings in crysis, dx9. With the upgraded cpu, I'm now averaging 37 fps. Your minimum frame rates will be higher, resulting in the impression that games are running much faster, when in fact they are just much smoother. However in 3dmark06 in the intro level of the benchmark, my old X2 was topping out at 64-65 fps, whereas with my current cpu (same video card mind you), I'm over 100fps.
Just another note on the real gaming performance gain with a fast Core 2 over an AMD x2, some games will run alot faster. World in Conflict was one example, where I gained 10-15fps at times because that game is so hard on the cpu.
its the processer I don't even bother with 3dmark why download a 400mb program just to tell me my pc sucks
LOL.. your PC doesn't suck. Far from it.