Low GPU Benchmark Score?

[NLAlston Profile Private message]

I just finished a bit of researching, and had come across some information regarding GPU Benchmark Scores. According to the article a score of 50 is decent - 100 or more is pretty good, and a low number spells issues. Well, I just checked mine, and found that the number is 40. Now, that isn't really low, but I would surely feel a lot better if it was measurably better. I wish the article had offered suggestions on changes that could be implemented to make such a score higher. My system is a:
...............................................
64Bit Intel(R) Core (TM) 2 Quad CPU
Q8200 @2.33GHz 2.34GHz
8.00GB Ram

Nvidia GeForce 120 video card
...............................................

When I first purchased this computer I was told that the card had 1GB of dedicated memory. But I have just discovered that my card is outfitted with only 512MB's of Ram. I wonder if, maybe, this card could be the reason for my benchmark score.

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

There was some debate a while back and nobody seems to know exactly what formula Photodex uses to calculate the "Benchmark" (which is in my book a mistake - I want to know just why they think my "score" is low). I would guess that the video card is an important part of that score though. Your card, the GT120 *seems* to be a rather low end card from what I found doing a quick snoop (it looks like Nvidia changed numbers around between OEM stuff and retail stuff or something - here is a thread you might find interesting on those cards: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/25954 ... orce-gt120 ). What I would suggest doing is contacting Photodex (give them a call) and ask about the numbers you are getting and that card. I suspect that may be the issue. You might want to search the forum here for info on video cards - this does come up periodically (or see if Photodex has any specific recommendations - video card manufacturers are almost as good as the politicians with their spin doctors on the advertising. One of the new things with Proshow 5 is the GPU acceleration so if you are considering a new card, that is a consideration (you might also want to check out the Adobe site if you use Photoshop for their card suggestions). I have an ati card in my system, but I have had issues with them in the past (like uninstalling/re-installing the latest drivers where it took me 2 days to manage to get the new driver to install ... grrrrrrrr - but the card has worked well so far).

Sorry to be somewhat lacking in a definitive answer, but I don't know the answer, although from what a quick search found, that card sounds a bit on the low end. Start with touching bases with Photodex then snoop the forum here for either "benchmark" or "video card" posts.

I assume you are running Win7/64 ? (if you are running a 32 bit OS, then only about 3+ gigs of the ram is visible to the OS).

[edit] - If you have not read through this, it may help some (although the answers are a bit vague)
http://kb.photodex.com/2814/playback-pe ... n-proshow/

mikey

[NLAlston Profile Private message]

Thanks Mikey.

I will certainly give them (Photodex) a call, to see what they recommend for video cards. My computer is a 64-Bit system, and I do run Photoshop (CS5).

I kinda felt that a better video card might be of the order, and I want to make sure that I get the best one for my needs. Thanks much.

[trulytango Profile Private message]

Here's a link to an article posted to the Photodex Blog back in March. It contains a couple of interesting links within it with regards to CPUs and Video Cards... find out which ones are classed as 'High end' as opposed to 'Low end'.

http://www.slideshowblog.com/2012/03/prioritizing-a-system-upgrade/

[NLAlston Profile Private message]

Here's a link to an article posted to the Photodex Blog back in March. It contains a couple of interesting links within it with regards to CPUs and Video Cards... find out which ones are classed as 'High end' as opposed to 'Low end'.

http://www.slideshowblog.com/2012/03/prioritizing-a-system-upgrade/

Thank you. Heading there right now.

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

For what it's worth, in addition to the above, here are a couple of links for anyone interested for Adobe and their cards for Photoshop CS5 as well as Sony Vegas Pro 11 - might help in deciding a common card that keeps everybody happy:
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/tes ... p-cs5.html
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/veg ... celeration

My system (XP Pro) currently is running a HD 4850 video card which seems to work pretty good although it looks like there are some reasonably priced upgrades available that are 2x or more faster (and still have adapters that give me the VGA sub-d adapters that I need). I do need to upgrade to win7/64 to take advantage of my current system (12 gigs of ram is a bit overkill for a 32 bit os ... planning ahead).

mikey

[NLAlston Profile Private message]

@Mikey:

I thank you, too. All of this information will come in quite helpful to me, I am very sure.

[VernonRobinson Profile Private message]

One thing you may want to consider is the choice of nVidia with their Cuda technology. It works very well with the Adobe products, Photoshop and Premiere Pro. The mercury playback engine working with Cuda is a match that is difficult to beat. When I upgrade next time, Cuda will be high on my consideration list.

-Vernon

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Before getting my new computer, I researched video cards up to the point where I didn't know what the heck they were talking about, a point that happened rather quickly. Unlike Mikey, I'd had excellent luck with ATI, and so I went with what's now AMD, which was ATI, choosing something with lots of onboard memory and its own fan, of course. Between that, lots of memory, and Intel i7, everything is speeding along merrily. The machine this one replaced was a duo core with an ATI card that had 512 meg of memory, and the benchmark was low enough that I couldn't make use of acceleration. More crashing than work was accomplished, and it's what pushed me over the edge into getting a new computer.

It would be nice if Photodex would at least give a list of the cards they've checked and found to serve the software well.

Barbara

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Actually, I have had fairly good luck with the ATI (AMD) cards (my current one is an HD 4850). It was the drivers that were the problem and Googling around found plenty of others with similar issues. The initial install was fine - it was trying to uninstall the current drivers to put the new ones in that was the problem. That said, I think I would still go with the ATI card again (I just haven't looked for new drivers for a while ) I have had the fans fail on some older ATI cards (they were cheap fans on the card to start with), but I think that is an issue that affects all video cards (how else can we convince people to buy new cards - nothing like a screeching fan to get your attention).

mikey

[NLAlston Profile Private message]

It would be nice if Photodex would at least give a list of the cards they've checked and found to serve the software well.

Barbara

Within the mix of my posting, here, I had also emailed Photodex regarding graphic card suggestions, and just recently heard back from them. They stated that they would not suggest any particular brand, but that I would be good with any card which held at least 1GB of memory.

The members, here, have afforded me with a wealth of information - regarding graphic cards - and I will be well armed when the time comes that I am financially able to get myself a really good one.

[Deadman Profile Private message]

Well I run mine on 2 computers.. the I7 which is 8 cores 12 gig of ram and a radeon HD 6900 has a benchmark of 212 the other computer is a quad core with 8 gig of ram and a GTX 560 ti with a AMD Phenom II x4810 2.60 ghz has a benchmark of 165 so it is the combination of the computer and the video card.. I would think my gtx560 is a better card than the radeon hd6900.. so it would have to be a combination of the whole thing.. If I get ambitious I am going to change the cards around and see what happens..

[Marc NY Profile Private message]

My older HP computer had a benchmark of only 36. Certainly not very exciting to say the least and I did have issues with crashing from time to time when I was rendering to a DVD. Fast forward to last June I decided to bite the bullet and buy a new HP Computer with Windows 8.1, CPU 3.20 GHZ with 12 Cores, a i7 processer and 16 GIG of RAM with a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660. Now my new score seems to be very good with a new number of 214. so far I have had no problems with rendering Blu-ray discs and the like.

Would anyone know what would be the most optimum benchmark score to have is? Just for curiosity sake - what might be the highest Benchmark could someone actually achieve?

[heckydog Profile Private message]

In earlier posts (search on benchmark), someone said that Photodex says anything over 100 is very good, 50 is acceptable. So your 214 is VERY good indeed.

One person reported a benchmark of 336, that's the highest I saw reported. Most others are in the 100 to 150 range. Mine is currently 123 on the PC I built 4 years ago, but I just bought an Asus Z87 Pro mobo, i7-4770K CPU, and 16GB Corsair Vengeance RAM which I will be installing on Monday. And I already installed a Samsung 840EVO 500GB SSD which does not appear to have affected my score, although the SSD is not optimized because my 4 year old mobo is not up to the job.

But I'm keeping my ATi HD 4870 GPU for now. It remains to be seen if that will have an affect on my score.

Joe

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I've noticed that the GPU score can fluctuate somewhat, so don't be surprised if you see that 214 go down as well as up. Regardless, my score is also consistently over 200, and I find it's a lovely place to be. Tiny tale: I was given a huge deal on one very hot video card, which didn't fit my computer's case, and so I had to buy a new case, but then it was discovered I needed a different motherboard for the card, and... Well, it all eventually led to building an entire computer around a video card.

Barbara