Benchmark Thread - How do you rank against other GS users?

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

[QUOTE="FaustArp"]

No BLCK strap with a multiplier of 46, it's stable enough to survive Prime95 Blend overnight, which is more than stable enough for my gaming PC.  :) 

FaustArp

I wish I could have found the simple multiplier part when i was looking through all the overclocking options, I remember it was that easy when i overclocked my last pc, up the multiplier slightly, make sure it's stable, up the voltage if needs be, then rinse and repeat until happy. 

With all the options now (and no visible multiplier as such), I just get confused!

In the end, the multiplier and VCore were really the only significant factors in the overclock, a few minor tweaks aside.

Btw, another thing I would recommend from personal experience is to not use auto settings for memory.  Maybe it is just my motherboard (we have different mobos), but "Auto" wasn't quite right for me.  I manually input the timings and voltages that were printed on the sticks themselves.

I will bear that in mind, thanks the help :)

[QUOTE="AMD655"][QUOTE="_Matt_"]

 

ah niiiice stuff :)

_Matt_

Squealing?! O.o . Well it gives off the test noise on start up and when completely idling when I have no sound on I will occasionally hear the noise of not-quite-enough power getting to the PSU fan (slight buzzing every 15 seconds); but that's it, just the standard stuff. People made a massive deal about the noises that I just described, but neither has bothered me at all. Seems to perform fine and efficiently enough.

I think the most annoying noise ever is when a pump starts to be a bitch.....

My H100 does this still, though most the time it is fine now.

I think the most annoying noise ever is when a pump starts to be a bitch.....

 

 

My H100 does this still, though most the time it is fine now.

AMD655

Sounds almost angry :P

My first time comparing benchmarks :) anyway, should improve quite a bit when I upgrade the rig in November: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/979781?

Icestorm: 88951
Cloud Gate: 10661

Firestorm: 4701 

My first time comparing benchmarks :) anyway, should improve quite a bit when I upgrade the rig in November: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/979781?

Icestorm: 88951
Cloud Gate: 10661

Firestorm: 4701 

GeneralMufinMan

[QUOTE="GeneralMufinMan"]

My first time comparing benchmarks :) anyway, should improve quite a bit when I upgrade the rig in November: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/979781?

Icestorm: 88951
Cloud Gate: 10661

Firestorm: 4701 

acanofcoke

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29436429/haswell-2-pc-upgrade-suggestions

It's Haswell time :)

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"][QUOTE="GeneralMufinMan"]

My first time comparing benchmarks :) anyway, should improve quite a bit when I upgrade the rig in November: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/979781?

Icestorm: 88951
Cloud Gate: 10661

Firestorm: 4701 

GeneralMufinMan

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29436429/haswell-2-pc-upgrade-suggestions

It's Haswell time :)

Should be a nice upgrade!  :D

Upped my score to 13560 with a little overclock. I was put off overclocking my CPU much as I kept getting cold boot :( 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1088563 

_Matt_

[QUOTE="_Matt_"]

Upped my score to 13560 with a little overclock. I was put off overclocking my CPU much as I kept getting cold boot :( 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1088563 

darksusperia

Thank you! :)

Ice Storm board looking a bit unloved.


Xperia ZR:

Couldn't let someone take my number one spot on the mobile benchmark... 

Na, can't let that happen, can we. :twisted:






Thank you,  new firmware.

Na, can't let that happen, can we. :twisted:






Thank you,  new firmware.

C_Rule

...

Finally got round to 3dmark'ing my new gpu. Since it's such a big change I think it should be a new entry rather than an update, if this thread is gonna last it might be nice to have some older hardware to compare to.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1143067

CPU is at 3.5ghz

GPU is stock clocks

Finally got round to 3dmark'ing my new gpu. Since it's such a big change I think it should be a new entry rather than an update, if this thread is gonna last it might be nice to have some older hardware to compare to.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1143067

CPU is at 3.5ghz

GPU is stock clocks

kraken2109

I feel the need to get into the mobile benchmark list.  Galaxy S4-

I've taken 1 of my cards out so I though I'd do a single card Bench.

wow, looks like the 770 can't match up to the 7970 either.  The paper specs of the 7970 confirm what the benchmark is saying, the 7970 is the better card than the 770.  Only the 780 and titan are clearly superior to the 7970.  AMD really hit it out of the park with the 7950/7970.  Absolutely amazing video cards. 

Gotta give props to AMD for making such a bad ass card, can't wait to see what the 9000 series brings to the table.

wow, looks like the 770 can't match up to the 7970 either.  The paper specs of the 7970 confirm what the benchmark is saying, the 7970 is the better card than the 770.  Only the 780 and titan are clearly superior to the 7970.  AMD really hit it out of the park with the 7950/7970.  Absolutely amazing video cards. 

Gotta give props to AMD for making such a bad ass card, can't wait to see what the 9000 series brings to the table.

blaznwiipspman1

AMD 7000 series cards are favored by this version of 3dmark.  This isn't news.  With each new version of 3dmark, one company or the other usually pulls ahead.  This says nothing about real world performance, which we already know from actual game benchmarks.  The GTX 770 is a slightly faster card in most real world applications.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/26.html

Even you must be smart enough to be able to figure that out.  Maybe not.  

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

wow, looks like the 770 can't match up to the 7970 either.  The paper specs of the 7970 confirm what the benchmark is saying, the 7970 is the better card than the 770.  Only the 780 and titan are clearly superior to the 7970.  AMD really hit it out of the park with the 7950/7970.  Absolutely amazing video cards. 

Gotta give props to AMD for making such a bad ass card, can't wait to see what the 9000 series brings to the table.

hartsickdiscipl

AMD 7000 series cards are favored by this version of 3dmark.  This isn't news.  With each new version of 3dmark, one company or the other usually pulls ahead.  This says nothing about real world performance, which we already know from actual game benchmarks.  The GTX 770 is a slightly faster card in most real world applications.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/26.html

Even you must be smart enough to be able to figure that out.  Maybe not.  

i wouldn't say AMD is favored by 3dmark, that is just childish.  Otherwise the 780 and the titan wouldn't whoop the 7970's ass like it does.  The real reason is the hardware specs are better for the 7970.  Admit it, the bus width and the vram give the 7970 an advantage.  Also that tech power up chart is misleading, as alot of those game devs have deep connections to nvidia.  The fact is, the 770 is simply a slightly suuped up version of the 670, the specs are nearly identical and in the beginning people were even able to flash their 670's into 770's.

It's only because AMD supported compute and Nvidia didn't really bother with Kepler. 3DMark likes compute.acanofcoke

what so 780/titan have compute?  I think the titan does but not the 780, yet it still whoops the 7970. 

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

wow, looks like the 770 can't match up to the 7970 either.  The paper specs of the 7970 confirm what the benchmark is saying, the 7970 is the better card than the 770.  Only the 780 and titan are clearly superior to the 7970.  AMD really hit it out of the park with the 7950/7970.  Absolutely amazing video cards. 

Gotta give props to AMD for making such a bad ass card, can't wait to see what the 9000 series brings to the table.

blaznwiipspman1

AMD 7000 series cards are favored by this version of 3dmark.  This isn't news.  With each new version of 3dmark, one company or the other usually pulls ahead.  This says nothing about real world performance, which we already know from actual game benchmarks.  The GTX 770 is a slightly faster card in most real world applications.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/26.html

Even you must be smart enough to be able to figure that out.  Maybe not.  

i wouldn't say AMD is favored by 3dmark, that is just childish.  Otherwise the 780 and the titan wouldn't whoop the 7970's ass like it does.  The real reason is the hardware specs are better for the 7970.  Admit it, the bus width and the vram give the 7970 an advantage.  Also that tech power up chart is misleading, as alot of those game devs have deep connections to nvidia.  The fact is, the 770 is simply a slightly suuped up version of the 670, the specs are nearly identical and in the beginning people were even able to flash their 670's into 770's.

It's not childish, it's common knowledge.  Where have you been?  This was established long ago.  You're clueless.    

The GTX 780 and Titan have such a brute horsepower advantage that they are able to overcome 3dmark's preference for AMD's current architecture.  Do you get it now?

The techpowerup chart is the closest thing to a composite picture of overall performance that we have.  It shows how the cards perform in actual games.  You can b!tch all you want about the "deep connections to Nvidia" that you claim some of the games have, but the reality is that they are games that people run on their PCs.  

Your comments about the 770 versus the 670 are also completely wrong.  You once again show that you don't know enough about current hardware to even have a discussion with those of us that know what the f#ck we're talking about.  The GTX 770 is essentially an overclocked GTX 680, but with faster RAM than any of the GTX 600 cards as well.  It is NOT a 670.  Not only does the GTX 770 have more CUDA cores than the 670, but different, faster VRAM.  

Why don't you just give up already?  Nobody has been able to flash a GTX 670 into a 770.  And as stated earlier, there is a physical hardware difference between the GTX 770, and the GTX 680 upon which it's based.  

As usual, your facts are, well.. not facts.  Just wrong all over the place.  

 

i wouldn't say AMD is favored by 3dmark, that is just childish.  Otherwise the 780 and the titan wouldn't whoop the 7970's ass like it does.  The real reason is the hardware specs are better for the 7970.  Admit it, the bus width and the vram give the 7970 an advantage.  Also that tech power up chart is misleading, as alot of those game devs have deep connections to nvidia.  The fact is, the 770 is simply a slightly suuped up version of the 670, the specs are nearly identical and in the beginning people were even able to flash their 670's into 770's.

blaznwiipspman1

It's only because AMD supported compute and Nvidia didn't really bother with Kepler. 3DMark likes compute.acanofcoke

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

 

AMD 7000 series cards are favored by this version of 3dmark.  This isn't news.  With each new version of 3dmark, one company or the other usually pulls ahead.  This says nothing about real world performance, which we already know from actual game benchmarks.  The GTX 770 is a slightly faster card in most real world applications.  

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_770_TF_Gaming/26.html

Even you must be smart enough to be able to figure that out.  Maybe not.  

 

hartsickdiscipl

i wouldn't say AMD is favored by 3dmark, that is just childish.  Otherwise the 780 and the titan wouldn't whoop the 7970's ass like it does.  The real reason is the hardware specs are better for the 7970.  Admit it, the bus width and the vram give the 7970 an advantage.  Also that tech power up chart is misleading, as alot of those game devs have deep connections to nvidia.  The fact is, the 770 is simply a slightly suuped up version of the 670, the specs are nearly identical and in the beginning people were even able to flash their 670's into 770's.

It's not childish, it's common knowledge.  Where have you been?  This was established long ago.  You're clueless.    

The GTX 780 and Titan have such a brute horsepower advantage that they are able to overcome 3dmark's preference for AMD's current architecture.  Do you get it now?

The techpowerup chart is the closest thing to a composite picture of overall performance that we have.  It shows how the cards perform in actual games.  You can b!tch all you want about the "deep connections to Nvidia" that you claim some of the games have, but the reality is that they are games that people run on their PCs.  

Your comments about the 770 versus the 670 are also completely wrong.  You once again show that you don't know enough about current hardware to even have a discussion with those of us that know what the f#ck we're talking about.  The GTX 770 is essentially an overclocked GTX 680, but with faster RAM than any of the GTX 600 cards as well.  It is NOT a 670.  Not only does the GTX 770 have more CUDA cores than the 670, but different, faster VRAM.  

Why don't you just give up already?  Nobody has been able to flash a GTX 670 into a 770.  And as stated earlier, there is a physical hardware difference between the GTX 770, and the GTX 680 upon which it's based.  

As usual, your facts are, well.. not facts.  Just wrong all over the place.  

well its pretty easy to call out your bs on this one.  Your basically saying the same thing as me in a different way.  The 780/titan woops the 7970's ass and the specs back that up.  The 770 has weak specs, and thus gets crushed by a 7970.  Its been known for a while that nvidia over prices their cards, using mid range specs with high end prices. 

The number of transistors, lower vram, lower bus speed, smaller die size, all show what everybody already knows.  The 770 is a mid range card, and the 7970 is a high end card.  Alot of devs design games with code to specifically take advantage of nvidia hardware, whereas 3dmark doesn't do that.  I think AMD is starting to catch on though, they are clearly paying game devs alot of money now, whereas they never used to. 

Its completely neutral, and is a test of a cards brute power.  The 780 and titan are clearly more powerful than a 7970, the 770 is not.  I did make a mistake on the 770 being a 670, i mistook it for the wrong card.  The 670 can be bios flashed to a 760,  The 770 and the 680 are nearly identical.  The 700 and 600 series both use gddr5 ram, dont know which hole you pulled faster ram out of, and i dont wanna know either.  Maybe the ram speed is clocked higher, if thats what you're talking about, but a 680 can also oc the memory.

wow, looks like the 770 can't match up to the 7970 either.  The paper specs of the 7970 confirm what the benchmark is saying, the 7970 is the better card than the 770.  Only the 780 and titan are clearly superior to the 7970.  AMD really hit it out of the park with the 7950/7970.  Absolutely amazing video cards. 

Gotta give props to AMD for making such a bad ass card, can't wait to see what the 9000 series brings to the table.

blaznwiipspman1

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="blaznwiipspman1"]

 

i wouldn't say AMD is favored by 3dmark, that is just childish.  Otherwise the 780 and the titan wouldn't whoop the 7970's ass like it does.  The real reason is the hardware specs are better for the 7970.  Admit it, the bus width and the vram give the 7970 an advantage.  Also that tech power up chart is misleading, as alot of those game devs have deep connections to nvidia.  The fact is, the 770 is simply a slightly suuped up version of the 670, the specs are nearly identical and in the beginning people were even able to flash their 670's into 770's.

blaznwiipspman1

It's not childish, it's common knowledge.  Where have you been?  This was established long ago.  You're clueless.    

The GTX 780 and Titan have such a brute horsepower advantage that they are able to overcome 3dmark's preference for AMD's current architecture.  Do you get it now?

The techpowerup chart is the closest thing to a composite picture of overall performance that we have.  It shows how the cards perform in actual games.  You can b!tch all you want about the "deep connections to Nvidia" that you claim some of the games have, but the reality is that they are games that people run on their PCs.  

Your comments about the 770 versus the 670 are also completely wrong.  You once again show that you don't know enough about current hardware to even have a discussion with those of us that know what the f#ck we're talking about.  The GTX 770 is essentially an overclocked GTX 680, but with faster RAM than any of the GTX 600 cards as well.  It is NOT a 670.  Not only does the GTX 770 have more CUDA cores than the 670, but different, faster VRAM.  

Why don't you just give up already?  Nobody has been able to flash a GTX 670 into a 770.  And as stated earlier, there is a physical hardware difference between the GTX 770, and the GTX 680 upon which it's based.  

As usual, your facts are, well.. not facts.  Just wrong all over the place.  

well its pretty easy to call out your bs on this one.  Your basically saying the same thing as me in a different way.  The 780/titan woops the 7970's ass and the specs back that up.  The 770 has weak specs, and thus gets crushed by a 7970.  Its been known for a while that nvidia over prices their cards, using mid range specs with high end prices. 

The number of transistors, lower vram, lower bus speed, smaller die size, all show what everybody already knows.  The 770 is a mid range card, and the 7970 is a high end card.  Alot of devs design games with code to specifically take advantage of nvidia hardware, whereas 3dmark doesn't do that.  I think AMD is starting to catch on though, they are clearly paying game devs alot of money now, whereas they never used to. 

Its completely neutral, and is a test of a cards brute power.  The 780 and titan are clearly more powerful than a 7970, the 770 is not.  I did make a mistake on the 770 being a 670, i mistook it for the wrong card.  The 670 can be bios flashed to a 760,  The 770 and the 680 are nearly identical.  The 700 and 600 series both use gddr5 ram, dont know which hole you pulled faster ram out of, and i dont wanna know either.  Maybe the ram speed is clocked higher, if thats what you're talking about, but a 680 can also oc the memory.

You can keep pointing to the specs of the cards all you want, but the fact is that the GTX 770 outperforms the 7970 in most reviews.  Make all the excuses you want about the games being "Nvidia games."  If that's the case, too freaking bad for AMD.  They need to get their partnerships together.  Also- If that's the case, the Nvidia "midrange card" manages to beat the AMD "high end card" more often than not.  That's not something I would be advertising if I were you, fanboy.  

GTX 770 has 7GBPS rated GDDR5.  GTX 670, 680, and 760 have 6GBPS VRAM.  It's physically inferior RAM by design.  Also- You cannot BIOS flash a GTX 670 to a 760.  The 760 has fewer CUDA cores.  At least learn what you're talking about before you make an attempt to debate a subject.  

well its pretty easy to call out your bs on this one.  Your basically saying the same thing as me in a different way.  The 780/titan woops the 7970's ass and the specs back that up.  The 770 has weak specs, and thus gets crushed by a 7970.  Its been known for a while that nvidia over prices their cards, using mid range specs with high end prices. 

The number of transistors, lower vram, lower bus speed, smaller die size, all show what everybody already knows.  The 770 is a mid range card, and the 7970 is a high end card.  Alot of devs design games with code to specifically take advantage of nvidia hardware, whereas 3dmark doesn't do that.  I think AMD is starting to catch on though, they are clearly paying game devs alot of money now, whereas they never used to. 

Its completely neutral, and is a test of a cards brute power.  The 780 and titan are clearly more powerful than a 7970, the 770 is not.  I did make a mistake on the 770 being a 670, i mistook it for the wrong card.  The 670 can be bios flashed to a 760,  The 770 and the 680 are nearly identical.  The 700 and 600 series both use gddr5 ram, dont know which hole you pulled faster ram out of, and i dont wanna know either.  Maybe the ram speed is clocked higher, if thats what you're talking about, but a 680 can also oc the memory.

blaznwiipspman1

Thought I'd post my new GPU score.

MOAR POWER!!!

Thought I'd post my new GPU score.

MOAR POWER!!!

acanofcoke

:o

How much for that GPU?  Would you part with it for a few thousand bucks US?

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]

Thought I'd post my new GPU score.

MOAR POWER!!!

FaustArp

:o

How much for that GPU?  Would you part with it for a few thousand bucks US?

Thought I'd post my new GPU score.

MOAR POWER!!!

acanofcoke

[QUOTE="acanofcoke"]

Thought I'd post my new GPU score.

MOAR POWER!!!

kraken2109

Wondering if 3dmark will run on the athlon 3000+ and radeon 9800 my mum is rocking...

Wondering if 3dmark will run on the athlon 3000+ and radeon 9800 my mum is rocking...

kraken2109

Kraken... I forgot to ask but why does your mom sport a 9800 in her desktop? :P horgen123

[QUOTE="horgen123"]Kraken... I forgot to ask but why does your mom sport a 9800 in her desktop? :P kraken2109

[QUOTE="kraken2109"][QUOTE="horgen123"]Kraken... I forgot to ask but why does your mom sport a 9800 in her desktop? :P horgen123