# 3dmark11 Rank thread



## 87dtna

This is the Rank Thread for 3dMark11

What you must do to get your score listed:
Members Must have a minimum of 100 posts or have been a member for atleast 1 year.
These rankings are only for currently owned hardware, at time of submission. Please provide a screenshot of two instances of CPU-Z(Memory and CPU Tabs, and turn off power saving features on the CPU so it shows full speed), GPU-Z main tab, and the ORB site with your score showing (example in the next post)
An open Copy of Notepad with the date and your computerforum username. 
One result per sytem(GPU+CPU) per user, however, users may submit results from multiple systems. If multiple results from the same system are submitted, the older result will be removed.

Download 3dmark11 here-
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2235/futuremark-3dmark-11-v1-05/


*note you must have a DX11 capable card to run this app.  


EDIT- PhysX on doesn't seem to make any difference, so that rule is removed.


*Top 5 Overall*

Scores are listed as follows:
(CPU/Clockspeed/GPU Model/Number of GPU Cores/GPU Core Clock/GPU Memory Clock) [3dmark Score]

1.Okedokey- I7 4820k/4886mhz/780Ti/2/1070/1904 [P21152]
2.bomberboysk- I7 4770k/4400mhz/290x/2/1100/1315 [p20130]
3.xxmorpheus- I7 2700k/4789mhz/690/2/915/1502 [p19732]
4.87dtna- I5 4670k/4602mhz/680/2/1056/1602 [p16494]
5.87dtna- I7 4770k/4499mhz/780/1/1200/1502 [p14127]






*Top 20 ATi*

Scores are listed as follows:
(CPU/Clockspeed/GPU Model/Number of GPU's/GPU Core Clock/GPU Memory Clock) [3dmark Score]

1.bomberboysk- I7 4770k/4400mhz/290x/2/1100/1315 [p20130]
2.Gooberman- I5 3570k/4700mhz/7950/1/1290/1725 [p11099]
3.Turbobooster- I7 975/4200mhz/7870/1/1225/1550 [p10060]
4.Turbobooster- I7 2700k/5100mhz/7950/1/1075/1350 [p9637]
5.Sef24- I5 2500k/4326mhz/6970/2/900/1400 [p9578]
6.Turbobooster- I7 2700k/4700mhz/270x/1/1200/1500 [p9259]
6.Leopold Butters- I7 970/4606mhz/5970/2/980/1200 [p8669]
7.87dtna- I7 950/4009mhz/5870/2/1000mhz/1230 [p8563]
8.87dtna- I7 4770k/4407mhz/6970/1/1000/1375 [p6703]
9.Jasonn20- I7 920/4515mhz/5870/1/1025/1300 [p5204]
10.Kobaj- Q9450/3008mhz/6850/1/825/1100 [P3758]
11.Gooberman- Athlon II 640/3150mhz/1/5770/960/1333 [p2536]
12.
13
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.



*Top 20 nVidia*

Scores are listed as follows:
(CPU/Clockspeed/GPU Model/Number of GPU's/GPU Core Clock/GPU Memory Clock) [3dmark Score]

1.Okedokey- I7 4820k/4886mhz/780Ti/2/1070/1904 [P21152]
2.xxmorpheus- I7 2700k/4789mhz/690/2/915/1502 [p19732]
3.87dtna- I5 4670k/4602mhz/680/2/1056/1602 [p16494]
4.87dtna- I7 4770k/4499mhz/780/1/1200/1502 [p14127]
5.Okedokey - I7 2600k/5000mhz/580/2/960/1056 [P13311]
6.Spesh- I7 2600k/4789mhz/580/2/1000/1110 [p13017]
7.Claptonman- I5 4670k/4489mhz/670/2/967/1502 [p12679]
8.87dtna- I7 4770k/4400mhz/660/2/1100/1600 [p12625]
9.Turbobooster- I7 2600/5000mhz/680/1/1179/1752 [p11533]
10.Turbobooster- I5 4670k/4600mhz/770/1/1220/1803 [p11117]
11.87dtna- I5 4670k/4602mhz/570/2/800/950 [P11018]
12.87dtna- I5 4670k/4602mhz/680/1/1000/1600 [P10605]
13.G80FTW- I7 970/4125mhz/680/1/1159/1540 [p10580]
14.Turbobooster- I7 2700k/5100mhz/680/1/1100/1602 [p10520]
15.Turbobooster- I7 2600/3803mhz/gtx770/1/1200/1803 [p10362]
16.87dtna- I7 4770k/4407mhz/670/1/1055/1552 [p10033]
17.Turbobooster- I5 3570k/4700mhz/760/1/1165/1602 [p9385]
18.Salvage-this- I5 3570k/4500mhz/560 Ti/2/940/1015 [p9352]
19.Weatherman- I5 3450/3700mhz/670/1/1066/1827
20.Jluchinsky- I7 950/3105mhz/670/1/1065/1545 [P9179]


----------



## 87dtna

Here's the example post-


----------



## 87dtna

Got my other 5870 for Xfire action today


----------



## fastdude

Nice ^
Pity I don't have a DX11 GPU...


----------



## 87dtna

Yesah that is the only problem with this bench for a lot of people on the forum here.


----------



## fastdude

87dtna said:


> Yesah that is the only problem with this bench for a lot of people on the forum here.



Ya...
Going to have one before Easter though, hope the thread's still alive by then, if it's not I'll bump it


----------



## 87dtna

Well at the very least I will keep bumping it with my new hardware LOL-


----------



## jevery

.
.
jevery- i7-950/4204MHz/GTX460/2/860/1035/1720 [P5360]
.
Waiting on nVidia for proper drivers
.
.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah I hear you.  

Can't your 460's OC any better though?  My 1gb would do 910 core clock on 1.087v.  Or are you still running stock volts?


----------



## jevery

Just started using NVIDIA inspector which is the first program I've found that will let me alter voltages.  Bumped them some to hit 860, (only get 830 stock), but not ready to really crank on them yet.  Don't like the smell of burning electronics.


----------



## 87dtna

MSI afterburner is what I use....


----------



## 87dtna

Downloaded the new beta version of MSI afterburner so now I have voltage options on the 570.
Over 6k with a single GPU WOOT!


----------



## 87dtna

Bump...anyone?


----------



## 87dtna

Bump...not many people with DX11 GPU's here I guess.


----------



## linkin

There's plenty of us


----------



## 87dtna

Where's your score?


----------



## Gooberman

After i run it i get this   (I'm a nub)


----------



## 87dtna

If you are trying to run it in diagnostic mode, or something like that you shut down your internet service.


----------



## Gooberman

All i did was start it, hit upgrade later then selected Benchmark tests only then hit Run 3dmark 11 it runs then after it's done it gives me that message.


----------



## 87dtna

It only ever says that to me if the internet is not working.


----------



## Leopold Butters

I think I can do better, though, I just need to work on getting 4.7 stable.


----------



## Leopold Butters

I did a bench with tri-fire yesterday, and my score actually went down haha


----------



## 87dtna

Try 10.5 drivers.  Oh and I need a GPUz in your screenshot please.

Damn, I knew I should have put my cpu up to 4.8ghz on the cold before getting rid of the 5870's.  I'd have been over 9k.


----------



## Gooberman

87dtna said:


> It only ever says that to me if the internet is not working.



I'll try wired instead of wireless.


Still doing it :/


----------



## Leopold Butters

another thinig i noticed, is that hyper threading is completely useless in 3dMark11, my score is lower with 4.5HT on compared to 4.6 HT off.


----------



## 87dtna

To a six core CPU, yeah....but for the quads it helps.


----------



## Gooberman

i was dumb got it fixed.


----------



## linkin

I guess I'll install 3dmark11 again, i had uninstalled it


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.

Leopold Butter still waiting for a screenshot with GPUz in there.


----------



## linkin




----------



## 87dtna

Updated...Leopold still need a screeny with GPUz in there!


----------



## Leopold Butters

I updated my post.


----------



## 87dtna

k updated.


----------



## 87dtna

bump...


----------



## jasonn20

HD5870 score...    this benchmark is brutal... 


[URL=http://img522.imageshack.us/i/3dmark111.png/]
	
[/URL]


----------



## jevery

4.3 Ghz @ 1.328v?  I'm impressed.


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.

Jasonn20, you got that chip from me right?  So hard to remember, but it seems to clock like my old chip.  4ghz at 1.22v was my daily OC on that chip


----------



## linkin

That seems like a golden chip there


----------



## jasonn20

87dtna said:


> Updated.
> 
> Jasonn20, you got that chip from me right?  So hard to remember, but it seems to clock like my old chip.  4ghz at 1.22v was my daily OC on that chip



Yep, got from you 87dtna......  it seems to be a good clocker compared to some others I have seen...  got it dialed-in at [email protected] HT On with temps under 80c on air for 24/7 use... still working on my Intel overclocking skills though... 
any pointers... ??


----------



## 87dtna

Yup thats the same clocks I got on it too.

Sounds like you are doing just fine!


----------



## kdfresh09

alright so here is mine.  this should put me at the top for nvidia, and 3 overall for now.  not long till its still another low score 

oh well never mind.  cant figure out how to get my old pictures removed, so i have more data storage for this website.  anyways, my score is 8451, with the rig in my sig.


----------



## Shane

Heres mine,Not a great score at all really....i was expecting better,Tesselation and DX11 really brings my 460 it to its knees.


----------



## 87dtna

KDfresh I need a screenshot, sorry I can't go off your word.  BTW, just curious but what drivers are you using?

Nevakonaza your score has been added.


----------



## Shane

87dtna said:


> Nevakonaza your score has been added.




Thanks mate,

Is there any reason my score is so low or is that what you would expect?


----------



## 87dtna

Nah thats about right for a single 768mb 460, overclock your CPU more to like 4.2ghz and you'll probably crack 4k.

Did you crank the voltage on the card?  Most 460's can make it to 900 core.


----------



## kdfresh09

87 dtna, disregaurd my message i sent you.  here is my score!!! and screen shot

http://


----------



## 87dtna

Why not overclock the cards and get well over 9k?  You'll be in first for sure.  Or if you want me to post that score I will.


----------



## kdfresh09

oops i must have reset msi afterburner as soon as i was done with the benchmark to get the fans to be quite.  in that bench, my cards were overclocked to 800,1600,1800 @ 1075 mvolts.  if you need me to redo the screen shot i will just let me know, if not then go ahead and post it.


----------



## 87dtna

Nope thats fine, will post that.  I see that in the internet results window.


----------



## jevery

.
Here's an update 87 - nvidia finally came out with an SLI driver for Mark11.  I'll save you a little work and format it for you.

jevery- i7-950/4133mhz/gtx460/2/870mhz/1030mhz [p7358]
.
.




.
.
BTW, sorry to bump you down on the nvidia list.


----------



## 87dtna

Updated


----------



## Laquer Head

Heres my Laptop score


----------



## 87dtna

Nice score for a lappy....updated!


----------



## jasonn20

Is it within the rules if I make a run with my HD5870 with a 8800gt for physx..??


----------



## 87dtna

physx doesn't affect this bench.


----------



## jasonn20

here is an updated run...  will try with a stripped Win XP OS when I get another HDD...

[URL=http://img51.imageshack.us/i/3dmark115870bestsofar.png/]
	
[/URL]

my cpuz's

[URL=http://img848.imageshack.us/i/cpuzclocks.png/]
	
[/URL]


----------



## 87dtna

Updated


----------



## kdfresh09

heres an update for me.  was able to get a better binned thuban, the voltage is great at 1.39v for 4Ghz.  i can get it to 4.1Ghz but the voltage has to go to 1.5v and for the temp increase i dont think its worth it.

using the Corsair A-70 with 2 x 120mm fans in push pull, i get the following temps:

4Ghz @ 1.45v (1.39v in windows)=52c 100% load (low to mid 40's idle)
4.1Ghz @ 1.55v (1.47v in windows)=61c 100% load (high 40's idle)

i think i need to get a better cooler, any help would be great cause i have no idea what would be better.

oh, and how do you like the 2 points from 1st!  just cant seem to get tthem right now


----------



## 87dtna

Bump your CPU north bridge frequency to the next multiplier (it's on 12 now, so 13) for 2740mhz, and also your cards should overclock a little better than that on the core clock.  What voltage do you have them at?  Just crank the fans to 100% for benching.
Also, your ram, at only 1400 mhz they may run atleast 8-9-8-22 timings.  Probably won't help, but for 2 points anything might work.


----------



## Beyond

So I'm not liking 3Dmark very much right now.

I got P5150, not going to bother taking all the screenshots because I'm far from impressed. 

I notice most of the best scores are with high-end i7s...

Just out of curiosity would a second 570 greatly increase my score or is the biggest "issue" my CPU? lol.


----------



## 87dtna

Yes your problem is single GPU.  3dmark11 scales multiple GPU's extremely well.  With another 570, overclocked, you would probably take number one spot or get very close.

Whats your CPU overclocked too?  And what are the overclocks on your card?

With an I7 920 at 4ghz and a single gtx570 overclocked to 900 core clock I got like 6100.


----------



## kdfresh09

make way for a new first place!!  was able to jump the core up a ;itt;e more, as well as the nb speed as 87dtna advised.  i dropped my speed on the 470's, cause it was showing instability.  i had to crank vcore up to 1.625v in bios, 1.57v in windows, and 1.49 under load (horrible vdrop i know).  ill be backing it all down to 3,7Ghz @ 1.35v (1.29v) for everyday tasks and leave the cards at stock untill i need more power.  just pushing my rigs limits for this benchmark


----------



## 87dtna

Yup thats why I got rid of that exact board you have, it only has a 4 pin CPU connector....horrible horrible Vdroop on 4 or more cores.  Fine for dual cores and even triple cores.


----------



## kdfresh09

sorry but i think you have this board confused with another one, or you didnt notice the plug thats in the other 4 pins, but this board has an 8 pin connector plugged into the board, as well as the standard 20+4 pin.  but either way, yeah this board does have some horrible vdrop, but i needed an sli board for amd.  im wishing now though that i had gone with the MSI version, as it has another pci-e slot with all 16 lanes on them, and msi has LLC to help with vdrop, unlike this board which has no LLC of any kind, and little to no help with its vdrop.  i want to get http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227578
but i dont have a slot for it.  oh well, im good with the ssd i have for now.


----------



## kobaj

Hope you don't mind excessively large images.


----------



## Beyond

87dtna said:


> Yes your problem is single GPU.  3dmark11 scales multiple GPU's extremely well.  With another 570, overclocked, you would probably take number one spot or get very close.
> 
> Whats your CPU overclocked too?  And what are the overclocks on your card?
> 
> With an I7 920 at 4ghz and a single gtx570 overclocked to 900 core clock I got like 6100.



No overclocking for me.


----------



## 87dtna

Well thats your other problem 

You could get probably 6k with your setup overclocked.



Kobaj- Scores updated


----------



## sef24

Here is my 3dmark11 score
oh and woot, first place!?


----------



## 87dtna

Two things quick, you forgot to switch the one CPUz to the memory tab, and also I need to know what your CPU was running at full clockspeed.

I won't make you re-run it, just let me know what those settings were.


----------



## sef24

Ah sorry, I'm currenty using the Asus EZ mode and during the benchmark it goes up to 4.3.
For my memory I have 4g of ddr3 in my system atm

I went ahead and did a pic of the memory tab


----------



## 87dtna

Updated....I just called your GPU's 6970's since thats pretty much what they are.


----------



## sef24

So I finally figured out why MSI Afterburner would keep crashing my computer whenever I would Overclock my GPU's. I found a thread that guided me through regedit and switched a couple 1's to 0's, and now it works fine.

So I tried 3dmark06 at got identical numbers I previously had. When running 3dmark11 though I got a decent difference than I previously posted.
My cpu is overclocked to 4326, EZ mode (motherboard bios) just jumps it up whenever it needs to.

I am running both in crossfire @ stock core voltage with 900 core clock / 1400 memory clock. Going somewhere over 900 though, the drivers fail during 06 beginning run and crashes once I try a second time getting a BSOD


----------



## 87dtna

Updated!


----------



## ScottALot

Alternative cooling methods allowed? I'm tempted to use dry ice and make myself look like a boss... (next step: having my dad remember to grab dry ice from the airplane )


----------



## 87dtna

Absolutely, although DICE on the CPU isn't gonna help you a whole ton since this bench focuses mostly on the GPU.  CPU score will help you some, but not huge.

3dmark11 benefits mostly by the amount of GPU cores.  More GPU's= way higher score.


----------



## Spesh

Howcome you need 100 posts? I want to post my score.....


----------



## 87dtna

We want to make sure that a person has a genuine interest in the forum, rather than just coming in to post scores


----------



## Spesh

Well i joined here in 2009, but I have been away for a while. But I understand you have your rules.

I would've thought that the thread I started on flashing the bios of the GTX 580 would create more interest than it has. No replies so far.


----------



## 87dtna

meh, it's my thread....I'll change the rules slightly 



> Members Must have a minimum of 100 posts or have been a member for atleast 1 year.


----------



## Spesh

Cheers mate. I'll do a re-run so my snapshot conforms to the rules.


----------



## Spesh

Here's mine......


----------



## 87dtna

Updated :good:


----------



## kobaj

I don't know what compelled me to run it again. But eh, New CPU:


----------



## 87dtna

Weird, you didn't gain much at all going to a quad....because your card is now overclocked which helped the most probably.


----------



## kobaj

87dtna said:


> Weird, you didn't gain much at all going to a quad....because your card is now overclocked which helped the most probably.



Yeah, that certainly was a disappointment on my end. With just the new cpu and no gpu overclock I got 3557. A measly 400 points higher by going to quad AND overclocking the hell out of said quad. Yet a pathetic 200mhz boost on the gpu would net me the same 400 points!

But, I think futuremark aims at gpu benches and not so much cpu. 

To me though, all that matters is crysis 2. With my e8400 I couldn't really run it too well. 30fps maybe. But with the q9450 I can do 90fps easy. :3


----------



## kennebell347

Here is my submission. Everything running at stock speeds.


----------



## linkin

All done


----------



## skidude

Here's mine. CPU are GPU are at stock clock speeds.


----------



## FuryRosewood

-Heres mine for what its worth.


----------



## 87dtna

updated.  Skidude you need to take off speedstep so cpuz shows proper speed.

Fury you could easily overclock the ram on the GPU to 1100 and get another couple hundred points.  With that, and if you took the CPU to 3.8ghz you may crack 4000.


----------



## FuryRosewood

ill take a look, if i can keep the ram stable on the gpu i may try, im hesitant to run ram out of spec after having such bad luck with it ._.






-Managed 1950...about 975 on ram, at 2000 it spat out 1 error, at 2100 it spat out 176 of em, within seconds, used OCCT to verify settings. Will attempt cpu later...just is more of a hassle to boost the clockrate there, and id like to keep C&Q working...i want it to be a daily overclock


----------



## Darkserge

I tried benchmark it, it went through on Graphic benchmark, but it crashed on my CPU benchmark.
Edit: it fixed after install patches. Here my score.


----------



## Virssagòn

Can I post my results? But I'm just started as member... I want to compete with you guys when I got my hd6870 be crossfired ;P


----------



## 87dtna

Once you get to 100 posts, sure.


----------



## Geoff

My GPU isn't compatible


----------



## 87dtna

Get a new one lol.  4870 X2 is a power hog and a furnace to heat your house plus I had micro stutter in games when I tried one.


----------



## Geoff

87dtna said:


> Get a new one lol.  4870 X2 is a power hog and a furnace to heat your house plus I had micro stutter in games when I tried one.


Expensive


----------



## wolfeking

not really. You could pick up a HD 5870 for $190 or so if i remember right. Should perform about the same, and is DX11. Then your open to CF later if you have the port for it.


----------



## Geoff

wolfeking said:


> not really. You could pick up a HD 5870 for $190 or so if i remember right. Should perform about the same, and is DX11. Then your open to CF later if you have the port for it.


So I would pay $190 just for DX11 support?  If I were going to buy a new video card I'd get one that had a significant performance improvement


----------



## wolfeking

okay, The only reason I see to go to a 5870 is it kicks the arse of the 6870.  What I would suggest is a GTX560ti. Don't know how good it is to the 5870 and 4870 x2, but would definitely slaughter a strait 4870.


----------



## 87dtna

6970's are going for 200ish these days if you keep your eye out for them.


----------



## wolfeking

you can get a 570 for $235 right now. Might be worth it over the 6970.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah of course it would be better, I just figured i'd get outvoted if I said that since most people on this forum prefer amd cards....so I just said 6970.  It also matters what resolution you are running.  1080p or less the 570 is a beast for but over that the 6970 has a slight edge.


----------



## wolfeking

I would definately go for Nvidia over AMD.  If I could go back and do it again, I would get a GTX260 or GTS450 over the 4870 again.


----------



## 87dtna

I prefer Nvidia as well, and I've owned and test over 50 video cards of both in the last 2 years.


----------



## JLuchinski

OK I'm having a blond moment and I can't figure out how to post my score. I did a print screen, saved it in paint but every time I attach it in a new post the picture comes out to small to read. Does anyone care to enlighten me?


----------



## 87dtna

You have to use an image hosting site like photobucket


----------



## Virssagòn

Does cpu overclock help much on graphic performance?
because I had 70 fps in battlefield, and now I overclocked 85fps!? :O


----------



## JLuchinski

Here's mine, I don't know how to make it bigger then this.


----------



## Virssagòn

guys, got problem... If I'm doing single card, it gives this:
http://www.computerforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5120&stc=1&d=

whats wrong?


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> guys, got problem... If I'm doing single card, it gives this:
> http://www.computerforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5120&stc=1&d=
> 
> whats wrong?


It may be a power save feature of the card. Like my NVS135m will go down to practically no clock at all just using Opera or the desktop, but if I fire up a game or freeCAD then it will soot up to the max. 
Try bringing up GPUz and see what it says your clock rates are.


----------



## Virssagòn

But 3dmark benchmark is graphically heavy...


----------



## wolfeking

I am pretty sure it is not under 100% load when it detects your hardware


----------



## Virssagòn

Can you send me your whole result page, then I got an example whats right.


----------



## wolfeking

I can not do a result page. All my cards are DX10 and below.


----------



## Virssagòn

K


----------



## Virssagòn

hmm, this is weird, cpuz can't detect the speeds I think...


----------



## wolfeking

try GPUz. 
on my CPUz it is showing a core speed, its not accurate in powersave mode, but it is there none the less.


----------



## Virssagòn

you got any idea how to disable that power saving mode?


----------



## Virssagòn

hmm, look to this...
it shows the right speeds first, but at real speed it shows that one...


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> you got any idea how to disable that power saving mode?


To be honest, no I do not. I set it to high performance, but it did not help. There is a way I am sure of it, but I don't know how. If I had Afterburner still installed I could set the clocks to max stock speed and hit apply and it would be good. But I do not have it here to install to do that. 

As for your speeds in GPUz, there might be 2 things going on there. Power Stepping. Basically if your are not gaming, it will downclock to save power. or you may have a card that is factory downclocked for some reason.


----------



## Virssagòn

yeah, found that in bios, intel enhance power step technology=enabled
should it damage my system if I disable it?


----------



## wolfeking

you are overclocked so better to disable it. But Intel Speedstep and AMD cool and quiet will not affect the clock rates of the GPU.


----------



## Virssagòn

K, I'll see in the catalyst control center


----------



## wolfeking

It is most likely there. I will check when I get home at or about 1200 hours EST and see. I am not seeing anything on Nvidia Control Panel here though.


----------



## Virssagòn

Nope, found nothing...


----------



## wolfeking

hmm... Do you know what the stock speeds are supposed to be? If so, download MSI afterburner and set the sliders to stock and hit apply. then go back to GPUz and see if it shows the right speeds.


----------



## Virssagòn

from 2600k = 3400mhz
hd6870 = 900mhz gpu clock,  1050 mem clock

I can see in amd overdrive that when I do something graphically, it jumps from the 100 mhz to the right clock


----------



## wolfeking

Well, we are working on the graphics card here, so not really worried about your CPU at all. 
okay, so it will go to the right speeds under load? if so, then we have narrowed it down to a powersave feature.


----------



## Virssagòn

yeah like a said, but I gonna disable the speedstep tech and see if it's changed.
Because I can't find it in catalyst


----------



## Virssagòn

hmm, I disabled the speedstep thing and my cpu is still reducing clock when idle...


----------



## 87dtna

Disable Cstate and C1E as well.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Disable Cstate and C1E as well.



C1E I did, but Cstate, where to find?


----------



## 87dtna

C1E, C3, C6, and Cstate should all be together...just disable them all.


----------



## Virssagòn

nice, it worked!
now I got no more lagg, I had that sometimes


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah the split second to throttle the CPU back up isn't worth the power savings.  Probably costs about $1 extra a month on the power bill if that.


----------



## JLuchinski

Hey was my entry big enough to read? If not then how do I make it bigger?


----------



## 87dtna

JLuchinski said:


> Hey was my entry big enough to read? If not then how do I make it bigger?



Well I can just barely make it out, but I don't know what CPU overclock and voltage because it's throttled down.

There's a setting in photobucket that can increase the max size of an upload.  It automatically scales the pic down to 1024x768 default.  Go to your account settings (top right click up your username- account settings), then click on the ''Album settings'' tab, and then beside Upload options click on ''View upload options'' which will pop up a box that lets you select your max upload size.  The max upload size for a free account is 2048x1536 but thats plenty large for anyone because most people don't even have more than 1920x1080 monitors anyway.


----------



## JLuchinski

Awesome, thanks. 







[/IMG]


----------



## Virssagòn

I want 100 posts!  I get 11523 physics score xD and 8126 with my crossfire setup


----------



## Okedokey

Ok made a post because I thought it was interesting.    Removed one 580 coz its air cooled (doesn't like 4.53GHz effective) 

3DMark11 Basic Scenario:




Stock CPU as Physx dedicated - Stock GPU @ 1.1V (neede for BF3 stability).







Auto physx standard oc






2600K at 4.8GHz - Stock [email protected]






2600K (55oC)  with GTX580 at 906MHz at 1.15V (47oC)






Im going to pump it to 5GHz and see if the CPU is bottling..  I doubt it.

*edit*

2600K @5GHz 1.5V 36oC 100% load (ambient 25oC) - GPU 906MHz (4.53GHz effective)@1.15V






2600K @5.2GHz 1.5V 36oC 100% load (ambient 25oC) - GPU 906MHz (4.53GHz effective)@1.15V


----------



## 87dtna

No GPUz in the screenshot...


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> No GPUz in the screenshot...



I wasn't asking for verification but thanks anyway     I actually see a GPUz in the screenshot at the end... but anyhoo.

Two things that are interesting, I think by showing different states of CPU clock and GPU clock increases that PhysX plays a pretty significant role in 3DMark11.  Auto selection in nVidia control panel seems to slow things down, but I only did one test. 

I also noticed that at 5.2GHz the CPU no longer is at 100% load during CPU testing etc in the benchmark.  This also shows in the figures with the significant yet unrewarding return between 5.0GHz and 5.2GHz.  I wouldve expected a bigger return, yet the GPUs could feed it faster.  

Ive decided to watercool the other 580, so when thats in I'll test again.  I think spesh had 13,000 in 3DMark11 with GTX580 TRI-SLI.  If thats the case, thats an even more minute retrun on investment in this benchmark.

The data has a correlation coefficient of 0.94 which is pretty strong.


----------



## 87dtna

The last screenshot has CPUz but no GPUz.


----------



## JLuchinski

Are you going to update the scoreboards soon?


----------



## 87dtna

JLuchinski said:


> Are you going to update the scoreboards soon?



I never saw a new screenshot with power saving features off, did I miss it?  I don't what your CPU is clocked at.


----------



## JLuchinski

Do you mean power saving for my CPU or GPU? My CPU clock speed is in the CPUZ screen, is that not right?


----------



## G80FTW

Here is my first 3DMark 11 score with my new toy.  Everything is stock:





I just read the rules, so Ill run it again and post another screen.  I just didnt think I would be in the top 5 with my CPU.

Here is my second run.  A little lower, but then I had a steam convo running in the background so maybe thats why 

[IMG=http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/782/3dmark112.jpg][/IMG]

(I decided not to re-size the screen as the text would be alot harder to read and it appears I did mess up the date with a 2 instead of a 6)


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.


----------



## G80FTW

87dtna said:


> Updated.



Just thought Id point out my CPU was at 3.34GHz, its stock turbo mode not 3.2GHz.

I just realized CPU-z is reading it as a 3.2GHz CPU though, not sure why as it should be 3.34Ghz.


----------



## Virssagòn

G80FTW said:


> Here is my first 3DMark 11 score with my new toy.



couldn't you get higher then that with a gtx680? Maybe it's your psu...


----------



## 87dtna

SmileMan said:


> couldn't you get higher then that with a gtx680? Maybe it's your psu...



He didn't overclock at all thats stock turbo clocks.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> He didn't overclock at all thats stock turbo clocks.



yeah but doesn't the gtx680 requieres at least a 700+ psu with good amps?


----------



## 87dtna

Not not at all.  The 680 doesn't consume near as much power as a 570....in fact it's pretty close to 560ti wattage.


----------



## Aastii

SmileMan said:


> yeah but doesn't the gtx680 requieres at least a 700+ psu with good amps?



No single GPU requires 700+W with good amps, in fact no dual GPU card does either


----------



## 87dtna

I wouldn't want to run a gtx 590 on less than 700w PSU....not because of the total wattage but because typically PSU's less than 700w wouldn't have enough on the 12v rail to support it.....a 590 can pull well over 30 amps if overclocked, they pull 29 stock.


----------



## G80FTW

SmileMan said:


> yeah but doesn't the gtx680 requieres at least a 700+ psu with good amps?



The TDP of the 2GB version of this card is 195W.  I assume the 4GB is not much more.  Compare that to my G80 which was 145W, and throw in the fact that I dont have a game that can fully utilize this card, Id say my PSU can handle it just fine.  

nvidia does recommend a 550W PSU with a 32A 12v though, I have 3 x 22A 12v but I guess it works. Havent had a problem yet.  I was also afraid my PSU would not be able to handle it, as its gettings rather old at around 5 years old already.  Surprised its still holding up as well as it is, I keep my PC pretty clean though so the inside of my PSU still looks shiny and new so I think that has helped to pro-long its life by keeping it dust-free.


----------



## 87dtna

The 680 only really pulls ~173w stock.


----------



## G80FTW

Ok so heres with some changes:







I turned off speedstep so to display what was my current CPU speed, which in turn turned off the turbo mode and I did not feel like manually overclocking it to 3.34Ghz, not that it would have made a huge difference.  I also enabled XMP in my bios (not sure exactly if it made any difference either) and disabled Windows Aero for the test and AVG.


----------



## 87dtna

ok updated.


----------



## Okedokey

Please update the leaderboard.

Bigfellla - I7 2600k/5000mhz/580/2/960/1056 [P13311]


----------



## Okedokey

bump

Check out the latest news for 3DMark's next benchmark see here

http://youtu.be/VgN1TKAAaD0?hd=1


----------



## wolfeking

I used the sticky note over notepad, is that okay?


----------



## spirit

Poor old 5870 is showing its age I think, was getting like 15-30 FPS in the benches 3D Mark threw at my card.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> Poor old 5870 is showing its age I think, was getting like 15-30 FPS in the benches 3D Mark threw at my card.



Hey spirit, I'm powning your pc  (only by a bit)






Edit; I see cpu power saving is on, it's at 4.8ghz btw. The gpu @stock.
My other hd6870 is in my brothers pc...


----------



## wolfeking

You are only winning because you have HT. Your graphics score is lower, your physics score is much better. Though I have to say I did not expect scores that high with AMD graphics at all.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> Though I have to say I did not expect scores that high with AMD graphics at all.


Because NVIDIA has PhysX on the GPU?


----------



## wolfeking

yes. Because Nvidia are the kings of physics. I assumed that AMD would end you in needing to use the CPU and you would not get too far with that, even with a 3930K or the like.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> yes. Because Nvidia are the kings of physics. I assumed that AMD would end you in needing to use the CPU and you would not get too far with that, even with a 3930K or the like.



Nope, your gtx480 scores only a bit more like I can see here:





Btw, 2X my card gives 7430P graphics.


----------



## wolfeking

Are you a retard? 





The score you quoted is at stock with 4GB RAM.  But as long as you are quoting, go ahead and show that 2 6870 is only marginally better than a 480 and double the price.


----------



## Virssagòn

The hd7870 scores 6781. No discussion though, amd and nvidia has different qualities. They are almost the same in total performance.


----------



## wolfeking

keep telling yourself that. I will never use one, for the simple fact of I am not going to spend hundreds to have a graphic card tell me what operating system I can use.  Till AMD gets their ass in gear and sorts their linux drivers, they are trash and not worth $10.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> keep telling yourself that. I will never use one, for the simple fact of I am not going to spend hundreds to have a graphic card tell me what operating system I can use.  Till AMD gets their ass in gear and sorts their linux drivers, they are trash and not worth $10.



The ones from the new series are much better then the previous ones. Amd gives also much better performance for their price, like; gtx660ti ($310) <-> hd7870 ($220) while they're pretty much the same in performance.


----------



## wolfeking

50% better than garbage is still bad.  They may be better, but not worth the price, especially seeing as they are still limiting what you do besides games. But for most people, that is all they can wrap their small brains around. So whatever. Like AMD if you want. I am always going to use Nvidia because I do not have to worry about my OS at all. The XP driver for the GTX480 works fine in windows 2000. I can not say the same thing about CCC 12.4. It would not even install in 2k. And don't get me started on the issues inside Linux.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> 50% better than garbage is still bad.  They may be better, but not worth the price, especially seeing as they are still limiting what you do besides games. But for most people, that is all they can wrap their small brains around. So whatever. Like AMD if you want. I am always going to use Nvidia because I do not have to worry about my OS at all. The XP driver for the GTX480 works fine in windows 2000. I can not say the same thing about CCC 12.4. It would not even install in 2k. And don't get me started on the issues inside Linux.



So what's the problem when I got a windows 7? Right, nothing...
Even the drivers from my card are fairly good atm.
I will never give nvidia an advantage in my eyes.


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:


> yes. Because Nvidia are the kings of physics. I assumed that AMD would end you in needing to use the CPU and you would not get too far with that, even with a 3930K or the like.



Yeah I'm pretty sure with Radeons, PhysX has to be done on the CPU.

As for the whole "AMD vs NVIDIA" argument, it's really quite old now. I just go for whatever, I don't care so long as it didn't cost me a bundle and it does what I want.


----------



## wolfeking

Assume you want to do something that depends on physics, say a engineering simulation, or even a scientific (chemical or Physics either one) simulation, your AMD card will do absolutely nothing to help you.   There is a lot they can not do. 

And if you are fine on a microshaft OS and a card that gets along with it most of the time, then good for you. When you want to come into the actual computing world and open your eyes to the amazing things a computer can do, then good luck with that AMD card. Really.


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> Assume you want to do something that depends on physics, say a engineering simulation, or even a scientific (chemical or Physics either one) simulation, your AMD card will do absolutely nothing to help you.   There is a lot they can not do.
> 
> And if you are fine on a microshaft OS and a card that gets along with it most of the time, then good for you. When you want to come into the actual computing world and open your eyes to the amazing things a computer can do, then good luck with that AMD card. Really.



Yep, my AMD will do good right


----------



## spirit

wolfeking said:
			
		

> Assume you want to do something that depends on physics, say a engineering simulation, or even a scientific (chemical or Physics either one) simulation, your AMD card will do absolutely nothing to help you. There is a lot they can not do.


Yes I know NVIDIA cards are better for that kind of thing, but I don't do any of that. If I did, I'd get right of the 5870 and get an NVIDIA card. 



			
				wolfeking said:
			
		

> And if you are fine on a microshaft OS and a card that gets along with it most of the time, then good for you. When you want to come into the actual computing world and open your eyes to the amazing things a computer can do, then good luck with that AMD card. Really.


I'll be on Windows for a long time yet. 

Must admit though, when I was waiting to get my 5870 I was a bit worried about the drivers. I know AMD's drivers used to be crap. Got the card and installed the drivers, wasn't impressed at all with the installation procedure, but the drivers work and are stable. Not had any crashes yet. In fact, I was having more issues with NVIDIA's drivers when I had a 450. For some reason, the 285.62 drivers hated my GTS 450, I always used to get crashes no matter what I did, yet the same drivers worked on other machines. Not had the same issues with any other NVIDIA drivers since (and I still have machine with NVIDIA cards).


----------



## FuryRosewood

Soooo if im hearing right what wolf is saying is to understand what a computer can do we need to run *nix? Sorry but F*ck that. I like things that that work out of the box  and believe it or not developer tools are better on windows cus *gasp* people pay for the software! my god what a concept.


----------



## wolfeking

No where am I saying you need Unix. I have not used unix, nor will I use unix.  However Linux is much better than windows at everything unless you need 2 things. 1. Games that just install and work. 2. Something that a 3rd grader with a IQ of 10 could use without issue.   And developer tools. BS. C++ works much better on Linux than on windows. Still have not found a compiler that just works without a manual longer than the bible and quran together on how to use it.  

If you want to spend your life paying $100 ever couple of years just to use your computer, go right ahead. But Microsoft is not the future of computers, and it will just end up being the damn apple of software.  I prefer to install something that I don't have to spend $100 on, and then another 10,000 in software to get the 100 software to be useful. Let alone worry about if I am going to get a virus.


----------



## claptonman

I haven't had a virus in 2+ years. If you're not stupid with what you're downloading, its really a non-issue.

And saying AMD sucks because it has bad linux drivers is rubbish. If you need linux, then yes, Nvidia all the way. If you're looking for a cheap card for gaming, AMD is the choice. A 7870 is equal to a 660ti for $80 less. Like said, not everyone uses linux. I'm not here to say that's right and that's what it should be. But most games are on windows only, and I'm not gonna move to linux if there's no games supported. That may change in the near future, with Win8 coming out, but right now Windows is the way to go. Saying AMD is not worth $10 is pure fanboyism. Sorry, but there's nothing to defend that claim besides it has no support for linux, which only a percentage of PC users use.

But I do agree with linux having great C++ tools. Dual-booting my laptop just for my C++ class.


----------



## wolfeking

I am calling you on that one. There are very few games that will not wirk at all under linux. It will take some work arounds on most of them, but I have yet to find a game that will not eventually work on linux. 

Call it fanboy if you like. I have used both and the only thing that the AMD cards could do without issue was gaming. The drivers in windows and linux were horrible. with a HD4870 installed, CCC 12.6 refused to even acknowledge the card existed (seeing as the monitor was displaying from it, kind of leads to say it does exist on the system and it does work).  I am sorry, but if I am going to pay more than $10 for a card, I want it to work with anything, be it a game, a simulation, a distributed computing app, a movie, or different operating systems ranging from Linux to windows 2k forward.  AMD just can not do it, and they lost my confidence with the HD6570 and HD4870 that I tried. Both were happy in windows XP and 7, but throwing anything else at it (vista and Ubuntu 10.04.3) just landed in the land of driver headaches.


----------



## G80FTW

wolfeking said:


> I am calling you on that one. There are very few games that will not wirk at all under linux. It will take some work arounds on most of them, but I have yet to find a game that will not eventually work on linux.
> 
> Call it fanboy if you like. I have used both and the only thing that the AMD cards could do without issue was gaming. The drivers in windows and linux were horrible. with a HD4870 installed, CCC 12.6 refused to even acknowledge the card existed (seeing as the monitor was displaying from it, kind of leads to say it does exist on the system and it does work).  I am sorry, but if I am going to pay more than $10 for a card, I want it to work with anything, be it a game, a simulation, a distributed computing app, a movie, or different operating systems ranging from Linux to windows 2k forward.  AMD just can not do it, and they lost my confidence with the HD6570 and HD4870 that I tried. Both were happy in windows XP and 7, but throwing anything else at it (vista and Ubuntu 10.04.3) just landed in the land of driver headaches.



GTA4 being one.  I ran Ubuntu 10.4 LTS for a while with an X1950 pro card and could not get ANY drivers to work.  While some games would work, even without drivers, GTA4 will not work at all. Which was one reason I stopped using Ubuntu.  It required too much effort to install and run games that its really not worth it.  

If you ask me, any form of Linux should only be used as a web browsing machine.  Gaming, should be left for Windows.

And all this about C++ working better in Linux? How? I dont see how it would run better under either OS seeing as its just a compiler you write code in....  C++ works perfectly fine for me in Windows 7 and I dont see how it could possibly work any "better" under another OS.  Besides that Microsoft offers the program for free so where is the problem here...


----------



## wolfeking

G80FTW said:


> If you ask me, any form of Linux should only be used as a web browsing machine.  Gaming, should be left for Windows.


Yea, because we all want windows to stay around doing things that make no since for the rest of civilization, right?  I don't think that is true. 

I agree that windows is for gaming at this point. I have a felling that I will go to the store tomorrow after school to buy a VGA cable, and reinstall my system with linux only. Leave gaming for a while. Have not really been using it much lately anyway. 



> And all this about C++ working better in Linux? How? I dont see how it would run better under either OS seeing as its just a compiler you write code in....  C++ works perfectly fine for me in Windows 7 and I dont see how it could possibly work any "better" under another OS.  Besides that Microsoft offers the program for free so where is the problem here...


I am talking about the compiler working better. The compilers in Ubuntu are much easier to use than anything available in windows that I have found.


----------



## Gooberman

http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/6661/3dmark11h.png


----------



## kdfresh09

soon ill be posting a score with 2 x 670 in sli.  ordering onother one for x-mas for myself, and should be great.  hoping for the 16000 mark....


----------



## kdfresh09

until i get the 2nd 670, here is my score with 1.


----------



## wolfeking

How very so disappointing.   Want my 480 back now, and SLI it.


----------



## Virssagòn

I wanna compete this time.
Not much though.
Hd7950 900/5500mhz and i7 [email protected]





only 2000 less then CF hd6970 (graphics score). Seems like an OK score.


----------



## Virssagòn

For some odd reason my combiined score is higher then yours? 
Weird, because your graphics score is a way higher...


----------



## turbobooster

this is my score max overclock without voltage.
dont forget its a 7870, lol.


----------



## 87dtna

You did not even follow the rules for the screenshot.  2 CPUz's open (one on memory tab) and the GPUz should be on the graphics card tab.  The example screenshot was given in post 2.

With that said, the other rules were minimum of 100 posts, and member for 1 year so I cannot accept it anyway.


----------



## Shane

Here is mine.


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.  You should overclock the 670.  Even a small OC on all stock volts like +100 on the core clock and +200 on the memory should get you 4th place instead of your current 6th.  You'd probably place in the top 5 overall as well.

You could even hit 3rd if you overclocked the CPU to atleast 4.6-4.8 and overclocked the 670 to max.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Updated.  You should overclock the 670.  Even a small OC on all stock volts like +100 on the core clock and +200 on the memory should get you 4th place instead of your current 6th.  You'd probably place in the top 5 overall as well.
> 
> You could even hit 3rd if you overclocked the CPU to atleast 4.6-4.8 and overclocked the 670 to max.



memory clock doesn't do anything, tested that yesterday... had only 20 points difference going from 1375 to 1500.


----------



## Shane

87dtna said:


> Updated.  You should overclock the 670.  Even a small OC on all stock volts like +100 on the core clock and +200 on the memory should get you 4th place instead of your current 6th.  You'd probably place in the top 5 overall as well.
> 
> You could even hit 3rd if you overclocked the CPU to atleast 4.6-4.8 and overclocked the 670 to max.



Thanks,To be honest....i use to be into benchmarking and Overclocking,squeezing as much performance as i could but these days i just cant be bothered. 

As long as my system plays everything i want it too and performs well (which is does very well)....im happy.


----------



## Gooberman

broke that 10k  (I was doing this yesterday but everyone ran into my room to watch ted so i never uploaded it yet lol)


----------



## 87dtna

Nice job.  I really wish I'd have benched that 7970 when I had it but I totally forgot.  Oh well.

Updated, Gooberman takes the top AMD spot.


----------



## Gooberman

Finally first on something


----------



## Virssagòn

Not for long lol, wait until I post up my 10k+ score .  Hope 3dmark has saved my score... Uploading tomorrow


----------



## Gooberman

http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/79/3dmark1110516.png

highest I'm going without going crazy xD


----------



## 87dtna

Can you get your CPU higher?  It helps.


----------



## Gooberman

It's going crazy hot if i go higher lol


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> http://img805.imageshack.us/img805/79/3dmark1110516.png
> 
> highest I'm going without going crazy xD



Nice! 
Can't seem to get higher then 1140 mhz on core clock without crash on stock volt.
Have you increased voltage or something?


----------



## Gooberman

yes


----------



## 87dtna

Thats a typical overclock on stock volts, around 1125 give or take with most topping out around 1250 on air.


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> yes



With what program do you increase it?


----------



## Gooberman

I've been using trixx


----------



## 87dtna

Use MSI afterburner, it's the easiest IMO.


----------



## Gooberman

and I have that


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> Use MSI afterburner, it's the easiest IMO.



Seems like my voltage is locked on msi... any way to unlock? Is yours unlocked on msi or is my card just totally locked? :'(
That should be sad...


----------



## Gooberman

I wouldn't think yours would be locked lol


----------



## wolfeking

SmileMan said:


> Seems like my voltage is locked on msi... any way to unlock? Is yours unlocked on msi or is my card just totally locked? :'(
> That should be sad...



try sapphire Trixx to oc. My cards don't allow voltage changes with Precision x or afterburner, but trixx does voltage changes without issue.  and trixx is easier to use (at least for me).


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> I wouldn't think yours would be locked lol



yeh, that'd be weird...
When did you buy yours? They say xfx started later locking their bios...


----------



## Virssagòn

wolfeking said:


> try sapphire Trixx to oc. My cards don't allow voltage changes with Precision x or afterburner, but trixx does voltage changes without issue.  and trixx is easier to use (at least for me).



Nice! If it does, I'm happy and will go crazy like I am ;P.
On phone atm, doing tomorrow...
opening the window for cold air lol.
Probably getting an aftermarket cooler soon.


----------



## Gooberman

SmileMan said:


> yeh, that'd be weird...
> When did you buy yours? They say xfx started later locking their bios...



I bought mine in like september. Does your card get really hot too? xD i don't leave mine overclocked too much due to the heat this thing puts out.


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> I bought mine in like september. Does your card get really hot too? xD i don't leave mine overclocked too much due to the heat this thing puts out.



I'm setting fanspeed to 85%, didn't really measure the temps lol. At 1100/1500 it was like 76c max with 85%. So can't imagine it would have been much hotter on 1140 xD


----------



## Gooberman

Well, I can't even get mine past 1000 without upping the voltage


----------



## 87dtna

In afterburner all you have to do is click on settings and check the unlock voltage control and monitoring.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> In afterburner all you have to do is click on settings and check the unlock voltage control and monitoring.



Did^^


----------



## 87dtna

What version of afterburner do you have?


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> Well, I can't even get mine past 1000 without upping the voltage



Because the black edition has a higher stock voltage. The reason why I bought it was because the price was the same + if my voltage was locked that I'd have a bit more overclocking potential.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> What version of afterburner do you have?



Newest.


----------



## Gooberman

SmileMan said:


> Because the black edition has a higher stock voltage. The reason why I bought it was because the price was the same + if my voltage was locked that I'd have a bit more overclocking potential.



well i got mine for $289.99 xD. What's the stock volts on the black edition though?


----------



## Virssagòn

Gooberman said:


> well i got mine for $289.99 xD. What's the stock volts on the black edition though?



Idk that.. looking tomorrow.
Got mine for 279 euro + 3awesome games for free + 20% off for another game... so it was a good deal


----------



## Gooberman

That would of been to expensive for me because I just had enough to get mine at that price. though I might upgrade this year and sell this to a friend.


----------



## jimbo02816

P9512 graphics 9795, physics 8747, combined 8766

 i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz 
 Asus Sabertooth Z77
 PowerColor Radeon HD 7870 LE (Tahiti) @ 1251mhz core 1500mhz mem
 Antec HCP-750 PSU
 2x4Gb Corsair Dominator GT @ 2133mhz overclocked using X.M.P
 Crucial C300 128GB 


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5944901


----------



## turbobooster

its still not official that i post here, but i want to post this to, because there is another 7870xt


----------



## craneop1985

I'll get around and upload screen shot when I can ---video card has been upgraded from the 9600 gso to a Sapphire HD7850.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5976654


----------



## turbobooster

craneop1985 said:


> I'll get around and upload screen shot when I can ---video card has been upgraded from the 9600 gso to a Sapphire HD7850.
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/5976654



thats a nice upgrade, time for a new cpu upgrade mayby.


----------



## Drdeath




----------



## turbobooster




----------



## 87dtna

Updated for Turbobooster, Drdeath sorry but you don't meet the requirements.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Updated for Turbobooster, Drdeath sorry but you don't meet the requirements.



why not.


----------



## 87dtna

turbobooster said:


> why not.








> What you must do to get your score listed:
> *Members Must have a minimum of 100 posts or have been a member for atleast 1 year.*
> These rankings are only for currently owned hardware, at time of submission. Please provide a screenshot of two instances of CPU-Z(Memory and CPU Tabs), GPU-Z, and the ORB site with your score showing (example in the next post)
> An open Copy of Notepad with the date and your computerforum username.
> One result per sytem(GPU+CPU) per user, however, users may submit results from multiple systems. If multiple results from the same system are submitted, the older result will be removed.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


>



oke.


----------



## Drdeath

87dtna said:


> Updated for Turbobooster, Drdeath sorry but you don't meet the requirements.



I will soon. That is not a way to attract new members BTW. I am cool with it though. may want to rethink the 100 post and 1 year rule.... just sayin contests are great ways to attract noobs.


----------



## 87dtna

We don't want new members that only come here to be a ''record holder'' contest winner on the forum.  If thats someones attitude, we may not want you here anyway.

This isn't really a ''contest'' anyway, it's just a showing your scores off thread.


----------



## Shlouski




----------



## Drdeath

87dtna said:


> We don't want new members that only come here to be a ''record holder'' contest winner on the forum.  If thats someones attitude, we may not want you here anyway.
> 
> This isn't really a ''contest'' anyway, it's just a showing your scores off thread.



WOW, I just brought up a suggestion. That remark puts me out. Not a club for me when someone makes an arrogant comment like that. Websites build traffic to make money for the owner.

If it is not a contest then who cares if someone is showing off their score? that puts words in your mouth. later

AND BTW, who are you to say we may not want you here? Kiss my ass


----------



## 87dtna

I said if thats ''someones'' attitude I didn't say it was yours.  Take things personal much?

The only way you should have been offended by that is if that really was the only reason you came here.


----------



## WeatherMan




----------



## 87dtna

Updated.


----------



## salvage-this

The link for the download is broken for me.  Will the basic version work?  

http://www.guru3d.com/files_details/3dmark_11_basic_edition_download.html


----------



## 87dtna

9th place is yours


----------



## linkin

WeatherMan said:


> Wait wait...
> 
> I beat linkin



That's an old score on old hardware  

Here's my updated score:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6385248

http://i.imgur.com/SQlbLrq.jpg


----------



## WeatherMan

You suck! 

Here's the best I can do 





Any higher on the card and it's not stable


----------



## 87dtna

Linkin there's no GPUz.


----------



## linkin

'scuse me, it's 4:30am  I'll fix it now.

EDIT: Check previous post, fixed


----------



## WeatherMan

You also have 2 Linkin's in the list, is that for his old and new system?


----------



## 87dtna

WeatherMan said:


> You also have 2 Linkin's in the list, is that for his old and new system?



Yup.



87dtna said:


> One result per sytem(GPU+CPU) per user, *however, users may submit results from multiple systems.* If multiple results from the same system are submitted, the older result will be removed.


----------



## salvage-this

EDIT:  New picture with the right OCs in place.  Nice catch 87dtna


----------



## 87dtna

Updated, but dude 1.41v on that 3570k is too high for daily running and espcially at stock clocks, are you really only running stock 3.4ghz?


----------



## salvage-this

Updated original post.


----------



## Shlouski

87dtna said:


> Updated, but dude 1.41v on that 3570k is too high for daily running and espcially at stock clocks, are you really only running stock 3.4ghz?



I saw you updated it, but what about my score. Did I do something wrong?


----------



## G80FTW

Saw that I was moving down on the rankings, so did some tweaking, updated my drivers and 3DMark and got this:





This is the first time I have OCed my PC since I built it a year ago. And I was afraid of the 4GHz it "auto tuned" to so I setup some extra cooling:







I have yet to OC my video card as well. I might get up the courage to do so some other time.


----------



## craneop1985

This is stock---will o/c it later.


----------



## 87dtna

Shlouski said:


> I saw you updated it, but what about my score. Did I do something wrong?



Yes, there was no GPUz in your screenshot.



G80FTW said:


> Saw that I was moving down on the rankings, so did some tweaking, updated my drivers and 3DMark and got this:
> 
> 
> I have yet to OC my video card as well. I might get up the courage to do so some other time.



Yeah if you OC your card you should bump yourself into 3rd.



craneop1985 said:


> This is stock---will o/c it later.



I need a larger screenshot that I can read, and also you must take the power saving features off the CPU so that it reads the correct speed.


----------



## G80FTW

It took some determination for my rig, but it was able to crack another spot on the board:





4.125ghz on my cpu, and it might even have more to give! My gpu on the other hand isnt like overclocking. It came with a stock overclock, so Im not sure it has alot more to push out than what Im making it do already. Tried OCing it earlier with driver crashes so I stuck with a tiny OC.

What I thought was great though, was neither my CPU nor GPU even got up to 70c under load. And Im running air cooling.


----------



## turbobooster

G80FTW said:


> It took some determination for my rig, but it was able to crack another spot on the board:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.125ghz on my cpu, and it might even have more to give! My gpu on the other hand isnt like overclocking. It came with a stock overclock, so Im not sure it has alot more to push out than what Im making it do already. Tried OCing it earlier with driver crashes so I stuck with a tiny OC.
> 
> What I thought was great though, was neither my CPU nor GPU even got up to 70c under load. And Im running air cooling.



the mem goes much higher normaly easy to 1700


----------



## G80FTW

turbobooster said:


> the mem goes much higher normaly easy to 1700



Well, I wasnt worried about overclocking the RAM as Im pretty sure my main bottleneck is my CPU. And Im not sure 25mhz would have made an impact on my score.  I can probably push the CPU to 4.2-4.3ghz on air though. Will try when I get a new powersupply. I think the main reason I was having overclocking issues with my video card was because of my power supply. Its 6+ years old has gone through alot of builds and when I bought it was only 650watts so it probably isnt putting out that power anymore and its probably running full capacity all the time. Voltages are fine though and no crashing or throttling down. Its an amazing unit I think.


----------



## Gooberman

And down you go 





http://imageshack.us/a/img833/1034/3dm11.png


----------



## turbobooster

nice score for the gtx 770 at stock speeds

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/6692000


----------



## turbobooster

verry nice score i think for a small overclock, and a stock 2600


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## 87dtna

Updated, but turbo booster you need to repost your link to the 770 screenshot.  Your 760 one is in.

670 and 660 SLI scores-


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Updated, but turbo booster you need to repost your link to the 770 screenshot.  Your 760 one is in.
> 
> 670 and 660 SLI scores-



oke done.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## 87dtna

Updated.


----------



## turbobooster

thx, try later with a handpicked gtx 680 on a 2600k


----------



## 87dtna

6970-


----------



## turbobooster

not bad.


----------



## turbobooster

i7 2600k at 4.6
msi gtx 680






you can read a revieuw of my card here.

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages..._review,1.html

the card described in this revieuw is the card i realy have.


----------



## 87dtna

Nice single GPU score.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Nice single GPU score.



thx i find so to.
mayby it can go higher, mem a little down and core up, but for now i,m glad, lol.
and ofcourse cpu higher, but first have to put some new water in and new tubes.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## 87dtna

Didn't do much, was your CPU throttling?

I would back the ram speed down and go for higher core clock.  Ram speed makes almost no difference.  That 400mhz overclock is maybe 30-40 points.  But if you can get 50mhz higher core clock thats probably 200 points more.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Didn't do much, was your CPU throttling?
> 
> I would back the ram speed down and go for higher core clock.  Ram speed makes almost no difference.  That 400mhz overclock is maybe 30-40 points.  But if you can get 50mhz higher core clock thats probably 200 points more.



no cpu is not trottling, thats why i dont get it, i,m going to up the core and back the mem, but i,m putting new coolwater and tubes in first, and i think a gene 5, mayby its the chipset p67 whats holding back.

trying to do higher core tommorow


----------



## turbobooster

getting step by step higher, but for no extra volt, i think this is it.


----------



## turbobooster

so this is the max on the videicard with now extra voltage, i dont have a modded bios


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.


----------



## claptonman

Your 3Dmark link is a 404.


----------



## turbobooster

claptonman said:


> Your 3Dmark link is a 404.



mine??????


if i click on it it opens


----------



## claptonman

turbobooster said:


> mine??????
> 
> 
> if i click on it it opens



Sorry, meant 87TDNA's original post at the front.


----------



## 87dtna

Ahh yes, thanks.  It's because there is an updated version now.  Link fixed.


----------



## turbobooster

oke cant go to high with a i5 4670k because of the temps. next week i try with a i7 2700k.


----------



## 87dtna

uhh, it says your max temps were like 64c....you got a LONG way from danger.  While benching running CPU's in the 90's just for short bursts is no problem.


----------



## Virssagòn

87dtna said:


> uhh, it says your max temps were like 64c....you got a LONG way from danger.  While benching running CPU's in the 90's just for short bursts is no problem.



Yeah, overclock it!
However, I thought that haswell ran hotter on that clockspeed/voltage, even with that cooler.


----------



## 87dtna

People say that but it seems no different than Ivy to me.  Or atleast within 5c difference.


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> Yeah, overclock it!
> However, I thought that haswell ran hotter on that clockspeed/voltage, even with that cooler.



maybe the vcore can go down, because all i did was up the multie, and left de vcore at auto, and we all now that the cpu gets on auto more vcore then necessary


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> uhh, it says your max temps were like 64c....you got a LONG way from danger.  While benching running CPU's in the 90's just for short bursts is no problem.



yes i now that the temps are not even in de danger zone, lol.
but its not my cpu any more so have  to be a little careful, hahaha.


----------



## Gooberman

http://imageshack.us/a/img10/4599/27e4.jpg

overclocking laptop ftw!  (it only goes up to 967 not 1055 which is the game as the GT 750m lol)


----------



## Calin

There u go


----------



## 87dtna

You didn't make the cut guys, only top 20 will be listed.


----------



## Gooberman

I'm posting it for fun lol


----------



## 87dtna

Thats fine, was just stating it in case you were wondering why I didn't post it.


----------



## claptonman

4th place, please.


----------



## 87dtna

Why not overclock?


You overclock your CPU and video cards and that'll put you easily over 13k


----------



## claptonman

I literally just got this thing on Friday. I'll definitely work on it. For now, better score after fixing my RAM speeds/timing and bumping my CPU a little bit. Here's the link so it doesn't eat everyone's bandwidth.

http://i.imgur.com/noP19We.png


----------



## WeatherMan

I'm gonna run again see if I can beat my old score of P5710 lol


----------



## WeatherMan

Hell yeah! 





EDIT: Excuse the 1700MHz in CPUZ, I cannot get that to go away! I've disabled speedstep, C1E, EIST blah blah over and over, tried another BIOS still refuses to stay at 3.x


----------



## claptonman

Did you turn off turbo boost?


----------



## WeatherMan

IIRC the i3 2100 doesn't have Turbo Boost


----------



## Geoff

WeatherMan said:


> IIRC the i3 2100 doesn't have Turbo Boost


i3 lollll


----------



## WeatherMan

Shut up you! 

Flash git with your i7 and Subaru


----------



## Gooberman

http://imageshack.us/a/img208/3098/yia6.png

best i can currently get lol not bad for a 7950


----------



## 87dtna

Updated.


----------



## WeatherMan

You didn't give me my extra 25pts!!!!! Nooooooooo


lol only joking


----------



## 87dtna

lol sorry I missed you.

Updated


----------



## claptonman

@4.5ghz. Just passed you!


----------



## 87dtna

My gtx 660's are still beating you 

Overclock them 670's!


----------



## claptonman

87dtna said:


> My gtx 660's are still beating you
> 
> Overclock them 670's!



They both reach 80c on BF3... I may try.


----------



## 87dtna

Take the fans of auto and just put them at 100% for benching.


----------



## Gooberman

you never updated my score


----------



## 87dtna

Gooberman said:


> you never updated my score



What?  Sure I did, you're number 7 in the Nvidia list.


----------



## Gooberman

Why am i in the nvidia list with an amd gpu lol



87dtna said:


> *Top 20 nVidia*
> 
> Scores are listed as follows:
> (CPU/Clockspeed/GPU Model/Number of GPU's/GPU Core Clock/GPU Memory Clock) [3dmark Score]
> 
> 1.Bigfellla - I7 2600k/5000mhz/580/2/960/1056 [P13311]
> 2.Spesh- I7 2600k/4789mhz/580/2/1000/1110 [p13017]
> 3.87dtna- I7 4770k/4400mhz/660/2/1100/1600 [p12625]
> 4.Claptonman- I5 4670k/3791mhz/670/2/967/1502 [p11899]
> 5.Turbobooster- I7 2600/5000mhz/680/1/1179/1752 [p11533]
> 6.Turbobooster- I5 4670k/4600mhz/770/1/1220/1803 [p11117]
> *7.Gooberman- I5 3570k/4700mhz/7950/1/1290/1725 [p11099]*
> 8.G80FTW- I7 970/4125mhz/680/1/1159/1540 [p10580]
> 9.Turbobooster- I7 2600/3803mhz/gtx770/1/1200/1803 [p10362]
> 10.87dtna- I7 4770k/4407mhz/670/1/1055/1552 [p10033]
> 11.Turbobooster- I5 3570k/4700mhz/760/1/1165/1602 [p9385]
> 12.Salvage-this- I5 3570k/4500mhz/560 Ti/2/940/1015 [p9352]
> 13.Jluchinsky- I7 950/3105mhz/670/1/1065/1545 [P9179]
> 14.KDfresh09- Phenom II 1090t/4109mhz/470/2/820/1810 [p8668]
> 15.Nevakoaza- I5 3570k/4200mhz/670/1/915/1500 [p8644]
> 16.Linkin- I5 3570k/4400mhz/670/1/914/1500 [p7725]
> 17.Jevery- i7-950/4133mhz/460/2/870mhz/1030mhz [p7358]
> 18.87dtna- I7 950/4009mhz/570/1/900mhz/1085mhz [p6150]
> 19. Weatherman- I3 2100/3317mhz/560 Ti/1/900/1050 [P5735]
> 20.Linkin- Phenom II 955/4000mhz/570/1/797/975 [p5586]


----------



## 87dtna

A very good point!

lol


----------



## WeatherMan

I should be moving up soon!

Just ordered myself an i5 3450


----------



## Gooberman

wish i had an i7 to get back into the top 5 lol


----------



## 87dtna

lol clapton, will you just overclock them 670's already 

If it only takes 1.18v for 4.5ghz, you got a sweet chip.  If you have the cooling, 4.8ghz and overclocked 670's should crack 14k.


----------



## WeatherMan

I'm hoping my i5 has arrived when I get home 

I will first do a stock run, and then one with OCed CPU & GPU


----------



## WeatherMan

I will get up this list, somehow!


----------



## WeatherMan

My new best until my next upgrade


----------



## turbobooster

WeatherMan said:


> My new best until my next upgrade
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUO
> 
> watt will be the upgrade then.


----------



## WeatherMan

Most likely a new vid card 

I've only just installed this i5 3450 today and right now it's sitting nice at 3.7GHz, stuck the multi to 37 which is the highest it will go both on core ratio and turbo, (thought the multi was upward locked on a non K series?)

I knew turbo could increase it, but thought it was unavailable for the user to tweak, anyhow I'm not going to touch the BLCK so I'm sat at 3.7.


Also I've been playing with the ram and that's how sat happy at 2000MHz, pretty good considering its a 1600Mhz kit and I've only lowered a few of the timings gently!

I'll likely upgrade the GPU around christmas time, no idea what to head for at this moment in time, happy where I am right now tbh, most of my games that were struggling a bit with the dualie have been 'fixed' I no longer get stutter and can maintain 60fps, (AC2 for example.) 

Sorry for the long post.


----------



## xxmorpheus

*my score*





Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## 87dtna

lol ok you win


----------



## xxmorpheus

isnt my score bad?


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah it sucks.


----------



## claptonman

87dtna said:


> lol clapton, will you just overclock them 670's already
> 
> If it only takes 1.18v for 4.5ghz, you got a sweet chip.  If you have the cooling, 4.8ghz and overclocked 670's should crack 14k.



After 4.5ghz, I really had to bump the voltage up, so I didn't want to push it. When it gets colder, I'll open my windows and really let loose.


----------



## PCunicorn

Your PC----------------------------------------------------------------------
High end gaming PC--------------------------------

lol


----------



## xxmorpheus

87dtna said:


> Yeah it sucks.



=/


----------



## turbobooster

xxmorpheus said:


> =/



do you run youre 2700k at 5.0 24/7????


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## xxmorpheus

turbobooster said:


> do you run youre 2700k at 5.0 24/7????


For the most part, the thermal right silver arrow keeps things cool..


----------



## Virssagòn

xxmorpheus said:


> For the most part, the thermal right silver arrow keeps things cool..



Yep, I can bench at 5.2GHz without heat issues, even in summer lol. The silver arrow is one of the best aircoolers. But also one of the biggest


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## 87dtna

Well I'll take second place atleast...


----------



## turbobooster

using the new 3d mark 11 beta, and the latest driver on a windows 8.1

oo   and sorry for the rog theme


----------



## 87dtna

No overclock on the card?


----------



## turbobooster

no at that moment the card is not overclocked.
just wanted to now the stock score from the card.
for a overclock I will push also the cpu to the max.


----------



## turbobooster

oke now a little overclocked.
the card does not go that high 1100 on the core is max.
but for now


----------



## 87dtna

huh, I would have expected more improvement than that with the OC on the CPU with it, well it's still enough to bump to you third place.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> huh, I would have expected more improvement than that with the OC on the CPU with it, well it's still enough to bump to you third place.



yes my to, I now the max on the core from the card is 1100, the mem I don't now.
on the cpu I can go to 52x its a 55 multi cpu, but then I have to put the vcore to high 1.52.
now the vcore is 1.475 it will do on that vcore also 52.
but for now its oke like this.


----------



## 87dtna

Yeah you won't see much gain at all with only 25mhz increase on the GPU and 100mhz on the CPU, probably only 100 points or so.

Surprising on that 7950, I've never seen one clock that poorly.  Or is that one with no voltage control?  The original version was double 6 pin with Volt control, the newer revision is 6+8 pin with locked voltage.  Guessing you have a newer one?


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Yeah you won't see much gain at all with only 25mhz increase on the GPU and 100mhz on the CPU, probably only 100 points or so.
> 
> Surprising on that 7950, I've never seen one clock that poorly.  Or is that one with no voltage control?  The original version was double 6 pin with Volt control, the newer revision is 6+8 pin with locked voltage.  Guessing you have a newer one?



yes I have 6+8 and voltage control.
but its still pour, my friend has exactly the same, and his goes on the core to 1200.
and 1500 mem.


----------



## 87dtna

the 6+8 has no voltage control.  Perhaps it's allowing you to move the voltage slider but not actually changing the voltage.  Check in GPUz.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> the 6+8 has no voltage control.  Perhaps it's allowing you to move the voltage slider but not actually changing the voltage.  Check in GPUz.



sorry typing to quick, no I can not change the voltage


----------



## turbobooster

oke different card, don't now if this is the max.

the card is a evga geforce gtx 680+ 4gb w/backplate


----------



## 87dtna

The backplate must have given it those extra 20 points


----------



## PCunicorn

A little off topic, but still the same topic of the thread. How do points work in 3DMark? Like is 1000 points a ton, or just a few percent? What about 10 points, or 100?


----------



## 87dtna

1000 points would be a fairly decent increase.  Typically you can gain around 500-1000 points from overclocking a single card.  All depends on the GPU you have in the first place.


----------



## turbobooster

yep the 20 points are for the backplate hahaha.
in this one the 3 points are for the plate.
oke new score, still not sure if its the max, still dident give the card extra voltage.


----------



## turbobooster

so after a bit testing I no now the max oc.
I think its not that bad, for this card.
I used the 3d mark 11 beta, also good for windows 8.1
I dident use different settings in the control panel of NVidia.


----------



## PCunicorn

87dtna said:


> 1000 points would be a fairly decent increase.  Typically you can gain around 500-1000 points from overclocking a single card.  All depends on the GPU you have in the first place.



So a 7950 too 7970 or something like that is going to be a lot more than 1000 points?


----------



## turbobooster

PCunicorn said:


> So a 7950 too 7970 or something like that is going to be a lot more than 1000 points?



you can see my score with a 7950 card

http://www.computerforum.com/187388-3dmark11-rank-thread-35.html
and the 7970 performs a bit like a 680, so yes a 7970 will give you more then 1000 points extra, ofcourse depending on what card you have.


----------



## bomberboysk

Have my CPU clocked back a bit right now to reduce load on my PSU, and haven't overclocked my 290X's yet, but here's how they're doing with my 4770K @ 4.4Ghz and the GPU's at their stock 1Ghz/5Ghz.





http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7704717

With a small overclock on the cards:





http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7704784

...and now I want 20k, so time to overclock more.

Here we go, now I can sleep somewhat peacefully tonight, haha:




http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7704883


----------



## Gooberman

I hope the 290x goes down to it's regular price when i actually get some money, stupid miners buying them all  lol


----------



## bomberboysk

Gooberman said:


> I hope the 290x goes down to it's regular price when i actually get some money, stupid miners buying them all  lol



Heh, mine have both paid for themselves and then some mining. My advice would be to watch amazon, that's where I picked up my Sapphire for MSRP. The available supply should increase in the next few months though, as ASICs for Scrypt mining will start to be released.


----------



## Okedokey

bomberboysk said:


> Heh, mine have both paid for themselves and then some mining. My advice would be to watch amazon, that's where I picked up my Sapphire for MSRP. The available supply should increase in the next few months though, as ASICs for Scrypt mining will start to be released.



Are you saying you've generated bitcoins and sold them since the 290x has been out??


----------



## bomberboysk

Okedokey said:


> Are you saying you've generated bitcoins and sold them since the 290x has been out??



Scrypt based coins, such as litecoins/feathercoins/dogecoins/etc. They're still profitable to mine with GPU miners as nobody has come out with an ASIC for scrypt mining yet (and FPGA definitions are pretty limited from what I've looked at for Scrypt). SHA256 cryptocurrencies are not worth GPU mining anymore due to advent of FPGA definitions and ASICs for those coins.


----------



## turbobooster

cpu on 4.5 and card at 1150/1600


----------



## WeatherMan




----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> lol ok you win



nup

Stock CPU, OC GPU 187MHz offset.


----------



## 87dtna

Turbobooster- Would it have really been that hard to set GPUz to the main tab like everyone else?

Weatherman- You super overclocked the ram but not the core clock much.  Overclocking the ram may get you like 50 points in 3dmark, it doesn't do much.

Okedokey- DAAAAAAMN


----------



## WeatherMan

Yeah my core is abysmal, anything higher than 1075MHz and the drivers stop responding, still happens when I apply an additional 100mV and max out the power limit.


----------



## 87dtna

huh, that sucks.  But, if you leave your ram speed alone, the boost will have more power to give it additional core clock.  When you OC your ram you're using more power, the more power limit that's used the less it will boost.


----------



## WeatherMan

I did try that this morning when I first started benching, ran up the core clocks on their own to start with the mem at stock, got no higher than 1175MHz boost clock


----------



## 87dtna

The boost clock on GPUz and what you actually get are 2 different things.  I know when I had my 670 the boost would say like 1215 in GPUz but I was actually seeing about 1270 core clock in game, unless temps got over 70c then it would back down.


----------



## Okedokey

Weatherman, id be looking at your motherboard settings for extra headroom, pcie voltages, clocks, chipset voltages etc.


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## 87dtna

In the future please turn off the power saving features on the CPU so we know what the speed is.  Guessing 4.5ghz?  Vcore seems pretty high for just 4.5 though, unless you just left it on auto.


----------



## turbobooster

3d 11 sapphire r9 270x toxic at stock.
cpu at 4.7

http://imageshack.com/a/img203/9642/l62i.png


----------



## 87dtna

Seriously, how hard is it to switch GPUz over to the graphics card tab instead of the sensors tab.....


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Seriously, how hard is it to switch GPUz over to the graphics card tab instead of the sensors tab.....



its not hard, but was also to show the temps, for writing a review.
how hard is it to take a good look and see that the core speed is set on show max.


----------



## 87dtna

How hard is it to follow the rules?  Taken a second screenshot then.  You didn't have CPUz memory tab open either, I'm not entering that one until a proper screenshot is given.  I've also removed your 7970 score as well.


----------



## turbobooster

its not hard, so I hope youre happy now.


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> How hard is it to follow the rules?  Taken a second screenshot then.  You didn't have CPUz memory tab open either, I'm not entering that one until a proper screenshot is given.  I've also removed your 7970 score as well.



indeed its not hard to follow the rules.
but how hard is it to update, you make a score with 2x 780i and you updated that 1 as soon as possible, but the top ati list isn't updated


----------



## Okedokey

turbobooster said:


> indeed its not hard to follow the rules.
> but how hard is it to update, you make a score with 2x 780i and you updated that 1 as soon as possible, but the top ati list isn't updated



hahha 

A. im following the rules... 

B.  My score isn't updated... and

C.  your score sux


----------



## 87dtna

turbobooster said:


> indeed its not hard to follow the rules.
> but how hard is it to update, you make a score with 2x 780i and you updated that 1 as soon as possible, but the top ati list isn't updated



You're dealing with your 1 score, I'm dealing with everyone posting.

I'm also dealing with the idiots who can't even post up a proper screenshot instead of putting time into updating the scores.

And what isn't updated about the ATI score list?  Your 270x score?  I kinda left for work and didn't have time to update your new score.


----------



## 87dtna

Okedokey said:


> B.  My score isn't updated... and



What are you talking about?  I edited your score within an hour after you posted the new screenshot.


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> hahha
> 
> A. im following the rules...
> 
> B.  My score isn't updated... and
> 
> C.  your score sux



my score sux???    its not a 780 he, 

but I say, youre score sux to.


----------



## 87dtna

Okedokey that comment was uncalled for.  He also didn't spend $1400 for 2 graphics cards, so the comment is also just plain stupid.  I only paid $380 for both of my 680's, and my score was only 20% lower than yours.  Pretty sad really, if you did pay 1400 than you spent 370% more for 20% more performance.  WOOT, you the man.


----------



## Okedokey

I was joking ffs.  You guys need to relax.

But either way I didn't realise the leaderboard and scoring system had a handicap input???  Its a competition... I didn't buy the cards for this benchmark, either way that score sux.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> hahha
> 
> A. im following the rules...
> 
> B.  My score isn't updated... and
> 
> C.  your score sux



Honestly I wouldnt complain about scores not being updated from a guy who abandoned his benchmark thread..... whether or not you felt others didnt want it.

Also if you dont want to waste time turning speed stepping off (which I dont either, I rather like having it on to save power) then do what I do and run a burn in program to put a load on the CPU while you take the screenshot.


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> Honestly I wouldnt complain about scores not being updated from a guy who abandoned his benchmark thread..... whether or not you felt others didnt want it.
> 
> Also if you dont want to waste time turning speed stepping off (which I dont either, I rather like having it on to save power) then do what I do and run a burn in program to put a load on the CPU while you take the screenshot.



I didn't complain mate.  So pull your head in.

And i couldn't care less about what you think.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> I didn't complain mate.  So pull your head in.
> 
> And i couldn't care less about what you think.



You just did complain.

And you might not care what I think, but posting a CPU-z screenshot of your processor at 1.2GHz doesnt actually tell us what its running at under load.  You expect him to update your score and put that your CPU is running at 1.2GHz?


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> You just did complain.
> 
> And you might not care what I think, but posting a CPU-z screenshot of your processor at 1.2GHz doesnt actually tell us what its running at under load.  You expect him to update your score and put that your CPU is running at 1.2GHz?



If the rules said disable boost, i wouldve, if you read 45 x multiplier its 4.5GHz clearly, and no, i didn't complain.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> If the rules said disable boost, i wouldve, if you read 45 x multiplier its 4.5GHz clearly, and no, i didn't complain.



45x what? 28? Thats 1.2GHz as its displayed.  There is no indication on that screenshot of your actual load speed.

Not everyone wants to sit there and do math with numbers that are not present just because your too lazy to load your processor before taking a screenshot.

So your bigfella? I remember you. You havent changed at all. Im actually surprised they havent banned you yet for being a dick to almost everyone. Im not saying you dont have valuable knowledge to add to the forum, however the way you go about presenting it is in the worst way.


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> 45x what? 28? Thats 1.2GHz as its displayed.  There is no indication on that screenshot of your actual load speed.
> 
> Not everyone wants to sit there and do math with numbers that are not present just because your too lazy to load your processor before taking a screenshot.



45 x the baseclock of a ivye which is 100 = 4.5GHz.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> 45 x the baseclock of a ivye which is 100 = 4.5GHz.





87dtna said:


> This is the Rank Thread for 3dMark11
> 
> What you must do to get your score listed:
> Members Must have a minimum of 100 posts or have been a member for atleast 1 year.
> These rankings are only for currently owned hardware, at time of submission. *Please provide a screenshot of two instances of CPU-Z(Memory and CPU Tabs, and turn off power saving features on the CPU so it shows full speed)*, GPU-Z main tab, and the ORB site with your score showing (example in the next post)
> An open Copy of Notepad with the date and your computerforum username.
> One result per sytem(GPU+CPU) per user, however, users may submit results from multiple systems. If multiple results from the same system are submitted, the older result will be removed.



There is the rules for you since you cannot read.  

So you expect us to look up the base clock of your specific processor? As far as I could see, your base clock was 27.99mhz not 100mhz.


----------



## 87dtna

I actually changed that yesterday, so I'm letting his slide on the assumption it was at 4.5ghz.  All new submissions will require power saving features off.


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> There is the rules for you since you cannot read.
> 
> So you expect us to look up the base clock of your specific processor? As far as I could see, your base clock was 27.99mhz not 100mhz.



Amazing, you're wrong again....

BTW, 87dtna, in your leaderboard, Bigfellla is me.  So you can change it to Oke.

In view of keeping to the rules, here is an update with power saving off...


----------



## turbobooster

yes now with this post its oke, in the first post of you, cpu-z whas showing 12xx core speed and a bus speed of 21x so he was not wrong.
hope youre proud with your system, some people don't whant to spend that kind of money on a computer, any whay clap, clap, nice score but it still sux to.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> Amazing, you're wrong again....



You know, I have seen alot of posts you have made on this forum.  You seem rather intelligent. So why do you insist on overshadowing that intelligence with immature, semantic, and just generally idiotic arguments in your great pursuit to prove to EVERYONE that you are right and everyone else is wrong? How big is your ego?  You seem too caught up in yourself to stop and pay attention to alot of things you type here not realizing that you too can be wrong.

So tell me how I was wrong. Your original screenshot had your CPU-z displaying your clock speed as 1.259GHz and your base clock as 27.99mhz with a 45x multiplier. No where on that screen did it say you were running at 4.5GHz.

Im just gonna take a guess that you drive maybe a Hummer? It seems that you have a compensation problem.


----------



## Geoff

G80FTW said:


> You know, I have seen alot of posts you have made on this forum.  You seem rather intelligent. So why do you insist on overshadowing that intelligence with immature, semantic, and just generally idiotic arguments in your great pursuit to prove to EVERYONE that you are right and everyone else is wrong? How big is your ego?  You seem too caught up in yourself to stop and pay attention to alot of things you type here not realizing that you too can be wrong.
> 
> So tell me how I was wrong. Your original screenshot had your CPU-z displaying your clock speed as 1.259GHz and your base clock as 27.99mhz with a 45x multiplier. No where on that screen did it say you were running at 4.5GHz.
> 
> Im just gonna take a guess that you drive maybe a Hummer? It seems that you have a compensation problem.


Couldn't agree more, very well said.


----------



## 87dtna

Yes ok we all agree he's a giant douchebag....moving on.


----------



## turbobooster

G80FTW said:


> You know, I have seen alot of posts you have made on this forum.  You seem rather intelligent. So why do you insist on overshadowing that intelligence with immature, semantic, and just generally idiotic arguments in your great pursuit to prove to EVERYONE that you are right and everyone else is wrong? How big is your ego?  You seem too caught up in yourself to stop and pay attention to alot of things you type here not realizing that you too can be wrong.
> 
> So tell me how I was wrong. Your original screenshot had your CPU-z displaying your clock speed as 1.259GHz and your base clock as 27.99mhz with a 45x multiplier. No where on that screen did it say you were running at 4.5GHz.
> 
> Im just gonna take a guess that you drive maybe a Hummer? It seems that you have a compensation problem.





boom!!!!!!!!!!!    that's so true


----------



## Okedokey

Hahahh you guys crack me up.... so sensitive...

Get over it.


----------



## 87dtna

87dtna said:


> Yes ok we all agree he's a giant douchebag....moving on.



*cough*


----------



## Gooberman

GPUZ says stock is 835MHz but it's actually 790 so it's 1090 MHz on the core. I'm so close to 5k  I know it's not going on the board, but i'm happy with my laptop lol.





Larger Image


----------



## 87dtna

That's almost stock gtx 570 performance, nothing to scoff at for a laptop.


----------



## Heku

Think i scored best!


----------



## G80FTW

Heku said:


> Think i scored best!



Why would a 550ti have worse pixel and texture fill rates than an 8800? If I remember correctly, I could get 28GT/s texture fillrate overclocking my GTS and the GT that came later was over 30GT/s. I know the 550 is midrange, but I would think even a midrange 4 generations later would wipe the floor with a 4 generation old flagship GPU. Was there really not much performance increases from the 200 series through the 500 series?


----------



## spirit

The 550 should be a much better performer overall than an 8800 GT.


----------



## 87dtna

I'm guessing there's just power saving features on the 550 Ti that have the Vram clockspeed really low.  The clock shows 600mhz when it should be at 1800 and have 98.5gb/s bandwidth.


----------



## turbobooster

to keep the tread alive new score older sytem


----------



## Calin

Not bothering to take a screenshot because I won't make it to top 25 anyway and the GPU OC is removed...
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/8249862


----------



## Gooberman

stupid cpu xD




http://i.imgur.com/DHQQiQZ.png


----------



## Calin

Gooberman said:


> stupid cpu xD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/DHQQiQZ.png


Nice score for an i5.


----------



## turbobooster

Gooberman said:


> stupid cpu xD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/DHQQiQZ.png



stupid cpu????   hahaha yes the combined and physics hold you back.


----------



## 87dtna

Not really.  Most of the score is based on the graphics portion.  The physics and CPU score is a smaller percentage of the total score.

If he had an I7 4770k at the same clockspeed, he *might* break 14k overall score.


----------



## Gooberman

Yeah it's not a huge increase, from what i've seen a similar clocked 3770k would give me close to a 800-900 point increase.http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7375771 I reran it and scored 16999 on GPU and got 13700(Rounded but w/e)


----------



## deankenny

MY result


----------



## 87dtna

The screenshot doesn't meet the criteria for posting in the results, but thanks for sharing.


----------



## Okedokey

87dtna said:


> Not really.  Most of the score is based on the graphics portion.  The physics and CPU score is a smaller percentage of the total score.
> 
> If he had an I7 4770k at the same clockspeed, he *might* break 14k overall score.



3DMark uses a weighted harmonic mean of the graphics, physics and combined scores, each have a coefficient for FPS and scaling constant (look up standardisation or z test). The scaling makes the scores fit within a 'normal probability curve' or 'bell curve' - central limit theorem.

What this actually means is the end score is a function of the mathematics being:

*Graphics score *is worked out by multiplying a scaling constant by:

4/ (reciprocal of the fps for each graphics test) i.e.

4/ ((1/FPS1) + (1/FPS2) + (1/FPS3) + (1/FP4)).

This is known as a harmonic mean test.

*Physics testing *is simpler; it allocates threads and multiplies this scaling constant by the FPS.

*Combined tests* do both of the above, and again, scale to fit to a normal distribution curve.

*Your final score* is a harmonic mean of all of the above but with an additional 'weighting' based on the pre-set chosen when you run the benchmark.

This means essentially that you 

3Dmark Score = ((Weighting for graphics)/ (Weighting for graphics/Score for graphics)) + ((Weighting for physics)/ (Weighting for physics/score for physics)) + ((Weighting for combined/ (Weighting for combined/score for combined))

In simple terms, it’s the sum of the averages of the standardised and weighted parts of the test.  Makes sense?

In terms of the actual amount physics plays a role (the scalar), it depends on the pre-set chosen (weighting) and ranges from 20%, 15%, 10% for 'entry', ''performance' and 'extreme' respectively.  Since the constant is a constant, and we're all using the same preset (Performance @ 720p), it *can be said that physics accounts for 15% of your score*.


----------



## turbobooster

i5 4670k at 4.8ghz





i7 3820 at 5.0ghz






somwere this week will put the cards together.


----------



## 87dtna

Why only 1100mhz on the 290x?


----------



## turbobooster

87dtna said:


> Why only 1100mhz on the 290x?



why not, the are the reference cards, and just on stock cooling.
and with no extra vcore its about the max.
and this overclock is at least 24/7 stable.


----------



## 87dtna

Reference cards have the best cooling on the VRM.  They are crazy loud at 100% fan but they stay cool (relatively speaking).

I had my reference R9 290 to 1300 core clock.


----------



## turbobooster

could be but I don,t want to use extra vcore, maybe today with the asus dcii


----------



## spirit

MSI GeForce GTX 760 4GB OC + i5 2500K @ 4.3GHz


----------



## turbobooster

i7 2600k at 4.5ghz, 16gb of ram 1600mhz


----------



## 87dtna




----------



## 87dtna

Spirit, sorry you didn't quite make the cut to be in the top 20 Nvidia.  Maybe overclock and get that thing over 9k and you'll have a chance.

Turbobooster, sorry but your screenshot does not meet the criteria.  Post a proper screenshot and I'll be happy to post it (you'll even make the number 5 spot and knock my 780 back off).


----------

