# Official - Unigine Valley Benchmark Ranking thread



## Virssagòn

*Unigine Valley 1.0*


*How To Submit!*

*Take a Screenshot of:*
- your score from *EXTREME HD PRESET* --> Idk, but I think you need at least a 1080p resolution... (in app or from saved HTML file)
- 2 instances of cpu-z (cpu tab and memory tab)
- 1 instance of gpu-z
- notepad with name, computerforum, date (and not really needed, your specs)

*ATTENTION*: See that you take a picture from the overclocked speed, and not the underclocked power saving speed!!!

Example:







*Scores:*











*Rules:** Follow the right instructions to submit your score or you won't be added!*

*DOWNLOAD*

Valley Benchmark is a very nice new benchmark from the developers of Heaven Benchmark, which was already pretty known as a very good scaling benchmark. The Bench includes awesome landscapes, walkthroughs from the forest, topview of beautiful snowed mountains, snakeways through the grass of the valley,...
All that tests your gpu to his limits, every unstable overclock will be eliminated by this program and will not be able to receive his score. This stress on your GPU makes it an extreme hardware stability test.


*Features* listed on guru:

- Extreme hardware stability testing
- Per-frame GPU temperature and clock monitoring
- Advanced visual technologies: dynamic sky, volumetric clouds, sun shafts, DOF, ambient occlusion
- Multi-Platform support for Windows, Linux and Mac OS X
- 64 000 000 square meters of extremely detailed, seamless terrain
- Procedural object placement of vegetation and rocks
- The entire valley is free to be explored in interactive fly-by or hike-through modes
- User-controlled dynamic weather
- Support for stereo 3D and multi-monitor configurations
- Benchmarking presets
- Command line automation support
- Highly customizable reports in CSV format





Happy Benchmarking!


----------



## spirit




----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


>



That's a pretty nice score for an hd5870!


----------



## spirit

It isn't bad at all. It's all stock I believe, I don't think it's ever been overclocked.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> It isn't bad at all. It's all stock I believe, I don't think it's ever been overclocked.



Lol, my hd7950 scores only 450 more at stock ;P.
Awesome old Radeon you got there!


----------



## spirit

Lol thanks it was a beast in 2009 and it looks like it's still pretty good today.  Plays every game I want to it to play perfectly, so for 100 quid second hand, it's awesome.


----------



## Virssagòn

I should say, get another and CF! But myself I had ms, so I don't recommend it.


----------



## voyagerfan99

That thing kicked my systems ass!


----------



## Motoxrdude

Thought i'd give it a shot with my laptop lol. Not too bad considering it's 2 years old and not designed for gaming


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> That thing kicked my systems ass!



Seems pretty low for a gtx570.
Did you run any other heavy programs,...?


----------



## spirit

How come my 5870 is beating a GTX 570??


----------



## turbobooster

not bad for a 7870 amd hahahaha


----------



## FuryRosewood

Possibly the cpu bottlenecking the 570? I dont know.


----------



## voyagerfan99

SmileMan said:


> Seems pretty low for a gtx570.
> Did you run any other heavy programs,...?



Nope. Disabled my folding clients before I did the test, as well as chopped some tray apps. I'll play with the nVidia control panel and run it again.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> Nope. Disabled my folding clients before I did the test, as well as chopped some tray apps. I'll play with the nVidia control panel and run it again.



K, because I don't think an hd5870 would own your gtx. And this bench should score a bit better on nvidia I saw...


----------



## M1kkelZR

SmileMan said:


> K, because I don't think an hd5870 would own your gtx. And this bench should score a bit better on nvidia I saw...



Doesn´t always mean this though.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> That thing kicked my systems ass!



But, idk this is bottlenecked. My athlon 64 x2 scores better with an hd6870 
There must be something wrong... Anyway, OWNED YOU!! 






Pretty funny, my athlon system is powning all games now (720p, did connect it to 1080p to test this bench though).
GTA4, COD, NFS, ... All running good enough to game xD. (GTA 4 not really very fluently, maybe because it's more intensive in cpu power)


----------



## voyagerfan99

They say that there might be slight bottleneck with this CPU + GPU, but I haven't noticed it ingame, as I can max out GTA IV and most other games without an issue.


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> They say that there might be slight bottleneck with this CPU + GPU, but I haven't noticed it ingame, as I can max out GTA IV and most other games without an issue.



Your cpu wouldn't be a hard bottleneck at all. Maybe max 5-10 fps less in heavy games and 20-50 FPS in soft games then lets take an i5 3570k.
This athlon should botlleneck it 3x as hard lol...
Anyway, going from a 9600GT to this hd6870 was ~300% the performance of the 9600GT lol, even bottlenecked by cpu...


----------



## voyagerfan99

I swear dealing with the nVidia control panel is a pain in the ass.


----------



## Virssagòn

Already much better!


----------



## salvage-this

Travis what did you change in the nVidia panel?  That is a nice change in performance!


----------



## voyagerfan99

salvage-this said:


> Travis what did you change in the nVidia panel?  That is a nice change in performance!



I don't remember off the top of my head, but I think I changed a lot of the settings back to the nVidia recommended settings for my system. I can tell you more details tonight when I get back to school.


----------



## Virssagòn

Damn, had to update today. I don't have time tomorrow, but I'll try as soon as possible.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Okay here are the control panel settings I have:

Ambient Occlusion: Off
Anisotropic Filtering: Application Controlled
FXAA: Off
Gamma Correction: On
Mode: Application Controlled
Transparency: Off
CUDA: All
Max pre-rendered frames: 3D Application Settings
Multi Display Acceleration: Single Display
Power Management: Maximum Performance
Negative LOD: Allow
Quality: High Quality
Threaded Optimization: Auto
Triple Buffering: On
Vertical Sync: 3D Application


----------



## salvage-this

Thanks.  I'll take a look at my settings and see what is better for me.  Have you seen any performance in games at all?


----------



## Gooberman

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8863/valley.png


----------



## voyagerfan99

salvage-this said:


> Thanks.  I'll take a look at my settings and see what is better for me.  Have you seen any performance in games at all?



I don't, no. I can game perfectly fine without lag for basically anything. I just have to modify things because my shadow textures sometimes look like absolute crap.


----------



## salvage-this

Same here.  I play most things maxed.  I did turn on MXAA I think for games that I can't play at full settings so I can turn off in game AA and AF and still have good looks and performance.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Like I said, my performance is great, but depending on the settings, the shadows look really crappy.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


>



Very nice score there!
Where are you getting all this hardware btw? lol

First update will be tomorrow!


----------



## turbobooster

tried a little playing with the card

+120 for the core, and +350 on the mem.
very nice score i think.


----------



## turbobooster

gainward gtx 670 phantom


----------



## Shane

Here be my score.


----------



## Turbo10

Not bad for everything stock i'd say  Graphics card got a bit hot in the bench haha got to about 70C


----------



## voyagerfan99

So how about a score update SmileMan?


----------



## Virssagòn

voyagerfan99 said:


> So how about a score update SmileMan?



Finally I've the time for it, got 2 days extra free 
Will update immediatly


----------



## Virssagòn

Here a little update from my score before I put the table on:





Used an hairdryer to keep it cool (cold-air button enabled )
I hate that crap cooler from xfx, I'll be happy when my arctic arrives! 
Wow, the delta temps do have much impact on cooling lol.


----------



## Virssagòn

Updated scores!

Edit: I included several submissions from turbo, because he had made some hardware changes. His second best score doesn't have a rank because its only the cpu that changed.


----------



## salvage-this

I need to update my score with SLI enabled.


----------



## Virssagòn

salvage-this said:


> I need to update my score with SLI enabled.



I'd like to see how it performs


----------



## Gooberman

SmileMan said:


> Here a little update from my score before I put the table on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Used an hairdryer to keep it cool (cold-air button enabled )
> I hate that crap cooler from xfx, I'll be happy when my arctic arrives!
> Wow, the delta temps do have much impact on cooling lol.



I really hate the cooler too.


----------



## salvage-this

Broke 2000! These seem to scale really well!


----------



## Virssagòn

salvage-this said:


> Broke 2000! These seem to scale really well!



Whatt??? 
I had to buy 2 560 ti instead of my hd7950 
No, I've had some probs with my CF setup, that's why I've gone single .


----------



## salvage-this

nothing wrong with a better single card.  I just didn't feel like $550 on a new one since I don't have much time to play games.


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Whatt???
> I had to buy 2 560 ti instead of my hd7950
> No, I've had some probs with my CF setup, that's why I've gone single .



I'd rather have one 7950 than two 560 Tis. Just think what you could do with two 7950s.


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> I'd rather have one 7950 than two 560 Tis. Just think what you could do with two 7950s.



3000p?


----------



## salvage-this

spirit said:


> I'd rather have one 7950 than two 560 Tis. Just think what you could do with two 7950s.



So would I.  It was just too tempting for the price.


----------



## Spesh




----------



## salvage-this

well my spot at the top was short lived.  Nice score Spesh.


----------



## FuryRosewood

Here is my attempt, all stock except some XMP settings on the ram and the boost clock being up due to 314.22 drivers


----------



## Virssagòn

Will update tomorrow.


----------



## turbobooster

finally again a benchmark done, with a msi r6990 at stock


----------



## turbobooster

so i have now a gigabyte gtx 770 wf3 oc
here is the score 40mhz more overclocked





and this is the stock speed score


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> so i have now a gigabyte gtx 770 wf3 oc
> here is the score 40mhz more overclocked
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this is the stock speed score



Wow, very nice scores. You're beating my hd7950


----------



## turbobooster

i,m beating a gtx 680 with a 3820 cpu lol.
gtx 680 costs more


----------



## turbobooster

Spesh said:


>



mmm in gpu-z we see  that it runs lower then you have put on notepad????????????????????


----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


> i,m beating a gtx 680 with a 3820 cpu lol.
> gtx 680 costs more



a gtx770 is just a rebranded 680 with some tweaks at the clocks....


----------



## turbobooster

SmileMan said:


> a gtx770 is just a rebranded 680 with some tweaks at the clocks....



yep but cheaper then a gtx 680


----------



## FuryRosewood

turbobooster said:


> i,m beating a gtx 680 with a 3820 cpu lol.
> gtx 680 costs more



Not much of a feat by the looks of benchmarks right now  new tech usually beats older...and its not *that much* cheaper then mine was new, 80 bucks or so...


----------



## turbobooster

FuryRosewood said:


> Not much of a feat by the looks of benchmarks right now  new tech usually beats older...and its not *that much* cheaper then mine was new, 80 bucks or so...



true, not that much cheaper, but 80 bucks is stil 80 bucks less for more performence, not that i say that the 680 top is not good, i would change mine just for the looks of the top, lol.
but i,m also on a stock i7 2600


----------



## Virssagòn

I'll try to update the list soon, but I'm in the middle of exams and got other things on my head :s


----------



## turbobooster

i5 2500k at the benchmark at 4.0ghz
asus dc2 gtx 680 top at stock


----------



## Insanitic

Here's my score with a Sapphire card:


----------



## Virssagòn

A hd7950 I think?
Very nice score.


----------



## Insanitic

Yes its a Sapphire HD 7950 OC 950 mhz edition. I was surprised at how low of a voltage it needed for such a high core clock, probably due to the fact that it uses a reference 7970 pcb


----------



## turbobooster

asus 7970 dc2 top at 1200 core and 1400 mem.


----------



## Gooberman

http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5757/a6mx.png
The minimum FPS is weird though, reran it before but didn't do gpuz and cpuz and it was over 20


----------



## Jamebonds1

Oh man, I can't wait until I got my GTX 680


----------



## turbobooster

why go for the gtx 680, 770 is cheaper and faster.


----------



## FuryRosewood

because amazon had one on sale for 300 bucks, which is cheaper than a 770


----------



## PCunicorn

turbobooster said:


> why go for the gtx 680, 770 is cheaper and faster.



Y U NO USE CAPITAL LETTERS? t


----------



## Jamebonds1

turbobooster said:


> why go for the gtx 680, 770 is cheaper and faster.



Like Fury say, it is used for 300 dollar.  To be honestly, I'm going to be skip that GTX 7XX until 9XX or 10XX, as soon as I get drafter job.


----------



## turbobooster

ofcourse the 680 is srill a great card, and if you get a good sale on it then sure go for it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

turbobooster said:


> ofcourse the 680 is srill a great card, and if you get a good sale on it then sure go for it.



I already order it.  It will come around tomorrow.


----------



## turbobooster

Jamebonds1 said:


> I already order it.  It will come around tomorrow.



niceeee    whitch 1.
let me now if you will like it.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Just got my i7 and GTX 680.  Not bad for my first time overclock in my computer!


----------



## FuryRosewood

YUNOUSEDROPBOX?! *hates compressed screencaps*


----------



## Jamebonds1

FuryRosewood said:


> YUNOUSEDROPBOX?! *hates compressed screencaps*



Whoa.  Slow down.  What do you mean by that cap word?


----------



## FuryRosewood

www.dropbox.com

Use this, it creates local storage on your computer, and you can create links to the public folder on your machine and host the files via dropbox, without the stupid downsizing that those third party image hosting sites seem to love to do.

also feel free to use me as a referral, and you will get an extra 250 mb of storage ([email protected])


----------



## Jamebonds1

FuryRosewood said:


> www.dropbox.com
> 
> Use this, it creates local storage on your computer, and you can create links to the public folder on your machine and host the files via dropbox, without the stupid downsizing that those third party image hosting sites seem to love to do.
> 
> also feel free to use me as a referral, and you will get an extra 250 mb of storage ([email protected])



Not really in interest to surf different website anymore but thank for referral to me.  Also, downsize picture are better than just fully upload then put full size of picture link to here.  It will make people losing interest in people's picture if it take too long to download picture on website.  I'm sorry but it is way that people are freak out if load picture too long and losing interest.  

HINT:  You won't get my full size picture here unless you go to my profile and then click download there.  Click on picture here, then download full size.  Easy.  Plus, it is 1920X1080p picture.


----------



## turbobooster

Oke Back on topic.

max for my card on the core. no mods, and no extra volts used.
the memory will go a little higher, but i find it oke like this.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Nice set!  Almost beat my gtx 680 by 30.


----------



## Gooberman

This thread shall never be updated lol


----------



## turbobooster

Jamebonds1 said:


> Nice set!  Almost beat my gtx 680 by 30.



thx, will put the cpu higher tommorow and give the mem a extra 50mhz thats what i can go still higher at the mem.


----------



## turbobooster

Gooberman said:


> This thread shall never be updated lol



no and i send the mod 3 messages and never get 1 back.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan is very busy remember?  

Anyway, I will overclock highest with my i7 3770K by 6 GHz


----------



## turbobooster

i know he is very busy, i now him, lol. he,s on vacation.
and what do you mean with I will overclock highest with my i7 3770K by 6 GHz . 


not on the z77x-ud3h


----------



## Gooberman

and not on a 3770k lol


----------



## turbobooster

and i,m also not on a 3770k, not even on a i7.


----------



## Jamebonds1

You know im tease lol.  But someone did overclocked up to 7 ghz on z77-ud3h


----------



## claptonman

I'll throw mine up later, seeing as though I got my second 670...


----------



## voyagerfan99

claptonman said:


> I'll throw mine up later, seeing as though I got my second 670...



I'm looking to seeing your results :good:


----------



## turbobooster

Jamebonds1 said:


> You know im tease lol.  But someone did overclocked up to 7 ghz on z77-ud3h



yes sombody did, but for this benchmark the cpu, wont do that much


----------



## turbobooster

Jamebonds1 said:


> You know im tease lol.  But someone did overclocked up to 7 ghz on z77-ud3h



and if you did, let me see the superpi score. lol.


----------



## claptonman

Really wish it wouldn't lag between scenes and go so low, but I suppose everyone's score does that.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Congrats. You hold the top spot now :good:


----------



## claptonman

voyagerfan99 said:


> Congrats. You hold the top spot now :good:



No, Spesh does. Smileman just hasn't been updating it very often.

Here's mine at 2560x1440:


----------



## turbobooster

no smileman is on vacation, very nice score, sli 670 still works fine, but rally the min fps is a bit suprising.
ore maybe it falls back at 1 gpu then. or youre cpu is the bottleneck for the 2 670,s.


----------



## turbobooster

gigabyte 7950 wf 3 dont now if this is the max overclock dident try yet.


----------



## turbobooster

so today i,m back to a msi gtx 680.

you can read a revieuw of my card here.


no tweaks, ore extra voltage.


----------



## turbobooster

played a little bit, between the core clock and mem clock, to see what gives the best score for this benchmark, and this is the result.

before was the score like it is shown abouve, no this is the score.


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

Not the greatest out there, but I think it was OK for what I have....lol..OK, maybe the score was pretty high...







<edit> ooops...gotta do it in extreme hd now...lol..oh well.


----------



## Okedokey

Ive found this bench to be really unstable and pretty crappy.


----------



## Jamebonds1

Okedokey said:


> Ive found this bench to be really unstable and pretty crappy.



What make you say that?


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> Ive found this bench to be really unstable and pretty crappy.



update 3d 2013


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

Okedokey said:


> Ive found this bench to be really unstable and pretty crappy.



I like the graphics portion of it, but for some reason the drop in FPS comes from just changing from one render to the next one. The drop in FPS doesn't even appear when graphics are being drawn on the screen.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## claptonman

Okedokey said:


> Ive found this bench to be really unstable and pretty crappy.



Well, maybe if someone would update the 3Dmark 2013 thread...


----------



## turbobooster

claptonman said:


> Well, maybe if someone would update the 3Dmark 2013 thread...



yes that would be awsome hahaha.
send him a few messages to update but nothing


----------



## claptonman




----------



## Calin

I need a HD monitor but on the actual res I got 17.3 FPS


----------



## WeatherMan

Don't think there's much more I've got to give


----------



## claptonman

@4Ghz


----------



## WeatherMan

My max 

That's the limit for my system until the next upgrade


----------



## G80FTW

WeatherMan said:


> My max
> 
> That's the limit for my system until the next upgrade



Thats actually not bad at all. I think last time I ran this benchmark I only got 45fps average on my setup.  Ill run it again and post sometime this week maybe.


----------



## WeatherMan

I've also run this again on my i5 @ 3.7GHz, I think I got about 1fps extra


----------



## Virssagòn

Trying to update when I can, I'm a very busy man now with my school and my website with articles/reviews


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## G80FTW

Heres mine with everything stock:





And yes, the whole minimum FPS thing should be dropped from the chart as it has no relevance to the test.


----------



## Jamebonds1

G80FTW said:


> Heres mine with everything stock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the whole minimum FPS thing should be dropped from the chart as it has no relevance to the test.



Sorry that I beat your score by 40 point


----------



## turbobooster

G80FTW said:


> Heres mine with everything stock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yes, the whole minimum FPS thing should be dropped from the chart as it has no relevance to the test.



how can this be all stock default clock is 1084, this card runs at 1109 and also a little higher on the mem, so that's no stock.


----------



## turbobooster

asus r9 280x and the i7 2700k all stock turbo cpu enabled


----------



## turbobooster

so now I put the core on 1100 and memory at 1600
cpu still stock


----------



## G80FTW

turbobooster said:


> how can this be all stock default clock is 1084, this card runs at 1109 and also a little higher on the mem, so that's no stock.



Because I have the FTW version, so it came overclocked. These are the stock settings on the FTW version of the 680 that I have. I actually have not overclocked this card at all I dont think. Havent really had the need to.

Even so, Im not sure that the whole 25mhz overclock is really significant on this card. I got it for the 4GB and when I bought it they did not have a standard 4GB version available.



Jamebonds1 said:


> Sorry that I beat your score by 40 point



Your also running a much overclocked more efficient processor than I am along with having higher clocks on the video card. So with that said, I am not impressed by your extra 4FPS 

EDIT: Looking at that 280x, it looks like it scales almost perfectly in performance with my 680 despite its higher memory bandwidth.


----------



## turbobooster

G80FTW said:


> Because I have the FTW version, so it came overclocked. These are the stock settings on the FTW version of the 680 that I have. I actually have not overclocked this card at all I dont think. Havent really had the need to.
> 
> Even so, Im not sure that the whole 25mhz overclock is really significant on this card. I got it for the 4GB and when I bought it they did not have a standard 4GB version available.
> 
> 
> 
> Your also running a much overclocked more efficient processor than I am along with having higher clocks on the video card. So with that said, I am not impressed by your extra 4FPS
> 
> EDIT: Looking at that 280x, it looks like it scales almost perfectly in performance with my 680 despite its higher memory bandwidth.



I can tell you that I had the ftw also, and its default clock speed is 1085 on the core, and not 1110 like yours, I now about the different cpu, but I can tell you that in valley the cpu doesn't do much, I can run on 4.5 and have still the same points.
so if I put my card on 1100 on the core then I have less on the core then yours, not saying that the gtx 680 isn't a great card.
but I shell put it on 1085, and 1515 on the mem.
and like you say in the 2013 benchmark the boost speed of the 680 is higher then 1175, it runs over the 1200 so technically that's what your gpu should have been under load


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## G80FTW

turbobooster said:


> I can tell you that I had the ftw also, and its default clock speed is 1085 on the core, and not 1110 like yours, I now about the different cpu, but I can tell you that in valley the cpu doesn't do much, I can run on 4.5 and have still the same points.
> so if I put my card on 1100 on the core then I have less on the core then yours, not saying that the gtx 680 isn't a great card.
> but I shell put it on 1085, and 1515 on the mem.
> and like you say in the 2013 benchmark the boost speed of the 680 is higher then 1175, it runs over the 1200 so technically that's what your gpu should have been under load



I dont see why my card would go over its boost speed. I never noticed it do it before when I first got it, under any load.

I couldnt find any official documentation in the box that the card came in, but Newegg does suggest that the default clock speeds on the FTW are 1084/1150.  I dont remember overclocking this card though.  

Oh well, might as well overclock it some more then I suppose if its been overclocked this whole time and I didnt know it 

Heres 1200/1527:





A whole 50mhz OC on both the GPU and memory.


----------



## turbobooster

lol, haha but start valley and look at the top right corner  you see white letters and numbers when benchmarking, there it will say what the core speed is under load.
it will be higher then the core boost showen in gpu-z


----------



## G80FTW

turbobooster said:


> lol, haha but start valley and look at the top right corner  you see white letters and numbers when benchmarking, there it will say what the core speed is under load.
> it will be higher then the core boost showen in gpu-z



MSI Afterburner has my speeds at 1241 core and 3055 memory (which would be 1527).  

The top right was displaying 1330 core and 3055 memory. I dont think the benchmark is accurately displaying the speeds as they do not change. 

So then its running over its boost clock...  I think there isnt a real way to determine what our nvidia GPUs should be running at once we overclock them unless we turn boost off.  It seems that even the evga precision overclocking is completely off as it has my boost speed below 1200mhz. 

Looks like MSI Afterburner or other monitoring programs are the only way to know without turning boost off.


----------



## turbobooster

depending on the power the gtx needs it goes over his boost speed, when its under load.
it has to with the gpu 2.0 features

NVIDIA GPU Boost 
Up until now, GPUs have operated at a fixed clock speed when playing 3D games, even if they have the potential to run faster. GPU Boost intelligently monitors graphics work load and increases the clock speed whenever possible. The result is that the GPU always performs at its peak and you get the highest framerate possible.

so normally when you want the same settings on the amd, I will have to put the core speed at 1200mhz, for valley.
but in some benchmarks amd runs better then NVidia

like you can see here, the first link is of the gtx 680 with a small overclock  and the cpu at 4.5
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1803157

this 1 is the new 280x on stock and the cpu also at 4.5

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1990938

both are the beta drivers.


----------



## turbobooster

new score valley, cpu 4.3
gpu 1200 on the core


----------



## Jamebonds1

G80FTW said:


> MSI Afterburner has my speeds at 1241 core and 3055 memory (which would be 1527).
> 
> The top right was displaying 1330 core and 3055 memory. I dont think the benchmark is accurately displaying the speeds as they do not change.
> 
> So then its running over its boost clock...  I think there isnt a real way to determine what our nvidia GPUs should be running at once we overclock them unless we turn boost off.  It seems that even the evga precision overclocking is completely off as it has my boost speed below 1200mhz.
> 
> Looks like MSI Afterburner or other monitoring programs are the only way to know without turning boost off.



You're right.  Benchmark on top left is never accurately.

In fact, I would choose EVGA or Gigabyte for better benchmark.


----------



## turbobooster

Jamebonds1 said:


> You're right.  Benchmark on top left is never accurately.
> 
> In fact, I would choose EVGA or Gigabyte for better benchmark.



true that benchmark number is not correct but the 1 in msi afterburner and gpu-z on the tab sensor is, so his evga gtx 680 is running at 1240 lets say running valley


----------



## G80FTW

Ok this one would be with everything stock:





As you can see MSI and the benchmark display some very different speeds when it comes to the GPU itself.  However, according to GPU-z it should only go up to 1150mhz.


----------



## turbobooster

G80FTW said:


> Ok this one would be with everything stock:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see MSI and the benchmark display some very different speeds when it comes to the GPU itself.  However, according to GPU-z it should only go up to 1150mhz.



the 1216 according to msi afterburner is the good 1.
in gpu-z the boost give,s you 1150 its says, but if you go to the tab sensors, and then to gpu core cloclk, and open that and click on show highest reading it will give you more then 1150


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## WeatherMan

This is my latest


----------



## G80FTW

WeatherMan said:


> This is my latest



1827mhz memory? Damn. Id never be brave enough for that!


----------



## WeatherMan

Haha, I think I have some really good memory on this card 

My FTW edition comes with a 50MHz factory OC on the memory and a 91MHz OC on the core, so I'm pretty happy that I've got the last ounces of power out of the card 

Overall I have a 151MHz OC on the core and a 325MHz OC on the mem, which is effectively running at 7308MHz 

Most users over on Hard Forum are hitting between 1200-1300MHz boost clocks on the core and are really lucky to get 7GHz effective (1750MHz) on the mem, it looks like I have a not so good core but awesome memory lol


----------



## G80FTW

WeatherMan said:


> Haha, I think I have some really good memory on this card
> 
> My FTW edition comes with a 50MHz factory OC on the memory and a 91MHz OC on the core, so I'm pretty happy that I've got the last ounces of power out of the card
> 
> Overall I have a 151MHz OC on the core and a 325MHz OC on the mem, which is effectively running at 7308MHz
> 
> Most users over on Hard Forum are hitting between 1200-1300MHz boost clocks on the core and are really lucky to get 7GHz effective (1750MHz) on the mem, it looks like I have a not so good core but awesome memory lol



My card has touched 1300mhz on the core a few times. Doesnt seem to bother it. When I get around to replacing my PSU I might really push this thing. But for now, I dont wanna do any major overclocking with my 7 year old PSU.


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## Calin

The clockspeed is stock. I have 2gb  ram because a stick died again


----------



## Gooberman

Latest and greatest from my y500 lol 

Stock is 790 not 835 from GPUz so it's 1090 MHz not 1135




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


----------



## Virssagòn

If someone with some spare time could make an excel file of all this, that would be great and I'll be willing to update it again every week.


----------



## Jamebonds1

SmileMan said:


> If someone with some spare time could make an excel file of all this, that would be great and I'll be willing to update it again every week.



I can voluteer for that.  I'm pretty good with excel file since I was kid.


----------



## voyagerfan99

I need to remind myself to re-run this since I've upgraded my computer.


----------



## Jamebonds1

voyagerfan99 said:


> I need to remind myself to re-run this since I've upgraded my computer.



You're not going beat my computer are you?


----------



## Virssagòn

Jamebonds1 said:


> I can voluteer for that.  I'm pretty good with excel file since I was kid.



Lol, everyone without knowledge about excel can give in some numbers and names in a grid ;P
Anyway, that'd be awesome though!


----------



## voyagerfan99

Jamebonds1 said:


> You're not going beat my computer are you?



Nope your computer is still way better than mine.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Previous Two Scores:











My updated score.


----------



## turbobooster




----------



## Virssagòn

turbobooster said:


>



Pretty nice for an older setup!


----------



## spirit

i7 975 and a GTX 580 is still a very capable setup!


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> i7 975 and a GTX 580 is still a very capable setup!



yes I agree, so looking for a second gtx 580


----------



## Okedokey

Jamebonds1 said:


> I can voluteer for that.  I'm pretty good with excel file since I was kid.



Did this ever happen?


----------



## Virssagòn

Probably the most dead thread I have ever made on CF. But anyway, I can't resist posting these scores:


----------



## turbobooster

oke just because its dead, wy kick it alive a bit, lol.


----------



## Okedokey

kick, bump, kick


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## turbobooster

nice score okedokey  but we cant all buy 2x 780ti.

most of us have to do it with a simpler setup.


----------



## spirit

turbobooster said:


> nice score okedokey  but we cant all buy 2x 780ti.
> 
> most of us have to do it with a simpler setup.



Yeah, because a Radeon R9 290 is the kind of card that the average Joe would buy, right?


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> Yeah, because a Radeon R9 290 is the kind of card that the average Joe would buy, right?



lol yes the would


----------



## spirit

turbobooster said:


> lol yes the would



It's an awesome 'budget card' at just £300+. 

I will try this and 3DMark on my GTX 760 4GB soon.


----------



## turbobooster

spirit said:


> It's an awesome 'budget card' at just £300+.
> 
> I will try this and 3DMark on my GTX 760 4GB soon.



yep its a great card, its sinds yesterday in my pc, and very happy with it.


----------



## Okedokey

yeah its a nice card, def, overclock it!!


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> yeah its a nice card, def, overclock it!!



 will try to see what it can do.


----------



## speedx77x

No overclocking for me


----------



## Okedokey

Nice.Why not 8.1?


----------



## speedx77x

Okedokey said:


> Nice.Why not 8.1?



Thanks, and I'm using 8.1.


----------



## turbobooster

so I think a made a nice deal, sold my r9 290 and for the same money I bought a r9 290x younger then the 290 and instead of 2 year warranty, no 3 year, score will follow.


----------



## turbobooster

Oke I had the opportunity to test 2 cards so I made a comparison of them using this benchmark.

The test is done at the system you can see in my signature accept of course the videocards the changed. 

both cards I didn't run at stock settings, but I overclocked them both with +50 for the core and +100 for the memory.
The power limiter was set to the max +50

The first card I tested was the sapphire r9 290.
This was the score of that card.






The second card I tested was the gigabyte r9 290x, The score of that card was,





So the x will give you a nice  boost, is it worth the money??   That is something you have to decide for your self.


----------



## Okedokey

Did you overclock the 290?


----------



## turbobooster

Okedokey said:


> Did you overclock the 290?



yes the sapphire 290 was overclocked from the stock 947 for the core to 1000 for the core, so +53mhz the mem was overclocked al well from 1250 to 1350.

the 290x I overclocked as well 50mhz more for the core and them mem 1250/1350 so for both cards the core and mem was the same (almost).


----------



## Okedokey

290 is a better value card then.


----------



## turbobooster

yep for the money the 290 is way better.


----------



## spirit

MSI GTX 760 4GB OC - quite a bit better than my old stock HD 5870!


----------



## Virssagòn

spirit said:


> MSI GTX 760 4GB OC - quite a bit better than my old stock HD 5870!



Great score jason! Be proud of your card!


----------



## spirit

SmileMan said:


> Great score jason! Be proud of your card!



Haha thanks! Loving this GTX 760. It's probably overkill for what I need it for but it's awesome! :good:


----------



## Darren

I'm surprised the 760 score is almost as good as mine.


----------



## spirit

Might be because I have an overclocked i5 and 4GB of VRAM (it's only 1080p after all).


----------



## Darren

I wouldn't think the 4GB of RAM would make a difference considering the 7970 had 3GB.

Processor probably has a lot to do with it though.


----------



## spirit

Oh yeah I forgot the 7970s had 3GB - been a while since I last looked at them even though you have GPU-Z open in your screenshot but I glossed over that. 

As it turns out, the 7970 isn't a whole lot quicker than a GTX 760 anyway and don't forget that my GTX 760 is factory overclocked too: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1032?vs=1038 that's a regular 7970 - not the GHz Edition.

I'm not too sure how accurate this benchmark is anyway and I think the CPU does play an important part in this benchmark.


----------



## Darren

My card is clocked like a GHZ edition and has performance pretty close that of a 770. 

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1031?vs=1037


----------



## spirit

Gotta be down to my CPU or possibly extra RAM then if this benchmark is 64-bit. Your card is clearly faster than mine and you should be beating me by more than about 1fps lol.


----------



## turbobooster

still not bad for 2 old msi gtx 670 pe.

cpu at 4.5ghz and cards 1050 core, and 1602 for the memory


----------



## turbobooster

today i did my self a nice present i bought the msi gtx 970 gaming.
i did a small overclock, from 1114 on the core to 1254mhz on the core, not bad i think.


----------



## lemon07r

This is the overclock I use for all my games, rock solid and never over 56'C, have only seen it peak at 60'c in stress testing. Was a good gift to my self xD.




New driver and settings tweak.


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> Gotta be down to my CPU or possibly extra RAM then if this benchmark is 64-bit. Your card is clearly faster than mine and you should be beating me by more than about 1fps lol.



Just ran it again and still got about the same thing. And this is a different 7970 I might add. 

Results were essentially the same. I did notice my CPU usage was only at about 20 percent according to Windows and was only using 4 cores. I don't even know if the benchmark can make use of 8. Wonder if an overclock of my CPU would make much difference. Probably not. Also this 7970 runs almost 10 degrees cooler under load it seems like. Just barely getting to 60 degrees.


----------



## lemon07r

Darren said:


> Just ran it again and still got about the same thing. And this is a different 7970 I might add.
> 
> Results were essentially the same. I did notice my CPU usage was only at about 20 percent according to Windows and was only using 4 cores. I don't even know if the benchmark can make use of 8. Wonder if an overclock of my CPU would make much difference. Probably not. Also this 7970 runs almost 10 degrees cooler under load it seems like. Just barely getting to 60 degrees.



Well turbobooster scored pretty damn close to me and i had a much heavier overclock then him. My guess is that it might have been because his cpu and ram are alot better then mine and might of made a few fps difference (not enough to warrant me a reason to have pay a couple hundred extra to get specs like his D:, i cut corners well i think xD).


----------



## C4C

Thought I'd bump this thread... I'm going for a higher clock on my 280X. It's currently clocked 80MHz above the "Overclock" settings and the memory is set at stock. The Notepad is wrong. I had it under-clocked before raising power.


----------



## Darren

Care to make it interesting? See which of us can get a better score.  Mine is clocked at the GHz Edition speeds.


----------



## C4C

Darren said:


> Care to make it interesting? See which of us can get a better score.  Mine is clocked at the GHz Edition speeds.



Sure haha.. I think I reached the point of diminishing returns though.. 1150/1520 and I was only getting a score of 1443 with max 40FPS, average 28.


----------



## Darren

I've got a better CPU than you though, which might help a little. I really should overclock it to 8350 speeds. I probably will for GTA V.


----------



## C4C

Yeah I'm starting to think I made the wrong choice with Kaveri because it's going to end up the minimum specs for games... Checked out Dying Light and I can't play that.. GTA V might be bearable.. I know it's really just a bottleneck.. The 280X could do much better with a higher-end CPU.


----------



## Darren

Yeah I really hate to say it but I see the whole FM2 platform as useless for anything except a REALLY budget minded system. You would have been better off with an i3. 

I did the same thing though, wish I'd gotten an Intel board and chip back when I first built this. I am impressed that the board I bought 3.5 years ago is still "current" since it's an AM3+ board. Also my 8320 is no slouch, but I do kinda wish I had room to go up from this without needing a new board. I MIGHT see about getting an Intel setup around Christmas next year but it really all depends on my financials.


----------



## spirit

Darren said:


> Yeah I really hate to say it but I see the whole FM2 platform as useless for anything except a REALLY budget minded system. You would have been better off with an i3.
> 
> I did the same thing though, wish I'd gotten an Intel board and chip back when I first built this. I am impressed that the board I bought 3.5 years ago is still "current" since it's an AM3+ board. Also my 8320 is no slouch, but I do kinda wish I had room to go up from this without needing a new board. I MIGHT see about getting an Intel setup around Christmas next year but it really all depends on my financials.



Gonna say it... got my i5 2500K 3 years ago (even then it was a year old CPU) - still absolutely perfect for my needs and still fast! No regrets! 

I have to agree about FM2. FM2 setup with a 280X? Obvious CPU bottleneck there.


----------



## Darren

Don't get me wrong, I love my 8320 and it's really as much power as I need for what I do. I may be singing a different tune come GTA V launch though. I guess I'll find out.

Edit: I should run this on my laptop while I'm at home this weekend. Curious how my 740M stacks up.


----------



## C4C

spirit said:


> FM2 setup with a 280X? Obvious CPU bottleneck there.



The 280X was only $175 on Newegg at the time! Only $10 more then the 270X I was going to get hehehe..


----------



## Darren

C4C said:


> The 280X was only $175 on Newegg at the time! Only $10 more then the 270X I was going to get hehehe..



That's insanely good. I payed 150 for mine (well 7970) used on Ebay in August. It was even faulty.


----------



## C4C

Hey Darren... Look at meeee! 

Overclocked my CPU from 3.7GHz (turbo to 4GHz) to 4.2GHz and BAM! Stock cooling kept it somewhat cool with the peak being 78 Celsius.


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

Just ran this on mine. With this score, do you think I am bottlenecked by the processor, or am I pretty even. I have noticed in some of the games I play, my processor is not going to 100%


----------



## C4C

Not sure you're really bottlenecked too much by the CPU, but a little overclocking on both the card & CPU should bring your score up quite a bit.

As far as your CPU not reaching 100%, it means that you aren't underpowered.. example: Hitman 5 uses more of my CPU then CS:GO because it's a "heavier" game


----------



## Darren

You'll get bottlenecked in some games by the 965 but it's still is a pretty capable gaming processor. Compared to Jason's score you're pretty similar and his CPU is definitely better than the 965.

I think it's interesting that the 7970 GHz/R9 280X score so closely to the 760 in this benchmark but in most games the R9 is a fair bit ahead.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1031?vs=1038


----------



## spirit

Actually the scores posted by CorruptHawkeyez with the 4.0GHz Phenom II X4 965 and the 2GB GTX 760 are better than the scores from me with my 4.3GHz i5 2500KK and a 4GB GTX 760! My 4GB GTX 760 has a factory overclock too! 

The score, max FPS and overall FPS are higher than mine!


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

A little hint for ya spirit...go into your Nvidia Control Panel then go into your 3d settings and turn off some stuff in there that has to do with antialiasing and application controlled stuff. Also change it from quality to high performance. This is just for benching. You can turn them back on and set it back to quality afterwards.


----------



## spirit

Thanks for the tip. Will do in the future. :good:


----------



## CorruptHawkeyez

spirit said:


> Thanks for the tip. Will do in the future. :good:



Well, where's your new score???


----------



## Cyphor

I know the graphic card is low end evga 750 ti at 2gb it will be soon replaced.


----------



## Darren

Run it in the Extreme HD option to get a better comparison with the rest as that's what most people have been doing. ^^


----------



## C4C

Got my CPU up to 4.3 and we're stable... using AMD OverDrive (NOT Catalyst Control)....

Best score yet... Time to get my CPU cooler and go on the quest to 4.5


----------



## Okedokey

Nice scores lads.  Do we want to update the rules and results, or just continue as we have?


----------



## Calin

I haven't been active for almost one year.
But anyway, I got my new card yesterday and here is my score. It says it only has 4GB of VRAM because the driver doesn't like Win 10.


----------



## Gooberman

I'm liking the 980 ti 

The original image, new to this 4k thing lol
http://i.imgur.com/tRUfabS.jpg


----------



## Okedokey

Goobs, you wanna get another 2 x 4 gb so you can run your ram in quad channel!  Also, that 5820 should get to 4.75GHz quite easily.  You could also run another 980ti on that PSU.


----------



## Gooberman

I plan on getting a couple more sticks in the next month or so, i kinda spent a decent amount over the past week so i want to hold out on that. I had a single 8 GB stick in there for a bit. Looked so lonely by itself.


----------



## tylerjrb

The 980ti's are looking very good, will be another few weeks for my 2 to come in stock. I wouldn't think you could go much farther on the 5820k unless it's under a custom loop. The 6 cores get really hot. 

You'd be cutting it short on a 750w PSU, mine according to corsair link use just over 700w on max load. And they are 980's.

Scores are looking good though!


----------



## Calin

Upgraded to Win 10 RTM and overclocked the card and got a much better score


----------



## beers

Man, this seems like it's getting pretty choked out from low bus speed


----------



## tylerjrb

Love these cards! Especially now they are watercooled. Maxed out with custom bios and just broke 40c. With +360mhz on the core clock and +500 on the memory. Reading 1753mhz in Valley benchmark and 1550mhz in GPU-Z. CPU on 4.7ghz so happy with the score. Need to try windows 10 aswell. which i will be upgrading to tomorrow.







  [/URL][/IMG]


----------



## Darren

tylerjrb said:


> Love these cards! Especially now they are watercooled. Maxed out with custom bios and just broke 40c. With +360mhz on the core clock and +500 on the memory. Reading 1753mhz in Valley benchmark and 1550mhz in GPU-Z. CPU on 4.7ghz so happy with the score. Need to try windows 10 aswell. which i will be upgrading to tomorrow.
> 
> *snip*



damn


----------



## C4C

tylerjrb said:


> Love these cards! Especially now they are watercooled. Maxed out with custom bios and just broke 40c. With +360mhz on the core clock and +500 on the memory. Reading 1753mhz in Valley benchmark and 1550mhz in GPU-Z. CPU on 4.7ghz so happy with the score. Need to try windows 10 aswell. which i will be upgrading to tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/URL][/IMG]


You blew that out of the water. Max score I've gotten is 1998 lol


----------



## fade2green514

sorry cpu-z was showing current speed and voltage the clockspeeds are the same as in my signature i think


----------



## Darren

Thread necro. Playing around with my 390 clocks.


----------



## Darren

Bumpity. Think I'm about maxing out on my clocks with this. Any higher and I start getting artifacts even with voltage bumps. Got to 1125 core and 1600 memory clock with a +30mv voltage bump.

Stock 390's are 1000/1500 and this one was 1040/1500 out of ths box. Score on the left ran at 1000/1500 and on the right is 1125/1600. Furmark scores improved from 4684 at 1000/1500 to 5393 at 1125/1600. So Valley bench was a 7.4% increase and Furmark was 15%. Pretty damn good performance jump for overclocking.


----------



## Calin

So my 8350 died and I upgraded to Intel. Here's the new score.


----------



## spirit

Not loving AMD anymore then @Calin?  

Nice score! And nice setup too!


----------



## Intel_man

AMD processors haven't excited me for many years.


----------



## spirit

Intel_man said:


> AMD processors haven't excited me for many years.


Could've guessed from your username.  

I'm looking forward to seeing what the new Zen platform brings. I'm by no means an AMD fanboy but it would be good to get some competition going. Intel's getting expensive. I notice Skylake is quite a bit more expensive than the previous generation.


----------



## Intel_man

Skylake's only expensive if you get the 6700k. Personally, I'm not a fan of getting Intel's regular consumer stuff. Their "enthusiast" stuff is where it's at (X99 ftw!).


----------



## spirit

Intel_man said:


> Skylake's only expensive if you get the 6700k. Personally, I'm not a fan of getting Intel's regular consumer stuff. Their "enthusiast" stuff is where it's at (X99 ftw!).


The i5 6600K is quite a bit more expensive than the previous generation 4690K was when it was brand new 12-18 months ago I think. In the UK at least the i5 6600K costs just a hair under £200 which is just a bit less than the old i7 4790K cost brand new 12-18 months ago (they were about £220). I paid £160 for my i5 2500K in March 2012 and the 3570K, 4690K and the 4690K also cost about that when they were new. This 3770 I'm using now was about £220 brand new in May 2012. The 6700 costs £260 and the 6700K is £275.


----------



## Intel_man

I paid $300 for my i7 920 "back in my day".


----------



## Darren

spirit said:


> The i5 6600K is quite a bit more expensive than the previous generation 4690K was when it was brand new 12-18 months ago I think. In the UK at least the i5 6600K costs just a hair under £200 which is just a bit less than the old i7 4790K cost brand new 12-18 months ago (they were about £220). I paid £160 for my i5 2500K in March 2012 and the 3570K, 4690K and the 4690K also cost about that when they were new. This 3770 I'm using now was about £220 brand new in May 2012. The 6700 costs £260 and the 6700K is £275.



Also with the price hikes is the fact that each new iteration is usually a semi marginal improvement over the previous. 

Intel needs competition bad, they've stagnated hard because they're dominating the market. When your competition is at best an 8350 for several years, you don't have to try very hard.


----------



## Okedokey

What application is causing your current CPU to bottle?


----------



## spirit

Darren said:


> Also with the price hikes is the fact that each new iteration is usually a semi marginal improvement over the previous.
> 
> Intel needs competition bad, they've stagnated hard because they're dominating the market. When your competition is at best an 8350 for several years, you don't have to try very hard.


Exactly. This is why Zen had better be good!


----------



## Calin

spirit said:


> Not loving AMD anymore then @Calin?
> 
> Nice score! And nice setup too!


Thanks man. I still support AMD over lower end Intel CPUs but saying that it is better than any modern i7 is p ure fanboyism


----------



## Darren

Okedokey said:


> What application is causing your current CPU to bottle?



Who are you talking to?


----------



## Okedokey

Just generally


----------



## Darren

Okedokey said:


> What application is causing *your current* CPU to bottle?



This suggests your talking about a specific person and their CPU.



Okedokey said:


> Just generally



Meaning this makes no sense...?


----------



## Calin

Finally got that 1080!


----------

