Waggle your 'Joystick' - Post your 3Dmark Scores here

MarkAnthony

For the craic!

Which one will we use, is there a free one which can post results. It should be a link as I don't trust any of you lot! :pac:

MarkAnthony

Finally!

DX11: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13445536?

DX12: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13445872?

wotzgoingon

DX11:http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9410006

DX12:http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108101

MarkAnthony

1200Mhz on a 290? Nice! Watercooled?

wotzgoingon

MarkAnthony wrote: »

1200Mhz on a 290? Nice! Watercooled?

No air but it is loud as hell. But I have headphones on while gaming so I do not hear the loudness.

wotzgoingon

I noticed you have the same SSD as me. I got it during the sales. I do you find it? It is no where near as fast as my old 120GB OCZ Vertex 3. If I had a newer system I could have kept the 120GB as a boot drive and the 960GB as a storage for games etc.. but my system only has one SATA III connection and the rest SATA II.

MarkAnthony

I think 'fast enough' would be my review of it :pac: It's not great on heavy workloads I have to admit but general day to day and gaming it's pretty nippy! TBH I think the era of SATA SSDs is coming to a close for the performance segment anyway. I'll eventually grab a NVMe drive and this one will get relegated to the steam library then eventually storage.

jonerkinsella

Stock speed,
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/59072

Slight gpu oc,

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/78283

wotzgoingon

jonerkinsella wrote: »

Stock speed,
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/59072

Slight gpu oc,

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/78283

You could up that GPU overclock and get a better score as you hammered me in the CPU score but I won on the GPU test. We both have 290's.

Yours: 4215

Graphics Score: 4018, CPU Score: 5849

Mine: 4450

Graphics Score: 4364, CPU Score: 5016

ED E

Need a new GPU

3DMark Score 5715
Graphics Score 6099
Physics Score 20045
Combined Score 2247
Graphics Test 128.71 fps
Graphics Test 224.64 fps
Physics Test 63.64 fps
Combined Test 10.45 fps

jonerkinsella

wotzgoingon wrote: »

You could up that GPU overclock and get a better score as you hammered me in the CPU score but I won on the GPU test. We both have 290's.

Yours: 4215

Graphics Score: 4018, CPU Score: 5849

Mine: 4450

Graphics Score: 4364, CPU Score: 5016

Aye.

There was a time when I would of gave a crap :P

That's some turbo on your cpu .
I haven't bothered overclocking at all in years till the other day when I just knocked the gpu up 100mhz . I know it will go further but I'm not arsed anymore ... but i might get pi$$ed and give it a lash at some stage , just like the old days

wotzgoingon

jonerkinsella wrote: »

That's some turbo on your cpu .

Rock solid stable too.

jonerkinsella

Meanwhile ... 11 years ago today ,
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm03/4128724

0nm manufacturing process . It's amazing how things where so much better back then
I'm old now .

Lu Tze

Awesome - twice as fast as a gaming laptop from 2013 apparently! My HD7970 showing up as a 280x

K.O.Kiki

DX11
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13458138

10 562

DX12
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13457725

3 826
========
For some reason, the DX12 test kept crashing at my normal CORE +120 / MEM +450 overclock.

thegreenbean

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13459686?

DX12

I should be good for another few years

TerrorFirmer

Only have the basic Firestrike benchmark.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13465058?

Firestrike 1.1 - 15, 640.

Better than 92% of results.

Funny, I remember last time I ran Firestrike, it chugged like crazy, even though my PC at the time was pretty decent.

Last time I really used 3DMark to bench a lot though, was actually 3DMark 06....:o

DX12 PC Spy: 5,657

Better than 69% of results

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13465502?

jonerkinsella

Interesting read regarding Time Spy and DX12 ,AMD and Nvidia and how the benchmark uses asynchronous for you techies ,

http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/a-closer-look-at-asynchronous-compute-in-3dmark-time-spy?_ga=1.136205553.1110393204.1468547815

Reddit discussion,

Nvidia side , https://m.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4tnsqo/a_closer_look_at_asynchronous_compute_in_3dmark/

AMD side , https://m.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4tnuob/futuremark_releases_statement_regarding_timespy/

Cuddlesworth

jonerkinsella wrote: »

Interesting read regarding Time Spy and DX12 ,AMD and Nvidia and how the benchmark uses asynchronous for you techies ,

http://www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/a-closer-look-at-asynchronous-compute-in-3dmark-time-spy?_ga=1.136205553.1110393204.1468547815

Reddit discussion,

Nvidia side , https://m.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/4tnsqo/a_closer_look_at_asynchronous_compute_in_3dmark/

AMD side , https://m.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4tnuob/futuremark_releases_statement_regarding_timespy/

From what I have read, its a bit more complicated then what either biased side are saying.

Furturemarks implementation of async is correct, but favours Nvidia more then AMD due to the architectures. But only slightly and in theory AMD still does better out of it. AMD should see a 10% increase and nvidia 5-8% using this type of async.

What people are getting pissy about is they heard all about DX12 and a-sync and at this point think its some magical process that will bring AMD back to the market. Well it will, because GCN on new and old cards are well set up for it. Older Nvidia cards not so much but newer ones are fine.

So why did Doom see such huge improvements with Vulkan? Because Vulkan uses low level API's to talk directly to the hardware. Its what AMD have been working on for the last few years. DX12 should be able to do some of it, but Vulkan is better at it and AMD cards are better at using them. And its been assumed that AMD has been CPU limited the last few years due to ****ty driver overhead, which partly the reason why the cards do so well with Vulkan and in theory DX12 if developers start implementing them.

cherryghost

Here's my result with Async off:
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50417

Dx11 Firestrike without overclocking anything:
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/8917409

jonerkinsella

From what I can gather with my limited tech intellect ( I'm a spanner guy ) ... Timespy is not a DX12 demo as it is basically running in single channel , as in a single core cpu vs a multi core , and not utilizing multi core . Amd has been heading towards spreading the load on their core over more channels where Nv has been concentrating on brute force power single channel . In theory Amd will come good when DX12 games kick in .

That's what I think I'm hearing in layman terms . I may be wrong of course

We are living in interesting times .

Cuddlesworth

jonerkinsella wrote: »

From what I can gather with my limited tech intellect ( I'm a spanner guy ) ... Timespy is not a DX12 demo as it is basically running in single channel , as in a single core cpu vs a multi core , and not utilizing multi core . Amd has been heading towards spreading the load on their core over more channels where Nv has been concentrating on brute force power single channel . In theory Amd will come good when DX12 games kick in .

That's what I think I'm hearing in layman terms . I may be wrong of course

We are living in interesting times .

From what I understand, Nvidia with Pascal can now do compute + graphics using dynamic load balancing(concurrent), where as before it was one or the other at a time. Meanwhile GCN for either can do either over multiple threads using ACE's which hard hardware level controllers(parallel).

Future mark has claimed that Timespy is a DX12 demo stress test and it is. But it is a demo that uses concurrent async compute and to be my understanding no real low level API use of the cards themselves. Those are the juicy API's, the ones that let you use multiple card types, vendor types and better performance for both vendors(skewed heavily in AMD's favour, the newer the card the better).


In a very basic sense, we have a problem. You either build a game to work well on 1 vendor or the other, since their architecture is so different. This is a bit like gameworks but it could be much worse as certain games could have insane swings in peformance. 3D mark should be above that and should have built a Demo that uses both architectures to their fullest.

thegreenbean

4790K @ 4.8GHz max temp 80c

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13514430?

Can't believe it ran

Pushed the gpu and cpu to the limit. She has no more lol.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13524309?

Nedved85

My results

GPU Overclocked using Gigabytes 'OC' Mode

CPU - Tried to overclock it using the bios standard gaming OC - Not sure if it actually took hold as when I look at My Computers properties - It has it at stock speed. For some reason my ram has a speed of 2400 MHz in this test, it should be 3200 Mhz.

DX 11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521054

DX 12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521261

thegreenbean

Nedved85 wrote: »

My results

GPU Overclocked using Gigabytes 'OC' Mode

CPU - Tried to overclock it using the bios standard gaming OC - Not sure if it actually took hold as when I look at My Computers properties - It has it at stock speed. For some reason my ram has a speed of 2400 MHz in this test, it should be 3200 Mhz.

DX 11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521054

DX 12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521261

Have you tried the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility? Much easier to push for big overclocks. That's a great overall score.

MarkAnthony

Beat me on DX12 I feel some overclocking coming on!

Nedved85

thegreenbean wrote: »

Have you tried the Intel Extreme Tuning Utility? Much easier to push for big overclocks. That's a great overall score.

Not yet - New to this overclocking game so I will have a look over the weekend at that - Interested enough to see how much of a difference overclocking makes to the result.

wotzgoingon

Nedved85 wrote: »

My results

GPU Overclocked using Gigabytes 'OC' Mode

CPU - Tried to overclock it using the bios standard gaming OC - Not sure if it actually took hold as when I look at My Computers properties - It has it at stock speed. For some reason my ram has a speed of 2400 MHz in this test, it should be 3200 Mhz.

DX 11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521054

DX 12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521261

You would score more if you had a better CPU score. Me and MarkAnthony beat you on the CPU score.

Maybe overclock it a bit more if you can. Try that at your own discretion, as I don't know anything about the 6700 or how good your silicon is.

thegreenbean

Nedved85 wrote: »

Not yet - New to this overclocking game so I will have a look over the weekend at that - Interested enough to see how much of a difference overclocking makes to the result.

It's the quickest and easiest way to OC the newer intel K chips.

thegreenbean

The 1080 scores are seriously impressive. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the last generation. I need one of these :eek:

Dp, sorry

ShadowHearth

So did a fast firestriker bench with new 1060

2500k (OCed to 4.2ghz )
8gb ram
Gtx 1060 ( stock )

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13526008

I guess not bad considering its better then 73%.

Actually, my cpu might be stock lol.

Okay, edit. Before work, I just slightly OCed my CPU to 4.0ghz

New result:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13538791

Not bad, it bumped up to 10k now.

K.O.Kiki

I was just searching though the 3DMark results, and it seems that my Xeon 1231v3 might be a limiting factor in the future.

GTX 1080s are scoring same as 980 Ti's (15'500-16'000) in Fire Strike 1.1

.G.

Are we using the demo version of 3dmark for this? That's all I have anyway. My 1080 arrives next week so I'm doing some comparisons between my system now with my 970 and again when my 1080 is in it.

Nedved85

I only have the demo version also - probably best to stick with that

ShadowHearth

Nedved85 wrote: »

I only have the demo version also - probably best to stick with that

I think it's best too. Everyone have access to that. Plus this thread will come in handy to compare or check how systems do in particular configurations.

I used before unigen benchmark, but looks like is not that popular anymore.

Headshot

This is DX12 for me:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13543582?

FIRE STRIKE ULTRA 1.1 for testing 4K

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13546144?

Nedved85

So for anyone that's interested I did some over clocking from the stock 4.0 GHz my 6700k has.

I so far have Overclocked it to 4.7 GHz as when I went to 4.8 GHz the Cinemark benchmark test that stresses the CPU crashed.

Original Results: (Ram was at 2400 Mhz for these)

DX 11 (17 497) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521054

DX 12 (6 734) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521261

4.7 Ghz Results (Upped the Ram speed to 3200 MHz which its advertised at)

DX 11 (18 017) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13579378?

DX 12 (6 998) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13579669

I didn't mess around with the voltage supplied to the CPU at all - Just the actual Clock speed.

MarkAnthony

Interesting - here's what happens if I lock the card to the min voltage.

It happily bombs along at 1.9GHz.

EoinHef

CPU Score is holding me back,its next on the list for an upgrade,probably next year some time.

Still dialing in an overclock but this result is with gpu +103 core and +155 memory,tops out about 76C in the benchmark. CPU is @ 4.3Ghz

Will update with DX12 scores at a later date


DX11: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9493546

MarkAnthony

Great to get some actual scores on different CPUs. It does seem Ivy bridge bottlenecks it a bit Still an excuse to upgrade! :pac:

cursai

\lost my overclock settings. Can't get it stable again. So down to

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13599202 DX11

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/147921 DX12

twinsen

My score for 980ti:

dx11 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9476369
dx12 http://www.3dmark.com/spy/44193

I am not sure why other lads with ti are getting only 15k. Are they not overclocked cards ?

twinsen

Nedved85 wrote: »

So for anyone that's interested I did some over clocking from the stock 4.0 GHz my 6700k has.

I so far have Overclocked it to 4.7 GHz as when I went to 4.8 GHz the Cinemark benchmark test that stresses the CPU crashed.

Original Results: (Ram was at 2400 Mhz for these)

DX 11 (17 497) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521054

DX 12 (6 734) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521261

4.7 Ghz Results (Upped the Ram speed to 3200 MHz which its advertised at)

DX 11 (18 017) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13579378?

DX 12 (6 998) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13579669

I didn't mess around with the voltage supplied to the CPU at all - Just the actual Clock speed.

I would expect you to have at least 20k with gtx1080. What model do you have

MarkAnthony

twinsen wrote: »

I would expect you to have at least 20k with gtx1080. What model do you have

I wouldn't have thought so tbh. Most models boost to about 2Ghz regardless of make etc.

cursai

twinsen wrote: »

My score for 980ti:

dx11 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9476369
dx12 http://www.3dmark.com/spy/44193

I am not sure why other lads with ti are getting only 15k. Are they not overclocked cards ?

I ran mine at base clock anyway. As in the speed it came out of the box. My oc isn't stable enough yet.
CPU helps too though.

twinsen

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Great to get some actual scores on different CPUs. It does seem Ivy bridge bottlenecks it a bit Still an excuse to upgrade! :pac:

Any excuse is good I would say. I am looking at the gtx1080 at the moment, just need to sell my 980ti.

Headshot

twinsen wrote: »

Any excuse is good I would say. I am looking at the gtx1080 at the moment, just need to sell my 980ti.

Is that really worth the step up?

challengemaster

i5 6400 @4.1Ghz & GTX 970 @1440Mhz (IIRC)

Dx12: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/111213

Apparently I haven't run the Dx11 bench since swapping over to the 970. Hmm..

EoinHef

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Great to get some actual scores on different CPUs. It does seem Ivy bridge bottlenecks it a bit Still an excuse to upgrade! :pac:

Ye in most games its not an issue bar the minimum framerate drops,something like GTA V has the cpu pegged @ 91% usage going full pelt through the city and the framerate can drop as low as 68-70fps from over 100. Still though im maxing most games out @1440p and getting 70fps+ and i dont need vsync as im using a 96Hz monitor so its all pretty smooth even with the odd frame drop.

Just need to start saving for a upgrade,ill probably wait till kaby lake at this point or whatever intels next gen is. Cant see Zen doing much but ill be keeping an eye on that too

cursai

Headshot wrote: »

Is that really worth the step up?

Not unless he's looking for 1440p/higher than 60fps or 4k/60fps. Waste otherwise.

Nedved85

cursai wrote: »

Not unless he's looking for 1440p/higher than 60fps or 4k/60fps. Waste otherwise.

Yup - If its 1440p 60 FPS you are after - The 980ti does that easily - If it's ultrawide 1440p or 4k - Then I can see a point in upgrading.