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

twinsen · 25-07-2016 6:28pm

Headshot wrote: »

Is that really worth the step up?

At the moment I can get only one thing, 1440p monitor or gtx1080. Cant decide.
I am looking to sell my current monitor and graphics card, so it really depends which will get sold first.
Any 1440p owners here? Would you say its big step up from 1080p?

cursai · 25-07-2016 6:40pm

twinsen wrote: »

At the moment I can get only one thing, 1440p monitor or gtx1080. Cant decide.
I am looking to sell my current monitor and graphics card, so it really depends which will get sold first.
Any 1440p owners here? Would you say its big step up from 1080p?

Not huge no! Don't change until you can get a 4k monitor and a gtx1080. At that stage youll probably have a 1080 thats not priced for idiots. Youre still very safe for a few years with the 980ti. I think all the 1080 hype is way overblown. Any 'in game' benchmarks ive done with a 980ti were just barely behind a 1080 for fps at same settings including 4k.

challengemaster · 25-07-2016 10:02pm

challengemaster wrote: »

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..

Dx11 - http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13610171

wotzgoingon · 26-07-2016 12:28am

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

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

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

challengemaster wrote: »

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

wotzgoingon wrote: »

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

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

For those who think the GTX 970 is better than the R9 290. My 290 beat both of these highly overclocked 970's. I should really have been on the AMD marketing team when these cards first came out. :pac:

TerrorFirmer · 26-07-2016 7:29am

I would disagree. 1440P is well worth going to from 1080p. With a 980Ti you're fine, you don't need to upgrade for 1440p, and you definitely don't need a GTX1080 for that resolution either unless you're aiming for 1440p ultra settings 100+ fps.

I'd definitely take a new 1440p monitor over jumping from a 980ti to a GTX1080. Besides, even a 980Ti is largely a waste at 1080p, let alone something like a GTX1080.

jonerkinsella · 26-07-2016 9:18am

I deliberately avoided 4k went from 1080 to 1440 .
I bought a Benq 2730 . It is a 27" monitor . At 27" ,1440 is perfect . I had a 32" 1080 monitor before this . 32" was far to big for use as a monitor if you are sitting within 2-3ft in front of it as you constantly have to move you head around the screen while gaming .
I have read many well informed comments online about the fact that 4k is far too much resolution for a screen that is less than about 40" . Think of the fact that ,at normal 4k resolution , all your desktop icons and txt will be 4 times smaller than 1080 . You will have to use the slider option in windows to increase the size of these properties , this causes the icons , txt , etc to become softer looking ...
And you will need a far more power hungry system to run games .

4K is a work monitor , not a gaming monitor imho .

jonerkinsella · 26-07-2016 9:32am

wotzgoingon wrote: »

For those who think the GTX 970 is better than the R9 290. My 290 beat both of these highly overclocked 970's. I should really have been on the AMD marketing team when these cards first came out. :pac:

The 290 is a legendary card imo . It has held its own for so long now and is extremely well priced throughout the majority of its lifespan. The only other comparable card I would compare it to was the 8800gtx ,another card that was a game changer.

Here's a Firestrike score I done a while back. I bought another 290 trixx just to run the bm and then sold on the 2nd card at a profit .

This run was with my older 5820, all at stock,
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6986788

15901 is still holding up there . I could have probably pulled out another 1k points with clocking . The two card cost me €400 . I then sold one card for €260 . You couldn't go wrong at that price for the performance you gain.

cursai · 26-07-2016 1:49pm

jonerkinsella wrote: »

The 290 is a legendary card imo . It has held its own for so long now and is extremely well priced throughout the majority of its lifespan. The only other comparable card I would compare it to was the 8800gtx ,another card that was a game changer.

Here's a Firestrike score I done a while back. I bought another 290 trixx just to run the bm and then sold on the 2nd card at a profit .

This run was with my older 5820, all at stock,
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6986788

15901 is still holding up there . I could have probably pulled out another 1k points with clocking . The two card cost me €400 . I then sold one card for €260 . You couldn't go wrong at that price for the performance you gain.

I sold a 290 for 160e there a couple of months back. Was a brilliant card but noisy. But got a cheap 980ti so... great card. The hassle I had selling it. ....
http://www.adverts.ie/graphics-cards/xfx-r9-290-do-edition/10000417?utm_source=email&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=AdCommented

cursai · 26-07-2016 2:03pm

DX 11 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9511211

Anymore tweaking after that it stays stable but score drops.

.G. · 26-07-2016 7:18pm

jonerkinsella wrote: »

I deliberately avoided 4k went from 1080 to 1440 .
I bought a Benq 2730 . It is a 27" monitor . At 27" ,1440 is perfect . I had a 32" 1080 monitor before this . 32" was far to big for use as a monitor if you are sitting within 2-3ft in front of it as you constantly have to move you head around the screen while gaming .
I have read many well informed comments online about the fact that 4k is far too much resolution for a screen that is less than about 40" . Think of the fact that ,at normal 4k resolution , all your desktop icons and txt will be 4 times smaller than 1080 . You will have to use the slider option in windows to increase the size of these properties , this causes the icons , txt , etc to become softer looking ...
And you will need a far more power hungry system to run games .

4K is a work monitor , not a gaming monitor imho .

I'm gaming on a 43" 4k screen and its bloody awesome. And that with a 970. My 1080 will be with me tomorrow. Depends on the games your playing I suppose.

jonerkinsella · 26-07-2016 9:57pm

superg wrote: »

I'm gaming on a 43" 4k screen and its bloody awesome. And that with a 970. My 1080 will be with me tomorrow. Depends on the games your playing I suppose.

True .

TerrorFirmer · 26-07-2016 10:45pm

I have a spare code for the advanced edition of 3DMark, if anyone wants it?

TerrorFirmer · 26-07-2016 10:48pm

I wouldn't say it depends on the games at all, more the distance from the screen. I had a 32" 1440p monitor, and I found sitting at a normal desk, the screen was simply too big, that I had to glance left and right to really take in everything happening around me. It only really became playable when I was sitting a few feet back in a chair, using the XB1 handset, which obviously was little use for playing stuff like Battlefield online. I'm at 27" 1440p now and I agree, it's the perfect size for a normal desk setup. As for 43"....again, you would have to be sitting a fair distance from the TV to use it. On a normal office desk, there's no way you could be playing games on a 43" screen regardless of resolution!

cursai · 26-07-2016 10:54pm

All true. Depends on where you sit. Don't get a 1440p or 4k just to day you have one and convince yourself your getting the benefits of it. Cause pixels are very small. 1080p is fine for me when playing games and not looking for pixels.

HDR. ....now that looks interesting

.G. · 26-07-2016 11:20pm

TerrorFirmer wrote:

I have a spare code for the advanced edition of 3DMark, if anyone wants it?

I'll have it if you've still got it. Thanks.

.G. · 26-07-2016 11:27pm

I am playing games on 43" on a normal desk with zero issues. In any game you're focused on the character, the car or whatever it is your controlling and that thing is nearly always in the Centre of the screen so that's where the focus is. For a shooter maybe you need to be taking it all in but I don't play them so no problem for me. The big size adds to the immersion for me. I actual have it on a swing arm so I can get it out to the edge of the desk when I'm playing driving Sims. It's not like it's 4 feet wide. I'm not having to move my head around to see what's happening cos everything I need to see is in the middle. Each to their own but the 24" I came from was way too small and 27" wasn't much better having looked at them in a shop. A 32 was more expensive then the 43 so no brainer on that one.

I'm happy as a pig in pig dirt

jonerkinsella · 27-07-2016 10:41am

^ Perfect for racing games alright . Try play an shooter though . Your neck will be in bits in about an hr

.G. · 27-07-2016 11:53am

Which is why I said, depends on the games you play. I don't play them so I've no issues.

Everything is subjective. Everyone will tell you you can't play games in 4k at 60fps in full detail with one Gpu but again it depends on the game. Most of my games play that well on a 970! The ones that don't will be sorted by my 1080. Personally I find it very difficult to notice any difference in graphic quality at the very highest setting when compared to turning some of those down a bit to get 60 frames.

Anyway wrong thread for all this. Soz.

twinsen · 27-07-2016 4:56pm

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

I would disagree. 1440P is well worth going to from 1080p. With a 980Ti you're fine, you don't need to upgrade for 1440p, and you definitely don't need a GTX1080 for that resolution either unless you're aiming for 1440p ultra settings 100+ fps.

I'd definitely take a new 1440p monitor over jumping from a 980ti to a GTX1080. Besides, even a 980Ti is largely a waste at 1080p, let alone something like a GTX1080.

My aim is to have stable minimum 60 fps, preferable more. At the moment I am running overclocked dell u2414h on 72 hz, and all the games are running on ultra. But on 1440p, I don't think 980ti can handle this.
But I'll have a think.
Checked few benchmarks actually , and it seems people were right. GTX1080 is not as fast as I expected to be. Maybe there is no point to make a jump and wait for 1080ti.

If only all these gsync ips 144hz 1440p screens were a bit cheaper...

Redfox25 · 27-07-2016 5:51pm

DX12
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13655121?

DX11 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13662708?

.G. · 27-07-2016 7:05pm

1080 on board now so here goes.

Firestrike DX11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13656853?

And DX12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13657041?

Redfox25 · 27-07-2016 8:39pm

Redfox25 wrote: »

DX12
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13655121?

Looking for DX11 tool now.

How do I get the DX11 tool to test with?

Looking at my DX12 score, im half thinking of an upgrade or putting a decent OC on my gpu.
Score seems low enough.

EoinHef · 27-07-2016 9:10pm

Redfox25 wrote: »

How do I get the DX11 tool to test with?

Looking at my DX12 score, im half thinking of an upgrade or putting a decent OC on my gpu.
Score seems low enough.

Get the free 3dmark demo on steam,then just run firestrike,thats the DX11 bench.

ShadowHearth · 27-07-2016 9:20pm

Any other 1060 owners? Would love to compare amd see what scores others getting.

Redfox25 · 27-07-2016 11:39pm

Updated post wtih Dx11 score.
Time for a new GPU
Lol
Roll on vega.

jayo26 · 28-07-2016 11:28am

Here are my tests a lot lower then most of ye guys with your fancy new gpus

I5 6500
Gtx 970
8gb ram

DX11
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13673330

DX12
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13673040

happy enough with it as I am mostly gaming in my sitting room on a 50inch 1080p tv so I am not looking for highest of specs.

cursai · 28-07-2016 2:34pm

jayo26 wrote: »

Here are my tests a lot lower then most of ye guys with your fancy new gpus

I5 6500
Gtx 970
8gb ram

DX11
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13673330

DX12
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13673040

happy enough with it as I am mostly gaming in my sitting room on a 50inch 1080p tv so I am not looking for highest of specs.

Get a 1070 or 1060 when the prices become more honest. But a 970 is still a good card and 1080p is a good resolution.

jayo26 · 28-07-2016 2:45pm

cursai wrote: »

Get a 1070 or 1060 when the prices become more honest. But a 970 is still a good card and 1080p is a good resolution.

I don't think a 1070 would benefit me yet for another year at least. I was going to get one in a few months but as long as I'm playing games at high settings and still getting 60fPs I'm happy enough.

Xenoronin · 28-07-2016 3:15pm

Might be a nice pet project to keep a top 10 up to date on the OP?

ShadowHearth · 28-07-2016 5:14pm

cursai wrote: »

Get a 1070 or 1060 when the prices become more honest. But a 970 is still a good card and 1080p is a good resolution.

I don't think he needs any upgrade for TV 1080p gaming. 970 is more then enough for that. Usually with TV, you don't even need AA as its far away.
I used to have my pc hooked up to TV in bedroom amd play in bed. ( yes I had dream setup lol, then woman happened to me

) And my 680 was more then enough for it.

Jayo: is you 970 stock? Your cpu crushing my 2500k, but my 1060 does look like a good increase over 970. I had it stock for benchmarks.

cursai · 28-07-2016 5:24pm

Xenoronin wrote: »

Might be a nice pet project to keep a top 10 up to date on the OP?

It'll be all 1080's and 6700k's.

cherryghost · 28-07-2016 5:42pm

cursai wrote: »

It'll be all 1080's and 6700k's.

Since its mostly weighted by GPU, we could have a breakdown by GPU instead?

ShadowHearth · 28-07-2016 6:13pm

I would just want to see smaller ePenises lol. More average Joe setups, not something that costed as much as a very reasonable car.

jayo26 · 28-07-2016 6:30pm

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I don't think he needs any upgrade for TV 1080p gaming. 970 is more then enough for that. Usually with TV, you don't even need AA as its far away.
I used to have my pc hooked up to TV in bedroom amd play in bed. ( yes I had dream setup lol, then woman happened to me ) And my 680 was more then enough for it.

[]Jayo: is you 970 stock? Your cpu crushing my 2500k, but my 1060 does look like a good increase over 970. I had it stock for benchmarks.

Hi I agree with you my card is plenty for the type of gaming I'm doing but I might have a rethink when battlefield1 comes along.

Yeah my settings haven't been changed its the strix 970 I have I might have a play around with it later see what difference it can make.

.G. · 28-07-2016 6:33pm

superg wrote: »

1080 on board now so here goes.

Firestrike DX11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13656853?

And DX12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13657041?

OC'd the CPU a bit further and GPU a bit and retested.

Dx11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13682267?

Dx12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13682742?

EoinHef · 28-07-2016 7:13pm

superg wrote: »

OC'd the CPU a bit further and GPU a bit and retested.

How are your temps on the 1080 at those clocks?

.G. · 28-07-2016 8:13pm

EoinHef wrote:

How are your temps on the 1080 at those clocks?

Early to mid 70s.

cursai · 28-07-2016 8:27pm

superg wrote: »

OC'd the CPU a bit further and GPU a bit and retested.

Dx11

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13682267?

Dx12

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13682742?

what fps are getting ingame id love to know. Dont really trust those youtube benchmarks.

.G. · 28-07-2016 8:30pm

cursai wrote: »

what fps are getting ingame id love to know. Dont really trust those youtube benchmarks.

Haven't had time to game yet. I've just been tweaking and benching so far. I'm at 4k too so my fps won't really be relevant to most of you. I'll post some figures when I've played a few games. Haven't tweaked the gpu memory yet either.

cursai · 28-07-2016 9:42pm

Well we can upscale/DSR to 4k and get some sort of comparison. Is just that all the benchmarks ive seen were an overclocked or a base 1080 vs a base model 980ti. And if like to see how it compares to an overclocked 980ti.

.G. · 28-07-2016 10:00pm

Depends on what games you want a comparison of. I might not have them.

challengemaster · 28-07-2016 11:20pm

F*ck it, made a massive mistake. Was running hugely outdated drivers, I only copped when I saw Jayo's scores.

(in terms of how out of date - I was using 353.82, latest is 368.81)

Dx11 new score: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687103?

That's a boost of ~1500. And that brings it to just about the exact same score as ShadowHearth's 2500 + 1060 combo.

Dx12: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687311?

Boost of 670

jayo26 · 28-07-2016 11:41pm

challengemaster wrote: »

F*ck it, made a massive mistake. Was running hugely outdated drivers, I only copped when I saw Jayo's scores.

(in terms of how out of date - I was using 353.82, latest is 368.81)

Dx11 new score: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687103?

That's a boost of ~1500. And that brings it to just about the exact same score as ShadowHearth's 2500 + 1060 combo.

Dx12: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687311?

Boost of 670

Where have mine gone wrong so is it yours is not stock settings?

wotzgoingon · 28-07-2016 11:58pm

jayo26 wrote: »

challengemaster wrote: »

F*ck it, made a massive mistake. Was running hugely outdated drivers, I only copped when I saw Jayo's scores.

(in terms of how out of date - I was using 353.82, latest is 368.81)

Dx11 new score: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687103?

That's a boost of ~1500. And that brings it to just about the exact same score as ShadowHearth's 2500 + 1060 combo.

Dx12: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687311?

Boost of 670

Where have mine gone wrong so is it yours is not stock settings?

He is using a Z170 motherboard with a old bios to unlock the blck over clocking of the CPU. He also has his GPU over clocked at higher frequencies than you.

challengemaster · 29-07-2016 1:20am

jayo26 wrote: »

Where have mine gone wrong so is it yours is not stock settings?

I've my i5 6400 @4.1Ghz and my GPU is 1400Mhz + GDDR5@7225Mhz. It's actually boosting to 1463Mhz under load. It's the Asus Strix 970 too, just done using GPU TweakII.

Like ^himself says, I'm using an Asrock Z170 with the SKYOC bios to enable overclocking on the non-k cpu.

mossym · 29-07-2016 9:15am

no waggling here, but just for giggles i ran firecrest dx11 test on my new build. giggles bit it currently has a 5670 with 512mb of memory in it, an old card i am using until my new card arrives. a whopping score of 906

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13697925

only posting it as sitting here waiting on my new 1070 to arrive today, so will run it again once it gets here, suspecting there may be a bit of an increase..:)

cursai · 29-07-2016 9:42am

superg wrote: »

Depends on what games you want a comparison of. I might not have them.

The division, far cry 4, metro, crisis 3....

Xenoronin · 29-07-2016 9:57am

mossym wrote: »

no waggling here, but just for giggles i ran firecrest dx11 test on my new build. giggles bit it currently has a 5670 with 512mb of memory in it, an old card i am using until my new card arrives. a whopping score of 906

Absolutely crushed that Office PC from 2013. Is that old graphics card actually better than the integrated graphics on the 6500?

mossym · 29-07-2016 10:02am

Xenoronin wrote: »

Absolutely crushed that Office PC from 2013. Is that old graphics card actually better than the integrated graphics on the 6500?

it probably isn't, that thought never occured to me when i was building so i jsut stuck it in. something i read a week ago made me wonder was that the case, but i said i'd wait until the new card came to pull apart.

played a bit of division on it, even with everything turned down it's stuttering along. funny thing is the card is meant to be a 5770, 1 gig of ram, says so on the sticker, and my order confirmation from years ago says so. but shows up in the system as a 5670 with 512mb. think i was done and never realised it. it was used in my htpc for a few years so neer noticed

really can't wait to get the new card, due for delivery between 1 and 2 today according to dpd.

ShadowHearth · 29-07-2016 11:06am

challengemaster wrote: »

F*ck it, made a massive mistake. Was running hugely outdated drivers, I only copped when I saw Jayo's scores.

(in terms of how out of date - I was using 353.82, latest is 368.81)

Dx11 new score: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687103?

That's a boost of ~1500. And that brings it to just about the exact same score as ShadowHearth's 2500 + 1060 combo.

Dx12: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13687311?

Boost of 670

Now thats the benchmarks i love to see.

I woke up today and Oced my cpu to 4.1ghz after sorting out my ram issue and that slight overclock on my 1060. I got this result:

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13699776?

Its actually really interesting.

Our CPU scores are very similar. I think if I would do proper overclock and try get usual 4.5ghz I would match your cpu. Pretty damn good for old 2500k!
In gpu 1060 is getting slightly better score, but not by much. I guess with time and drivers 1060 will go a bit more ahead.

If what, by the looks of it old 2500k and pcie 2.0 is still not a bottleneck for 1060.

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

Comments