# Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark Scores



## FX-GMC (Mar 14, 2014)

****PRESS F12 for SCREENSHOT - *Please attach a screen capture of your results for score verification.***
***Your submission will not be added if you fail to follow the rules stated below.***

Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.) Ultra Quality
3.) Extreme Tessellation
4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build
5.) Tessellation correctly set up on AMD cards and not bypassed in CCC
6.) You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks
7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.
8.) The only allowed "tweak" is overclocking.  Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted.

It will ensure that we have consistent results.


***Scores***



Single GPU
____________


# | CPU| Frequency | GPU| GPU Clocks | Score | User Name
1.)| i7-5960X | 4.8GHz | GTX Titan X | 1549/2125 | 2944 | vmanuelgm
2.)| i7-4930K | 3.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1607/2153 | 2877 | ciclito
3.)| i7-5960X | 5.0GHz | GTX Titan X | 1528/2055 | 2873 | Mydog
4.)| Pentium G3258 | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1527/2201 | 2862 | Xevipiu
5.)| i7-3930K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1551/2073 | 2735 | the54thvoid
6.)| i5-4690K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1520/2103 | 2727 | Tommy_Here
7.)| i7-6700K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | ????/2028 | 2680 | codelion
8.)| i7-5820K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1522/1975 | 2676 | mark-benney
9.)| i7-5820K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1494/2053 | 2671 | MikjoA
10.)| i7-4790K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1535/2000 | 2656 | Protokille
| i7-3960X | 5.0GHz | GTX 980Ti | 1506/2003 | 2632 | Ferrum Master
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1481/2041 | 2635 | Christotheb
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1458/2065 | 2630 | QuestForQueso
| i7-3960X | 4.9GHz | GTX Titan X | 1472/1920 | 2622 | PP Mguire
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1468/2023 | 2618 | deybdeybdeyb
| i5-4690K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1477/2000 | 2616 | Aarkno
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1404/2030 | 2616 | uplink777
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | ????/2003 | 2613 | KiLLRiDE
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX Titan X | 1432/1928 | 2610 | Dru
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1501/1853 | 2587 | uplink777
| i5-4690K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1340/2003 | 2585 | FeedbackHD
| i7 950 | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1513/2000 | 2585 | ZemZimZaliben
| i7-4770K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1507/1805 | 2580 | HammerON
| i7-6700K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1438/1653 | 2577 | dmbaris
| i7-6700K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1341/2003 | 2573 | DannyDem
| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1467/1993 | 2572 | ZyCo
| i7-3770K | 3.9GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1504/2002 | 2569 | vipergtx
| i5-4670K | 3.8GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1338 (1515 Boost)/1835 | 2569 | neatfeatguy
| i7-4790K | 4.9GHz | GTX Titan X | 1390/1851 | 2564 | xorbe
| i7 950 | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1514/2153 | 2560 | Wonder
| i5-3570K | 3.8GHz | GTX Titan X | 1460/2000 | 2553 | NecrosNightfall
| i7-3770 | 3.4GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1477/1836 | 2553 | Tuco
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1356/1853 | 2552 | DidierDisc
| i5-2500K | 4.4GHz | GTX Titan X | 1360/2000 | 2544 | Am*
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1353/1953 | 2535 | Vilmar
| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | GTX Titan X | 1592/2003 | 2523 | Chatelike
| i7-4970K | 4.7GHz | GTX Titan X | 1400/2000 | 2519 | PartyPrash
| i7-4930K | 4.3GHz | GTX Titan X | 1413/1951 | 2508 | DinaAngel
| i7-2600K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1477/1978 | 2493 | MERCURY
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1225/1800 | 2471 | KiLLRiDE
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1331/2003 | 2452 | Furney
| i7-4770K | 3.5Ghz | GTX 980 Ti | 1317/1800 | 2417 | HCGxKaLiBeR
| i5-4690 | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1241/1342 | 2415 | Semper Haze
| i5-3450 | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1241/1800 | 2381 | kal-bert
| i7-4820K | 3.7GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1385/1805 | 2345 | Jaffakeik
| i7-6700K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1493/1753 | 2283 | Vinvincible
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1493 /1753 | 2209 | stealth83
| i5-4690K | 3.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1290/1753 | 2203 | kotog
| i7-5820K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1594/2000 | 2066 | Chatelike
| i7-3770K | 4.8GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1505/2000 | 2059 | Alterus
| i7-3770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1450/2050 | 2057 | WebTourist
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1558/2088 | 2037 | jordan1794
| i7-4790K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1556/2127 | 2030 | Protokille
| i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1631/2035 | 2028 | Dontworriaboutit
| i7-4970K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1555/2005 | 2018 | s4in7
| i5-4960K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1575/1953 | 2016 | Tommy_Here
| i7-3770K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1573/2005 | 2010 | flexinhard
| i7-4970K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1524/2078 | 1993 | Bathuzad
| FX-8350 | 5.0GHz | GTX 980 | 1500/1990 | 1990 | bozo6
| i5-4690K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | 1643/1978 | 1978 | GreiverBlade
| i7-2600K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1586/1966 | 1972 | dcf-joe
| i7-4770K | 4.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1385/1900 | 1967 | khemist
| i5-4690K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1378/2053 | 1962 | Monkent
| i5-4690K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1560/1950 | 1960 | w00t692
| FX-8350 | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | 1580/2000 | 1952 | s4in7
| i5-3570K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | 1544/2000 | 1948 | Db_BRICK
| FX-8350 | 4.5 GHz | GTX 980 | 1521/1918 | 1932 | bozo6
| i7-2700K | 4.9GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1348/1984 | 1924 | ninja85
| i5-3570K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1493/2010 |  1922 | prodigal penguin
| i7-2600K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1500/1977 | 1909 | puuhapeku
| i7-3930K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1372/1825 | 1907 | the54thvoid
| i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1391/2055 | 1865 | icubuthed
| i5-3570K | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 | 1493/1800 | 1853 | Aramil
| i7-4770K | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 | 1537/1903 | 1848 | Psychoholic
| i7-4930K | 5.05GHz | GTX Titan | 1202/1777 | 1837 | MetalRacer
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1179/2027 | 1831 | MatsGlobetrotter
| Pentium G3258 | 4.5GHz | R9 Nano | 1094/530 | 1825 | Fouquin
| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | GTX 980 | 1276/1978 | 1822 | IsitShaq
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1241/1750 | 1822 | KrissMac
| i7-4930K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1212/2000 | 1814 | twojnts
| i7-5930K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1452/1810 | 1809 | THE_EGG
| i7-2700K | 5.0GHz | GTX 980 | 1367/1700 | 1800 | mapesdhs
| FX-8320 | 4.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1280/1814 | 1788 | FX-GMC
| i7-3770K | 4.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1280/1774 | 1787 | MrBucket101
| i7-4770K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1277/1861 | 1780 | 20mmrain
| i7-2600K|  5.0GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1165/1925 | 1777| devilpepper
| i7-2600K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 | 1428/1639 | 1774 | Raideruk
| i7-3930K | 4.6GHz  | GTX 780 Ti | 1299/1875 | 1768 | BarbaricSoul
| i7-4790K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1227/1800 | 1764 | Alien Demigod
| i7-4770K | 4.2GHz  | GTX 780 Ti | 1110/1750 | 1763 | Dj-Electric
| i5-4670K | 3.4GHz | GTX 980 | ????/???? | 1763 | Rayooi
| i7-5820K | ????? | GTX 780 Ti | ????/1750 | 1737 | jdawg12
| i7-3930K | 4.4GHz  | GTX Titan  | 1227/1752 | 1728 | the54thvoid
| i7-920 | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1100/1760 | 1724 | DreadGod
| i7-4790K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1370/1800 | 1720 | erixx
| i7-4710HQ | 2.5GHz | GTX 980 | 1367/1750 | 1708 | Ransom
| i7-5820K | 4.6GHz | GTX 970 | 1518/1947 | 1708 | Schmuckley
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 | ????/???? | 1705 | Jetster
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | ????/???? | 1704 | theOtherGuy2175
| i7-2600K | 4.5GHz | GTX 780 | 1306/1800 | 1698 | Droffz
| i7-2700K | 4.9GHz | GTX 780 | 1320/1850 | 1696 | ninja85
| i7-5820K | 4.7GHz | GTX 970 | 1624/2005 | 1692 | Vellinious
| i7-3930K | 3.2GHz  | R9 290X   | 1247/1666 | 1691 | Eroticus
| i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | GTX 970 | 1611/2029 | 1688 | Dontworriaboutit
| FX-8320 | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 | 1361/1727 | 1685 | FX-GMC
| FX-8350  | 4.5GHz  | GTX 780 Ti| 1138/1915 | 1684 | goninja
| FX-8350  | 5.1GHz  | GTX 780   | 1293/1850 | 1679 | Durvelle27
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz  | GTX 780   | 1320/1750 | 1657 | MxPhenom 216
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | 1363/2018 | 1655 | CrAsHnBuRnXp
| i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | GTX 970 | 1561/2049 | 1647 | Cortana
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 | 1190/1753 | 1645 | BigPotatoes
| i7-2600K | 4.5GHz | GTX 970 | 1546/2070 | 1643 | crumbs
| i5-4670K | 4.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1560/2018 | 1640 | manny167
| i5-4590 | 3.3GHz | GTX 970 | 1504/2060 | 1638 | Syrocc
| i5-4670K | 4.2GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1231/1825 | 1637 | Andrew LB
| FX-6300 | 3.8GHz | GTX 970 | 1495/1852 | 1632 | vader007
| i7-4970K | 4.7GHz | R9 290X | 1205/1610 | 1635 | ArtKursis
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 1250/1700 | 1620 | mingolito
| i5-4460 | 3.2GHz | GTX 970 | 1514/1980 | 1618 | The_Intruder
| i5-4690K | 4.5GHz | GTX 780 | 1241/1584 | 1617 | z1tu
| i7-3770 | 3.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1508/2003 | 1615 | Tuco
| i7-5820K | 4.6GHz | GTX 970 | 1550/1952 | 1610 | RandomSadness
| i7-3820 | 3.7GHz | R9 390 | 1200/1625 | 1609 | Aquinus
| i7-3770K | 5.0GHz | R9 290X | 1240/1600 | 1608 | dr_dx
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | R9 290 | 1271/1604 | 1605 | Broco07
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1563/1916 | 1603 | Tsuneo
| i5-2500K | 4.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1520/1955 | 1602 | brutlern
| A10-7700K | 4.4GHz | R9 290X | 1200/1625 | 1601 | TorqueDnB
| i7-3770K | 5.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1516/1867 | 1592 | gamble
| i5-2500K | 4.2GHz | R9 290 | 1240/1590 | 1589 | Serhend
| i5-4690K | 4.2GHz | GTX 970 | ~1479/1890 | 1587 | Jborg
| i5-4460 | 3.2GHz | GTX 970 | 1514/1887 | 1585 | The_Intruder
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 | 1238/1600 | 1584 | mdbrotha03
| i7-3770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 | 1202/1670 | 1580 | superiorpyre
| i3-4130 | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 947/1250 | 1568 | btarunr
| i7-920   | 3.4GHz  | GTX 780   | 1238/1600 | 1565 | mdbrotha03
| FX-6350 | 4.3GHz | GTX 780 | 1215/1575 | 1563 | z1tu
| FX-8320 | 4.3GHz | GTX 970 | 1560/1952 | 1559 | Optinumb
| i7-4790K | 4.7GHz | GTX 970 | 1486/1903 | 1559 | iPond317
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | R9 290 | 1200/1550 | 1555 | fullinfusion
| Xeon X5660 | 4.2GHz | GTX 970 | 1570/1880 | 1555 | Xorium
| FX-8350 | 4.6GHz | GTX 970 | ~1479/1890 | 1554 | Jborg
| i7-4790K | 4.6GHz | R9 290X | 1240/1425 | 1546 | AlienDemigod
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1556/1900 | 1546 | T1GERTEA
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 | 1188/1652 | 1546 | Toothless
| i7-4770 | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 1120/1400 | 1540 | FanBanderes
| C2Q Q9550 |  3.4GHz | GTX 970 | ????/1913 | 1538 | Sirillya
| i7-5930L | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | ????/???? | 1534 | erixx
| i5-4460 | 3.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1383/1928 | 1534 | jvlapple
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 | 1228/1502 | 1530 |TheHunter
| Phenom II X6 1100T | 3.6GHz | R9 290 | 1200/1600 | 1526 | KillaKwik
| i5-3570K | 3.8GHz | GTX 780 | ????/1735 | 1523 | Suupi
| i7-2600K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1175/1658 | 1513 | ajax
| i5-4670K | 3.8GHz | GTX 780 | 1085/1175 | 1510 | Whitekush
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1419/1878 | 1509 | Meathead77
| i7-3770K| 4.7GHz  | GTX 780   | 1035/1604 | 1504 | freakshow
| i5-3570K | 4.5GHz | GTX 970 | 1349/1613 | 1502 | Gregory Hartley
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1530/2004 | 1501 | dreamz
| i5-4690K | 4.5GHz | R9 290 | 1150/1500 | 1497 | GreiverBlade
| i7-5390K | 4.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1500 Boost/1779 | 1497 | DarthBaggins
| i5-4670K | 4.2GHz | GTX 780 | 1071/1662 | 1488 | Ant
| i3-4130 | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 1180/1500 | 1484 | Stasis007
| i7-3770K | 4.6GHz | R9 290X | 1180/1325 | 1483 | sirbaili
| A10-7700K | 4.0GHz | R9 290 | 1245/1600 | 1479 | TorqueDnB
| Phenom II X4 955 | 3.2GHz | GTX 970 | 1410/2000 | 1479 | romancef
| i7-3770K | 3.4GHz | GTX 970 | Default MSI Gaming | 1473 | Tuco
| i7-4770K| 4.4GHz  | GTX 780   | 1150/1502 | 1466 | HammerON
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHx | GTX 780 | ????/???? | 1464 | Jetster
| FX-8350 | 5.0GHz | R9 290 | 1150/1450 | 1465 | Durvelle27
| A10-6800K | 4.5GHz | R9 390 | 1101/1547 | 1449 | Phyfell
| i5-4670K | 3.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1050/1580 | 1447 | THE_EVIL_RAPIER
| i7-4720HQ | 2.6GHz | GTX 980M | ~1406/1418 | 1443 | Ian Reardon
| i7-4770K| 4.3GHz  | R9 290 | 1150/1420 | 1441 | SimpleTech
| i7-960  | 3.8GHz  | GTX 780 | 1031/1556 | 1433 | Rekkapena
| i5-4670K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1110/1502 | 1433 | jakedubbleya
| FX-8320 | 3.5GHz | R9 290X | 1175/1500 | 1430 | sirpig05
| Xeon E3-1231v3 | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 1100/1400 | 1430 | Jenny Death
| A10-6800K | 4.6GHz | R9 290 | 1120/1450 | 1423 | Uings
| FX-6300 | 4.2GHz | R9 290 | 1150/1350 | 1418 | Yosher
| i5-4670K| 4.2GHz  | R9 290 | 1120/1250 | 1410 | Tupac33
| i7-2700K | 4.8GHz | R9 290X | 1050/1350 | 1408 | chevy350
| i7-3770K| 4.6GHz  | R9 290    | 1000/1250 | 1407 | sirbaili
| i5-3570K | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1392/1753 | 1402 | BiggieShady
| i7-3930K | 4.7GHz | HD 7950 | 1206/1668 | 
1397
 | Schmuckley
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | Stock.... | 1391 | SASBehrooz
| FX-8320 | 4.2GHz | R9 290 | 1075/1350 | 1384 | m0nt3
| i5-2500K |  3.3GHz | GTX 780 | 954/1502 | 1375 | The N
| Xeon W3520| 4.0GHz | R9 290X   | 1000/1250 | 1372 | Solaris17
| FX-8320 | 4.5GHz | R9 290 | 1150/1350 | 1368 | gdallsk
| FX-8320 | 3.5GHz | R9 290(X?) | 1040/1350 | 1367 | nico_80)
| i7 920 | 2.7GHz | R9 290X | 1080/1250 | 1364 | hooiberg
| i7-4790 | 4.0GHz | R9 290 | 1040/1350 | 1359 | stefanels
| FX-8320 | 4.5GHz | GTX 970 | Stock..... | 1335 | blacktruckryder
| i7-2600 | 3.6GHz | GTX 970 | 1279/1753 | 1327 | schuck6566
| FX-6300 | 4.0GHz | R9 290 | 1090/1380 | 1318 | GrieverBlade
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1102/1762 | 1314 | spider623 (Run in windowed mode)
| i7-4770HQ | 3.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1076 (1400 Boost)/1418 | 1310 | ZapCord
| Xeon W3690 | 4.0GHz | R9 290X | 1010/1260 | 1303 | R-T-B
| FX-8350 | 4.1GHz | R9 290 | 1010/1300 | 1291 | Biones
| i7-X980 | 3.3GHz | R9 290 | 1020/1280 | 1287 | Archangel_77
| i5-3570 | 3.4GHz | R9 290 | 1000/1300 | 1287 | Marcelo Couto
| FX-8350 | 4.8GHz  | HD 7970   | 1290/1850 | 1125 | Durvelle27
| Phenom II X6 1100T | 4.2GHz | HD 7970 | 1313/1759 | 1122 | Steevo
| i5-2500K | 4.0GHz | GTX 770 | 1306/2067 | 1121 | HazMatt
| i5-3570K | 4.8GHz | R9 280X | 1207/1850 | 1090 | MrGenius
| i7-4770K | 4.5GHz | GTX 770 | 1150/2000 | 1081 | DarkStalker
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | R9 280X | 1242/1725 | 1080 | xonedl
| i7-3770K | 4.6GHz | HD 7970 | 1250/1650 | 1069 | erocker
| C2D E8600 | 3.3GHz | R9 280X | 1200/1850 | 1059 | MrGenius
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | GTX 680 | 1175/1827 | 1033 | Gremalot
| i5-4440 | 3.1GHz | GTX 770 | 1241/1879 | 1032 | federico9292
| Phenom X4 955 | 3.7GHz | R9 280X | 1200/1707 | 1029 | itsakjt
| i7-2600K | 4.5GHz | HD 7950 | 1180/1675 | 1016 | The N
| i7-4790 | 3.6GHz | R9 280X | 1180/1670 | 1015 | Yes_Baas
| i7 920 | 4.0GHz | HD 7950 | 1200/1750 | 1013 | RejZoR
| i7-2600K | 4.8GHz | GTX 670 | 1306/1851 | 1011 | dcf-joe
| i5-4440 | 3.1GHz | R9 280X | 1160/1650 | 1003 | yadezigh
| i5-3450 | 3.8GHz  | HD 7950   | 1240/1425 | 1000 | _larry
| i7-3770K| 4.5GHz  | GTX 670   | 1129/1840 | 984  | Bladedrummer
| FX-6350 | 4.4GHz  | R9 280X   | 1150/1500 | 974  | z1tu
| i7-6700 | 3.4GHz | Quadro M4000 | 772/1500 | 958 | Ten Shin Han
| FX-6300 | 4.0GHz | R9 380 | 1068/1505 | 953 | captainskyhawk
| Pentium G3258 | 4.3GHz | GTX 680 | 1059/1552 | 950 | offroadz
| i5-4670K| 3.4GHz  | R9 280X   | 1070/1550 | 943  | Valor
| C2Q Q9550 | 3.4GHz | GTX 680 | 1164/1552 | 910 | Hugis
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 960 | 1468/1900 | 910 | flowtek
| i5-3350P | 3.1GHz | GTX 760 | 1321/1800 | 910 | Sakurai
| Pentium G3258 | 4.5GHz | HD 7950 | 1100/1375 | 904 | Gokufighther
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | R9 380 | 990/1425 | 902 | texasniteowl
| i5-3750K | 3.4GHz | GTX 670 | 1140/1507 | 892 | PersonWithTech
| i7-3770K| 4.8GHz  | HD 7970   | 1010/1375 | 883  | fullinfusion
| i5-2500 | 4.0GHz | GTX 760 | 1145/1652 | 880 | The N
| i5-4690K | 4.5GHz | GTX 960 | 1428/1853 | 870 | ...PACMAN...
| Pentium G870 | 3.1GHz | GTX 580 | 948/1024 | 846 | rodrigobenchmarker
| i7-920  | 4.4GHz  | GTX 580   | 950/1170  | 844  | GreiverBlade
| i5-3450 | 3.1GHz  | HD 7950   | 1000/1380 | 843  | reny900
| i3-2120 | 3.3GHz | HD  7950 | 1005/1325 | 830 | TommyT
| Athlon X4 860K | 4.0GHz | GTX 960 | 1544/1753 | 807 | Gokufighther
| Athlon X4 760K| 4.2GHz | GTX 580 | 935/1065 | 797 | GreiverBlade
| i5-4570 | 3.2GHz | R9 270X | 1300/1550 | 790 | Lui Leyland Robert
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | HD 7870 | 1250/1550 | 784 | mingolito
| i5-4570 | 3.8GHz | R9 270X | 1250/1500 | 782 | Theo.s
| i5-3350P | 3.1GHz | GTX 660 Ti | 1305/1700 | 774 | C3sp3nar
| FX-8350 | 4.8GHz | GTX 760 | 1172/1512 | 762 | YautjaLord
| i5-3570K | 4.3GHz | HD 7850 | 1250/1450 | 734 | Friendex
| FX-8320 | 4.4GHz  | HD 7870   | 1150/1450 | 727  | Durvelle27
| Xeon X5450 | 3.0GHz | R9 270 | 1100/1500 | 716 | Riktar
| Athlon X4 760K |  4.2GHz | R9 270 | 1050/1500 | 714 | GreiverBlade
| Xeon E3 1275 V2 | 3.5GHz | R9 270  | 1050/1500 | 702 | GreiverBlade
| FX-6300 | 4.1GHz | R9 270X | 1070/1400 | 692 | Watrevir
| i5-4690K | 3.5GHz | GTX 660Ti | ????/???? | 680 | Craigster
| A8-6500 | 3.5GHz | R9 270X | 1070/1400 | 675 | Watrevir
| Phenom X4 9600B| 2.4GHz | GTX 460   | 930/1100  | 605  | GreiverBlade
| i7-4800MQ | 2.7GHz | GTX870M | 1019/1250 | 582 | Shinyier
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | GTX 750 Ti | 1291/1400 | 575 | short2bucks
| i7-4720HQ | 2.6GHz | GTX965M | 924/1253 | 574 | mostcool
| i5-2500K | 3.3GHz | GTX 560 Ti | 962/1701/1275 | 555 | leunchus
| FX-6100| 3.3GHz | HD 7850 | 900/1200 | 533 | Devon68
| i7-2600 | 3.4GHz | GTX 560 | 1000/1650 | 525 | toppedro
| Xeon X5570 | 3.0GHz | GTX 750 Ti | 1100/1350 | 506 | silentbogo
| i7-4700MQ | 2.4GHz | GTX 770M | 809/1002 | 469 | Fizban
| i5-2500K | 3.3GHz | HD 6950 | 800/1250 | 442 | tttony
| i5-4670K | 3.4GHz | HD 58XX | 950/1250 | 400 | nightborder
| FX-8300 | 3.3GHz | HD 6770 | 900/1360 | 243 | ZikiHero
| C2Q Q9550 | 2.8GHz | HD5770 | 900/1250 | 152 | schuck6566
| i5-3210M | 2.5GHz | GT635M | 795/1100 | 118 | Lui Leyland Robert


Multi GPU
____________


# | CPU| Frequency | GPU| GPU Clocks | # of GPUs | Score | User Name
1.)| i7-5960X | 4.8GHz | GTX Titan X | 1530/2050 | 2 | 5409 | vmanuelgm
2.)| i7-5960X | 5.0GHz | GTX Titan X | 1528/2055 | 2 | 5367 | Mydog
3.)| i7-4930K | 4.8GHz | R9 290X | 1240/1625 | 4 | 5305 | Kaapstad
4.)| i7-3930K | 4.7GHz | R9 290 | 1100/1300 | 4 | 4835 | TonHofhuis
5.)| i7-5960X | 4.2Ghz | GTX 980 | 1481/1800 | 3 | 4824 | CrisInuyasha
6.)| i7-5820K | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1410/2050 | 2 | 4821 | Geranospiza
7.)| i7-5390K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1450/1810 | 2 | 4802 | Soulmirror
8.)| i7-3930K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1366/1752 | 3 | 4789 | mapesdhs
9.)| i5-4690K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1462/2008 | 2 | 4756 | Boostybleep
10.)| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | GTX 980 | 1316/1793 | 3 | 4751 | Mrboost
| i7-5960X | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1341/1753 | 2 | 4749 | vivanv
| i7-2700K | 5.0GHz | GTX 980 | 1366/1752 | 3 | 4697 | mapesdhs
| i7-4770K | 4.4GHz | R9 290X/290 | 1080/1350 | 4 | 4673 | night.fox
| i7-5960X | 3.0GHz | GTX Titan X | ????/1919 | 3 | 4670 | FrodBonzi
| i7-3960X | 4.9GHz | GTX Titan X | 1468/1920 | 2 | 4627 | PP Mguire
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1342/1881 | 2 | 4623 | trog100
| i7-5930K | 4.5GHz | R9 290 | 1200/1500 | 3 | 4302 | xccel
| i7-870 | 4.3GHz | GTX 980 | 1366/1752 | 3 | 4198 | mapesdhs
| i7-4770K | 4.5GHz | R9 295X + R9 290X | 1160/1500 | 3 | 4072 | Seth Collen
| i7-5820K | 4.1GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 1291/1753 | 2 | 3994 | neo1738
| FX-8350  | 5.02GHz| HD 7970  | 1125/1575 | 4 | 3964 | red1414
| i7-3930K | 4.8GHz | GTX 780 | 1424/1750 | 3 | 3912 | hu1kamania
| i7-3770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1390/2025 | 2 | 3787 | WebTourist
| i7-5930K | 3.8GHz | GTX 980 Ti | ~1152(~1500 Boost)/1753 | 2 | 3724 | mcraygsx
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1484/2016 | 2 | 3720 | D007
| i5-4690K | 4.5GHz | GTX 980 | ~1503/1999 | 2 | 3707 | MiataManiac
| i7-3930K | 4.7GHz | GTX 980 | 1541/2000 | 2 | 3704 | BUFDUP
| i7-3770K | 4.7GHz | HD 7990 | 1150/1700 | 2 | 3669 | 05_ACR_SRT4
| i7-4790K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1506/1995 | 2 | 3618 | Lv100Toast
| i7-5960X | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1467/1753 | 2 | 3601 | vivanv
| i7-4790K | 4.6GHz | GTX 980 | 1503/2000 | 2 | 3595 | chester7lp
| i7-3930K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1366/1752 | 2 | 3565 | mapesdhs
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1295/2000 | 2 | 3557 | KrissMac
| i7-3930K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1333/1800 | 2 | 3541 | the54thvoid
| i7-3930K | 4.6GHz | HD 7950 | 1170/1570 | 4 | 3522 | Dagamus(NM)
| i7-4790K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1267/1825 | 2 | 3468 | KrissMac
| i5-760 | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 | 1366/1752 | 2 | 3359 | mapesdhs
| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | GTX 970 | 1586/2103 | 2 | 3334 | Vellinious
| i7-5930K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1451/1753 | 2 | 3308 | navvar
| i7-4790K | 4.4Hz | GTX 980 | 1300/1800 | 2 | 3295 | Robin Vittore
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | GTX 980 | 1241/1753 | 2 | 3291 | EricG
| i7-4930K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1175/1785 | 2 | 3232 | Paladone
| i7-4960X | 3.6GHz | GTX 780 Ti | ????/???? | 2 | 3219 | Vistaron
| i7-4790K | 4.4GHz | GTX 980 | 1266/1367 | 2 | 3132 | chicobrew
| i7-4770K | 4.6GHz | GTX 780 | 1200/1800 | 2 | 3109 | lunatis
| i7 920 | 4.0GHz | GTX 970 | 1560/1900 | 2 | 3089 | N1GHTRA1N
| i7-4770K | 3.3GHz | GTX 980 | 1367/1753 | 2 | 3058 | stryfetew
| i5-4690K | 4.4GHz | GTX 970 | 1455/1930 | 2 | 3033 | tsouders
| i5-4690K | 4.7GHz | GTX 970 | 1532/2000 | 2 | 3030 | zcharlee
| i7-4970K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1267/1750 | 2 | 2989 | zieg
| i5-4670K | 3.4GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1267/1750 | 2 | 2941 | zieg
| i7-4790K | 4.45GHz | GTX 970 | 1443/1953 | 2 | 2933 | Sirillya
| i5-3570K | 4.2GHz | GTX 970 | 1519/1853 | 2 | 2905 | Xorium
| i7-4770K | 4.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1140/1702 | 2 | 2895 | HammerON
| i7-4770K | 4.2GHz | GTX 780   | 1190/1502 | 2 | 2858 | Gribar
| i7-4960X | 4.2GHz | GTX 980M | 1439/1403 | 2 | 2848 | usmc362
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 780 Ti | 1046/1750 | 2 | 2827 | theOtherGuy2175
| i7-4790K | 4.8GHz | R9 290X/290 | 1090/1550 | 2 | 2818 | fullinfusion
| i7-4770K | 4.3GHz | GTX 780 | 1150/1727 | 2 | 2778 | Alechord
| i7-3770K | 4.6GHz | R9 290    | 1100/1250 | 2 | 2730 | sirbaili
| i7-2700K | 4.8GHz | R9 290    | ???/???   | 2 | 2725 | freeleacher
| i7-4770K | 4.2GHz | GTX 980 | 1417/1753 | 2 | 2658 | gdallsk
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1020/1502 | 2 | 2645 | HumanSmoke
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | GTX 780 | 1202/1623 | 2 | 2629 | Ruszek83
| i7-5820K | 4.0GHz | R9 290 | 1050/1250 | 2 | 2620 | sirbaili
| i7-4790K | 4.0GHz | GTX 780 | 1378/1725 | 2 | 2589 | TheJShep
| i7-3770K | 4.5GHz | HD 7950 | 1100/1375 | 3 | 2522 | gkipers
| i7-4790K | 4.4GHz | R9 290 | 1000/1300 | 2 | 2510 | cookiemonster
| i5-4670K | 4.6GHz | R9 290 | 1000/1260 | 2 | 2499 | DRG
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | R9 290(X?) | 1018/1250 | 2 | 2305 | rainbow4w
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | R9 290 | 977/1250 | 2 | 2259 | jhonny97
| i7-3770K | 4.8GHz | HD 7970   | 1280/1770 | 2 | 2176 | fullinfusion
| i5-3570K | 4.6GHz | HD 7970/R9 280X | 1235/1850 | 2 | 2123 | NCoastTweaker
| i7-2700K | 5.0GHz | GTX 580 | 832/1050 | 3 | 2083 | mapesdhs
| FX-8350 | 4.0GHz | R9 280X | 1100/1600 | 2 | 1962 | URBAN303
| i7-4820K | 3.7GHz | GTX 770 | 1306/1800 | 2 | 1901 | draklanar
| i7-5820K | 3.3GHz | HD 7970 | 1050/1100 | 2 | 1868 | eblackmo
| i7-3770K | 4.5GHz | GTX 770 | ???/1753 | 2 | 1863 | Knoxx29
| i5-2500K | 4.5GHz | GTX 670   | 1050/1750 | 2 | 1846 | renozi
| FX-8320 | 4.0GHz | HD 7950 | 1125/1500 | 2 | 1835 | MCanalog
| i5-760 | 4.2GHz | HD 7970 | 1050/1500 | 2 | 1814 | mapesdhs
| i7-4970K | 4.2GHz |  R9 280 | 1070/1575 | 2 | 1814 | cardurah
| Pentium G3258 | 4.5GHz | HD6990/6970/6950 | 940/1375 | 4 | 1792 | Fouquin
| i5-2500K | 4.0GHz | R9 280X | 1100/1500 | 2 | 1779 | The N
| i7-3770K | 4.2GHz | HD 7950   | 800/1250  | 2 | 1756 | Jetster
| Pentium G3258 | 4.3GHz | HD 7950 |1100/1500 | 2 | 1746 | rusheurdeouf
| i7-3770K | 4.2GHz | GTX 760   | 995/1750  | 2 | 1720 | havene
| i5-2500K | 4.8GHz | HD 7950 | 1060/1450 | 2 | 1719 | shkapars
| i7-940 | 4.1GHz | GTX 670 | 995/1585 | 2 | 1678 | j0hnwayn3
| Phenom II X4 970 | 4.0GHz | GTX 670 | 1163/1750 | 2 | 1647 | brendangreenninja
| i5-2500K | 3.3GHz | GTX 660 Ti | 1010/1089 | 2 | 1530 | MiataManiac
| i7-3770K | 3.5GHz | GTX 760 | 1293/1502 | 2 | 1499 | atlvol
| i7-4770K | 3.5GHz | R9 280X | 1060/1803 | 2 | 1487 | RealNeil
| FX-6300 | 4.5GHz | GTX 760 | 1285/1529 | 2 | 1483 | Yordan
| i7 930 | 3.9GHz | HD 7950/R9 280 | 940/1250 | 2 | 1458 | Christes
| i7-2600K | 3.4GHz | R9 280X | 1070/1600 | 2 | 1420 | RealNeil
| FX-8320  | 4.8GHz | HD 7870   | 1150/1450 | 2 | 1389 | Durvelle27
| i7-2700K | 5.0GHz | GTX 580 | 783/2010 |  2| 1371 | mapesdhs
| FX-8350 | 4.2GHz | GTX 760 | 1072/1502 | 2 | 1370 | YautjaLord
| i5-4690K | 4.4GHz | R9 270X | 1030/1400 | 2 | 1329 | markman090
| Xeon E3 1275 V2 | 3.7GHz | GTX 580 | 900/1050 | 2 | 1322 | GreiverBlade
| i5-2500K | 4.4GHz | HD 7870/R9 280X | 1030/1500 | 2 | 1316 | silkstone
| i7-4800MQ | 3.5GHz | GTX 780M | 850/1250 | 2 | 1267 | thegremlin599
| i7-4930K | 3.4GHz | GTX 660 | 1046/1502 | 2 | 1209 | ChevyOwner
| i7-2600K | 4.4GHz | GTX 570 | 797/1950 | 2 | 1171 | Rizeon1
| FX-8350 | 4.3GHz | GTX 570 | 742/1484 | 2 | 1105 | RealNeil
| i7-3770K| 3.5GHz |GTX 650 Ti Boost | 1098/1502 | 2 | 1042 | Bladedrummer
| FX 8300 | 3.3GHz | HD 6770 | 860/1200 | 2 | 389 | ZikiHero

1680x1050


# | CPU| Frequency | GPU| GPU Clocks | #of GPUs | Score | User Name
1.) | i5-4670K | 3.8GHz | HD 7990 | 1000/1500 | 2 | 3258 | thekos
2.) | i5-4670K | 3.8GHz | HD 7990 | 1000/1500 | 1 | 1838 | thekos
3.) | FX-8320 | 4.5GHz | GTX 970 | 1580/2000 | 1 | 1797 | thespartanfish
4.) | i5-4690K | 3.5GHz | GTX 960 | 1378/1953  | 1 | 1038 | Umes

AMD FX-8320 @ 4.6GHz  |  GTX 780 1361/1727


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2014)

All set.  New posts start on page 10 of the old thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.190386/page-10

Thank you!


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 14, 2014)

Updated thread.  If I missed anyone from the old thread send me a link to the post and I will add it.  I'm also thinking I may move score to the first column and get rid of the number system.  If anyone has a suggestion of a light text editor that will auto increment numbers without much hassle please let me know.

Also, if there are any mistakes do tell me.  Feel free to PM to keep the clutter down.

Special thanks to @erocker @HammerON @W1zzard for helping out with this.


----------



## R00kie (Mar 14, 2014)

R9 290 1150/1350


----------



## Devon68 (Mar 15, 2014)

Here is my score: It's an FX-6100 @ 3.3 GHz (stock) and MSI HD7850 TFIII @ 900/1200 (stock).


----------



## khemist (Mar 15, 2014)

*1967*

4770k @ 4.5  780Ti @ 1385/1900


----------



## the54thvoid (Mar 15, 2014)

khemist said:


> *1967*
> 
> 4770k @ 4.5  780Ti @ 1385/1900




oooff... as Archie McPherson once said...

Hey Khemist, I'm in a mini dilemma.  Funds are no issue so it's all down to practicalities.  My Titan is gaming stable at about 1.1GHz, any more and i need to up volts to 1.21.  On voltages up to 1.25-1.28 it's bench stable at 1215GHz but not game stable.

I've had a 780Ti Classified in and out of my basket about 5 times in two days.  I'd have bought one ages ago if it wasn't for the 3GB memory niggle though I feel it will have no impact at my res (1440p).  You think I'll see a 20% increase in performance when overclocked on what I have now?  If I'll only get 10% more real world performance than my current 1.1GHz then I'll leave it - I'm not a bench pro but if it'll give me say a boost from 50fps to 60+fps in BF4 for example, I'll jump.  

I appreciate your thoughts as I know you came from Titan to what I'm thinking of.


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 15, 2014)

khemist said:


> *1967*
> 
> 4770k @ 4.5  780Ti @ 1385/1900



Nice score.  Thanks for making me increment every number in the list.


----------



## khemist (Mar 17, 2014)

the54thvoid said:


> oooff... as Archie McPherson once said...
> 
> Hey Khemist, I'm in a mini dilemma.  Funds are no issue so it's all down to practicalities.  My Titan is gaming stable at about 1.1GHz, any more and i need to up volts to 1.21.  On voltages up to 1.25-1.28 it's bench stable at 1215GHz but not game stable.
> 
> ...




I really don't think it's worth it, i only bought mine because i really wanted a new toy to bench with and to make matters worse i'm running at 1080p just now and not my normal 1600p so was not needed at all.

If i was planning on staying at 1600p i wouldn't have bought this card because of the 3gb mem on it and you are not far off that with your monitor.


----------



## Bladedrummer (Mar 18, 2014)

Ran this on a machine at my work just for giggles. 

i7 3770K@3.5 Ghz (Stock Clock), SLI MSI GTX 650 Ti Boost (x2). Graphics cards both at stock 1098/3004


----------



## SGTFulmer (Mar 23, 2014)

Just got a 988 with an FX 6300, 16 gbs RAM and a r9 270. Pics coming later.


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 24, 2014)

Infinite Enigma said:


> 1728 with an i7 4770k and the EVGA GTX780



Regretfully, I cannot add your score unless you run the benchmark at 1920x1080



> Benchmark setup:
> 
> *1.1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing*
> 2.Ultra Quality
> ...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 25, 2014)

SGTFulmer said:


> Just got a 988 with an FX 6300, 16 gbs RAM and a r9 270. Pics coming later.


hardly believable if you look at the similar setup and score, and my R9 270 also run on maxed AFB clock (aka 1050/1500), but i pretty much doubt 8gb ram more or a FX 6300 over a X4 760K or a Xeon E3-1275V2 would do a difference.

34.)FX-8320 4.4GHzHD 7870 1150/1450 727 Durvelle27
35.)Athlon X4 760K 4.2GHzR9 270 1050/1500 714 GreiverBlade
36.)Xeon E3 1275 V2 3.5GHzR9 270 1050/1500 702 GreiverBlade
37.)Phenom X4 9600 B2.4GHzGTX 460 930/1100 605 GreiverBlade
38.)FX-6100 3.3GHzHD 7850 900/1200 533 Devon68

and i also doubt a 6300 + R9 270 would be above that one ... otherwise i would gladly take a 180chf card that perform like a 320chf card
29.)FX-6350 4.4GHzR9 280X1150/1500 974 z1tu


rahhh TPU capture gave me a black screen ... drat  i have to re run


----------



## Durvelle27 (Mar 26, 2014)

Nice guys


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 26, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> Enter Me - i7 4770K @4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780ti SC 1224Mhz Core/ 1811Mhz Mem - Corsair Platinum @ 2666 Mhz -  Asus Maximus VI Impact - Custom Water Cooling Loop
> 
> Fairly sure I can push higher



Read the rules and see if you can tell what you did wrong.


----------



## 20mmrain (Mar 26, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Read the rules and see if you can tell what you did wrong.



*Delete* - Bye bye submission. I don't take sarcasm well. Good luck on your thread


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 26, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> *Delete* - Bye bye submission. I don't take sarcasm well. Good luck on your thread


on the older thread  it was the same way about that (or even worse just a : "rejected" added without further ado) , also if there is "rules" about how to submit result in the initial post, it is not to bypass them and complain about sarcasm
i am always sarcastic and i assume every comment against me or for me as sarcastic so i don't take them badly 

btw since all other user posted screenshot of the bench itself and not the HTML result file i don't get why bothering posting a HTML screenshot 
for example:
 
ofc you didn't faked yours, but it is why we don't like HTML files 

plus your score if submitted the right way could have taken the 5th place, it was a good average score for a 780 Ti


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 26, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> *Delete* - Bye bye submission. I don't take sarcasm well. Good luck on your thread



I do apologize if i offended you.  I've been told that exact thing in life and I didn't take it as sarcasm.  The point of the post was that you should always read the rules. I've known plenty of people to fail tests because they didn't follow directions.

Should I have to tell somebody what they did wrong when the rules are clearly stated in the OP?  Suggestions?

I'd be glad to put you in your rightful place if you repost correctly.

EDIT:  Seems after this incident I am just going to ignore people who do not post in the proper format.  Some people can be too touchy.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 27, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> EDIT:  Seems after this incident I am just going to ignore people who do not post in the proper format.  Some people can be too touchy.


and the people who you gonna ignore, because of that, will be touchy and go ballistic over "the OP doesn't update scores, the thread must be dead..."

and i figured out TPUcapture ... (took me a while ...) so 760 pts, under the same gpu and a i7-920 but still better than the same X4 760K and a R9 270 oh well ... could be worse
Athlon X4 760K @ 4.278 (101.87x42) (tho the result panel show 4.192 i wonder why  since turbo is de activated and the cpu show in any other monitoring software to be running on 101.87x42 and EVGA GTX 580 @ 900/2102





i have to try pushing that EVGA on the same level i did with the Zotac (the one with the i7 920)


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 27, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> and the people who you gonna ignore, because of that, will be touchy and go ballistic over "the OP doesn't update scores, the thread must be dead..."



It's a lose-lose situation.  You have too many hardware configurations.  Confusing to figure out if I needed to add a new line or update an old one.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 27, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> You have too many hardware configurations.  Confusing to figure out if I needed to add a new line or update an old one.



bench and test and again and again  i post the result of my actual main rig most of the time (a shame i never ran a Heaven with the 770  )
also your chart is a good way for me to see what i need to optimize to get the best out of my hardware  IE: it actually showed me that a R9 270 was a bad idea since it was almost 2 time the price of the 580 i run now 

@FX-GMC : this time its a score update of the previous

it seems i can't push that EVGA further than 935/ 2130 de installed A-tuner it seems it was making the OC unstable yet running standard 3.7 with 4.2 turbo provide a better score ... still 2core shown instead of 4 




at last 37pts more but it doesn't change my ranking  no headache


----------



## yadezigh (Apr 2, 2014)

i5-4440@3.1Ghz
R9 280X 1160/1500


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> I do apologize if i offended you.  I've been told that exact thing in life and I didn't take it as sarcasm.  The point of the post was that you should always read the rules. I've known plenty of people to fail tests because they didn't follow directions.
> 
> Should I have to tell somebody what they did wrong when the rules are clearly stated in the OP?  Suggestions?
> 
> ...



Sorry man, I may have been too touchy. But I have been a member of this forum for a long time. And I think the trolling is starting to take its toll on me. To me it seems the trolling has gotten worse through the years. (Or maybe I am getting old). So I took your comment as you were trying to be condescending instead of helpful.

I will re-run the benchmark and take a screen shot


----------



## theOtherGuy2175 (Apr 2, 2014)

Yeah specs are above usually im running at 4.5 ghz but with a recent tweak to something in the bios I accidently lost my oc settings. so yeah.... any ways my gpu is the EVGA gtx 780ti which i do have sli but for the purpose of this test i dissabled it for this. Hope i get in the top ten!!


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

theOtherGuy2175 said:


> View attachment 55901 Yeah specs are above usually im running at 4.5 ghz but with a recent tweak to something in the bios I accidently lost my oc settings. so yeah.... any ways my gpu is the EVGA gtx 780ti which i do have sli but for the purpose of this test i dissabled it for this. Hope i get in the top ten!!



Nice run buddy.... but please review the rules. I just recently made the same mistake and my submission was invalid. You must post a screenshot from with in the benchmark itself. Like my new submission below.

20mmrain - Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1246Core / 1831Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz - Score 1747

Think I can pull off a little more though


----------



## theOtherGuy2175 (Apr 2, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> Nice run buddy.... but please review the rules. I just recently made the same mistake and my submission was invalid. You must post a screenshot from with in the benchmark itself. Like my new submission below.
> 
> 20mmrain - Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1246Core / 1831Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz - Score 1747
> 
> ...


----------



## theOtherGuy2175 (Apr 2, 2014)

Yeah specs are above usually im running at 4.5 ghz but with a recent tweak to something in the bios I accidently lost my oc settings. so yeah.... any ways my gpu is the EVGA gtx 780ti which i do have sli but for the purpose of this test i dissabled it for this. Hope i get in the top ten!!

new version with correct picture


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

*20mmrain *- Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1250Core / 1860Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz - *Score 1761*
Wooo Hooo I beat my best. I think I will try again tomorrow. Its late here... you'all have a great night 





To: theOtherGuy2175,

Why disable your SLI? They have a category for it in this thread. Also if you lost your OC on your CPU? Why not just reset it bud.... it should only take you a couple of seconds. Haswell is easy to reset up  Nice run bud... that's a crazy good score for not being overclocked.... since we have similar setups.


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 2, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> *20mmrain *- Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1250Core / 1860Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz - *Score 1761*
> Wooo Hooo I beat my best. I think I will try again tomorrow. Its late here... you'all have a great night
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting. Nice score.


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Thanks for posting. Nice score.



Again bud - sorry for the misinterpretation.

You will see a couple more runs from me tomorrow 

Thanks again


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 2, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> Again bud - sorry for the misinterpretation.
> 
> You will see a couple more runs from me tomorrow
> 
> Thanks again



No need to apologize.  Keep the scores coming.



theOtherGuy2175 said:


> Yeah specs are above usually im running at 4.5 ghz but with a recent tweak to something in the bios I accidently lost my oc settings. so yeah.... any ways my gpu is the EVGA gtx 780ti which i do have sli but for the purpose of this test i dissabled it for this. Hope i get in the top ten!!
> 
> new version with correct picture
> View attachment 55902



Tell me what the core/memory clocks are on your 780 Ti so I can add them to your result.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 2, 2014)

20mmrain said:


> *20mmrain *- Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1250Core / 1860Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz - *Score 1761*
> Wooo Hooo I beat my best. I think I will try again tomorrow. Its late here... you'all have a great night
> 
> 
> ...


Nice run CPU overclock doesn't impact scores too much (iirc). That is one of the nice things about this bench, it is heavily GPU dependent.
If you want to see, re-run your last attempt with your CPU at stock...


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

HammerON said:


> Nice run CPU overclock doesn't impact scores too much (iirc). That is one of the nice things about this bench, it is heavily GPU dependent.
> If you want to see, re-run your last attempt with your CPU at stock...



Really??? I Had no Idea this Test wasn't affected by CPU clocks that much. I will try to run mine at stock once and compare the results. Thanks for the info that's interesting.
How much does GPU Memory and system memory affect this benchmark? Just out of curiosity?

I figured I get in a quick morning bench test!
*20mmrain *- Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1267Core / 1851Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz CL12 - *Score 1770*
Was a little disappointing I got a larger than normal FPS drop in the middle of my run. I feel it affected my score more then it should have. Oh well...I still beat my best.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 2, 2014)

@FX-GMC can you update my 760 to 797 ?   it doesn't change my ranking but it put me a bit closer to my previous 844 with a intel cpu and a 580 

@20mmrain : happy that you changed your mind  pretty awesome score 
and in total sarcasm way :  oh wait ... not so sarcastic


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 2, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> @FX-GMC can you update my 760 to 797 ?   it doesn't change my ranking but it put me a bit closer to my previous 844 with a intel cpu and a 580
> 
> @20mmrain : happy that you changed your mind  pretty awesome score
> and in total sarcasm way :  oh wait ... not so sarcastic



Smart ass 

Thanks


----------



## Sleepless (Apr 2, 2014)

^^^Personally I thought the point of the benchmark was to have a standard way to test our cards at what frequencies we can push them to. Since you are the only person who used software tweaks to get a higher score and admitted it, it seems you defeated the purpose of adding your score to the thread.

My 770 running at 1306Mhz on the core and 2067Mhz or 8268Mhz effective on the memory. Fastest 770 in the thread .....and the only one.  Also, my 2500k is running at 4.0Ghz.


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> i can not get a screenshot if i run full screen, every time it is just a black image but this is what i get windowed.
> 
> 4770k@4.4/4.4ghz
> 2400 cl10
> 290x@1180/1350



I am glad this score wasn't added. I saw it this morning and compared it to other scores and could easily tell it was modified some how.

The point of a benchmark thread is to compare "Real world Performance" and measure overclocking accomplishments. Anyone can tweak their OS or boost their driver or turn down their Tessellation or edit an config file.  (Shoot I can make a 2900XT get the same score you have.) but I wouldn't be beating anyone's score nor proving any point, expect that I can edit software.
As far as the Fan Boy aspect..... Question???... were you one of the people complaining back in the days of 3DMark Vantage. "It isn't fair, Nvidia Owners can enable their PhysX"....."That's not a real score". If so I would have agreed with you. But I also would agree that editing your OS (Or what ever else you amplified) isn't a real score either.
I don't think you have to prove to anyone the R9 290X is a "Bad Ass" card, we all know it is. Stick by the rules of the thread and show it off that way..... because the R9 290X is a card you should be proud of without having to do anything extra.
Come on bud.... re-run that test.... lets see that Bad Ass card run in all its glory!

*Anyway..... In addition....My New Score *

*20mmrain *- Intel i7 4770K@4.4 Ghz - EVGA GTX 780Ti SC @ 1277Core / 1861Mem - Corsair Dominator Platinum 8GB 2666Mhz CL12 - *Score 1780*
However I think I am going to have to try more CPU overclock to help my score. I started artifacting a little with this run so I think I hit my wall with my GPU. Not a bad max OC though... don't you think??? Back to the drawing board 
Anyone think lowering the mem clock may allow more GPU Core clock?
*



*


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 3, 2014)

Fx I'll run some marks for ya tomorrow with Tess on and all the goodies. I can't do a screen capture and if I do hit the key and open up paint or whatever its just black.

A camera shot work for you?

PS I'm not bright enough to cheat


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 3, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> Fx I'll run some marks for ya tomorrow with Tess on and all the goodies. I can't do a screen capture and if I do hit the key and open up paint or whatever its just black.
> 
> A camera shot work for you?
> 
> PS I'm not bright enough to cheat



A Camera shot will do just fine.  If you could do a single card run and crossfire run that would be excellent!


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 3, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> A Camera shot will do just fine.  If you could do a single card run and crossfire run that would be excellent!


Sure NP, I'll do both and then run the same test by turning off Tess in the CCC for a reference. I'll run the CPU @4.8 and the cards at stock clocks. I'll post after some cable management.


----------



## Devon68 (Apr 3, 2014)

> A camera shot work for you?


Try this first. After you make the screenshot in unigine, it saves the picture in some weird format right. Just click and edit the images extension to .jpg and it should work. I use fast stone image viewer for my pictures.


----------



## yadezigh (Apr 3, 2014)

Hi I would like to update my score evenif is not significant
looks like my HIS R9 280x score maxed at 1000
but the temperature is rocketing to 78C (i need to work thisout)
*sorry for my english

R9 280x 1160/1650


----------



## erocker (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> everything bar plug and play and some networking services as they were all i needed to run the bench and afterburner to test clockspeeds.
> 
> i will run it again with some driver tweaks now and see how bad i can make this bench look



Unless you can follow the directions like everyone else who is participating in this thread, don't bother. You are entering trolling territory and I'm asking you to stop now.

If you want to post in this thread read here:

Benchmark setup:

1.1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.Ultra Quality
3.Extreme Tessellation
4.No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build
5.Tessellation correctly set up on AMD cards and not bypassed in CCC
6.You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks
7.*Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.

It will ensure that we have consistent results.

If these requirements aren't met, there's no reason to post in this thread.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2014)

i stated why i posted it and the reasons why i am unable to get a fullscreen screenshot.

if people want to see what is possible without modified drivers (and how much performance windows steals doing nothing) then they have a data point for this hardware.

the one trolling started the thread rocker, not me dude. i did not find the need to drag issues from another thread in here, nor did i start petty name calling.

at no point have i stated i wanted to be in the op, nor do i disagree with it not being added for not meeting the requirements.

i have however been polite enough to reply when quoted.

quick question erocker, does that mean you are saying people should only post benchmark results in here? only that would mean the thread needs a shit ton of pruning and people would not be able to share their experiences on why others might be scoring so low


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 3, 2014)

erocker said:


> Unless you can follow the directions like everyone else who is participating in this thread, don't bother. You are entering trolling territory and I'm asking you to stop now.
> 
> If you want to post in this thread read here:
> 
> ...



Thank you.  I have amended to rules to try and keep this issue from coming up again.
My apologies for spamming the report button.  I was annoyed to say the least.



marsey99 said:


> nor did i start petty name calling.


  right....

@marsey99 I asked you nicely to please leave this thread.  Stop posting here PLEASE.  I do not like you at all. You are the only person not welcome here.


----------



## erocker (Apr 3, 2014)

marsey99 said:


> i stated why i posted it and the reasons why i am unable to get a fullscreen screenshot.
> 
> if people want to see what is possible without modified drivers (and how much performance windows steals doing nothing) then they have a data point for this hardware.
> 
> ...



If things are on topic and in the interest of helping one another (the purpose of this forum) there is no issue. If you want to take a fullscreen screenshot, download the free version of FRAPS and use that.


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 3, 2014)

*EDIT: I'll fix this up when I get back in a bit tonight.*

*Thanks*



FX-GMC said:


> A Camera shot will do just fine.  If you could do a single card run and crossfire run that would be excellent!


Well cable management all taken care of and re-pasted my gpu's TIM..

Expect some run's shortly.

Look at MY HUGE SCORE and TESS IS ON !!! FX you have a PM my man. 

*EDIT:  *Look at the 1st picture, notice the rocks and how flat they are?
Well that's having tess disabled in the AMD CCC... Heaven 4.0 cant see that it's been modified and while running the rocks look like a wave in a sense... It's trying but cant run Tess even though the benchmark shows its in extreme mode.

@FX-GMC I'd suggest that for some of us that just get a black screen when doing a Prt Scr key push to take a photo to be legit. That way we can see if tess is ON or NOT, as you see in picture #2 the rocks are looking round and not flat? Well now you guys know how to spot the CHEATER.... Guys just play the game without thinking you are better then everybody else.

Run what you have, and keep it real 
Id love to have the biggest score but I dont have the money so I just show what I have and nothing more. I hope this helps, and keep on benching! 

Both my run's were on a 3770K @ 4.8ghz and both 290's at stock 977/1250 clocks.









MxPhenom 216 said:


> Shit, I lost my top 10 position!


No you didn't I had tess off to show some ppl cheat like I just did..

Here is the real score. WITH TESS ON!!!!!


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Apr 3, 2014)

Shit, I lost my top 10 position!


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 3, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> *EDIT: I'll fix this up when I get back in a bit tonight.*
> 
> *Thanks*
> 
> ...



@erocker I would like to request that this post stay.  fullinfusion is going to do multiple runs with and without Tess enabled in CCC so we can easily spot others using this tactic.



MxPhenom 216 said:


> Shit, I lost my top 10 position!



Does this mean you're gonna be posting some new scores? lol

@MxPhenom 216 I'm sorry to hear that.  Hope everything goes well.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Apr 3, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> @erocker I would like to request that this post stay.  fullinfusion is going to do multiple runs with and without Tess enabled in CCC so we can easily spot others using this tactic.
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you're gonna be posting some new scores? lol



Yeah, when im back at school. At home now, dropped out of the semester due too my surgery.


----------



## erocker (Apr 3, 2014)

Perhaps it should be clearer in the OP that the only tweak allowed is overclocking. Driver config, bench config (other than those outlined) need to stay at default values.

This thread is for posting your Heaven 4.0 scores. The guidelines are pretty clear on what you need to do. Try your best to stay on topic everyone.

Thanks.


----------



## 20mmrain (Apr 4, 2014)

Well did a new run with a CPU clock @ 4.5..... and GPU clocks of 1246 Core and 1861 Mem..... you guys are right the CPU has a little affect but not very much.
*I think I will keep my top 3/Personal best score of 1780 for single GPU.* But it doesn't look like I can push any higher considering my GPU started to artifact @ the fastest clocks I ran at which was 1277/1861. 
A great experience, here I was able to find out my safest max GPU overclock is 1223 Core - 1861 Mem. I am farily impressed with the overclocking potential of the GTX 780ti. (Its no GTX 460 but its still great )
*Still not bad for a Mini ITX system .....Hey?*

Lower Score at 4.5 Ghz


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 4, 2014)

OP has been updated.

I appreciate those of you who came here with good intentions.


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 4, 2014)

Edit to post # 47 ppl


----------



## Kaapstad (Apr 4, 2014)

4 x 290Xs @1240/1625
4930k @4.8 with BCLK 102
Score 5305


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 4, 2014)

Kaapstad said:


> 4 x 290Xs @1240/1625
> 4930k @4.8 with BCLK 102
> Score 5305


Nice score!

How do you find 4x crossfire on what driver?


----------



## Kaapstad (Apr 4, 2014)

fullinfusion said:


> Nice score!
> 
> How do you find 4x crossfire on what driver?



Thanks

I am using 13.11 drivers

Quadfire works really well on some things like BF4 but on some things like Crysis 3 there is no support.

I don't want to use the Mantle drivers just yet until they have been around for a bit.


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 4, 2014)

Kaapstad said:


> Thanks
> 
> I am using 13.11 drivers
> 
> ...


Im in the same boat...Dont trust them quite yet! But I've been using the 13.12's myself and had no issues.

I'll have to give those drivers a try to see whats up with them. I"m just a 290 cross-fire guy


----------



## rodrigobenchmarker (Apr 6, 2014)

I Believe that i'm the only one with a dual core around here, LOL

however, it didn't affected my score, had the same graphics card with an i5 2310 in the past and scores were not much different

My rig:

Intel Pentium Dual Core G870 3,1Ghz (stock)
GTX 580 EVGA reference (blower) 815/1055
GA-Z68XP UD5
Antec HCG 620w


----------



## Dagamus(NM) (Apr 6, 2014)

Hi Hi Hi, been reading these threads for awhile now and finally decided to join in.

Setup for benchmark:
4xSapphire 7950 10032-4L @ 1170/1570 in CCC
i7 3930k @ 4.6Ghz
Freezer blocks on my GPU radiator during runs





While I know I won't get to Kaap's scores on these cards, 3536 was the highest I could push these without the screen locking up during my runs. Unfortunately I did not get a screenshot with it running. Just the saved file, oh well. It doesn't make much of a difference anyway.

Perhaps the system might be a bit more stable at higher clocks if I reduced the amount of RAM used while running this bench or maybe lowered the speed of it. Increasing the CPU clock did seem to have an effect on my score, but not a more than a change of 25pts for every 200MHz above 3800.

I tried using Trixx to run the clocks on the cards higher as the Hynix RAM modules on these cards should be able to take more than what the max is in CCC, but when running Heaven it didn't recognize the settings of 1400/1800 and instead ran it and scored it as though I was at 925/whatever teh stock memory is. It seems that CCC on these cards are limited by what would be safe on Elpida memory but that I have a lot of room unused on the Hynix.

I'm sure I still have some tweaking left to do on my CPU primary and secondary voltages.

System specs are:
i7 3930k
ASUS Rampage IV Extreme mobo with EK MB Blocks on Bios 4804
Quad Fire 7950HD with EK waterblocks
Platimax 1350W PSU
64GB G.Skill RipjawZ 2133MHz memory kit
Corsair H100i for CPU
Phobya 400mm X-treme radiatior with 200mm BitFenix all black fans
Kingston 120Gb SSD
WD red 3tb HDD
Thermaltake level 10GT case (annoying LEDs removed)
Other bits and pieces 

I think I am at about as far as I bother pushing this system. My pockets are not deep enough to get R9 290x's and then the waterblocks that go on them, plus I haven't even received the EK back plates that I ordered a couple weeks ago. I think I will mostly work on aesthetics of the system from here forward. The cable sleeving from the PSU are not the best looking and do not come up far enough to the connectors. The majority of the cabling is hidden so what is primarily seen is the wires that extend beyond the sleeve. I may switch out the 18ga wires with 16ga when I get around to redoing them. I only have flexible hose in my system but now that I am pretty settled on the routing of the water lines, I will move to acrylic soon. Just need the money to buy the extra fittings as I currently use 12 compression fittings. I do have a nice Steinel ESD safe digital heatgun programmable in 10 degree F increments so dealing with acrylic should be no problem. I digress, this thread is about GPU performance and I really don't have anywhere left to go unless I can figure out how to get past the 1200/1575 limits. These cards should be unlocked, but as of yet I cannot get past the 1200/1575 +20 power limits. I might not want to go past +20 power until  increase my PSU PCIE power wire gauge anyway.

Glad to get on the board, should put me 4th on the multi GPU list. Will most likely need to get past CCC limits to make 2nd or even 3rd.


----------



## sirbaili (Apr 6, 2014)

Dagamus(NM) said:


> Hi Hi Hi, been reading these threads for awhile now and finally decided to join in.
> 
> Setup for benchmark:
> 4xSapphire 7950 10032-4L @ 1170/1570 in CCC
> ...



Me too watching this thread.

i7-3770k 4600mhz
1xAsus R9-290x watercooled - -1180mhz-1325mem.
Ek WatrerBlock On Gpu And Xspc Raystorm On CPU.
Score - 1483 -


----------



## Kaapstad (Apr 7, 2014)

What will sometimes give a few extra points when using an i7 CPU is to disable Hyperthreading.

Also with a 3930k if you can use the 125 strap with a BCLK of around 129 this will overclock the PCI-E slots a little and can give a few more points.  If you do this don't forget to adjust you memory speed and multiplier.


----------



## Dagamus(NM) (Apr 7, 2014)

I'll give that a try, thanks.


----------



## ninja85 (Apr 9, 2014)

i can hear the Ti's breatin 

i7 2700K@4,9Ghz | GTX 780 1320/1850


----------



## Fizban (Apr 9, 2014)

Might as well throw a laptop score in there:

No incrementing needed since I came dead las

GPU Clocks are 809 mhz core 1002 mhz memory.


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 9, 2014)

Fizban said:


> Might as well through a laptop score in there:
> 
> No incrementing needed since I came dead las
> 
> GPU Clocks are 809 mhz core 1002 mhz memory.



If we get a few more laptop/mobile card runs I'll start a new table for them.


----------



## Fizban (Apr 9, 2014)

I will play with the gpu clocks, I'm actually a bit disappointed that my laptop didn't score higher than the 7850 did, I'll try and at least crack 500.

EDIT: I don't think that's going to happen. the first score shown was already overclocked, stock speeds it scores 444.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 9, 2014)

i73930k @ 4.4Ghz
GTX 780ti Classified 1372Mhz core @ 1.325v  1825(7300)Mhz memory.  Temps at 46 degrees.

Which is only 10% faster than my old Titan's best score.


----------



## Fizban (Apr 9, 2014)

This looks to be as good as it is getting:

469 with the core at 825 mhz (memory still at 1002, if I so much as budge the memories clockrate it becomes unstable).

Also up to you what to put in the table, but the 2.4 GHz it shows for cpu is a bit misleading, that's base clock, the laptops still use turbo boost so it actually goes up to 3.4 GHz on all 4 cores so long as temps allow (3.2 GHz stock, but I use Intel Extreme Tuning Utility to raise the max multiplier by 2 allowing it to go 3.4 GHz on all 4 cores, or 3.6 GHz on 1 core instead of the 3.4 and 3.2 that are the stock maximums.


----------



## erocker (Apr 9, 2014)

Figured I'd run at my 24/7 settings:





13.12 WHQL drivers.

|i7-3770K | 4.6GHz | HD 7970 | 1250/1650 | 1069 | erocker


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 9, 2014)

Fizban said:


> This looks to be as good as it is getting:
> 
> 469 with the core at 825 mhz (memory still at 1002, if I so much as budge the memories clockrate it becomes unstable).
> 
> Also up to you what to put in the table,* but the 2.4 GHz it shows for cpu is a bit misleading, that's base clock, the laptops still use turbo boost so it actually goes up to 3.4 GHz* on all 4 cores so long as temps allow (3.2 GHz stock, but I use Intel Extreme Tuning Utility to raise the max multiplier by 2 allowing it to go 3.4 GHz on all 4 cores, or 3.6 GHz on 1 core instead of the 3.4 and 3.2 that are the stock maximums.



I used base clock for the stock desktop processors also. 



erocker said:


> Figured I'd run at my 24/7 settings:
> 
> 13.12 WHQL drivers.
> 
> *|i7-3770K | 4.6GHz | HD 7970 | 1250/1650 | 1069 | erocker*



Thanks for making it easy on me.


----------



## rodrigobenchmarker (Apr 10, 2014)

New NVIDIA Beta drivers 337.50

No vram overclocking, just increased gpu clock

GTX580
885/1002

Position number 42, here i am.   xD


----------



## rodrigobenchmarker (Apr 10, 2014)

I think we have a new fastest GTX 580 in this thread      

GTX 580
948/1024


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 10, 2014)

rodrigobenchmarker said:


> *I think we have a new fastest GTX 580 in this thread*
> 
> GTX 580
> 948/1024
> ...



Nice.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 10, 2014)

rodrigobenchmarker said:


> I think we have a new fastest GTX 580 in this thread
> 
> GTX 580
> 948/1024
> ...



oh wait i didn't noticed that was my 580 who had that "title" bahahah


----------



## DrawBoy (Apr 15, 2014)

Alienware 18 (LAPTOP):
18.4" Truelife 1920x1080p HD LED 60Hz 2ms screen
i7 Quad-Core 4900QM 2.8-4.0GHz (o/c)
Duel GTX 880m 8gb cards (total 16gb)
16gb DDR3 duel channel 1600MHz RAM
256gb SSD/1TB HDD (5400 RPM w/80gb cache)
Blueray/DVDRW/CDRW

*FULL STAT LOAD* SCORE: (8x, Extreme, Ultra, Etc.)


----------



## DrawBoy (Apr 15, 2014)

khemist said:


> *1967*
> 
> 4770k @ 4.5  780Ti @ 1385/1900


All that power and my laptop is nippin' at them heals.  (76.5 FPS, Sore: 1927 [Full Load])


----------



## Sleepless (Apr 15, 2014)

@DrawBoy Good score, but if you want it on the board then you have to run the benchmark with 8x Anti-aliasing. In your photo it seems like its not on.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 15, 2014)

GTX 780 SLI
Intel i7-4770K @ 4.4GHz | GTX 780 1140/1702



Now I say 1140/1702, however I actually had card #1 running at 1137/1702 and card #2 running at 1176/1702.


----------



## khemist (Apr 15, 2014)

HazMatt said:


> @DrawBoy Good score, but if you want it on the board then you have to run the benchmark with 8x Anti-aliasing. In your photo it seems like its not on.



Har har!.


----------



## theOtherGuy2175 (Apr 15, 2014)

Hopefully Specs are shown. Anyways just got my second card back from RMA for junk ACX Coller and new one doesnt dissapoint. Stock Clock ratings on GPUs and CPU. For now


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 17, 2014)

FX 8320 @4.5Ghz
2x4 GB Crucial Ballistix 1866 8-8-8
ASUS R9 290 @ 1070Mhz core/1350Mhz RAM

EDIT: Updated Score


----------



## z1tu (Apr 19, 2014)

Hey guys, I dumped my 280x and got myself a 780 super jetstream, with the default clocks I got 1467 and with a 100mhz boost to core and 50mhz to mem I got 1563. I don't know why the application is showing 1420mhz, my clocks are 1215mhz core and 1575mhz mem. Anyway, here's the screenshot


----------



## z1tu (Apr 19, 2014)

Kaapstad said:


> 4 x 290Xs @1240/1625
> 4930k @4.8 with BCLK 102
> Score 5305


Man, I knew a 290x quad would run hot but damn, 60624 degrees . Nice score tho.


----------



## mr_prasopes (Apr 19, 2014)

*CPU: i5-4670k @ 4,4 GHz*
Core voltage: 1,25 V
Core voltage offset: 0,005 V

*RAM: 8GB DDR3 @ 2667 MHz (XMP)*

*GPU: 4x Sapphire R9 290X 4GB (Reference)*
Core Voltage: +30 mV
Power limit: +30 %
Core Clock: 1100 MHz
Memory Clock: 1290 MHz


----------



## Biones (Apr 19, 2014)

2x4 GB Corsain Dominator Platinum @1600mhz
SAPPHIRE R9 290 TRI-X @ 1010Mhz core/1300Mhz RAMView attachment 56146


----------



## z1tu (Apr 19, 2014)

Biones said:


> FX 8350 @4.5Ghz
> 2x4 GB Corsain Dominator Platinum @1600mhz
> SAPPHIRE R9 290 TRI-X @ 1010Mhz core/1300Mhz RAMView attachment 56146


You need to change the settings there buddy


----------



## d1nky (Apr 19, 2014)

i'll run this 6970 when i have the chance. see if it can catch any 79** cards lol


----------



## SGTFulmer (Apr 20, 2014)

Here is mine, better score than I thought I would get. This HIS version of the 280x is really awesome, stays very cool as well. Best GPU cooler I've ever seen.

AMD 6300 running at 4.1 ghz
8 gb Ram 1600
HIS R9 280x OC 1170/1665
600W corsair PSU


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 20, 2014)

SGTFulmer said:


> Here is mine, better score than I thought I would get. This HIS version of the 280x is really awesome, stays very cool as well. Best GPU cooler I've ever seen.
> 
> AMD 6300 running at 4.1 ghz
> 8 gb Ram 1600
> ...


Can you get more out of your CPU or are you heat limited? Interested to see how your max fps will scale on the 6 core.


----------



## SGTFulmer (Apr 20, 2014)

m0nt3 said:


> Can you get more out of your CPU or are you heat limited? Interested to see how your max fps will scale on the 6 core.


Well, I have OC'd it to 4.4 stable, but on air, I just don't like the thought of it running that hot, as the temps do get up there. I'll run another one at 4.3 and see if the scores budge.....my GPU is not moving to the right anymore, I think it's at its limit.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Apr 20, 2014)

SGTFulmer said:


> Here is mine, better score than I thought I would get. This HIS version of the 280x is really awesome, stays very cool as well. Best GPU cooler I've ever seen.
> 
> AMD 6300 running at 4.1 ghz
> 8 gb Ram 1600
> ...


not complying to the rules : will not be validated.



FX-GMC said:


> ***Please attach a screen capture of your results for score verification.***
> ***Your submission will not be added if you fail to follow the rules stated below.***
> 7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.


----------



## mr_prasopes (Apr 21, 2014)

Kaapstad said:


> 4 x 290Xs @1240/1625
> 4930k @4.8 with BCLK 102
> Score 5305



Hi. I've also 4×290x. Which manufacturer and model do you have?
Can you share your overclock? Did you use different GPU BIOS or what? 
I'm very curious mine Saphire 290x can't get these clock :/

Thanks for reply


----------



## chevy350 (Apr 21, 2014)

Here's my Diamond 290X@1050/1350...just noticed Heaven says card temps may be a little high lol....and forgot to add cpu clocks, 2700K@4.8GHz


----------



## m0nt3 (Apr 21, 2014)

Looking like the nvidia cards are still better at tessellation, if only by a little bit.


----------



## MatsGlobetrotter (Apr 27, 2014)

Here is my score 1795 with a CPU speed of 4.5GHz the GPU speed boosted to 1171 MHz and the GPU memory running at 2025MHz.

Had to take the shot with my camera!!! as the CM storm keyboard seems to be incompatible with heaven on F12 button!!!

The GXT 780 Ti is watercooled in a loop after the CPU with an EK fullcoverblock.

I a few times I managed to get it to peek at a score of 1806 but it is not stable enough so will leave it sitting where it is now.


----------



## FX-GMC (May 1, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> not complying to the rules : will be not validated.



I could've swore that I saw you post another score that I had been meaning to add......


----------



## GreiverBlade (May 1, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> I could've swore that I saw you post another score that I had been meaning to add......


i noticed the IGP was effectively running alongside with the R9 270X so until i sort out the problem and finalize the tweaks on the build (Ram timing gpu OC etc etc etc) i suspend the submission


----------



## mdbrotha03 (May 1, 2014)

New score


----------



## MatsGlobetrotter (May 2, 2014)

Was just going through the top scores within the 4770K builds and found it interesting that I can drive up my memory speed on the Asus GTX780Ti to such a high level  (2025) compared to khemist and 20mmmrain yet there is no way I can get close to their clockspeeds even if I turned down the memory speeds to stock value. Asus tweaker wont even allow me to try above 1228 for the clock which seems to be ok as I have a 100% failure rate at anything above 1180. Meanwhile it seems the clockspeeds they get are due to it being SC versions or non being Asus??. My card is fully watercooled and the GPU never report higher temperatures than 45 degrees C thus the SC cooling system is clearly not the difference.

.)i7-4770K4.5GHzGTX 780 Ti1385/19001967khemist
4.)i7-4770K4.5GHzGTX 780 Ti1171/20251795MatsGlobetrotter
5.)i7-4770K4.4GHzGTX 780 Ti1277/1861178020mmrain
7.)i7-4770K4.2GHzGTX 780 Ti1110/17501763Dj-Electric
10.)i7-4770K3,5GHzGTX 780 Ti????/????1704theOtherGuy2175


----------



## WebTourist (May 4, 2014)

This result is fake:
Multi GPU
2.)i7-4770K4GHzGTX 780 Ti1124/17502*4025*JHThorpe

it is not possible for two cards and @1124/1750 overclock


----------



## FX-GMC (May 5, 2014)

WebTourist said:


> This result is fake:
> Multi GPU
> 2.)i7-4770K4GHzGTX 780 Ti1124/17502*4025*JHThorpe
> 
> it is not possible for two cards and @1124/1750 overclock



Good catch, that was copied over from the old thread.  He ran the bench with no AA







http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...0-benchmark-scores.190386/page-8#post-3050049


----------



## Durvelle27 (May 5, 2014)

Looks like i still have the fastest R9 290 Score


----------



## WebTourist (May 5, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Good catch, that was copied over from the old thread.  He ran the bench with no AA



Ok. 
So now I can post my valid results

My build: http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/3806.html

1 x 780Ti Classified @1450/8200 81.7 FPS - *2057*






2 x 780Ti @1390/8100 150.3 FPS - *3787*


----------



## FX-GMC (May 5, 2014)

WebTourist said:


> Ok.
> So now I can post my valid results
> 
> My build: http://www.techpowerup.com/gallery/3806.html
> ...



Nice scores.


----------



## HumanSmoke (May 8, 2014)

Noticed you were a bit light in the multi GPU section.

2600K (stock) |  GTX 780 SLI  1020 Core/6008 Mem (stock factory OC)


----------



## PersonWithTech (May 8, 2014)

Bit disappointing with what I got. Need to fix a few little clutters and imperfections with my computer that could slow the performance. I'm rolling a stock clock i5 3570K and a ASUS GTX 670 OC (GTX670-DC2OG-2GD5) at the following OCs:
Core: Base - 1061 MHz, Boost - 1140 MHz (+81 MHz over factory OC)
Memory: 1507 MHz (Stock)
No overvolting, get about 60 degrees Celsius and am yet to properly (and fully) overclock. Ohh... and I use Evga Precision X.


----------



## ninja85 (May 8, 2014)

2700K @4,9Ghz | 16GB Team Elite DDR3 1333 | Evga GTX Ti 1348/1984


----------



## MatsGlobetrotter (May 11, 2014)

ok finally managed to update my score..  got the machine running on 4.9, 4.9, 4.7, 4.6 Ghz so its a bit of a tweak though CPUz reports it as 4,.6 GHz overall

thus

4770K, 4.6GHz  GTX 780Ti Boost clock 1179  GPU memory 2027 Mhz


----------



## itsakjt (May 11, 2014)

itsakjt, AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.86 GHz, R9 280X ~ core @1200MHz, memory @1707 MHz, Score 1029. Highest out of all R9 280X as of now in spite of my so many limitations like an old CPU and stock cooler.  





Add me please.


----------



## ninja85 (May 14, 2014)

kay i will do another run with a screeny of score in the the beginning of the benchmark^^my fault


----------



## FX-GMC (May 14, 2014)

ninja85 said:


> kay i will do another run with a screeny of score in the the beginning of the benchmark^^my fault



No need.  I just missed adding your score.


----------



## Theo.s (May 15, 2014)

Good day everyone,

Here's my screenshot. 

i5-4570 @ 3.78Ghz
Gigabyte R9 270X @ 1250/1500


----------



## Hugis (May 15, 2014)

Thought id add mine,

Q9550 @ 3.4
GTX680 @1164/1552


----------



## lunatis (May 19, 2014)

My rig:

CPU: i7 4770k @ 4.6Ghz
GPU: 2x GTX 780 @ 1200mhz / 1800mhz (mod bios to disable GPU boost)







My rig


----------



## MCanalog (May 23, 2014)

FX8350@ 4.0 7950@ 1125/1500 (x2)
I can get more out of the system but I need a bigger PS.
Only a 735watt one right now, I didn't really plan on this being a crossfire system but I got a deal on the 2nd card. 
With the 1st card I could run 4.9 on the CPU and the GPU at 1240/1600
(only tested at 4xAA then and no screen shots, I didn't know about this site yet)
2nd card by itself tested almost as fast as the 1st.
New PS on the way, will retest and update soon


----------



## d1nky (May 23, 2014)

MCanalog said:


> FX8350@ 4.0 7950@ 1125/1500 (x2)
> I can get more out of the system but I need a bigger PS.
> Only a 735watt one right now, I didn't really plan on this being a crossfire system but I got a deal on the 2nd card.
> With the 1st card I could run 4.9 on the CPU and the GPU at 1240/1600
> ...



I loved my 7950, was able to hit around 1250/1750 on air! Got  a second one and it couldnt do anything lol.

When on my pc I'll find some links to benches!


----------



## lunatis (May 25, 2014)

update on my results...


----------



## hu1kamania (May 30, 2014)

3930K, 4.8GHz 3X GTX 780 1424 GPU memory 1750 Mhz


----------



## mingolito (May 31, 2014)

Guys what do you think??? I keep this 7870..I keep this or should I buy the R9 280????. sorry for the bad english .-(


----------



## apophis2036 (Jun 15, 2014)

Video Card: * Asus R9 280X-DC2T-3GD5*
My results:


----------



## twojnts (Jun 30, 2014)

4930K @ 4.6GHz; 780 Ti 1212/2000 Mhz


----------



## jakedubbleya (Jul 8, 2014)

New i5 4670k results checking in!!! Pasted GPU-Z and HWinfo on top of screen shot using paint.

Running i5 4670k@4.4GHz@1.198v and the EVGA GTX-780 FTW edition @ stock speeds of 1110MHz/1502MHz as shown in the screenshot. My GPU won't overclock worth a damn but the FTW edition has decent stock clocks so I just let it be. All-air rig.


----------



## Azaral (Jul 9, 2014)

I'm guessing CPU is the bottleneck - But still goes ok for an old system


----------



## whiskytits (Jul 9, 2014)

Pretty impressed with this 4 year old rig. maybe i should add a 3rd. x2 280x i7920 4.2ghz

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnkr1m707y2vnem/Screenshot 2014-07-09 12.50.33.png

better pic my bad cut the settings out.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xatqapn5jfqdnk9/sadfsdfasdf.png


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 9, 2014)

whiskytits said:


> Pretty impressed with this 4 year old rig. maybe i should add a 3rd. x2 280x i7920 4.2ghz
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnkr1m707y2vnem/Screenshot 2014-07-09 12.50.33.png
> 
> ...




I'll be nice and repost the reason your score will not be added.

From the OP


> 7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.


----------



## Micro (Jul 9, 2014)

Quick question and my apologies if it has been answered before and I missed it.
I have 2x  7970 Lightnings crossfired and when I run the render test in GPU-Z the secondary card goes from 0/0 to 1070/1400 as it should, but when I run the Heaven benchmark and monitor the sensors with GPU-Z, the secondary card only goes to 300/150 
My heaven score is only 62.0/1561 and that seems low.
Is this normal ?


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 9, 2014)

Micro said:


> Quick question and my apologies if it has been answered before and I missed it.
> I have 2x  7970 Lightnings crossfired and when I run the render test in GPU-Z the secondary card goes from 0/0 to 1070/1400 as it should, but when I run the Heaven benchmark and monitor the sensors with GPU-Z, the secondary card only goes to 300/150
> My heaven score is only 62.0/1561 and that seems low.
> Is this normal ?



That score is low.  Try reinstalling the latest drivers and see if that helps.


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 10, 2014)

Mine atm, OC 4770k @ 4.6ghz, cache 4.2ghz, ram 2400mhz,
340.51 driver @ gpu boost 1228mhz, ram stock

Score: *1530*
_min 26.7
avg 60.7
max 126.8_


 



But I think it was ~1600 area with one driver, not sure atm. Will post again if there is a change


----------



## xonedl (Jul 10, 2014)

i5 2500k @ 4.5Ghz, 12GB DDR3 1333Mhz,
R9 280x @ 1242Mhz core, 1725Mhz memory, 1299mVolt
Score @ 1080


----------



## jkefalas (Jul 11, 2014)




----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 11, 2014)

jkefalas said:


>




http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...0-benchmark-scores.198888/page-6#post-3134190


----------



## PersonWithTech (Jul 13, 2014)

whiskytits said:


> Pretty impressed with this 4 year old rig. maybe i should add a 3rd. x2 280x i7920 4.2ghz
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/rnkr1m707y2vnem/Screenshot 2014-07-09 12.50.33.png
> 
> ...


I think a 3rd GPU only really scales well in synthetic benchmarks and perhaps compute. I would've gone with a 290(X) before having many 280Xs


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 13, 2014)

Added @TheHunter and @xonedl


----------



## vnhill1981 (Jul 14, 2014)

After a little overclock 975/1425 on same Sapphire Dual-X R9 270. CPU again is i5 2500K at 4.5GHz. Had setting set at 1920 x 1080, even though it only shows 1450x888 (you can see how the program extends outside the screen of my monitor). Nice thing is the card idles at 28*C and only reached 58*C during testing. Is this good?


----------



## Chetnik (Jul 18, 2014)

My Lenovo Y500 results


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 18, 2014)

Chetnik said:


> My Lenovo Y500 results


see post 1 in the thread: the score must be a in bench screenshot (or pics from a smartphone/camera) to be validated, thanks.

and also Tesselation must be set on extreme (all settings or rules on post 1 are mandatory.)


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 18, 2014)

vnhill1981 said:


> After a little overclock 975/1425 on same Sapphire Dual-X R9 270. CPU again is i5 2500K at 4.5GHz. Had setting set at 1920 x 1080, even though it only shows 1450x888 (you can see how the program extends outside the screen of my monitor). Nice thing is the card idles at 28*C and only reached 58*C during testing. Is this good?
> 
> View attachment 57732



Thanks for participating.  Unfortunately I cannot compare your score with the others who ran the benchmark at 1920x1080.  



> even though it only shows 1450x888 (you can see how the program extends outside the screen of my monitor)



It extends outside of your monitor because you cant fit 1450 pixels on a screen that is only 1440 pixels wide.


----------



## Knobtastic (Jul 18, 2014)

Happy with that


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 18, 2014)

Knobtastic said:


> Happy with that



Read the rules and post a picture that fits the guidelines and you can be in the list.


----------



## Riktar (Jul 23, 2014)

Dumb Ass Alert: After reading (in this very thread) how to find the f12 screenshots I am posting a "real" screen shot. Only difference is my core clock is bumped to from 1050Mhz to 1100Mhz.


R9 270 1100Mhz core, 1500Mhz memory

X5450 Xeon modded to fit a Asrock G41C-GS mobo


----------



## Agiels (Jul 24, 2014)

wy wyyyyyyyyy wyyyy if i dont oc mi card in one particular chance of stage i  got 10 fps ??  i oc and then everything goes ok

my specs bellow ...


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 24, 2014)

i7-2600K with 16GB DDR3-2133MHz RAM.
Two R9-280X OC GPUs


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 24, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> i7-2600K with 16GB DDR3-2133MHz RAM.
> Two R9-280X OC GPUs



and again a pics of the saved HTML result, already mentioned countless time before:

read the post 1 in the thread ... screenshot of the in bench result or pics from the monitor (camera/smartphone) 

"Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.) Ultra Quality
3.) Extreme Tessellation
4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build
5.) Tessellation correctly set up on AMD cards and not bypassed in CCC
6.) You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks
7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.
8.) The only allowed "tweak" is overclocking. Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted. The goal is to provide a chart that represents real world usage for people both in and outside of this community to use to compare their cards or for comparison when buying a new card."


once and for all: _*NO SUBMISSION WILL BE VALIDATED IT THEY DON'T COMPLY TO THE RULES... *_


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 24, 2014)

Thats the score I got. Validated or not. I run the program in full screen mode, so my Snipping tool doesn't work.
If I save it from The benchmark, it puts a link on my PC. That's all I got.


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 27, 2014)

I7-4790k-4.6, r9-290x-1165-1250, Krakeng10-krakenx40, Snap back to reality, Hopefully a valid result this time.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 27, 2014)

You run was at 1600x900 instead of 1920x1080....
If you would like for your score to be added to the list follow the rules outlined above or in the OP.


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 27, 2014)

HammerON said:


> You run was at 1600x900 instead of 1920x1080....
> If you would like for your score to be added to the list follow the rules outlined above or in the OP.


Fixed it!


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 27, 2014)

Moving up. I7-4790k-4.6, r9-290x 1175-1400,


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 29, 2014)

How come there are no more scores posted? Has this thread been moved somewhere else?


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 29, 2014)

I7-4790k 4.6, R9-290X-1240/1425. Looks like i have hit a wall here. diminishing returns.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 29, 2014)

AlienDemigod said:


> How come there are no more scores posted? Has this thread been moved somewhere else?



It's called life.  It doesn't always happen in front of a computer screen. 



RealNeil said:


> Thats the score I got. Validated or not. I run the program in full screen mode, so my Snipping tool doesn't work.
> If I save it from The benchmark, it puts a link on my PC. That's all I got.



There is a shortcut to save a screenshot within Heaven.  All the shortcuts are shown when it loads.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 29, 2014)

Thanks for the heads-up on getting the screenshot,.....(stupid question alert) but,.......where do you go to get it, and where do you paste it to display it?
Blame it on the fact that I'm old if you want,........but I would like to post my results the way you want me to.

Thanks again.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 29, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Thanks for the heads-up on getting the screenshot,.....(stupid question alert) but,.......where do you go to get it, and where do you paste it to display it?
> Blame it on the fact that I'm old if you want,........but I would like to post my results the way you want me to.
> 
> Thanks again.



"C:\Users\Username\Heaven\screenshots"  is where they are saved on my computer.

It is a .tga file.  You can use something like this http://www.converthub.com/ *(**USE THE ONLINE PORTION WHERE YOU BROWSE FOR A FILE*) to convert it to png or jpg.


----------



## AlienDemigod (Jul 29, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Thanks for the heads-up on getting the screenshot,.....(stupid question alert) but,.......where do you go to get it, and where do you paste it to display it?
> Blame it on the fact that I'm old if you want,........but I would like to post my results the way you want me to.
> 
> Thanks again.


To display your screenshot on this page, you login to techpowerup, then at the bottom of this page there is a message box and  post reply and upload file button. add your gpu clock  and vram speeds in the message box then click the upload file button and navigate to the place you have your screenshots stored then select the file you wish to upload. then click post reply  button.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 29, 2014)




----------



## RealNeil (Jul 29, 2014)

Here is the FX-8350 System with a pair of GTX-570s in SLI


----------



## FireFox (Jul 30, 2014)




----------



## RealNeil (Jul 30, 2014)

Good score,.............


----------



## FireFox (Jul 30, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Good score,.............


could be better


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 30, 2014)

They could ~always~ be better!


----------



## FireFox (Jul 30, 2014)

A


RealNeil said:


> They could ~always~ be better!


Agree


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 30, 2014)

All it takes is cubic money,....................


----------



## Jetster (Jul 30, 2014)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 58112



Tessellation is disabled 

3.) Extreme Tessellation


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 30, 2014)

oops!


----------



## FireFox (Jul 30, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> oops!


It's that bad


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 30, 2014)

Ha Ha! look at #1 too.

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, _8x Anti-Aliasing_


----------



## gkipers (Jul 31, 2014)

3770k clocked at 4500mhz with 3 7950's clocked at 1100core and 1375memory.  I don't know why it shows 2 of my cards as r9 200.  If that prevents me from being added please let me know what proof you want me to provide.


----------



## gkipers (Jul 31, 2014)

gkipers said:


> 3770k clocked at 4500mhz with 3 7950's clocked at 1100core and 1375memory.  I don't know why it shows 2 of my cards as r9 200.  If that prevents me from being added please let me know what proof you want me to provide.
> 
> View attachment 58139




Sorry, I didn't read the rules well enough.  Here is a screenshot from within the program.


----------



## RealNeil (Jul 31, 2014)

Nice score. Must be smooth when gaming,..........


----------



## Andrew LB (Jul 31, 2014)

It seems I can't get this 780ti to go much higher. It's not freezing or anything. The software wont let me go higher.

GTX780 Ti 1231/1825 (core/mem) ~82'c max
i5-4670K @ 4.2ghz (removed, shaved height, and reinstalled lid ~65'c max)


----------



## Wolf_359 (Aug 1, 2014)




----------



## Riktar (Aug 3, 2014)

Made a slight bump to my core speed AND read where to find my F12 screenshots on the computer,,,,,,,, DOH!

I can be such a dumb-ass,,,,,,,,,,,,,


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 3, 2014)

good when i see the latest score, it put me in the mood to show the latest one from me 

FX-6300 @ 4ghz and R9 290 @ 1090core/1380mem


----------



## Droffz (Aug 4, 2014)

I was using Rivatuner for my clocks instead of the Unigine ones but they didn't show up on my screenshot.  I did provide my afterburner settings at least.

i7-2600k 4.5ghz  780 lightning 1306core/1800mem clocks


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 5, 2014)

Tried tweaking mine a little and got the same score. I guess it's good enough for now.


----------



## z1tu (Aug 5, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Tried tweaking mine a little and got the same score. I guess it's good enough for now.
> 
> View attachment 58225
> 
> View attachment 58226



Wait, you have 2 r9 280x and that's the max score you can get? There must be a problem as you should get 1000 with only one. I think you should be getting around 1500-1600.


----------



## AlienDemigod (Aug 9, 2014)

My first Heaven score with my new 780ti. I7-4790k-4.6 GPU-1150/1750-stock clocks


----------



## 05_ACR_SRT4 (Aug 9, 2014)

i7 3770k @ 4.7GHZ  2x HD 7990 @ 1150/1700 --- *145.7fps* --- *3669
*


----------



## AlienDemigod (Aug 9, 2014)

05_ACR_SRT4 said:


> i7 3770k @ 4.7GHZ  2x HD 7990 @ 1150/1700 --- *145.7fps* --- *3669
> *


Nice score.


----------



## RealNeil (Aug 9, 2014)

^^Agreed^^


----------



## AlienDemigod (Aug 10, 2014)

I7-4790k-4.6, 780ti-1200/1800, I just want a top ten and I will be happy.


----------



## AlienDemigod (Aug 10, 2014)

I7-4790K-4.6, 780ti-1227/1800-top ten by one point. lol woohoo!


----------



## Jetster (Aug 12, 2014)




----------



## AlienDemigod (Aug 12, 2014)

Jetster said:


>


It looks like you might be using a generic microsoft driver. I would make sure I had the latest driver directly from nvidia.


----------



## Jetster (Aug 12, 2014)

AlienDemigod said:


> It looks like you might be using a generic microsoft driver. I would make sure I had the latest driver directly from nvidia.



That's the IGPU. I had just uninstalled the driver for it. Not a big deal. I was trying to have it not show at all


----------



## 05_ACR_SRT4 (Aug 12, 2014)

AlienDemigod said:


> Nice score.



Thanks



RealNeil said:


> ^^Agreed^^



Thanks!


To the OP can the number of gpu's be changed for mine? i run 2 7990's which have 2 gpu on each card.

thanks


----------



## Durvelle27 (Aug 15, 2014)

I was surpassed O.O


----------



## newconroer (Aug 15, 2014)

There REALLY REALLY needs to be a separate chart for 1600p users. I appreciate it's not as common as 1080p, but there are a heck of a lot more 1600p systems out there now days, and 4k is not too far off(well it's all ready here) and surround vision type setups.

We standardize settings that involve all the highest graphics possible(sans the AA) and yet we're limited by 1080p resolution.

We should also try it with Vsync and see what variance people have not only between different hardware, but even the same hardware on different machines. Hiccups, stutters, and all other of little things that go bump, would affect the results. Instead of wildly varying scores that don't tell us much, we'd have close scores that indicate how different CPU,GPU,Motherboard and RAM combinations compete versus one another.


----------



## FX-GMC (Aug 15, 2014)

newconroer said:


> There REALLY REALLY needs to be a separate chart for 1600p users. I appreciate it's not as common as 1080p, but there are a heck of a lot more 1600p systems out there now days, and 4k is not too far off(well it's all ready here) and surround vision type setups.
> 
> We standardize settings that involve all the highest graphics possible(sans the AA) and yet we're limited by 1080p resolution.
> 
> We should also try it with Vsync and see what variance people have not only between different hardware, but even the same hardware on different machines. Hiccups, stutters, and all other of little things that go bump, would affect the results. Instead of wildly varying scores that don't tell us much, we'd have close scores that indicate how different CPU,GPU,Motherboard and RAM combinations compete versus one another.



Good idea.  Here's the next step. (Not trying to be rude but I don't want to be responsible for 3 times as many charts....)


----------



## newconroer (Aug 15, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Good idea.  Here's the next step.



Apologies, I guess "real life" not only keeps you from updating the front page, but also makes you defensive against suggestions.
Good to know.


----------



## FX-GMC (Aug 15, 2014)

newconroer said:


> Apologies, I guess "real life" not only keeps you from updating the front page, but also makes you defensive against suggestions.
> Good to know.



My edit came too late. Oh well.    I do like the suggestion tho. 

On the other hand I don't much care for you criticizing whether or not I have the time to do something. Guess I learned something about you as well.



FX-GMC said:


> Good idea.  Here's the next step. *(Not trying to be rude but I don't want to be responsible for 3 times as many charts....)*


----------



## dcf-joe (Aug 17, 2014)

Single GTX670 Gigabyte Windforce @ 1306 MHz core / 1753 MHz memory (stock cooler)
i7 2600K @ 4.8 GHz

I think I can get over 1000 points, but I am getting tired of running this benchmark for now.


----------



## dcf-joe (Aug 17, 2014)

This is the absolute best that I can get this card to perform. I feel good that I was able to beat out a 280x and also come somewhat close to a 7970!

Single GTX670 Gigabyte Windforce @ 1306 MHz core / 1851.5 MHz memory (stock cooler)
i7 2600K @ 4.8 GHz


----------



## FireFox (Aug 19, 2014)




----------



## Ja.KooLit (Aug 29, 2014)

Quadfire 2x 290x (stock clocks) + 2x 290 (stock clocks)

4770k - 4.389 ghz something. Weird cause bios setting is set to auto for base clock and if i set bclk to 100 still will show less than 100 on gpu-z.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 29, 2014)

night.fox said:


> 4770k - 4.389 ghz something. Weird cause bios setting is set to auto for base clock and if i set bclk to 100 still will show less than 100 on gpu-z.


not even slightly weird ... CPU-Z always show the bus speed a bit lower.
mine is set to 103, and on every previous monitoring or any of my 5 rigs the bus speed is slightly lower (from 0.2 to 0.7~)


 
the only thing i have who is weird atm ... is my PciE link version on my R9 290 i get 2.0 even on load ...


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Aug 29, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> not even slightly weird ... CPU-Z always show the bus speed a bit lower.
> mine is set to 103, and on every previous monitoring or any of my 5 rigs the bus speed is slightly lower (from 0.2 to 0.7~)
> View attachment 58750
> the only thing i have who is weird atm ... is my PciE link version on my R9 290 i get 2.0 even on load ...




check your bios settings. pci lanes might be set to pci gen 2. Try setting it to Gen 3 and see if it helps


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 29, 2014)

night.fox said:


> check your bios settings. pci lanes might be set to pci gen 2. Try setting it to Gen 3 and see if it helps


even weirder ... PciEx configuration : auto/Gen1/Gen2 .... and i use a Z97 mobo + haswell cpu ... wtf is that catch ... (i see not other option aside )


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Aug 29, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> even weirder ... PciEx configuration : auto/Gen1/Gen2 .... and i use a Z97 mobo + haswell cpu ... wtf is that catch ... (i see not other option aside )


ouch bios update i guess?


----------



## ajax (Sep 2, 2014)

GPU: Evga gtx780 ACX GPU@1175MHz, GDDR5@1658MHz.
CPU: Intel i7 2600K@4400MHz
RAM: G.Skill DDR3@2133MHz
For some reason, my memory reports to uningine as 2x as much.


----------



## z1tu (Sep 2, 2014)

ajax said:


> GPU: Evga gtx780 ACX GPU@1175MHz, GDDR5@1658MHz.
> CPU: Intel i7 2600K@4400MHz
> RAM: G.Skill DDR3@2133MHz
> For some reason, my memory reports to uningine as 2x as much.View attachment 58844 View attachment 58845



Yeah, happens to me too, I don't know why :-/


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 3, 2014)

i7-2600K


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 3, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> i7-2600K
> 
> View attachment 58867


How did you score less than a single R9 290 & GTX 780


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 3, 2014)

Not OC'd


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 3, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Not OC'd


Still should outperform them even at stock. 

Irk just seems odd


----------



## z1tu (Sep 3, 2014)

Durvelle27 said:


> Still should outperform them even at stock.
> 
> Irk just seems odd



I think the CPU might be seriously bottlenecking his performance.


----------



## FX-GMC (Sep 3, 2014)

night.fox said:


> Quadfire 2x 290x (stock clocks) + 2x 290 (stock clocks)
> 
> 4770k - 4.389 ghz something. Weird cause bios setting is set to auto for base clock and if i set bclk to 100 still will show less than 100 on gpu-z.




added

@ajax Added  @RealNeil Updated


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 4, 2014)

z1tu said:


> I think the CPU might be seriously bottlenecking his performance.



Probably, the i7-2600K is getting a little long in the tooth now.
I may switch the cards over to a Z97 platform (i5-4690K) in a few days. We'll see if they do better then.


----------



## z1tu (Sep 5, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Probably, the i7-2600K is getting a little long in the tooth now.
> I may switch the cards over to a Z97 platform (i5-4690K) in a few days. We'll see if they do better then.


I have a feeling you're going to see some improvements


----------



## ajax (Sep 5, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Probably, the i7-2600K is getting a little long in the tooth now.
> I may switch the cards over to a Z97 platform (i5-4690K) in a few days. We'll see if they do better then.



I don't think your crossfire is working or maybe its a lot of background programs running because this benchmark does not stress the CPU much.

I have the same CPU and the stock cooler. With a +0.060 voltage offset I can OC to 4400MHz. My CPU temps while running this benchmark peaked at 51 degrees from an idle of 32 degrees....19 degrees delta temp with the stock cooler, overclocked 1000MHz.


----------



## z1tu (Sep 5, 2014)

ajax said:


> I don't think your crossfire is working or maybe its a lot of background programs running because this benchmark does not stress the CPU much.
> 
> I have the same CPU and the stock cooler. With a +0.060 voltage offset I can OC to 4400MHz. My CPU temps while running this benchmark peaked at 51 degrees from an idle of 32 degrees....19 degrees delta temp with the stock cooler, overclocked 1000MHz.



This makes sense, a friend of mine recently upgraded his cpu and his scores in this benchmark were the same while in 3dmark they improved.


----------



## Vistaron (Sep 5, 2014)




----------



## Ja.KooLit (Sep 5, 2014)

quadfire 2x 290x + 2x 290 (clocks @ 1080/1350) and 4.4ghz 4770k





I know I could OC more my gpu's but im lazy now to OC more


----------



## Durvelle27 (Sep 5, 2014)

RealNeil said:


> Probably, the i7-2600K is getting a little long in the tooth now.
> I may switch the cards over to a Z97 platform (i5-4690K) in a few days. We'll see if they do better then.


This benchmark doesn't really take advantage of the CPU


----------



## THE_EVIL_RAPIER (Sep 5, 2014)

Core i5 4670K Stock 3.4ghz / GTX 780 @ 1050/1580


----------



## Vistaron (Sep 8, 2014)

New score


----------



## Rizeon1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Gotta get in on this! i7-2600k@4.4ghz, 2x GTX 570 SLI@797/1950 (one HD model One Not~ Same brand and clocks "EVGA for Days!")


----------



## The N (Sep 17, 2014)

Core i5 2500 @4.0GHz
Gigabyte 760 @1145/1652
Dominator 4GB @ 1600mhz


----------



## The N (Sep 17, 2014)

this benchmark is heavy and too much detailed.  Extreme tessellation have noticeable impact.


----------



## FX-GMC (Sep 18, 2014)

Updated


----------



## draklanar (Sep 21, 2014)

I7 4820k 
PNY GTX770 OC 2gb x 2
32gig 2400 ripjaw Z series


----------



## P4-630 (Sep 21, 2014)

I'm just getting a black screen running this, I had to do a hard reset.

Edit: Uninstalled it, since it would not run. (downloaded from techpowerup)


----------



## The N (Sep 22, 2014)

@draklanar

good score there, bro.


----------



## toppedro (Sep 25, 2014)

Good old Gtx 560 overclocked to 1000mhz core...and i7 2600 at stock clocks

gpu needs an upgrade


----------



## Shinyier (Sep 26, 2014)

msi gt70, with 1x gtx870m oc to 1019mhz, stock i7 4800mq


----------



## z1tu (Sep 27, 2014)

Hey guys, new cpu, new score, new test 
CPU - core i5 4960k 4.5 Ghz,
GPU - GTX 780 SuperJetsream - 1241 Mhz core, 1584 Mhz mem


----------



## Serhend (Oct 3, 2014)

i5 2500k @4,2Ghz
R9 290 Tri-X @1240 Core / 1590 mem
forgot to take screenshot because I was recording it with my smartphone in a video, the whole benchmark. I have that as well.


----------



## Ruszek83 (Oct 6, 2014)

i7 2600K @3.4GHz
2 x ASUS GTX780 DCUII ( SLI )
GPU CORE    @ 1201.9 MHz
MEM CLOCK @ 1623.4 MHz


----------



## rob6901 (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## rob6901 (Oct 8, 2014)




----------



## Ruszek83 (Oct 8, 2014)

*YOU NEED TO MAKE SCREENSHOT OF IN-GAME RESULT AS STATED IN THE 1st POST ! *


----------



## federico9292 (Oct 8, 2014)

don't know why GPU-Z misured 1.206V instead of 1.212V
anyway... slightly overclocked MSI GTX 770 2GB OC Gaming

Evga Precision X for tweaking :

111% power limit 
+30 base core clock
+60 (240 mHz effective) on the memory
+12mV voltage 
72° max  (in a few days i'm gonna put a Raijintek Morpheus to cool down this little beast)  

there's something I can do to stabilize and/or improve the perfomances?


----------



## federico9292 (Oct 8, 2014)

Spoiler






HazMatt said:


> ^^^Personally I thought the point of the benchmark was to have a standard way to test our cards at what frequencies we can push them to. Since you are the only person who used software tweaks to get a higher score and admitted it, it seems you defeated the purpose of adding your score to the thread.
> 
> My 770 running at 1306Mhz on the core and 2067Mhz or 8268Mhz effective on the memory. Fastest 770 in the thread .....and the only one.  Also, my 2500k is running at 4.0Ghz.





woah man!! how did you manage to obtain 1306 on core and 2067 on the memory?? voltage unlocked with custom bios? 'cause my 770 can't even finish the bench with 1260... explain us, sensei! (pleeease...?) 

just a little (big) jump in score!


----------



## Sleepless (Oct 9, 2014)

federico9292 said:


> woah man!! how did you manage to obtain 1306 on core and 2067 on the memory?? voltage unlocked with custom bios? 'cause my 770 can't even finish the bench with 1260... explain us, sensei! (pleeease...?


Luck of the draw on the gpu, that 1306 run was with 1.2 volts. The card also has a baseplate that covers the mosfets and memory which should help the memory chips run cooler allowing for higher clocks.


----------



## federico9292 (Oct 9, 2014)

HazMatt said:


> Luck of the draw on the gpu, that 1306 run was with 1.2 volts. The card also has a baseplate that covers the mosfets and memory which should help the memory chips run cooler allowing for higher clocks.


but my card, also a 770, before reaching high temperature (above 80°) freezes.  so... don't know how you managed the not-freeze situation, my card at 1241 mHz is 74° ... it's not a "critical" temperature...  why mine freezes before reaching 80°-85° ?  T_T


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 11, 2014)

An unusual data point for you; Asrock P55 Extreme, i5 760 @ 4.2 (191x22), two 7970 3GB CF (Sapphire
and MSI @ 1050MHz core, 1500MHz RAM), 8GB DDR3/1530 CL7:






Note the Unigine engine isn't reporting the i5 clock correctly, it's actually 4.2. Here's the CPU-Z.

Full results for other Unigine tests, 3DMark, CoJ, Stalker, etc. with this setup are on my site. The i5 760
holds up pretty well (notice how close it gets to a 5GHz 2700K with the same GPU config in some cases),
and it's not even a board that has PLEX switches, or a setup with fast RAM (I have an 875K and 8GB @
1950MHz, not benched it yet).

Ian.


----------



## Rayooi (Oct 13, 2014)

Overclocked with EVGA Precision X
Base clock +100mhz
Mem clock +300mhz
power target 125%


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 13, 2014)

Blimey, I'm surprised a 980 isn't quicker than that. Is my old i5-760 P55 with two 7970s
really slightly faster? (looks that way) Most unexpected...

I was planning on upgrading my GTX 580 SLI setup soon to a 980, but now I'm wondering
if I ought to wait for the 980 Ti instead. Hmm...

Ian.


----------



## z1tu (Oct 13, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> Blimey, I'm surprised a 980 isn't quicker than that. Is my old i5-760 P55 with two 7970s
> really slightly faster? (looks that way) Most unexpected...
> 
> I was planning on upgrading my GTX 580 SLI setup soon to a 980, but now I'm wondering
> ...


The new 9xx series doesn't do well in these tests but does better in games, where it actually matters


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 13, 2014)

That's good to hear. 8)

True enough, I've noticed AMD's cards have peculiar strengths in some areas, eg. 580s are
strong for Stalker, except for the SUN test where 7970s dominate by a mile (no idea why).
Compare the DAY/NIGHT/RAIN vs. SUN results for 7970 vs. GTX 580 MLX (with the same
5GHz 2700K). The gap more than doubles for the SUN test.

Ian.

PS. I've been waiting for a particular EVGA 980 to come in stock, but the prices keep
rising all the while, which is a bit annoying. Already here it's over the equivalent of $800.


----------



## URBAN303 (Oct 13, 2014)

CPU = AMD FX-8350 @ 4.0Ghz w/ Crossfire mode 2-ways
GPU1 = Sapphire R9 280X Tri-X OC 3GB (gpu=1100Mhz/vram=1600Mhz) 
GPU2 = Sapphire R9 280X Tri-X OC 3GB (gpu=1100Mhz/vram=1600Mhz) 

*Score = 1962*
FPS = 77.9
Min FPS = 20.1
Max FPS = 147.0


----------



## IsitShaq (Oct 19, 2014)

i7 5820K @ 3.3 GHz


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 19, 2014)

Thanks for the result IsitShaq! That's very handy info to compare, as your GPU clock is almost the
same as the EVGA card I want to get (1266). Btw, do you still observe the stutter during the first few
seconds of the test, which is then much lessened for repeat runs?

Ian.


----------



## IsitShaq (Oct 19, 2014)

Y


mapesdhs said:


> Thanks for the result IsitShaq! That's very handy info to compare, as your GPU clock is almost the
> same as the EVGA card I want to get (1266). Btw, do you still observe the stutter during the first few
> seconds of the test, which is then much lessened for repeat runs?
> 
> Ian.


Yes I can see the benchmark stutter when it begins but then seconds later it's fine. when repeated it doesn't stutter as much

I might even overclock my CPU to @ 4GHz because it's currently at stock and it should be no problem with the cooling I have as well


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 19, 2014)

Annoying they've not fixed the stutter issue, as it ruins the minimum score. Hence, I always
run the benchmark twice.

Hmm, you should be able to run a 5820K much higher than 4, probably more like 4.5 depending
on the cooling available. Good luck!! I've done several 3K-series 6-core setups so far, but not been
able to obtain anything newer yet. Might get a 5930K at some point for a new gaming setup,
newer board, GTX 980 Ti when it's finally launched.

Ian.


----------



## Yordan (Oct 21, 2014)

hi there  those are the results from my mid range budged gaming pc


----------



## FX-GMC (Oct 21, 2014)

Yordan said:


> hi there  those are the results from my mid range budged gaming pc



Thanks for posting.  You will need to run the benchmark in Fullscreen mode for me to post the results.


----------



## Yordan (Oct 21, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Thanks for posting.  You will need to run the benchmark in Fullscreen mode for me to post the results.



here sir , i clocked to 4.5ghz stable on cpu , on the graphics just slight 44Mhz on the core clock and 53Mhz on the memory clock , i know i can push those graphics even more but i dont like to go above 70c 
x2 msi 760 twinfrozr´s


----------



## thekos (Oct 25, 2014)

Hi.
just got second 7990 and want to share this test with you!. GPU is Intel 4670k.


----------



## z1tu (Oct 26, 2014)

thekos said:


> Hi.
> just got second 7990 and want to share this test with you!. GPU is Intel 4670k.View attachment 59946


96 degrees?


----------



## RandomSadness (Oct 26, 2014)

z1tu said:


> 96 degrees?



At stock clocks , furthermore. @thekos you really might want to check out your setup.


----------



## thekos (Oct 26, 2014)

I using amd 13.251.9001-140423a-171190E-ATI driver. I don't know waht driver to use for crossfire. Any suggestion's?


----------



## RandomSadness (Oct 26, 2014)

AMD recently published new beta drivers. You could try them. Here are the release notes : http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-9-2BetaWINReleaseNotes.aspx


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 26, 2014)

http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/14/10/26/5b4.png
So scores  from my rig   
i7 4790K@ 4,7Ghz 1.318V, Cooler  - Thermalright Archon 1.st rev. not SB-E   +TY-140 x 2 ,  in AIDA64 stress test  Tj MAX 85 Celsus, idle 40C
XFX R9-290X Core  @ 1200/1600 +0.1mV, +50%, Cooler  Artctic Accelero Hybrid II-120 x 2 TY-140 and  NZXT Kraken X10  for VRM 63C in load, 30C idle
8GB Corsair Vengance @ 2000 Mhz CL 10,11,11,31
SSD Samsung 850PRO  256GB   in RAPID mode.
WINDOWS 10 Enterprice Preview, Catalyst 14.9 WHQL


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 26, 2014)

Hmm   25th  in all range   and 2th  for R9-290X   .....  not bad  ... chears .


----------



## R00kie (Oct 26, 2014)

ArtKursis said:


> http://gpuz.techpowerup.com/14/10/26/5b4.png
> So scores  from my rig
> i7 4790K@ 4,7Ghz 1.318V, Cooler  - Thermalright Archon 1.st rev. not SB-E   +TY-140 x 2 ,  in AIDA64 stress test  Tj MAX 85 Celsus, idle 40C
> XFX R9-290X Core  @ 1200/1600 +0.1mV, +50%, Cooler  Artctic Accelero Hybrid II-120 x 2 TY-140 and  NZXT Kraken X10  for VRM 63C in load, 30C idle
> ...



Maite, WHOAH, dem artifacts.


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 26, 2014)

RandomSadness said:


> AMD recently published new beta drivers. You could try them. Here are the release notes : http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/AMDCatalyst14-9-2BetaWINReleaseNotes.aspx


Mantle API for Sid Meier's Civilization®: Beyond Earth™, some resolved issues  for Crosfire....    nop   no for me this drivers, beter stay  @ WHQL


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 27, 2014)

gdallsk said:


> Maite, WHOAH, dem artifacts.


artifacts   lbit in one scene,  system stable @ 1195/ no artifacts
in unofficial overclocking mode,  vcard  can normal  work  @  1210/1620  bt  result fall down  @ 1558   ...   same problem if  set  CPU @ 4750Mhz  4/8  result fall down  same...   mystic, course use forced constant voltage.


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 27, 2014)

thekos, I think you've used the wrong screen resolution, based on your screenshot.

Ian.


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 27, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> thekos, I think you've used the wrong screen resolution, based on your screenshot.
> 
> Ian.[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 27, 2014)




----------



## The N (Oct 27, 2014)

@ArtKursis  Hell ocing on 290, how much voltage did you applied on 1200mhz+?? 

temperatures are good too.


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 27, 2014)

Finaly  ...
When overvoltage CPU @1.34V got improve stability  for PCI-E controler and all system  
now  we can do test  @ 1205/1610   and got result 1635   , bt @ 1208/1610  got freeze  in scene 7
so last stable  config  atm  stay @ 1205/1610


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 27, 2014)

I wasn't referring to the screenshot upload size, I'm talking about the UHB4 summary panel itself
which showed the test was run at 1680x1050, ie. not valid. See post #250.


Btw, I can't help but be amused that I got 1814 with two 7970s and an old i5 760 @ 4.2. ;D

Ian.


----------



## ArtKursis (Oct 27, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> I wasn't referring to the screenshot upload size, I'm talking about the UHB4 summary panel itself
> which showed the test was run at 1680x1050, ie. not valid. See post #250.
> 
> 
> ...


  Looking at my settings   in result window, befor posting ...  lower resolution not  for me   only FullHD full screen, ultra, tersseleration  extreeme... ....   about  help ...  think  for  my card without  voltmod   this are max settings, above  got artifacts and freezes ...  couse temp  level stay at 63 Celssus     2th  result  between 290X single config,  not bad result  .  Got good exemplar..  SK-Hynix memory great  same.
CF  is CF   UHB4  is real video card test...   variable  from CPU 4.5 @ 4,7 Ghz   got only 1 point 


Ups NWM  mate   , pls push  reply  @ posts,  couse was posted after my post  and  i think y talk about  my settings  ...


----------



## mapesdhs (Oct 27, 2014)

ArtKursis, I wasn't referring to your post before; note my original post begins with, "thekos",
ie. I was referring to thekos' post #250. No need to quote a whole post if one begins with
the poster's UID/name (standard English), but people sometimes miss that. 

Ian.


----------



## j0hnwayn3 (Oct 28, 2014)

I7 940 @ 4.1 GHz
SLI PNY GTX 670 both linked at 955/1585

Other Specs:
Corsair H110
6GB Kingston Triple Channel DDR
Crucial M4-CT128M4SSD2 128GB OS SSD
Windows 8.1 64bit
NVidia 344.48 Drivers
No tweaked settings / Default build


----------



## DRG (Oct 31, 2014)

guess I'll throw my hat in the ring


----------



## Jetster (Oct 31, 2014)

Your only on 4X AA and according to your screen shot  your GPU appears to be a little hot !! lol


----------



## z1tu (Oct 31, 2014)

Jetster said:


> Your only on 4X AA and according to your screen shot  your GPU appears to be a little hot !! lol


R9 cards show up like this in Heaven, don't know why, happened to mine and others.


----------



## DRG (Oct 31, 2014)

DRG said:


> guess I'll throw my hat in the ring
> View attachment 60056
> View attachment 60046 View attachment 60047


updated


----------



## shkapars (Oct 31, 2014)

i5 2500k @ 4.8ghz
xfire MSI TF3 HD7950 both @ 1060/1450


----------



## Db_BRICK (Nov 2, 2014)

CPU: Intel i5-3570k @ 4.5GHz
GPU: GTX 980 @ Core=1544.5Mhz Mem=2000.7Mhz


 
Might be able to push a bit more but I'm on full air.


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 3, 2014)

Db_BRICK, what brand is your 980, and how is the noise level like when it's at stock
and also when oc'd? 1544 is an impressive bump!

Ian.


----------



## Db_BRICK (Nov 3, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> Db_BRICK, what brand is your 980, and how is the noise level like when it's at stock
> and also when oc'd? 1544 is an impressive bump!
> 
> Ian.


It's the EVGA acx 2.0 980 and at stock it's amazing since the fans don't even turn on until 60c which it only get up to under around 75% load. When they do it only takes around 10-20 fan speed under max load.


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 3, 2014)

AMD FX9370
R9 290
8GB G.Skill
WaKü Endermax

I think iam the first one with an FX9370 here so u need to add my CPU in the list


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 3, 2014)

Updated.


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 3, 2014)

Thx the results are currently without OC´d casue i have the watercooler since today and I want to OC my core to 5GHz then i will update my results


----------



## dskhury (Nov 4, 2014)

Hey guys, just a little doubt here... I'm not posting my results just yeet, just want some opinions on what i got given my rig setup

Core i5 4670k @ stock clock
8GB 1600 DDR3
XFX R9 280X 3GB Black OC Edition @ 1080/1550

Using the max possible settings @ 1080p i got arround 950ish Score. Is this in pair with the current setup? Or should be higher?


----------



## z1tu (Nov 4, 2014)

dskhury said:


> Hey guys, just a little doubt here... I'm not posting my results just yeet, just want some opinions on what i got given my rig setup
> 
> Core i5 4670k @ stock clock
> 8GB 1600 DDR3
> ...


Hey there, yes, that score is on par with your setup. I would say that setup could maybe squeeze 50 points more out of the test but that's the general score you would get.


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 4, 2014)

OC´d my CPU today from 4,4GHz to almost 4,8GHz Temperature get a little bit higher than the last one but still space up also clocked my DRAM.
I will slowley go further to 5.0Ghz but i need to do that when i have more time maybe I also need to buy a new Power Supply before. At the moment my Sytsem has a 600W and in benchmark with OC i reach 585W.

But when someone of u need a nice cooler for little money really get that Enermax Watercooler its pretty dam decent !

Here the new score


----------



## dskhury (Nov 4, 2014)

z1tu said:


> Hey there, yes, that score is on par with your setup. I would say that setup could maybe squeeze 50 points more out of the test but that's the general score you would get.



Squeezing by overclocking you meant? Or just general tweaks here and there?


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 4, 2014)

ne he meant like in other conditions like day times, when u freshly started the pc after playing a game etcpp  with overcloacking u will increase between 100-300 Points i would guess


----------



## z1tu (Nov 4, 2014)

WoodyWakü said:


> ne he meant like in other conditions like day times, when u freshly started the pc after playing a game etcpp  with overcloacking u will increase between 100-300 Points i would guess


I would be surprised to see a 280x reach 1200-1300 score, I highly doubt it though.


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 4, 2014)

I thin k if u cool well enough there is a good motherboard build in ur PC and also a good cooling it should be reachable to get that kind of scores


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 4, 2014)

WoodyWakü said:


> OC´d my CPU today from 4,4GHz to almost 4,8GHz Temperature get a little bit higher than the last one but still space up also clocked my DRAM.
> I will slowley go further to 5.0Ghz but i need to do that when i have more time maybe I also need to buy a new Power Supply before. At the moment my Sytsem has a 600W and in benchmark with OC i reach 585W.
> 
> But when someone of u need a nice cooler for little money really get that Enermax Watercooler its pretty dam decent !
> ...




What GPU clocks were you running?  There is no way a single R9 290 gained 600 points with the same clocks. Also, with the previous best single 290 scoring only 1589 at 1240/1590 your scores are definitely suspect.


----------



## z1tu (Nov 4, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> What GPU clocks were you running?  There is no way a single R9 290 gained 600 points with the same clocks. Also, with the previous best single 290 scoring only 1589 at 1240/1590 your scores are definitely suspect.


Even the first score is suspect as hell


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 5, 2014)

z1tu said:


> Even the first score is suspect as hell



I agree.  IMO neither of those results are possible at 947MHz core. I am removing the score until further information is presented. 

In the future if anyone has a problem with a result please send me a PM.  I can't really "police" the system, so I may pass over a few outliers.


@WoodyWakü please inform us to what the core/memory clocks are on your R9 290 for both your first result of 1643 and your second result of 2158.  Screenshots of GPU-Z wouldn't hurt.



EDIT: Furthermore, I have been lax in the past with GPU clocks being noted.  From now on if a result doesn't meet the requirements laid out in the first post the score WILL NOT be added.


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 5, 2014)

WoodyWakü said:


> I thin k if u cool well enough there is a good motherboard build in ur PC and also a good cooling it should be reachable to get that kind of scores



If heavily oc'd, maybe. The 280X is basically the same as the 7970 GHz; I have two which give round the 1800 to 1900 range for this
test in CF, so a single 280X should give 900 to 1000 at stock.




Db_BRICK said:


> It's the EVGA acx 2.0 980 and at stock it's amazing since the fans don't even turn on until 60c which it only get up to under around 75% load. When they do it only takes around 10-20 fan speed under max load.



Blimey, that's _exactly_ the card I want to get!   Still waiting for it to come in stock.

Ian.

---
06/Nov/14 edit...

PS. The above EVGA has just come into stock, and they've put the price up by 31 UKP.
I'm so sick of the price gouging which goes on in the UK...


----------



## WoodyWakü (Nov 5, 2014)

I runned the second Bechmark with both of my R9 290 whats so special about that score ?

when u check Hall of Fame some ppl reach 2300-2500 with their R9 290´s 

and i didnt even asked to take the new score into the ranking since two GPU´s are not allowed, so dont see the problem


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 6, 2014)

WoodyWakü said:


> I runned the second Bechmark with both of my R9 290 whats so special about that score ?
> 
> when u check Hall of Fame some ppl reach 2300-2500 with their R9 290´s
> 
> and i didnt even asked to take the new score into the ranking since two GPU´s are not allowed, so dont see the problem



Your result says you have only one GPU.  







You also said "Here's the new score" implying that nothing had changed (no mention of a second graphics card.)  

If you want to submit a screenshot of GPU-Z beside the posted score confirming dual cards then i will add the scores.

Example with GPU-Z:


----------



## Stasis007 (Nov 6, 2014)

Probably don't see too many i3's around these parts... Transitioning a basic gaming rig into something Rift-ready come Xmas, GPU was the 1st step (a 290 for $250 on Amazon was too good to pass up!). Main reason for posting this is to get some confirmation that it's good silicon. Been reading a lot of forum posts detailing problems with the PCS+ cards, so was keen to jump into and test mine to see what's what.

GPU is a Powercolor PCS+ 290 (non X) clocked at 1180/1500. Zero artifacting during benching after several hours of stress. It was stable at 1250/1550 w/ +100mV on the core, but returned a slightly lower score in Heaven jacked up like that for some reason (no issues with temps or throttling that I could see).

Temps hovered around 65C, with fans around 50-60%; VRM1 ~70C.  Guessing I could squeeze a fair few more frames out of it, but case has no intake fan and 550w PSU, so I'm treading lightly.


----------



## Db_BRICK (Nov 7, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> If heavily oc'd, maybe. The 280X is basically the same as the 7970 GHz; I have two which give round the 1800 to 1900 range for this
> test in CF, so a single 280X should give 900 to 1000 at stock.
> 
> 
> ...


Best of luck in the card lottery!


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 7, 2014)

Db_BRICK said:


> Best of luck in the card lottery!



Thanks! Looks like almost all the suppliers have kicked the price up to around 480 to 500 UKP,
so I bought one from Novatech for 460 total. More than I wanted to spend, but I reckon if I left
it much longer, their price would go up too (the source I was going to use had it listed for 432,
but then when they had new stock arrive yesterday, the price shot up to 463; stuff that I say!).

Anyhoo, this is the config it will be replacing, two Palit GTX 580 3GB SLI @ default 783/2010/1566
core/RAM/shader, 344.60 driver. System is an ASUS Maxiumis IV Extreme (so the cards are each
at 8x PCIe v2), i7 2700K @ 5GHz, 16GB RAM @ 2133MHz (9/11/10/28/2T), Win7/Pro/64 (to the
thread mod, hope I've done this ok, only my 2nd shot)...






Thankfully I've sold the two 580s for a good price (175 each), so the dosh pain is minimal. 

If I can get at least the same speed for the (older) games I play, I'll be happy, but just a little more
oomph would be good for the OTT customised Crysis config I use (45fps with these two 580s). Btw,
I know these 580s oc just fine to 900/2150/1800 core/RAM/shader, but as I've sold them I didn't want
to risk an oc run. I can try oc'd 580 runs later with some MSI 3GB LX cards instead (they use 832 default,
but handle 950+ with ease; my AE system has four of them).

Ian.

PS. I bought the 580s last year for 270 total, so I've made a profit of 80 on them. Hehe, not bad... 8)


----------



## Alechord (Nov 8, 2014)

Hi guys. Here's my result. I think I stabilized it enough. Even Watchdogs does not crush XD lol


----------



## Monkent (Nov 9, 2014)

Here's my "dirty" overclock of my Asus GTX980 Strix, no voltage increase.











Screenshot is not after benchmark, but with same settings, and short GPU load.


----------



## Revelle (Nov 9, 2014)

Hey guys, just recently got my new MSI Ghost Pro 3K-046 laptop, its got the newer 970m so I thought Id give it a shot fully stock and see what it gets. I may try overclocking later.
i7-4710HQ @ 2.5Ghz
GTX 970M  924/1253

Updated. forgot to post specs


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 9, 2014)

Updated the list with the scores that conform to the rules laid out in the first post.


----------



## thekos (Nov 11, 2014)

Hi its me again. Updated AMD drivers to 14.9.1 beta(i think). Hope this time I done it right - Here are first result's:


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 11, 2014)

thekos said:


> Hi its me again. Updated AMD drivers to 14.9.1 beta(i think). Hope this time I done it right - Here are first result's:
> View attachment 60282 View attachment 60283



1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen


----------



## Sirillya (Nov 11, 2014)

the most faster Q9550 

GC 970@1304/1913 MSI GAMING 4G


----------



## thekos (Nov 11, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> 1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen


I don't have 1920x1080 only


----------



## thekos (Nov 11, 2014)

Never then less, here is with 2x7990:


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 11, 2014)

thekos said:


> I don't have 1920x1080 only



I don't want the data to go to waste (we don't see many 7990s let alone dual 7990s).  Best I can do is this (bottom of first post):


----------



## Craigster (Nov 13, 2014)




----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 13, 2014)

Craigster, your settings are wrong. It should be 1080 height, not 1064, ie. it should be full-screen,
not in a window. Also, the Tessellation should be Extreme, but it's not shown in your screenshot.
Make sure Tessellation is turned on before running the test.

Ian.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 13, 2014)

Craigster said:


> View attachment 60334





mapesdhs said:


> Craigster, your settings are wrong. It should be 1080 height, not 1064, ie. it should be full-screen,
> not in a window. Also, the Tessellation should be Extreme, but it's not shown in your screenshot.
> Make sure Tessellation is turned on before running the test.
> 
> Ian.



The biggest issue is that he ran Unigine Valley instead of Unigine Heaven.


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 13, 2014)

Single R9 290
fullinfusion
Intel i7-4790K @ 4.8GHz |R9 290 1200/1550


----------



## offroadz (Nov 13, 2014)

Intel Pentium G3258 @ 4.3GHz
Single GTX 680 1124/1552


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 14, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> The biggest issue is that he ran Unigine Valley instead of Unigine Heaven.



Awesomely good point.   I'm not awake today... :}

Ian.


----------



## Craigster (Nov 14, 2014)

Lets see if I got it right this time. This is my first real build so I still have alot to learn.
Fractal Design Define R4 Blackout Silent ATX Mid Tower Computer Case

ASUS SABERTOOTH Z97 MARK2 LGA 1150 Intel Z97 HDMI SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX Intel Motherboard

Intel Core i5-4690K Devil's Canyon Quad-Core 3.5GHz LGA 1150 Desktop Processor

Rosewill HIVE Series HIVE-750 750W 80 PLUS BRONZE Certified, Modular Design

Noctua NH-U14S CPU Cooler

EVGA GTX 660 TI Superclocked 2GB GDDR5 256bit

Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 16 GB Kit (4GBx2) DDR3 1866 MT/s 

SAMSUNG 840 EVO MZ-7TE120BW 2.5" 120GB SATA III TLC Internal Solid State Drive

Western Digital WD VelociRaptor WD1000DHTZ 1TB 10000 RPM 64MB Cache SATA 6.0Gb/s 3.5" Storage Hard Drive 

LG CD/DVD/BlueRay optical drive with Lightscribe.


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 14, 2014)

Craigster said:


> Lets see if I got it right this time.



Almost! You need to set the AA to 8X.

Ian.


----------



## Craigster (Nov 14, 2014)

Wow I really need to upgrade my gpu.


----------



## Robin Vittore (Nov 15, 2014)

New build, everything's brand new.

Coolermaster Storm Trooper Big Tower (Black)
Corsair RM850
Kingston HyperXfury 16GB ((2x8GB)they overclock themselves to around 1800Mhz)
2-way SLI with Zotac Amp!Extreme GTX 980
Mobo is Asus Maximus Hero VII Z97
Intel i7 4790K

Everything is running stock, with stock drivers. Got the last parts last night, and fired it up for the first time. I'm borrowing a samsung 840 pro SSD and a WD Black HDD from my laptop. Haha. Couldn't wait to boot it up, 'cause I can't afford new SSD's this month.

*Ver. 3.0 * (ver. 4 below, I got 3.0 on a disc and it looked the same as the screenshots here. My bad. sorry)






Ver 4.0






*GPU Clockspeed :* _1393 MHz (boost) / 1291 MHz (base)_
_Don't know if I did anything wrong, but there's a huge difference between the two versions  _


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 15, 2014)

Your scores are fine, the V4 SLI result tallying perfectly with my single-980 result. Alas, Ungine always
ruined backwards score comparisons each time they updated the benchmark, so in the context of this
thread, sorry to say the V3 info isn't useful, but thanks for the V4 data, that's awesome. 8)

Ian.


----------



## atlvol (Nov 15, 2014)

Sorry, didn't know what I was doing and accidentally attached multiple times


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 17, 2014)

3930K @ 4.6-ish Ghz- HD 7950 @ 1206/1668 Score:1397


----------



## TheJShep (Nov 17, 2014)

First time trying this - Cranked up the 780s a bit. Hope this isn't too shabby.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 18, 2014)

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/proud-owner-of-a-asus-gtx-980-strix.207157/#post-3195177

Contains my heaven screenshot


----------



## nightborder (Nov 18, 2014)

Bad results, but I can see that temps of my GPU is much lesser then in Valley benchmark on lower settings.Why is that? Prolly utilization is lower. And my cpu is OC`ed to 4.3...


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 18, 2014)

Here is the screenshot with the required settings.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 18, 2014)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> Here is the screenshot with the required settings.
> 
> View attachment 60442



That can't be right.  GTX980?  Check everything out and try again.  Score should be much higher.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Nov 18, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> That can't be right.  GTX980?  Check everything out and try again.  Score should be much higher.


thats what I was thinking too.

edit: you know what, I ran it when i was at work and i was teamviewered into my machine. I bet that is the reason. XD

Ill rerun it when I get home.

Edit2: Here is a better result.


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 20, 2014)

Here's my GTX 980 upgrade, 1266/1367 core/boost, 1350 RAM (from GPU-Z), 5GHz 2700K:






The card is an EVGA GTX 980 4GB Superclocked ACX 2.0, PN 04G-P4-2983-KR. Excellent low noise, very glad I bought it;
in some cases it's as much as 50% quicker than two 580s SLI, matching 2x 7970/GHz CF.

Ian.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 20, 2014)

i am wondering if i did submit my latest rig config ... i5-4690K @4.488 and R9 290 @1130/1450 (watercooling it atm so i can push a bit further the frequencies than when i had the FX6300 and the temps are halved ) wow i just noticed ... i am glad i didn't do the 970 jump ... buying a custom loop parts is less expensive and i saw a score of a 970 with a 3770K in the same settings as we use  of 1156 and another one 1536 uh? so unless 290X/980 or next gen : not a worthy upgrade


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 20, 2014)

Finally it popped up, i was lazy to look for this thread i guess. Will post "new" result when i'll have 2nd planned GTX 760 DCII, if this thread won't die by then. 

@GreiverBlade :

Fixed.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 20, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> you fixed it!




much grateful  thanks


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 20, 2014)

GreiverBlade, that's the classic case where, before upgrading to a completely new GPU arch, you'd be better
off just adding a 2nd 290 as an interim speed boost, which wouldn't cost much by the time you'll need one.

Ian.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 20, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> GreiverBlade, that's the classic case where, before upgrading to a completely new GPU arch, you'd be better
> off just adding a 2nd 290 as an interim speed boost, which wouldn't cost much by the time you'll need one.
> 
> Ian.


indeed since the 970/980 launch i saw a drastic drop in 2nd hand 290 (well it's not like i didn't paid my actual 290 ~199chf  ) and buying another one plus adding the same block/backplate as i use now would cost me more or less a 970 Strix but with my 650W Integra R2 i am fine with a single 290 plus the 240x60mm rad used would not be enough and i plan to add a 2nd loop with a 240 top for the CPU (dual loop for a 1st custom watercooling? well s'not hard: s'not fun! eh? ) so yep no need for sidegrade/upgrade for now


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 20, 2014)

Here's GPU-Z & CPU-Z dumps:











Only problem - 1920x1080 is not SyncMaster T240 native res: stretched out horizontally so i don't see the fps count & other stuff in upper & lower right corners of the screen; maybe good 27" monitor will fix the issue in few more months. 4k displays/monitors are a f*ckin luxury for me.


----------



## Craigster (Nov 21, 2014)

New Card 1st run


----------



## spider623 (Nov 21, 2014)

i forgot to take from in the benchmark but i do have the report!

it's with a brand new Zotac GTX970 amp! OMEGA






they export to html so sorry you need to download it see it, mediafire doesn't have webview
http://www.mediafire.com/view/exyl2jt27w7mqch/unigine_20141121_1744.html


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 21, 2014)

Craigster said:


> New Card 1st runView attachment 60508



No GPU clocks listed.



spider623 said:


> i forgot to take from in the benchmark but i do have the report!
> 
> it's with a brand new Zotac GTX970 amp! OMEGA
> 
> ...



Everything about this is wrong.


----------



## spider623 (Nov 21, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> No GPU clocks listed.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything about this is wrong.




update, wrong version .- brb, sorry for the spam, just noticed that i forgot to update


just got in benchmark screenshot, i actually got higher scores now 
i had flashplayer in the background in the first run

album location http://imgur.com/a/sRYNk


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 21, 2014)

spider623 said:


> just got in benchmark screenshot, i actually got higher scores now
> i had flashplayer in the background in the first run
> 
> album location http://imgur.com/a/sRYNk



Still wrong.  Look at the title of the thread and the first post.


----------



## spider623 (Nov 21, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> Still wrong.  Look at the title of the thread and the first post.



just noticed, forgot to update, brb


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 21, 2014)

Here's one with freshly installed v.344.75 driver, really f*ckin tiny bit of improvement in fps:






GPU-Z & CPU-Z dumps in my prev post.


----------



## spider623 (Nov 21, 2014)

ok, now doing it with the right benchmark version!


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 21, 2014)

> Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted.



What do you mean by that? Like in NVidia's control panel graphical/game tweaks? I don't even wanna ask bout OS tweaks.


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 21, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> What do you mean by that? Like in NVidia's control panel graphical/game tweaks? I don't even wanna ask bout OS tweaks.



It means don't disable any features that would serve to influence the score in a dishonest manner.  It's hard to police, but its also a good out if a score is higher than what is the accepted norm for a certain hardware configuration.



spider623 said:


> ok, now doing it with the right benchmark version!



Its windowed instead of fullscreen but at this point it is good enough......


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 21, 2014)

@FX-GMC:

In NVidia's control panel i have enabled every aspect like AF, AA, AO, Threaded optimization, V-Sync off, FXAA, Transparent AA, etc..... Didn't touched anything OS related, pretty much everything of Win 7 you'd expect to be enabled is enabled. In NV control panel AF @ 16x, AA @ 4x (would go for 8x when have 2nd GTX 760), AO is on, etc.. Is it wrong or ok?


----------



## FX-GMC (Nov 21, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> @FX-GMC:
> 
> In NVidia's control panel i have enabled every aspect like AF, AA, AO, Threaded optimization, V-Sync off, FXAA, Transparent AA, etc..... Didn't touched anything OS related, pretty much everything of Win 7 you'd expect to be enabled is enabled. In NV control panel AF @ 16x, AA @ 4x (would go for 8x when have 2nd GTX 760), AO is on, etc.. Is it wrong or ok?



If the nVidia control panel is forcing Heaven to run at 4xAA instead of the 8xAA specified that would be an example of something you shouldn't do.

Judging by your score I would say that isn't the case.


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 21, 2014)

It says in Antialiasing - Mode: Enhance the application settings, not Override the app settings.

*EDIT*

Here's CPU-Z 1.71.0 dump:


----------



## spider623 (Nov 21, 2014)

FX-GMC said:


> It means don't disable any features that would serve to influence the score in a dishonest manner.  It's hard to police, but its also a good out if a score is higher than what is the accepted norm for a certain hardware configuration.
> 
> 
> 
> Its windowed instead of fullscreen but at this point it is good enough......



V4 was keep minimising to the desktop, it seams that I had a bad version or they were lazy and used a wrapper...


----------



## rusheurdeouf (Nov 22, 2014)

2 carte 7950 hd oc


----------



## rusheurdeouf (Nov 22, 2014)




----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 22, 2014)

score update and frequencies updates. oh it make me go from 48th place to 43th place if i'm not mistaken 








i bet i can reach 1500


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 22, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> score update and frequencies updates. oh it make me go from 48th place to 43th place if i'm not mistaken
> View attachment 60555
> 
> 
> ...



Your GPU is watercooled, mine is air; how high to OC the GTX 760 so it won't become a toaster? lol I OC'd single GTX 460 back in a day & at some point it f*cked up miserably after i purchased the 2nd one & tried to do the same when they were SLI'd.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 22, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> Your GPU is watercooled, mine is air; how high to OC the GTX 760 so it won't become a toaster? lol I OC'd single GTX 460 back in a day & at some point it f*cked up miserably after i purchased the 2nd one & tried to do the same when they were SLI'd.


i had a GTX460 HAWK almost burnt to the point of getting 1060mhz core xD i never had a 760 but a 770 Zotac AMP (turned out to be a pretty bad clocker ...) but as nvidia recommend watercooling for getting the max from anything above and including a 770 and 290/290X are quite golden under water (thanks the ref cooler ... bahahah ) still i can't comment on a 760 

for my 290 seems 1150/1500 is the limit if i try 1200/1550 i get artifact in Kombustor (burn in, lake of Titan is running fine tho) and also Heaven crash at 24/26


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 22, 2014)

@GreiverBlade 

Wiz OC'd single GTX 760 DCII to 1175 GPU base clock/1241 GPU Boost clock. I'd leave the mem OC'ing entirely, just raise the GPU base & boost clocks, you say? 1050MHZ base, 1120MHz boost clocks?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 22, 2014)

well with the 770 i moved only the base clock which move the boost accordingly to the original ratio (funny enough my 770 was 1268 base at max) since i had 460-5850-580 448core-6950-7950-7870ghz-580 SLI-460 HAWK-770-270-580-270X then 290 i can't really remember my 770 data mmhhh maybe in Valley thread i did post a 770 result but here i didn't

2640 GreiverBlade GTX 770 1268/1850 Xeon E3-1275V2
the VRAM clocked quite good tho


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 22, 2014)

I can only get the Boost clock slider thingy in GPU Tweak, wtf? lol In Advanced i get Max GPU voltage, Power Target (@ 100%), Frame rate target, etc... No base clock visible for a f*ckin mile.  If i'll go for 1120MHz Boost clock, it means the base clock will be adjusted accordingly? I get 1092MHz Boost clock when clicking on pre-configured Gaming profile of the app.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 22, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> I can only get the Boost clock slider thingy in GPU Tweak, wtf? lol In Advanced i get Max GPU voltage, Power Target (@ 100%), Frame rate target, etc... No base clock visible for a f*ckin mile.  If i'll go for 1120MHz Boost clock, it means the base clock will be adjusted accordingly? I get 1092MHz Boost clock when clicking on pre-configured Gaming profile of the app.


always used MSI Afterburner even for my ASUS GTX 580 Matrix Platinum SLI setup xD (tried GPU Tweak but didn't liked it)


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 22, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> always used MSI Afterburner even for my ASUS GTX 580 Matrix Platinum SLI setup xD (tried GPU Tweak but didn't liked it)



Yup, my 1st impression of this app is same for now. I'd give it a go, see where i'll get with it. Gonna test the pre-config'd Gaming profile for now. How high to set fan speed? 50%?

*EDIT*

OC'd this beast, here's the result:





GPU-Z dump with new clocks:




Fan speed @ 50%, Power target @ 105%. CPU-Z stuff - what you saw in CPU-Z 1.71.0 screen dump.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 23, 2014)

For the LOLs I ran this on my Kabini HTPC mini-PC I built.  The result:





GPU Clocks: 600/1600


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 23, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> For the LOLs I ran this on my Kabini HTPC mini-PC I built.  The result:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ahahah i almost wanted to run it on my mother 5350 build for the same reasons xD (but she has 1866 for RAM )


----------



## The N (Nov 24, 2014)

7950 @1180/1675 mhz
i7 2600K @4.5GHz
Fury 1600mhz


----------



## Borka3000 (Nov 26, 2014)

Default Settings/clock. Gpu: Sapphire Dual-X R7 265 xfire.


----------



## thespartanfish (Nov 26, 2014)

Hey you guys, I just got a new gtx 970 G1 running at 1556/4001 and got 1798. I haven't got a screenshot of this yet, I will send it later, but I did the bench at 1680x1050.

Can I run it 1080p on my monitor? And even if I can't is the difference from these tow resolutions big?

And finally for my curiosity, any 970 come close to 1798? (even though i kinda cheated  )

P.S How comes all other cards have such low mem clock? Is what MSI afterburner shows me something different?


----------



## Alechord (Nov 26, 2014)

Hi guys. 
I just changed my motherboard so I decided to run some benchmarks again. Then, I spent couple hours overclocking my components and here are my results ;]


----------



## mapesdhs (Nov 26, 2014)

thespartanfish writes:
> Hey you guys, I just got a new gtx 970 G1 running at 1556/4001 and got 1798. I haven't got a screenshot of this yet, I will send it later, but I did the bench at 1680x1050.

I think there's a new table now for results at that resolution. Check page 1 of this thread.


> Can I run it 1080p on my monitor? ...

We would need to know what model monitor you use.


> And even if I can't is the difference from these tow resolutions big?

Yes, it can be, though it depends on the task. 1080 is about 18% more fill area than 1050, but sometimes with AA involved this
can make all the difference as to whether a task remains within the available VRAM. Depends on the task.


> And finally for my curiosity, any 970 come close to 1798? (even though i kinda cheated  )

Have a look back through this thread, and check the main result tables on page 1.


> P.S How comes all other cards have such low mem clock? Is what MSI afterburner shows me something different?

GPUs use quad data rate RAM, so tools like GPU-Z show the base clock, whereas other tools may show the effective clock. See:

http://www.geeks3d.com/20100613/tut...-clock-real-and-effective-speeds-demystified/

More info on the main wiki site & elsewhere.

Ian.


----------



## thespartanfish (Nov 27, 2014)

mapesdhs said:


> thespartanfish writes:
> > Hey you guys, I just got a new gtx 970 G1 running at 1556/4001 and got 1798. I haven't got a screenshot of this yet, I will send it later, but I did the bench at 1680x1050.
> 
> I think there's a new table now for results at that resolution. Check page 1 of this thread.
> ...



Thanks for the reply man! That's some useful stuff you said. I should probably invest in a 1080p monitor for gaming.

Anyway, I re-did the bench and took a screenshot this time. On  MSI AB my clocks were 1580/4001 and I got a score of 1797 on my gigabyte G1 970. I maxed out my voltage at +87 but still the temp only went up to 68. This card is some good stuff.


----------



## dcf-joe (Nov 27, 2014)

Here is the 1920x1080 score for my GTX 980. It is the Gigabyte G1 Gaming edition. I am done overclocking for now as I have met the soft voltage limit of my modded BIOS. I can push it further with the Maxwell Editor, but you can see that my fan is already at 80% just to keep it under 60 C.

It is at 1581 Mhz core and 1966 Mhz memory. My i7 2600K is at 4.8 GHz.


----------



## MalcomXT (Nov 27, 2014)

Updated 

1074 Score

AMD FX8350 4.96GHz

Sapphire Radeon HD7970 3GB 1225/1700


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 28, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> For the LOLs I ran this on my Kabini HTPC mini-PC I built.  The result:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You almost stalled out there lol, but What a run


----------



## YautjaLord (Nov 29, 2014)

I went for following settings in GPU Tweak & it netted me with 29.6fps/740+ points: 1142MHz Boost clock, 6048MHz mem clock, 105% Power target, 59% fan speed, everything else default. Go for 1152MHz Boost clock or 1150MHz is max safest OC for my GPU on air? I wanna go for 30.xfps in this benchie with single GTX 760 DCII.

*EDIT*

0.1fps shy of 30fps:





GPU-Z screenie:





I can only hope i'll be able to OC like that when i'll have 2nd GTX 760 DCII.


----------



## Alechord (Dec 1, 2014)

I just changed the memory and here's the result 


The next thing will be the 3rd graphic card XD


----------



## YautjaLord (Dec 3, 2014)

Got my 30.0fps but had to raise clocks to 1162MHz (GPU Boost) & 6108MHz for vRAM. It (GTX 760) didn't died on me so i'm thinking to raise vRAM clock to 6148MHz after i'll come back from work today, tomorrow will raise it to 6208MHz. See where it gets me. Complete settings:

GPU Clock: 1162MHz;
Mem clock: 6108MHz;
Max GPU voltage: 1.205v;
Power target: 105%;
Temp target: 85 degrees;
Fan1 speed: 59%;
Rest is @ default.


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 3, 2014)

YautjaLord said:


> Got my 30.0fps but had to raise clocks to 1162MHz (GPU Boost) & 6108MHz for vRAM. It (GTX 760) didn't died on me so i'm thinking to raise vRAM clock to 6148MHz after i'll come back from work today, tomorrow will raise it to 6208MHz. See where it gets me. Complete settings:
> 
> GPU Clock: 1162MHz;
> Mem clock: 6108MHz;
> ...



Was there supposed to be an image there?


----------



## YautjaLord (Dec 3, 2014)

Once i'll test it with 1172/6248MHz clocks, man. Sorry for any inconvenience, don't want to bombard this thread with way too many results each time i OC my 760 DCII. Merely tried to shed the light on what i'm doing, my bad.


----------



## mapesdhs (Dec 4, 2014)

Here's a run with three 3GB GTX 580s (MSI Lightning Xtremes, 832MHz core):





Ian.

PS. I've updated my 'System Specs' drop-down. Hadn't realised it was so out of date...


----------



## YautjaLord (Dec 4, 2014)

Went last night for 6248MHz for vRAM in GPU Tweak - didn't go, can say the same for 6218MHz; 6208MHz is highest stable throughout the entire benchmark & then GPU reverts to default clocks. Here's the highest (stable) score for this OC:






GPU Tweak settings:






GPU-Z:






Kick ass OC, atleast for me, shame it still doesn't scratch the 800 score, though.


----------



## erixx (Dec 4, 2014)




----------



## dcf-joe (Dec 5, 2014)

^ Did you forget 8x anti-aliasing?


----------



## erixx (Dec 5, 2014)

No no! I did a 4x run and noticed you want 8x so this one is inferior but normalized!


----------



## mapesdhs (Dec 5, 2014)

What do you mean by normalised? AFAIK, if the GUI result is not showing 8x AA then it's
not being used, hence why your result is so much higher than it should be for a single 980.

You need to run it with proper 8x AA as other screenshots show, otherwise all it's doing is
clogging the thread with irrelevant data.

Ian.


----------



## erixx (Dec 5, 2014)

Too much wine... Will rerun later...


----------



## Archangel_77 (Dec 5, 2014)

Hope this is valid..thank you for examing it anyway! GPU CLOCK=1020mhz core GPU RAM CLOCK 5120MHZ


----------



## Optinumb (Dec 7, 2014)

All that good stuff on too.
Little hiccup on gpu-z at the end cause the first screenshot i pasted into Paint only showed left monitor so had to screenshot again.
Fan on Auto.
Cpu temp really low, stock voltage, so coulda been OC'd more but this is my every day Overclock.
Cheers!


----------



## Sirillya (Dec 9, 2014)

GC 970@1443/1953 MSI GAMING 4G x2


----------



## manny167 (Dec 11, 2014)

INTEL i5 4670K @ 3.4GHz | GTX 970 1554/2000


----------



## erixx (Dec 11, 2014)

ok, now I see i did not use 8xAA. sorry and thanks for warning.


----------



## Watrevir (Dec 12, 2014)

AMD A8 6500 APU @ 3.5Ghz ¦ R9 270X 1070 / 1400


----------



## jondee112 (Dec 17, 2014)

Think i can fill up the list?  Runs on the stock clocks atm. I'm going for 4,6 GHz on the processor and dont know about the graphics card yet.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 19, 2014)

Hey guys, I just started oc'ing my 970, so far I am at 1405 mhz boost, but I've seen a lot of people easily getting to 1500+ however I am curious if those clocks hold up when running Kombustor, because I hit the powerlimit (110%) instantly and it throttles to 1375-1360. So if I throttle at 1400, than 1500+ seems impossible to me. Or is it normal that it throttles under Kombustor (because it's a stress test, not a real gaming scenario) as long as it's stable under a benchmark like Heaven or 3DMark (or any game for that matter)?


----------



## manny167 (Dec 21, 2014)

brutlern said:


> Hey guys, I just started oc'ing my 970, so far I am at 1405 mhz boost, but I've seen a lot of people easily getting to 1500+ however I am curious if those clocks hold up when running Kombustor, because I hit the powerlimit (110%) instantly and it throttles to 1375-1360. So if I throttle at 1400, than 1500+ seems impossible to me. Or is it normal that it throttles under Kombustor (because it's a stress test, not a real gaming scenario) as long as it's stable under a benchmark like Heaven or 3DMark (or any game for that matter)?


System Specs? You could be power limited (PSU), Is you CPU Overclocked? I Overclocked my GTX 970 to 1554 Boost and 2000 On the Memory.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 21, 2014)

manny167 said:


> System Specs? You could be power limited (PSU), Is you CPU Overclocked? I Overclocked my GTX 970 to 1554 Boost and 2000 On the Memory.



Did not realize that I had my specs blank. i5 2500 @4.4, psu Corsair VX550. Currently my card is a 1405/1811, it's stable under gaming, 3DMark, Unigine but throttles under Kombustor.

Tested with 1500/1811 on a whim, still rock solid stable under Heaven, Kombustor obviously nope.  At this point I think Kombustor/Fur Mark is not meant to be run under high OC conditions.


----------



## manny167 (Dec 21, 2014)

brutlern said:


> Did not realize that I had my specs blank. i5 2500 @4.4, psu Corsair VX550. Currently my card is a 1405/1811, it's stable under gaming, 3DMark, Unigine but throttles under Kombustor.
> 
> Tested with 1500/1811 on a whim, still rock solid stable under Heaven, Kombustor obviously nope.  At this point I think Kombustor/Fur Mark is not meant to be run under high OC conditions.



yeah, they introduced powerlimit because kombuster/furmark generally tend to draw maximum power and then some which may fry the Chip.
my suggestion would be just overclock and test using Afterburner (Precision X) / Heaven (Or any other preferred app / game / benchmark)

I would really love to see your heaven Score 

Happy Overclocking!


----------



## brutlern (Dec 21, 2014)

manny167 said:


> yeah, they introduced powerlimit because kombuster/furmark generally tend to draw maximum power and then some which may fry the Chip.
> my suggestion would be just overclock and test using Afterburner (Precision X) / Heaven (Or any other preferred app / game / benchmark)
> 
> I would really love to see your heaven Score
> ...



Will post it soon. I do remember that a while back nvidia introduced some kind of limiting for Fur Mark and most tech sites had to come up news ways to test the cards for the reviews.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 21, 2014)

So... MSI GTX 970 @ 1500/1813 mhz and i5-2500k @ 4400 Mhz


----------



## Daizuki (Dec 21, 2014)

Guys is this normal for my laptop graphic card?
I'm having problems when i'm playing games now.. But I used to have a smooth gameplay... I updated my driver formatted pc and done everything I can.. I need help  Is it just my graphic card faulty?


----------



## Watrevir (Dec 21, 2014)

Daizuki said:


> Guys is this normal for my laptop graphic card?
> I'm having problems when i'm playing games now.. But I used to have a smooth gameplay... I updated my driver formatted pc and done everything I can.. I need help  Is it just my graphic card faulty?



Your card isn't faulty, it's just very low end and a few years old now.  This is a demanding benchmark, much more demanding than most modern games, but most modern games won't run well on your card.  If you want to run modern games better, I'm afraid all you can do is get a new computer.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 22, 2014)

I think my last one was higher


----------



## manny167 (Dec 22, 2014)

Jetster said:


> I think my last one was higher


are you running your GTX 780 at Stock?


----------



## Jetster (Dec 22, 2014)

manny167 said:


> are you running your GTX 780 at Stock?


1070/1150


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 22, 2014)

Jetster said:


> I think my last one was higher



Correct.  1464 -> 1446


----------



## brutlern (Dec 23, 2014)

Just saw the updated leaderboard with my score sliding in 45th place, thanks FX-GMX.

I did notice something when comparing my score with other 970s (that filter btw, is a stroke of genius, makes searching and comparing a breeze). Sirillya score, 1538, on 43rd place has the clocks at 1304/1913 with my score of 1518 on 45th with 1500/1813 and Optinumb on 40th place with a score of 1559 and clock at 1560/1952. (I also ran a 1543 score with 1500/1900, will post that shortly). Basically I dont think Sirillya's clocks of 1304 mhz is actual boost clock, but rather the one reported by GPU-Z (which is always lower than the actual one), it's not a big thing but for consistency's sake that clock  should be updated in the chart (it should be somewhere around 1450-1500, just a guesstimate), Makes Optinumb's and my 970 look stupid with similar score but 200 mhz less 

And, a bit off topic, but just saw it on the news, the new Afterburner 4.1.0, whoa, what do you think? I'm so used to the old one that this one looks scary complicated  

Just tested it, old skin is still available.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 23, 2014)

Here goes, my new oc'ed bechmark:

MSI GTX 970 @ 1500/1900 mhz and i5-2500k @ 4400 Mhz. A score of 1543 should move me up to 43rd postion (coincidence? 1543 -> 43 ). Sorry about the Intel HD Graphics showing up in there, Windows keeps reinstalling it after I remove it, I hope it's not a problem, if it is, let me know, I will redo the bench.


----------



## Jetster (Dec 23, 2014)

brutlern said:


> Here goes, my new oc'ed bechmark:
> 
> MSI GTX 970 @ 1500/1900 mhz and i5-2500k @ 4400 Mhz. A score of 1543 should move me up to 43rd postion (coincidence? 1543 -> 43 ). Sorry about the Intel HD Graphics showing up in there, Windows keeps reinstalling it after I remove it, I hope it's not a problem, if it is, let me know, I will redo the bench.



Disable the igpu in the bios


----------



## manny167 (Dec 23, 2014)

brutlern said:


> Here goes, my new oc'ed bechmark:
> 
> MSI GTX 970 @ 1500/1900 mhz and i5-2500k @ 4400 Mhz. A score of 1543 should move me up to 43rd postion (coincidence? 1543 -> 43 ). Sorry about the Intel HD Graphics showing up in there, Windows keeps reinstalling it after I remove it, I hope it's not a problem, if it is, let me know, I will redo the bench.


Nice! I also Overclocked my CPU to 4.4 and scored 1616, Will be Posting the SS tonight to update my score. GTX 970 is a beast for the price though


----------



## manny167 (Dec 23, 2014)

After an Hour of Oc'ing, Finally Broke the 1630 Mark, Moving up to the 30th Position

Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 970 1560/2018


----------



## silentbogo (Dec 24, 2014)

Testing my new super-low budget rig. No OC ATM.

Xeon X5570 @ 3GHz | GTX 750Ti 1100/1350 (stock)


----------



## brutlern (Dec 24, 2014)

manny167 said:


> After an Hour of Oc'ing, Finally Broke the 1630 Mark, Moving up to the 30th Position
> 
> Core i5 4670K @ 4.4Ghz | GTX 970 1560/2018
> View attachment 61090



Very nice, you making me jelly. I wanna do 1600+ as well but for now, 1596. Stealing your 34th position (until leaderboard is updated of course).

i5-2500K @ 4.4 Ghz | MSI GTX 970 1515/1951


----------



## manny167 (Dec 24, 2014)

brutlern said:


> Very nice, you making me jelly. I wanna do 1600+ as well but for now, 1596. Stealing your 34th position (until leaderboard is updated of course).
> 
> i5-2500K @ 4.4 Ghz | MSI GTX 970 1515/1951


Thanks man, You can do it! just focus more on the Memory Clock . Oh, and run the bench  without rivatuner running, that boosted my max fps quite nicely.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 24, 2014)

manny167 said:


> Thanks man, You can do it! just focus more on the Memory Clock . Oh, and run the bench  without rivatuner running, that boosted my max fps quite nicely.



I actually scored lower without RTSS, 1591  Ran it twice without RTSS, scored 1591 exactly each time. Than, I ran it with RTSS renabled, scored 1590. So I think I had something running in the background that I didnt have when I first scored 1596.

Edit: Yep, forgot to turn off the AV.


----------



## manny167 (Dec 24, 2014)

brutlern said:


> I actually scored lower without RTSS, 1591  Ran it twice without RTSS, scored 1591 exactly each time. Than, I ran it with RTSS renabled, scored 1590. So I think I had something running in the background that I didnt have when I first scored 1596.
> 
> Edit: Yep, forgot to turn off the AV.


I think this is the max score for my card, tried overclocking more but the display driver keeps crashing (unstable).  Has your card reached its limit? If not, you still might break the 1600 barrier 
Good luck!


----------



## SkipP (Dec 25, 2014)

I have an FX-8150 and a GTX-970. I am curious to see how it performs.


----------



## brutlern (Dec 25, 2014)

manny167 said:


> I think this is the max score for my card, tried overclocking more but the display driver keeps crashing (unstable).  Has your card reached its limit? If not, you still might break the 1600 barrier
> Good luck!



I haven't crashed yet, but running 3DMark Firestrike peaks the powerlimit to 109% (Heaven only goes up to 106%), if it reaches 110% it will start to throttle, so even if it doesn't crash, it won't be a valid overclock result (in my opinion it should not throttle to be called a "valid" result). So there's not a lot of OC headroom left for my card, at least not if I also consider 3DMark stability, but that's just a limit I set purely for myself, I like my overclocks to be 100% stable in everything, not just Heaven, but again that's just me. We will see if that last 1% can get me OVER 9000!!!.. i mean 1600


----------



## manny167 (Dec 25, 2014)

SkipP said:


> I have an FX-8150 and a GTX-970. I am curious to see how it performs.


Dude, set your settings same as the ones in the 1st Post (rules) and take a screenshot within Heaven (Also, in 1st Post)
your score is gonna be in the 1550-1600 range (with Overclock)
Good Luck!


----------



## manny167 (Dec 25, 2014)

brutlern said:


> I haven't crashed yet, but running 3DMark Firestrike peaks the powerlimit to 109% (Heaven only goes up to 106%), if it reaches 110% it will start to throttle, so even if it doesn't crash, it won't be a valid overclock result (in my opinion it should not throttle to be called a "valid" result). So there's not a lot of OC headroom left for my card, at least not if I also consider 3DMark stability, but that's just a limit I set purely for myself, I like my overclocks to be 100% stable in everything, not just Heaven, but again that's just me. We will see if that last 1% can get me OVER 9000!!!.. i mean 1600



Go hard or Go Home!


----------



## Seth Collen (Dec 28, 2014)

Hit 3679 on my Tri-Fire R9 290x setup.  It consists of an R9 295x2 and a R9 290x.  Once my 1200 watt PSU gets here I'll start OC'ing but for now I'm running on a 1050 watt and it's barely enough power.

GPU Clocks:

GPU1 - 1018/1250
GPU2 - 1018/1250
GPU3 - 1050/1250






EDIT: Increased to 3679


----------



## Henry Happeny (Dec 28, 2014)




----------



## brendangreenninja (Dec 28, 2014)

do my scores look right????


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 28, 2014)

brendangreenninja said:


> do my scores look right????
> 
> 
> View attachment 61183


yep for a dual 670 it looks totally alright. +/-200pts as the list show (SLI/CFX list under the single GPU)


----------



## Zille (Dec 28, 2014)




----------



## Jetster (Dec 28, 2014)

Zille said:


> View attachment 61190




Read the first post in this thread


----------



## MightyMission (Dec 28, 2014)

I must have be doing something wrong! so my 2500k was at 4.4 and the gtx 680 at 1348/3506 and this is the paltry score I got...


----------



## Steevo (Dec 29, 2014)

Yayy performance.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 29, 2014)

this


Jetster said:


> Read the first post in this thread


for that


MightyMission said:


> I must have be doing something wrong! so my 2500k was at 4.4 and the gtx 680 at 1348/3506 and this is the paltry score I got...





okyanus said:


> View attachment 61193



in case you didn't read the OP



FX-GMC said:


> ****PRESS F12 for SCREENSHOT - *Please attach a screen capture of your results for score verification.***
> ***Your submission will not be added if you fail to follow the rules stated below.***
> 
> Benchmark setup:
> ...


----------



## MightyMission (Dec 29, 2014)

GreiverBlade said:


> this
> 
> for that
> 
> ...


I wasn't trying to get a valid! I have f12 screens from within the app once it's finished...whats the point of submitting a below par score?..help would've been more useful.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 29, 2014)

MightyMission said:


> whats the point of submitting a below par score?..help would've been more useful.


you think so?

#CPUFrequencyGPUGPU ClocksScoreUser Name
Pentium G3258 4.3GHz GTX 680 1059/1552 950 offroadz
C2Q Q9550 3.4GHz GTX 680 1164/1552 910 Hugis







your result is within the 680 parameter ... CPU play nearly nothing in Heaven as you can see those 2 score are within a 40pts variance and the card are clocked just a bit differently, also Heaven report stock clock of the CPU no worries there

the only help: re run the bench and see the result variance (totally normal my 290 oscillate between 1390 and 1497 and clocked 1150/1500 all the time)

oh and i wrote: 
"in case you didn't read the OP" 

so you did read it no worries here too


----------



## MightyMission (Dec 29, 2014)

I think I was agitated due to caning the cpu/ram and 680 to there limits with the cooling I have and still getting far lesser scores than a more or less equivalent setup posted here...and I still don't understand why my score was so low. the scores were heavily fluctuating between 800-950, I wanted 1000+


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 30, 2014)

MightyMission said:


> still getting far lesser scores than a more or less equivalent setup posted here


aherm ... the equivalent setup (aka the 2 only 680 of the list since the CPU play no role in that ) are between 910 and 950, you get 910, it's not a "far lesser" score but a "in the norm" 

you want 1000+ get a 2nd hand cheap 770 (680 refresh/rebrand) the 680 is out of the race (for Heaven) but still a good card for nearly anything else, actually it's equivalent to a mid end 

moreover your score line you with the 770/280X in the chart, which are the direct competitor of the 680 (well as i have said the 770 is just a "updated" 680 and the 280X is the counterpart of the 770) tho most of the 770/280X get above 1000


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 30, 2014)

Got my 2nd 780ti Classy from Ebay installed now (also ordered a 780 Hydro copper cooler for it).

Ran them on the stock BIOS at 1216Mhz Core and 7300Mhz effective memory.  1st card ran at 1.17v, 2nd ran at 1.16v.  Really happy.  Both stayed steady at 1216 through out the run.  Not the highest score for dual gpu but I think the only dual gpu (not dual 'dual' cards, i.e. 2 x 7990) above me is at 1390Mhz.

Funny thing is when I removed the tubing to fit the new card (by way of a Koolance quick disconnect) the damn thing broke, pouring water all over my desk (not my pc though).  So, quick disconnects? Pile of Shite.  After a while in a loop they start to pick up micro particles and stick.  When I get my new block I'll still use them but only on areas away from the mobo.  Can't beat plain barbs/compressions for reliability.


----------



## Steevo (Dec 31, 2014)

Amazing what a bit of tweaking will do.


----------



## Sirillya (Dec 31, 2014)

GC 970@1443/1953 MSI GAMING 4G x2
4790K@4.5


----------



## Tuco (Dec 31, 2014)

MSI gtx 970 Gaming 4G (default clock)

is my score ok ? I expected better score


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Dec 31, 2014)

Just because I could


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 31, 2014)

Tuco said:


> MSI gtx 970 Gaming 4G (default clock)
> 
> is my score ok ? I expected better score


a little bit low for a 970 but in the norme technically, i have to push my 290 to 1150/1500 to achieve 1497pts and come to a 970 stock level


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Dec 31, 2014)

trying to get 1325 MHz stable on my 780ti for another Heaven run. Heat issues and artifacting, benchmark crashes when GPU hits 95'c. But I'm finding I didn't need that much juice for the 1300MHz run (can do it with 1225 mV and stay under 80'c).


----------



## the54thvoid (Dec 31, 2014)

BarbaricSoul said:


> trying to get 1325 MHz stable on my 780ti for another Heaven run. Heat issues and artifacting, benchmark crashes when GPU hits 95'c. But I'm finding I didn't need that much juice for the 1300MHz run (can do it with 1225 mV and stay under 80'c).



Water... It's calling you. It wants to caress your clock(s).


----------



## okyanus (Dec 31, 2014)




----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 1, 2015)

okyanus said:


> View attachment 61250


... read a few post above...on the previous page of the thread... oh and it's your second time


----------



## BUFDUP (Jan 1, 2015)

Here is my one

3930k @ 4.7Ghz 1.39v
Ref GTX 980 SLI @ 1541/8000, 1.25v, 1.23v


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 1, 2015)

i7-4790k @ 4.9Ghz

Gigabyte G1 Gaming 970 @ 1606/2029

Breaking 1600mhz was a hell of a new year treat


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 1, 2015)

My max on stock BIOS is below.  I don't think I'll bother flashing my 2nd card.  I managed to run at 1228Mhz @ 1.17/1.16v and 7600Mhz Memory.  The memory boost only gave me an extra 1 fps.

For some reason my card won't allow any voltage adjustment?  Both are locked at 1.17/1.16 when at full load.  In AB (ver 4.1.0) I can move the voltage slider to +75mv but it has no effect on voltage.  Likewise with EVGA Precision (older version).  Pain in the ass as it means I can't get any higher without a bios flash on the 2nd card.  Oh well, I'll have to settle for now with 980's being 10% faster.  But hey - I'm voltage locked for now....


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 1, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> My max on stock BIOS is below.  I don't think I'll bother flashing my 2nd card.  I managed to run at 1228Mhz @ 1.17/1.16v and 7600Mhz Memory.  The memory boost only gave me an extra 1 fps.
> 
> For some reason my card won't allow any voltage adjustment?  Both are locked at 1.17/1.16 when at full load.  In AB (ver 4.1.0) I can move the voltage slider to +75mv but it has no effect on voltage.  Likewise with EVGA Precision (older version).  Pain in the ass as it means I can't get any higher without a bios flash on the 2nd card.  Oh well, I'll have to settle for now with 980's being 10% faster.  But hey - I'm voltage locked for now....



The new EVGA Precision 16 gave me the ability to adjust voltage.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 1, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> The new EVGA Precision 16 gave me the ability to adjust voltage.



Thanks but it seems not for me  .....  Still stays at 1.17/1.16v.  Looks like the stock bios on my cards: 80.80.34.00.80(P2083-0030) won't allow it at all.


----------



## Psychoholic (Jan 1, 2015)

Just a quick and dirty test with my new 980 superclocked card..  If i get more time I'll jack the CPU up to 4.6 and bump up the card a bit more.

+120 core / +300 mem -- Puts it at 1537boost and 7600 mem
4770K at 4.2ghz.


----------



## dreamz (Jan 1, 2015)

not the greatest..but after a few hours of throwing the toggle's around and crashing like a mofo in afterburner (never went above 72C thankfully even when i went insane with the numbers to crash hard)
this is what i got

Asus Sabertooth 990fx 2.0
AMD FX 8350 stock speed (4.0 ghz 8 core)
16GB of crucial ballistix Sport 2x8 (9 9 9 24)
MSI gtx 970 gamer  (1530 mhz core and 2004mhz memory is me present stable overclock)
1050W modular PSU (forget the name offhand...some  Chinese brand I would guess)
a few ssd's and western digital blacks and greens...too lazy to look and not pertinent to the test

(Edited to say that i did get some higher values.for score and FPS..but there were some artifacts. My visual OCD affliction doesn't allow me to find those higher numbers acceptable even if it finished without crashing.


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 3, 2015)

Moved up to 4th on the Multi-gpu scores!

3x R9 290x @ 1100/1500
4770K @ 4.3


----------



## brutlern (Jan 3, 2015)

dreamz said:


> not the greatest..but after a few hours of throwing the toggle's around and crashing like a mofo in afterburner (never went above 72C thankfully even when i went insane with the numbers to crash hard)
> this is what i got
> 
> Asus Sabertooth 990fx 2.0
> ...



That score seems a bit low, you should be doing 1600+ with that oc.


----------



## leunchus (Jan 3, 2015)

560ti 960/1160


----------



## haydent (Jan 4, 2015)

Single 6950 with unlocked shaders


----------



## haydent (Jan 4, 2015)

Crossfire 6950


----------



## haydent (Jan 4, 2015)

Sapphire r 280 oc
Even though this card gets a worse score than the 6950x2 CF that it replaced, it does much better in BF4...


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 4, 2015)

Kind of and oldie but a goody situation on my CPU, but the GPU is killer with barley any OC.
Core Clock: 1050 MHz
Mem Clock: 1425 MHz
Running the Phenom ii x6 1100t with a little OC too at 3.6 GHz with 4.1 GHz Turbo mode.
Still have only 4x2GB 1600 DDR3 Ram too.
I'm proud of this little machine keeping up with today's standards.


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 4, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> Kind of and oldie but a goody situation on my CPU, but the GPU is killer with barley any OC.
> Core Clock: 1050 MHz
> Mem Clock: 1425 MHz
> Running the Phenom ii x6 1100t with a little OC too at 3.6 GHz with 4.1 GHz Turbo mode.
> ...


And this was right after with a little more OC on GPU
Core Clock: 1100 MHz
Mem Clock: 1450 MHz


----------



## Nullifier (Jan 4, 2015)

Xorium --- Intel Xeon X5660 @4,2ghz --- GIGABYTE GTX 970 G1 Gaming @ 1570 / 1880 --- 61.7 fps --- score 1555

Really frustrated at that memory clock.....


----------



## dreamz (Jan 4, 2015)

brutlern said:


> That score seems a bit low, you should be doing 1600+ with that oc.


yeah..i don't get it as to why it's as low as it is. :/

I'll visit some overclock topics and see if i can get help understanding why it's acting like stock value tho cpuz, hardware monitor and gpu z all say it's OC'd


----------



## brutlern (Jan 4, 2015)

dreamz said:


> yeah..i don't get it as to why it's as low as it is. :/
> 
> I'll visit some overclock topics and see if i can get help understanding why it's acting like stock value tho cpuz, hardware monitor and gpu z all say it's OC'd



Have you tried using RTSS (Riva Tunner Statistic Server) from Afterburner to see what the clocks are during the benchmark? Maybe it throttles during load.


----------



## leunchus (Jan 4, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> And this was right after with a little more OC on GPU
> Core Clock: 1100 MHz
> Mem Clock: 1450 MHz
> View attachment 61310



what gpu is?


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 4, 2015)

leunchus said:


> what gpu is?


Sorry. Sapphire Vapor-x r9 290.


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 5, 2015)

dreamz said:


> not the greatest..but after a few hours of throwing the toggle's around and crashing like a mofo in afterburner (never went above 72C thankfully even when i went insane with the numbers to crash hard)
> this is what i got
> 
> Asus Sabertooth 990fx 2.0
> ...





brutlern said:


> That score seems a bit low, you should be doing 1600+ with that oc.



Based on others Id say thats in the 1520-1570 range.  Your mem clock is great, but the core clock speed has the greatest effect.  1530mhz would put you in this range based on the charts on page one.

You might try finding out if you are reaching TDP limits, in which case sacrificing mem clock helped for me.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 5, 2015)

Updated.


----------



## Schmuckley (Jan 5, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> 3930K @ 4.6-ish Ghz- HD 7950 @ 1206/1668 Score:1397


I tried again with newest drivers..notsogood for that card,fps-wise.
^I think that was 13.9
Also: was on icewater.


----------



## brutlern (Jan 6, 2015)

I am surprised by how well the oc'd 780s (non Ti) do compared to 970. There are some pretty nice scores there. Overall, the 970s should be faster, is it because Heaven likes the extra memory bandwidth of the 780s?


----------



## The_Intruder (Jan 6, 2015)

I hope my pics provide enough info.


----------



## manny167 (Jan 6, 2015)

brutlern said:


> I am surprised by how well the oc'd 780s (non Ti) do compared to 970. There are some pretty nice scores there. Overall, the 970s should be faster, is it because Heaven likes the extra memory bandwidth of the 780s?



I think so too, But Gameplay wise, a 970 is on par (if not superior) to the 780


----------



## zululeon (Jan 8, 2015)

Can anyone help me as my gaming is so bad atm look at my scores and let me know if you can help me improve my gaming .Thank you very much in advance.


----------



## Nullifier (Jan 8, 2015)

zululeon said:


> Can anyone help me as my gaming is so bad atm look at my scores and let me know if you can help me improve my gaming .Thank you very much in advance.




Don't play on a toaster.

You're welcome.


----------



## zululeon (Jan 8, 2015)

Xorium said:


> Don't play on a toaster.
> 
> You're welcome.


so what does that mean, what do i need to upgrade to make my gaming better?


----------



## Steevo (Jan 8, 2015)

zululeon said:


> so what does that mean, what do i need to upgrade to make my gaming better?




What card are you actually using? I would suggest a faster GPU.


----------



## zululeon (Jan 8, 2015)

Steevo said:


> What card are you actually using? I would suggest a faster GPU.


 i use amd radeon hd6800


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 8, 2015)

zululeon said:


> Can anyone help me as my gaming is so bad atm look at my scores and let me know if you can help me improve my gaming .Thank you very much in advance.


This has got to be a troll... 2.3 fps? I have a hd6850 that runs respectively well. There is something very wrong with the CPU or driver or other components. Looking closer... Probably the athalon processor and running in stereo 3D.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 8, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> This has got to be a troll... 2.3 fps? I have a hd6850 that runs respectively well. There is something very wrong with the CPU or driver or other components. Looking closer... Probably the athalon processor and running in *stereo 3D*.



I was looking at the Stereo box and wondering what it was about.  That makes sense.


----------



## zululeon (Jan 8, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> This has got to be a troll... 2.3 fps? I have a hd6850 that runs respectively well. There is something very wrong with the CPU or driver or other components. Looking closer... Probably the athalon processor and running in stereo 3D.


i swear to go it isnt a troll, i have replaced a new motherboard, a new 2tg Hard drive and a new 750w power unit to try an solve my problem. I do play world of warcraft and i always seem to blue screen when in a raiding enviroment and the blue screen tells me its a thermal issue...the guy who built my pc swears it isnt the processor but i think it is. I have done stress tests on the cpu..sometimes it passes sometimes it fails..he said that can happen. So do you think me buying a new cpu would solve this?


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 8, 2015)

zululeon said:


> i swear to go it isnt a troll, i have replaced a new motherboard, a new 2tg Hard drive and a new 750w power unit to try an solve my problem. I do play world of warcraft and i always seem to blue screen when in a raiding enviroment and the blue screen tells me its a thermal issue...the guy who built my pc swears it isnt the processor but i think it is. I have done stress tests on the cpu..sometimes it passes sometimes it fails..he said that can happen. So do you think me buying a new cpu would solve this?


That is a very old processor and would definitely be a bottleneck. It may function as it was designed but that was 7 years ago. Just a low grade fx series would be a huge upgrade but keep in mind that the mobo would need updating to an AM3+.


----------



## zululeon (Jan 8, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> That is a very old processor and would definitely be a bottleneck. It may function as it was designed but that was 7 years ago. Just a low grade fx series would be a huge upgrade but keep in mind that the mobo would need updating to an AM3+.


ok thx, i will be on the phone to the guy who built my pc in a moment, in the meantime i will post a newscreenshot without running stereo 3d


----------



## thegremlin599 (Jan 8, 2015)

CPU: i7-4800mq(2.7 - 3.5), GPU: NVIDIA GTX 780m SLI (core 850, memory 2500), Laptop: Alienware 18, no OC


----------



## FireFox (Jan 8, 2015)

Tomorrow I will run heaven and I will post the results.


----------



## Nullifier (Jan 8, 2015)

Knoxx29 said:


> Tomorrow I will run heaven and I will post the results.



There is definatly something wrong with it, a 6800 series AMD card will pull way more than that on 1680 x 1050.

apart from that it looks like hes running it in 3d, and the cpu...


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 9, 2015)

I was having issues with Black Screens on the 290 i just got, RMA'd it and got a solid overclocker.
Score 1526
Single R9 290
Core 1200
Mem 1600
Phemon II x6 1100t
3.6 Ghz


----------



## dreamz (Jan 10, 2015)

brutlern said:


> Have you tried using RTSS (Riva Tunner Statistic Server) from Afterburner to see what the clocks are during the benchmark? Maybe it throttles during load.


I have not..downloading it now and i'll post the results. Not sure what I am going to be looking at until i have it installed...we'll see lol


----------



## brutlern (Jan 10, 2015)

Just a tiny bit of oc over my previous result to join the 1600+ club. 1602 points to be exact. Same position though.

i5-2500K @ 4.4 Ghz | MSI GTX 970 1520/1955


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 10, 2015)

brutlern said:


> Just a tiny bit of oc over my previous result to join the 1600+ club. 1602 points to be exact. Same position though.
> 
> i5-2500K @ 4.4 Ghz | MSI GTX 970 1520/1955
> View attachment 61490


Does that say you have the intel HD 3000 chip helping? Just checking.


----------



## brutlern (Jan 10, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> Does that say you have the intel HD 3000 chip helping? Just checking.



LoL that would be the day when and integrated Intel helps a discrete Nvidia. No, it doesnt help but Heaven detects it and lists it.


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 10, 2015)

brutlern said:


> LoL that would be the day when and integrated Intel helps a discrete Nvidia. No, it doesnt help but Heaven detects it and lists it.


 lol


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 10, 2015)

A 4690K and GTX-570 score. The 570 is getting a little long in the tooth these days.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 10, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> Does that say you have the intel HD 3000 chip helping? Just checking.





brutlern said:


> LoL that would be the day when and integrated Intel helps a discrete Nvidia. No, it doesnt help but Heaven detects it and lists it.


wrong, if de activated : not detected, if activated : detected and in effect, otherwise my 4690K would report R9 200 + HD4600

so then : not eligible (i got one score like that because i forgot to de activate the igp once.)


no IGP visible since de activated.


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 10, 2015)

Here is a i7-2600K with R9-280X OC. First at the 1920X180 Resolution, then again at my screen's full 3840X2160 resolution. The high resolution brings the systems performance to it's knees.


----------



## The_Intruder (Jan 11, 2015)

Here is my 2nd benchmark. Geforce GTX 970, 1510/1865, i5 4460 3.2GHz, 1549. 58 point improvement.


----------



## brutlern (Jan 11, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> wrong, if de activated : not detected, if activated : detected and in effect, otherwise my 4690K would report R9 200 + HD4600
> 
> so then : not eligible (i got one score like that because i forgot to de activate the igp once.)



double wrong, my IGP is disabled and is still detected. They only way I can get it to not be listed is to uninstall it, but my windows just re-installs it after a restart anyway, so in order to avoid the hassle I asked before if it's a problem and I should redo the test without it, and it was fine. If* FX-GMC* tells me it's not eligible, I will redo the test.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 11, 2015)

brutlern said:


> double wrong, my IGP is disabled and is still detected. They only way I can get it to not be listed is to uninstall it, but my windows just re-installs it after a restart anyway, so in order to avoid the hassle I asked before if it's a problem and I should redo the test without it, and it was fine. If* FX-GMC* tells me it's not eligible, I will redo the test.


eh? strange mine is installed but disabled and does not show ... there must be a catch, (even stranger) and if i uninstall it windows never install it after a restart ... since de activated, only activated trigger a auto install in my case (i un installed it lately since i do not need it at all)

so nope i am not wrong, (i tested a i5-2400 before and the IGP never showed on result tab unless activated) 
and the format "card/igp(memory)x1" mean IGP in effect (maybe Heaven force activate it since you have it installed)

(non related but i am quite baffled, it require a 1530/2004 clocking for a 970 to be at the same score of my 1150/1500 290... well they use less power but still ...)


----------



## brutlern (Jan 11, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> eh? strange mine is installed but disabled and does not show ... there must be a catch, (even stranger) and if i uninstall it windows never install it after a restart ... since de activated, only activated trigger a auto install in my case (i un installed it lately since i do not need it at all)
> 
> so nope i am not wrong, (i tested a i5-2400 before and the IGP never showed on result tab unless activated)
> and the format "card/igp(memory)x1" mean IGP in effect (maybe Heaven force activate it since you have it installed)
> ...



IGP is listed 1st because it's the first in the device managers hardware list. It's disabled so it doesn't do anything. Plus it can't do anything because there is no such thing as an Intel-Nvidia SLI. And since the score is 1600 I guarantee it's using the nvidia card, if it were using Intel it would 160, not 1600. And Windows has an option to automatically install devices, I can disable it but then it disables it everywhere and not just for the IGP, and I want Windows to automatically install drivers if it finds devices which are not installed.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 11, 2015)

If you don't want the IGU to show up you have to disable it in the bios. Otherwise a driver will be installed even if deactivated


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 11, 2015)

brutlern said:


> Plus it can't do anything because there is no such thing as an Intel-Nvidia SLI.


you know "lucid-Virtu"? right? (not saying you are using it ofc).
for the driver auto install i also have it activated but nope it never installed a IGP unless active. (read again,


GreiverBlade said:


> if i uninstall it windows never install it after a restart ... since de activated, only activated trigger a auto install in my case (i un installed it lately since i do not need it at all)


 )
and nope if the IGP was helping the score would not be 160,  igp+card in my testing i got a +/-50pts with a i5-2400+GTX770 1130 without 1180 with it on a ASRock Z77 Ex4 using Lucid Virtu and also on a intel DQ77MK with a Xeon E3-1275V2 without LV not submitted since i owned a 770 for a short time only xD

but you are right i am wrong and my extensive test on the case show it.
(the igp is not listed 1st  i see NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.17.10.3223/Intel(R) HD Grafics 3000 9.18.13.4709 (4095MB)X1 afaik it's listed in second right?)



Jetster said:


> If you don't want the IGU to show up you have to disable it in the bios. Otherwise a driver will be installed even if deactivated


that's what i mean by de activated ...


----------



## Jetster (Jan 11, 2015)

If the IGU shows at all its not a valid score


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 11, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Updated.



not that it matters much, but my last result I turned in was with a 3930k, not a 2600k


----------



## rruff (Jan 11, 2015)

Jetster said:


> If the IGU shows at all its not a valid score



Reason? It doesn't help does it? I use the Intel video to run a projector, but I don't imagine it would boost the video card's performance.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 11, 2015)

rruff said:


> I use the Intel video to run a projector,


i can ask the same question: reason for that? As you can use one of the other output of the discrete GPU instead of the IGP, technically a IGP is useless unless being the only video processing unit and yes it does help and impact on the end score
(i did enough test to notice it, but ... i am wrong so ... whatever )


----------



## rruff (Jan 11, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> i can ask the same question: reason for that?



Needs a vga port and my card doesn't have one. I could buy an adapter, but don't see the point.


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 12, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> eh? strange mine is installed but disabled and does not show ... there must be a catch, (even stranger) and if i uninstall it windows never install it after a restart ... since de activated, only activated trigger a auto install in my case (i un installed it lately since i do not need it at all)
> 
> so nope i am not wrong, (i tested a i5-2400 before and the IGP never showed on result tab unless activated)
> and the format "card/igp(memory)x1" mean IGP in effect (maybe Heaven force activate it since you have it installed)
> ...




I found that my IGP on the 2600K system was on for my recent post, So I uninstalled it and rebooted. It reinstalled itself. Then I disabled it and ran Heaven and got essentially the same score. My two R9-280s are both listed now. (X2 on the score)


----------



## Jetster (Jan 12, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> i can ask the same question: reason for that? As you can use one of the other output of the discrete GPU instead of the IGP, technically a IGP is useless unless being the only video processing unit and yes it does help and impact on the end score
> (i did enough test to notice it, but ... i am wrong so ... whatever )





rruff said:


> Reason? It doesn't help does it? I use the Intel video to run a projector, but I don't imagine it would boost the video card's performance.



You already answered this. You can raise your score with lucid-Virtu supporting the iGPU. Ive don't it. Although it not very reliable. No one saying you have to leave it off . Just disable it in the bios when you run the test. Unless its your only graphics then then score will only show the igpu


----------



## FireFox (Jan 12, 2015)

i7-3770K @ 4.5 Ghz 2-way SLI EVGA GeForce GTX 770 Superclocked ACX Cooler, 4GB


----------



## Steevo (Jan 12, 2015)

Whats with the green stripe?


----------



## FireFox (Jan 12, 2015)

Steevo said:


> Whats with the green stripe?


When Sli is activated.


----------



## FireFox (Jan 12, 2015)

No green stripe


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

3rd place on the Multi-GPU boards with a bit more overclocking.  I think there's still a bit of head room left but I'm waiting on a cable so I can take control of my R9 295x2's VRM fan(no access stock, kind of silly on a card like this).

1x R9 295x2 @ 1130/1500
1x R9 290x @ 1175/1500
4770K @ 4.3


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 13, 2015)

Seth Collen said:


> 3rd place on the Multi-GPU boards with a bit more overclocking.  I think there's still a bit of head room left but I'm waiting on a cable so I can take control of my R9 295x2's VRM fan(no access stock, kind of silly on a card like this).
> 
> 1x R9 295x2 @ 1130/1500
> 1x R9 290x @ 1175/1500
> 4770K @ 4.3



i doubt you have  more headroom. look at your screenshot. artifacts already. thats a sign of too much oc.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 13, 2015)

I have the highest score single gpu but cant screenshot lol


----------



## Honey (Jan 13, 2015)

hey bro's
i did unigen engine on my Asus Strix Gtx 970, i5 2310
are these scores are fine? or too bad?
is my CPU so bad?


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

night.fox said:


> i doubt you have  more headroom. look at your screenshot. artifacts already. thats a sign of too much oc.



Geez, can't believe I missed that. I've had that artifact in the same spot at lower clocks, adding a bit of voltage clears it up at the cost of temperature. As I said, once I can control the VRM fan on the 295 I'll be able to keep it cooler without artifacts. This benchmark was achieved on the second run, both were artifact free except for my screenshot somehow...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 13, 2015)

Honey said:


> hey bro's
> i did unigen engine on my Asus Strix Gtx 970, i5 2310
> are these scores are fine? or too bad?
> is my CPU so bad?



CPU play little in that benchmark, it's GPU bound ...
for me it looks like what you can expect from a stock 970 first run ...



Seth Collen said:


> As I said, once I can control the VRM fan on the 295 I'll be able to keep it cooler without artifacts.


pretty much doubt it ... my 290 under full waterblock artifact when around 1500+ RAM and 1150 GPU... so i really doubt that the VRM fan will give better result than a full block ... (yeah yeah i know 290X not 290)


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

how are you lads uploading this what you using im having to take phote's of screen to get it to work  I hold NEW RECORD .
"had to edit" sry no x8 on my new test are now on getting 1716 with x8 on 5th now.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 13, 2015)

DreadGod said:


> how are you lads uploading this what you using im having to take phote's of screen to get it to work  I hold NEW RECORD .


suspecting a run without anti aliasing set on X8... so pretty much no... the highest 780Ti of the list is at 2057

re run correctly

screenshot : F12 then "C:/Users/username/heaven/screenshots" folder open the TGA with a imageviewer like IrfanView and convert it in JPG (CTRL-S)

also ... look at the resolution and AA settings ... on my shot


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> (yeah yeah i know 290X not 290)




It's not even that, you're comparing a 290 to a 295x2.  I know they're very similar but I also know the fan can spin faster than it is at these temps, confirmed by others on the 295 owners club threads.

My 290x would definitely begin to artifact on the clocks you mention when on stock air cooling but I was able to push it to 1200/1600 on water without artifacts leading me to believe I could go a little further(look at the single gpu leaderboard 290x's well above that as well).


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 13, 2015)

Seth Collen said:


> It's not even that, you're comparing a 290 to a 295x2.


well ... still doubt it will help it ...  also you just run a trifire 290X that's not really a huge difference technically

but indeed from a 290X to a 290 : little difference, at stock... it's 5% less GPU clocking (not my case  ) 10% less MEM clocking (not my case  bis) and 256 shader less (which is totally minimal loss)

i am comparing the COOLING NOT THE CARD!!! i use a full water block ... and the card still artifact after 1150/1500 (ie: 1210/1600)  so yep ... not so big headroom for further OC (not mentioning that the 290 OC a bit better than a 290X since a 290X is just a OC'ed 290 with 256 shader added or a 290 is a underclocked 290X with 256 shaders disabled)



Seth Collen said:


> I was able to push it to 1200/1600 on water without artifacts leading me to believe I could go a little further(look at the single gpu leaderboard 290x's well above that as well).



silicon lottery xD (i hope your 295X2 will be the same ...  )

edit yep totally worth to compare a 290 to a 290X (too bad i can't push it like that xD )
i7-3770K 5.0GHz R9 290X 1240/1600 1608 dr_dx
i5-2500K 4.2GHz R9 290   1240/1590 1589 Serhend


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

sry all this is my score never had it on" 8xaa" this is still set out of the box no oc yet ill do some oc and see what we get.


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

hi  ok this is score,  cpu  out of box is 1006 gone to 1050 this is my score now


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> edit yep totally worth to compare a 290 to a 290X (too bad i can't push it like that xD )
> i7-3770K 5.0GHz R9 290X 1240/1600 1608 dr_dx
> i5-2500K 4.2GHz R9 290   1240/1590 1589 Serhend



Agreed there's little difference between a 290 and a 290x, I was just saying that we're not all governed by that 1150/1500 limit as seen by the leaderboards and my personal experience.  I'm just trying to say I have no control over the VRM fan on my 295 and I know it can spin faster, will that equal more OC'ing?  I don't know yet but I'll be sure to post my findings.


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

ok this is with cpu  setting 1085/1750 puts me 5th i think not bad for a PCLE 2.0 support on a p6t deluxe v2 mother board


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

ok this is my last don't won't to push it any more cpu set at 1100/1760


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 13, 2015)

DreadGod said:


> ok this is with cpu  setting 1085/1750 puts me 5th i think not bad for a PCLE 2.0 support on a p6t deluxe v2 mother board





DreadGod said:


> ok this is my last don't won't to push it any more cpu set at 1100/1760



Actually, the 1724 score is only good for 20th place. I have 15th with 1768. That was with my 780ti OC'ed to 1300/1875.


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 13, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> Actually, the 1724 score is only good for 20th place. I have 15th with 1768. That was with my 780ti OC'ed to 1300/1875.


hi yes just seen it I was looking at first page before the new thread  20th ok for me im temped to oc more but new card don't won.t to damage it the temp seems to stay the same what ever clock I put it on. 64 c


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 13, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> not that it matters much, but my last result I turned in was with a 3930k, not a 2600k



Fixed.


List updated.


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

With the low temperatures in the teens today I managed to push the clocks a little further without artifacts and got two more points lol

1x R9 295x2 @ 1150/1500
1x R9 290x @ 1175/1500
4770K @ 4.3


----------



## THE_EGG (Jan 13, 2015)

Seth Collen said:


> With the low temperatures in the teens today I managed to push the clocks a little further without artifacts and got two more points lol
> 
> 1x R9 295x2 @ 1150/1500
> 1x R9 290x @ 1175/1500
> 4770K @ 4.3


wowwwwwww. Very nice man. I'm thinking the power consumption of your PC must be pretty high eh? haha. I was seriously considering going for 1 295X2 in case I decided on going to a mini-itx build again but decided on 2 gtx 970s just because I thought the dual gpu card could cause me grief and I've had a poor experience in the past when it comes to stuttering with crossfired AMD cards.


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 13, 2015)

THE_EGG said:


> wowwwwwww. Very nice man. I'm thinking the power consumption of your PC must be pretty high eh? haha. I was seriously considering going for 1 295X2 in case I decided on going to a mini-itx build again but decided on 2 gtx 970s just because I thought the dual gpu card could cause me grief and I've had a poor experience in the past when it comes to stuttering with crossfired AMD cards.



Thanks.  My goal is to ding 4000, it's soo close. Yeaaa it uses quite a bit of power.  I have a Corsair AX1200i and the highest values I've seen on it are 1150 draw from the wall and 1010 passed to the system.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 14, 2015)

THE_EGG said:


> wowwwwwww. Very nice man. I'm thinking the power consumption of your PC must be pretty high eh? haha. I was seriously considering going for 1 295X2 in case I decided on going to a mini-itx build again but decided on 2 gtx 970s just because I thought the dual gpu card could cause me grief and I've had a poor experience in the past when it comes to stuttering with crossfired AMD cards.



R9 series AMD gpu is actually better now for crossfired AMD cards due to the XDMA engine. it is actually better than NVIDIA SLI


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 14, 2015)

night.fox said:


> R9 series AMD gpu is actually better now for crossfired AMD cards due to the XDMA engine. it is actually better than NVIDIA SLI



That and frame pacing has seemed to help out quite a bit.  No stuttering or "micro-stuttering" some have complained about in the past.


----------



## THE_EGG (Jan 14, 2015)

Seth Collen said:


> That and frame pacing has seemed to help out quite a bit.  No stuttering or "micro-stuttering" some have complained about in the past.





night.fox said:


> R9 series AMD gpu is actually better now for crossfired AMD cards due to the XDMA engine. it is actually better than NVIDIA SLI



Ah right I see. I must admit, my experience with it was with 2 R9 280x cards so that could explain it. I see that the R9 290/290X series uses the newer (and I suppose better) stuff. The worst offender was Titanfall iirc, that was seriously unplayable. I haven't had any problems with SLI in games only that Sony Vegas likes to crash if SLI is enabled when rendering a video. Disabling SLI fixes it.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 14, 2015)

I claim the record for single GPU 





CPU frequency: 4.4ghz
Gpu Frequencies: Core 1366: mem 4071


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 14, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> I claim the record for single GPU
> 
> 
> 
> ...



quality is suppose to be set to ultra, not high


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 14, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> quality is suppose to be set to ultra, not high


welp, doesn't make a difference in score but ill re run, ramped up some clocks and here is the result


----------



## DreadGod (Jan 14, 2015)

wow nice score. I thinks you may be top.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 15, 2015)

Best I want to do with my 780ti Classifieds at 1333Mhz with 1.325v (using Classified Software tool), memory only at 1800Mhz.  Temps at 58/55.  Still room for more but I'm within a ball hair of the fastest dual 980's (4% behind with 15% lower clocks).


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 15, 2015)

Beast score m8! Waiting for updates


----------



## vader007 (Jan 15, 2015)

Woop not bad after a big stable OC


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 15, 2015)

vader007 said:


> Woop not bad after a big stable OC View attachment 61707



That's the older version, this is for v4.0


----------



## vader007 (Jan 15, 2015)

Seth Collen said:


> That's the older version, this is for v4.0



MY bad


----------



## vader007 (Jan 15, 2015)

OK not as good lol. Core 1453 and memory 200 MHZ above stock


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 16, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> welp, doesn't make a difference in score but ill re run, ramped up some clocks and here is the result



That GTX-980 is bad-ass.
I was saving for a pair of 970s, but now I think I'll just keep saving for two 980s.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 16, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> That GTX-980 is bad-ass.
> I was saving for a pair of 970s, but now I think I'll just keep saving for two 980s.


If I get lucky this year I might get another 980 too for 4k! Just waiting what 2015 has to offer monitor wise  
 It's a MSI 4G gaming if you were wondering


----------



## vader007 (Jan 16, 2015)

Core 1495 memory 1852


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 16, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> Beast score m8! Waiting for updates



lol, here's your update:

Started a run with 1359Mhz @ 1.35v, memory at 1900Mhz (7600 effective).  Temps good (started from cold PC and no artifacts - I was thinking, yes, gonna get mid 140's).  Then blink - whole PC shutdown.  No windows errors or driver crash.  My 1000W PSU doesn't like the immense power draw of heavily overclocked 780ti's.  Each one is probably drawing well over 350 watts (they pull 265 @ 1.17v and I'm at 1.35+v).  I think I shall retire from this benchmarking forum for now.
I'll return when I have new toys.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 16, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I think I shall retire from this benchmarking forum for now.
> I'll return when I have new toys.


lol, it was a nice run , now I'm waiting for OP


----------



## RealNeil (Jan 16, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> If I get lucky this year I might get another 980 too for 4k! Just waiting what 2015 has to offer monitor wise
> It's a MSI 4G gaming if you were wondering



I have a 4K screen, but my two R9-280X OC GPUs can't push it properly in benches. Gaming is semi-OK, but could be better. (if I play at 1080P it's smooth as silk)  It will take some time to get the two GTX-980s, but the wait will be worth it.


----------



## mapesdhs (Jan 17, 2015)

More fun with an older platform (take note those with modern Z97, etc. ;D), in this case an Asrock P55 Extreme,
i5 760 @ 4.2GHz, two 980s at 1366 core.






Quite a good score for Firestrike too.

The CPU does of course hold it back in real games at lesser resolutions, though the frame
rates are pretty whacko anyway. Will tests the 980s with better CPU setups later.

Ian.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 18, 2015)

When is this thread getting updated, can't wait to get my rank


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 18, 2015)

Managed a bit more,

G1 Gaming GTX 970 @ 1611/2029
i7-4790k @ 4.7  (reduced from previous score @ 4.9)

Really pushing for that 1700 barrier!!


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 18, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> When is this thread getting updated, can't wait to get my rank



Whenever @FX-GMC gets around to it


----------



## BigPotatoes (Jan 18, 2015)

Stock clocks on GPU & CPU (1190MHz GPU clock, 1753MHz on GPU mem, 4.00GHz on CPU). Also running Win10 prebuild.


----------



## Jborg (Jan 18, 2015)

GTX 970 G1 Gaming    1328/1878






Not sure why I score 100 points less with an 8350 compared to a FX 6300 above?


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 18, 2015)

Jborg said:


> GTX 970 G1 Gaming    1328/1878
> 
> 
> Not sure why I score 100 points less with an 8350 compared to a FX 6300 above?


he has a pretty decent overclock on his 970, what about u


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 18, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> he has a pretty decent overclock on his 970, what about u


What he said,
Heaven is very GPU dependent, not that it couldn't be bottle-necked, but the exact performance of your GPU will have a greater impact on your score.


----------



## Jborg (Jan 18, 2015)

This is what i run.... +150 Core clock, +500((7510Mhz) Memory Clock. Although most of the time I don't even run it OCd since BF4 hates it, and other older games don't need it.

I understand its GPU heavy, i just see similar GTX 970/980s with even older i5s or i7s scoring 1000s of points higher. Just interesting. I'd think I would score a bit higher. Maybe Ill mess around with overclocking more.


----------



## Tsuneo (Jan 18, 2015)

cpu: i7 4790k 4GHz
GPU clock 1563.8/memclock 1914.7

will try to get that number one gtx 970 on the forum here  but it wont be easy!

*edit* cant get higher than 1623 without it crashing. ah well!


----------



## Tsuneo (Jan 19, 2015)

brutlern said:


> I am surprised by how well the oc'd 780s (non Ti) do compared to 970. There are some pretty nice scores there. Overall, the 970s should be faster, is it because Heaven likes the extra memory bandwidth of the 780s?


in games the performance of the 970 is clearly better. it must be something with unigine yes.


----------



## mapesdhs (Jan 19, 2015)

Unigine is certainly unique in that regard, eg. look at its very wide min/max spread, something about the engine/demo
means there's always a stutter near the start. Certain games do behave in a similar manner to Heaven, eg. Call of Juarez,
but that's an older title. Many modern games are quite different, with more CPU dependence (the old X3TC is the
extreme example).

Ian.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 19, 2015)

Just an observation while playing with clocks , a lower ram frequency with lower timings gave me the best results.
I had something similar to 2010 at 3200mhz 15-15-15-38 , around 2040 at 2400 mhz 14-14-14-34 and the best score I got 2066 was at 2133 12-12-12-32
my rams are adata 2400mhz kit ddr4
This is a run on my system I made if u guys interested


----------



## MemeBot (Jan 20, 2015)

erocker said:


> All set.  New posts start on page 10 of the old thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.190386/page-10
> 
> Thank you!



Hi there 

I'm new on this forum and I thought it might be nice to share my score since I have an older "more exotic" setup than usual 
I also added a screenshot to make it official 

The only thing is, since I am running an older S775 Asus Rampage Formula X48 which does not support SLI out of the box, I had to use modified drivers in order to be able to enable SLI in the first place.
So it does not enhance anything performance wise, it simply makes it work. (The mainbord does have support for Crossfire which makes it hardware capable of SLI).

I hope it will still be added, since my score is realistic, Thanks!


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 20, 2015)

MemeBot said:


> Hi there
> 
> I'm new on this forum and I thought it might be nice to share my score since I have an older "more exotic" setup than usual
> I also added a screenshot to make it official
> ...


You need to make a screenshot within the software to avoid any alteration... press f12 while running and it should be stored in c>users>you>heaven


----------



## MemeBot (Jan 20, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> You need to make a screenshot within the software to avoid any alteration... press f12 while running and it should be stored in c>users>you>heaven


ok ill do that today.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 20, 2015)

To make the process of updating the scoreboard easier I will no longer number past 1-10 on each section.

Updated.


----------



## gamble (Jan 21, 2015)

Score:  1592
Intel i7 3770k @ 5.0ghz | Asus GTX 970 1516/1867mhz


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 21, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> To make the process of updating the scoreboard easier I will no longer number past 1-10 on each section.
> 
> Updated.


Wooo!   Thank you!!


----------



## Watrevir (Jan 21, 2015)

692. Just upgraded my CPU.  FX 6300 @ 4.1Ghz, R9 270x @ 1070 / 1400.  Apparently the CPU reached 97 degrees at one point (recommended thermal limit 70!).  I'm on the stock cooler so I wouldn't be surprised if it throttled a bit, as my score seems a bit low to me.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 21, 2015)

Watrevir said:


> 692. Just upgraded my CPU.  FX 6300 @ 4.1Ghz, R9 270x @ 1070 / 1400.  Apparently the CPU reached 97 degrees at one point (recommended thermal limit 70!).  I'm on the stock cooler so I wouldn't be surprised if it throttled a bit, as my score seems a bit low to me.


your score seems just about right, but that CPU temp is very dangerous. I'd stay at 3.8ghz mark until u get a better cooling unit


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 21, 2015)

Watrevir said:


> 692. Just upgraded my CPU.  FX 6300 @ 4.1Ghz, R9 270x @ 1070 / 1400.  Apparently the CPU reached 97 degrees at one point (recommended thermal limit 70!).  I'm on the stock cooler so I wouldn't be surprised if it throttled a bit, as my score seems a bit low to me.



That 97 degrees is probably the socket temp and not the core temp.  Still too high tho.


----------



## Watrevir (Jan 21, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> That 97 degrees is probably the socket temp and not the core temp.  Still too high tho.



This is from HWMonitor.  I redid the benchmark and afterwards it showed my max temp as 161C, which is obviously wrong.  Where does HWMonitor get its readings?


----------



## gamble (Jan 21, 2015)

Try MSI Afterburner monitoring to compare maybe.  I use both AB and HWMonitor though at the same time


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 21, 2015)

Watrevir said:


> This is from HWMonitor.  I redid the benchmark and afterwards it showed my max temp as 161C, which is obviously wrong.  Where does HWMonitor get its readings?




If you are looking for advice on this issue it would help to create a new thread.  I would also include a screenshot of HWMonitor if you choose to start a thread.


----------



## Ace_of_DiscaL (Jan 21, 2015)

CPU-Z Validation: http://valid.x86.fr/iuv8f1


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 21, 2015)

Ace_of_DiscaL said:


>


what GPU is that and what clocks are you running?


----------



## Ace_of_DiscaL (Jan 21, 2015)

I'm new here, so sorry ... Just updated my system specs! Please check now.

PS. I'm very new to OC'ing & benchmarking btw  http://valid.x86.fr/iuv8f1


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 22, 2015)

Ace_of_DiscaL said:


> I'm new here, so sorry ... Just updated my system specs! Please check now.
> 
> PS. I'm very new to OC'ing & benchmarking btw


thanks for updating the system specs in your profile, but you should still list them on the post to make is easier for the OP to update the list. And that score seems a little low for that GPU. I'll assume you are running stock clocks if you are new to OC'ing and benchmarking.


----------



## Ace_of_DiscaL (Jan 22, 2015)

I guess that there is much more to learn, I have tried to get a stable 5MHz on the CPU, but it seems that the motherboard is only capable of so much. Maybe it is just my fear of overvolting?


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 22, 2015)

Ace_of_DiscaL said:


> I guess that there is much more to learn, I have tried to get a stable 5MHz on the CPU, but it seems that the motherboard is only capable of so much. Maybe it is just my fear of overvolting?


this particular benchmark has more to do with the GPU and less with the CPU, grab MSI afterburner and check you clock settings. That is kind of the OC starting point for most GPU OC'ing. and just for reference, my R9 290 ran a 1300 pretty much stock, so you may want to start a new thread to get some advise on how to help that.  best of luck.


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 22, 2015)

Still waiting on a couple parts to OC my GPUs a bit more so I started pushing the CPU OC and was able to push my score past 4000!  My i4770K is running at 4.5, up from 4.3.

1x R9 295x2 @ 1150/1500
1x R9 290x @ 1175/1500
4770K @ 4.*5*


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jan 22, 2015)

> 8.) The only allowed "tweak" is overclocking. Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted. The goal is to provide a chart that represents real world usage for people both in and outside of this community to use to compare their cards or for comparison when buying a new card.



Does this include fore enabling pcie gen 3?
http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3135/


----------



## Vandor (Jan 23, 2015)

New here, figured I'd add mine, mild overclocks, although seems like a low score to me.
3770K @ 4.0Ghz
2x R9 290's @ 1011/1250


----------



## VisualRaptor (Jan 24, 2015)

hey everyone just got a new set up and wanted to see how i compared to others sadly only on 1650x1050. Will be upgrading monitor soon! Specs are 1493/3505


----------



## The_Intruder (Jan 24, 2015)

Here is my 3nd benchmark. Geforce GTX 970. 36 point improvement!


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 24, 2015)

Core i5-2500K @4,5 GHz, R9 290 @ 1271/1604 MHz: 1605 pts.


----------



## Nullifier (Jan 25, 2015)

I'll be back soon with a better OC on GPU and CPU

1080
Xorium -- I5 3570k 4.2ghz --- Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming SLI --- 1519/1853 --- 115.3 --- 2905





4k
Xorium -- I5 3570k 4.2ghz --- Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming SLI --- 1519/1853 --- 34.2 --- 862


----------



## vivanv (Jan 25, 2015)

Today i had the privilege of testing my new rig. Mainly used for photoshop, video-editing and heavy gaming. 

Im totally in love with this cpu and motherboard :awe:

Edit; this was on 1367core /1753 mem and i7 5960x @ 4.5ghz


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 25, 2015)

vivanv said:


> Today i had the privilege of testing my new rig. Mainly used for photoshop, video-editing and heavy gaming.
> 
> Im totally in love with this cpu and motherboard :awe:
> 
> Edit; this was on 1367core /1753 mem and i7 5960x @ 4.5ghz


Screenshot must be within the software to avoid any alteration , since you use photoshop a lot I guess u know what we talkin bout


----------



## vivanv (Jan 25, 2015)

Hehe, yes, i know what you mean 

That's the thing, when i press printscreen after this screen pop ups i copy paste it in paint. But it doesnt show me the actual screen, just the desktop with unigine valley.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 25, 2015)

vivanv said:


> Hehe, yes, i know what you mean
> 
> That's the thing, when i press printscreen after this screen pop ups i copy paste it in paint. But it doesnt show me the actual screen, just the desktop with unigine valley.


press F12 when the benchmark is done, it will make a screen shot in C/users/you/heaven


----------



## vivanv (Jan 25, 2015)

Thank you very much, will run it again and post the screen


----------



## vivanv (Jan 26, 2015)

Boy, do i feel f*cked now, hehe 

I forgot to turn on the AA @ 8x on the previous benchmarks. It seemed to good to be true. Anyways, here it is 

Edit: how the hell is is i7-3930K @ 4.6 ghz able to outbeat this? Doesn't make any sense to me hehe.

The score seems way too low. Im curious about any ways of improving this benchmark.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 26, 2015)

vivanv said:


> Boy, do i feel f*cked now, hehe
> 
> I forgot to turn on the AA @ 8x on the previous benchmarks. It seemed to good to be true. Anyways, here it is
> 
> ...


This is a gaming benchmark, which is gpu demanding. Your 5960 and a i7 920 aren't that different when it comes to gaming performance. Intel has been on a lead for years over its ecosystem

btw I'd check your sli profile, configuration, your min fps is way too low, I get 32 with a single 980


----------



## HammerON (Jan 26, 2015)

The low FPS can sometimes come from not letting the benchmark "spool". Once you bring up the benchmark application let it run for a bit in the background before starting the benchmark.


----------



## Steevo (Jan 26, 2015)

HammerON said:


> The low FPS can sometimes come from not letting the benchmark "spool". Once you bring up the benchmark application let it run for a bit in the background before starting the benchmark.


warm caches


----------



## AlexLozano (Jan 26, 2015)

Fx 8350 4.6 Ghz Nvidia GTX 970


----------



## AlexLozano (Jan 26, 2015)

My 8350 FX takes the cake i win.


----------



## Seth Collen (Jan 26, 2015)

AlexLozano said:


> My 8350 FX takes the cake i win.



Doesn't look like you have AA 8x turned on


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 26, 2015)

AlexLozano said:


> My 8350 FX takes the cake i win.


yeah.....no


----------



## Whitekush (Jan 26, 2015)

Core i5-4670K @3,8 GHz, Asus Gtx 780  @ 1085/1175MHz: 1510 pts.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 26, 2015)

AlexLozano said:


> My 8350 FX takes the cake i win.



Read the rules and understand them. * Don't *PM me to brag about false results and *don't* PM me to update the scoreboard. 



Whitekush said:


> Core i5-4670K @3,8 GHz, Asus Gtx 780  @ 1085/1175MHz: 1494 pts.



1080p Fullscreen.


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Jan 26, 2015)

AlexLozano said:


> My 8350 FX takes the cake i win.



First off, CPU really does not matter much. I saw a 40 point increase using my 3930k at 4.6GHz compared to my 2600k at 4.6GHz. Those 40 points are more likely from the higher OC I ran on my 780ti.

Secondly, the highest scoring GTX 970 only scored 1688 points, and you actually think you outscored that by almost 400 points, plus outscore all the GTX 780ti and GTX 980 cards?


----------



## Whitekush (Jan 26, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Read the rules and understand them. * Don't *PM me to brag about false results and *don't* PM me to update the scoreboard.  It is a privilege, not a right.
> 
> 
> 
> 1080p Fullscreen.


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 26, 2015)

also make sure to deactivate the intel hd integrated. i know its kind of ridiculous but the score is invalid with it showing on the benchmark. look a couple of pages back to see a previously documented situation with the same issue.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 26, 2015)

KillaKwik said:


> also make sure to deactivate the intel hd integrated. i know its kind of ridiculous but the score is invalid with it showing on the benchmark. look a couple of pages back to see a previously documented situation with the same issue.



Scores fall in line with or without the Intel HD.  That "rule" carried over from the old thread.  

Does anyone have an issue with removing rule #4?



> 4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 26, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Scores fall in line with or without the Intel HD.  That "rule" carried over from the old thread.
> 
> Does anyone have an issue with removing the disabled Intel HD rule?


Not a problem with me. Thanks for all your hard work.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 27, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Scores fall in line with or without the Intel HD.  That "rule" carried over from the old thread.
> 
> Does anyone have an issue with removing rule #4?


 Sounds fine to me as well.


----------



## Jetster (Jan 27, 2015)

BarbaricSoul said:


> First off, CPU really does not matter much. I saw a 40 point increase using my 3930k at 4.6GHz compared to my 2600k at 4.6GHz. Those 40 points are more likely from the higher OC I ran on my 780ti.




Its running  Lucid-Virtu MVP that tips the scores with the igpu. I'm not even sure if you can still run it and run the test. Someone should try and see if your going to remove the rule. But I don't really care


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 27, 2015)

Thanks for the replies so far.  I'll give it a couple days to see if anyone has valid complaints (and evidence) that integrated graphics are affecting Heaven scores.


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 27, 2015)

I own a dell 15r 5337, amd 8950m + intel graphics, can confirm heaven is not affected


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

Hello, I would like some advice, I installed a new video card, the "SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X R9 290 4GB GDDR5 TRI-X OC" testing to bench "Ungine Heaven 4.0" leaving it in default to "1030 MHz Core and 1400MHz ram" this is the result, in your opinion everything is normal ???


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> Hello, I would like some advice, I installed a new video card, the "SAPPHIRE VAPOR-X R9 290 4GB GDDR5 TRI-X OC" testing to bench "Ungine Heaven 4.0" leaving it in default to "1030 MHz Core and 1400MHz ram" this is the result, in your opinion everything is normal ???


Your score seems to be a bit too low. Make sure your card doesn't reduce the GPU frequency too much. I will set up my R9 290 to 1030/1400 MHz and will post my result in the evening, just to see the difference.


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

Ok but what they it seems strange is the maxfps, 50 too low for a card like this !?!


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> Ok but what they it seems strange is the maxfps, 50 too low for a card like this !?!


Simply run the benchmark once again with MSI Afterburner launched in background and check the GPU frequency for sudden drops afterwards. Increase power limit if necessary, check also GPU temps. Max. fps should normally be somewhere above 100.


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

Broco07 said:


> Simply run the benchmark once again with MSI Afterburner launched in background and check the GPU frequency for sudden drops afterwards. Increase power limit if necessary, check also GPU temps. Max. fps should normally be somewhere above 100.


In fact now I checked I drop the clock frequency ranging (840mhz-863MHz-933MHz-1021mhz- 1030mhz) I increased the power limit to +50, obtained 1-2 fps more


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> In fact now I checked I drop the clock frequency ranging (840mhz-863MHz-933MHz-1021mhz- 1030mhz) I increased the power limit to +50, obtained 1-2 fps more


Does the card maintain the GPU frequency 1030 MHz constantly after increasing the power limit?


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

YES limit power 50 ..and drop clock frequenzy...I do not think it's the power supply? "Corsair GS700".


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> Ok but what they it seems strange is the maxfps, 50 too low for a card like this !?!


well ... here is my result (1150/1500)
already posted it but as a reference for your post it can serve again (note that my card is under water) i use max power limite and +25 on core voltage (afterburner) one is with a FX6300 and the second with my current 4690K but i doubt you would get a lower score than my FX6300 with a 2600K and on the FX6300 it was not under water (ref cooler)


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

Thanks for the answers, but the problem I think MSI After Burn... if I disable MSI AB, everything at default, this is the result, I uninstalled and reinstalled, checked the settings in msiafterburner 410 , deleted the folder profiles ... I have no idea


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> Thanks for the answers, but the problem I think MSI After Burn... if I disable MSI AB, everything at default, this is the result, I uninstalled and reinstalled, checked the settings in msiafterburner 410 , deleted the folder profiles ... I have no idea


Very strange indeed. I have the same card and have read post after post about issues with those cards being undervolted. What is suggested and what I did is RMA it until I got a good one. I purchased mine through amazon as newegg was not carrying it. They overnighted me one each time I was not satisfied. I at one point had 3 cards sitting in my room. Even tried to crossfire for the heck of it. Of course, the bad cards did not really allow this. I hope you purchased from a company that will make RMAs easy.


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 28, 2015)

mingolito said:


> Thanks for the answers, but the problem I think MSI After Burn... if I disable MSI AB, everything at default, this is the result, I uninstalled and reinstalled, checked the settings in msiafterburner 410 , deleted the folder profiles ... I have no idea


Finally, this is the real world performance of R9 290, 1416 pts, that's much better than before . I think for tweaking Sapphire cards, Sapphire Trixx is the better alternative. I've had some issues with Afterburner, so I disabled voltage regulation via MB and I'm using it for monitoring only. With Trixx, my card is rock stable at 1200+ MHz (the card is watercooled).


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

Sin, I was comfortable with MSIAB, strange that the program is not 100% compatible with the R9290
Now they are obliged to use two programs, MSI for monitoring and Trixx for OC
Is not laying around there is some modification program MSIAB to solve this inconvenience????????


----------



## mingolito (Jan 28, 2015)

OK I solved......That voltage you have put for 1500 Ram Clock??? when I try to put the clock RAM 1500 to me freezes the desktop


----------



## Schmuckley (Jan 29, 2015)

RealNeil said:


> I found that my IGP on the 2600K system was on for my recent post, So I uninstalled it and rebooted. It reinstalled itself. Then I disabled it and ran Heaven and got essentially the same score. My two R9-280s are both listed now. (X2 on the score)
> 
> View attachment 61539



That seems less than it could be..
What drivers are you using?


----------



## puuhapeku (Jan 29, 2015)

Edit: Old score http://i.imgur.com/XuduHuU.jpg


----------



## Chatelike (Jan 29, 2015)

puuhapeku said:


> Here is my score.


Those are some sick clocks bro, I wonder why you scored so low, maybe your tdp limit? Have you tried 120% 95 c unlinked with priority on temp?


----------



## puuhapeku (Jan 29, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> Those are some sick clocks bro, I wonder why you scored so low, maybe your tdp limit? Have you tried 120% 95 c unlinked with priority on temp?



Actually I havent. It might be the tdp limit so I have to try to tweak some more. I think I can get even more hertz from gtx 980. Everything running on air thought.

Edit: Here is the new score. Didnt change clocks as it was a bit unstable.


----------



## Broco07 (Jan 29, 2015)

mingolito said:


> OK I solved......That voltage you have put for 1500 Ram Clock??? when I try to put the clock RAM 1500 to me freezes the desktop


As far as I know, there's no possibility to change the memory voltage on R9 290 (at least not for reference card, they do not have any programmable voltage regulator for video RAM). You can go and check it in Afterburner, whether the slider for the memory voltage is grayed out or not.


----------



## Yosher (Jan 31, 2015)

Fx-6300 @4.2Ghz  Asus R9 290 DCU2OC 1150/1350

I got a good Asus card on an RMA


----------



## mingolito (Jan 31, 2015)

Broco07 said:


> As far as I know, there's no possibility to change the memory voltage on R9 290 (at least not for reference card, they do not have any programmable voltage regulator for video RAM). You can go and check it in Afterburner, whether the slider for the memory voltage is grayed out or not.



Hi @Broco07...exact regulator is gray, but I meant the regulator "AuxVoltage" I can not understand its function, set to +0 or +20, not any different, in short, I wanted to know in what situations must be regulated?
I also tested TriXX, which is pretty good, but the OC settings are lost forever every time you restart the system, everything comes back into default, the menu setting seems to have flagged in the right way.
Thanksss.


----------



## jhonny97 (Jan 31, 2015)

just benched my 2x msi r9 290 (977mhz / 1250mhz),

is everything allright with this highscore request?


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 31, 2015)

jhonny97 said:


> just benched my 2x msi r9 290 (977mhz / 1250mhz),
> 
> is everything allright with this highscore request?
> View attachment 62299


nothing looks bad with the result posting. however, the clocks look mighty slow for the r9 290. are those reference? are you planning on doing some different cooling? because the 92C looks a little scary. just something to consider. i have a single r9 290 and am able to run it at 1175/1470 completely stable. but with those temps i would not suggest pushing anything higher without looking into case airflow and possible aftermarket GPU cooling (whether air or H2O).


----------



## jhonny97 (Jan 31, 2015)

these are the reference speeds,  and yes im defenitely going to do something with the cooling(and the speeds)(i barely made it though the bench without the clock-speeds decreasing to 300-400 mhz....), but i have currently just 2 x 80mm fans blowing into the direction of the cards......i dont know if i should go H2O, what cooling system do you have?


----------



## KillaKwik (Jan 31, 2015)

I'm running a sapphire vapor-x, just a really great air cooling system and it shows up OC at 1030/1400. I like sapphire because they actually make the reference series cards for AMD. If going with the reference cards you have. Water may be a good choice. I would look into using one of the corsair solutions. Check out the HG10 A1 bracket. You just use the reference fans and a corsair H55 or better. Just a thought. Could be less expensive than a full custom loop, especially a xfire config.


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Jan 31, 2015)

I used this debacle with the 970 misinformation to facilitate a "Step-Up", if you will, to a 980
EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX2.0
1560/1960

4790k 4.7







Im eyeing 2K but I spent a solid 2 hours and I don't think it'll happen without more voltage. *edit  -via hardmod


----------



## Uings (Feb 1, 2015)

AMD 6800k and msi r9 290  i was surprised by the score 
1120/1450


----------



## w00t692 (Feb 1, 2015)

Been playing with this all morning.  This is about the limit right here until i switch up the cooling on the card..






4690k @ 4.4ghz
980 gtx @ 1560/1950


----------



## TorqueDnB (Feb 1, 2015)

New systems is up and running, CPU is lacking power but works for now







A10-7700K@ 4Ghz 290X@1245/1660 all watercooled.


----------



## w00t692 (Feb 1, 2015)

^^ definitely cpu limited at those clock speeds for the 290x.  I'd say your max fps would go up quite a bit with a better overclock or a different cpu


----------



## xccel (Feb 1, 2015)

CPU stock 3500mhz 
My setup : http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/496167662.jpg


----------



## TorqueDnB (Feb 1, 2015)

w00t692 said:


> ^^ definitely cpu limited at those clock speeds for the 290x.  I'd say your max fps would go up quite a bit with a better overclock or a different cpu



Yeah, but i'am running a Matx mobo and unfortunately AMD doens't do anything with a AM3+ socket any more. Maybe in the future i'll switch to Intel. 



xccel said:


> CPU stock 3500mhz
> My setup : http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/496167662.jpg



Nice setup! I can't get my 290 below 45c when running benchtests, pretty crazy cooling capacity you got there.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 2, 2015)

As promised, here's two 980s on a faster system, namely a 3930K @ 4.8 on an ASUS R4E (16GB @ 2133 CL11),
with 1366MHz GPU core...






Ian.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 2, 2015)

And here's three 980s on the same CPU/mbd setup, again at 1366MHz. Not yet really explored what these cards
can do, so only +100 on the default core atm.






I think that's the no. 2 spot on the multi-GPU list. 8)

Ian.


----------



## MrBucket101 (Feb 2, 2015)

3770k @ 4.5GHz
780 TI 1280/1774

Could easily go higher, but I don't want to use the classified tool every time I boot to re-establish my voltage settings. I just used the overvoltage setting in precision X to 1.3v.


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 2, 2015)

I'll try to sort through these posts when I have some down time later this week.


----------



## Gregory Hartley (Feb 2, 2015)

3570k @ 4.5GHz
GTX 970 1349/1613


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 2, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> And here's three 980s on the same CPU/mbd setup, again at 1366MHz. Not yet really explored what these cards
> can do, so only +100 on the default core atm.
> 
> 
> ...



How dare you took my spot 

Congrats man. OC that to maximum. who knows you'll take the crown for multi-gpu


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 2, 2015)

night.fox writes:
> ... How dare you took my spot 

  Hehe, sorry... wasn't really expecting it to end up so high, though now I'm having to avoid all thoughts
of buying a 4th, I mean it's just a couple of clicks away... argh! Online shopping is evil.

Just doing some Unigine tests atm, then Futuremark, and then one of the 980s will go into my main gaming PC.
After that, a 2nd 980 stays on the R4E for my new gaming PC for Elite Dangerous, driving a 48" TV, leaving the
3rd 980 for continued general benchmarking.

> Congrats man. OC that to maximum. who knows you'll take the crown for multi-gpu 

I'd love to buy a 4th and have a go, but not until prices drop. I only bought the 3rd 'cos I sold some stuff to cover it.

Actually I might do a couple of quick tests with 2 of them on the 2700K/5.0 + M4E, just to fill in some data points.

Ian.


----------



## Gregory Hartley (Feb 2, 2015)

xccel said:


> CPU stock 3500mhz
> My setup : http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/496167662.jpg




The gap between your low and high fps is huge.. Something must have gone wrong lol


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 2, 2015)

Just run it twice, it always stutters badly on the first run, and don't press F9 until after the viewpoint
has moved past the round steps on the right.

Ian.


----------



## zieg (Feb 5, 2015)

i5 4670k@3400 
Sli 780ti@941/1750


----------



## THE_EGG (Feb 5, 2015)

Nothing too amazing here but;
MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G with a moderate OC (see the GPU-Z window for info)
Intel i7-5930K @ 4.6ghz


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 5, 2015)

Cool background btw! S'funny, every Win7 inst I've done, first thing I do is change the background to the Stone Henge picture.

Something odd I've noticed about all these submissions: sometimes the top-right info display shows the GPU clock, other times
not, but even when it does in many cases the values seem strange, or is Heaven showing the boost clock? Not sure...

Ian.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 5, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> night.fox writes:
> > ... How dare you took my spot
> 
> Hehe, sorry... wasn't really expecting it to end up so high, though now I'm having to avoid all thoughts
> ...




Great. Can you post your results? Because I would like to see difference between a PLX board and a non PLX board. Heaven is more on GPU. But weird thing actually is that Even I OC more my GPU's, I cant reach or I cant exceed my score at the table on page 1. I got a lowered scored actually which, I could only think that its because of PCI lanes limited.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 5, 2015)

Just finishing setting up my gaming PC for Elite Dangerous, then I'll start testing the M4E with two 980s.

I know what you mean about the scores dropping when the GPUs are oc'd, I saw the same, but could
that be because the GPUs are throttling back a bit? Have you tried logging all the clock rates while
running the test, see if they're dropping at all at any point? I plan on doing this, haven't got round to it yet.

Maybe the issue is with the Heaven test itself? I'd still like to know why it stutters twice at the start of
every test run, and then again later, forcing down the minimum rates to an unrepresentative level. Running
the test twice gets more sensible results, but the effect still occurs. Something similar happens with the
Stalker COP test on an initial run, but a 2nd run works fully ok; Heavens stutters every time.

Or it could be the scaling with more than 2 GPUs is behaving oddly.

Ian.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 5, 2015)

yup I monitor the clock rates and temperatures and they are fine. I increase the power limit to maximum. I pump up the voltage and so on you know basics of overclocking.

my system is stable at 1230 core and 1350 memory. Didnt bother ocing much memory but anyway, I OC my gpu's slowly from 1080core/1350 memory but everytime I oc more than that, score drops. its other way around actually. and not only on heaven but all benchmark softwares I have heaven, valley, 3dmark11, firestrike (basic, extreme, ultra). CPU and RAM settings are same. 

So I figured, its my cpu is the culprit. Could be be also pci lanes limited. Power is not problem because I have ax1500i + Silverstone 1000w. so its ok. I dont know. But it wont matter because I know its my CPU lol. I have itching for x99 now. But ddr4 prices is slowly coming down now and I am still not decided which x99 mobo I will buy  but thats another story


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 5, 2015)

Chernobyl (my main system) had a go at this.  1x R9 290X @ GPU:1010 and Mem:1260 , and a Xeon W3690 @ 3.84Ghz

Score seems a bit low (a GT 460 beats me somewhere up there!).  I know I hardly overclock at all so that's probably hurting me...  but is it a bit low still?  Anything to worry about here gentlemen?






*EDIT:  Ignore the above submission, somethings gotta be massively misconfigured, I'll start a new thread if I can't figure it out because my brothers otherwise identical GTX 780 system more than doubles that score*






These aren't really meant to be proper submissions, just a mystery in progress for me I guess...


----------



## R-T-B (Feb 5, 2015)

New post for my first valid benchmark.  It turns out the control panels above weren't set to default.  The AMD card in particular was SUPERSAMPLING not multisampling, really hurting it's AA performance.

Chernobyl's true performance is here:


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 5, 2015)

night.fox writes:
> So I figured, its my cpu is the culprit. Could be be also pci lanes limited. ...

Indeed, hard to tease out these issues, though normally one would expect a 4770K @ 4.4 to be more than sufficient.


> I have itching for x99 now. But ddr4 prices is slowly coming down now and I am still not decided which x99 mobo I will buy 

I didn't bother with X99 due to the insane cost of DDR4, and the minimal gain one would have over X79. I bought
a bunch of X79 items at extremely good prices, total cost massively less than an X99 build:

ASUS R4E: 103 UKP (eBay, manufac. refurb BIN, item 281555191839)
Backplate: 10 UKP (eBay, new BIN, item 251788805619)
3930K C2: 225 UKP (eBay, used, item 261733380939)
1kW PSU: 55 UKP (ebay, used, item 231411474846)
Antec 302: 45 UKP (eBay, new, item 261735995836)
H80: 45 UKP (eBay, manufac. refurb BIN, I bought five of them in Apr/2013 from Scan)
Samsung 850 Pro: 107 UKP (eBay, new, item 221608679847)

The only items I bought new from normal sources were the RAM (GSkill TridentX 4x4GB @ 2400, 129 UKP from ebuyer),
fans (7x NDS PWM, total 75 UKP; I never use stock case fans, they suck), DVDRW (13 UKP), and the EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 (455 UKP
from Scan). Late edition last night, bought a 3-pack of 4pin 30cm fan extension cables for 7.30 UKP (eBay item 171643026948),
so I can link up the side panel fans in a manner which means one doesn't have to fiddle with the mbd connections directly when
removing them for maintenance, etc.

(I try to get all sorts of items from eBay & elsewhere that, if possible, are new but sold via normal auction, etc. This week I bagged
a new OCZ ARC 100 240GB for only 43)

What would it cost to build a 6-core X99 with 16GB, new PSU, new 850 Pro, etc.? 

This is my biggest gripe with X99, it's not _enough_ better than X79 to be worth bothering with IMO unless cash really doesn't
matter and/or the 8-core will definitely help one's task (certainly wouldn't for gaming). I'd rather save the pennies, use them
for something else, which I did: CH Pro Throttle, Thrustmaster T-16000M joystick, and a Corsair H2100 headset, and will
probably buy a TrackIR later. Anyway, the savings by building X79 meant I could afford the peripherals that'll make the
gaming experience all the better. 8)

Ian.

PS. I typed this post a couple of hours ago, had to wait for the site to come back up before submitting. In the meantime,
I got sucked in testing Crysis on the new setup, max detail at 1080 gives around 65 to 160fps (4x AA, AOC, all in-game settings
maxed). Ahh the joys at last of Vsync ON.


----------



## Win32 (Feb 5, 2015)

Hi all!

I just got my new gtx 980 phantom today and i never used benchmark so this is the first time.
I just wonder if u folks can tell me that this results is ok or not.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 5, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> night.fox writes:
> > So I figured, its my cpu is the culprit. Could be be also pci lanes limited. ...
> 
> Indeed, hard to tease out these issues, though normally one would expect a 4770K @ 4.4 to be more than sufficient.
> ...



Yeah if I am in US buying in ebay wouldnt be a problem since I could easily return. if there is a problem. and selling again should be no problem. The thing was 16gb G.skill 2400mhz DDR4 here cost about 350$. 16gb ddr3 2400mhz is 240$ so yeah 100$ difference.

x79 and x99 mobo and cpu almost same cost (yeah here even old tech price never go down) so between the 2, I would go for x99 since its newer tech. Ram only now. but the "naked" (without the heatsink), namely crucial, teamgroup, samsung etc. ddr4 8gb 2133mhz cost only 10$ higher than 8gb ddr3 1600mhz. So price of the ddr4 now is stabilizing. I could also see amazon ddr4 prices starting to drop since alot of manufacturers are opting for ddr4.

Of course if you have x79 already there is no point of upgrading to x99. But since I am going for HEDT platform, I would opt for newer tech.

ps, yeah seems TPU was down earlier


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 5, 2015)

Alas the markups over here can be nasty, and note I personally wouldn't buy the 5820K, I object to the
PCIe compromise (because IMO it nulls Intel's decision making process in releasing the 4820K, a chip
which I rather like and, obviously, is perfectly capable of outclassing the 5820K for gaming since it can
by definition handle 3/4-way CF/SLIno problem).

The Rampage V Extreme is 345 UKP here, so I saved 235 UKP (over $400) on the mbd alone. That one
saving covered the cost of almost all the peripheral extras. Likewise, the 5930K is 450 UKP, so that's
another 225 UKP saving, and the RAM was about 80 less than buying the DDR4 kit I would have chosen
if I had done an X99 build (16GB/2400 CL14).

I'll be more impressed with DDR4 when pricing comes down to the point where a 32GB kit is reasonable,
as it was for DDR3 a year ago.

Note that I know there are cheaper X99 boards, but since I bought an R4E I believe the comparison is fair.
Plus, there are equivalently cheaper X79 boards too, eg. I bought an ASUS P9X79 Deluxe for my brother
for only 75, fully boxed with all the original parts, works perfectly.

I do want to get an X99 setup eventually so I can expand my benchmarking stuff, but I'll wait until either
prices drop a lot more, or I can bag an eBay bargain (it happens, eg. I bought a 3970X for only 245 last Sept.)

Ian.


----------



## Chatelike (Feb 5, 2015)

Win32 said:


> Hi all!
> 
> I just got my new gtx 980 phantom today and i never used benchmark so this is the first time.
> I just wonder if u folks can tell me that this results is ok or not.
> ...


If you turn vsync off you will see actual results, around 1800


----------



## Win32 (Feb 6, 2015)

Today i will get new board,pc and ram and maybe then i will get full potencial because this is weird.max temp 55C...
If this temp is trully ok, then im very very satisfied! On idle 20C lol . The previous card was gtx 470 good edition and the temps was on max 70 with afterburner fan control and without, 90!


----------



## Win32 (Feb 6, 2015)

Anyway, new PC components epic fail...


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 6, 2015)

Win32 said:


> Anyway, new PC components epic fail...
> 
> View attachment 62477



As the post above referenced, make sure VSYNC is off.  Your Max FPS should be above 140, not 61.5.

Also, Updated.


----------



## Win32 (Feb 6, 2015)

Thanks for reply but im trying to get some help here http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/gtx-980-970-club.205567/page-13

It seems that i have unstable motherboard or fx-9370 cpu.


----------



## Ebo (Feb 6, 2015)

thats my score on a I7-5820K, all at stock


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 6, 2015)

@FX-GMC it looks like your table for the multi-gpu score has an error. From what I recall @mapesdhs has 4700+ score and not more than 5700+ if he is indeed above 5700, should he be on top?


----------



## Ebo (Feb 7, 2015)

thats the same settings as yours *win32*, even with screen set at the same. 
All at stockspeed and on air.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 7, 2015)

night.fox said:


> @FX-GMC it looks like your table for the multi-gpu score has an error. From what I recall @mapesdhs has 4700+ score and not more than 5700+ ...



Well spotted!   Yes, it should be 4789, I guess though still @ no. 2 spot.

Will test shortly with a 2700K/5.0, should be interesting...

Ian.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 7, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> Well spotted!   Yes, it should be 4789, I guess though still @ no. 2 spot.
> 
> Will test shortly with a 2700K/5.0, should be interesting...
> 
> Ian.



well when I check after he said he updated, i saw the list. I know and I cannot forget that 2nd slot because it was my spot for few months until you post your own results  

so yeah I couldnt miss that part.


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 7, 2015)

Hmmm.... why is my score so pathetic? According to the table in the first post even a 7850 scores twice as much. This is a with the 7950 @ 900/1250 (stock clock) and +0% power limit. GPU-Z shows 100% gpu load at all times and no underclocking. Temp is at around 64C


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 7, 2015)

krusha03 said:


> Hmmm.... why is my score so pathetic? According to the table in the first post even a 7850 scores twice as much. This is a with the 7950 @ 900/1250 (stock clock) and +0% power limit. GPU-Z shows 100% gpu load at all times and no underclocking. Temp is at around 64C
> 
> View attachment 62500



indeed thats a pathetic score. Have you tried updating drivers? mobo bios? and so on? what about windows update? have you tried re running and see if still same?


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 7, 2015)

night.fox said:


> indeed thats a pathetic score. Have you tried updating drivers? mobo bios? and so on? what about windows update? have you tried re running and see if still same?


Ok found the problem. I was toying with the application profiles to reduce the tearing in one older game but apparently i changed the global settings instead of only that game. Getting about 830 now which seems allright. since the only demanding game i play is BF4 with Mantle i havent noticed this affecting me otherwise


----------



## dcf-joe (Feb 7, 2015)

I'm back to claim the number four slot. I have adjusted a lot of values in my BIOS other than core and memory clock speeds. Here is my new score with a i7 2600K at 4.8 GHz and my GTX 980 (Gigabyte G1 Gaming) at 1586 MHz core and 1966 MHz memory.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 8, 2015)

That's not something I've tried at all yet, upping the memory clock. How did you find that to be in terms of
improved scores for a given increase? With previous cards, raising the core clock gave the best improvements.
Does the 980 behave the same way?

Ian.


----------



## dcf-joe (Feb 8, 2015)

In my honest opinion, increasing the core still yields the better gains versus memory clock for clock. I adjust my memory when I want to get an extra few points.


----------



## MiataManiac (Feb 8, 2015)

Hi all, just spent a couple hours combing through all this and it made me want to re-bench my system.  Running an i5-2500K at stock speeds (3.3 Ghz) and two EVGA GTX 660 Ti SC+ cards in SLI (1,010/1,089).  I'll have a new benchmark for a new system in a week or so.  Figured this would be a great way to see before and after results.  On another note, I'm the top 660 Ti SLi on the board... (I'm the only 660 Ti SLi on the board... I think.  I'm kinda really tired so I could be completely wrong).


----------



## xccel (Feb 8, 2015)

hello my setup R9 290 x3 not 3x R9 290x ^^


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 9, 2015)

Exploring PCIe issues, here are my three 980s, again at 1366MHz (the same minor +100 bump over stock), on an ASUS Maxiumus IV Extreme,
with a 5GHz 2700K (16GB RAM @ 2133 CL9):







It is less than the R4E setup, but not by much.


And just to provide a baseline data point on the single-GPU table, here's one 980 @ 1366MHz on the same M4E rig:






Hoping to test with an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer and an i7 875K next, but after that the 980s go their separate ways,
two into gaming systems. I wanna play E.D. asap! 

Ian.

PS. Mod-prod: main multi-GPU table still has the wrong number for my 3930K result.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 9, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> Exploring PCIe issues, here are my three 980s, again at 1366MHz (the same minor +100 bump over stock), on an ASUS Maxiumus IV Extreme,
> with a 5GHz 2700K (16GB RAM @ 2133 CL9):
> 
> 
> ...




Oh boy, you bring me down one more slot . Curse those 980's lol  

980's are really a beast.

But it wont make me still want to replace my 290's. I like them as now although I have more itch now for extreme platform


----------



## BarbaricSoul (Feb 9, 2015)

@FX-GMC , seems to be a mistake on the single-gpu table, that number 4 spot score was done with a GTX 980, not a 970.



Dontworriaboutit said:


> I used this debacle with the 970 misinformation to facilitate a "Step-Up", if you will, to a 980
> EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX2.0
> 1560/1960
> 
> ...


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 9, 2015)

Charts should be fixed.  Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## Meathead77 (Feb 9, 2015)

Not to bad for my First attempt with a mild overclock on the gtx 970.
System Specs:

I7-4790k @ 4.5ghz (only show 4ghz)
256gb Samsung 850 pro ssd
32gb ram @ 2133mhz
Msi gaming gtx 970
Asrock z97 extreme 6


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 9, 2015)

Meathead77 said:


> Not to bad for my First attempt with a mild overclock on the gtx 970.
> System Specs:
> 
> I7-4790k @ 4.5ghz (only show 4ghz)
> ...






> *1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
> 2.) Ultra Quality
> 3.) Extreme Tessellation*


----------



## mobiuus (Feb 9, 2015)

msi geforce gtx770 4gb gpu:1150 mem:2000(8000)  cpu:i7 4770k@4.5ghz


----------



## Devil-Walker (Feb 9, 2015)




----------



## Ja.KooLit (Feb 9, 2015)

Devil-Walker said:


>



you need to re bench using this setting. Check page 1



> Benchmark setup:
> 
> 1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
> 2.) Ultra Quality
> 3.) Extreme Tessellation


----------



## Devil-Walker (Feb 9, 2015)

my bad.


----------



## zieg (Feb 10, 2015)

i7 4790k@4.00 (turbo@4.40) stock
gtx 780ti@941/1750 stock







2nd try


----------



## MiataManiac (Feb 10, 2015)

Ah, I screwed up.  I put my mem clock speed as 1089.  That's the Boost clock, not the mem clock.  Should read 1010/1852.  Sorry about that!


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 10, 2015)

night.fox writes:
> ... Oh boy, you bring me down one more slot . Curse those 980's lol  



It'll be very interesting to see how thw P7P55 WS behaves. P55 has a lower latency arch overall than
X58 from that era, but the NF200 adds latency. We shall see. Just sorting out the CPU oc atm, though
turns out I fitted the board with an 870, not an 875K (must have stuck the latter on something else).
No matter, initial testing looks like 4.3GHz should work fine (I could push it a lot higher of course,
but I don't want to risk a burnout, trying to keep vcore below 1.4, atm it's 1.38).


> 980's are really a beast.

I'm struggling not to make those few easy clicks for a 4th.   Damn online shopping...  6 clicks and
it's in my house tomorrow! Must... resist... 


> But it wont make me still want to replace my 290's. I like them as now although I have more itch now for extreme platform 

Addictive isn't it?

One thing that's perhaps holding back my pushing the 980s is the slot spacing on these boards, typically
2-slot, so of course they sit right next to each other, making it a bit difficult to get fresh air into the middle
card and the one next to the CPU. However, one board I've not yet done much with could change that,
namely an Asrock X58 Extreme6, for which I have a 990X I've not yet done anything with. This board has
tri-slot spacing for all three main PCIe slots; here's a good picture. With three GPUs, they run at x16/x8/x8
(same as the P7P55 WS) vs. x8/x16/x16 for the M4E. I bought one because of the spacing, but while waiting
to source a CPU, I managed to bag a boxed M4E for the insanely low price of 87 UKP (this was several years
ago) along with a well priced 2700K, so I left the Extreme6 alone; got a 990X eventually, but not had time
to do much with it.

However, that's for the far future if I can ever be bothered to pull the 980s out for more testing.   Most
likely I'll mess about with three 580s on the Extreme6 to begin with. Atm it just has a XEON X5570 which I
need to get rid of.

Ian.


----------



## Meathead77 (Feb 10, 2015)

Thank you for the info FX-GMC... Sorry I don't bench much.  Was wondering why it got such a high score, until I went back and saw everyone was using FULL SCREEN mode.

Any rate.. Re-benched it for ya.  Not sure how good this is or bad or average... With FULL screen this time.

System specs:

I7-4790k
850 Pro SSD
32gb 2133mhz ram
MSI Gaming 970 GTX (core: 1419 / memory: 7510)


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 13, 2015)

Devil-Walker said:


> my bad.



1920x10*64* 8xAA *windowed* =/= 1920x10*80* 8xAA *fullscreen*

Updated.


----------



## MiataManiac (Feb 15, 2015)

New system benchmark is finally done.  i5-4690k and two GTX 980s all stock for now:


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 15, 2015)

Brand new here  Just popped a reference 980 into my rig and so far it's an absolute beast.

*Specs:*
FX-8350 @ 4.5ghz 
240gb Intel 530
8gb ram @ 1600mhz
Reference Nvidia GTX 980 (1.5GHz core/7.6GHz mem)
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 (rev. 4)


----------



## MiataManiac (Feb 15, 2015)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand GPUs overclocked:






Will probably overclock CPU later this week.


----------



## chester7lp (Feb 16, 2015)

4790k @ 4.6 / 2x evga gtx980 1503 / 2000


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 16, 2015)

I guess the list at the beginning of the thread isn't being updated anymore? I was looking forward to being the only AMD FX user in the top 20 seeing as how my score places me at #12 for single GPU.


----------



## HammerON (Feb 16, 2015)

If you look at a post a couple above yours you will notice that it was updated seveal days ago. Have a little patience.


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 16, 2015)

I'm not impatient...I was simply asking a question. But thanks.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 17, 2015)

Btw s4in7, a reference 980 definitely does not have a 1500MHz core.   The original reference 980's stock clock is 1126MHz.

Not sure I'd want to push one as high as 1.5, but plenty have judging by Futremark submissions.

Ian.

PS. Crazy/evil result coming shortly...


----------



## Aramil (Feb 17, 2015)

i5 3570k @4.2Ghz (ASUS Z77 Sabertooth)
Palit GTX980 Super Jet Stream @1493Mhz Boost / 7200Mhz Mem


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 18, 2015)

And here we are, crazy/evil data point, three 980s on a P55 board with an i7 870 @ 4.3GHz.   (mbd is an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer)






I think that nabs spot 6...

Note that the 980s in this config are running at x8/x8/x16 PCIe V2.0.

I'm not going to try any oc'd runs, but it seems to add on typically some small hundreds extra.

Ian.


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 18, 2015)

Probably a good thing the list wasn't updated--I just broke into the 1900 club!






And yes mapesdhs my 980 is in fact a reference card. It's highly OC'd, but it is a reference Nvidia card--i.e. stock blower and not from a board partner like EVGA, MSI, etc.

I'm at 1550MHz core and 7.6GHz mem 24/7 stable now (well, 24/3 as I've only ran these clocks for 3 days). With auto fan control I haven't exceeded 81c, and with manual control at 75% I don't see anything above 73c. Played several hours of Far Cry 3 & 4, Lichdom, and BF4 and haven't experienced a single crash or driver reset. She's a beaut!

Top 10, I'm gunning for ya


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 18, 2015)

Annnnnnnnd #10 for single GPU.





This was achieved at 1575MHz core 7.6GHz mem. I'm not pushing her any further...that's insane to me. I know the CPU has very little to do with this benchmark, but it sure will be nice to see an FX in the top 10. I'm not testing again, so rest assured this is my final score (unless someone dislodges me).

*Specs:*
FX-8350 @ 4.5ghz 
(2) 240gb Intel 530
8gb ram @ 1600mhz
Reference Nvidia GTX 980 (1.575GHz core/7.6GHz mem)
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 (rev. 4)


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 19, 2015)

s4in7 writes:
> And yes mapesdhs my 980 is in fact a reference card. It's highly OC'd, but it is a reference Nvidia card--
> i.e. stock blower and not from a board partner like EVGA, MSI, etc.

Oh I see! Sorry, I thought you meant it was a ref card running at ref clocks. 


> I'm at 1550MHz core and 7.6GHz mem 24/7 stable now ...

I worry about pushing mine that far. I'm sure they can handle it, but when they cost so much, makes me nervous.

I don't think I'll try anything mega again (ie. over 1400) until I've had a chance to read a bunch of forums, see what
people have done with the card in detail (my specific model I mean), example clocks vs. voltage/power settings, etc.


> ... and haven't experienced a single crash or driver reset. She's a beaut!

Indeed, the reference cooler really is very good. Certainly gave NVIDIA an edge for a while.


> Annnnnnnnd #10 for single GPU.

I haven't targeted single-GPU yet... 


> ... but it sure will be nice to see an FX in the top 10. ...

Small confession: I do have a number of AMD setups, just not had time to delve into them much yet. Eventually
though. I have a couple of Ph2 965s, 6000+, 250, 640 and a 1090T. Got some good results with the 640 oc'd,
but that was testing with lesser GPUs.

Ian.

PS. Added a whole bunch of 980 data to my site, testing with i5 760, 2700K and 3930K. Typing up a 3DMark
summary atm which compares to 7970 CF.


----------



## short2bucks (Feb 21, 2015)

i5 2500k @4.5Ghz
Asus 750 ti @1291 MHz Boost & 5600 MHz Mem.



 

Not bad for first run on a budget build (under $750)


----------



## Skimzy Gaming (Feb 23, 2015)

2x gtx 980 gigabyte g1 edition, Slightly overclocked
Intel 4790K
16 GB DDR3 RAM
8x Anti Ailiasing


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Feb 24, 2015)

Skimzy Gaming said:


> 2x gtx 980 gigabyte g1 edition, Slightly overclocked
> Intel 4790K
> 16 GB DDR3 RAM
> 8x Anti Ailiasing
> View attachment 62888



Your result indicates that 8X AA was not turned on (note that between 1920x1080 and fullscreen it should say "8xAA")
Average 2x SLI 980 score is about 3500-3100, the best atm is 3704


----------



## Protokille (Feb 24, 2015)

I'm bringing my contribution

i7 4790k 4,4Ghz
EVGA GTX 980 ACX 2.0 1540/2040 Mhz






Really glad of it, my 970 was barely making ~1430 Mhz
Even though this 980 is stock speed and i got a ***** ASIC of 68,4% i can push it high, so close to 2000 though :c


----------



## Makoki (Feb 24, 2015)

I guess it is correct...


----------



## bubbleawsome (Feb 24, 2015)

I got a 1080p screen! I guess it's time to benchmark.


----------



## NCoastTweaker (Feb 24, 2015)

NKOST- Intel i5 3570K@4.6 Ghz - Sapphire R9-280x Toxic / Sapphire HD 7970 VAPOR-X 6GB in CROSSFIRE @ 1235 Core / 1850Mem - GSkill Pi DDR3-1600 2 x 2GB oc'd to 2133Mhz - Score 2123

That's all I can get out of these two cards today.
I ran out of voltage. (maxxed it out at 1.3v)

I tried to go higher but the smokey part of the bench started flickering so I stopped.
If I take this rig outside in the 5 degree air, I can probably crack 2175.... 
(both cards are air cooled.)


----------



## Skimzy Gaming (Feb 25, 2015)

Dontworriaboutit said:


> Your result indicates that 8X AA was not turned on (note that between 1920x1080 and fullscreen it should say "8xAA")
> Average 2x SLI 980 score is about 3500-3100, the best atm is 3704



Ouh, I thought i had it on, i guess i forgot them. Ill upload the results with 8x AA now  Thanks for reminding!


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 25, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> And here we are, crazy/evil data point, three 980s on a P55 board with an i7 870 @ 4.3GHz.   (mbd is an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It might if I could view the image.

Updated.


----------



## Protokille (Feb 25, 2015)

I did it ! 2000+ 

I don't think it'll be stable at all in games but well this is all about Bench !

1556/2125 Mhz

I don't know how i did to get the memory clock to 4255 without crash but it sure gave me some points

Can't go beyond that without black screen and stuff,  i had 81,5 fps in the last scene in a bench but then it crashed, i tried like 20 Benchs to get it back but there was nothing to do...


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 26, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> It might if I could view the image.
> 
> Updated.



Try again, stupid ISP site was down today for a while. It's back up again now.

Ian.


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 26, 2015)

Protokille said:


> I did it ! 2000+
> 
> I don't think it'll be stable at all in games but well this is all about Bench !



Is it stable enough to run Firestrike?

Ian.


----------



## Caring1 (Feb 26, 2015)

Protokille said:


> I did it ! 2000+
> 
> I don't think it'll be stable at all in games but well this is all about Bench !


If it can sustain a minimum of 30FPS it should be good to go.


----------



## Protokille (Feb 26, 2015)

Well i can't run a Firestrike because when i download it from their website it just won't launch without crash and through Steam everytime i'm on the CPU test my PC crash despite i can do a OCCT test and everything is okay, when i had my 970s there was no issue but since a while even before my 980 i can't run it, i tried to drop clocks but it doesn't help and i already now that it's not gonna be stable with these settings, Firestrike is way more demading.

And i tried to play i had to put down the memory clock otherwise there was crazy artifacts and a little bit the core to not crash.

Still got very good perf i enjoy it


----------



## mapesdhs (Feb 27, 2015)

Hmm, only thing I can recall about 3DMark CPU tests is that the High Precision Event Timer must be turned on in the BIOS,
maybe that might help.

Ian.


----------



## blacktruckryder (Feb 27, 2015)

Stock clocks on the 970


----------



## vivanv (Feb 28, 2015)

New score. Now at 1467 core instead of 1367. 5960x @ 4.6 ghz.


----------



## s4in7 (Feb 28, 2015)

After getting an EK L240 Kit and full cover copper block, I've been able to push to 1580MHz core and 2000MHz mem which gets me a score of 1952 and 9th place I believe? This card is amazing...way to go nvidia!





All other specs are the same.

FX-8350 @ 4.5ghz 
(2) 240gb Intel 530
8gb ram @ 1600mhz
Reference Nvidia GTX 980 (1.581GHz core/8GHz mem)
Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 (rev. 4)


----------



## brandonwh64 (Feb 28, 2015)

New Gigabyte GTX 970 windforce 3 stock. 

Specs:
Intel I7 2600K @ 4.5ghz
Gigabyte Z68X-UD3H
12GB DDR3 
GTX 970 windforce 3


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 2, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> New Gigabyte GTX 970 windforce 3 stock.
> 
> Specs:
> Intel I7 2600K @ 4.5ghz
> ...



I trust you, but to stay fair I will need an in-bench screenshot.

Updated.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 2, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> I trust you, but to stay fair I will need an in-bench screenshot.
> 
> Updated.



I had saved it to my PC at the end of the benchmark then remembered you had to have the other two as well. I can run another one if you would like.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 2, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> And here we are, crazy/evil data point, three 980s on a P55 board with an i7 870 @ 4.3GHz.   (mbd is an ASUS P7P55 WS Supercomputer)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol..woww..Lynnfield powah!


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 2, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> lol..woww..Lynnfield powah!





I have an ASUS Striker II Extreme sitting next to the ASUS P55, currently fitted with a P4/3.8 (the beginning of
a long uphill benching road to a QX9650 that awaits). Think the 980s would mutiny if I tried them with the
ancient P4? Oh the horror... actually I can already guess the outcome, as the P4 can't even properly drive the
two 460s it's fitted with atm, never mind a 980. Might be a laugh though, may break the record for the
_slowest_ 980 SLI result ever. 

Ian.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 2, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> I have an ASUS Striker II Extreme sitting next to the ASUS P55, currently fitted with a P4/3.8 (the beginning of
> a long uphill benching road to a QX9650 that awaits). Think the 980s would mutiny if I tried them with the
> ancient P4? Oh the horror... actually I can already guess the outcome, as the P4 can't even properly drive the
> two 460s it's fitted with atm, never mind a 980. Might be a laugh though, may break the record for the
> ...



blasphemy!
u cwazay,mang!
I hooked up a 5870 to a Northwood, though 
PS:Nvidia chipsets are badddd....
for 775 that is..


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 3, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> blasphemy!
> u cwazay,mang!
> I hooked up a 5870 to a Northwood, though
> PS:Nvidia chipsets are badddd....
> for 775 that is..


bah ... i hooked my R9 290 on a Dual 940 Opteron SuperMicro H8DCE with 2 single core Optys 248... tho i can't remember if i did a heaven run ... (what i am sure was : tomb raider 2013/FFXIVARR/FFXIV/Skydiver/Valley bench ) tho it's not a P4 xD

and the 680i SLi i have in my friends rig (the Salvager MK II in my sys spec)  is not that bad ... running that E8400 @ 4.0 just fine (atm 3.5 for safety) even paired with a 760 it runs the game he plays just fine (not too heavy altho  ) AND i also forgot to run a Heaven on it before shipping .... drat ...


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 3, 2015)

NVIDIA's S775 chipsets aren't that bad; the S2E and other similar boards (I have an EVGA 790i Ultra SLI aswell)
have a good rep in reviews & benches. I have a Q6600 and E8400 which work quite well, and indeed for a while
way back I'd pondered sorting out an oc'd E8400 as my next step up from a 6000+, given the E8400 easily runs
at 4.5. In the event, Nehelem came out, so I waited, bought a P55 setup instead.

What I'm interested in seeing is how a QX9650 can drive these GPUs compared to, say, an i5 760 and other 4-cores.

I also have a 965 and 1090T to test, but all in good time. Never enough hours in the day...

Ian.


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 3, 2015)

brandonwh64 said:


> I had saved it to my PC at the end of the benchmark then remembered you had to have the other two as well. I can run another one if you would like.



Please do.  I fear of people calling foul if I let it slide.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 3, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> NVIDIA's S775 chipsets aren't that bad; the S2E and other similar boards (I have an EVGA 790i Ultra SLI aswell)
> have a good rep in reviews & benches. I have a Q6600 and E8400 which work quite well, and indeed for a while
> way back I'd pondered sorting out an oc'd E8400 as my next step up from a 6000+, given the E8400 easily runs
> at 4.5. In the event, Nehelem came out, so I waited, bought a P55 setup instead.
> ...



Lynnfield will do better due to L3..
Deneb and Thuban is a different animal
I can't lie..I like my Deneb and Thuban especially..
4-5 years i still has my Thuban..It's the Cadillac of CPUs baby
FX chips ..eh..they just don't have the oomph dude..It's like AMD does Netburst ..5 years later n stuff

PS: Intel/AMD chipset> any Nvidia one..
there is 1 certain case where that does not apply..can someone help me out on remembering what that is?


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 3, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> PS: Intel/AMD chipset> any Nvidia one..



Well, we shall see...   Certainly though, NVIDIA's SATA ports aren't that quick.

But I read a lot of reviews, I really didn't see much sign of the 790i being worse than other boards for
gaming, etc., with the usual parts of the day.

Ian.


----------



## Schmuckley (Mar 3, 2015)

I have seen many signs of Intel boards being better for OCing 775 
Whether it's x38/48 or p45..always better


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 4, 2015)

X48 can reach a slightly higher FSB, but given both can get to at least 500, it doesn't really matter.
In reality, multipliers limit what one can do with any given CPU to a greater degree, unless one
has an unlocked chip. The Wolfdale E8400 was good though. And who remembers the popularity
of the Q6600? (I have a G0 waiting in line)  The 45nm Q series was even better. Anyone want to
guess what a QX9650 will score with two 980s?   (can't test with three anymore, one has been
deployed permanently)

As for performance, the chipsets are extremely close, usually within margins of error (X48 is often
fractionally ahead, but the gap is too small to really call 790i a loser, in which case other aspects
come into play, eg. the S2E was famous for its water cooling options & other features). See:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/x48-790i-chipset,review-30911-15.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/x48-790i-chipset,review-30911-16.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/x48-790i-chipset,review-30911-17.html


Anandtech's 2nd-last & last paras on this page are interesting:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2500/6


It's basically a tie:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/2500/8

I waited a long time to find an S2E, they kept going for crazy money. Finally bagged one BIN
for 65, fully boxed, etc., which is weird given normal auctions at the time were going for 2X more.

Anyhoo, I'll finish testing the P55 setup with two 980s, fill in the P4 + GTX 460 gaps on my site,
then I'll see how embarassing it is to have a 980 with a P4/3.4.   (haven't oc'd the P4 yet, anyone
recall doing that?)

Ian.


----------



## TommyT (Mar 4, 2015)

I try to take a picture of my score but for some reason it want work.

my score is 814 .


----------



## gasolin (Mar 5, 2015)

Are my score okay i7 4790k at 4.0 ghz on all cores no turbo and 2x asus gtx 680 dcu2 4gb stock core when gpu usage is low













My settings using evga precision because i can oc both cards differently that according to barnaculas nerdgasm should minimize microstutter



























I think my score is very low so low that i think my gpu's don't runs as fast as they should  (don't know why my gpu's don't score higher)


Here are som results from gpus close to my gtx 680 (gtx 670,770.....) to compare to my results










http://s1349.photobucket.com/user/BwwwJ1st/media/heaven_2013_07_26_15_50_55_630_zpsa15019ee.jpg.html

http://cdn.overclock.net/9/9d/500x1000px-LL-9da90209_stats.jpeg


----------



## TommyT (Mar 6, 2015)




----------



## gasolin (Mar 6, 2015)

Full screen makes a different


----------



## RoccoBenchmark (Mar 6, 2015)

All in stock, i5-4690k / msi gtx 970 4gb

Is my score ok?


----------



## gasolin (Mar 6, 2015)

My score in full screen ram about 400mhz + and gpu about 60mhz + (2x asus gtx 680 dcu2 4gb)

Fps 67.9
Score 1712
Min fps 27.9
Max score 164.2


----------



## ZaiXai (Mar 7, 2015)

Sapphire R9 270 OC to 1025/1500


----------



## Nightbeat (Mar 7, 2015)

2500 @stock  & SAPPHIRE 7950 @ 1200MHz BOOST, 1320MHz MEM


----------



## Cortana (Mar 9, 2015)

Cortana

Intel i7 4790K @ 4.7 GHz - MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition @ 1561 Core / 2032 Memory - Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB 2400Mhz - Score 1643

Let me know if there's anything I screwed up, please! thanks!!


----------



## gasolin (Mar 9, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Cortana
> 
> Intel i7 4790K @ 4.7 GHz - MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition @ 1561 Core / 2032 Memory - Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB 2400Mhz - Score 1643
> 
> ...




So  my 2x asus gtx 680 in sli (just slightly oc'ed) is better then a highly oc'ed gtx 970  might even be as good as a stock gtx 980, what is the score for a gtx 980?  (but still not high end for 5760x1080 gaming)


----------



## Cortana (Mar 10, 2015)

gasolin said:


> So  my 2x asus gtx 680 in sli (just slightly oc'ed) is better then a highly oc'ed gtx 970  might even be as good as a stock gtx 980, what is the score for a gtx 980?  (but still not high end for 5760x1080 gaming)




However, my card cost me nearly half what your setup costs. 

The lowest GTX 980 score was 1645, though that was an overclocked run. since mine is so close, I can only assume that my single overclocked 970 performs better than a stock 980  saved me 200 bucks for the same performance. (though of course if I had a 980 I'd OC the crap out of that too..) well good luck with your 600 dollar setup.


----------



## gasolin (Mar 10, 2015)

Didin't pay full price for my 2x gtx 680, bought them used, 2x gtx 680 would cost less then 400€ used (traded in my old gpu) and a new one i guess 2 years ago would have cost 600€ when they where new


----------



## Cortana (Mar 10, 2015)

However, I still paid less, and have room to expand. And mine is new, if that matters at all.. AAAANNNNDDDD you originally had to pay for the GPU you traded, so that value needs to be added on top of whatever you ended up paying for the 680s.
Either way, good job I guess. what was your score then? I'm too lazy to check


----------



## gasolin (Mar 10, 2015)

My score in full screen ram about 400mhz + and gpu about 60mhz + (2x asus gtx 680 dcu2 4gb)

Fps 67.9
Score 1712
Min fps 27.9
Max score 164.2

Mabye a bit more now since gpu is a bit higher about 100mhz+


----------



## Cortana (Mar 10, 2015)

Actually OP, I think I'd rather post this bench. Got this one today, and it brings me above an overclocked 980.. so heck yeah. only tweaked a few things, Ill show you.

Intel i7 4790K @ 4.7 GHz - MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition @ 1561 Core / 2049 Memory - Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB 2400Mhz - Score 1647


----------



## Cortana (Mar 10, 2015)

gasolin said:


> My score in full screen ram about 400mhz + and gpu about 60mhz + (2x asus gtx 680 dcu2 4gb)
> 
> Fps 67.9
> Score 1712
> ...






Cool, 2.5 frames over me and 65 points. I still don't think its worth it, but anyway, good job.


----------



## gasolin (Mar 11, 2015)

Its not oc'ed at all to its limited 2x gtx 680 limited is around 1200-1300 mhz on the core


----------



## Cortana (Mar 11, 2015)

gasolin said:


> Its not oc'ed at all to its limited 2x gtx 680 limited is around 1200-1300 mhz on the core


Then go for it.


----------



## icubuthed (Mar 11, 2015)

4790k @ 4.7 GTX 980 SC 1391/2055


----------



## Cortana (Mar 11, 2015)

icubuthed said:


> View attachment 63291 4790k @ 4.7 GTX 980 SC 1391/2055


Nice score, but what's up with the wireframe?


----------



## icubuthed (Mar 11, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Nice score, but what's up with the wireframe?


why i pressed f12 for the screenshot it changed between wireframe and back. I just pressed f12 twice because I wasn't sure it took the screenshot.


----------



## Cortana (Mar 11, 2015)

icubuthed said:


> why i pressed f12 for the screenshot it changed between wireframe and back. I just pressed f12 twice because I wasn't sure it took the screenshot.


I just use the print screen button and paste into paint.. To each their own.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Cortana
> 
> Intel i7 4790K @ 4.7 GHz - MSI GTX 970 Gaming Edition @ 1561 Core / 2032 Memory - Corsair Vengeance Pro 16GB 2400Mhz - Score 1643
> 
> ...


Can you show us screenshots of ur gpuz and msi afterburner?


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

FX8350 4.0ghz - GTX 970 Strix ^ (max boost clock @ 1535mhz)


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> FX8350 4.0ghz - GTX 970 Strix ^ (max boost clock @ 1535mhz)




Dontworriaboutit


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Dontworriaboutit



Naa I'm kidding, but seriously, I did a lot of work to get it that high, spent a lot of time. It would all go to waste if I just gave it to someone else to use and perform just as well as mine.. Trial and error, and you can gain a few points. Nice score though, its definitely not a bad score.

No way I'll ever be able to beat Dontworriaboutit's score though. I wish.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

So I use gpu tweak and as u saw in gpuz, boost clock is set to 1460 but if i go to 1475, i black screen on heaven, do u have any tips? or is that as far as it'll go. power limit is set to 120% btw


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

Seeing as my power limit is 110, I'm not sure why that happens. What's your voltage offset at? I'd boost the memory clock too if I were you, not just the core clock.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

I haven't played with voltages yet or before.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 12, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Nice score, but what's up with the wireframe?



Ditto on that question.


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Ditto on that question.


He answered already


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> I haven't played with voltages yet or before.





Your voltage and memory clock are a bit low, play around with them and the core clock till it doesn't quit out on you


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

ok so i should play around with "max gpu voltage"? and what increments do you suggest bumping it up by per time?


----------



## Cortana (Mar 12, 2015)

around 0.05 volts, 5-10 MHz core, and 100 memory. After that its just trial and error. don't go over anything you see anyone else doing online as far as the memory clocks go, and you'll be fine. worst case, It'll just quit the program.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 12, 2015)

slowly but surely gaining more points but, it was weird black screening with boost set to 1475, no artifacts or anything before it crashed, try again tomorrow.


----------



## kingdiamond (Mar 12, 2015)

FULL STABLE IN METRO 2033 REDUX, METRO LAST LIGHT REDUX, FAR CRY 4


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 12, 2015)

Added scores for TommyT, Cortana, and icubuthed.

Everyone else READ THE RULES.  It's been posted over and over.....

EDIT:


Cortana said:


> Naa I'm kidding, but seriously, *I did a lot of work to get it that high, spent a lot of time. It would all go to waste if I just gave it to someone else to use and perform just as well as mine.. *Trial and error, and you can gain a few points. Nice score though, its definitely not a bad score.
> 
> No way I'll ever be able to beat Dontworriaboutit's score though. I wish.



Not that the settings would work for all cards, but that statement is so anti-community that your score is struck through until my fun is over.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 13, 2015)

FX-8350 @4.0ghz | GTX 970 Strix @1480(boost)/1900(7600) | 1555mhz highest actual clock


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 13, 2015)

As high as it'll go, locked voltage. Cap @1.2120 V. Changing max voltage doesn't change anything with the Strix


----------



## xccel (Mar 14, 2015)

update my score 

3X R9 290 @1200/1500 
5930K @4.5


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 14, 2015)

I used a custom vbios to extend my TDP and voltage limits to nvidia hardware limit on the G1 970. (Hard limit is around 1.31v)  Fans on my case were throttled to max.  In the end I managed to gain a few extra points by sacrificing some memory clock for core. 

I've been working with my G1 _980 _atm and with
1605/2027 stock bios I get,


----------



## Brenden (Mar 14, 2015)

This is my screenshot of my new pc benchmark on Extreme HD and ultra w/ totally stock settings (as Idk how to Oc yet lol. Is this a decent score for my components? My 1st pc built ever. Just started Pc gaming in Nov and im 39yo lol. Late bloomer.


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 15, 2015)

Brenden said:


> This is my screenshot of my new pc benchmark on Extreme HD and ultra w/ totally stock settings (as Idk how to Oc yet lol. Is this a decent score for my components? My 1st pc built ever. Just started Pc gaming in Nov and im 39yo lol. Late bloomer.



It looks like you need to turn on the Tessellation setting and set it to extreme for it to compare to the scores here.  Also, a screenshot (F12) is required in the benchmark to be listed.  Stock clocks should score about 1300 with the proper benchmark settings.


----------



## Brenden (Mar 15, 2015)

Dontworriaboutit said:


> It looks like you need to turn on the Tessellation setting and set it to extreme for it to compare to the scores here.  Also, a screenshot (F12) is required in the benchmark to be listed.  Stock clocks should score about 1300 with the proper benchmark settings.


I dont see a tessalation setting. I cant get f12 to work so i used windows button w print screen. I set preset to extreme hd


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 15, 2015)

Set the preset to Custom and you should see the tessellation option appear.  The first page can give you more info.  The F12 works but it saves to Heaven folder under your "User Name" folder


----------



## Cortana (Mar 15, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Added scores for TommyT, Cortana, and icubuthed.
> 
> Everyone else READ THE RULES.  It's been posted over and over.....
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, did you miss me trying to aid him? To pull a statement out of context and pretend that it is my entire message does not capture my actual intentions. I am sticking with T1GERTEA's comments and attempting to help him raise his score, rather than give him my own settings. As you said, they don't work necessarily with every card, so I feel that the method of assistance that I chose is more appropriate. Yo are right, though, my statement was arrogant. No I am not sucking up to remove the strike, you're allowed to do whatever you want. I do actually feel bad. It didn't seem like others who performed very well were freely posting their exact settings so I didn't think it was necessary. My core and memory clock results are already posted so I thought he could work out the specifics for his card from that. Sorry for causing trouble!


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 16, 2015)

First post here, hello everybody!

No artifacts.
Air Cooled.

I started with an EVGA superclocked GTX 980 with the ACX 2.0 cooling system.
My stock clocks were:
1266 GPU
1404.8 Actual Boost Clock (Measured with GPU-Z during gaming, is listed as 1367)
7010 Memory

My overclocks are:
1405 GPU (+139 MHz, 10.98% increase)
1543.3 Actual Boost Clock (9.86% increase)(Measured with GPU-Z during gaming, is listed as 1506)
8350 Memory (+670MHz x 2 = 1340MHz, 19.12% increase)
EDIT: Guessing you want the non-doubled value for the memory, which is 4175 MHz(as seen in the screenshot)

Intel i7 4790K turbo boosting to 4.4 Ghz, don't know why Heaven lists 4 Ghz...


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 17, 2015)

Wait, I notice mine lists my processor under the graphics as well...
I use the onboard graphics for a second monitor, does this change anything for me?
(I guess I can unplug my other monitor if need be)


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 17, 2015)

Upgraded from my 8350 to a 4790k--not too much of a difference in this particular benchmark, but my Fire Strike score shot way up as well as my BF4 64-player framerates. 

Reference GTX 980 (Zoson's Modded BIOS) 1550MHz/8000MHz
i7-4790k 4.6GHz
Team Zeus Blue 8GB 9-9-9-24 1T
(2) Intel 530 Series 240GB SSD's



 

Should be good for 5th place considering the score above me


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 17, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Wait, I notice mine lists my processor under the graphics as well...
> I use the onboard graphics for a second monitor, does this change anything for me?
> (I guess I can unplug my other monitor if need be)


Unplugging my monitor got me the same score, but still lists my processor under the graphics?


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 17, 2015)

Sorry jordan1794, but I just had to one-up you--even if it's only by a point 

Exact same spec as above, but this time the 980 is at 1557MHz/2007.5MHz (8030MHz  effective)


----------



## Brenden (Mar 17, 2015)

Dontworriaboutit said:


> Set the preset to Custom and you should see the tessellation option appear.  The first page can give you more info.  The F12 works but it saves to Heaven folder under your "User Name" folder


Still no tessellation setting.


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 17, 2015)

Brenden, are you using V4 of the Heaven Benchmark? Grab some windows snaps to show what's happening (I don't mean full screen
dumps; I use MWSnap for grabbing window pics).

Ian.


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 17, 2015)

s4in7 said:


> Sorry jordan1794, but I just had to one-up you--even if it's only by a point
> 
> Exact same spec as above, but this time the 980 is at 1557MHz/2007.5MHz (8030MHz  effective)



Nice! I actually think I can get some more from my core clock. It appears from the way my testing went that I only get artifacts when I push the memory too much, when I push the core too high the driver straight crashes(which is why the second monitor on the onboard graphics, is great lets me recover without re-starting my computer)

I'll be back! lol.


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 17, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> First post here, hello everybody!
> 
> No artifacts.
> Air Cooled.
> ...



Yeah your memory clock is beastly, but I might try and lower the memory clock to around 4050/8100 and see if that gives you more room to push the core higher.  Its been noted that core clock does more for your score so you might pick up some points.  As for the CPU speed reading it always lists the stock value.


----------



## m0nt3 (Mar 17, 2015)

Decided to play around with it some more and see how newer drivers might perform. a small step up from my previous run a long while back. I score 1347 with CPU @ 4.25 GPU is at 1075 core 1350 mem.


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 18, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Nice! I actually think I can get some more from my core clock. It appears from the way my testing went that I only get artifacts when I push the memory too much, when I push the core too high the driver straight crashes(which is why the second monitor on the onboard graphics, is great lets me recover without re-starting my computer)
> 
> I'll be back! lol.



I know you will haha, it's the call of the benchmarker!

Yeah, if you get little green flashes or "stars" that's definitely too much frequency on the memory, but your memory clock is ASTOUNDING. 8350?!?! Wow...

My score of 1993 is pretty much the tops for me...any more on the memory and I get the green stars, any more on core and the bench crashes. Oh well, I'm very happy with a 24/7 1550/8000MHz overclock as my daily driver.


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 18, 2015)

I lowered my memory clock a bit and increased my core clock and got a score of 2001!
However right after the benchmark finished I saw a slight flicker, so I re-ran the test and I crashed.
I ran again and got a score of 1998.

Subsequent attempts at running the same settings saw a crash as soon as I opened the program.
Dunno what happened on the one run to stay stable through the benchmark, but obviously it doesn't count(at least in my mind)
I even tried increasing my voltage a tad, and added 12 millivolts (first time I've touched a voltage increase)
Got 1 run of 2006!
Then crash, crash, and more crash lol.
Even got desperate enough to try 18 millivolts
Crash.
My testing:




(It's a typo where my score says 1932 on the highlighted row, should be 1992)

Oddly enough, even increasing my voltage I can't get anything higher.
So much frustration of running the test 3 times in a row and getting 1992 three times in a row.
I even increased my core clock by only 5 MHz and I still crashed lol.

THAT ONE POINT BOTHERS ME SO MUCH hahaha.


Very odd, running the exact settings that are completely stable right now, if I increase my power target to 124% I get a crash as soon as I open unigine...


Guess I'll be doing a lot of testing/tinkering this weekend!


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 18, 2015)

Oh man guys...
Oh boy.
I found out EVGA totally covers over volting on their warranty.
The only thing they don't cover is physical damage or BIOS editing.

I over volted by 25 millivolts(the BIOS won't allow any higher than 1.25 total voltage anyways)
It's amazing...
I'm not going to post my official score yet, as I need to test it in game(Because I wouldn't feel right if the OC worked for just the benchmark, and not actual gaming...otherwise, what's the point?)
But my score is over 2,000.


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 18, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Oh man guys...
> Oh boy.
> I found out EVGA totally covers over volting on their warranty.
> The only thing they don't cover is physical damage or BIOS editing.
> ...



Yeah, EVGA is excellent.  My 780 Classified died on me last week (Driver crashes every 30 mins then the next day after a reboot.......) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




On the bright side, the card they are sending is a 780 Ti Classified    Can't wait to see how much it beats my 780 Classified score.



Cortana said:


> I'm sorry, did you miss me trying to aid him? To pull a statement out of context and pretend that it is my entire message does not capture my actual intentions. I am sticking with T1GERTEA's comments and attempting to help him raise his score, rather than give him my own settings. As you said, they don't work necessarily with every card, so I feel that the method of assistance that I chose is more appropriate. Yo are right, though, my statement was arrogant. No I am not sucking up to remove the strike, you're allowed to do whatever you want. I do actually feel bad. It didn't seem like others who performed very well were freely posting their exact settings so I didn't think it was necessary. My core and memory clock results are already posted so I thought he could work out the specifics for his card from that. Sorry for causing trouble!



It was a joke.  You are fine.


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 18, 2015)

Alright! After playing several games of evolve, and specifically losing matches by solely focusing on cause as much mayhem/strain as I could without crashing I am confident with my OC.
Now I'll leave it up to the OP how to record it...
My LISTED clocks in GPU-Z are:
GPU: 1418
Memory: 2088 (So effective rate is 8352)
Boost: 1519

However my max actual boost in game is up to 1569.4, but for the majority of the time it sits at 1556.
(Complicated, because all three numbers are significantly different lol, like I said...OP record whatever you think is the fair rate.)

My score is 2012! 
(You can ignore my previous posts, and sorry if I kinda junked up the thread with several posts, not sure how "clean" you are trying to keep this thread, you can delete the un-needed posts if you see fit)


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 18, 2015)

Damn. Nice score! Looks like I'll be tweaking my BIOS a little more after work so I can get 2013


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 18, 2015)

Do you guys think I'd be able to get a higher score if i benched without my second monitor?


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 19, 2015)

Is your monitor running of your GPU or onboard?
For me it didn't make a difference


----------



## flexinhard (Mar 19, 2015)

Started to get worse performance at 5.0 ghz so stuck at 4.8 on i7 3770k
GPU is clocked at 1573 core and 2005 memory
Picture


----------



## MURDoctrine (Mar 19, 2015)

4770k @ 4.5GHz  GTX 980 1558/4059


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 20, 2015)

AWWWWWW YEAH, 2000+ CLUB BABY!

I'm way too excited about this  Made some minor tweaks to power delivery and BAM 2011! And at 1550/2000 to boot. I know it doesn't move me up a spot on the rankings, BUT 2000+ CLUB YEAH!

i7 4790K @ 4.7GHz
GTX 980 @ 1.55GHz core/2GHz mem (8GHz effective)
Z97 Fatal1ty Killer
Team Zeus Blue 8GB 1600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T
(2) 240GB Intel 530 SSD


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 20, 2015)

Pushed her to the absolute limits and came up with 2018--no artifacts, but any more on the core and it crashes and any more on the mem and I get the "green stars" (memory artifacting) so I think this is where I shall remain. 

i7 4790K @ 4.7GHz
GTX 980 @ 1555MHz core/2005MHz mem (8020MHz effective)
Z97 Fatal1ty Killer
Team Zeus Blue 8GB 1600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T
(2) 240GB Intel 530 SSD


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 20, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Is your monitor running of your GPU or onboard?
> For me it didn't make a difference


both monitors are being run off the gpu, AMD cpu w/o those onboard graphics bro +
so i have a 144hz monitor and i really wanna be able to stay above or really close to 144fps in AAA titles like battlefield, farcry and stuff, should i trade up to a 980? wait for new gpus, or get another 970+new mobo (mine doesn't support SLI atm) + not really happy with my 970 cause its volt locked


----------



## chicobrew (Mar 20, 2015)

Clock 1266/1367 - All stock. No overclocks in any way.


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 20, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> both monitors are being run off the gpu, AMD cpu w/o those onboard graphics bro +
> so i have a 144hz monitor and i really wanna be able to stay above or really close to 144fps in AAA titles like battlefield, farcry and stuff, should i trade up to a 980? wait for new gpus, or get another 970+new mobo (mine doesn't support SLI atm) + not really happy with my 970 cause its volt locked


I think you would see a marginal increase if you disconnected the second monitor during benchmarking.

And a heads up, gtx 980 won't go above 1.25v without a BIOS flash.
(Which even with EVGA's AMAZING warranty, will void it, unless you get their new card that has 3 BIOS's)
Pretty much what is holding me back now, I don't think I'm willing to flash the BIOS (Even though I've heard there are ways to restore it if you really fluff up.)


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 20, 2015)

Overclocked my processor to 4.7 Ghz, expected to get a little gain.
I got 1 point, hahahahaha.
Not even worth posting it


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 20, 2015)

Yeah, this bench doesn't touch the CPU at all. Valley however...


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 20, 2015)

Nice score Chico! With a small bump to core and memory clocks you could see over 3500


----------



## chicobrew (Mar 20, 2015)

s4in7 said:


> Nice score Chico! With a small bump to core and memory clocks you could see over 3500



Thanks S4in7 New to this game (sort of): Whats the best way to do that in a safe way?


----------



## BiggieShady (Mar 20, 2015)




----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 20, 2015)

chicobrew said:


> Thanks S4in7 New to this game (sort of): Whats the best way to do that in a safe way?


You can use Precision x from EVGA, very user friendly.
Just set the power target to 124%, and then bump your core clock up one notch at a time until it crashes.
Repeat with memory clock(but probably start with jumps of 100 mhz, as the memory clock you should be able to get close to an offset of at least 500 Mhz.)

As long as your temps are good increasing the power target will not harm your card, voltage increasing is where you can cause damage (even then you can pretty safely add 25 Mv, or even more, but without a BIOS flash a 25 Mv addition is all you can do, card is limited to 1.25 total voltage.)

Honestly, from the posts here, I'd be pretty surprised if you couldn't achieve at least +75 Mhz on your core as well.


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 20, 2015)

What jordan said. EVGA PrecisionX or MSI Afterburner are great utilities for safely OCing and have the same basic method: max out power target, increase core speed until unstable, back off 10-15MHz, then do the same for memory.

Before I got the 980, I had an EVGA SSC 970 and I want to say it got to 1491 core and like 1850 on the mem all without touching voltage so you definitely have headroom.


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 20, 2015)

I could do worse for a 280X...and an E8600. Got exactly the same score(1020), only with slightly different Min FPS, @ 1190/1850 & 1183/1875. The former had the slightly higher Min FPS. So I went with that...for the record(pardon the pun).

EDIT: After installing the latest 15.3 beta drivers my top score @ 1190/1850 improved a little too(4 points )

E8600 @ 3.33GHz + MSI 280X Gaming 3GB OC @ 1190/1850 = FPS: 40.7 / Score: 1024 / Min FPS: 14.8 / Max FPS: 88.8


----------



## stefanels (Mar 20, 2015)




----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 21, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> I think you would see a marginal increase if you disconnected the second monitor during benchmarking.
> 
> And a heads up, gtx 980 won't go above 1.25v without a BIOS flash.
> (Which even with EVGA's AMAZING warranty, will void it, unless you get their new card that has 3 BIOS's)
> Pretty much what is holding me back now, I don't think I'm willing to flash the BIOS (Even though I've heard there are ways to restore it if you really fluff up.)


is it true that some 970s come volt locked and some don't?


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 21, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> is it true that some 970s come volt locked and some don't?


I don't know much about it, but I'd imagine nearly all cards have some kind of volt limiter in their BIOS.
If they didn't it would be far too easy for people to burn the card out and then try to claim it under warranty...
If you flash a BIOS, there is practically 0 chance that you don't know that you are potentially endangering your card.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Mar 21, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> I don't know much about it, but I'd imagine nearly all cards have some kind of volt limiter in their BIOS.
> If they didn't it would be far too easy for people to burn the card out and then try to claim it under warranty...
> If you flash a BIOS, there is practically 0 chance that you don't know that you are potentially endangering your card.


JW becasue some people hit 1.25 but mine maxes at 1.212


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 21, 2015)

Finished my bios mod, got some pretty crazy speed, though... not enough to topple the top guys. :|

1631/2035






GPUZ and MSI AB for speed validation.


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 21, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> JW becasue some people hit 1.25 but mine maxes at 1.212



Yes I have heard this, and I had a Strix at one point and BIOS  flashes wouldn't volt it.  I have read it elsewhere as well.


----------



## s4in7 (Mar 22, 2015)

Great score dontworrieaboutit! Those are some crazy high clocks--maybe too high as I'm scoring 10 points less than you with 80MHz less on the core and 30MHz less on memory. You may be pushing it too hard and thus hurting your potential score. 

Too much on either clock can lead to performance degradation even without crashing. Mind if I look at your BIOS? I'll share mine if you want


----------



## Dontworriaboutit (Mar 22, 2015)

On my power table, only the top section was was changed from stock


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 24, 2015)




----------



## flexinhard (Mar 24, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


>


Now time to break it with voltage


----------



## FX-GMC (Mar 24, 2015)

flexinhard said:


> Now time to break it with voltage



Doesn't do any good.  Had it up to 1.35v and it still won't finish a run without crashing above 1300MHz.  Wouldn't doubt if someone returned it for that very reason and that is why it was "recertified". 

I'm not complaining though.  It's still faster than the 780.


----------



## flexinhard (Mar 24, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Doesn't do any good.  Had it up to 1.35v and it still won't finish a run without crashing above 1300MHz.  Wouldn't doubt if someone returned it for that very reason and that is why it was "recertified".
> 
> I'm not complaining though.  It's still faster than the 780.


Damn even 1.35? They jipped you! No, but in all seriousness, thats pretty awesome that they gave you an upgrade. I had a 780 classified and it is an amazing card. So fun to overclock. Im getting a titan x soon. We will see how that goes.


----------



## Alterus (Mar 24, 2015)

asus 780 ti dc2 1505mhz/2000 1.35v water
i7 3770k 4.8 HT-on 1.375v water
samsung BH0 2400 10-12-12-24-1t
win7 x64


----------



## jordan1794 (Mar 25, 2015)

Whoa. Nice score man!


----------



## Daphonic (Mar 28, 2015)

Just finished building my dream build but running into many problems.

Mother board only sees 16 of 32 gigs of Ram. 
And this Benchmark Says the Titan X only has 4 gigs of Ram?


----------



## usmc362 (Mar 28, 2015)

Ran this today; not bad for a lappy


----------



## Alvinio (Mar 28, 2015)




----------



## Raideruk (Mar 29, 2015)

My first real stab at over-clocking my 780, I'm pleased with the results, is there anything I could do to push my GPU further?


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 29, 2015)

Alvinio, that's not valid, you don't have the 8X AA active (hence why the score is way too high for a single 980).

Ian.


----------



## R00kie (Mar 29, 2015)

970's in SLI


----------



## Alvinio (Mar 30, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> Alvinio, that's not valid, you don't have the 8X AA active (hence why the score is way too high for a single 980).
> 
> Ian.


I'll do a rerun with that on, thanks


----------



## usmc362 (Mar 30, 2015)

Stock CPU and GPU clocks


----------



## mapesdhs (Mar 31, 2015)

usmc362 said:


> Stock CPU and GPU clocks



Only just clicked that must be a 980M SLI laptop - blimey! Though if so, how is it running with a 4960X? Confused... 

Ian.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Mar 31, 2015)

usmc362 said:


> Stock CPU and GPU clocks



Do...do you have this setup or something similar? Because if you do that is an awesome laptop. You must have to type with fireman gloves from all the heat it puts off. 

http://www.eurocom.com/ec/release(272)ec


----------



## usmc362 (Mar 31, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Do...do you have this setup or something similar? Because if you do that is an awesome laptop. You must have to type with fireman gloves from all the heat it puts off.
> 
> http://www.eurocom.com/ec/release(272)ec


That's the one. It's in my system Specs. This laptop runs much cooler than an Alienware 18 I once owned. The Cpu has 2 dedicated fans and each Gpu has 1 fan. When I bench I run on AC so Gpu temps never hit 70c; Cpu temps are low to mid 80s under a 4.7GHz.x 6 load.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Apr 1, 2015)

are all the clocks on the chart the actual max boost clock people got or the boost clock that is said in gpuz "graphics card" tab?


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 1, 2015)

MSI TITAN X
+200 mhz core = 1200 base. Boost = 1413 mhz
+400 mhz Memmory

heaven made a tga file so i was unsure how to do this so i just used fraps but can on demand run again incase not valid if someone could tell me how to make heaven output jpg


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 1, 2015)

T1GERTEA said:


> are all the clocks on the chart the actual max boost clock people got or the boost clock that is said in gpuz "graphics card" tab?



Half of the chart was done before me.  If I see boost clocks in Heaven I use those, otherwise I'm at the mercy of whatever numbers I'm given.



Everyone who didn't get added.  If I don't know your clocks you're not getting on the chart.


----------



## Daphonic (Apr 2, 2015)

DinaAngel said:


> MSI TITAN X
> +200 mhz core = 1200 base. Boost = 1413 mhz
> +400 mhz Memmory
> 
> ...



 I see your Titan only shows 4 gigs as well. How much ran are you running? I'm running 32 gigs, so I'm over the 24 gig min, but this benchmark doesn't seem to use it.


----------



## DinaAngel (Apr 2, 2015)

Daphonic said:


> I see your Titan only shows 4 gigs as well. How much ran are you running? I'm running 32 gigs, so I'm over the 24 gig min, but this benchmark doesn't seem to use it.


http://www.geforce.com/geforce-gtx-titan-x/buy-gpu
8 GB system memory (16 GB or higher recommended)

use tool included to see if you are able to fully use all of it. im able to


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 3, 2015)

I think I'm about to move up, BIOS edit up and running
(No voltage changes yet, only power, my voltage was dropping because I was hitting my power limit)


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 3, 2015)

Well, I see the new titans are out, so maybe I won't be moving up haha, but I might keep myself from falling too much.
Actual boost clock 1569 Mhz, Memory clock 8414 effective, or 2103
CPU overclocked to 4.7
I could probably get much higher with voltage increase, BUT I think I'm gonna be happy where I am.
For now.
(Until s4in7 comes in with a score of 2029 )


----------



## CrisInuyasha (Apr 4, 2015)

Here is mine (3x GTX 980 MSI Gaming 4g with custom bios, 5960x @ 4.2GHz and ram @ 2400MHz)


----------



## stryfetew (Apr 5, 2015)

All stock clocks, stock cooling.


----------



## stryfetew (Apr 5, 2015)

Crap Missed the fullscreen thing, I'll re-run it.


----------



## stryfetew (Apr 5, 2015)

stryfetew said:


> Crap Missed the fullscreen thing, I'll re-run it.








Fullscreen.


----------



## stryfetew (Apr 5, 2015)

CrisInuyasha said:


> Here is mine (3x GTX 980 MSI Gaming 4g with custom bios, 5960x @ 4.2GHz and ram @ 2400MHz)
> 
> View attachment 63847
> 
> View attachment 63848



Damn the 5960x is that good?


----------



## CrisInuyasha (Apr 5, 2015)

stryfetew said:


> Damn the 5960x is that good?


It's pretty fast (for multithreaded applications), but a bit too hot (hard to control temps on heavy stress tests). Things like prime95 or anything with avx will push the limits with 5960x. (the 4.2ghz clock was the best I could do to make it prime95 stable with lower 80s temps, could run most things at 4.5ghz within 60C but I prefered to lower the clock). Conservative clocks but freaking stable and cool.


----------



## prodigal penguin (Apr 5, 2015)

i5-3570K @ 4.4 - GTX 980 EVGA SC OC (EDIT: I actually forgot to turn off Pandora One and squeaked out a few more frames ;3)




Temp, OC Settings, etc:



Spoiler










(OG score for reference: http://i.imgur.com/erZpzF8.jpg)


----------



## stryfetew (Apr 5, 2015)

CrisInuyasha said:


> It's pretty fast (for multithreaded applications), but a bit too hot (hard to control temps on heavy stress tests). Things like prime95 or anything with avx will push the limits with 5960x. (the 4.2ghz clock was the best I could do to make it prime95 stable with lower 80s temps, could run most things at 4.5ghz within 60C but I prefered to lower the clock). Conservative clocks but freaking stable and cool.



Yeah I can see just by using the x99 and 1 more 980 you stomp my score by almost 1000.  I guess the biggest downfall for the 4770k is the clock speeds.  I got everything to OC it and the GPU just need to put it in.


----------



## CrisInuyasha (Apr 5, 2015)

Fresh install of windows, drivers and updates (had run the benchmark before in a messy windows install, with older / different drivers from the z87 plattform).


----------



## mapesdhs (Apr 6, 2015)

CrisInuyasha said:


> Fresh install of windows, drivers and updates ...



I'm curious, what GPU clocks are you using there? GPU-Z looks a bit weird, as if you have the core clock running slower
than normal (default = 1481??).

Ian.


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 6, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> I'm curious, what GPU clocks are you using there? GPU-Z looks a bit weird, as if you have the core clock running slower
> than normal (default = 1481??).
> 
> Ian.


Well it looks like, for some reason, his default BIOS had boost de-activated(or he is running a custom BIOS)
This makes his default clock the same as his boost clock.

Or perhaps GPU-Z is just incorrectly reporting his default clock?
Would be interesting to hear back from him though, if nothing else to just help our curiosity.


----------



## Mydog (Apr 6, 2015)

First time I test this one in a very long time
5960X and 2x TitanX with custom bios


----------



## CrisInuyasha (Apr 6, 2015)

mapesdhs said:


> I'm curious, what GPU clocks are you using there? GPU-Z looks a bit weird, as if you have the core clock running slower
> than normal (default = 1481??).
> 
> Ian.





jordan1794 said:


> Well it looks like, for some reason, his default BIOS had boost de-activated(or he is running a custom BIOS)
> This makes his default clock the same as his boost clock.
> 
> Or perhaps GPU-Z is just incorrectly reporting his default clock?
> Would be interesting to hear back from him though, if nothing else to just help our curiosity.



Yeah, I'm running a custom bios that disables boost (so 3d clock is the same as my max stable boost clock). The lower gpu clock is the current base clock, and the default higher clock is the default 3d clock.

P02 is the cuda / opencl profile and P05 is the video profile as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Mydog (Apr 6, 2015)

A little improvement


----------



## xorbe (Apr 7, 2015)

We need a 2560x1440 thread.  I got 61.0 at max settings, but I have no idea how that stacks up against other typical 2560x1440 systems.  Why are we running Titan X at 1080p?


----------



## xorbe (Apr 7, 2015)

Okay here's my 1920x1080 results, taking top single-gpu spot @ score 2564! 

4790K @ 4858MHz + Titan X @ 1390/1851 (stock bios)


----------



## Mydog (Apr 7, 2015)

Single TitanX 1920x1080, score 2873
5960X @ 5.0 GHz on phase cooling(-45 C Load) + Titan X @ 1528/2055 MHz Custom bios and water cooled


----------



## xorbe (Apr 7, 2015)

47 minutes lol.  My Titan X is tapped out, she's not a good overclocker.  Our min fps so close 40.6 and 40.7


----------



## Mydog (Apr 7, 2015)

xorbe said:


> 47 minutes lol


Do you have water cooling on you TitanX?


----------



## xorbe (Apr 8, 2015)

Mydog said:


> Do you have water cooling on you TitanX?



Nope, was running max fan on the GPU for the Heaven run.  +210 passes, +220 hangs the system.


----------



## Mydog (Apr 8, 2015)

xorbe said:


> Nope, was running max fan on the GPU for the Heaven run.  +210 passes, +220 hangs the system.


Your score is the best I've seen on air


----------



## xorbe (Apr 8, 2015)

Mydog said:


> Your score is the best I've seen on air



lol, if so I'm sure it won't last long, nothing too special about my PC, and not a silicon winner GPU.  I don't use those settings for daily usage, a much more boring 4.5 GHz cpu and +100 gpu, I need stability and longevity.


----------



## T1GERTEA (Apr 9, 2015)

my 970 strix seems to be volt locked because changing voltages on afterburner or gpu tweak doesn't change it according gpuz or any of the monitoring tools. Just wondering, if i flash my bios, will it unlock the voltage?


----------



## xorbe (Apr 9, 2015)

Heaven seems to top out at 4096 ... can't run as 5K benchmark!


----------



## C3sp3nar (Apr 9, 2015)

Single GTX 660 Ti score: 774
1215/1701
Cpu: Intel i5 3350P @ 3.1 Ghz


----------



## sirpig05 (Apr 10, 2015)

R9 290x 1160mhz core clock/1475mhz memory clock
FX-8320 3.5ghz
Frame seems to be quite low for a 290x


----------



## Syrocc (Apr 10, 2015)

So here's my first submission:

Intel i5 4590 @ 3.3 Ghz, AsRock H87 Pro 4 Mobo, Palit GTX 970 Jetstream, 8 GB Corsair 1600 mhz, Samsung Evo 840 120 GB. 

GPU Base Clock - 1352
GPU Boost Clock - 1504
RAM Clock - 2060

Given how crap my CPU is, I was amazed how well the GPU performed. Must have gotten quite lucky with my Palit card, takes punishment like a champ. The results are with the default Bios and with +30 mV voltage, at 111% Max Power. Could probably tweak some more out of it, but I found this to be extremely stable.


----------



## Syrocc (Apr 10, 2015)

sirpig05 said:


> R9 290x 1160mhz core clock/1475mhz memory clock
> FX-8320 3.5ghz
> Frame seems to be quite low for a 290x



Well, not that I'm against AMD GPUs, but the 290x is still relatively pricey for what it offers. Combine that with high power usage, and I wouldn't really recommend it over a 970, unless you get an insane deal on it. For me, the 290x and 970 were priced identically, so it was a no-brainer. Hope you can get some more out of yours though.


----------



## Chatelike (Apr 10, 2015)

Stock cooler and stock bios..... will be installing accelero iv air cooler and some heatsinks to take the single performance crown again


----------



## xorbe (Apr 10, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> Stock cooler and stock bios..... will be installing accelero iv air cooler and some heatsinks to take the single performance crown again



Look up a few posts -- Mydog hit 2800+ score on sub-zero cooling ... good luck taking the top spot!!!


----------



## Chatelike (Apr 10, 2015)

xorbe said:


> Look up a few posts -- Mydog hit 2800+ score on sub-zero cooling ... good luck taking the top spot!!!


He's phasing cooling his cpu, his videocard is on a waterblock with decent clocks. He should be able to hit 1550+ , or at least I will


----------



## The_Intruder (Apr 13, 2015)

Here's my latest score: 1618
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.18.13.4788 (4095MB) x1
GPU Clock: 1514
Memory Clock: 1980


----------



## Mydog (Apr 13, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> He's phasing cooling his cpu, his videocard is on a waterblock with decent clocks. He should be able to hit 1550+ , or at least I will


So you'll hit 1550+ with accelero iv easy?
I can't do it with none of my two titans with full cover block and 4C water


----------



## Tommy_Here (Apr 13, 2015)

I'll quite happily take 10th place thank you!


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 13, 2015)

Tommy_Here said:


> I'll quite happily take 10th place thank you!


You forgot to include your clock speeds.


----------



## MrGenius (Apr 13, 2015)

Chatelike said:


> ...will be installing accelero iv air cooler and some heatsinks to take the single performance crown again


There's no way the accelero IV will beat a water block, of any kind. It's a great air cooler, I have one on my 280X(also a 250W GPU). But unless you swap out the 2k rpm fans with some that are at least 2x as fast, you'll probably not see much more than ~10-15°C improvement under load. Fitting heatsinks under it would be a pretty tight squeeze. Good luck with that too.


----------



## Tommy_Here (Apr 13, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> You forgot to include your clock speeds.


sorry forgot  
4.6ghz for the intel core i5
1564BOOST on the 980 and 7.8ghz effective for the memory


----------



## prodigal penguin (Apr 15, 2015)

Did I miss something on my post? D:


----------



## T1GERTEA (Apr 16, 2015)

1470(1546boost)/1944 - GTX970 Strix


----------



## ribotte (Apr 16, 2015)

that's mine i7 4770k @4.4ghz
sli asus 780ti dcuII
1084 clock 1901memory 1150 boost


----------



## xorbe (Apr 16, 2015)

I don't think OP is updating 1st post now for a couple weeks.


----------



## ZikiHero (Apr 17, 2015)

Can I post there my poor AMD Radeon HD 6770 (x2)? Just for fun.


----------



## Mydog (Apr 18, 2015)

ZikiHero said:


> Can I post there my poor AMD Radeon HD 6770 (x2)? Just for fun.


Yes of course


----------



## ZikiHero (Apr 18, 2015)

Default clocks: 860/1200 - GPU HD 6770 Vapor-X
I hope that I will be in leading positions


----------



## ZikiHero (Apr 18, 2015)

And here is single GPU (CrossFire turned off) default clocks 860/1200
I will be in Hall of Flame


----------



## ZikiHero (Apr 18, 2015)

Sorry for spamming - here is maximum for today, faster memory did blackscreen.
OC HD 6770 - 900/1360 single GPU (Crossfire turned off)


----------



## Paul Hughf (Apr 19, 2015)

AMD FX 4300 OVERCLOCKED TO 4500 AND R9 290X


----------



## The N (Apr 19, 2015)

i5 2500K @stock
GTX 780 @954/1502mhz


----------



## Christes (Apr 21, 2015)

CPU: i7-930 @ 3.88 GHz

GPU: HD 7950 / R9 280 in crossfire.  The slower runs at 940/1250


----------



## Cortana (Apr 21, 2015)

xorbe said:


> Okay here's my 1920x1080 results, taking top single-gpu spot @ score 2564!
> 
> 4790K @ 4858MHz + Titan X @ 1390/1851 (stock bios)



Jees, what voltage are you running your 4790k at to get 4.85Ghz?


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 21, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Jees, what voltage are you running your 4790k at to get 4.85Ghz?


My i7 4790K is at 4.8 with only 1.265 Vcore.
My stock voltage was 1.21.
Dunno what his is, but the silicon lottery is a funny thing.


----------



## xorbe (Apr 21, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Jees, what voltage are you running your 4790k at to get 4.85Ghz?



I used 1.39v for 7 minutes to get a 4.9GHz result, lol.  Normally I use 0.95v idle @ 3.1GHz / 1.21-1.25v gaming @ 4.5GHz.  It seems stable at 1.17-1.18v, but I like reliability.  Gonna delid and use Coollaboratory next weekend, just for temps.  I did note that 4.6 is where voltage required starts to jump up, 1.23v minimum and I don't want to run 1.26-1.30v gaming.  4.7GHz needed at least 1.30v minimum for the brief period I tested.

Obviously mine is not a silicon lottery winner.  And by stable, I mean heavy-duty stable, not benchmark/game stable.


----------



## jordan1794 (Apr 21, 2015)

xorbe said:


> I used 1.39v for 7 minutes to get a 4.9GHz result, lol.  Normally I use 0.95v idle @ 3.1GHz / 1.21-1.25v gaming @ 4.5GHz.  It seems stable at 1.17-1.18v, but I like reliability.  Gonna delid and use Coollaboratory next weekend, just for temps.  I did note that 4.6 is where voltage required starts to jump up, 1.23v minimum and I don't want to run 1.26-1.30v gaming.
> 
> Obviously mine is not a silicon lottery winner.  And by stable, I mean stable, not benchmark stable.


Yeah, my chip started needing more voltage anything after 4.8
Up until 4.8 I could just increase the Vcore slightly, however even a 1.305 Vcore didn't get me to 4.9
And I'm not going higher than 1.3 Vcore.


----------



## mapesdhs (Apr 22, 2015)

Has anyone here ever taken advantage of Intel's oc warranty extension option?

Ian.


----------



## FX-GMC (Apr 22, 2015)

Updated.



xorbe said:


> We need a 2560x1440 thread.  I got 61.0 at max settings, but I have no idea how that stacks up against other typical 2560x1440 systems.  Why are we running Titan X at 1080p?



Feel free to make a thread for 1440p.  We are running at 1080p because it is the most common screen resolution and more people can post results






http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/


----------



## Umes (Apr 23, 2015)

I did set it to 1920 x 1080 but it reverted to my screen res which is 1680 x 1050

GPU: Palit GTX 960 OC 1315(1378 boost) / 1953 

First 960?


----------



## xorbe (Apr 23, 2015)

Umes said:


> I did set it to 1920 x 1080 but it reverted to my screen res which is 1680 x 1050
> 
> GPU: Palit GTX 960 OC 1315(1378 boost) / 1953
> 
> First 960?



You could use DSR to run at 1920x1080, but the score will be slightly lower than running native. Wait -- I lied.  You can only do 1920x1200.  I don't think there's a way for you to get on the 1920x1080 chart with that screen.  Maybe by custom resolution, try both GPU and monitor scaling (disable DSR to enable custom resolutions.)


----------



## Ibbanez (Apr 23, 2015)

Here is my first attempt at the benchmark score... I had so many issues with the SLI 970's originally under Windows 8.1 Pro.  Was getting horrible GPU utilization.  Finally wiped and went to Windows 7 and all was well.  Here is my 1st attempt at an OC.


----------



## NTM2003 (Apr 23, 2015)

new build first build no gpu yet. see system specs


----------



## mapesdhs (Apr 23, 2015)

There was a time when 1920x1200 was a lot more common, while the preference at 2560 width
was leaning more towards 1600 height than 1440 (check reviews from a few years ago, lots of
sites were testing at 2560x1600 before the advent of 4K), but then the classic market shift occured
with a combination of swinging consumer demand and manufacturer cost preference shoving out
1440 as the next preferred height, while 1080 rapidly gained ground below it.

There's a definite feedback effect between what companies make, how they price them, how sites
use them, what consumers decide to buy, etc. I remember when 1600x1200 was still popular.

What shocked me when finally choosing a 2560-width monitor a couple of years ago was how the
pricing had totally changed. Used to be there wasn't much difference between a 1440 and 1600
height model, but by 2013 the 1600 models were massively more expensive, as in 2X to 4X more.
So I became another jolt in the pressure wave by choosing a 1440 model (Dell 27" IPS).

Ian.

PS. Apologies for using the 4K name when I know it's not, but hey that's the way the PR nonsense
has evolved.


----------



## Tommy_Here (Apr 26, 2015)

Intel core i5-4690k 4.6GHz
Nvidia geforce gtx 980 core clock 1575mhz Boost
Memory clock 7.8ghz effective


----------



## Gremalot (Apr 26, 2015)

*edit 29apr2015
i7-2600k @ 3.4GHz 
gtx 680  @ 1175/1827 ... -(evga 680 sc sig2) . at nice 58°c


----------



## The N (Apr 29, 2015)

Core i5 2500K @4.0GHz
2x AMD R9 280X (Gigabyte/Sapphire VX)


----------



## Bimmiman (Apr 30, 2015)

[/IMG] I Had issues with low frames rates. I went from a Gtx 560 to a GTX 960 finally  went with the GTX 970 EVGA.......I still noticed low frame rates so the issue for me ended up being that even though I thought I uninstalled all of the previous drivers I in all actuality did not. So I downloaded DISPLAY DRIVER UNINSTALLER. If you do this make sure you watch a youtube video. I overclocked Using MSI afterburner. Increased core clock +50 and Memory Clock +390 My cpu is not overclocked and I am running 3 24 inch displays like a champ for the 1st time ever. I couldn't be more Pleased with this card.YOUTUBE vid of 3 monitors.










Driver Uninstaller YOUTUBE VIDEO. 








Hope this helps someone.


----------



## Cortana (Apr 30, 2015)

Bimmiman said:


> View attachment 64503
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You need to turn on 8x antialiasing and post a screenshot from the benchmark for it to be uploaded to the chart.


----------



## EricG (May 3, 2015)

Intel Core i7-4790k @4.8ghz
2x EVGA GTX 980 @1241/1342

Not too bad i suppose


----------



## Suferbus (May 4, 2015)

[/IMG] Here is my submission. Just finished my 5930k, 3x gtx 980 sli build, but one of my 980's is not operating in sli, so even though Heaven reads 3 gtx 980s, I only have 2 running during this benchmark due to bad sli fingers on my 3rd gpu, so until my rma comes in, it is just sitting in the 3rd pcie slot looking pretty, doing nothing.  Specs:
Intel Core I7 5930k @ 4.6Ghz
2x GTX 980 @ 1350Mhz
8gb GSkill DDR4 @ 2400 Mhz





[/IMG]


----------



## Suferbus (May 4, 2015)

Also, sorry my above entry is not the perfect screenshot, i could not get my print screen feature to work, so i had to save my benchmark run in Heaven, and put it in a folder on my desktop, then use Screen Hunter to get the screen shot.


----------



## sirpig05 (May 4, 2015)

Syrocc said:


> Well, not that I'm against AMD GPUs, but the 290x is still relatively pricey for what it offers. Combine that with high power usage, and I wouldn't really recommend it over a 970, unless you get an insane deal on it. For me, the 290x and 970 were priced identically, so it was a no-brainer. Hope you can get some more out of yours though.


I did get A pretty good deal shipped for $400 AUD. I think it might be my CPU that is bringing me down however I do regret getting my 290x and would prefer a 970


----------



## sirpig05 (May 4, 2015)

This is my R9 290x Score with an fx 8320 at 3.5GHz and the GPU at 1175/1500. The CPU brings my score down a bit though.


----------



## romancef (May 5, 2015)

Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.2 GHz
MSI 970 GTX Gaming @ 1410/2000


----------



## FX-GMC (May 7, 2015)

Updated those with correct screenshot and clocks listed. 



Suferbus said:


> Also, sorry my above entry is not the perfect screenshot, i could not get my print screen feature to work, so i had to save my benchmark run in Heaven, and put it in a folder on my desktop, then use Screen Hunter to get the screen shot.



Press F12 after the benchmark then look for a Heaven subfolder in the documents folder.   That is where it will save the screenshot


----------



## holyfield (May 9, 2015)

It's an old comp with Radeon R9 280X. I share the result just for case, if someone considers to replace an old graphic card with Radeon R9 280X, as I did.

OS: Mac OSX Yosemite 10.10.3
CPU: Intel Q9550
CPU Frequency: 2,83 GHz
Score: 733


----------



## Ghostfriendship (May 10, 2015)

DrawBoy said:


> Alienware 18 (LAPTOP):
> 18.4" Truelife 1920x1080p HD LED 60Hz 2ms screen
> i7 Quad-Core 4900QM 2.8-4.0GHz (o/c)
> Duel GTX 880m 8gb cards (total 16gb)
> ...


Hey Drawboy, can you tell me how you got that awesome score. I have the same lappy as you. I get on average 62. Any advise?


----------



## NecrosNightfall (May 12, 2015)

Intel core i5 3570k @ 3.4 ghz 3.8 boost (stock) Titan X @ 1460 core 2000 Memory


----------



## ezequiel dj (May 13, 2015)

saludos desde Argentina


----------



## Tuco (May 15, 2015)

CPU : I7 3770 3.4
GPU : MSI GTX 970 GAMING 4G
GPU Boost Clock : 1508
MEMORYClock : 2003


----------



## xorbe (May 15, 2015)

I want to clarify my #2 score labeled "1390(non-boost?)/1851" ... 1390 was the speed during the run as reported by MSI AB, so that _was _the boost speed.  1400 is pretty much the limit of my Titan X.


----------



## PartyPrash (May 16, 2015)

My first post on the site  Hello all 




TITAN X
GPU Clock @ 1400MHz
Memory Clock @ 4000Mhz
CPU @ 4.7 @ 1.25v


----------



## MrGenius (May 16, 2015)

holyfield said:


> It's an old comp with Radeon R9 280X. I share the result just for case, if someone considers to replace an old graphic card with Radeon R9 280X, as I did.
> 
> OS: Mac OSX Yosemite 10.10.3
> CPU: Intel Q9550
> ...


WOW!!! 

Worst 280X score ever!

And by a long shot to boot. How is that even possible? 

EDIT: It's not valid. Doesn't show the clocks. How'd you manage that? What did you do...underclock it?


----------



## Vidane (May 16, 2015)

i did get 2017 on it after but forgot to screen cap :/
oc was 1551core/2013mem
 air cooled


----------



## Scarecrow3245 (May 21, 2015)

Anybody done this bench on a laptop before ? Sadly I can't seem to find any scores for m versions of cards...
And comparing it to desktops ones.... well it isn't fair although the gtx 970m is holding on pretty well !
Maybe i'll post some screenshots later on (~1045 with i7 4710HQ stock clock and OC GTX 970m 1170Mhz/3201Mhz)

edit: just saw the guy and his gtx 870m post... wow that is a long shot between his and my 970m


----------



## HammerON (May 22, 2015)

Scarecrow3245 said:


> Anybody done this bench on a laptop before ? Sadly I can't seem to find any scores for m versions of cards...
> And comparing it to desktops ones.... well it isn't fair although the gtx 970m is holding on pretty well !
> Maybe i'll post some screenshots later on (~1045 with i7 4710HQ stock clock and OC GTX 970m 1170Mhz/3201Mhz)
> 
> edit: just saw the guy and his gtx 870m post... wow that is a long shot between his and my 970m



Did you see this run?
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-benchmark-scores.198888/page-33#post-3261538


----------



## FX-GMC (May 22, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> WOW!!!
> 
> Worst 280X score ever!
> 
> ...



It's on a MAC and using OpenGL.



Updated the results that are in compliance with the rules.


----------



## Dru (May 26, 2015)

i7 4770K @4.6 ghz, GTX Titan X @1432/1928


----------



## MrGenius (May 29, 2015)

Got a  little bump up to the #2 spot for my 280X this morning. Nice! 

1031

EDIT: Got a BIG bump up to the #2 spot today!
E8600 @ 3.33GHz + MSI 280X Gaming 3GB OC @ 1205/1850 = *1034 


 *


----------



## jordan1794 (May 30, 2015)

Came back and did a little tweaking, improved my score and bumped myself back into the top 10 
Second highest 980 too.
GTX 980
Actual Boost Clock: 1556.7
Memory Clock: 2088
i7 4790K Overclocked to 4.8 GHz


----------



## SASBehrooz (May 31, 2015)

Asus GTX 970 Strix OC @ Stock
Intel I7 4790k @ Stock
Memory Corsair Vengeance Pro 2400Mhz


----------



## iPond317 (May 31, 2015)

First time poster. Hello! Happy to share my results.

CPU: i7-4790K @ 4.7GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX 970 FTW 4GB ACX 2.0
GPU Clock: 1335MHz
GPU Boost Clock: 1486MHz
GPU Memory Clock: 1903 MHz


----------



## YautjaLord (Jun 1, 2015)

Next Tuesday getting a check, FX-GMC - be ready to register me in a multi GPU scores section, i'll be getting me a 2nd GTX 760. Also - 'ssup all, it's being a while since i've last visited here.


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 1, 2015)

Actually, I might be back with an even higher score...
Turns out, I'm crashing because my voltage doesn't jump quick enough to prevent a crash when launching Heaven. KBoost fixes this though.
Probably won't move me up on the leaderboard, but oh well


----------



## rainbow4w (Jun 1, 2015)




----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 2, 2015)

@jody  & @rainbow4w  you both need to state your GPU model.
R9 200 series doesn't tell us enough. We also need your clock speeds, including CPU speed (in case you have overclocked)

Also, @jody  you need to take a screenshot from within Heaven. Click the link on the first post to see why.
You can do this by pressing F12, and you will find the screenshot under 
C:\Users\<your username here>\Heaven\screenshots
(Replace C with whatever drive letter is assigned to the drive that windows is installed on)

Alternatively, you can press Print Screen, then go into paint and press Ctrl+V

Thanks, and nice scores to the both of you


----------



## jody (Jun 2, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> @jody  & @rainbow4w  you both need to state your GPU model.
> R9 200 series doesn't tell us enough. We also need your clock speeds, including CPU speed (in case you have overclocked)
> 
> Also, @jody  you need to take a screenshot from within Heaven. Click the link on the first post to see why.
> ...


now I just get a .TGA file that wont open??


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 2, 2015)

jody said:


> now I just get a .TGA file that wont open??


You an either do the Print Screen method instead, or download an editor like:
http://www.getpaint.net/download.html
--Open the file, then save as and choose JPEG

OR use a site like:
http://image.online-convert.com/convert-to-jpg
To upload and convert the file.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jun 5, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> @jody  & @rainbow4w  you both need to state your GPU model.
> R9 200 series doesn't tell us enough. We also need your clock speeds, including CPU speed (in case you have overclocked)
> 
> Also, @jody  you need to take a screenshot from within Heaven. Click the link on the first post to see why.
> ...



Judging by the shader count of 2816 I'm assuming he has a 290X unless I am informed otherwise.

Updated.


----------



## navvar (Jun 7, 2015)

Hi all, first post after my new OC. If anyone has any ideas about how to get it to run better I'm all ears, but I can't for the life of me reproduce these results with higher clocks.


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 7, 2015)

navvar said:


> Hi all, first post after my new OC. If anyone has any ideas about how to get it to run better I'm all ears, but I can't for the life of me reproduce these results with higher clocks.
> 
> View attachment 65456


No memory OC?
These 980's can usually hit 8,000 MHz no problem...
Mine can hit 8,500 MHz if I don't have a core clock running...

Surely there are some fairly large gains to be made there?


----------



## flowtek (Jun 7, 2015)

i see no GTX960 on the list but maybe i missed 
not bad for $180 clearance sale

MSI GTX960 Gaming 2G
Core Clock: 1300
Memory Clock:1900 
Core Boost to 1468


----------



## navvar (Jun 8, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> No memory OC?
> These 980's can usually hit 8,000 MHz no problem...
> Mine can hit 8,500 MHz if I don't have a core clock running...
> 
> Surely there are some fairly large gains to be made there?



Yeah, I was able to hit 8Ghz on both cards combined stable with the current core clock OC in the picture, generally FPS was higher in average but never got that high of a peak as my result earlier, I guess it was on a good day. Cheers for the help by the way. :


----------



## kotog (Jun 8, 2015)

CPU: i7-4690K @ 3.50GHz
GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 06G-P4-4992-KR
GPU Clock: 1102 MHz
GPU Boost Clock: 1190 MHz
GPU Memory Clock: 1753 MHz















Edit to update above Clock Speeds.


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 9, 2015)

kotog said:


> CPU: i7-4690K @ 3.50GHz
> GPU: EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC 06G-P4-4992-KR
> GPU Clock: 1102 MHz
> GPU Boost Clock: 1493 MHz
> ...



Should run GPU-Z to be sure, but 1493 boost clock sounds about right.


----------



## kotog (Jun 9, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Should run GPU-Z to be sure, but 1493 boost clock sounds about right.



Thanks. I ran GPU Z and updated my thread. This card is amazing. I actually purchased the GTX 980 FTW about 2 weeks ago and luckily it was from Amazon so I quickly returned it and got this one. It's a beast!


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 9, 2015)

kotog said:


> Thanks. I ran GPU Z and updated my thread. This card is amazing. I actually purchased the GTX 980 FTW about 2 weeks ago and luckily it was from Amazon so I quickly returned it and got this one. It's a beast!


Erm, should be using the sensors tab for the boost clock


----------



## mostcool (Jun 9, 2015)

Hello all, I didn't see many laptop scores so I thought I'll add mine.

CPU: i7-4720HQ @ 2.60 GHz
GPU: GTX 965M  924MHz Core /1253MHz Memory


----------



## Yes_Baas (Jun 10, 2015)

Thought i would signup and add some props for my PowerColor 280x lol

CPU: i7-4790 @ 3.60 GHz
GPU: PowerColor R9 280X 1130MHz / 1500MHz


----------



## doc (Jun 12, 2015)

M5A99X EVO R2.0 mobo
FX 8350@4Ghz (stock turbo off)
Asus R9 290X Matrix (stock)

Hey guys this was my first try on Heaven Benchmark. I´m sure there is some space for more fps, but i am happy ...


----------



## gasolin (Jun 12, 2015)




----------



## fullinfusion (Jun 13, 2015)

Fullinfusion / Intel 4790K @ 4.8Ghz /MSI TFV R9 290x +R9 290 @ 1090/1550..... score 2818

To hot today for this system.

Sorry but print screen just gives a black screen in Paint, so I did it to ol fashion way, with the camera 
Also F12 dont work for so odd reason.


----------



## Brandon K Hankins (Jun 13, 2015)




----------



## stealth83 (Jun 13, 2015)

4770k @3.5
GTX 980ti sc @1102/1190


----------



## silkstone (Jun 14, 2015)

My score seems a little low, though here it is.
7870 Myst + 280x - 1030/1500
i5 2500k @4.4Ghz


----------



## Jetster (Jun 14, 2015)

silkstone said:


> My score seems a little low, though here it is.
> 7870 Myst + 280x - 1030/1500
> i5 2500k @4.4Ghz


Its not low you don't have AA turned on
It should be about 1400


----------



## silkstone (Jun 14, 2015)

My apologies. I missed that setting.
Scores are extremely low now


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 14, 2015)

Brandon K Hankins said:


>





stealth83 said:


> View attachment 65732



as said many times in the thread and also stated in the rules in the original post: if it's not a screenshot from within the benchmark : not valide (reason behind, it's awfully easy to modify a HTML file, ofc not saying that you do it, but it's a rule.)

7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.


----------



## stealth83 (Jun 14, 2015)

Sorry about that, ^^^ its fixed now.


----------



## cookiemonster (Jun 15, 2015)

enter me


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 15, 2015)

cookiemonster said:


> enter me


Read my post above... pretty please...


----------



## cookiemonster (Jun 15, 2015)

Soz how do I do that.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 15, 2015)

cookiemonster said:


> Soz how do I do that.


F12 at the result in the bench then C:user/your name/Heaven/Screenshot convert the TGA to a JPG and upload


----------



## cookiemonster (Jun 16, 2015)

enter me hope it's right this time.


----------



## jdawg12 (Jun 17, 2015)

Eh I can do better....


----------



## Marcelo Couto (Jun 19, 2015)

My Score!


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 19, 2015)

Ok, this is weird...



 

Isn't the score a bit low? I mean, the card is clocked at 1200/6800 ! Verified artifact free and with each iteration of VRAM clock increase, I've verified scores in Sisoft Sandra and 3DMark and scores were always increasing, meaning I haven't really hit the ECC wall of my RAM (which is when you don't have artifacts, but the score stays the same or even goes down. Seems a bit low to me for some reason looking at how much some score with R9-280's...


----------



## crispe (Jun 20, 2015)

I can't printscreen a full scree application without my whole screen going black, but I'm running EVGA GTX 760 SSCs in SLI, CPU is at 4.2Ghz





GPUs are 1,241Mhz (Core) / 3005Mhz (Memory)


----------



## QuestForQueso (Jun 21, 2015)

I finally went out and bought a good graphics card and dayum is it fast. 



 

Specs: 
            CPU: intel i7-4770k @ 3.5 GHz (I'd overclock it but I got the (un)luck of the draw and it's a shitty overclocker)
            GPU: EVGA Geforce GTX 980ti SC (core clock: 1458, memory clock: 2065)


----------



## Jetster (Jun 21, 2015)

crispe said:


> I can't printscreen a full scree application without my whole screen going black, but I'm running EVGA GTX 760 SSCs in SLI, CPU is at 4.2Ghz
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Use TPUs own screen capture program........http://www.techpowerup.com/tpucapture/


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 22, 2015)

Brand new build, been 5 years on the same laptop which just wasn't cutting it. Note the CPU is OC the GPU is out of the bock clock speeds.
I7-5820k OC to 4.1 Ghz
16gb G.Skill Ripjaws DDR 4 PC 3000
Asus X99 Deluxe MB
2x EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC in SLI
2x Samsung EVO 250gb SSD in Raid 0.
Note: Heaven only recognizes 4gb of the 6gb memory available on each card. Not sure if it's reading wrong or not optimized.


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 22, 2015)

Daniel Kemple said:


> Brand new build, been 5 years on the same laptop which just wasn't cutting it. Note the CPU is OC the GPU is out of the bock clock speeds.
> I7-5820k OC to 4.1 Ghz
> 16gb G.Skill Ripjaws DDR 4 PC 3000
> Asus X99 Deluxe MB
> ...


I'd set a custom fan curve if I were you, 80 C is a bit warm.
You are probably being thermal throttled by the cards BIOS (Doesn't really matter, you are so freaking overkill anyways lol)
I think you could probably hit 3500-3750 with the right overclock.
Amazing score btw, and awesome build


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 22, 2015)

Yeah my understanding is the max optimal temp is about 83 degrees, once it hits that the fans really kick up and never had it over 84. Thank you!


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 22, 2015)

Do you have ACX 2.0 cooling? If so you can really crank the cool haha.
I have one 980 overclocked to 1569 core & 8384 effective memory.
My fan curve keeps my card under 65 C, and fan speeds rarely exceed 60 percent.
Inaudible with headphones on, although with them off it is a little noisy.

GPU-Z will tell you what is holding the card(s) back, look at the PerfCap section during the bench (or if you have 1 monitor hover over the graph to a point where it was benching)
These are the codes:

vRel = Reliability. Indicating perf is limited by reliability voltage.
VOp = Operating. Indicating perf is limited by max operating voltage.
Pwr = Power. Indicating perf is limited by total power limit.
Thrm = Thermal. Indicating perf is limited by temperature limit.
Util = Utilization. Indicating perf is limited by GPU utilization.

(Dunno if you want/need help overclocking but I'd be happy to do so, just send me a message )


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 22, 2015)

No reference card, was only one's available atm (in stock) and I wanted to get the build going. May decide to liquid cool them in the future but I honestly don't think I'll need that power anytime soon.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 22, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Ok, this is weird...
> 
> Isn't the score a bit low? I mean, the card is clocked at 1200/6800 ! Verified artifact free and with each iteration of VRAM clock increase, I've verified scores in Sisoft Sandra and 3DMark and scores were always increasing, meaning I haven't really hit the ECC wall of my RAM (which is when you don't have artifacts, but the score stays the same or even goes down. Seems a bit low to me for some reason looking at how much some score with R9-280's...


I don't know about how weird that is. With only one other 7850 to compare it to, with much lower clocks.

EDIT: WTF? Where did I get 7850 from? That's strange. Couldn't possibly be a 7850 with 3GB VRAM. DOH! My bad. Scratch that then.

But I'll tell you one thing FOR SURE, it's NOWHERE NEAR as weird as *a 7950 @ 1206/1668 scoring 1397!!! *Which I've just now discovered while trying to reference your score(how the hell I missed that until now I have no clue). And boy does that *PISS ME OFF!!!* As a matter of fact, *I formally protest*, and I'm going to throw a *MAJOR* fit if that's not removed from the list.

*That is so fucking far from possible it's not even funny...AT ALL!!!*
*
[There used to be some pretty foul stuff I said here. If you really want to see it, check the next page. Where it's been quoted by the OP]*


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 22, 2015)

There is NO way I could pull off 350 more points. The most I managed to get was pushing it over the magic 1000 points barrier. I think 1040 was the highest I've ever got with my HD7950. Only way would be with lower AA level or by forcing tesselation multiplier. 3DMark ignores all those settings or warns about it on the score page, but for Unigine tests, you can basically bend the rules as you please. Which is not exactly cool.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 22, 2015)

A "clean run" with no arties isn't in the rules. So I don't expect *anybody* to be following that unwritten rule. And it's not really provable either. To be honest, my score would be lower, if I were to count artifacts as a disqualifying factor. My card starts throwing fireworks all over the screen at 1200MHz core and above by the end of the benchmark(last 5 or so scenes). Could be due to software overclocking above my BIOS base of 1175MHz, that I use for gaming. I haven't messed with fixing that via the BIOS too much yet(or at all actually). Since I hadn't actually heard of that working for higher stable OCing, until I heard you saying it recently. Anyways, I have *never* seen an artifact show up in any of my post-bench screenshots. So I don't suspect they ever do. Hence the _not really provable_ comment.


----------



## Toothless (Jun 22, 2015)

Processor was running at 4.5ghz.






I can't seem to get a stable OC on that GPU, and the CPU needs a good voltage bump.


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 24, 2015)

So not sure if I should edit the old post or post a new one, but tweaked with only the fan settings for now and seriously improved.


----------



## crumbs (Jun 24, 2015)

i7 2600K @ 4.5Ghz w/ 8GB 1600Mhz DDR3, GTX 970 @ 1520/2000Mhz


----------



## FX-GMC (Jun 24, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> I don't know about how weird that is. With only one other 7850 to compare it to, with much lower clocks.
> 
> EDIT: WTF? Where did I get 7850 from? That's strange. Couldn't possibly be a 7850 with 3GB VRAM. DOH! My bad. Scratch that then.
> 
> ...



Address me in that tone again and you won't have a score up on the board to worry about.  
Why are you so uptight about a damn score anyway?  Wouldn't it have been easier to just call out the score and say you don't believe it to be valid?  (That's rhetorical and the answer is yes.)

Now, the list has been updated.


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 24, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Address me in that tone again and you won't have a score up on the board to worry about.
> Why are you so uptight about a damn score anyway?  Wouldn't it have been easier to just call out the score and say you don't believe it to be valid?  (That's rhetorical and the answer is yes.)
> 
> Now, the list has been updated.


Got it. Point taken. Won't happen again. Wasn't meant to rub you the wrong way. 

I get a little(MASSIVE understatement) out of control sometimes. And I'm truly sorry about that. I'm a loser. And I know it.

I guess it bent me out of shape so bad because it was so flagrantly incorrect. This is such a fun game, it just really sucks when somebody cheats like that. Not a good excuse to freak out like that though.

Anyway, somebody please kill me. Haven't I done enough damage already? Now I've got to live with even more shame, guilt, and embarrassment.

Wait, where's what's-his-name anyhow? This is all his fault truthfully. I wasn't totally in the wrong here. Whereas he most certainly was. Look what you made me go and do. Are you proud of yourself?


----------



## FX-GMC (Jun 24, 2015)

MrGenius said:


> Got it. Point taken. Won't happen again. Wasn't meant to rub you the wrong way.
> 
> I get a little(MASSIVE understatement) out of control sometimes. And I'm truly sorry about that. I'm a loser. And I know it.
> 
> ...



I just want a civil conversation.  I regretfully don't get to check this as much as I used to and seeing a post like that doesn't make this game fun.  I don't vet the scores past checking the settings and trying to get the best clock information I can find (unigine screenshot, GPU-Z, System Specs).  The community does a good job of keeping everything else in check.

Let's just forget it happened and carry on.


----------



## Furney (Jun 24, 2015)

Hope this counts

AMD FX 8350 4.0 Ghz 980 Ti with overclock 1255/2003


----------



## Furney (Jun 24, 2015)

Furney said:


> Hope this counts
> 
> AMD FX 8350 4.0 Ghz 980 Ti with overclock 1255/2003


----------



## crumbs (Jun 25, 2015)

Sorry for posting again so quickly. Just wanted to push the score a little higher so I could be in the top 3 970s. 

i7 2600k @ 4.5Ghz, 970 @ 1546/2070Mhz


----------



## Steevo (Jun 25, 2015)

New entry for me.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

This is my very first post in this thread so apologies if I do anything wrong.

970s in SLI (MSI 100ME/EVGA SSC 2.0 ACX+)
i5-4690K @ 4.4 (Heaven doesn't seem to know that though)
GPU clocks: 1458/1453
MEM clocks: 1971/1889


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

tsouders said:


> This is my very first post in this thread so apologies if I do anything wrong.
> 
> 970s in SLI
> i5-4690K @ 4.4 (Heaven doesn't seem to know that though)
> ...


Need your memory clock speed.
It'd be nice to have the entire heaven screen in the shot, so that it shows the GPU's as well as temp, and clock speeds.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Need your memory clock speed.
> It'd be nice to have the entire heaven screen in the shot, so that it shows the GPU's as well as temp, and clock speeds.



Ah, OK. Should I repost, or reply to my own?


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

It hasn't been long, could just edit your first post


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> It hasn't been long, could just edit your first post



Done! Thanks much.


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

tsouders said:


> Done! Thanks much.


Nice score!
And AMAZING core clock speed 1655!?, you running a modded BIOS or something?


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

Thanks! I wish I was so tricky...I think I just got really lucky with the overclock!


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

tsouders said:


> Thanks! I wish I was so tricky...I think I just got really lucky with the overclock!


I'm quite honestly baffled as to how you got there!
I can't find any other 970's really even breaking 1600 without a BIOS mod.
Even my 980 WITH a BIOS mod (albeit, no voltage changes) I can only hit around 1550-1580.
Your card manufacturer must have a higher max voltage set in the BIOS, you gotta be pushing at least 1.26-1.275 v to get 1650.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> I'm quite honestly baffled as to how you got there!
> I can't find any other 970's really even breaking 1600 without a BIOS mod.
> Even my 980 WITH a BIOS mod (albeit, no voltage changes) I can only hit around 1550-1580.
> Your card manufacturer must have a higher max voltage set in the BIOS, you gotta be pushing at least 1.26-1.275 v to get 1650.



I'll run again and snap a photo of GPU-Z. I do some max voltage tinkering in Afterburner, and I also get really aggressive with the fans -- my case is pretty cavernous so the wind doesn't bother me much. Hottest card got around 71-73 I think.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> I'm quite honestly baffled as to how you got there!
> I can't find any other 970's really even breaking 1600 without a BIOS mod.
> Even my 980 WITH a BIOS mod (albeit, no voltage changes) I can only hit around 1550-1580.
> Your card manufacturer must have a higher max voltage set in the BIOS, you gotta be pushing at least 1.26-1.275 v to get 1650.



So, I ran again, and was getting this in Heaven:





At the same moment, these were the readings on my cards (your guess wasn't far off for voltage) -- but the clock rates read quite lower:


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

tsouders said:


> So, I ran again, and was getting this in Heaven:
> 
> View attachment 66031
> 
> At the same moment, these were the readings on my cards (your guess wasn't far off for voltage) -- but the clock rates read quite lower:


Ah, I thought that might happen.
Your offset is so high that your cards are capping and throttling before they event get close to 1600.
You could probably get higher score if you lowered the clock speed. Also, I believe two cards in SLI will only run as fast as the slowest card, so you should set them to the same settings.
Try setting an offset around 150 MHz lower than you current one to start.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Ah, I thought that might happen.
> Your offset is so high that your cards are capping and throttling before they event get close to 1600.
> You could probably get higher score if you lowered the clock speed. Also, I believe two cards in SLI will only run as fast as the slowest card, so you should set them to the same settings.
> Try setting an offset around 150 MHz lower than you current one to start.



Which offset should I lower by 150? The clock speed? The Afterburner increase I've put on them is only around 200. Are you saying drop it to 50ish and see what happens?


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 25, 2015)

tsouders said:


> Which offset should I lower by 150? The clock speed? The Afterburner increase I've put on them is only around 200. Are you saying drop it to 50ish and see what happens?


Yeah, the core.
Memory speed is good, you honestly might be able to go even higher, most of the 970's and 980's can hit 8 GHz no problem.
Might want to consider flashing one card or the other to the BIOS of the other one, so it could be simpler to overclock.
Regardless, you've got a great set-up and probably shouldn't worry too much about overclocking it, the SLI cards being different makes it more complicated than what I'd be willing to mess with.


----------



## tsouders (Jun 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Yeah, the core.
> Memory speed is good, you honestly might be able to go even higher, most of the 970's and 980's can hit 8 GHz no problem.
> Might want to consider flashing one card or the other to the BIOS of the other one, so it could be simpler to overclock.
> Regardless, you've got a great set-up and probably shouldn't worry too much about overclocking it, the SLI cards being different makes it more complicated than what I'd be willing to mess with.



Yeah, I really just wanted to play around with Heaven just to see how the second OC'd...and being my first SLI setup, I of course wanted to see the payoff, haha. I'll probably knock down the core clock a bit and just roll with it as is, like you said. Given the price I paid for the second one, I think I've gotten my money's worth at this point anyway. Thanks for your feedback!


----------



## Yes_Baas (Jun 25, 2015)

Pushed the 280x a little more to get a better score of 1015.
CPU: i7 4790 @ 3.6Ghz
GPU: PowerColor 280x @ 1670/1180


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 25, 2015)

I guess we can update mine again, did some OCing of the GPU this time.


----------



## Furney (Jun 25, 2015)

Alright lets try this again

GTX 980ti 1255/2003 and AMD FX-8350 4.0 Ghz


----------



## hooiberg (Jun 25, 2015)

Single MSI R9 290X Lightning at default speed: 1080/1250, on core i7 920 on 2.67 GHz; for a score of 1017


----------



## silkstone (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Ok, this is weird...
> 
> View attachment 65887
> 
> Isn't the score a bit low? I mean, the card is clocked at 1200/6800 ! Verified artifact free and with each iteration of VRAM clock increase, I've verified scores in Sisoft Sandra and 3DMark and scores were always increasing, meaning I haven't really hit the ECC wall of my RAM (which is when you don't have artifacts, but the score stays the same or even goes down. Seems a bit low to me for some reason looking at how much some score with R9-280's...



Not far off mine with a 280x in crossfire.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 25, 2015)

hooiberg said:


> Single MSI R9 290X Lightning at default speed: 1080/1250, on core i7 920 on 2.67 GHz; for a score of 1017



Why are you using OpenGL and scoring with R9-290X the same as I am with overclocked HD7950? Use DX11...


----------



## hooiberg (Jun 25, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Why are you using OpenGL and scoring with R9-290X the same as I am with overclocked HD7950? Use DX11...


Because I am new to this, I will get back to you. Thanks


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2015)

Bedroom rig: Core i3-4130 (stock), and R9 290 (stock), 8 GB DDR3-1333 dual-channel.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 26, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Why are you using OpenGL and scoring with R9-290X the same as I am with overclocked HD7950? Use DX11...



Check his OS.


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 26, 2015)

btarunr said:


> Check his OS.



Oh, missed that one. Using DirectX on Linux will be a bit of a problem hehe


----------



## THECHTIDD62 (Jun 26, 2015)

Résultat


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 26, 2015)

THECHTIDD62 said:


> Résultat
> 
> View attachment 66044


growing tired ....

1st check your preset and set it according to the 1st post in that thread.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/
Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.) Ultra Quality
3.) Extreme Tessellation

not simply Extreme HD


please read that post
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-benchmark-scores.198888/page-39#post-3297450


GreiverBlade said:


> as said many times in the thread and also stated in the rules in the original post: if it's not a screenshot from within the benchmark : not valide (reason behind, it's awfully easy to modify a HTML file, ofc not saying that you do it, but it's a rule.)
> 
> 7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.
> View attachment 65739


and then that one
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/t...-benchmark-scores.198888/page-39#post-3298007


GreiverBlade said:


> F12 at the result in the bench then C:user/your name/Heaven/Screenshot convert the TGA to a JPG and upload


----------



## Protokille (Jun 27, 2015)

Hi, bringing a fresh score of 2656 from my brand new 980 ti Gigabyte 

1535/2000 mhz

Forgot to take a proper screen but at least you can see everything like settings and stuff ^^


----------



## neo1738 (Jun 27, 2015)

Protokille said:


> Hi, bringing a fresh score of 2656 from my brand new 980 ti Gigabyte
> 
> 1535/2000 mhz
> 
> Forgot to take a proper screen but at least you can see everything like settings and stuff ^^



Nice you'll see my score of 3906 from 2 of those in SLI with minor OC and fan speed tweaks..great card!


----------



## KiLLRiDE (Jun 27, 2015)

Installed a Arctic Accelero Hybrid II onto my Gigabyte 980 Ti. 1225/1800mhz


----------



## tttony (Jun 28, 2015)

Core i5 2500K @ Stock | AMD 6950 800/1250 | Score 442



Spoiler


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 28, 2015)

tttony said:


> Core i5 2500K @ Stock | AMD 6950 800/1250 | Score 442
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


82 degrees?
Might be getting thermal throttled...could try setting a custom fan curve and seeing if it improves the score a tad bit.


----------



## The Pallindrone (Jun 28, 2015)

Aww, yeah folks....my lifelong race to mediocrity.....but ya gotta admit, this ain't bad for an old Socket 775 mobo @ PCIx16,ver 1.0....I didn't see any C2D /nVidia 650ti posts....so here's one!


----------



## Gokufighther (Jun 28, 2015)

Pentium G3258 @ 4.5 GHZ OC with XFX radeon HD 7950 @ 1050/1500
Score 853


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 28, 2015)

The Pallindrone said:


> View attachment 66077





Gokufighther said:


> Pentium G3258 @ 4.5 GHZ OC with XFX radeon HD 7950 @ 1050/1500
> Score 853



again (read the full quote here under please. not the 1st part altho, you did get the settings right.)


GreiverBlade said:


> growing tired ....
> 
> 1st check your preset and set it according to the 1st post in that thread.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores.198888/
> ...


----------



## Tommy_Here (Jun 28, 2015)

GPU was running at 1460mhz with +550 on the memory  (8.05ghz)
cpu clocked at 4.6ghz


----------



## YautjaLord (Jun 28, 2015)

Sorry to write this down just now: will have to postpone the score to next month, expectations & reality are two different things.   Don't worry - i'll still post the score sooner than later. Cheers all.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jun 28, 2015)

Someone bench a Fury X!


----------



## Gokufighther (Jun 28, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> again (read the full quote here under please. not the 1st part altho, you did get the settings right.)


i cant do the f12 thing, here is what happens 


i do have the HTML file (i dont know how to edit them or whatnot... i just installed this and saw this thread...)
my score this time was 858 though if you do want to add it, and i have the HTML here



Intel Pentium G3258 @ 4.5GHZ with an XFX Radeon HD 7950 @ 1050/1500
Score: 858
again, i have NO software knowledge at all unless i spend a lot of time with it or google things for hours, i am a hardware guy and i intend to stay that way (also i am only 16, i dont have time to learn html)


----------



## Furney (Jun 28, 2015)

Scores not being added atm?


----------



## jordan1794 (Jun 28, 2015)

Gokufighther said:


> i cant do the f12 thing, here is what happens View attachment 66118
> i do have the HTML file (i dont know how to edit them or whatnot... i just installed this and saw this thread...)
> my score this time was 858 though if you do want to add it, and i have the HTML here
> View attachment 66119
> ...


To learn how to edit the HTML file for this would literally take all of 5 minutes.
But, that's not the point 
Have you tried pressing the Print Screen button on your keyboard? (Abbreviated Prt Scr on a lot of keyboards)?
Do that at the bench screen then open up paint and press control+V


----------



## tttony (Jun 29, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> 82 degrees?
> Might be getting thermal throttled...could try setting a custom fan curve and seeing if it improves the score a tad bit.


You right, it's really hot, it's a reference card, never cleaned since 2011

MSIA it's installed but I've never used, I use ATI Tray Tools to set clocks when I'm not playing 200/150

I will try to setup a curve with MSIA


----------



## Gokufighther (Jun 29, 2015)

Gokufighther said:


> i cant do the f12 thing, here is what happens View attachment 66118
> i do have the HTML file (i dont know how to edit them or whatnot... i just installed this and saw this thread...)
> my score this time was 858 though if you do want to add it, and i have the HTML here
> View attachment 66119
> ...


O-O-O-OK i found out the problem and i was able to get a TGA file viewer as well to see if i got the screenshot right his time, (also i had to convert it to png... ugh) and YUSS it works! so here is the score and the specs are the same (g3258 @ 4.5 and 7950 at 1050/1500 (also i had to dial that down to 1000/1500 for valley... strange, but this one is 1050/1500))

(ALSO i had to change the file from 1920x1080 to 1280x720, so many annoying details, all b/c 2mb is the limit for these pics.. ugh)


----------



## Gokufighther (Jun 29, 2015)

tttony said:


> You right, it's really hot, it's a reference card, never cleaned since 2011
> 
> MSIA it's installed but I've never used, I use ATI Tray Tools to set clocks when I'm not playing 200/150
> 
> I will try to setup a curve with MSIA


you should probably clean that bad boy with some compressed air... and maybe replace the thermal compound... it helps and linustechtips has a youtube vid to help with that!


----------



## Gokufighther (Jun 29, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> To learn how to edit the HTML file for this would literally take all of 5 minutes.
> But, that's not the point
> Have you tried pressing the Print Screen button on your keyboard? (Abbreviated Prt Scr on a lot of keyboards)?
> Do that at the bench screen then open up paint and press control+V


i got it fixed, i said how in my reply to my post

*also you say that editing an html will take 5 mins... lemme overshare here... it took me over an hour and a half just to find the setting in the control panel for win 8.1 to find out how to add things to my windows firewall so i could play a game.... yeah... i am clueless in software*


----------



## Cortana (Jun 29, 2015)

Gokufighther said:


> i got it fixed, i said how in my reply to my post
> 
> *also you say that editing an html will take 5 mins... lemme overshare here... it took me over an hour and a half just to find the setting in the control panel for win 8.1 to find out how to add things to my windows firewall so i could play a game.... yeah... i am clueless in software*




lol  sorry.. just found that pretty funny..


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jun 29, 2015)

Gokufighther said:


> O-O-O-OK i found out the problem and i was able to get a TGA file viewer as well to see if i got the screenshot right his time, (also i had to convert it to png... ugh) and YUSS it works! so here is the score and the specs are the same (g3258 @ 4.5 and 7950 at 1050/1500 (also i had to dial that down to 1000/1500 for valley... strange, but this one is 1050/1500))
> 
> (ALSO i had to change the file from 1920x1080 to 1280x720, so many annoying details, all b/c 2mb is the limit for these pics.. ugh)


well i convert them to jpg and no need to re-size (at last for me) thanks for that result.



Furney said:


> Scores not being added atm?


waiting on @FX-GMC but i'm pretty sure he's kinda busy atm ... so be patient  .


----------



## RejZoR (Jun 29, 2015)

My final official score with:
*GIGABYTE Radeon HD7950 3GB WindForce 3X (GV-R795WF3-3GD) @ 1200/7000*

Score:*
1013*


----------



## hooiberg (Jun 30, 2015)

hooiberg said:


> Because I am new to this, I will get back to you. Thanks



And here I am back, with the same run on windows. Still everything on stock speed. I wil try to up it a nudge. Buying a Lightning and let it run on stock speed is like buying a Lamborghini to do the groceries.
On the other hand, in the top post: "The goal is to provide a chart that represents real world usage". Squeezing every last clock cycle out of the the hardware and punish it to within an inch of its life is not really real world usage. Although opinions may vary...

For completeness: MSI R9 290X Lightning, on stock speed: 1080/1250, on a stock speed core i7 920 (2.67 GHz) running Windows 7, with 24 GB memory

I failed to get Heaven to make a screenshot, so I took a picture of the monitor. Take it or leave it.


----------



## FanBanderes (Jun 30, 2015)

i7-4770 @ 3.4GHz
8 Gb DDR3 @ 1600Mhz
Sapphire R9 290 @ 1120/5600
driver 15.6 Beta
Windows 8.1 Pro





why to disperse more than 1200? r9 290


----------



## Jborg (Jul 1, 2015)




----------



## RandomSadness (Jul 1, 2015)




----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2015)

If I won't be able to pump out 2000 points with GTX 980 I'll be greatly disappointed and will be fiddling with it for so long that I'll reach that XD


----------



## jordan1794 (Jul 1, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> If I won't be able to pump out 2000 points with GTX 980 I'll be greatly disappointed and will be fiddling with it for so long that I'll reach that XD


It's not super easy. As always, it depends on your specific card. I could just BARELY eek out 2000 without a BIOS mod, kept hitting the power limit.
After BIOS mod for power limit only (No voltage changes) I was able to hit 2040.
I imagine that, if I used a voltage change I'd have the top 980.
I'd probably also have the top score(for 980) if I accepted artifacts, but personally I won't submit a score that has them.

I do know that my vram will run artifact free at 8.450 GHz, and it will RUN (fireworks everywhere) upwards of 8.7 GHz.
If you ignore artifacts you could probably hit 2000 without a BIOS mod.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 1, 2015)

980 Poseidon Platinum (on a 240X60 with 2 SP120L @1800rpm) i5-4690K @4499(4.5)


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 1, 2015)

Air or water cooled? Poseidon is a hybrid cooling card...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 1, 2015)

RejZoR said:


> Air or water cooled? Poseidon is a hybrid cooling card...


the 240X60 is the answer you seek: it's a Phobya G-Changer 240V2 with a DC12-220 pump and a Balancer 150 res (the fan runs too even on water i like to keep them for the additional )


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 1, 2015)

Update.


----------



## mark-benney (Jul 2, 2015)

Ordering new PSU as can not overclock high due to power restriction. But next week am coming back with a 3k test  just maybe


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jul 2, 2015)

This is what my PC got. I don't care about the list, but if I get ever get an answer to my question back on page 23 I will add a screen shot.

I failed to notice that the 1920X1080 fullscreen, and the extreme preset does not use those. To be a bit more consistent with the rest I corrected that error.


Spoiler



*Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0*
FPS:
*60.8*
Score:
*1531*
Min FPS:
*27.0*
Max FPS:
*135.9*
*System*
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz (3410MHz) x6
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 10.18.13.5330 (2048MB) x2
*Settings*
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1600x900 8xAA windowed
Preset
Extreme



*Unigine Heaven Benchmark 4.0*
FPS:
*48.0*
Score:
*1209*
Min FPS:
*21.1*
Max FPS:
*113.3*
*System*
Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4930K CPU @ 3.40GHz (3410MHz) x6
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 10.18.13.5330 (2048MB) x2
*Settings*
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
Tessellation:
Extreme


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 2, 2015)

mark-benney said:


> View attachment 66210
> 
> Ordering new PSU as can not overclock high due to power restriction. But next week am coming back with a 3k test  just maybe



not valid follow the procedure under in my 2 own quotes



GreiverBlade said:


> as said many times in the thread and also stated in the rules in the original post: if it's not a screenshot from within the benchmark : not valide (reason behind, it's awfully easy to modify a HTML file, ofc not saying that you do it, but it's a rule.)
> 
> 7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.
> View attachment 65739





GreiverBlade said:


> F12 at the result in the bench then C:user/your name/Heaven/Screenshot convert the TGA to a JPG and upload



to that point


ChevyOwner said:


> This is what my PC got. I don't care about the list, but if I get ever get an answer to my question back on page 23 I will add a screen shot.





ChevyOwner said:


> Does this include fore enabling pcie gen 3?
> http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3135/


well ... if it's the question you mean ... no ... if your card is gen3 capable and the motherboard can use it ... why not (i don't see the problem tho ... but maybe @FX-GMC  has a different oppinion)


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 2, 2015)

ChevyOwner said:


> This is what my PC got. I don't care about the list, but if I get ever get an answer to my question back on page 23 I will add a screen shot.
> 
> Intel i7-4930K @ 3.6GHz | GTX 660x2 1046/1502
> 
> ...



There is no restriction on PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0.


----------



## ChevyOwner (Jul 2, 2015)

Thanks for the answer. I just wanted to make sure as it did need the tool to activate it.
It seems to me it basically just makes games run smoother, but the overall FPS is the same.





Intel i7-4930K @ 3.4GHz | GTX 660x2 1046/1502
CPU is at the stock clocks in case I have them wrong. Turbo is still on.


----------



## tttony (Jul 2, 2015)

I'm the only one with a AMD 6950


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 2, 2015)

tttony said:


> I'm the only one with a AMD 6950


here maybe ... but fret not, one of my friend is running a CFX of them in his build, and he loves them, they still run pretty much anythings he play (even ARK:Survival Evolved), he just happen to be not on that forum ... (he has some problem with English  )


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 2, 2015)

The HD 6950 is still standing strong on this High End Video Card list. It still easily beats any of the 200 series R7s. And arguably the 300 series R7 360X and below too. http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=3131&gid2=456&compare=radeon-r7-360x-vs-radeon-hd-6950


----------



## tttony (Jul 3, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> here maybe ... but fret not, one of my friend is running a CFX of them in his build, and he loves them, they still run pretty much anythings he play (even ARK:Survival Evolved), he just happen to be not on that forum ... (he has some problem with English  )



AMD 6950 are almost five years and are warriors in these days where somes GPUs are re-branded, I'm thinking to upgrade but I'm just a casual gamer



MrGenius said:


> The HD 6950 is still standing strong on this High End Video Card list. It still easily beats any of the 200 series R7s. And arguably the 300 series R7 360X and below too. http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/index.php?gid=3131&gid2=456&compare=radeon-r7-360x-vs-radeon-hd-6950



Cool info!! taht's makes me to not upgrade xD


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 3, 2015)

also @FX-GMC  my boost in bench show 1643 on GPU-Z monitoring (tho it indicate 1499 in the boost tab on specs   )


----------



## mark-benney (Jul 4, 2015)

GreiverBlade said:


> not valid follow the procedure under in my 2 own quotes
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ok No Worries
5820k at 3.8ghz
GPU 1299mhz Boost 1388mhz , Ram 7972mhz 
 Boost on card may well of overclocked higher. but in setting is what i have put
No over volt
Max amps 130%
GPU is Air cooled and for test fans were set to max
Please use this test until. I can beat it as back up recorded end with phone.   







Thank you


----------



## mark-benney (Jul 4, 2015)

Just to show floor in using picture alone as prove of result. this took me 30 seconds


----------



## lapino (Jul 6, 2015)

My score with the MSI GTX980Ti 6G




Wonder if these temps are normal. This is with an open case, ambient temp around 25°C.


----------



## mark-benney (Jul 6, 2015)

Very good score for the i5 showing its muscle. Temps are fine. My 980ti is Gigabytes G1 with one of the best coolers , so keeps temps 63c or lower, So far with case open. under 70c with closed


----------



## Lui Leyland Robert (Jul 6, 2015)

*SAPPHIRE TOXIC R9 270X 2GB GDDR5 WITH BOOST 2GB GDDR5 (1200 MHz Core , 1550MHz Mem )*
*Intel Core i5 4570 3.2GHz Non-Overclock*
*758 Score*

*I'm new arrive and this is my first reply at this Fourm *


----------



## jordan1794 (Jul 6, 2015)

lapino said:


> My score with the MSI GTX980Ti 6G
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Needs to be fullscreen, not windowed.


----------



## lapino (Jul 6, 2015)

mark-benney said:


> Very good score for the i5 showing its muscle. Temps are fine. My 980ti is Gigabytes G1 with one of the best coolers , so keeps temps 63c or lower, So far with case open. under 70c with closed



yeah but 70°C is pretty good imo. Just played a bit of Witcher 3 with case close, temps easily rise to 80°C. That's 10°C difference!


----------



## Devil-Walker (Jul 6, 2015)

my 980ti single card scores. i have the cpu at 4.4 and the ram at 2400mhz im running custom water tho.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 6, 2015)

Devil-Walker said:


> my 980ti single card scores. i have the cpu at 4.4 and the ram at 2400mhz im running custom water tho.



1920x10*80 *8xAA *fullscreen*


----------



## Lui Leyland Robert (Jul 6, 2015)

Here is the most updated score after increased the VDDC to 1.3V from 1.2V

*SAPPHIRE TOXIC R9 270X 2GB GDDR5 WITH BOOST 2GB GDDR5 (1300 MHz Core , 1550MHz Mem )*
*Intel Core i5 4570 3.2GHz Non-Overclock*
*790 Score*


----------



## Jaffakeik (Jul 8, 2015)

GTX980Ti AMP Extreme Edition 6GB. GPU clock>1385MHz(boosted) Memory Clock> 1805MHz
i7-4820k 3.70Ghz stock


----------



## Gokufighther (Jul 9, 2015)

Gokufighther said:


> O-O-O-OK i found out the problem and i was able to get a TGA file viewer as well to see if i got the screenshot right his time, (also i had to convert it to png... ugh) and YUSS it works! so here is the score and the specs are the same (g3258 @ 4.5 and 7950 at 1050/1500 (also i had to dial that down to 1000/1500 for valley... strange, but this one is 1050/1500))
> 
> (ALSO i had to change the file from 1920x1080 to 1280x720, so many annoying details, all b/c 2mb is the limit for these pics.. ugh)


I ran the benchmarks again after tinkering with my voltage and overclocks... the temp is crap, but i have the card where i want it to be, specs are the same for the CPU, GPU is at 1100/1375 now and the voltage is 1194 if you were wondering!)


----------



## scorpian007 (Jul 9, 2015)

2582 on my OC'd reference 980Ti 1440MHz/1985MHz,
i7 4770K @ 4.3GHz (not that it matters for this)


----------



## Lui Leyland Robert (Jul 9, 2015)

This is my Notebook - Lenovo IdeaPad G580 20150's performance

nVIDIA GeForce GT635M Lenovo Edition [ Change Name From GT630M ] (795MHz Core , 1100MHz Mem ) Overclocked
Intel Core i5 3210M 2.5GHz Non-OverClock
Score 118


----------



## vivanv (Jul 9, 2015)

5960x @ 4.5ghz 1.2v
SLI Gigabyte 980TI G1 Gaming 6gb - 1341mhz core GPU


----------



## vipergtx (Jul 11, 2015)

Great Thread, my first post...  Running i7-3770k @ stock 3.9Ghz and MSI GTX 980 TI GPU Clock : 1504Mhz and Memory Clock : 8010Mhz...

regards, Vipergtx


----------



## mark-benney (Jul 11, 2015)

vipergtx said:


> Great Thread, my first post...  Running i7-3770k @ stock 3.9Ghz and MSI GTX 980 TI GPU Clock : 1504Mhz and Memory Clock : 8010Mhz...
> 
> regards, Vipergtx


Hi Vipergtx
Good score but looks like yours is doing what mine did. going by low frames per second. If you turn your vram speed down  by a small amount. Your min frames will go up and overall score up maybe.
My clocks are up on board
Good luck


----------



## bozo6 (Jul 11, 2015)

FX-8350 4.3MHz 1.3v and Galax GTX 980 HOF V2


----------



## jordan1794 (Jul 12, 2015)

bozo6 said:


> FX-8350 4.3MHz 1.3v and Galax GTX 980 HOF V2


No memory OC? 
The 980s/970s can pretty much all hit 8 GHz on the VRAM without issues. Gives quite a bit of performance boost too!


----------



## bozo6 (Jul 12, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> No memory OC?
> The 980s/970s can pretty much all hit 8 GHz on the VRAM without issues. Gives quite a bit of performance boost too!


Hi Jordan1794,
 I just received the HOF on 7/10/15. This was just a quick OC and Heaven Benchmark to see what results I'd get. Still working on OC'ing the HOF.  I'd rather be having fun with my new  HOF card to see what it can do then work. But work calls more then play.


----------



## bozo6 (Jul 12, 2015)

FX-8350 4.41 MHz 1.3v and Galax GTX 980 HOF V2
Here's a better result. Still working on more from the HOF.


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 14, 2015)

I've noticed the last couple builds of W10 have been giving me a little more OC headroom and significantly improved framerates. So I figured I'd better exploit that for all it's worth. 

And I've just started benching with the WHQL 15.7 driver(not going very well so far). The score below was with 15.3 beta. So maybe I'll squeeze a few more frames out of it with 15.7. I doubt it. But we'll see. Looks like it'll be with a relatively lower core speed, if it does me any good at all.

E8600 @ 3.33GHz + 280X @ 1209/1850 = 1051 *SCORE BELOW IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY*




So....did it work? Yessir! Lowered the core speed by 9MHz + upgraded the drivers from 15.3 to 15.7 = +8 points

E8600 @ 3.33GHz + 280X @ 1200/1850 = 1059 *PLEASE USE SCORE BELOW FOR THE RECORD*


* 

My mind is officially blown!
*


----------



## bozo6 (Jul 15, 2015)

FX-8350 4.3MHz 1.35 v and Galax GTX 980 HOF V2  Score 1932
New Benchmark


----------



## HammerON (Jul 16, 2015)

Stock run on the ZOTAC 980 Ti Amp Extreme:


----------



## KiLLRiDE (Jul 16, 2015)

Tweaked the 980 Ti.
Currently at 1260/2003.
Stable and nice low temp.


----------



## Mrboost (Jul 16, 2015)

i7 5820k watercooled
3 gtx980 on air


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jul 16, 2015)

Mrboost said:


> i7 5820k watercooled
> 3 gtx980 on air


well i get why your forum name is Mrboost...


----------



## Mrboost (Jul 16, 2015)

i7 5820k watercooled
3 gtx980 on air
1316/1417


----------



## king22685 (Jul 17, 2015)

not sure why i have such high score when people in here have better cpu and gpu than me


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 17, 2015)

king22685 said:


> not sure why i have such high score when people in here have better cpu and gpu than me


Full screen or nothing.


----------



## KiLLRiDE (Jul 17, 2015)

king22685 said:


> not sure why i have such high score when people in here have better cpu and gpu than me


From what i can see AA needs to be set to 8x to be able to compare scores, not sure what else u have it on but check 1st page for required settings and adjust UH4 and then benchmark again.


----------



## KrissMac (Jul 18, 2015)

i7 4790k 4.6ghz 1.297v
gtx 780 ti sli both around 1215
3468score lets see what we can push these to


 

 mhz core 1850-1900


----------



## FeedbackHD (Jul 20, 2015)

i5-4690k @4.4ghz
GTX 980 ti Zotac AMP! Edition with base and boost of 1251mhz/1340mhz and memory at 2003mhz
16gb Corsair Vengeance Pro 1600mhz

Actually very surprised at the results. Looking at the table, I'm in 7th place. Wow, not bad


----------



## chainsmokerjoe (Jul 23, 2015)

http://i.imgur.com/6dSH5da.png


----------



## YautjaLord (Jul 23, 2015)

Scales good, almost double score of single GTX 760 DCII OC, GPUs & CPU run @ stock clocks, AMD's Turbo Core 2.0 enabled.


----------



## FORGE (Jul 24, 2015)

5960x ddr4 dominator 3200mhz gtx980 sli


----------



## Am* (Jul 27, 2015)

Here's my Titan X @1360/2000 (on stock air cooler) & 2500K @4.4GHz.

Number 9 by the looks of things, not bad at all...I'm surprised my 2500K managed to keep up, considering how old it is (and that it's the only PCI-E 2.0 in those top 10 scores)


----------



## FX-GMC (Jul 27, 2015)

chainsmokerjoe said:


> http://i.imgur.com/6dSH5da.png
> View attachment 66777



Need Clock speeds.  

Updated first post.


----------



## Bathuzad (Jul 27, 2015)

Greetings, I thought I would leave this here. 
Delicious, delicious air cooling.

Asus STRIX GTX980 DCII OC @ 1378/1503 boost(+200) - Memory:  8010(+500)
CPU: I7 4790K @ 4.7GHz
RAM: 32GB 1600mhz Corsair Vengeance


----------



## Boostybleep (Jul 28, 2015)

i5 4690k @4.5GHz
2 x Reference 980ti on Air
1225/1978  +225/+450

This is with a really high ambient room temp, around 29 degrees.  Air con now on and i'll run again when I get the temperature reasonable.  Im being throttle by temperatures, cant wait to get water.


----------



## Boostybleep (Jul 29, 2015)

Same settings as above.  Ambient temp 20oC nets me 58 more points.


----------



## Bathuzad (Jul 29, 2015)

Well I think my card has reached a limit I don't have to cross... 

Asus STRIX GTX980 DCII OC @ 1399/1500(1524) boost(+221) - Memory: 2078 (8310)(+650)
CPU: I7 4790K @ 4.7GHz
RAM: 32GB 1600mhz Corsair Vengeance


----------



## SimpleTECH (Jul 30, 2015)

i7-4770K @ 4.4GHz, ZOTAC GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme @ 1333/2055 (max boost 1522)


----------



## coodiggy (Jul 30, 2015)

Intel i7 4790K at 4.0 stock cooler  xfx Radeon R9 290x all stock clocks air cooled
Heaven 4.0 at 1920x1080 all the right settings full screen etc... 1888


----------



## coodiggy (Jul 30, 2015)

coodiggy said:


> Intel i7 4790K at 4.0 stock cooler  xfx Radeon R9 290x all stock clocks air cooled
> Heaven 4.0 at 1920x1080 all the right settings full screen etc... 1888


apparently there was a conflict with the resolution, I guess my monitor defaulted to 1280x1024.. I think that's as high as it will go, it's an old dell ultrasharp 19" standard aspect ratio


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 30, 2015)

I guess I am just missing something here. But where does this screenshot go after I hit f12...there doesn't seem to be a file.

EDIT ok I found the .tga files. now to find something to open them with

EDIT2. Got it.

i7-950 @ 4.2Ghz
MSI GTX780ti 1200Mhz/1960Mhz


----------



## silkstone (Jul 30, 2015)

New score on Windows 10






Much better - About 20% improvement from my previous score and more in-line with what I should be getting. All system specs are the same as my previous submission. i5@4.4ghz GPUs @ 1030 core - 1500 Mem


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Jul 30, 2015)

silkstone said:


> New score on Windows 10
> 
> Much better - About 20% improvement from my previous score and more in-line with what I should be getting. All system specs are the same as my previous submission. i5@4.4ghz GPUs @ 1030 core - 1500 Mem



Was your previous score on win 7 or win 8.1?


----------



## silkstone (Jul 31, 2015)

Win 7 and Win 8.1 I got the same scores, no improvement for me between them


----------



## SimpleTECH (Jul 31, 2015)

i3-4130T @ 2.9GHz, GTX 860M @ 1400/1503


----------



## skippy258 (Jul 31, 2015)

I have a Question I have 32 cores but this test shows that its only using 16 of them cores.
I have gone into windows settings and told windows to use all 32 cores for all programs, so this has confused why it only using 16 of them.

1920 x 1080 Display



EDIT: The cards i'm use are PowerColor HD 7750 4 GB DDR3 X2 card in crossfire.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b1996/powercolor-hd-7750-4-gb-ddr3.html


----------



## Caring1 (Jul 31, 2015)

skippy258 said:


> I have a Question I have 32 cores but this test shows that its only using 16 of them cores.
> I have gone into windows settings and told windows to use all 32 cores for all programs, so this has confused why it only using 16 of them.


They have 16 cores, 8 physical.
http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-Opteron-6272
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272


----------



## skippy258 (Jul 31, 2015)

Caring1 said:


> They have 16 cores, 8 physical.
> http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-Opteron-6272
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Opteron+6272



Ok did not know that, I see now:
Description:_Socket: G34, Clockspeed: 2.1 GHz, Turbo Speed: 3.0 GHz, No of Cores: 8 (2 logical cores per physical), Max TDP: 115 W_
Other names:_AMD Opteron(TM) Processor 6272_
CPU First Seen on Charts: Q4 2011



What do they mean by turbo speed, overclocking?
As I see no turbo button on my board like on some other systems.
-------------------------------------

Edit: this is my scores for 1680x1050 display below.






EDIT:The cards i'm use are PowerColor HD 7750 4 GB DDR3 X2 card in crossfire.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b1996/powercolor-hd-7750-4-gb-ddr3.html


----------



## Tommy_Here (Jul 31, 2015)

Tommy_Here, Intel core i5 4690k 4.6ghz, EVGA Nvidia GTX 980 Ti classified, 1520mhz/8050mhz memory


----------



## Toothless (Aug 1, 2015)

New run!








Had to use the render test to get the clocks back up to where they were running at. Also the 4790k was at the stock turbo of 4.4ghz


----------



## Tommy_Here (Aug 1, 2015)

Tommy_Here, Intel core i5 4690k 4.6ghz, EVGA Nvidia GTX 980 Ti classified, 1520mhz/8050mhz memory


----------



## SimpleTECH (Aug 1, 2015)

i7-4770K @ 4.4GHz, Gigabyte R9 290 WindForce 3X OC @ 1135/1625


----------



## HammerON (Aug 2, 2015)

@Tommy_Here what driver version are you using?

I am using 353.38...


EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified:

Default:











Overclocked:


----------



## bozo6 (Aug 2, 2015)

KR0N0S---AMD FX-8350 @ 5.09GHz ---- GALAX GTX 980 HOF V2 @ 1511MHz Core / 7780 Mem ---- FPS: 77.9 --- Score: 1963
It's getting better all the time.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 2, 2015)

HammerON said:


> @Tommy_Here what driver version are you using?
> 
> I am using 353.38...


It shows up as 353.30 in his post


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 2, 2015)

HammerON said:


> @Tommy_Here what driver version are you using?
> 
> I am using 353.38...
> 
> ...



Now that's weird.  On 1468Mhz core and 7600Mhz memory I get:







Which is 1.1 behind you but on that other Valley thread - I had faster clocks but was further behind....

Benchmarks - I can't figure them out. 

I'll not try pushing further until I get round to installing my Bitspower water block..  One thing that stands out is that my run was done at 1.15v (stock - no over voltage).


----------



## Moofachuka (Aug 2, 2015)

guess it's time for an upgrade....


----------



## albertbry5 (Aug 2, 2015)




----------



## Cortana (Aug 3, 2015)

FORGE said:


> 5960x ddr4 dominator 3200mhz gtx980 sli



In order for your score to be listed, a direct print screen from your run is required, along with print screens of the clocks of your SLI cards and processor. The limited information you provided is quite easy to be tampered with and is not enough to prove what cards you actually used, and what settings you ran the test under.


----------



## FrodBonzi (Aug 5, 2015)

i7 5960x (stock 3ghz), 64GB RAM, Triple TitanX (Overclocked to 3838mhz)
Will try OCing the i7 as well in a few days - curious to see what effect it will have...

Should note that I'm watercooling both CPU and Titans... EKWB...


----------



## Tommy_Here (Aug 5, 2015)

Tommy_Here, Intel core i5 4690k 4.6ghz, EVGA Nvidia GTX 980 Ti classified, 1520mhz/8400!mhz memory


----------



## Suupi (Aug 8, 2015)

Here's mine :S i5 3570k@3.8ghz


----------



## By-tor (Aug 9, 2015)




----------



## Ransom (Aug 10, 2015)

Running an Alienware 17 (R2/2015 model) laptop with a 4710 CPU (stock clocks), using the Graphics Amplifier with a GTX 980 desktop card in it.  The laptop is full stock, haven't OC'd it yet.  The GPU is also stock, running at 1266MHz (core) and 1367MHz (boost).  I don't know if it auto OC's or not.  Windows 10, with the stock 10 drivers it installed when I upgraded.  Any questions, just ask, but I feel like this is a valuable score to have added to your list.  I'm happy to run it with the internal card as well, if you want a comparison (mobile GTX980 @ stock clocks as well).


----------



## Ransom (Aug 10, 2015)

I guess you need the CPU clocks, which are 2.5GHz, as shown in the screen capture.  If you need other info, I'll add it, so please let me know.

This is the GPU I'm using:  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814487079

Thanks!
Ransom


----------



## KrissMac (Aug 12, 2015)

new scores single and sli gtx 780ti


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 12, 2015)

I take it OP is not updating this thread?


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 13, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> I take it OP is not updating this thread?


that question has been asked countless time ... and the answer is : @FX-GMC is not permanently hooked on tpu he will update when he will have time ... so a little or even a lot of patience does not hurt, thanks for him


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 13, 2015)

I understand. Life Happens.


----------



## Lv100Toast (Aug 13, 2015)

i7 4790k @ 4.7 | MSI GTX 980 SLI @ 1506/1895


----------



## Szoszo94 (Aug 13, 2015)

i5 3570 @4ghz 1,08V
Sapphire R9 280X Dual-X @1100/1500
Win10


----------



## Cortana (Aug 13, 2015)

Szoszo94 said:


> i5 3570 @4ghz 1,08V
> Sapphire R9 280X Dual-X @1100/1500
> Win10
> View attachment 67311



To be added to the list you must include a valid screenshot in program after the test has been run including your score and settings. No html print screens will be accepted. Everything else provided seems correct.


----------



## Aarkno (Aug 13, 2015)

Took a picture with my phone as printscreen would just take a black screenshot.

i5-4690K OC'd @ 4.7GHz (4,698.90MHz to be precise)
MSI Gaming 980Ti OC'd @ 1477MHz Boost (+110MHz), Memory Clock 4001MHz (+500MHz), +87mV, 109% Power Limit. Latest 355.60 Driver.


----------



## MikjoA (Aug 15, 2015)

Hello,
At first I just wanted to compare my scores but then I decided to share 

CPU : i7 5820k @ 4.6Ghz core / 4.5Ghz uncore
MB : Asus X99-S
GPU : MSI 980 Ti Gaming
OS : Windows 10

Maximum gpu boost = 1494Mhz for the 1268 base clock. The extra 87mV does not add much sadly... I'd be arround 1477 with 0mV.


----------



## Boostybleep (Aug 15, 2015)

Here is the 980ti SLI now under water.  GPU temps max out at 43 degrees.

Boost Clock 1462 
CPU @4.6Ghz

Good enough for 7th place atm.


----------



## Devon68 (Aug 15, 2015)

Wow it's amazingly interesting to see that the i5 4690K @ 4.6 and the MSI Gaming 980 Ti from post #131 scores almost identical as the i7 5820k @ 4.6 and same card from post #132.
The only difference seems to be the min FPS.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 16, 2015)

i7 950 @ 4.22Ghz | GTX 980ti |1513Mhz Boost | 2000Mhz GDDR


----------



## razli (Aug 19, 2015)

i5 2500K @ 4'5Ghz
MSI 980TI Gaming 6G @ +100/+500 Stock vcore.


----------



## Boostybleep (Aug 20, 2015)

Final attempt and up to fifth.

i5-4690k @4.6k
1462/2008 Clocks
I cant push this any further but the system seems to be settling and getting faster.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 20, 2015)

Silkstone Update your Catalyst driver to 15.7.1


----------



## Sakurai (Aug 20, 2015)

Is mine acceptable?


----------



## Twix_Pox (Aug 21, 2015)

FX-8350 @ 4515 Mhz / Sabertooth 990FX / Gigabyte R9 280 @ 1150 (GPU) & 1500 (Mem) / Windows 10


----------



## LONK (Aug 22, 2015)

So here is one of my first tries for my new build.   No updates for this thread-?  Oh well.  The heaven display says 1658 GPU, 3722 Memory - Precision X 16 says +165 GPU & +217 Memory offsets - stock voltage - about 43C - Full ECWB,  EVGA Stinger Z97 MB.  CPU is stock.  I'm too stupid to do screenshots, too stupid to make an original post, etc. I saved and am uploading the benchmark html instead.  In case it doesn't work it was a 2742.  I did better, a 2832 at a +186 GPU offset, but it seems it was nominally stable and I didn't bother to save it.  I'll start working on voltages next.


----------



## Lv100Toast (Aug 22, 2015)

i7 4790k @ 4.6 | MSI GTX 980 SLI @ 1506/1895
I feel like my score is better mainly because my cpu clock wasn't especially stable at 4.7GHz


----------



## HammerON (Aug 22, 2015)

LONK said:


> So here is one of my first tries for my new build.   No updates for this thread-?  Oh well.  The heaven display says 1658 GPU, 3722 Memory - Precision X 16 says +165 GPU & +217 Memory offsets - stock voltage - about 43C - Full ECWB,  EVGA Stinger Z97 MB.  CPU is stock.  I'm too stupid to do screenshots, too stupid to make an original post, etc. I saved and am uploading the benchmark html instead.  In case it doesn't work it was a 2742.  I did better, a 2832 at a +186 GPU offset, but it seems it was nominally stable and I didn't bother to save it.  I'll start working on voltages next.


Need to run at 1920x1080 resolution.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 22, 2015)

This is about the upper bound of what my 390 will do on air.


----------



## bozo6 (Aug 24, 2015)

FX-8350 5.01GHz / Galax GTX 980 HOF V2 Score 1990


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 24, 2015)

Aquinus said:


> This is about the upper bound of what my 390 will do on air.



Maybe you are just running this for a reference, but the Quality setting should be at Ultra.


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 25, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Maybe you are just running this for a reference, but the Quality setting should be at Ultra.


I feel like it switched on me, but who knows. I don't have access to my tower for several days. I'll re-run it when I can.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Aug 25, 2015)

Spoiler: Off topic






ZenZimZaliben said:


> I take it OP is not updating this thread?


It is normal. This forum has a (large) collection of abandoned topics that does not get updated.

My advice is: Do not care about it. They do not.


----------



## Christotheb (Aug 25, 2015)

Got some results here, but I can't seem to get rid of the iGPU showing up in the GPU column. If anyone could give me help on how to do that, I'll resubmit the bench.
I've checked PCI-E only in my BIOS and I've disabled the HD graphics in the device manager column, so I'm stuck at what else to do.

Either way, my CPU is running at 4.4GHz boost and my GPU is running at 1455MHz (+130MHz) and my memory is at 8074MHz (+1060MHz).
Fun fact about the 980ti hybrid, it didn't get above 48C during the tests, even with the OC. May look into a little bit more voltage to see if that clock speed can't go a little higher, I've certainly got the thermal headroom.

tl;dr Big number, but I can't get the iGPU to not show up so it may not count.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 25, 2015)

Christotheb said:


> Fun fact about the 980ti hybrid, it didn't get above 48C during the tests, even with the OC. May look into a little bit more voltage to see if that clock speed can't go a little higher, I've certainly got the thermal headroom.


The one thing I didn't get about the hybrid was the power connections. I am not sure why they went with 6pin & 8pin PCIE power. They really should have gone with 2 8pins. Either way with those temps you should easily be able to get more voltage out, although that doesn't guarantee a better OC, although it should.

Nice score, good run,.


----------



## Christotheb (Aug 25, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> The one thing I didn't get about the hybrid was the power connections. I am not sure why they went with 6pin & 8pin PCIE power. They really should have gone with 2 8pins. Either way with those temps you should easily be able to get more voltage out, although that doesn't guarantee a better OC, although it should.
> 
> Nice score, good run,.



Yeah, my one complaint about the hybrid is that the PCB is reference, I would absolutely have dropped a little bit more for a custom PCB and 8+8 power.

Edit: Thanks! This is my first build and first time overclocking anything, so I'm glad I got a little lucky here.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Aug 25, 2015)

Would like to know which systems are watercooled and which are on air. Best Score I could get was 879, might post if I can break 900. Being on air, might have to take the side off for that bit of extra cooling to OC a bit more.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Aug 25, 2015)

Hey MODS is there a way to query the Forum database and export out a csv file. This post hasn't been updated since July 7th. If one of you would export out a csv file for this thread from July 7th to present I will go through it and make it readable so we can get the first page updated. But I do not want to go through 200 pages and hand type everything...because lazy and a simple db export would be much easier.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 25, 2015)

Hi guys,

So this is me. I didn't OC the RAM at all. My CPU is running on adaptive offset +0.036 vcore, turbo boost is at 0.001 vcore, I have linked all cores. I still need to think through VRM/VRAM cooling though...


----------



## Christotheb (Aug 25, 2015)

+12mv overvolt, running at 1491Mhz Clock and 8164MHz memory. The memory was happy to run up to 8200MHz, but didn't increase the score on this.


----------



## FX-GMC (Aug 26, 2015)

Updated.   If I missed or screwed up your score send me a PM.


----------



## Jborg (Aug 30, 2015)

Now using i5  4690k @ 4.2ghz


----------



## BiggieShady (Aug 30, 2015)

Slight bump to GPU clock via 10% power limit increase, clock went from 1392 MHz to 1380 MHz, temp went to 83 C ... yeah, you've guessed it, my pc is all set up for quiet operation


----------



## Aquinus (Aug 30, 2015)

I'm finally home so I re-ran Heaven with Ultra since I missed the "High" setting last time. Once again at upper bound of what clocks my GPU will take.


----------



## uplink777 (Aug 30, 2015)

Hi there. I got pissed off like hell, coz my GPU can't go stable 120 MHz, and does artifacts, so I hit her with 110 MHz on GPU, which seems to hold [Witcher 3]. And I tortured her with memory rising, and got to +550 MHz. Didn't try more yet, I probably will. But one thing, one thing went up with the memory, really high. Score in heaven 








Just for fun, I managed to run them +600 MHz [8210 MHz effective], but it doesn't add anymore performance. +1 fps, not worth it.





P.S.: Had stable +135 MHz/+600 MHz with 2629 points, but it's not worth it. It doesn't work in Witcher 3, flickers textures, my GPU core is very weak, very, very weak.


----------



## Ian Reardon (Sep 1, 2015)

This is a GTX 980M overclocked.  Looks like it's close to a low end GTX 970.  Not bad for a mobile GPU.


----------



## Phyfell (Sep 3, 2015)

AMD A10-6800K @ 4.5 GHz; R9 390 Core 1101/Memory 1547


----------



## MiataManiac (Sep 5, 2015)

Update: Changed overclock settings slightly and am now running on Windows 10.  In case you need the reference again, I'm running an i5-4690k and two GTX980s.


----------



## Toothless (Sep 5, 2015)

Stock CPU but GPU is at 1188/1652. Dat mem bump.


----------



## Wonder (Sep 8, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> i7 950 @ 4.22Ghz | GTX 980ti |1513Mhz Boost | 2000Mhz GDDR



I have a 950 @ 4ghz and got 2560 with a 980 ti 1514/2153. Max temp 44oC
One difference I noticed is I got a higher min fps of 27.

I'm putting the 980 ti hybrid in a 6700k build this week and I'll post results here so you can see the results and see if it's worth an upgrade from the old faithful 950.
I'm not so much looking at total score but I'm mainly interested in raising the min fps as I play online FPS' on a 144hz monitor and fps drops is my pet hate.

Thought you might be interested and good to see someone else still rocking the 950.

Ps, added phone photo so OP wouldn't add to 1st page as my new build will be done in a couple of days.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 8, 2015)

Wonder said:


> View attachment 67849
> 
> I have a 950 @ 4ghz and got 2560 with a 980 ti 1514/2153. Max temp 44oC
> One difference I noticed is I got a higher min fps of 27.



The min fps difference is your GDDDR @ 153Mhz faster than mine. I am excited to see what mine will do once EK releases a water block. It is great to see old tech keeping up, and beating in many cases, current systems. Looking forward to seeing 6700k benchmarks being posted as I am ready for an upgrade but as you can see not really a big need.


----------



## Wonder (Sep 8, 2015)

Ah yea true. Although I have noticed that the score is based on average FPS and if you look at similar scores with newer CPUs they have a lot higher min FPS than us. You also have to consider this is a GPU intensive benchmark and I assume most games put a lot more stress on the CPU than this with AI etc and cause will test the 950 more. I have limited knowledge on all this though as I'm a noob to all this so I'm probably wrong. It depends what type of gaming you do but as I never want to go below 144fps and will play games on the lowest settings/resolutions to achieve that. I'm pretty much disregarding the actual score and focusing on min FPS as the benchmark.

I ran the setting I posted in continuous loop for about an hour and then it crashed heaven so I dropped to 1471/1980 +18mv and it's been running for 3hrs at 44oC. 2499 score but interestingly the min FPS is still 27 which I guess proves the CPU is causing the FPS drops which justifies the Skylake upgrade to me. (Justifies my empty bank account) :'(


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Sep 8, 2015)

Wonder said:


> Ah yea true. Although I have noticed that the score is based on average FPS and if you look at similar scores with newer CPUs they have a lot higher min FPS than us. You also have to consider this is a GPU intensive benchmark and I assume most games put a lot more stress on the CPU(



Yes this benchmark is probably 90% based on GPU...however that is the case with many games. Newer hardware is faster no doubt but in gpu intensive games the old 950 is still competitive. Don't get me wrong I am wanting to upgrade just like you...but it is more of a want than a need.


----------



## Wonder (Sep 8, 2015)

Yea still some life left in it. I remember the leap going from a stock core 2 duo to an Overclocked 950. It won't be the same leap but I'm looking forword to doing my 1st diy build. Hopefully all parts delivered tomorrow and I'll put a conservative OC on it and post the results.


----------



## evieEH (Sep 13, 2015)

Has anyone tried the new GTX 980 TI 6GB?
Curious to the results, thinking of buying it in place of my GTX 770 SLI


----------



## Aquinus (Sep 13, 2015)

Wonder said:


> I ran the setting I posted in continuous loop for about an hour and then it crashed heaven so I dropped to 1471/1980 +18mv and it's been running for 3hrs at 44oC. 2499 score but interestingly the min FPS is still 27 which I guess proves the CPU is causing the FPS drops which justifies the Skylake upgrade to me. (Justifies my empty bank account) :'(


I think the benchmark dips on every setup when there is a scene change. What's interesting is that my GPU clocks drop when the scene changes and that the "minimum fps" is actually artificial. The benchmark shouldn't be counting frames during scene transitions when the screen is black IMHO.

My minimum was 24.6 FPS despite having a 3820 overclocked to 4.2Ghz. Not to say that the 390 is faster than the 980 Ti (it most definitely is no where close,) but it is interesting how every minimum fps is very similar. I think the score is derived from the number of frames rendered, nothing more so the "minimum" is probably just a useless number with no real meaning.


----------



## HammerON (Sep 14, 2015)

evieEH said:


> Has anyone tried the new GTX 980 TI 6GB?
> Curious to the results, thinking of buying it in place of my GTX 770 SLI


Check the first page for results. There are quite a few GTX 980 Ti runs.


----------



## Lv100Toast (Sep 15, 2015)

i7 4790k @ 4.6 | MSI GTX 980 SLI @ 1506/1995
Was able to tweak my memory clock a little higher. Not too bad.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 15, 2015)

i7 3930k @ 4.2 EVGA GTX980ti Kingpin @ 1540/1995

Just a random attempt - really happy at temps.  No glitches or anything and voltage was set at 1.2 but the actual was 1.16-1.17v (Kingpin can monitor actual voltage received).  If I pushed the temps down lower I think it would hit substantially higher clocks.  That's why the ASIC counts.






EDIT: Tried CPU at 4.4Ghz, Kingpin at 1545/8100 (again at 1.16-1.17v) and only got 107.3fps.  The card struggles at 1550Mhz - would need super tight voltage and not too much.  With this card brute force voltage doesn't work.  The extra cpu speed also didn't do much so I'll call it quits until I get a new platform.  I think a more modern cpu with a higher ipc may give me an extra few % which would potentially push me to 110fps+  My old Sandy-E is coming up on 4 years so although it's still a storming fast cpu - the IPC does hold it back on Benchmarks.


----------



## jose arguelles (Sep 18, 2015)

*Fx 8320*


----------



## Jetster (Sep 21, 2015)




----------



## mark-benney (Sep 25, 2015)

Changing over to water cooling and thought i would post one more test for a before and after
Cpu i7 5820k 4.5ghz
GPU Gigabute G1 980ti
Core 1302mhz Boost 1522mhz Ram 7900mhz


----------



## YautjaLord (Sep 25, 2015)

After installing the v.355.98 NVidia's driver:






Same settings/frequencies/etc.. for CPU & GPUs:











Bad news for CPU & GPUs OC'ing: 30+/20+ degrees C noon/evening respectively, with humidity @ 50 to sometimes 90%, whether inside & outside the room. Maybe next month & after i'll go for Corsair's H105 (120mm rad) maybe then or even in November i'll go for both CPU & GPUs OC'ing.


----------



## cardurah (Sep 27, 2015)

asus r9 280x / asus r9 280 crossfire.  both running 1070/1575


----------



## Schmuckley (Sep 27, 2015)

For whoever is doubting the 1300-ish score with an HD 7950:
It could be this w/o the extreme tesselation. 
http://hwbot.org/submission/2748421...reme_preset_radeon_hd_7950_3081.96_dx11_marks
3081


----------



## Tuco (Sep 28, 2015)

zotac amp extreme 980 ti
boost 1477
memory 1836
cpu i7 3770 3.4
Stock core Voltage
+60 core clock
+60 memory clock


----------



## dmbaris (Sep 28, 2015)

PNY 980 TI (reference) core clock +260 (max 275)  memory clock +500
Stock core Voltage + stock cooler


----------



## DidierDisc (Sep 29, 2015)

Gigabyte G1 Gaming 980 ti
GPU clock 1267 MHz
Memory Clock 7412MHz (effective)
GPU Clock offset +115 MHz
GPU Mem offset +200MHz
Boost 1456.3 MHz

This card is great and OC'ing was, too. I previously used Precision X, but I prefer MSi Afterburner.


----------



## Gokufighther (Sep 29, 2015)

gpu at top right (idk about that mem clock tho, but it looks like 1544/3505)

the cpu is stock 3.7ghz but in this case it is turboing to 4.0ghz because it is cooled well.

this is my second post here on my brother's new computer! hope you enjoy the results! (his comp was the same $$$ as mine and performs basically the same... his cpu is slightly better multithreadly though since i have a dual core)

GPU: GTX 960
CPU: Athlon x4 860k
8gb 1866 ram (kingston hyperx in this case)


----------



## Gokufighther (Sep 29, 2015)

theOtherGuy2175 said:


> View attachment 55901 Yeah specs are above usually im running at 4.5 ghz but with a recent tweak to something in the bios I accidently lost my oc settings. so yeah.... any ways my gpu is the EVGA gtx 780ti which i do have sli but for the purpose of this test i dissabled it for this. Hope i get in the top ten!!


you cant post the html, you need to f12 a pic of the score in the launcher... so you need to rerun your benchmark and repost


----------



## Friendex (Sep 30, 2015)

Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 (non-OC version) @ 1230 core / 1300 mem

i5-3570K @ 4.3 Ghz


----------



## DidierDisc (Sep 30, 2015)

Will the scores be updated?


----------



## Friendex (Oct 1, 2015)

Amending my above post; much heavier memory OC and more on the core. Card is at its limit now. Turned off IGPU also.

Sapphire Radeon HD 7850 (non-OC version) @ 1250 core / 1450 mem

i5-3570K @ 4.3 Ghz


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 2, 2015)

For giggles.

Didn't overclock core as far as before but full run with no artifacts - the memory overclock is silly at 8292Mhz


----------



## FX-GMC (Oct 2, 2015)

Updated.


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 2, 2015)

1540core/2073mem

3930k at 4.2 is holding me back dammit.

4 points off 2nd place... I will return.




http://img.techpowerup.org/151002/untitled327.png


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 3, 2015)

Tried another run at 1551/2073 and cpu at 4.4Ghz.






Completed a run at same specs but with core at an insane 1561 but scored marginally lower (107.9)


----------



## zcharlee (Oct 3, 2015)

hi






Here is my score, i5-4690k @ 4.7ghz with 2 x gtx 970 @ 1506/1925 , first run will do more after I finish overclocking the cpu and gpu's, what a bargain 2x gtx970's


----------



## zcharlee (Oct 4, 2015)

Just squeezed a bit more out


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 6, 2015)

zcharlee said:


> Just squeezed a bit more out



How come it's not reading your GPU clocks?


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 6, 2015)

My submission.  5820k @ 4.7ghz.  2 x 970 FTWs at 1556 / 3930.


----------



## zcharlee (Oct 6, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> How come it's not reading your GPU clocks?




not sure myself, is there a setting to turn it on?


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 6, 2015)

zcharlee said:


> not sure myself, is there a setting to turn it on?



I dunno...I'd just never seen it not show them.  Driver thing, maybe?  /shrug


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 7, 2015)

Just did a single card run on Heaven.  1624 on the core and 2005 on the memory.  Wanted to see 1700...not gonna happen, it appears.

CPU: 5820k @ 4.7
GPU: EVGA 970 FTW
GPU Core: 1624
GPU Mem: 2005


----------



## codelion (Oct 7, 2015)

CPU: Intel i7 6700k @ 4500MHZ
GPU: EVGA 980Ti SC+ ACX w/ BP
GPU Core Clock:
+186Mhz
GPU Mem Clock:
+384Mhz






First post! I'm gonna keep trying to push it a bit further, cooling seems to be doing fine I think the power limit is holding me back.  I'm extremely new to overclocking (finished assembling on Friday 10/2/2015)

edit: eeked out another couple of points


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 7, 2015)

Another run,.......


----------



## codelion (Oct 7, 2015)

Somewhat improved. Not sure how to specify my GPU clocks, except in terms of the + value. Boost confuses me.

EDIT:
ugh, so I forgot to write down my overclock values other than I know this was with +186 on the gpu core clock, I tweaked the core clock up a bit and started hitting tons of artifacts so I messed with the memory clock and now I can't get the stability back. I wonder if plugging in the supplimental power for pcie on my motherboard would help.


----------



## codelion (Oct 8, 2015)

I just noticed my bench is top 5, is the main post still being updated?


----------



## deybdeybdeyb (Oct 8, 2015)

Here's my result 

CPU: i7 4770K @ 4.6GHz
GPU: EVGA 980 Ti Hybrid @ 1468MHz


----------



## Cortana (Oct 10, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> Just did a single card run on Heaven.  1624 on the core and 2005 on the memory.  Wanted to see 1700...not gonna happen, it appears.




Are these brand new cards? Or at least the one you used for this? That's a brilliant score. I tried to beat my current record for 3 hours yesterday and find that after about 9 months I can only score a max of 4 points under my previous record with the best settings I can come up with. Yours must just be a great card, along with great OCing. Lucky duck. deterioration sucks  Oh well, at least it performs 99.75% as well nearly a year later as it did new.


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 10, 2015)

Cortana said:


> Are these brand new cards? Or at least the one you used for this? That's a brilliant score. I tried to beat my current record for 3 hours yesterday and find that after about 9 months I can only score a max of 4 points under my previous record with the best settings I can come up with. Yours must just be a great card, along with great OCing. Lucky duck. deterioration sucks  Oh well, at least it performs 99.75% as well nearly a year later as it did new.



The card I used for this run is about 8 months old, and the card that was disabled is about 6.  The new one doesn't overclock quite as high, the ASIC quality is quite a bit lower.

I'm also using a custom bios...the stock bios just wasn't cutting it.  It was extremely limiting.


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 11, 2015)

Hi.

Possible to add scores with a photo taken of my screen???

Results totally legit.

Thanks in advance...






SLI TitanX 1526-2075
5960X 4.8Ghz

Same OC to achieve 10359 in Firestrike Ultra:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/6190611


In single, this is my best score:


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 11, 2015)

Start Menu > Windows Accessories > Snipping Tool

You're welcome


----------



## N1GHTRA1N (Oct 12, 2015)

How's this?


----------



## Jetster (Oct 12, 2015)

Great but you need to do a in game capture 

****PRESS F12 for SCREENSHOT - *Please attach a screen capture of your results for score verification.***


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

Hi, Jetster...

Obviously, I didn't take the f12 screenshot cos I didn't know of this thread, that's why I asked if a photo would be valid, since it's what I took.

If I have to pass the test again, the scores will be different, you know... So these ones no more valid.


----------



## Jetster (Oct 12, 2015)

It just need to be in game with the game in the background not of the final score screen. Look at the others. I'm not sure about the photo. Just use the sniping tool or TPU capture 

7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

The photo has game in background.

It is as valid as screenshot...

Nonsense...

Lets wait for thread creator and his opinion...


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> The photo has game in background.
> 
> It is as valid as screenshot...
> 
> ...



No.

You can easily take pics from web that way. In benchmark screen shot is 'better' proof it was your result. Simple.

Also, if you can't rerun your bench and get very similar score, your OC is unstable and bench was a fluke. Try again but if you don't want to we assume you're content with your result not being formally accepted or its bogus.


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

Hahaha... Hilarious...

Search the photos with google, guess youll find mine ones. Nobody or almost nobody using zt60 as screen...

But dont worry, will bench again specially for you...


----------



## xorbe (Oct 12, 2015)

No it's *far *easier to photoshop an F12 screenshot than that pic with motion blur ... either way doesn't prove squat.  We had this discussion already in this thread ...


----------



## nico_80) (Oct 12, 2015)

here is mine


----------



## erixx (Oct 12, 2015)




----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

Well, guys, here another bench in single, better than last one:







And this is the tga generated by pressing f12:

http://ul.to/n4jhya1y


Are you happier now???



Clocks are 1540-2100 for TitanX single. 5960x@4.8GHz HT on. 16 GB Gskill 2666CL12-12-13-16-1T


Will bench tomorrow in SLI to press f12...


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> Are you happier now???



I'm coldly indifferent to your attitude.  Rules are easy to follow - so follow them.

Also, why are people not posting their GPU and CPU clocks?



> *6.) You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks*


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

Some things are normal, other dont make sense...

The photos are as valid as screenshot by f12. You should change requisites...

I have edited the post showing clocks, 1540 for core and 2100 for memory and 4.8 GHz for 5960x, ht on.

When you talk about attitude, read this:

"You can easily take pics from web that way. In benchmark screen shot is 'better' proof it was your result. Simple.

Also, if you can't rerun your bench and get very similar score, your OC is unstable and bench was a fluke. Try again but if you don't want to we assume you're content with your result not being formally accepted or its bogus."


Your attitude is phenomenal!!!

In my country we say: "siempre habla quien más tiene que rascar"...


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 12, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> Some things are normal, other dont make sense...
> 
> The photos are as valid as screenshot by f12. You should change requisites...
> 
> ...



The rules are simple...follow them just like everyone else.  = )

G'day to ya


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

I have followed em now... Even uploaded the tga generated.

So would like my first place in single list (when its updated)!!!

good day to all of you...


----------



## Xevipiu (Oct 12, 2015)

God save the Queen! 

eVga Gtx 980Ti KPE


----------



## eblackmo (Oct 12, 2015)

currently 2 x 7970ghz upgrading to GTX980Ti shortly. It will be interesting to do a comparison.


Intel i7 5820k @ 3.3Ghz, Gigabyte Radeon 7870Ghz edition 1050 MHz / 1100 MHz in 2 way crossfire


----------



## Xevipiu (Oct 12, 2015)

GTX G1 980Ti


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2015)

Xevipiu said:


> GTX G1 980Ti




Nice score - what cooling you using?  Can't be standard water at 24 degrees?




vmanuelgm said:


> Your attitude is phenomenal!!!
> 
> In my country we say: "_siempre habla quien más tiene que rascar_"...



In my country we say, "whatever!".


----------



## Xevipiu (Oct 12, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> Nice score - what cooling you using?  Can't be standard water at 24 degrees?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sex!


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 12, 2015)

Xevipiu said:


> Sex!



LOL! Fucking hell! Do you have Cthulu cooling your PC?


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 12, 2015)

Weird the54thvoid hasn't told you those scores are not valid since they are windowed!!!

Asterix says: "These romans are insane"...

Nice results, friend Xevi, but it is supposed, according to rules, that windowed mode is not allowed.


----------



## Xevipiu (Oct 13, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> Weird the54thvoid hasn't told you those scores are not valid since they are windowed!!!
> 
> Asterix says: "These romans are insane"...
> 
> Nice results, friend Xevi, but it is supposed, according to rules, that windowed mode is not allowed.




Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, *Fullscreen*, 8x Anti-Aliasing

windowed mode (native 1920x1080)   Monitor 1920x1200


----------



## kal-bert (Oct 13, 2015)

I hope I did it well...


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 13, 2015)

As promised, here the SLI result:







Clocks are: 1530-2050 for SLI TitanX, and 4.8 GHz for 5960x.


Link to TGA generated by Heaven 4.0:

http://ul.to/nypcirjv


Hope you enjoy it!!!


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 13, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> Weird the54thvoid hasn't told you those scores are not valid since they are windowed!!!
> 
> Asterix says: "These romans are insane"...
> 
> Nice results, friend Xevi, but it is supposed, according to rules, that windowed mode is not allowed.



I posted to you about your results because you said the rules were 'nonsense'. I re-iterated the rules to you because you seemed to have a bad attitude. If you come to a party, you don't piss on the cake.
If you want to keep referencing me, feel free but it only serves to make you appear like a petulant, selfish, child.
It's better to be civil than not, do you not agree.

I'm not here to tell everyone what to do but I feel your initial reaction to being told the rules was 'ill judged'.

I extend an olive branch of community spirit, please accept it.


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 13, 2015)

^^This.....


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 13, 2015)

the54thvoid said:


> I posted to you about your results because you said the rules were 'nonsense'. I re-iterated the rules to you because you seemed to have a bad attitude. If you come to a party, you don't piss on the cake.
> If you want to keep referencing me, feel free but it only serves to make you appear like a petulant, selfish, child.
> It's better to be civil than not, do you not agree.
> 
> ...




Ok, lets smoke peace pipe...

Do you like my scores???


----------



## the54thvoid (Oct 13, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> Ok, lets smoke peace pipe...
> 
> Do you like my scores???



Yes, they're just silly high.  Shows how potent Titan X's are despite what the naysayers say.  A lot of reviews put the Titan X not that far ahead of Fury X or 980ti's but they forget that Titan X can overclock pretty far - makes it a very powerful card indeed.


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 13, 2015)

I agree with you.

Maybe in Heaven 980Ti and TitanX are closer in single. In other benchs the difference is bigger.

Kind regards from Spain.


----------



## ciclito (Oct 14, 2015)




----------



## N1GHTRA1N (Oct 14, 2015)

Ok. I pushed my system to it's max. Not 100% stable but works with Heaven. I bumped my i7 920 CPU to 4GHz from 3.6GHz and changed my GPU speeds from 1300MHz (1515boost) and 8000MHz memory to 1375MHz  (1560boost) and reduced memory to 7600MHz. I was able to go from my previous high of 2901 to 3089. It crashed a couple times so I won't be leaving it like this but it was able to complete a couple runs (other run was 3051). Not bad for a 7 year old CPU/MB combo and a couple GTX 970s.

Thoughts?


----------



## ciclito (Oct 15, 2015)




----------



## N1GHTRA1N (Oct 15, 2015)

ciclito said:


>


Woah... great score. 980 Ti is a beast. It is what I originally wanted but they are over $1000 with taxes and shipping here in Canada. I ended up getting a great deal on two 970's ($720 CAD or about $560USD). So far I've been very happy with them.


----------



## ciclito (Oct 15, 2015)

N1GHTRA1N said:


> Woah... great score. 980 Ti is a beast. It is what I originally wanted but they are over $1000 with taxes and shipping here in Canada. I ended up getting a great deal on two 970's ($720 CAD or about $560USD). So far I've been very happy with them.



Yes is a beast when you do high oc. Here in spain yo can get a new one for  700$ USD . I had  2-way sli of 970 (ichill x4 ) and they were really good too. 

I was in Canada ( Vintoria BC)  19 years ago, and  i have to tell you that i love you country in general. I wish, sometime soon i could come back for holidays. I have a stepsiter living there but the ralationship between us is  a bit cold nowadays.

Salutes from Spain


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 15, 2015)

Got new score:









Clocks are: 1540-2100 for TitanX single, and 4.8 GHz for 5960x...


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 15, 2015)

N1GHTRA1N said:


> Ok. I pushed my system to it's max. Not 100% stable but works with Heaven. I bumped my i7 920 CPU to 4GHz from 3.6GHz and changed my GPU speeds from 1300MHz (1515boost) and 8000MHz memory to 1375MHz  (1560boost) and reduced memory to 7600MHz. I was able to go from my previous high of 2901 to 3089. It crashed a couple times so I won't be leaving it like this but it was able to complete a couple runs (other run was 3051). Not bad for a 7 year old CPU/MB combo and a couple GTX 970s.
> 
> Thoughts?



My best run (3220) on Heaven in SLI with my 970s are happening around 1550 and 3930.  Anything higher than that and the score drops....  Which is odd, because in single card runs with my high ASIC card, I can push it up to 1624 / 4015 to get the best scores.  Probably the low ASIC card holding it back, but....eh


----------



## N1GHTRA1N (Oct 15, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> My best run (3220) on Heaven in SLI with my 970s are happening around 1550 and 3930.  Anything higher than that and the score drops....  Which is odd, because in single card runs with my high ASIC card, I can push it up to 1624 / 4015 to get the best scores.  Probably the low ASIC card holding it back, but....eh



The ASIC score is new to me. My cards get 73.0 and 73.1. I have no idea what they should be getting. Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 15, 2015)

The ASIC score is a measurement of voltage leak in the GPU.  It's nothing to worry about.

Unigine benchmarks LOVE memory clock, though.  So, I would definitely bring your memory clock back up a ways.  The core clock looks fine.


----------



## vmanuelgm (Oct 15, 2015)

Another run:










Clocks are: 1549-4250x2 in Single Titan X, and 4.8 GHz for 5960x.



PD: Would like to report that we suspect in Spain that Ciclito=ALOC is cheating/editing scores. So please ask him for TGA generated by Heaven...


----------



## Xevipiu (Oct 18, 2015)

*G3258 4.6Ghz 1.38v . eVga 980Ti KPE 1527/2201 1.18vGpu/1.66vMem*

*



*


----------



## Flukelsx (Oct 20, 2015)

Core: 1430-1450Mhz
Memory Clock:  4104Mhz

Updated Score:


----------



## Cortana (Oct 20, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> The card I used for this run is about 8 months old, and the card that was disabled is about 6.  The new one doesn't overclock quite as high, the ASIC quality is quite a bit lower.
> 
> I'm also using a custom bios...the stock bios just wasn't cutting it.  It was extremely limiting.



Of course, that's the only way you can pull off a score like that. Great job, but I'm sad I finally lost my second place spot. I don't really want to run a custom bios, seems too risky and all id ever use the higher clocks for would be benchmarking anyway. That's cool though, my card's about 10 months old and I got 1648 (uploaded the 1647 run) on heaven after a lot of tampering back then. Now all I can pull off is 1644. Oh well. Eventually I'll replace it and I can start all over. Hooray!


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 20, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> Just did a single card run on Heaven.  1624 on the core and 2005 on the memory.  Wanted to see 1700...not gonna happen, it appears.
> 
> CPU: 5820k @ 4.7
> GPU: EVGA 970 FTW
> ...



Sorry, I forgot to add the info.  Please update.


----------



## Jenny Death (Oct 23, 2015)

E3-1231v3 running on stock
r9 290 is single card running at 1100/1400
I feel like either the XFX DD 290s or just mine in particular isn't/aren't very good overclocker(s)


----------



## aceknives (Oct 24, 2015)

System: Intel i7-4790k 4.0GHz  (Just saved up for this and it's an absolute beast  ).
GPU: Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X 1000/1300


----------



## fullinfusion (Oct 24, 2015)

aceknives said:


> System: Intel i7-4790k 4.0GHz  (Just saved up for this and it's an absolute beast  ).
> GPU: Sapphire R9 290 Tri-X 1000/1300
> View attachment 68760


Welcome to Tpu
you need to run 1920x1080 8xAA full screen bro


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 25, 2015)

CPU: 5820k @ 4.7
GPU: EVGA 970 FTW
GPU Core: 1586
GPU Mem: 2102


----------



## MrGenius (Oct 27, 2015)

3570K @ 4.8GHz + MSI 280X Gaming 3GB @ 1207/1850 = 1090


----------



## jvlapple (Oct 28, 2015)




----------



## trog100 (Oct 29, 2015)

set for stable gaming not benching and it seems to have a job figuring out what windows version is in use..   it win 10..

trog

ps..


----------



## TonHofhuis (Nov 1, 2015)

The score was done with:
- CPU: 3930@4.7Ghz
- GPU: 4 in total:
  - 1x MSI AMD 295x2 8GB
  - 2x Gigabyte AMD 290 4GB
  - all GPU@1100Mhz, Mem@1300Mhz
- 16GB memory@2400Mhz


----------



## TonHofhuis (Nov 1, 2015)

View attachment 68930


----------



## Geranospiza (Nov 13, 2015)

Hello. I made a benchmark. I have:

inteli7 5820k @4.2 without offset
2 980ti g1 gaming gigabyte 1.400mhz core 2000mhz memory without offset
1150w gold power supply 85A for graphics cards
8gigs ram (1 stick) 2133mhz stock corsair value select

81.1 and 71.3 asic quality

Thankyou

http://s16.postimg.org/z6z8yfsat/Other.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/rs9x626f9/Screenshot.jpg


----------



## fmehdi (Nov 14, 2015)

you can look here
http://www.folder98.ir/1394/08/1447502002.jpg


----------



## DannyDem (Nov 17, 2015)

1341/2003
980TI G1
i76700K 4.0Ghz


 

shame I can't seem to get my memory boost a better oc


----------



## ZyCo (Nov 20, 2015)

CPU: i7 4820k @ stock clocks
GPU: 980 Ti hydrocopper
GPU Core: 1467
GPU Mem: 1993


----------



## Geranospiza (Nov 21, 2015)

I've remade my benchmark. This one places me in third position

inteli7 5820k @4.2 without offset
2 980ti g1 gaming gigabyte 1.395mhz core 2050mhz memory with offset .87mV
1150w gold power supply 85A for graphics cards
8gigs ram (1 stick) 2133mhz stock corsair value select

81.1 and 71.3 asic quality


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Nov 21, 2015)

i5 4690k@4.5Ghz
PaliT GTX 960 Jetstream 4Gb
1428/3705


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 21, 2015)

MSI GTX970= gpu 1140 mem 1753 boost 1279       i7 2600 3.4GHz 16Gb ram  Win10  only vid card is overclocked by MSI out of box, set in OC mode for test. rest of system is stock settings except for amount of ram.(16 instead of 8) Nvidia Experience and Nvidia drivers from nvidia. Wanted to show that an OEM machine can even get playable rates. LOL, Correction, an OEM with the HD5770 replaced with a GTX970.


----------



## xelesarcane (Nov 22, 2015)

here my benchmark result , idont know why cant printscreen while running uniheaven got blank result -_-, 
r9 290 ref overclock to  clock :1050 Mem: 1300
i5 3450 NO overclock


----------



## Jetster (Nov 22, 2015)

*Type "snipping tool" into the search bar*


----------



## ASOT (Nov 22, 2015)




----------



## Jetster (Nov 23, 2015)

To prevent the black screen capture just be sure to mouse click on the results before you capture. And In game captures only


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 23, 2015)

non in benchmark screenshot results are not validated

correct ... a bit old in the thread :


GreiverBlade said:


> F12 at the result in the bench then C:user/your name/Heaven/Screenshot convert the TGA to a JPG and upload


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 23, 2015)

Jetster said:


> To prevent the black screen capture just be sure to mouse click on the results before you capture. And In game captures only


Also,if using lightscribe, make sure it's already running in your task bar, then hit SHIFT + PrtScn for whole screen.just hitting PrtScn gives the black pic if it's not running.(got the black screen pic,so decided to experiment) ROTFL, keep calling it lightscribe, it's LIGHTSHOT. (smacks self in head saying it's NOT a dvd!)


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 23, 2015)

schuck6566 said:


> Also,if using lightscribe, make sure it's already running in your task bar, then hit SHIFT + PrtScn for whole screen.just hitting PrtScn gives the black pic if it's not running.(got the black screen pic,so decided to experiment)


Here's my hd5770 on a vostro board with a c2Quad with 4Gb ddr2 ram and Win10 I threw together.Posted required run,and best run with low settings nothing enabled,and 1366x768. Full requirements aren't playable but minimum is.


----------



## HCGxKaLiBeR (Nov 24, 2015)

# CPU brand: Intel Core i7 4770K 3.50Ghz
# Motherboard: ASUS SABERTOOTH Z87
# Memory: G.SKILL 16GB (2 x 8GB) 240-Pin SDRAM DDR3 1600
# Video card: ASUS GeForce GTX 980 Ti STRIX
# Power supply:CORSAIR HX Series 1000W
# Operating system: Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit


----------



## Vilmar (Nov 25, 2015)

*i7 4790K + MSI 980 Ti GAMING 6G*


----------



## jordan1794 (Nov 25, 2015)

Going to be super late, and kinda irrelevant now that the 980 Ti's and Titans are out, BUT I'm gonna be back in a little while to claim the #1 980 spot.
BIOS mod to run 1.275v on my EVGA SC like some of the other cards out there 

Just changing the voltage & power limit, the card is automatically boosting to over 1500. So far 1600 is stable in game, time to see where I can really push this baby.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 25, 2015)

jordan1794 said:


> Going to be super late, and kinda irrelevant now that the 980 Ti's and Titans are out, BUT I'm gonna be back in a little while to claim the #1 980 spot.
> BIOS mod to run 1.275v on my EVGA SC like some of the other cards out there
> 
> Just changing the voltage & power limit, the card is automatically boosting to over 1500. So far 1600 is stable in game, time to see where I can really push this baby.



To push it really hard, you need to disable boost all together.....it's a worthless feature for overclocking that will just add instability to your overclock as you get higher and higher.


----------



## Venom07 (Nov 26, 2015)

Cpu: i7-5930 @ 3.5 ghz Gpu: Asus tix 980 ti strix @ 1076/ clock Stock


----------



## jordan1794 (Nov 26, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> To push it really hard, you need to disable boost all together.....it's a worthless feature for overclocking that will just add instability to your overclock as you get higher and higher.


Eh, I've heard mixed opinions on the turbo boost.

I actually kind like it, running easy games like WoW and Rocket League my card downclocks and the fans aren't going crazy.
Only when it's really needed does it crank up, and usually there is so much going on (Explosions etc.) that I can't hear the fans at that moment.

Running 1.275v definitely made my fans have to work harder. ACX 2.0 is amazing though...Fans are still only having to run at around 50%-60% to keep temperatures under 65C


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 26, 2015)

For that purpose, I guess it may help a bit.  I forget not everyone watercools, and that fans are a big part of it.  lol


----------



## jordan1794 (Nov 26, 2015)

Vellinious said:


> For that purpose, I guess it may help a bit.  I forget not everyone watercools, and that fans are a big part of it.  lol


Definitely going to get watercooling if/when I get a Ti.
My friend has a EVGA GTX 980 Ti SC w/ ACX 2.0 and running a small overclock with stock voltage his fans spin up to 3100 rpm to keep his card under 65 C
For comparison, me running almost 1600 MHz, along with my VRAM at 8.3 GHz and my voltage at 1.275 run at about 2600-2800 max.


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 26, 2015)

vmanuelgm said:


> I have followed em now... Even uploaded the tga generated.
> 
> So would like my first place in single list (when its updated)!!!
> 
> ...


So what would stop people from editing pictures before posting them? THAT'S why a screen shot is prefered,it shows the running app,the score,the settings,AND the hardware involved in most cases.


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 26, 2015)

BTW,Does anyone have a recommended Dx11 test other then heaven or Firestrike? Reason I ask,is Vamery GTX650ti is actually an 8800 series chip with an altered bios,but it runs heaven benchmark.Wanted to try different 1's with the knockoff.See if any other direct x compat would run.


----------



## Dennycorsa86 (Nov 26, 2015)

# CPU brand: Intel Core i7 5930K @ 4.2 ghz
# Motherboard: Gigabyte x99 Soc Champion
# Memory: 16gb Kingston Savage DDR4 2400 CL12
# Video card: Kfa2 GTX 980Ti HOF
# Power supply: Silverstone Strider 1500watt
# Operating system: Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 26, 2015)

schuck6566 said:


> BTW,Does anyone have a recommended Dx11 test other then heaven or Firestrike? Reason I ask,is Vamery GTX650ti is actually an 8800 series chip with an altered bios,but it runs heaven benchmark.Wanted to try different 1's with the knockoff.See if any other direct x compat would run.



Valley, Catzilla....


----------



## schuck6566 (Nov 27, 2015)

Reason I asked about other test, this cards a miracle off china's flashing skills. Doesn't meet full requirements,but just posting so ya can see a directx10 card on heaven. Best part is,card only supports directx 10 according to nvidia control panel,and won't install nvidia 3d.


----------



## Schmuckley (Nov 29, 2015)

What's up with my 7950 score?  Nothing wrong there.To every person that claimed "GTX 970 KILLS 7950" It sure doesn't feel like it to me.
To make it easier:
CPU 5820K @ 4.6
RAM:Some cheap 16gb kit @ 2800Mhz (Mushkin Redline?)
GPU: EVGA 970 GTX @ 1518/1947
VGPU:1.25
VCPU: 1.33
I hope that covers it and makes it easier.
Just because a GPU can be run full-throttle does not mean the score isn't valid.
Thank You.


----------



## sirbaili (Nov 30, 2015)

Hi
Just wanted to update my old score and thought that new platform would bring some improvement.
Not so much.
Anyway here are my specs:
i7-5820k 4.0 Ghz.
2 x Amd r9-290 cards 1050 - 1275Mhz.

Score 2620.


----------



## CAIORES (Nov 30, 2015)

Olá Comprei ESSA placa Recente e quería saber se o Desempenho dela ESTA bom, POR favor comentem o Desempenho, agradeço. 
Específicaões:
 i3- 4170 3.70 GHZ
GPU- NVIDEA GFORCE GTX 550 Ti
Placa mae: ASUS H81M
4GB RAM DE
FONTE EVGA 430W
HD de 1 TB


----------



## Jetster (Nov 30, 2015)

CAIORES said:


> Olá Comprei ESSA placa Recente e quería saber se o Desempenho dela ESTA bom, POR favor comentem o Desempenho, agradeço.
> Específicaões:
> i3- 4170 3.70 GHZ
> GPU- NVIDEA GFORCE GTX 550 Ti
> ...










You don't have 8 X AA on but it looks about right.


----------



## CAIORES (Nov 30, 2015)

Entao, Esta Dentro dos Padrões aceitaveis para ESSA placa? Obrigado por responder.


----------



## Jetster (Nov 30, 2015)

CAIORES said:


> Entao, Esta Dentro dos Padrões aceitaveis para ESSA placa? Obrigado por responder.



Yes


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 1, 2015)

Updated


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

Fixed the problem of the missing MHz, CPU is now operating at 4.5GHz like it should be.

GPU Quadfire setup is as follows:

Radeon HD 6990
Radeon HD 6970
Radeon HD 6950 (Unlocked)


----------



## D007 (Dec 8, 2015)

Ok, I'll bite. 
SLI GTX 980's (1484 / 2016)
i7 4770k @ 4.6


----------



## Schmuckley (Dec 8, 2015)

Wow! look @ that 69** :O
That's quadfire? yikes
It appears the scaling is not there.
I'm going in...hoping my 7950 works.


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> Wow! look @ that 69** :O
> That's quadfire? yikes
> It appears the scaling is not there.
> I'm going in...hoping my 7950 works.



Heaven doesn't really take much from 4 cards. Valley showed a much better improvement.

Still though, scoring in the middle of the GTX 980s and Titans.


----------



## Schmuckley (Dec 8, 2015)

..rather not talk about the 7950


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> ..rather not talk about the 7950



Can't be much worse than the GTX 680 SOC I just tested.







995 Points, pretty sad.


----------



## Schmuckley (Dec 8, 2015)

Fouquin said:


> Can't be much worse than the GTX 680 SOC I just tested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


]

No video is a bit sadder..and the card OC'd quite nicely


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 8, 2015)

Fouquin said:


> Can't be much worse than the GTX 680 SOC I just tested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Please list the clockspeeds if you want this added to the chart.


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> Please list the clockspeeds if you want this added to the chart.



Nope, I want my 6900 Quadfire to be added please.

( Post #1296 )


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 8, 2015)

Fouquin said:


> Nope, I want my 6900 Quadfire to be added please.
> 
> ( Post #1296 )



It should be there.  I added the two new scores this morning.


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

Schmuckley said:


> ]
> 
> No video is a bit sadder..and the card OC'd quite nicely



Try Valley. Heaven seems extremely unstable at these settings compared to Valley.

For example that test required I push voltage all the way to 1.12v just to finish the run on stock settings. Meanwhile Valley will run without fail on 1302Mhz with hardly 1.1v applied.


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

FX-GMC said:


> It should be there.  I added the two new scores this morning.



Huh. Don't see it yet. (Not that it really matters a lot.)

I derped. Search function was not for both sheets. 

Obviously under caffeinated today.


----------



## FX-GMC (Dec 8, 2015)

Fouquin said:


> Huh. Don't see it yet. (Not that it really matters a lot.)



There are two charts. The one on top is for Single-GPU runs.  You have to scroll down to the Multi-GPU chart.






EDIT:  Does anyone know if there is a Character limit on posts?  The OP is getting lengthy.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Dec 8, 2015)

Fouquin said:


> Heaven doesn't really take much from 4 cards. Valley showed a much better improvement.
> 
> Still though, scoring in the middle of the GTX 980s and Titans.



Quad Fire on a G3258?  I love the budget OC build though, that has nostalgia written all over it. I would bet pushing towards 5ghz with that chip will really unlock those cards more... Quadfire is a lot of overhead.


----------



## Fouquin (Dec 8, 2015)

ZenZimZaliben said:


> Quad Fire on a G3258?  I love the budget OC build though, that has nostalgia written all over it. I would bet pushing towards 5ghz with that chip will really unlock those cards more... Quadfire is a lot of overhead.




It used to be a 5820K build with 290Xs, but money got tighter and tighter and parts were sold to make rent. It's alright though.

I ran the Quadfire once on the X99 build and it was barely a smidge more (2.4FPS). This Pentium won't budge over 4.6GHz, and hardly likes 4.5GHz, but it manages. I'm sure if it did go further I'd see some noticeable increase.

Might be important to point out that my peak power draw is 913W. These are hungry cards.


----------



## CooPaLooPa (Dec 9, 2015)

Here's my run


----------



## The N (Dec 9, 2015)

^ that's a nice shot with 980 Ti combo. what clocks u used for this run
?


----------



## markman090 (Dec 12, 2015)

4690k @4.4Ghz, R9 270X crossfire with HD7870. 1030/1400. Score:1329


----------



## Soulmirror (Dec 15, 2015)

First series of bench with my new rig:

Asus Rampage V Extreme 3.1
i7 5930k @ 4.5
Nzxt Kraken X61
32GB Ripjaw V DDR4-3000
2x Zotac 980Ti Amp! Extreme 1450/1810
Samsung 850 500GB
2x Samsung 850 1TB Raid 0
Corsair HX1000i


Tomorrow i will try going higher on the memory side


----------



## ASOT (Dec 15, 2015)




----------



## Fouquin (Dec 17, 2015)

Putting in my score for single-GPU now.

*Radeon R9 Nano*
1094/530


----------



## mcraygsx (Dec 17, 2015)

MSI Geforce 980 Ti Golden Edition 1140MHz
Gigabyte Geforce 980 Ti 1152MHz

GPU running at Stock clock. CPU is slightly overclocked to 3.8 with -0.048 under volt. System runs cool under these settings.


----------



## captainskyhawk (Dec 18, 2015)

AMD FX-6300 @ 4013MHz
Sapphire R9 380 ITX Compact - 1068/1505

I mean, the video card temp reads about as high as the inside of a star, but still seems to work.


----------



## Gregory Hartley (Dec 23, 2015)

1489/1953

i7 4790k @4.6 Ghz

Gigabyte GTX 970 G1
GPU Clock = 1489
Mem Clock = 1953


----------



## antome (Dec 29, 2015)

i5 6600k oc 4500Mhz + Gtx 970 Gaming G1 4G


----------



## DarthBaggins (Dec 30, 2015)

Ok here's my run: DarthBaggins (not too shabby for a lil 970 - glad it's under water) - Intel i7 5930k @ 4.4Ghz - Asus Strix GTX 970 1500/3557 (can be seen in screen cap since I was running Precision X)


----------



## Ant (Dec 30, 2015)

Intel i5 - 4670k @ 4.2GH
GTX 780 1071/1662


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 30, 2015)

Core i7 3960x @ 4.6Ghz | 2x Nvidia Titan X @ 1392/1753

I put Afterburner OSD on to verify that core is indeed 1392. No way my cards will do 1544 without water on VRMs


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 30, 2015)

Scratch that 

Core i7 3960x @ 4.8Ghz | 2x Nvidia Titan X @ 1392/1753


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

My Black Box
No OC (yet)
No SLI (please ignore the Intel HD Graphic)
Ultra setting in Full HD 1080p mode


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

it is interesting (disappointing ?) to see that I have the same performance level as a Pentium Core Duo & GTX 680 as posted by Fouquin

However when I look at my sensors charts:

average 75% TDP, fan speed 60% maximum, I am convinced that my GM204 is under-clocked.

This is why I am looking forward to 'safely' push the max GPU core clock to 1Ghz  instead of current 772 Mhz

just need a good tutorial on Maxwell II BIOS clock tables...


----------



## Jetster (Dec 30, 2015)

Quadro is not made for gaming. Accuracy not speed


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

reposting on request of FX-GMC
No OC
No SLI
Intel HD Graphic driver installed/detected but not used (yes, I did NOT disable it in the BIOS because when I will install vSphere Hypervisor, the HV will use the intel integrated graphics, while the Windows 10 VM will use the Quadro thanks to the PCI passthrough feature)
GPU Core Speed 772 MHz
RAM Speed 3 GHz


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

Jetster said:


> Quadro is not made for gaming. Accuracy not speed


Accuracy is always good even for gaming 
and given the price of a GT980 4GB RAM, and the 'fair' price I got for my M4000 8GB, I would rather write that a Quadro is not limited to Gaming only 
Now, of course to get most value of this purchase I must undo the NVidia underclocking.
but it seems the good news is that it can be done with BIOS tweaking only.
any recommendation ?


----------



## DarthBaggins (Dec 30, 2015)

I need to see if I can edge closer to 1600 on the 970, since it's under water (along with the mobo and CPU ) I know I can push 1554 in f@h but that's a different type of load


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 30, 2015)

Ten Shin Han said:


> Accuracy is always good even for gaming
> and given the price of a GT980 4GB RAM, and the 'fair' price I got for my M4000 8GB, I would rather write that a Quadro is not limited to Gaming only
> Now, of course to get most value of this purchase I must undo the NVidia underclocking.
> but it seems the good news is that it can be done with BIOS tweaking only.
> any recommendation ?


As an owner of a Quadro M4000 and M5000 I really hope you didn't pay more than 300 bucks for the M4000 because for gaming it's slower than a GTX 970, as the M5000 is slower than the GTX 980. Another thing to consider is that these cards run off a single 6pin and the VRMs aren't meant for clocking higher than stock clocks which is why the voltage is locked. They are meant to run cool and quiet for hours or days at a time crunching projects while sipping power, hence the lower clock speeds than the desktop counterparts.


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

well, I paid a price 25% below average price in France, but you would probably find it was too expensive anyway 
Hopefully, it will not be for gaming only , and for now I can live with gaming at 1920 x 1080p x 60 Hz full details enabled.
now I understand your cautions, but as I can see that 970 can run Boost@1GHz, then it is not a chipset limitation.

Are you absolutely positive that I will burn my VRM if I try to clock higher my M4000 ?

please advise.


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 30, 2015)

Ten Shin Han said:


> well, I paid a price 25% below average price in France, but you would probably find it was too expensive anyway
> Hopefully, it will not be for gaming only , and for now I can live with gaming at 1920 x 1080p x 60 Hz full details enabled.
> now I understand your cautions, but as I can see that 970 can run Boost@1GHz, then it is not a chipset limitation.
> 
> ...


If you have a use for the Quadro it makes sense, otherwise kind of a waste if my calculations and pricing are right. 

I never said anything about burning your VRM, but since it has a single slot cooler it already runs warm. Chances are it'd be unstable worst case scenario. I haven't tried overclocking these cards because they fold so I don't know 100% but it just makes sense. Overclocking without a voltage bump might result in decent overclocks but I personally wouldn't mess with the bios of a Quadro card.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 30, 2015)

My 3960X @ 4.7GHz
980Ti 1472/2000


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

well, this is the first PC I have built since a long time and I will use it to experiment with many thing, and I personally work for a CAD software editor. So I hope it makes sense. Otherwise it is not less stupid than buying a nice pair of shoes 

Now, speaking of overclocking, I have just re-run the Heaven demo (100% GPU utilization), and I pay attention to the 'perfcap' of GPU Z, and it says it is 'GPU utilization'.

the again, the TDP usage never go above 75%, meaning that as the M4000 is rated 120 watt, it never go above 90 watt, and because PCI-E stuff are 12 volt, it means M4000 (again rated 120 Watt) should be able to swallow 10 amp, but never go above 7.5 amp, right ?

this is why I believe I have room for improvement. and yes, by default the FAN is 60% max, which is very quiet. I used NVidia Inspector to push it to 100% just to hear the difference, and I could see the temp goes below 30° celcius (GPU idling) after a while.

Now, Heaven does NOT stress the memory controller or the bus interface, maybe this would explain the missing watt.

But I am willing to learn, to experiment, and I am very cautious, I will go step by step.

But honestly, I believe Quadro cards are mostly based on the same design, and then software/bios adjustment are doing most of the final settings for making this or this product.

this is my intuition


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 30, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> My 3960X @ 4.7GHz
> 980Ti 1472/2000
> 
> View attachment 70531


Come at me bro  I need to do single card. Glad to know I'm not the only one rocking this processor.


Ten Shin Han said:


> well, this is the first PC I have built since a long time and I will use it to experiment with many thing, and I personally work for a CAD software editor. So I hope it makes sense. Otherwise it is not less stupid than buying a nice pair of shoes
> 
> Now, speaking of overclocking, I have just re-run the Heaven demo (100% GPU utilization), and I pay attention to the 'perfcap' of GPU Z, and it says it is 'GPU utilization'.
> 
> ...


You have a max of 150W theoretically from the 6pin and slot combined and the chip is rated at 120W which barely gives you room to grow on. I don't doubt you could saturate it but just know the phases aren't built for exceeding limits, they're built for stability. If this was a consumer card I'd say fuck it go to town but I wouldn't want you to ruin a Quadro. Anybody have info on VRM on M4000?


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 30, 2015)

Hum... hum... OK, I see what you mean 

I have just run the 3DMARK Fire Strike Ultra, it was very very slow, and it did generate some load (40 % +) on the memory controller, and now the watts reach 85% TDP (of 120 W)

so yes, realistically, there is barely room for improvements, unless the M4000's VRM can swallow 12 A, which will probably only give me few additional MHz.

Nothing to brag about amongst you .

well, I will give it a try, staying within the 120 W (+/- 5 %)  just for fun.

at least I will learn something for the next time I buy a high end GPU


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 31, 2015)

i7 3960x @ 4.9GHz | 2x GTX Titan X 1468/1920






i7 3960x @ 4.9GHz | GTX Titan X 1472\1920


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 31, 2015)

Hey Mguire, nice score 

but there is a new hope for me:

according to NVIDIA, http://www.nvidia.com/object/compare-quadro-gpus.html, the M5000 is rated 150 Watt with only 1 x 6 Pin PCI-E.

So basically, all I have to do is put my hand on a M5000 BIOS and study the différences with M4000.

Then when I'll try, I will cross finger than the same VRM are used on both cards, and hopefully because an M4000 as only 1664 Cuda cores enabled instead of 2048, it should use less watt.

What do you think ?

if you have a M5000, would you mind sharing your bios with me ?


----------



## Ferrum Master (Dec 31, 2015)

Ten Shin Han said:


> in the meantime, I found this M5000 BIOS



Shaite don't spam the thread. Don't screw with your single slot card, it is simply not enough to do anything. Quit monkeying around, it will throttle to the floor. Last consumer single slot card was 750Ti 60W, yours is cherry picked and down clocked to fit in that envelope. Don't burn it. Sell it and get a proper card.

Meanwhile in colder Europe.

3960X @ 5GHz
980Ti 1506/2003


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 31, 2015)

hey 

to be honest I am not sure I fully understand wording like "Shaite" or "Quit monkeying around, it will throttle to the floor".

But I got your point.

I will not bother you guys in this thread.

I just would like to remind that I have created this thread: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/quadro-m4000-1ghz-project.218752/ in case somebody would like to help me "monkeying around" 

Thanks in advance and I wish you guys a good NYE


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 31, 2015)

for some of the post who don't comply to the rules set in the initial post of the thread : must be a screen from in the benchmark, hint: F12 then user/document/heaven/screenshot(or something like that, it's been a while since i ran a Heaven on my rig) convert the TGA to a JPG and post it.
otherwise not validated, sorry.

altho it has already been mentioned countless time thru the thread, i know it's long to browse the whole thread to see those mention, but at last you should read the main post
Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.) Ultra Quality
3.) Extreme Tessellation
_*4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build*_
5.) Tessellation correctly set up on AMD cards and not bypassed in CCC
6.) You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks
_*7.) Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *_Here's why.
8.) The only allowed "tweak" is overclocking. Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted.



Ten Shin Han said:


> My Black Box
> No OC (yet)
> No SLI (please ignore the Intel HD Graphic)
> Ultra setting in Full HD 1080p mode



if the HD graphics show then it's active, it does not show on mine unless active under Lucid Virtue (gimmicky boost ) or even to drive a second monitor


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 31, 2015)

Greiver Blade wrote

"if the HD graphics show then it's active, it does not show on mine unless active under Lucid Virtue (gimmicky boost ) or even to drive a second monitor" interesting.

I am using the latest Intel driver from their website, however I am sure it is not used, even Windows 10 doesn't show it in display settings, and other benchmark (like cinebench or 3DMark) or games seems to totally ignore the intel HD graphic, and it is my understating that windows 10 doesn't support yet cross - brand - multi - GPU 

so what do you mean by "gimmicky boost" ?

please advise.


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 31, 2015)

just for information purpose and for sake of mutual understanding, no argument of any kind 

hope this helps.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Dec 31, 2015)

just try to not double post thanks!...

also gimmicky well Lucid Virtue technology didn't bring substantial upgrade so : a pure gimmick for me. (it was a meant to make the IGP help the GPU via a kind of hybrid crossfire/SLI )
and also the only time my IGP showed on a benchmark (obviously ... since i was testing Lucid Virtue, just to see if it was worth something ... bah ... nope totally not) or when i left it activated on BIOS

also if you do not use that IGP then disable it in the BIOS and it will not show up (as it does not show up on my 6600K ) if it show up : it's active and not according to the rules 
the fact is  "it's active" not "it's helping" that make that out of the rules
*4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build *(enabled=active)

bench your HD530 instead of that M4000  (joking)
not arguing ofc ... just explaining the rules of that thread


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Dec 31, 2015)

I understand 
The reason the IGP is right now enabled even if superfluous, is because I wanted to make sure everything works fine with all options enabled in my BIOS (I built my system just last week) and in the future I will have an VM hypervisor using the IGP for its console text, while the Quadro will be dedicated to the Windows VM. But until that happens, I agree this is absolutely redundant and not compliant with your rules 

Now I fully understand and endorse the rule of this thread, and considering the 'poor' performance of my so ridiculously expensive M4000, I will not complain if you keep it under the carpet 

Now I going out to take some fresh air while the sky is still blue.

Wish you all an happy NYE, looking forward to talk with you next year


----------



## PP Mguire (Dec 31, 2015)

Ferrum Master said:


> Shaite don't spam the thread. Don't screw with your single slot card, it is simply not enough to do anything. Quit monkeying around, it will throttle to the floor. Last consumer single slot card was 750Ti 60W, yours is cherry picked and down clocked to fit in that envelope. Don't burn it. Sell it and get a proper card.
> 
> Meanwhile in colder Europe.
> 
> ...


You're a butt. 

I can hit 5GHz but idk if I can bench at 5 due to only having an H100i with a messed up USB section so I can't turn my fans to max.  Let's see.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 1, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> You're a butt.
> 
> I can hit 5GHz but idk if I can bench at 5 due to only having an H100i with a messed up USB section so I can't turn my fans to max.  Let's see.



Just opened my window... -12C outside currently


----------



## TorqueDnB (Jan 1, 2016)

I wanted a bit more fps in some games so it turned up the voltage to 11!!  
Now running my A10 on 4.4Ghz@1,488volt and my 290X is running on 1,2Ghz@1,32volt mem@1625 everything is watercooled except the mobo. 
Pretty happy with this score going from 1479-->1601 with a lower overclock on the GPU.


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Jan 1, 2016)

guys,

looking at your impressive scores, I was wondering if any of you knows what part of the demo can bring the perf to the lower FPS ? because isn't it strange to see such spread between max and min FPS ?

please advise.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 1, 2016)

Ten Shin Han said:


> guys,
> 
> looking at your impressive scores, I was wondering if any of you knows what part of the demo can bring the perf to the lower FPS ? because isn't it strange to see such spread between max and min FPS ?
> 
> please advise.


The dip in one or two of the scenes when stuff is being loaded/cached.


----------



## DarthBaggins (Jan 2, 2016)

So did my Entry not count?


----------



## CheatingWolf (Jan 2, 2016)

I need help. I don't know why I get such a terrible score. The computer is less than a month old, and regardless of the graphics settings on games and videos, I can get as low as 2 FPS.



Spoiler: Computer Specifications




*OS: *Windows 10 Home
*Brand:* ABS Computer Technologies
*Model:* Vayron GS
*Processor:* Intel Core i7-6700K
*Processor Main Features:* 64 bit Quad-Core Processor
*Cache Per Processor:* 8 MB L3 Cache
*Memory:* 16 GB DDR4
*Storage:* 1 TB HDD + 240 GB SSD
*Optical Drive:* 24X DL DVD+/-RW Drive
*Graphics:* NVIDIA Geforce GTX 970 4 GB
*Ethernet:* Gigabit Ethernet
*Power Supply:* 600W


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Jan 3, 2016)

CheatingWolf said:


> I need help. I don't know why I get such a terrible score. The computer is less than a month old, and regardless of the graphics settings on games and videos, I can get as low as 2 FPS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My 2 cents: did you check that the PCI slot you are using if a full 16x (16x) for maximum bandwith and not 4x ?


----------



## CheatingWolf (Jan 3, 2016)

Ten Shin Han said:


> My 2 cents: did you check that the PCI slot you are using if a full 16x (16x) for maximum bandwith and not 4x ?



It came pre-assembled due to my lack of time to build my own, and sadly, I feel completely ignorant when I ask, how do I check that?


----------



## liquid.c (Jan 3, 2016)

my score ...


----------



## Ten Shin Han (Jan 3, 2016)

CheatingWolf said:


> .... how do I check that?



Find the documentation of your motherboard, it should contains a drawing of your mobo layout, and a description of each pci slot, then you can figure out by yourself if your graphic card is in the appropriate slot.

or maybe this is overkill, maybe we should assume the factory correctly assembled your system, and this is a software issue.

it is your call.

Good luck


----------



## CheatingWolf (Jan 3, 2016)

Ten Shin Han said:


> Find the documentation of your motherboard, it should contains a drawing of your mobo layout, and a description of each pci slot, then you can figure out by yourself if your graphic card is in the appropriate slot.
> 
> or maybe this is overkill, maybe we should assume the factory correctly assembled your system, and this is a software issue.
> 
> ...



Thank you. I just checked, but unfortunately, it was in the 16x slot. Not sure what I should do now.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 3, 2016)

Before you start the benchmark within the application, let it run for a minute or so to kind of let it spool up.  I usually let it run for a while before I run the benchmark.


----------



## CheatingWolf (Jan 3, 2016)

HammerON said:


> Before you start the benchmark within the application, let it run for a minute or so to kind of let it spool up.



I can get moderately decent FPS on the benchmark when my graphics card hasn't been used/pushed, but what happens is after 5 minutes of playing a game such as CS:GO or FFXIV, the FPS average rate drops to a range of 2-10 FPS. With my hardware, this should not be happening.


----------



## nick112888 (Jan 3, 2016)

i7 4790k @ 4.0ghz nvidia gtx 750 ti graphics


----------



## Vinvincible (Jan 4, 2016)

Intel i7-6700K | GTX 980 Ti 1493/3505 (Stock)


----------



## CheatingWolf (Jan 5, 2016)

@Ten Shin Han @HammerON Could this explain why I'm getting such bad results?



Spoiler: Image


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 5, 2016)

CheatingWolf said:


> @Ten Shin Han @HammerON Could this explain why I'm getting such bad results?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Image



Yes, you are overheating, give back the pc to whom it assembled it.


----------



## liquid.c (Jan 5, 2016)

when you update the results?


----------



## MERCURY (Jan 7, 2016)

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.8ghz
Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming @ 1477mhz / 7910mhz

I have had a more aggressive OC that yielded a 2534 score but I like to back off a good OC just a little.


----------



## Semper Haze (Jan 7, 2016)

First time benchmarking, just got my new 980Ti today, not sure how this stacks up... i5 4690 @ 3.50GHz / 16GB DDR3 / GPU 1241/1342MHz - Clock 7202MHz


----------



## texasniteowl (Jan 8, 2016)

Hi everyone. New member here. Just recently bought an R9 380 (Gigabyte G1) and a new monitor (HP 25xw). Just ran Heaven bench. Is my score a little low or is it in the right ballpark? I didn't see any R9 380's listed in the pg 1 chart, so?

i5-2500k OC'd to 4.5 (using offset mode)
R9 380 4gb - stock - 990MHz, memory 1425MHz






Any ideas why the temp reading in the upper right corner is not correct? If it matters, I had Gigabyte's OC Guru program running and logging to a file during the benchmark. How much, if any, impact would that have made?


----------



## benbird7 (Jan 9, 2016)

Hi All,

First post here after getting a Gigabyte GTX 780 TI OC (found the best stable drivers to overclock were 347.52).

I am running it with an i2500k @ 4.5ghz on a Z68X-UD3-B3 gigabyte board, overclocked speeds of card are : 1310/1900 with the following score:

FPS:*73.2*
Score:*1845*
Min FPS:*30.1*
Max FPS:*151.9*

*Needless to say for not upgrading my CPU and only my GPU over the last 4 years I am still pleased with the results.*


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 10, 2016)

screenshot from inside the benchmark are mandatory please, F12 then drive:user/document/heaven/screenshot(or something like that, it's been a while since i ran a Heaven on my rig) convert the TGA to a JPG and post it.
otherwise not validated, sorry.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Jan 10, 2016)

Here's my 980Ti with i5-4670k.

GPU at: 1338/1835
CPU at: stock 3.4 w/3.8 turbo

Pic of Heaven 4.0:





No pic of CPUZ, but CoreTemp is in the screen shot showing CPU running at 3.8 turbo boost with MSI and GPUZ:


----------



## Ferrum Master (Jan 11, 2016)

neatfeatguy said:


> Here's my 980Ti with i5-4670k.
> 
> GPU at: 1338/1835
> CPU at: stock 3.4 w/3.8 turbo



Your screen shot and mentioned post show different clocks.


----------



## Devon68 (Jan 11, 2016)

> Your screen shot and mentioned post show different clocks.


If you are talking about the MSI afterburner and GPU-z screenshot the clocks seems like they match.
If you look at the white arrow which is the base clock it's under the 1400 mark which is 1338 according to GPU-z.
If you look at the blue arrow which is the boost clock it's a little bit over the 1400 mark which is 1439 according to GPU-z.

The GPU clock of 1514 Mhz I dont know how that number got there, but the 3671 for the memory clock seems to be right 3671/2=1835.5 Mhz which it is in Gpu-z


----------



## trog100 (Jan 11, 2016)

"The GPU clock of 1514 Mhz I dont know how that number got there"

that is what the card is actually boosting to at that moment in time.. the gpu-z boost speed seems to be some kind of estimate.. the boost figure is related to the clock speed but will go up and down relative to temps power usage and whatever..

basically the actual boost speed (the speed the card is actually running at) will drop from a theoretical maximum related to the clock speed set when the card hits any of its control limits.. in short it throttles down..

if you run furmark you will see much lower boost speeds.. furmark will always hit the control limits.. heaven or valley not so much so..

a boost of 1514 is quite good.. my TI would not be fully stable that high.. it would ether trip over its own feet or throttle down.. 

trog


----------



## neatfeatguy (Jan 11, 2016)

trog100 said:


> "The GPU clock of 1514 Mhz I dont know how that number got there"
> 
> that is what the card is actually boosting to at that moment in time.. the gpu-z boost speed seems to be some kind of estimate.. the boost figure is related to the clock speed but will go up and down relative to temps power usage and whatever..
> 
> ...



That's what I kind of thought when it came to the boost speed MSI shows compared to GPUZ. But I'm not sure how common that boost is in games. My Ti stays cool - doesn't break 68C when gaming or running Firestrike or Heaven benchmarks....I'll have to watch MSI while playing other games.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 11, 2016)

trog100 said:


> "The GPU clock of 1514 Mhz I dont know how that number got there"
> 
> that is what the card is actually boosting to at that moment in time.. the gpu-z boost speed seems to be some kind of estimate.. the boost figure is related to the clock speed but will go up and down relative to temps power usage and whatever..
> 
> ...


Heaven shows my card running at 1624 when my card is really clocked at 1472. It's why I left the MSI Afterburner numbers in my shots to properly show what my card is clocked at. I can't go over 1540 on a single card without crashing hard, so no way it's doing 1624. If you look at some others they are reporting difference clocks compared to what Heaven is showing too.


----------



## trog100 (Jan 12, 2016)

your TI is quite good all round.. games will likely not push it as hard as heaven as a general rule.. but if you really want to see it groan and run at around 1000 mhz and not 1500 mhz run furmark.. furmark will hit its power limits.. its temp limits and pretty much every limit it has.. he he

trog


----------



## yanemte (Jan 14, 2016)

I'd have bought one ages ago if it wasn't for the 3GB memory cadrephotos niggle though I feel it will have no impact at my res (1440p).


----------



## ZapCord (Jan 14, 2016)

*Score: 1310*

Macbook Pro 15 inch (mid 2014) with an external Gigabyte GTX 970 mini-ITX connected via Thunderbolt 2.0 via Akitio Thunder 2 PCIE box.

i7-4770 HQ @ 3.0GHz | GTX 970 1076/1418
Image says 2.2GHz on the i7 but that is when it isn't boosting. I locked the boost to 3.0Ghz for better Temps.

*iGPU is disabled*

GTX 970 OCed by 190MHz

Windows 10 Pro x64 installed via Bootcamp
Edit: found a way to upload a better image!


----------



## trog100 (Jan 14, 2016)

PP Mguire said:


> Heaven shows my card running at 1624 when my card is really clocked at 1472. It's why I left the MSI Afterburner numbers in my shots to properly show what my card is clocked at. I can't go over 1540 on a single card without crashing hard, so no way it's doing 1624. If you look at some others they are reporting difference clocks compared to what Heaven is showing too.



heaven reads wrong.. mine shows the same "wrong" high readings..

though looking at it now it dosnt show any core clock readings just the memory.. i am pretty sure it used to do though.. 

trog


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 14, 2016)

Graphics is core clock on Heaven. It's always showed wrong for me using Maxwell V2 cards.


----------



## FX-GMC (Jan 14, 2016)

Updated with posts including:

 A screenshot of the Heaven results 
Clock speeds


----------



## Geranospiza (Jan 15, 2016)

Hello. I would like to update my score. 

5820k @ 4.4Ghz

2x 980ti G1 Gaming Gigabyte
2050mhz memory
1410mhz core



 

 

Thank you very much.


----------



## Vash69 (Jan 18, 2016)

I would like to have my score added.


----------



## Vash69 (Jan 18, 2016)

I would like my score updated, uploaded an old one in my last post.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 18, 2016)

Vash69 said:


> I would like to have my score added.





Vash69 said:


> I would like my score updated, uploaded an old one in my last post.


it will not be added until it comply to the initial post, and if you update, (specially within a frame of 23minutes ...) use the edit function instead of double posting.


GreiverBlade said:


> screenshot from inside the benchmark are mandatory please, F12 then drive:user/document/heaven/screenshot(or something like that, it's been a while since i ran a Heaven on my rig) convert the TGA to a JPG and post it.
> otherwise not validated, sorry.


refer to that post^


GreiverBlade said:


> for some of the post who don't comply to the rules set in the initial post of the thread : must be a screen from in the benchmark, hint: F12 then user/document/heaven/screenshot(or something like that, it's been a while since i ran a Heaven on my rig) convert the TGA to a JPG and post it.
> otherwise not validated, sorry.
> 
> altho it has already been mentioned countless time thru the thread, i know it's long to browse the whole thread to see those mention, but at last you should read the main post
> ...


or that one^


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 18, 2016)

My bargain GTX 680  ( no o/c)  with Xeon X5670 ( BIG o/c)


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 18, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> My bargain GTX 680  ( no o/c)  with Xeon X5670 ( BIG o/c)
> 
> View attachment 71137


CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPS! read the post above!!!


tsk tsk unforgivable ...


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Jan 18, 2016)

oops

Please may i bench my HD 7970 before you make me do reading?

EDIT.  it only got 31.7. I think i have just turned green............anyone want to buy a HD7970 ?


----------



## Ascalaphus (Jan 20, 2016)

i7-5930k @ 4.4ghz
2x Zotac Amped Extreme 980ti in SLI (not heavily overclocked yet)
DDR4 2666mhz


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 20, 2016)

Ascalaphus said:


> i7-5930k @ 4.4ghz
> 2x Zotac Amped Extreme 980ti in SLI (not heavily overclocked yet)
> DDR4 2666mhz


again



GreiverBlade said:


> it will not be added until it comply to the initial post


7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.

F12 then user/document/heaven/screenshot(or something like that, it's been a while since i ran a Heaven on my rig) convert the TGA to a JPG and post it.


----------



## Ascalaphus (Jan 20, 2016)

Okay! Gotcha. Sorry new to this site.


----------



## Ascalaphus (Jan 20, 2016)

There we go.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 20, 2016)

Ascalaphus said:


> Okay! Gotcha. Sorry new to this site.


no worries and thank you for the correction  

nice score btw


----------



## done12many2 (Jan 21, 2016)

Hello to all.  First post, but I plan to take a few stabs at benchmarking.  Hopefully this is the correct format.  Thanks!

i7 5960x @ 4.65
(2) EVGA 980 Ti Hybrid

GPU 1481
Memory 3931


----------



## SXTC (Jan 22, 2016)

I knew it was time to upgrade... but this is just pathetic :'(


----------



## Tanner Helton (Jan 24, 2016)

CPU: Intel 5820K 6 cores @ 4.2Ghz
GPU: EVGA Titan X Hydro Copper @ 1152Mhz(Base)/1241Mhz(Boost)
(https://tannerstechtips.com/dl/download/benchmrk.png)


----------



## Retrorockit (Jan 24, 2016)

I don't have a picture. I hit save but I don't know where they go. Anyway My old Dell Dimension E520 (2006) . Scored 1809, 71.0 fps on ultra setting 1680X1050.
It's a QX6800 @ 3.72Ghz, 2GB DDR2 800, R9-285 ITX O/C 2GB DDR5.


----------



## PP Mguire (Jan 25, 2016)

Tanner Helton said:


> CPU: Intel 5820K 6 cores @ 4.2Ghz
> GPU: EVGA Titan X Hydro Copper @ 1152Mhz(Base)/1241Mhz(Boost)
> (https://tannerstechtips.com/dl/download/benchmrk.png)


You can crank the Hydro Copper clocks high, just an FYI. The bios is pretty decent.


----------



## Vellinious (Jan 26, 2016)

Can't quite hit my targets with this card yet.  Still learning....

XFX 8GB 290X at 1313 core, 1793 memory.  5820k at 4.65


----------



## ZikiHero (Jan 26, 2016)

Hello. Stock HD7970 825/1230 with new drivers


----------



## done12many2 (Jan 27, 2016)

Turned up the processor and the GPUs a bit.

i7 5960x @ 4.8
(2) EVGA 980 Ti Hybrid

GPU 1250/1513
Memory 3506


----------



## YautjaLord (Feb 1, 2016)

After installing NV's v361.75 driver:






CPU-Z dump:





GPU-Z dump:


----------



## DukeChocula (Feb 2, 2016)

GTX 970 reference card + custom bios 1607/2066 (Thermal Throttle to 1519, waiting on GPU block to come)
i5 3570k @ 4.7Ghz @ 1.325v


----------



## andreacos92 (Feb 2, 2016)

Asus G751JY with GTX980m 1300/1503 with a slight overvolt.


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 3, 2016)

says my file is too big. any help. tried zip files


----------



## andreacos92 (Feb 3, 2016)

Some improvements with GTX 980m 1375/1503 @ 1.150 V


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 4, 2016)

still trying


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 4, 2016)

best so far


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 5, 2016)

how long does it take to know if its valid and on the list?


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 5, 2016)

Vellinious - 5820k @ 4.7 - x1 970 with custom bios @ 1633 / 2176 -- 1736






Vellinious - 5820k @ 4.7 - 8GB 290X @ 1313 / 1793 -- 1862


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 5, 2016)

DukeChocula said:


> GTX 970 reference card + custom bios 1607/2066 (Thermal Throttle to 1519, waiting on GPU block to come)
> i5 3570k @ 4.7Ghz @ 1.325v



That's a good run.  Get your block on, get the memory cranked up above 2100 and you will probably break 1700.  Good luck!!


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 5, 2016)

Wester71 said:


> how long does it take to know if its valid and on the list?


the time it will take for @FX-GMC to do it, well he's not committed to do daily update tho  your know, other things to take care and such (even if it take months it will still be updated one day or another unless the OP say the thread is dead   )... and btw edit your initial post ... do not triple post unless it falls in the edit option is not availiable anymore (don't know how much time on the forum edit stay up, on MP it's 4 minutes but on forum it should be more iirc )

those 980Ti scores are nice well my 980 is not bad either ...



Vellinious said:


> Vellinious - 5820k @ 4.7 - x1 970 with custom bios @ 1633 / 2176 -- 1736
> 
> 
> 
> ...


quite weirde a 290X should be  way more higher than a *cough cough* 970

oh wait "heaven" i forgot ...  no wonder my 980 perform better than my 290 here and no big improvement anywhere else 

that remind me that i need to re run that bench now that i did swap my CPU and Mobo


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 5, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> the time it will take for @FX-GMC to do it, well he's not committed to do daily update tho  your know, other things to take care and such (even if it take months it will still be updated one day or another unless the OP say the thread is dead   )... and btw edit your initial post ... do not triple post unless it falls in the edit option is not availiable anymore (don't know how much time on the forum edit stay up, on MP it's 4 minutes but on forum it should be more iirc )
> 
> those 980Ti scores are nice well my 980 is not bad either ...
> 
> ...




They're both exceptional scores, for the respective cards....both should be at the top, actually....  The single 970 scores I was seeing were quite a bit higher than the norm...among the highest I'd seen out of other 970s.  

The thing that impressed me about the 290X, was that it was able to outpace the custom bios, and very high overclocks of the 970, on a stock bios.


----------



## DukeChocula (Feb 5, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> That's a good run.  Get your block on, get the memory cranked up above 2100 and you will probably break 1700.  Good luck!!



I think the biggest thing is thermal throttle I started to get artifacting at 2075 :/ Maybe with lower temperatures i'll be able to squeeze a little more out of the memory too! 

You're from Iowa too! Where abouts? I'm going to school in Ottumwa, but originally from Knoxville.


----------



## oiyoushlaag (Feb 5, 2016)

980ti zotac omega @ 1304/2005 i5 6600k @ 4.4

http://valid.x86.fr/73rj0i


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 6, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> the time it will take for @FX-GMC to do it, well he's not committed to do daily update tho  your know, other things to take care and such (even if it take months it will still be updated one day or another unless the OP say the thread is dead   )... and btw edit your initial post ... do not triple post unless it falls in the edit option is not availiable anymore (don't know how much time on the forum edit stay up, on MP it's 4 minutes but on forum it should be more iirc )
> 
> those 980Ti scores are nice well my 980 is not bad either ...
> 
> ...





thanks i am trying to delete right now


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 6, 2016)

ok I am happy with this benchmark. It will be it for a while. Hope I haven't done something wrong. Pushing the vram on my card is possible but not worth it.


----------



## oiyoushlaag (Feb 6, 2016)

sorry forgot to attach the pic


----------



## oiyoushlaag (Feb 6, 2016)

Wester71 said:


> ok I am happy with this benchmark. It will be it for a while. Hope I haven't done something wrong. Pushing the vram on my card is possible but not worth it.


Try my clock settings, its the sweet spot on my gpu, any more and i lose fps, also i run a mild fan speed, keeping it under 65 degrees, i found too much fan speed will throttle your power


----------



## oiyoushlaag (Feb 6, 2016)

980ti zotac omega @ 1316(1417, boost)/2080 i5 6600k 4.4
http://valid.x86.fr/xzuner
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details.php?id=2wp32


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 6, 2016)

oiyoushlaag said:


> sorry forgot to attach the pic





oiyoushlaag said:


> Try my clock settings, its the sweet spot on my gpu, any more and i lose fps, also i run a mild fan speed, keeping it under 65 degrees, i found too much fan speed will throttle your power





oiyoushlaag said:


> 980ti zotac omega @ 1316(1417, boost)/2080 i5 6600k 4.4
> http://valid.x86.fr/xzuner
> http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details.php?id=2wp32


you do it on purpose? 



GreiverBlade said:


> and btw edit your initial post ... do not triple post unless it falls in the edit option is not availiable anymore (don't know how much time on the forum edit stay up, on MP it's 4 minutes but on forum it should be more iirc )



that was for another user but still apply to most 


nonetheless nice scores 
(as i don't want to unwatch that thread ... i rather keep the notifications at lowest, than getting a mail on each double or triple posts )


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 6, 2016)

oiyoushlaag said:


> Try my clock settings, its the sweet spot on my gpu, any more and i lose fps, also i run a mild fan speed, keeping it under 65 degrees, i found too much fan speed will throttle your power



zotac stays with a reference a PCB I believe. As to MSI designed their own and use different VRAM. Others warned against going to far with the  VRAM OC. Some claim 2000 but I am not that brave yet. I had a zotac 980 and it OC'd like crazy.


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 6, 2016)

Am I posting my scores wrong? Still not seeing my scores added. Very discouraging after joining and spending my time here. Well I enjoy the people.


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 6, 2016)

Wester71 said:


> Am I posting my scores wrong? Still not seeing my scores added. Very discouraging after joining and spending my time here. Well I enjoy the people.



Relax....I'm sure they'll get updated when whomever does it, has time to.  Not everyone lives, breathes and eats in front of their PC so they can make sure scores get updated every time someone posts.......my goodness.


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 6, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Relax....I'm sure they'll get updated when whomever does it, has time to.  Not everyone lives, breathes and eats in front of their PC so they can make sure scores get updated every time someone posts.......my goodness.



really coming from Iowa


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 6, 2016)

Wester71 said:


> really coming from Iowa



Of the two of us, I'm not the one acting like an impatient child.....  /wink


----------



## n0tiert (Feb 7, 2016)




----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 7, 2016)

YES finally broke 2k point barrier, good thing that the multiple post and notification here reminded me to run it again

i5-6600K @ 4.4 and GTX 980 @ 1378(1479 boost)/1903 (boost logged by GPU-Z during the benchmark 1516.4mhz ) GPU didn't got higher than 49° funny enough i never got a reading of max fps high as that one before that run (on the phase where the camera orbits the flying island)


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm having a strange problem with Unigine benchmarks. My computer scores much slower with my CPU overclocked 3.72GHz. than at 2.93GHz base speed. In 3Dmark it scales up nicely  in overall and physics scores. My O/C is in software, but it doesn't matter if it's on before the test loads, or changed afterwards. I'm using Throttlestop 6.00. I raised volts to see if it was instability but no change. In Heaven basic @2.93GHz. I get 99fps, 3.72GHz. I get 90fps. On higher settings, or in Valley it's even worse. Does anyone have any insight into this?


----------



## rob cherry (Feb 9, 2016)

FX 6300 @ stock 3.5ghz
8gb (2x4gb) kingston hyperX savage @ 1600mhz
r9 290 4gb    graphics 947mhz
                      memory 1250mhz
windows 7 home premium 64-bit


----------



## tvamos (Feb 9, 2016)

i5-4670k @ 4.2, HD7970 @ 1200/1600


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 9, 2016)

Retrorockit said:


> I'm having a strange problem with Unigine benchmarks. My computer scores much slower with my CPU overclocked 3.72GHz. than at 2.93GHz base speed. In 3Dmark it scales up nicely  in overall and physics scores. My O/C is in software, but it doesn't matter if it's on before the test loads, or changed afterwards. I'm using Throttlestop 6.00. I raised volts to see if it was instability but no change. In Heaven basic @2.93GHz. I get 99fps, 3.72GHz. I get 90fps. On higher settings, or in Valley it's even worse. Does anyone have any insight into this?


9fps is what i call a standard frame variance ... and also CPU OC has little to do with Unigines Benchmarks ... so the culprit is not the CPU OC afaik


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 9, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> 9fps is what i call a standard frame variance ... and also CPU OC has little to do with Unigines Benchmarks ... so the culprit is not the CPU OC afaik



Ooh, no true at all.  CPU overclock makes  a HUGE difference on Valley.  Not so much on Heaven, but....disable all but 2 cores on an i7, and disable hyperthreading, to add a bit more overclock, can make quite the difference in Valley scores.  Like I said, Heaven not so much, but.....it does help keep the minimums up, and will add a little bit on the top as well.

For instance.  This was run with all 6 cores of a 5820k at 4.2ghz.  290X at 1303 / 1806






This was run with 2 cores, hyperthreading off with the clocks at 4.9ghz.  290X at 1303 / 1802.






I haven't done the same thing with Heaven, and while it's not as dramatic, it does still make a difference.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 9, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Ooh, no true at all.  CPU overclock makes  a HUGE difference on Valley.  Not so much on Heaven, but....disable all but 2 cores on an i7, and disable hyperthreading, to add a bit more overclock, can make quite the difference in Valley scores.  Like I said, Heaven not so much, but.....it does help keep the minimums up, and will add a little bit on the top as well.
> 
> For instance.  This was run with all 6 cores of a 5820k at 4.2ghz.  290X at 1303 / 1806
> 
> ...


ok then valley is ... CPU and GPU bound ... but we are in HEAVEN topic  but thanks for the precision anyway

btw my 6600K at 4.4 has a higher minimal fps than my previous 4690K at 4.5


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 9, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> 9fps is what i call a standard frame variance ... and also CPU OC has little to do with Unigines Benchmarks ... so the culprit is not the CPU OC afaik


It's too consistent to be a variance, and in Valley it's from 50fps down to 40fps or 25%. CPU should have little to do with Heaven benchmark.  It not only does, but in the opposite direction that one would expect. If it was the same I wouldn't be surprised, but the loss is hard to explain.


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 9, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> ok then valley is ... CPU and GPU bound ... but we are in HEAVEN topic  but thanks for the precision anyway
> 
> btw my 6600K at 4.4 has a higher minimal fps than my previous 4690K at 4.5



Like I said, it's not as pronounced in Heaven, but, the core clock on the CPU does matter.  If you're pushing for high scores, and not pushing the CPU for the unigine benchmarks, you aren't doing yourself any justice.  = P


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 9, 2016)

Retrorockit said:


> It's too consistent to be a variance, and in Valley it's from 50fps down to 40fps or 25%. CPU should have little to do with Heaven benchmark.  It not only does, but in the opposite direction that one would expect. If it was the same I wouldn't be surprised, but the loss is hard to explain.



Are you sure your clock is stable?  Does anything else change, like the bclk?  Memory?  The only thing I can think of, as to why it would go backwards would be an unstable OC.


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 9, 2016)

14x266 fsb all clocks are stock. Just Multi and volts. It runs 3x Prime95 OK, and  other stress tests 100% on all 4 cores. It's very stable and runs Firestrike w/o problems scoring 6892 (58%). Firestrike is 6428 w/o O/C (47%). Benchmarking CPU temps. are 66-67*C. That's with Physics tests in 3Dmark.
In Unigine they don't go that high 63*C.
There's a validation link in my sig. for 4GHz. now that was unstable!


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 9, 2016)

Retrorockit said:


> 14x266 fsb all clocks are stock. Just Multi and volts. It runs 3x Prime95 OK, and  other stress tests 100% on all 4 cores. It's very stable and runs Firestrike w/o problems scoring 6892 (58%). Firestrike is 6428 w/o O/C (47%). Benchmarking CPU temps. are 66-67*C. That's with Physics tests in 3Dmark.
> In Unigine they don't go that high 63*C.
> There's a validation link in my sig. for 4GHz. now that was unstable!



I really don't know.  Could have to do with the age of the architecture?  I really don't have a clue.....


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 9, 2016)

I just ran a series of Unigine benchmarks at all available speeds including underclocking to 2.66GHZ.
Speed            Score             FPS
3.72GHZ.      2303              91.4
3.45GHz.      2373               94.2
3.2GHz.         2431              96.5
2.93GHz       2495               99.0
2.66GHz       2377               92.4
Basically  Q6700@ 2.66 GHz. is as fast in Unigine as an overclocked QX6800 @ 3.72 GHz.
I turned Unigine off, then reset speeds, then opened Unigine again each time.
At least it didn't get faster with an underclock!
I'll edit this in here.
Unigine Valley test.
speed.........score......fps
3.72GHz.  1911    45.7
2.93GHz.  2098    50.1
I guess it's the same 10% loss from 26% overclock.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 10, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Like I said, it's not as pronounced in Heaven, but, the core clock on the CPU does matter.  If you're pushing for high scores, and not pushing the CPU for the unigine benchmarks, you aren't doing yourself any justice.  = P


well i see what you mean ... still for me it does little to near nothing ... and it's known since quite a while ... even more than 4 core are not a game changer on that bench...

off topic: i still don't see what's going on for the QX6800 of @Retrorockit ... and that's bug me beyond all ... (and you remind me to assemble some S775 build sooner or later ... i still have a E8500 and a XFX 650i ultra sitting on the shelve ... jsut need to find some DDR2 and a batch of GPU to test ...  )

OH FCK ... i just noticed that i've put the bench on high instead of ultra ...

DAMN! i have to rerun it ...

and i can't edit or delete the initial post ... ok, don't wait me ... i gonna hang myself in a corner of my livingroom, i'll be back later once i get my cervical back in place ...


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 10, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> well i see what you mean ... still for me it does little to near nothing ... and it's known since quite a while ... even more than 4 core are not a game changer on that bench...
> 
> also compare my 4690K @ 4.5 to my 6600K @ 4.4 result .... same GPU even a lil lower clock on the 2nd run ... altho the result get a boost and minimum fps is still higher (ok ,... i know the ipc or a skylake is better than a haswell ... even with 0.1ghz less )
> View attachment 72028
> ...



The unigine engine only utilizes 2 cores.....  And, like you said.....the reason your 6600k at a slightly lower clock is doing better, is because it has a stronger IPC, on the 2 threads that it's running.  Which is why it's handy to disable all but 2 cores, disable hyperthreading (on an i7), and overclock the living piss out of the remaining 2 cores.

Yeah, I have no idea what's going on with Retrocockit's build.  I've never seen anything like that...


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 10, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> The unigine engine only utilizes 2 cores.....  And, like you said.....the reason your 6600k at a slightly lower clock is doing better, is because it has a stronger IPC, on the 2 threads that it's running.  Which is why it's handy to disable all but 2 cores, disable hyperthreading (on an i7), and overclock the living piss out of the remaining 2 cores.
> 
> Yeah, I have no idea what's going on with Retrocockit's build.  I've never seen anything like that...


wrong the reason behind my 6600K is stated on the edit .... "high" instead of "ultra" .... a Skylake is not really a step above a haswell ... and specially with a 4.4 and a 4.5 difference clock ... you would not notice 10% increased performance between SL and HW even if they were at the same clock ... i should retract my previous post  but i can't even delete it 

and nope OC still does nothing for Heaven and 94pts more in valley is not what i call a huge difference, rather a almost non existent (almost in the "regular performance variance between 2 benchmark runs" case )
placebo effect ... much ...

just fo'laugh'n giggle i will try a 2 core OC on my 6600K (tho i am not sure of the accuracy of that method ....  )

also Heaven is defined as 100% GPU bound by Unigine devs themselves  CPU OC : does indeed near to nothing ... at last nothing worth a extreme OC (4.4ghz for me is a base OC )  funny enough Valley is also almost GPU exclusive bound ... so again here too a CPU OC produce a result not worth the work demanded behind 

and lastly where did you hear that unigine engine only use 2 core? i would like the source if you have it because i can find any info on it  more on it benchmark not engine since the engine seems to be scalable, aka it will surely use more core than 2 and even all core of a HEDT CPU if needed 

quoted from their official website
"The engine detects the number of CPU cores available and distributes the load among all of them, thanks to an efficient multi-threaded design. As a result, the engine is capable of handling hundreds of thousands of dynamic objects on-screen simultaneously.​
SCALABILITY​
UNIGINE utilizes all hardware resources available in the most efficient way; it is scalable from integrated GPUs to top-tier multi-channel PCs.
UNIGINE supports up to the past five generations of GPUs with performance optimizations in the renderer for various vendors. There is also support for both consumer-level and professional GPUs (Quadro and FireGL series).
Our UNIGINE-powered GPU benchmarks are installed by millions of users worldwide and are considered one of the best applications available to utilize all GPU."​

(9fps loss between a OC and a stock is not really what i call a issue ...rater a non stable OC in Unigines benchies ...  )

ok back to the topic ... my cervical are back in place...


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 10, 2016)

I can run 4X Prime 95 all day at 3.45GHZ. I don't know how stable it would need to be to improve on that.


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 10, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> wrong the reason behind my 6600K is stated on the edit .... "high" instead of "ultra" .... a Skylake is not really a step above a haswell ... and specially with a 4.4 and a 4.5 difference clock ... you would not notice 10% increased performance between SL and HW even if they were at the same clock ... i should retract my previous post  but i can't even delete it
> 
> and nope OC still does nothing for Heaven and 94pts more in valley is not what i call a huge difference, rather a almost non existent (almost in the "regular performance variance between 2 benchmark runs" case )
> placebo effect ... much ...
> ...



lol, if you say so....I'll just take my high scores for 970 and 290x and smile, cause I know my benchmarks.  /wink

1739 - 970
1862 - 290X


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 10, 2016)

Retrorockit said:


> I can run 4X Prime 95 all day at 3.45GHZ. I don't know how stable it would need to be to improve on that.


please make a thread about that issue elsewhere, it's not the place to discus of that.

and you can be stable in prime and not stable anywhere else.

there might be another issue underlying that doesn't concern only Unigines bench.



Vellinious said:


> lol, if you say so....I'll just take my high scores for 970 and 290x and smile, cause I know my benchmarks.  /wink
> 
> 1739 - 970
> 1862 - 290X


mmhhh? ... it's not "if i say so" ... i wrote that my difference of "oh my god 35pts" was due to the use of "high" instead of "ultra" settings ... keep in mind that my GPU OC and CPU OC are lower ... and nope a 4.4 Skylake would not give a edge over a 4.5 Haswell ...specially with a slower clocked GPU in a GPU bound game.

tho ... answer my question: your source on the Unigines engine use only 2 cores... i'd like to know, monitoring?

and the end of your post has nothing to do with me  indeed those are good score for a 970 and a 290X and only due to the GPU
i know my benchmark also ... in Valley or Heaven a 4.0ghz i7-920 produced the same result as a 2.66ghz... 94pts in valley is a minimal difference, in heaven it would be different but ... it's not the case, so if we scale the "huge difference" you get in Valley we actually reach the "it does near nothing" in Heaven.


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 10, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> please make a thread about that issue elsewhere, it's not the place to discus of that.
> 
> and you can be stable in prime and not stable anywhere else.
> 
> ...



If you watch the cores in Unigine while it's running, it's only ever loading up 2 at a time.  If you go in and disable all but 2, kill hyperthreading, and overclock the crap out of the remaining 2 cores, it helps to score higher.  Adding any more cores than that doesn't do anything.  Anything less, lowers the scores a bit. 

You believe whatever you want, man.  I'm done arguing with ya.  You sprinkle your magic dust to have a good run, and I'll sprinkle mine.  = D

G'day


----------



## krazytoneride (Feb 10, 2016)

i5 4690k @ 4.4 GHz, 2 x GTX 680 @ 1200/3004 MHz


----------



## Retrorockit (Feb 10, 2016)

I found a way to get my O/C recognized by Unigine. If I reboot I need to apply the O/C  in Windows, but with a restart it's applied already.
I got 115FPS, and 2902 score in Heaven Basic. About the 15% gain I'd expect from a CPU limited computer overclock.. If I check in CPUZ it's there, But if I open the overclock software to monitor temps. etc, it slows back down. I guess Unigine sets it's real time clock from old data at boot and not by current speed.
In Valley I'm getting 58.9 fps in basic, and 50.5 in Extreme. 

In Heaven Extreme full screen I'm getting 59.2 FPS. Seems about right for my hardware.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 10, 2016)

krazytoneride said:


> i5 4690k @ 4.4 GHz, 2 x GTX 680 @ 1200/3004 MHz


go back in the thread and see related post concerning the screenshot: F12 then C:user/username/Heaven/screenshot, convert the TGA to a JPG and post it 



Vellinious said:


> If you watch the cores in Unigine while it's running, it's only ever loading up 2 at a time.  If you go in and disable all but 2, kill hyperthreading, and overclock the crap out of the remaining 2 cores, it helps to score higher.  Adding any more cores than that doesn't do anything.  Anything less, lowers the scores a bit.
> 
> You believe whatever you want, man.  I'm done arguing with ya.  You sprinkle your magic dust to have a good run, and I'll sprinkle mine.  = D
> 
> G'day


yet you answered the question, thanks. 
i am not believing anything or arguing, just in case  i just asked for precision. 

thanks for the answer anyhow


----------



## krazytoneride (Feb 11, 2016)

Okay, thanks redid it, got a better score this time 

i5 4690k @ 4.4 GHz, 2 x GTX 680 @ 1252/3254 MHz

View attachment 72063 

EDIT: Something was wrong with my CPU Clock on the one above, new test here


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 12, 2016)

ok I really do not understand why as to the way this sight is ran and sorry if I offended anyone. Still don't see why some of the charts haven't been updated. Thought mine were legit. Waited over a week and a half. Still nothing. Makes it out to be no fun to play here that is for sure.


----------



## PP Mguire (Feb 13, 2016)

i7 3960x @ 4.5Ghz, 3x Titan X @ 1316/1753MHz

3rd card was getting toasty so throttled to 1316 from 1392. To be fair, the cards under water are running a custom bios where this is a stock eVGA SC. No up in clocks and my regular CPU clock.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 13, 2016)

xeon x3380 @ 4.1Ghz..
er..The good Sammy RAM @ 1300-ish
..and this:





I'm no stranger to heaven.This is with Shammy BIOS.I killed the last card I had with it.Not his fault.Getting good results with being conservative..
Oh..This is at the home of "GTX 970 rules" btw..I have the top score for GTX 970 
PS:GTX 970 does not beat 290x.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 13, 2016)

Hah! Whatcha think about that?
Well it doesn't have a whole lot of OCing headroom


----------



## jorj02 (Feb 13, 2016)

i5 2500k 4.4ghz hd 7950


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 14, 2016)

Schmuckley said:


> xeon x3380 @ 4.1Ghz..
> er..The good Sammy RAM @ 1300-ish
> ..and this:
> 
> ...



Yeah, I never asked to have mine updated.  = )

EDIT:  I did, actually....it just hadn't been updated yet.  = P






I also now own a 290x...great cards.


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 14, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Yeah, I never asked to have mine updated.  = )
> 
> EDIT:  I did, actually....it just hadn't been updated yet.  = P
> 
> ...





Vellinious said:


> Yeah, I never asked to have mine updated.  = )
> 
> EDIT:  I did, actually....it just hadn't been updated yet.  = P
> 
> ...


----------



## Wester71 (Feb 14, 2016)

Well i don't see the point, I don't do more than I can handle. Just saying. Bench marking is my gaming. I also enjoy seeing others with different hardware compete. It's fun when organised. left on opening for some nasty comments there but oh well. Nice Rig.


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 16, 2016)

FX-GMC has not posted here since Jan 15th.I wonder what happened?


----------



## FX-GMC (Feb 16, 2016)

Schmuckley said:


> FX-GMC has not posted here since Jan 15th.I wonder what happened?



Found my time was better spent gaming than reading forums all night.  I usually check in every few months to update the OP.

Unfortunately, I no longer have an edit button so I guess this means the thread is dead.





If someone else wants to take over and start a new thread PM a moderator.  I'd suggest you start from scratch as there is a lot of data in the OP and going through it was starting to become a chore.


----------



## krazytoneride (Feb 17, 2016)

FX-GMC said:


> Found my time was better spent gaming than reading forums all night.  I usually check in every few months to update the OP.
> 
> Unfortunately, I no longer have an edit button so I guess this means the thread is dead.
> 
> ...


GreiverBlade should make a new one, he seems pretty active.


----------



## Vlada011 (Feb 17, 2016)

My old score...
i7-5820K 4.0GHz - GTX780Ti fabric OC Boost 1200MHz


----------



## BadgerBaiter (Feb 17, 2016)

Not entirely sure if I am doing this right 

i7 4790K @ 4.00Ghz , Gigabyte Extreme Gaming 980Ti 1241/1342Mhz.

I haven't touched any overclocking for CPU or GPU yet as I haven't really had a hankering , yet.


----------



## Jetster (Feb 17, 2016)

BadgerBaiter said:


> Not entirely sure if I am doing this right
> 
> i7 4790K @ 4.00Ghz , Gigabyte Extreme Gaming 980Ti 1241/1342Mhz.
> 
> I haven't touched any overclocking for CPU or GPU yet as I haven't really had a hankering , yet.



Looks good


----------



## Schmuckley (Feb 18, 2016)

Well that's sad.


----------



## MurTEL (Feb 19, 2016)

I hope I am doing this correctly.  I am not sure of the second number under GPU clock.  Please advise if I need to edit something.

Thanks

i7-4790K @ 4.6Ghz / EVGA GTX 980 Ti @ 1545/????


----------



## Vellinious (Feb 19, 2016)

MurTEL said:


> I hope I am doing this correctly.  I am not sure of the second number under GPU clock.  Please advise if I need to edit something.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ...



Memory clock


----------



## GreiverBlade (Feb 19, 2016)

krazytoneride said:


> GreiverBlade should make a new one, he seems pretty active.


well if i fortunately did have the time to manage that i would, gladly, but for now i am also tied.


----------



## MurTEL (Feb 19, 2016)

MurTEL said:


> I hope I am doing this correctly.  I am not sure of the second number under GPU clock.  Please advise if I need to edit something.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ...



Here is my update now that I know what to post:

i7-4790K @ 4.6Ghz / EVGA GTX 980 Ti @ 1545/2028

Thanks.

Did another one here.  Raised my score a little.

i7-4790K @ 4.6Ghz / EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified @ 1550/2028


----------



## Farzad4 (Feb 19, 2016)

Hello There Sry i couldn't take screenshot but i took picture with my phone 
Core i7 5960x @4ghz , 2x Asus 20th Anniversary Gold Edition 980 TI SLI


----------



## ASOT (Feb 22, 2016)




----------



## Mads (Feb 28, 2016)

i7-6700k @ 4Ghz, EVGA GTX 980ti Hybrid @ 1671/3855Mhz, 64GB corsair Vengance LPX @2933Mhz, 2x Samsung 950 512GB in Raid0


----------



## MurTEL (Feb 28, 2016)

Got my score a little better after some fine tuning.

i7-4790K @ 4.6Ghz / EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified @ 1705/2078


----------



## KEVOCROOK (Feb 28, 2016)

file:///C:/Users/home/Desktop/Unigine_Heaven_Benchmark_4.0_20141225_1036.html 
fx4170
gtx 980


----------



## Hammerchucker (Feb 29, 2016)

I just recently took my second ASUS Direct CU II 2 GTX 780 out of SLI to get my son up an running his own PC (til he can get a 970 or 980) and so I've been a bit more into OC'ing and paying attention to stats. 

This is my sweet spot for my setup.  I got a bit higher scores (1634) with slightly higher GPU clock speeds (1136Ghz core) but had artifacts (but not crashing).  I'm running a Corsair 750w power supply so not quite sure if I'm hitting the power supply's limit or the cards.   In any case, I'm quite happy with these results on stock bios and air cooling.


----------



## Hammerchucker (Feb 29, 2016)

Wester71 said:


> says my file is too big. any help. tried zip files



I right clicked on the pic and clicked edit which opened Paint.  I chose save as and .jpg.  This drastically reduced the file size.


----------



## SotoDojo (Feb 29, 2016)

I7 4770K @ 4.29


1651/3505 stock cooling


----------



## Jidonsu (Mar 3, 2016)

i7 4790K @4.7ghz

980ti @ 1550mhz and 4005 mhz

Score 2703


----------



## Ömer Irik (Mar 11, 2016)

i7 4820k @4.4
ARES II 1283/1800


----------



## Tomgang (Mar 13, 2016)

Alright here is my old junk.

spec and clocks






Score


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 14, 2016)

Asus maximus V gene 3770K @4500 memory 1600 2X GTX 580'S. I'll post latter with 6700K on gigabyte Z170X SOC with 2 X GTX 780 Ti DC II OC


----------



## neatfeatguy (Mar 15, 2016)

I've been playing with the OC capabilities on my 980 Ti and I've set the memory much higher while dropping the core a little bit - things run stable and I'm not sure I've reached the ceiling yet on the memory.  Here's my new screen shots that shows results from Heaven (you'll notice in the upper left corner you can see the GPU clock and memory speeds from Afterburner on screen display).

CPU: i5-4670k stock
GPU (according to GPUZ): core @ 1303 w/ 1404 boost. Memory @ 2068
Heaven pic shows (kind of hard to see in upper left corner) GPU is boosting to 1479
Here's a GPUZ validation link


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 16, 2016)

hope i did it right. reference GTX 970 (nvidia 970) +150 on the core, Only


----------



## Flukelsx (Mar 16, 2016)

Updated Score:  So many inconsistencies with benchmarks between similar and better systems it seems.


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 16, 2016)

SotoDojo said:


> I7 4770K @ 4.29
> 
> 
> 1651/3505 stock cooling
> ...



1651 core clock on a 980ti with stock cooling, eh?  Where'd you read that core clock from?  Unigine?  You should open up GPUz, cause.....I'm gonna go out on a limb and say your core wasn't running at 1600+.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 16, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> 1651 core clock on a 980ti with stock cooling, eh?  Where'd you read that core clock from?  Unigine?  You should open up GPUz, cause.....I'm gonna go out on a limb and say your core wasn't running at 1600+.


probably max boost clock, my 980 runs 1540 max boost regularly with 1278 clock setting

for benchmark settings: 1393/1978
i got
i5-4690K 4.5GHz GTX 980 1643/1978 1978 GreiverBlade, while offcial boost was reported to be 1499 under GPU-Z main tab

that was funny the score was same as memory clock


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 16, 2016)

unigine has Terrible clock reading....atleast if it IS accurate, my 970 runs @ 3000+ memory, and 1800+ Core


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 16, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> unigine has Terrible clock reading....atleast if it IS accurate, my 970 runs @ 3000+ memory, and 1800+ Core


never trust in bench reading (except temp, that one is quite accurate ) sadly the main post will not be updated as the edit option is not there anymore, but still nice to see some good scores 
i will maybe do one, one day, when i will have enough time, although i don't know how to do a spreadsheet in a post ... but for now not enough time to do it on a regular basis.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 16, 2016)

i just run these during. like this...except not in windowed mode , and for full runs obviously.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 16, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> i just run these during. like this...except not in windowed mode , and for full runs obviously.


yep i do exactly the same, and sometime HwInfo 64


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 16, 2016)

OK I'll play... both CPU and GPU at stock speeds and memory clock:


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 16, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> probably max boost clock, my 980 runs 1540 max boost regularly with 1278 clock setting
> 
> for benchmark settings: 1393/1978
> i got
> ...



No....first, the 980 is a GM204, not a GM200.  The clocks they're able to reach are completely different.  I know guys that can't push their 980ti past 1600 with a chilled loop, custom bios, and a TON of work....and he got it done with stock cooling, and a score that screams, "I barely overclocked this"?  lol, just no.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 16, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> No....first, the 980 is a GM204, not a GM200.  The clocks they're able to reach are completely different.  I know guys that can't push their 980ti past 1600 with a chilled loop, custom bios, and a TON of work....and he got it done with stock cooling, and a score that screams, "I barely overclocked this"?  lol, just no.


ok
misunderstanding ... i do know the difference about the 980 and 980Ti ... i was talking about GPU-Z READING.


GreiverBlade said:


> for benchmark settings: 1393/1978
> i got
> i5-4690K 4.5GHz GTX 980 1643/1978 1978 GreiverBlade, while offcial boost was reported to be 1499 under GPU-Z main tab


the max boost reading is from Afterburner and yet my clock was still 1393 (yep Maxwell are shitty OC'er ... i perfectly know that)  yet the max reading was 1643 ... which is kinda close to what SotoDojo got (1651) ok i run a Hybrid cooler (Poseidon ...)
ofc it's a GM200 vs GM204 i know that no worries (and GM200 has a stock base clock 127mhz lower than GM204 i know ) 

if i wanted to be correct i should have wrote 1378/1978 and not 1643/1978 (well 3956 if talking about DDR rate ram clock ) my 980 can't even pass 1378 without crashing ... on a loop 

bottom line, i was just stating that he could have listed the max boost clock in GPU-Z "sensor" tab, as i do, instead of the spec listed in the "graphics cards" tab

after all he didn't mention what reading he took for the core clock, me on the other hand i told FX-GMC that my max sustained boost was 1643


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 16, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> ok
> misunderstanding ... i do know the difference about the 980 and 980Ti ... i was talking about GPU-Z READING.
> 
> the max boost reading is from Afterburner and yet my clock was still 1393 (yep Maxwell are shitty OC'er ... i perfectly know that)  yet the max reading was 1643 ... which is kinda close to what SotoDojo got (1651) ok i run a Hybrid cooler (Poseidon ...)
> ...



I'm going to state this as simply as possible.  I don't care WHAT he's looking at.  His 980ti was NOT running at 1600+ on the core during that run, and certainly not on stock cooling and a stock bios.  Clear enough for you?  lol

And yes...you should always list the max clock as listed by the GPUz sensors tab.....

Maxwells are excellent overclockers, btw....just sayin.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Maxwells are excellent overclockers, btw....just sayin.



Ill attest to that, @Vellinious helped me with unlocking the potential of one of my reference 970's, and Im getting the following scores, with VERY little work. I havent had the time to REALLY test the card, but 1500+ Actual core clocks are Easily held in both bench's, and Actual Gameplay.
Core 1520Mhz
Memory 1890Mhz
Thanks @Vellinious
if MY Damn MoBo was an SLI board, instead of Quad Xfire, Id hook up Both of my brand new ref 970's, and run some Sweet ass OC SLI bench's...but , sadly it wasn't meant to be. 





I ramped the "stress test" up JUST to show my Actual clocks, since unigine doesnt show accurately afaik.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 17, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> I'm going to state this as simply as possible.  I don't care WHAT he's looking at.  His 980ti was NOT running at 1600+ on the core during that run, and certainly not on stock cooling and a stock bios.  Clear enough for you?  lol
> 
> And yes...you should always list the max clock as listed by the GPUz sensors tab.....


"simply, clear enough for you, lol" who do you think i am? Rejzor? 

also you do realize you wrote "I don't care WHAT he's looking at." and "And yes... you should always list the max clock listed by the GPU-Z sensors tab..." in the same post? contradiction? much.
so what about his 1600+ is like i explain for the 2 last post : MAX BOOST READING like my result ...  clear enough for you? 

until the concerned person answer : no real mean to know, and then therefore no need to try to explain me the opposite and treat me like that  (i rarely use sarcasm when i try to explain something even if people cross-read )



Vellinious said:


> Maxwells are excellent overclockers, btw....just sayin.





jboydgolfer said:


> Ill attest to that, @Vellinious helped me with unlocking the potential of one of my reference 970's, and Im getting the following scores, with VERY little work. I havent had the time to REALLY test the card, but 1500+ Actual core clocks are Easily held in both bench's, and Actual Gameplay.


well technically ... nope 1378 under water (hybrid) is not really a good result ... compare that to a R9-290 under water, i got the same result: +200mhz (and both are stable in game at +100mhz since +200mhz is only for bench and crash once in a blue moon, but still crash)

and 1500+ actual core clock is not ... since you read GPU-Z sensor tab : it's max boost clock, i have a reading of 1643 but my real clock is 1393 so no, my actual core clock is not 1600+, but the max sustained boost is.
unlock the potential of a 970, well that GPU really need it ... for what it is  so... what's your actual settings in afterburner? +100? yep, monster OC'er 

*oh ... to hell with that ... ok: i am an idiot, you both are right and the other user we mention is a liar (well ... less than nVidia with the 970 ...  )*


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

is early 4 mE. ure wrdz confuze me...more cawphee rekwired. asap  

i am Totally confused right now, my shadowplay setting options have completely disappeared from my Geforece experience   wat is going on Nvidiuuchi?>

not sure what it is your replying to . I was just saying that my 970 is holding those clocks , and it is. im not certain about minus 100mhz, or whatever. MY maxed out clocks are what i posted, im not under water, btw , (not sure, theres a Lot of info that is kind of all together) this is a Ref 970, an nvidia one. One of these ...i was only commenting on the maxwells over clock good part of @Vellinious  post, the rest . i didnt even read TBH


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> is early 4 mE. ure wrdz confuze me...more cawphee rekwired. asap
> 
> i am Totally confused right now, my shadowplay setting options have completely disappeared from my Geforece experience   wat is going on Nvidiuuchi?>


weird ... what drivers?

oh well if it was me ...  i would like Shadowplay without the crap that Geforce Experience is ...

i guess i will go back to https://obsproject.com/


edit: max sustained clock : max sustained boost clock indeed and not actual clock  ... ok so then 1500+ is nothing

since 1643  for 1398 is not having a 1600+ clock 

that's what i mean GPU clock is 1278mhz boost is 1379mhz max boost reading in game/bench 1450+ yet my actual clock is 1278 which is only a +100mhz OC (ok over a factory OC ... )


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> weird ... what drivers?
> 
> oh well if it was me ...  i would like Shadowplay without the crap that Geforce Experience is ...


i just had to uninstall/reinstall. these are my 1st nvidia cards in a VERY long time...iirc 5xxx or 4xxx was my jump into ATI, and been RED since, until this month when i retired the Last of a LONG line of AMD /ATI gpus, so im REALLY new to the Whole nvidia deal.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> weird ... what drivers?


the experience . it is Separate from the Display driver, and the Nvidia settings software. it just disappeared .so i removed and reinstalled it.

I used to do a LOT of streaming/recording on MY AMD's, and Ill say this much, Nvidia has 100% got AMD with this Shadowplay. That is IF recording is Your thing, that Alone is worth the green over Red. I personally have NO allegiance, but that IS a fact. the Perf hit is SO tiny. and it even works with my little 750Ti.
sorry if My posts are a bit off, i am on NO sleep...things are "difficult" right now


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 17, 2016)

GreiverBlade said:


> "simply, clear enough for you, lol" who do you think i am? Rejzor?
> 
> also you do realize you wrote "I don't care WHAT he's looking at." and "And yes... you should always list the max clock listed by the GPU-Z sensors tab..." in the same post? contradiction? much.
> so what about his 1600+ is like i explain for the 2 last post : MAX BOOST READING like my result ...  clear enough for you?
> ...



You have a 980ti boosting to 1643?  Got a screenshot of that?  What your 980 can do, and what a 980ti can do in terms of clock speeds are two entirely different things.  When I see a screenshot of a 980ti hitting 1600+ core clocks under load, with stock cooling, then I'll believe it...

GM204s overclock a lot better than the GM200s.  It's not uncommon to have a GM204 pushing 1600+ pretty easy.  I had a pair of 970s that would run 1620 in SLI, and the single good card would run through benchmarks at 1671.  

"
*oh ... to hell with that ... ok: i am an idiot, you both are right and the other user we mention is a liar (well ... less than nVidia with the 970 ..."  *  No, I don't think he's a liar, I think he was reading the core clock and the memory clock from what Unigine told him his card was running at.  You should know that those clocks are almost never right.  BTW, I'd match my 970 scores up against your 290 any day.  Have a 290X now too....let's measure.  rofl


----------



## PP Mguire (Mar 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> is early 4 mE. ure wrdz confuze me...more cawphee rekwired. asap
> 
> i am Totally confused right now, my shadowplay setting options have completely disappeared from my Geforece experience   wat is going on Nvidiuuchi?>
> 
> not sure what it is your replying to . I was just saying that my 970 is holding those clocks , and it is. im not certain about minus 100mhz, or whatever. MY maxed out clocks are what i posted, im not under water, btw , (not sure, theres a Lot of info that is kind of all together) this is a Ref 970, an nvidia one. One of these ...i was only commenting on the maxwells over clock good part of @Vellinious  post, the rest . i didnt even read TBH


Case twinkies unite.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

mobo not SLI capable   only quad xfire,


----------



## GreiverBlade (Mar 17, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> You have a 980ti boosting to 1643?  Got a screenshot of that?  What your 980 can do, and what a 980ti can do in terms of clock speeds are two entirely different things.  When I see a screenshot of a 980ti hitting 1600+ core clocks under load, with stock cooling, then I'll believe it...
> 
> GM204s overclock a lot better than the GM200s.  It's not uncommon to have a GM204 pushing 1600+ pretty easy.  I had a pair of 970s that would run 1620 in SLI, and the single good card would run through benchmarks at 1671.
> 
> ...


ok, no worries,  you can stop the rofl, i get your point (but not your mean to write it ... too rofl'lol'esque at my taste).

i am done with that and over it for now  all that matter for me is what my card behave, and i will hold onto that, i stop bothering you. 

btw a 980 is a side-grade to a 290 (out of benchmark condition) ... so a 970 is a in between of the 2 (well the score show it, 1400 average 290, 1600 average 970, 1900 average 980)    970<290<290X/980<<<980Ti


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 17, 2016)

1600 for a 970 is ok, but not good.  1400 for a 290 is pretty poor.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

Are you saying that a 1600 heaven score is no good for a 970? The scores in the OP dont go too muchhigher than that.what 970 scores much higher? Out of curiosity.


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> Are you saying that a 1600 heaven score is no good for a 970? The scores in the OP dont go too muchhigher than that.what 970 scores much higher? Out of curiosity.



1600 is pretty decent, but high 1600's and low 1700s are doable.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 17, 2016)

o, yeah for sure. I got that 1599 on  my 3rd OC attempt. Im certain i could get 1700, or pretty close to it


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 17, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> o, yeah for sure. I got that 1599 on  my 3rd OC attempt. Im certain i could get 1700, or pretty close to it



Just gotta keep it cool.  Let me know if you want to add some more volts.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Mar 18, 2016)

Last update for me with my current configuration. I've hit max stable OC on my Zotac GTX 980Ti AMP! Omega.

i5-4670k at stock
GPU:
Core = 1313 (1414 boost). MSI reported 1489 max boost
Memory = 2160
GPUZ validation: http://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details.php?id=4puaf


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 18, 2016)

OK another run at 4.7 ghz on the CPU ... BTW I think my first run may be invaild.... tessilation was set to AMD optimized by default and I think the this requires "use application settings" which is what this run is at.


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 19, 2016)

AMD Optimized is fine.  It's when you use "override application settings" and alter the level of tessellation that it gives more frames.


----------



## lapino (Mar 19, 2016)

Just ran the benchmark because I have a hard time getting a 60fps constant in The Division. MSI GTX980Ti 6G with an Intel 6600K @ 4.4ghz, I'm getting 2423 with nvidia 362.00. Is this about right?


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 19, 2016)

lapino said:


> Just ran the benchmark because I have a hard time getting a 60fps constant in The Division. MSI GTX980Ti 6G with an Intel 6600K @ 4.4ghz, I'm getting 2423 with nvidia 362.00. Is this about right?



For stock clocks / mild overclock on the GPU, yeah....that's about normal.


----------



## christfloyd (Mar 19, 2016)




----------



## Pinkerton B. (Mar 20, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> i just had to uninstall/reinstall. these are my 1st nvidia cards in a VERY long time...iirc 5xxx or 4xxx was my jump into ATI, and been RED since, until this month when i retired the Last of a LONG line of AMD /ATI gpus, so im REALLY new to the Whole nvidia deal.





jboydgolfer said:


> mobo not SLI capable   only quad xfire,


View attachment 73047


jboydgolfer said:


> i just had to uninstall/reinstall. these are my 1st nvidia cards in a VERY long time...iirc 5xxx or 4xxx was my jump into ATI, and been RED since, until this month when i retired the Last of a LONG line of AMD /ATI gpus, so im REALLY new to the Whole nvidia deal.



When should you retire a card (taking advancement of software requirements out of the calculation)?  I don't dare add any supplemental voltage to my cards as I've seen on this thread and other websites some video cards are just overclocked versions of the previous.  Thus, no substantial gain is made without possibly destroying the card in the process.  I'm going to add an external cooler to the Alien 18, but for now, this is the best score I can get when tinkering with GPU and Mem offsets.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 20, 2016)

Not sure what your saying,, You have linked a dead attachment that goes nowhere, while quoting comments of mine that are from when Shadowplay was broken, or corrupted..then you mention not increasing power on your card out of fear of damaging it ?? im not sure...i have no probblem increasing my cards voltage. if it broke , or needed replacing , i would replace it. thats just part of the risk. but i got performance increases on my Machine...it runs those over volted settings 24/7 just fine. if it broke, id return it, and put in the other 970 i have sitting here that the same company sent me for free. no skin off my back. thansk for the concern tho. 

decent score too.


----------



## scevism (Mar 24, 2016)

Just tried mine at 1920x1080 And comes back with this wtf?


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 24, 2016)

You didnt check the box for fullscreen is my guess, but i suppose i could be wrong....theres a 1st time for everything


----------



## scevism (Mar 24, 2016)

I'm running on a old 40'' sony lcd at 1360x768
Just done 1920x1080 fullscreen display was all washed out and over stretched and come back with this crap result ffs


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 24, 2016)

that score doesnt seem indicative of that beast of a GPU, and CPU build You have...somethings not right there.
Hmmm, maybe your Nvidia control panel has something screwy going on, im REALLY new to Nvidia, ive been an AMD user for a long time, certainly not the guy to offer advice, but Your score should blow me out of the water, atleast id think it would...im certain you'll figure it out. I wonder if its the OS?


----------



## scevism (Mar 24, 2016)

Dont get it im on win10 all games run great on max settings. I use Nvidia DSR on all games at 2720x1536.
All a bit strange.


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 24, 2016)

scevism said:


> Dont get it im on win10 all games run great on max settings. I use Nvidia DSR on all games at 2720x1536.
> All a bit strange.



Take a screenshot of your NVIDIA control panel settings. 

The power management should be set to "prefer maximum performance"
Texture filtering?  I think that's in there, it should be on "performance"
There's also some tweaks you can do with image filtering.

Honestly though, even on stock settings, your card should be posting better scores than that on 1080.


----------



## scevism (Mar 24, 2016)




----------



## Vellinious (Mar 24, 2016)

Texture filtering:  Change from quality to performance.  Those settings look good.  Now, download and open up GPUz to the sensors tab and run the benchmark again.  Take a screenshot of it right after you're done.  That'll tell us what your GPU is doing.

PM the screenshot to me, we're way off topic on the heaven benchmark thread.


----------



## chuck216 (Mar 25, 2016)

Update... found out I was using a generic windows driver for my monitor, got the correct one and this was the result: Everything at Stock 3.5 Ghz on CPU 1050/1500 core/mem on GPU:











And @4.7 ghz GPU @1200 Core / 1600 (6400) Mem


----------



## Lazermonkey (Mar 25, 2016)

I just got my new system up and running. I think I can do better.


----------



## Lazermonkey (Mar 25, 2016)

Here it is at 2560x1440


----------



## Pinkerton B. (Mar 27, 2016)




----------



## scevism (Mar 27, 2016)

Mine at 1360x751 tried to run it at 1920x1080 this is what i get back?


----------



## Pinkerton B. (Mar 27, 2016)

Lazermonkey said:


> Here it is at 2560x1440




Nice! That thing is an absolute monster...


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 28, 2016)




----------



## chuck216 (Mar 28, 2016)

@Lazermonkey both of your scores are invalid... read the rules in post 1.

@Pinkerton B. you need the screenshot from within Heaven by hitting F12 then converting to an image wi


Pinkerton B. said:


> Nice! That thing is an absolute monster...



Not really, he has Tessellation disabled and that's the whole point of running Heaven.


----------



## Lazermonkey (Mar 28, 2016)

View attachment 73337 View attachment 73337 

 Here is with Tessellation at extreme. Clock setting on the  GPU is 1190 boosting up to around 1420.


----------



## Lazermonkey (Mar 28, 2016)

And here it is at 2560x1440p


----------



## jboydgolfer (Mar 28, 2016)

Lazermonkey said:


> Here is with Tessellation at extreme. Clock setting on the  GPU is 1190 boosting up to around 1420.
> 
> View attachment 73333





Lazermonkey said:


> And here it is at 2560x1440p
> 
> View attachment 73334



you REALLY need to follow the guidlines in the OP, i didnt make the rules up, but people will keep claiming your scores arent "valid", and by default, they will not be recorded into this thread. Ill quote the OP to save you from looking back, and for others....

PAY close attention to the "HERES WHY" link in the quote that you have to expand below, it shows that the website result you keep posting can just be edited to show whatever you want it to, and therefore is an invalid score. just trying to help you, so your scores count is all. do what you will
See my post a few above this one, and you'll see what i mean.
You'll get a file saved in a "heaven folder" in your documents, it will be a weird format, but You can go to THIS site and upload/convert it for free, THEN post that image here after saving it to IMGUR or the likes, since the convert site links dissapear.


FX-GMC said:


> ****PRESS F12 for SCREENSHOT - *Please attach a screen capture of your results for score verification.***
> ***Your submission will not be added if you fail to follow the rules stated below.***
> 
> Benchmark setup:
> ...


----------



## Pinkerton B. (Mar 28, 2016)

GeForce GTX 880m SLI - Alienware 18 - 2014 - Offsets +46 for GPU and +623 for mem


----------



## jaggerwild (Mar 29, 2016)

hey guys I cant get a screen shoot within heaven? HOW........


----------



## Gregory Hartley (Mar 30, 2016)

GTX Gigabyte 970 G1 Edition 1499/1928
i7 4790k 4.6 GHz


----------



## Kapportal (Apr 6, 2016)

Hello guys, how is this? Air 970 msi gaming 1533 core, 8600 memory (i don't know, they are even Elpida and not samsung....) 350 W TDP power target 110% 375W, using max 66% of those watts (66% of 350 i think, since 375 would be 110%)
Screenshots, if i miss something to screenshot i have barely few problems to re-run the bench at those settings, i encounter easy crash at the next clock not before (1550).
cpu:
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/417x417q90/922/QBD6mz.png
gpu:
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/381x486q90/922/x7MQ2A.png
(the oc applied is the daily i use for gaming, i move with ab if i need to bench)
ab,gpuz graphs post, bench:
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1375x771q90/922/uLypUD.png
bench result:
https://imageshack.com/a/img923/7751/tUiRkZ.png
let me know if i do miss something please  have a nice day everybody


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 6, 2016)

Kapportal said:


> let me know if i do miss something please  have a nice day everybody



Post your scores pics with the botton in the image i posted below...and refer to* THIS post *for the guidlines for scores to be accepted...
finally, dont be jealous of my Prof grade Photo editing Skillz...


----------



## Kapportal (Apr 6, 2016)

cpu:




gpu:




(the oc applied is the daily i use for gaming, i move with ab if i need to bench)
ab,gpuz graphs post, bench:




bench result:




let me know if i do miss something please  have a nice day everybody*edit*



thank you for your advices about posting, just the gpuz schedule clocks are the daily gaming and not the bench oc ones, i think may be alright since the screenshots with gpuz graphs and ab graphs are telling which clocks i ran the benchmark with and with which stability on. If needed i can just move ab clocks and re-screenshot gpuz, i don't think would be useful, but anyways let me know.


----------



## bjamesonbass (Apr 7, 2016)

Question: does the AMD Radeon R9 295x2 count as "multi GPU" for this test since it is technically a "two in one" GPU? 

The link for the GPU is here:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7930/the-amd-radeon-r9-295x2-review


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 7, 2016)

bjamesonbass said:


> 2 or 1 GPU's?


its 2 GPU's. even tho there is only One printed Circuit board, there Are Two Chips. it is very similar to Xfire, or SLI, its just that all of the communication is done VIA the PCB/PCIe Lane instead of a Xfire/SLI Bridge.

When You do the Test, it must give You a "X2" result readout,or doesnt it?

like the "X2" @ the end of my PC readout...




And then a better score, same clocks  i dunno


----------



## bjamesonbass (Apr 7, 2016)

> = Two GPUs



Okay, I thought so, though I just wanted to be sure since it's a unique configuration. It does display the "x2" after the GPU in the benchmark.

That is very weird that you got that much of a difference between your benchmarks with the same clock speeds. Maybe you had some background processes going on more in the first test for whatever reason. 

I'll post my score in a bit...


----------



## puma99dk| (Apr 8, 2016)

Just ran it on my system not that impressive of a score tbh....


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 8, 2016)

1470 isnt that bad, my HIGHEST with a single 970 was 1598(overclocked highly) or very close. and mine are reference Nvidia GTX 970's. But I had my Bios' edited By a TPU member to stop thermal/Voltage throttling.

go to Post #1, and check the results of Other 970's and You can get a good feel for how your did.


----------



## bjamesonbass (Apr 8, 2016)

I just put in AMD's best processor (still incomparable to intel's best CPU, but whatever lol) and 32 GB of decent DDR3 RAM (DDR4 is still too expensive, in my opinion).

I got the r9 295x2 new for ~ $700 in July, and the new processor was ~ $250. The motherboard was ~ $200. RAM was ~ 130.

All in all, I put together a pretty good rig without paying an insane amount of money. I haven't really posted anywhere before or talked to anybody about this stuff, so it would be totally cool if anyone could give me an opinion about whether it was worth all the money and hassle of putting it together myself.


----------



## DEFEATEST (Apr 8, 2016)




----------



## puma99dk| (Apr 8, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> 1470 isnt that bad, my HIGHEST with a single 970 was 1598(overclocked highly) or very close. and mine are reference Nvidia GTX 970's. But I had my Bios' edited By a TPU member to stop thermal/Voltage throttling.
> 
> go to Post #1, and check the results of Other 970's and You can get a good feel for how your did.



ty, all mine is stock not even my Galax GTX 970 ITX is more than factory clocked it just boosts oki.


----------



## Kapportal (Apr 10, 2016)

Excuse me guys, im trying to post my score here, but for some reasons, i cannot get how would i f12 screenshot my heaven benchmark, i don't get the output folder where heaven does paste screenshots if i press f12, i cannot really understand it, sorry for noobing.... im trying to upload the scores my 970 is giving out, they does not look bad, i just have to re-run benchmark and to follow benchmark scores policy, i right want that, if any body may help me about the SS making stuff with f12 :O.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 10, 2016)

Kapportal said:


> Excuse me guys, im trying to post my score here, but for some reasons, i cannot get how would i f12 screenshot my heaven benchmark, i don't get the output folder where heaven does paste screenshots if i press f12, i cannot really understand it, sorry for noobing.... im trying to upload the scores my 970 is giving out, they does not look bad, i just have to re-run benchmark and to follow benchmark scores policy, i right want that, if any body may help me about the SS making stuff with f12 :O.




Yourname/heaven/screenshots

Then there are fils in a weird format(.tga). You can convert them online to jpg, and then post here

convert them HERE   http://www.converthub.com/


----------



## Lazermonkey (Apr 10, 2016)

So when do the scores get updated?


----------



## Kapportal (Apr 10, 2016)

So i may try to upload my bench, i converted all images in JPG. i picked the heaven screenshot from full screen heaven and i did screenshot all i think would be needed trying to get into the #page1 benchmark scores rules:

KAPPORTAL is my name,

this is heaven and with-gpuz heaven and AB post-bench result, the next one is about gpuz and cpuz configs













GTX 970 msi gaming , 4gb , Air stock cooling , 1535 core 8600 memory, 365 W TDP power target 370W (101%) , 1,275 voltage

did i enter all correctly this time? i hope so.


----------



## bjamesonbass (Apr 10, 2016)

Looks good to me. If anything, too much info lol


----------



## Pinkerton B. (Apr 11, 2016)

Two more scores, one contains a single point increase over the other.  I didn't forget to press F12 for the in-program screenshot regarding the second image or the images of my specs. . . I just didn't feel like doing it again due to laziness.  I believe I have the fastest laptop benchmark posted; although, again due to laziness, I don't feel like backing that up with any facts from research whatsoever.  Offsets: +47 GPU - +666 mem - In addition, I propped up the bum of the laptop using a couple fasteners which help breathing tremendously.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 14, 2016)

@memorialPCheaventestrun


----------



## MrGenius (Apr 19, 2016)

Well if AMD optimized tessellation and performance texture filtering aren't considered cheating, then I've been cheating myself out of 19 points. If they are, then whatever. Doesn't really matter. I'm still the current 280X champ without them. 

3570K @ 4.8GHz + 280X @ 1207/1850 = 1109


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 19, 2016)

it such a big difference the way Nvidia GPU's handle Heaven as compared to AMD.
regardless of that fact, I REALLY wish SLI/Xfire were a BIT more efficient regarding Performance combined. meaning, one of my 970's can score 1600 in unigine set to this threads Specifications, so i Wish that the two together would score 1600x2, aka 3200. but 3000 isnt TOO bad. i THINK its about 90'ish %


----------



## jerry Walters (Apr 19, 2016)




----------



## MrGenius (Apr 19, 2016)

@jerry Walters, 8x AA and please provide correct CPU and GPU clocks(if not as shown in screenshot, or to verify those shown in screenshot)


----------



## jerry Walters (Apr 20, 2016)




----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 20, 2016)

jerry Walters said:


> View attachment 73817




Hey bud. Welcome to tpu, glad to have you.

When posting unigine heaven results(in this thread), IF you would like them to be added to the list of recorded scores, or be considered "valid" by others who post, youll need to use the same settings when kaunching heaven. You can find those predetermined eettings in the op, or by looking at some of my posts above. You certainly dont need to folliw these settings,its just so everyone is usibg the same test that way....but either way, your results r welcome 


Benchmark setup:

1.) 1920x1080, Fullscreen, 8x Anti-Aliasing
2.) Ultra Quality
3.) Extreme Tessellation
4.) No integrated GPU enabled, unless it's the only GPU in the build
5.) Tessellation correctly set up on AMD cards and not bypassed in CCC
6.) You must also provide correct GPU and CPU clocks
7.) *Must Be a Screenshot from within Heaven to be valid (See bottom of post) *Here's why.
8.) The only allowed "tweak" is overclocking. Absolutely no driver tweaks or operating system tweaks are permitted.

It will ensure that we have consistent results.


----------



## jerry Walters (Apr 20, 2016)

that is a screen shot from inside heaven while it is running and I added those other two so you see clock speeds the red is my cpu mhz im running dont know what else to do,put my antialiasing on 8 times looked better but killed score


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 20, 2016)

jerry Walters said:


> View attachment 73823 that is a screen shot from inside heaven while it is running and I added those other two so you see clock speeds the red is my cpu mhz im running dont know what else to do,put my antialiasing on 8 times looked better but killed score



yeah, the "killed the score" part is the point. _**910 was the HIGHEST score i could find recorded Here for a GTX960, so your certainly not doing So bad**_
the scores You will see from the others in this thread have also had the "score killed". its just like running a marathon...All of the participants run the same route, one of the runners doesnt get to say, "hey, im not gonna run up that hill, it kills my times, and its hard as hell".
Your welcome obviously to do what You like, im just giving You the heads up that your score wont be accepted if you dont follow the same rules that the rest of the forum members do.

and your certainly right, 8xAA kills that score. 

PS. what motherboard are You running? Your 960 is running in PCIe2 x16 ? unless it is in the resting state, and just wasnt captured while heaven was running, i dunno
if it WAS running heaven when gpuz was captured you might need to go into your bios and select the PCIe3 option...
try clicking the little "?" question mark in GPUz on the right side in the middle, and see if it ramps up to PCIe3

like this





this is a 970 Fairly overclocked, And with a modified power table through the bios, that i got this score with...You CAN search your score against others in the 1st Post  if you go back in this thread to #1. just type GTX960 into the search bar.


----------



## Machinematrix (Apr 21, 2016)

CPU Clock: 3.960 GHZ
GPU: XFX R9 280x @ 1080/1550


----------



## Vellinious (Apr 22, 2016)

Lazermonkey said:


> So when do the scores get updated?



It's been a good long while.  I'm not sure anyone is still updating it.


----------



## ddragon (Apr 23, 2016)

Ubuntu 15.10 x64 GTX Titan X / i7-4790 (both default)


----------



## ddragon (Apr 23, 2016)

And under DX11 (Win7) with slight overclock only on VGA (1200MHz core)
(Even the colors aren't so alive under Win the score is fair higher).


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 23, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> It's been a good long while.  I'm not sure anyone is still updating it.



Iirc this thread replaced the old one of the same title and content, although the new op IS still active, they have stopped working on registering scores..or so it would seem...my guess is either too busy,or lost interest.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> Iirc this thread replaced the old one of the same title and content, although the new op IS still active, they have stopped working on registering scores..or so it would seem...my guess is either too busy,or lost interest.


I think it is more to do with back end changes to the forum and a time limit on editing OP's.
The OP has to contact Wizzard to get access.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 24, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I think it is more to do with back end changes to the forum and a time limit on editing OP's.
> The OP has to contact Wizzard to get access.



yeah, there could be many explanations, i didnt want to list em all, but yeah, thats certainly a possibility too.thats what we ran into when norton had to reach out to unlock the memorial thread for editing.
i just wanted to answer the question others have brought up several times is all.im personally not concerned with whether or not my scores get recorded


----------



## MrGenius (Apr 24, 2016)

Start a new thread with the same title again(or with a version number added to differentiate, ie 2.0, or add the word New to it). Copy and paste OP to OP. 62 less pages to flip through(add link to this thread for reference to scores found therein). So simple a caveman could do it. In fact any caveman could.  Wouldn't even have to be the original. Seems like such a simple fix. What am I missing? Besides the point of this thread if new scores can't added to the list. Is it just a matter of someone taking the initiative(besides the OP)? Or is it not?

Maybe some better questions are, how else does it get fixed? Or rather how does contacting W1zzard to open the OP for editting fix it? Is that a permanent solution? Or is it like having your landlord unlock your front door every day, instead of making you a new key for it? Which is just plain stupid.


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 24, 2016)

Can't we just start the tread again right here, like someone just post up there own leader board(right in the middle here V)?

 My original question was : How do I find the F12 photo, or better where? I can never find them when I hit F12...........


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 24, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Start a new thread with the same title again(or with a version number added to differentiate, ie 2.0, or add the word New to it). Copy and paste OP to OP. 62 less pages to flip through(add link to this thread for reference to scores found therein). So simple a caveman could do it. In fact any caveman could.  Wouldn't even have to be the original. Seems like such a simple fix. What am I missing? Besides the point of this thread if new scores can't added to the list. Is it just a matter of someone taking the initiative(besides the OP)? Or is it not?
> 
> Maybe some better questions are, how else does it get fixed? Or rather how does contacting W1zzard to open the OP for editting fix it? Is that a permanent solution? Or is it like having your landlord unlock your front door every day, instead of making you a new key for it? Which is just plain stupid.




looks like you solved the issue.
I look forward to your new thread bud..
thanks for addressing the matter.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 24, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Start a new thread with the same title again(or with a version number added to differentiate, ie 2.0, or add the word New to it). Copy and paste OP to OP. 62 less pages to flip through(add link to this thread for reference to scores found therein). So simple a caveman could do it. In fact any caveman could.  Wouldn't even have to be the original. Seems like such a simple fix. What am I missing? Besides the point of this thread if new scores can't added to the list. Is it just a matter of someone taking the initiative(besides the OP)? Or is it not?
> 
> Maybe some better questions are, how else does it get fixed? Or rather how does contacting W1zzard to open the OP for editting fix it? Is that a permanent solution? Or is it like having your landlord unlock your front door every day, instead of making you a new key for it? Which is just plain stupid.



A new thread would be welcome but would need someone to look after it, at least weekly.  If there was a new thread, it could be quite nice to simply state the rules in the OP (as is always done) and *any posts not following rules just get deleted*.  It's really tiresome trawling through pages of , "no, you need to do 8xAA", "no, wrong resolution" etc.  If people can't follow the very clear OP rules, posts should be deleted for ease of reading.

I'm not volunteering.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 24, 2016)

jaggerwild said:


> My original question was : How do I find the F12 photo, or better where? I can never find them when I hit F12...........


Navigate down to
file:///C:/Users/(your name)/Heaven/Screenshots
they should be in there.


----------



## jaggerwild (Apr 24, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> Navigate down to
> file:///C:/Users/(your name)/Heaven/Screenshots
> they should be in there.



Thanks man!
 Another question, do I need to convert it?


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 24, 2016)

I haven't had to for mine, but others say they have had to.
Not sure what the story is there.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Apr 24, 2016)

heaven saves in a tig, or TGI  file type , or whatever it is, you can convert it online easily, and post it here.


----------



## chuck216 (Apr 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> yeah, the "killed the score" part is the point. _**910 was the HIGHEST score i could find recorded Here for a GTX960, so your certainly not doing So bad**_
> the scores You will see from the others in this thread have also had the "score killed". its just like running a marathon...All of the participants run the same route, one of the runners doesnt get to say, "hey, im not gonna run up that hill, it kills my times, and its hard as hell".
> Your welcome obviously to do what You like, im just giving You the heads up that your score wont be accepted if you dont follow the same rules that the rest of the forum members do.
> 
> ...



He's running an AMD System, AMD Motherboards are limited to PCIE 2.0 currently

Hardware 2.0... they don't make a 3.0 motherboard... yet that may change with AM4


----------



## MrGenius (Apr 24, 2016)

Am I being given permission? Because I'll probably do it you know? I'm just trying to make sure it's acceptable, and not step on any toes in the process, if I do. And if I do go that far, I'm taking over the Valley thread too. I'll announce the coup in that thread too of course. Just so all are made aware ahead of time. 

Decisions decisions. Let me think about this some more. I wasn't really expecting that.


----------



## Machinematrix (Apr 24, 2016)

MrGenius said:


> Am I being given permission? Because I'll probably do it you know? I'm just trying to make sure it's acceptable, and not step on any toes in the process, if I do. And if I do go that far, I'm taking over the Valley thread too. I'll announce the coup in that thread too of course. Just so all are made aware ahead of time.
> 
> Decisions decisions. Let me think about this some more. I wasn't really expecting that.



Do it please, and upload my score


----------



## MrGenius (May 1, 2016)

*NOTICE*

*This thread has officially run its course. New scores can't and won't be added to the list in the OP.
But fear not. All hope is not yet lost. We'll just do another one.*

I'm reviving this thread as Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark Scores Part 2. Valid scores from this thread are being transfered to it. So you don't need to worry about reposting them there. I've almost finished updating the new list. But I'm taking a short break from that to announce the death of this thread and the birth of the new one. If your score has not already been posted in this thread please post it in the new thread(as this one should be closing soon). And please be patient with me as I adjust to my new role as threadkeeper.

Thank you ahead of time for your cooperation. And good luck benching!

Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark Scores Part 2

PS, the Valley thread needs a new owner too. I may decide to take that position as well(esp. if all goes well with this one). But if anyone else would like a shot at it, I encourage you to step up to the plate first. I'd imagine doing both would be taking a bigger bite than I might be able to chew.



Attached file for linking purposes.


----------



## Stuntz (May 3, 2016)

At the time of the bench, cpu was @ 5.0GHz, GPU's both boost clocks recorded ~1520MHz. GPU's running a custom bios, 130% power limit, 1.281v. Newest nvidia drivers (365.10), performance seemed down a touch over 362 drivers.


----------



## MrGenius (May 3, 2016)

Hi there @Stuntz. Welcome to the forum. I guess you missed the notice I put up in the previous post. This thread's no longer in service. So if you wanted to add that score to the list, you'll have to post it in the new Heaven scores thread for approval. I would actually take it as it is and transfer it directly to the new list. But it's not exactly valid. Very close though. The problem I have with it is the ~1520MHz part. The rules state that correct clocks must be provided. The rule wasn't strictly enforced in this thread. So you will find scores that transferred directly from the list here to the new list that have similar incorrectness. I'm trying to keep things as accurate as possible in the new thread for fairness. So I can't accept it as currently posted. However, if you can give me a GPU core speed without the vagueness, I would encourage you to repost these results in the new thread. And I'll be happy to add them to the list. I would also ask that you read the rules in the new thread first before doing so. A few minor details have changed. They may or may not apply. But please do check to make sure first.

Here's the link to the new Unigine Heaven 4.0 Benchmark Scores thread.

Thanks for your cooperation! And good luck benching!


----------



## jvlapple (May 12, 2016)

My latest saved benchmark. Forgot to screenshot during heaven benchmark


----------



## MrGenius (May 12, 2016)

jvlapple said:


> My latest saved benchmark. Forgot to screenshot during heaven benchmark


I'll make a deal with you. I'll list the old score you posted in the new thread. *IF you post the correct clocks for it here(not a CPU-Z and GPU-Z snip...manually type out the clocks you want listed for the score). *Since the old screenshot is good and the clocks appear to be the same as before. And if you agree that the next time you want to post a new valid score that you will do so in *the new thread*. This thread is dead. There's no sense in posting scores of any kind here.

Sound good?


----------



## Tatty_One (May 12, 2016)

I will close this one just to avoid any further confusion.

In case it was missed, new thread can be found here...........  http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/unigine-heaven-4-0-benchmark-scores-part-2.222125/


----------

