# Post Your BaseMark GPU Scores!



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 21, 2018)

*Download Basemark GPU*

*Benchmarks* *Cinebench**FFXV Benchmark**CrystalDiskMark*

*Scores are clickable, leading to the original post.*


*Name**CPU**GPU**Min.**Avg.**Max.**API**Score**AnomalouS**i7 8700K**RTX 2080 Ti**72**144**287**Vulkan 1.0**14439**trog100**i7 8700K**RTX 2080 Ti**112**140**198**Vulkan 1.0**13974 (v1.1)**xkm1948**i7 6950X**RTX 2080 Ti**59**140**202**Vulkan 1.0**13963 (v1.1)**AnomalouS**i7 7700K**RTX 2080 Ti**53**134**403**Vulkan 1.0**13491**xkm1948**i7 6950X**RTX 2080 Ti**97**135**195**DirectX 12**13451 (v1.1)**purecain**R7 2700X**Titan V**82**125**212**Vulkan 1.0**12533**AnomalouS**i7 7700K**RTX 2080 Ti**9**119**226**OpenGL 4.3**11947**Justinus**i7 5960X**GTX 1080 Ti**86**104**157**Vulkan 1.0**10488**Enterprise24**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**87**104**159**Vulkan 1.0**10448 (v1.1)**max795**i5 3570K**RTX 2080**44**100**177**Vulkan 1.0**10005**Sirillya**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**42**100**238**Vulkan 1.0**10001**Tomgang**i7 980X**GTX 1080 Ti**67**99**152**Vulkan 1.0**9955**xkm1948**i7 6950X**RTX 2080 Ti**49**99**238**OpenGL 4.5**9909 (v1.1)**mouacyk**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**79**98**152**Vulkan 1.0**9884**jitherman**i7 7700K**GTX 1080 Ti**78**98**152**Vulkan 1.0**9856**oxrufiioxo**i9 9900K**TITAN Xp**61**98**152**Vulkan 1.0**9845 (v1.1)**BadFrog**i7 5960X**GTX 1080 Ti**67**98**150**Vulkan 1.0**9801**oxrufiioxo**i9 9900K**TITAN Xp**75**98**155**DirectX 12**9782 (v1.1)**Knoxx29**i7 8086K**GTX 1080 Ti**77**98**150**Vulkan 1.0**9759 (v1.1)**mouacyk**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**77**97**145**OpenGL 4.3**9753**Tomgang**i7 980X**GTX 1080 Ti**62**97**151**Vulkan 1.0**9748**infrared**R7 1800X**GTX 1080 Ti**80**97**150**Vulkan 1.0**9709 (v1.1)**JalleR**i7 5930K**GTX 1080 Ti**61**93**188**Vulkan 1.0**9516**newtekie1**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**76**95**149**Vulkan 1.0**9515**ruff0r**i7 2600K**GTX 1080 Ti**57**95**151**Vulkan 1.0**9508**Tomgang**i7 980X**GTX 1080 Ti**68**95**150**DirectX 12**9490 (v1.1)**zimilaci**i7 7700K**GTX 1080 Ti**75**94**150**Vulkan 1.0**9432**Liviu Cojocaru**i7 7700K**GTX 1080 Ti**61**93**142**Vulkan 1.0**9353**phanbuey**i7 7820X**GTX 1080 Ti**39**93**909**Vulkan 1.0**9341**Psychoholic**i7 8700K**GTX 1080 Ti**75**92**202**Vulkan 1.0**9223**phanbuey**i7 7820X**GTX 1080 Ti**49**91**137**OpenGL 4.3**9126**chris89**R5 1600X**GTX 1080 Ti**71**90**143**Vulkan 1.0**9035 (v1.1)**Hardi**R7 2700X**GTX 1080 Ti**72**90**139**Vulkan 1.0**9013**os2wiz**R7 2700X**GTX 1080 Ti**73**90**137**Vulkan 1.0**9004**max795**i5 3570K**RTX 2080**48**89**181**OpenGL 4.3**8911**chris89**R5 1600X**GTX 1080 Ti**70**89**144**DirectX 12**8867 (v1.1)**Hardi**R7 2700X**GTX 1080 Ti**48**86**177**OpenGL 4.3**8684**Tomgang**i7 980X**GTX 1080 Ti**44**83**147**OpenGL 4.3**8338**chris89**R5 1600X**GTX 1080 Ti**51**80**181**OpenGL 4.5**7972 (v1.1)**korn87**i7 8700K**GTX 1080**64**78**117**Vulkan 1.0**7823 (v1.1)**Knoxx29**i7 8700K**GTX 1080**21**72**716**Vulkan 1.0**7221**Liviu Cojocaru**i7 7700K**GTX 1080**59**72**111**Vulkan 1.0**7217**biffzinker**R5 2600X**RTX 2060**51**70**104**Vulkan 1.0**7158 (v1.1)**fray_bentos**i7 4790K**GTX 1080 11Gbps**51**70**104**OpenGL 4.3**7081**Liviu Cojocaru**i7 7700K**GTX 1080**47**70**105**OpenGL 4.3**7077**fray_bentos**i7 4790K**GTX 1080 11Gbps**19**70**213**Vulkan 1.0**7025**Mr.KT**i7 8700K**GTX 1080**52**69**105**Vulkan 1.0**6910**biffzinker**R5 2600X**RTX 2060**51**70**104**DirectX 12**6906 (v1.1)**Mr.KT**i7 8700K**GTX 1080**38**68**136**OpenGL 4.3**6894**biffzinker**R5 2600X**RTX 2060**51**70**104**OpenGL 4.5**6794 (v1.1)**MrGenius**i7 3770K**RX Vega 64**58**67**99**DirectX 12**6732 (v1.1)**MrGenius**i7 3770K**RX Vega 64**59**67**96**Vulkan 1.0**6732 (v1.1)**yamaci17**i5 8400**GTX 1080**53**65**103**Vulkan 1.0**6516 (v1.1)**fullinfusion**i7 7700K**RX Vega 56**56**64**92**Vulkan 1.0**6417 (v1.1)**defiiancecp**R7 2700X**RX Vega 64**52**63**92**Vulkan 1.0**6333**jmcslob**i7 8700K**GTX 1070 Ti**49**61**93**OpenGL 4.5**6116 (v1.1)**arni-gx**i5 3570**GTX 1080**36**60**93**OpenGL 4.3**6049**johnpack**Xeon E5-1650**GTX 980 Ti**48**60**89**Vulkan 1.0**6018 (v1.1)**max795**i5 3570K**GTX 1070**48**59**86**OpenGL 4.3**5968**arni-gx**i5 3570**GTX 1080**37**59**94**Vulkan 1.0**5959**johnpack**Xeon E5-1650**GTX 980 Ti**34**59**148**OpenGL 4.3**5920**bubbleawsome**i5 4670K**GTX 1070**13**59**186**OpenGL 4.3**5918**max795**i5 3570K**GTX 1070**38**58**87**Vulkan 1.0**5883**johnpack**Xeon E5-1650**GTX 980 Ti**27**59**144**OpenGL 4.5**5865 (v1.1)**sam_86314**i7 2600K**GTX 1070**46**57**87**Vulkan 1.0**5758**bubbleawsome**i5 4670K**GTX 1070**24**57**587**Vulkan 1.0**5755**sam_86314**i7 2600K**GTX 1070**42**57**84**OpenGL 4.3**5722**RealNeil**i9 7900X**GTX 1070 Ti**42**56**100**Vulkan 1.0**5680**Anzlew**R5 1600X**GTX 1070**12**56**83**OpenGL 4.3**5649**RealNeil**i9 7900X**GTX 1070 Ti**39**56**86**OpenGL 4.3**5617**ViperXTR**i5 3570K**GTX 1070**44**55**84**Vulkan 1.0**5556**Anzlew**R5 1600X**GTX 1070**29**55**195**Vulkan 1.0**5517**looniam**i7 3770K**GTX 980 Ti**43**54**83**Vulkan 1.0**5430**Fluffmeister**i7 920**GTX 980 Ti**42**53**81**Vulkan 1.0**5369**xkm1948**i7 6950X**R9 FURY X**42**50**75**Vulkan 1.0**5021**Divide Overflow**i5 4690K**RX 590**40**47**79**Vulkan 1.0**4664 (v1.1)**Divide Overflow**i5 4690K**RX 590**39**46**68**DirectX 12**4617 (v1.1)**_Flare**Xeon E3-1230 v2**GTX 980**13**42**164**Vulkan 1.0**4283**kastriot**i5 4670K**RX 580**27**42**60**Vulkan 1.0**4218 (v1.1)**jboydgolfer**i5 8600K**GTX 980**33**42**64**Vulkan 1.0**4212**Kunic**i5 2500**GTX 1060 6GB**31**41**61**OpenGL 4.3**4179**Nuckles56**i5 6500**RX 480**33**39**57**Vulkan 1.0**3993**argon**i7 6800K**R9 290X**33**38**53**Vulkan 1.0**3881**Buznoob**R7 1700**RX 580**32**38**55**Vulkan 1.0**3871**Morgoth**Xeon X5687**RX 580**30**36**54**Vulkan 1.0**3639**Zyll Goliath**Xeon E5645**GTX 970**36**36**54**OpenGL 4.3**3627**MrGenius**i7 3770K**RX Vega 64**28**36**68**OpenGL 4.3**3609**XiGMAKiD**i7 6700**GTX 1060 6GB**30**36**54**Vulkan 1.0**3594 (v1.1)**XiGMAKiD**i7 6700**GTX 1060 6GB**29**36**54**OpenGL 4.5**3587 (v1.1)**Zyll Goliath**Xeon E5645**GTX 970**27**35**54**Vulkan 1.0**3560**johnpack**Xeon E5-1650**GTX 970**11**34**54**OpenGL 4.3**3488**fusseli**i7 7700K**GTX 970**26**34**51**OpenGL 4.3**3405**XiGMAKiD**i7 6700**GTX 1060 6GB**26**34**52**DirectX 12**3387 (v1.1)**MrGenius**i7 3770K**RX Vega 64**26**33**66**OpenGL 4.5**3327 (v1.1)**defiiancecp**R7 2700X**RX Vega 64**19**32**64**OpenGL 4.3**3254**ShurikN**i5 7300HQ**GTX 1060 6GB**25**32**48**OpenGL 4.3**3229**MrGenius**i7 3770K**RX Vega 64**24**32**63**OpenGL 4.5**3175 (v1.1)**ShurikN**i5 7300HQ**GTX 1060 6GB**19**31**75**Vulkan 1.0**3173**xkm1948**i7 6950X**R9 FURY X**21**30**52**OpenGL 4.3**3081**johnpack**Xeon E5-1650**GTX 970**24**30**44**Vulkan 1.0**3036**MrGenius**i7 3770K**R9 280X**22**26**40**Vulkan 1.0**2664**Buznoob**R7 1700**RX 580**18**24**40**OpenGL 4.3**2470**MrGenius**i7 3770K**R9 280X**15**23**36**OpenGL 4.3**2345**fray_bentos**i7 6700HQ**GTX 970M**17**22**33**OpenGL 4.3**2239**AlwaysHope**FX 8350**R9 Nano**15**22**44**OpenGL 4.3**2227**fray_bentos**i7 6700HQ**GTX 970M**15**20**31**Vulkan 1.0**2028**sam_86314**Pentium G4560**GTX 1050 Ti**15**19**31**Vulkan 1.0**1956**K2K**i7 8700**UHD Graphics 630**4**4**6**Vulkan 1.0**499**Nuckles56**i7 4700MQ**GT 745M**3**4**6**Vulkan 1.0**417**fray_bentos**i7 6700HQ**HD Graphics 530**3**3**5**Vulkan 1.0**388**JalleR**i5 7200U**HD Graphics 620**0**3**42**Vulkan 1.0**362**fray_bentos**i7 6700HQ**HD Graphics 530**0**3**13**OpenGL 4.3**334**IceShroom**i5 4590**HD Graphics 4600**1**2**8**OpenGL 4.3**250*

Phone:

*Name**Phone**SoC**GPU**Min. FPS**Avg. FPS**Max. FPS**API**Score**infrared**Sony XZ3**Snapdragon 845**Adreno 630**13.62**32.75**66.46**OpenGL ES 3.1**3274**R0H1T**Poco F1**Snapdragon 845**Adreno 630**21.10**31.40**73.26**Vulkan 1.0**3140**JalleR**Galaxy S9+**Exynos 9810**Mali-G72 MP18**7.26**28.73**70.06**OpenGL ES 3.1**2873**Liviu Cojocaru**Galaxy S9**Exynos 9810**Mali-G72 MP18**8.17**27.76**77.44**OpenGL ES 3.1**2776**Hardi**Mate 10 Pro**Kirin 970**Mali-G72 MP12**8.22**25.16**68.54**OpenGL ES 3.1**2516**fray_bentos**Galaxy S8**Exynos 8895**Mali-G71 MP20**5.68**23.23**77.59**OpenGL ES 3.1**2323**iWalkingCorpse**Pixel 2**Snapdragon 835**Adreno 540**16.07**22.75**45.24**OpenGL ES 3.1**2275**Knoxx29**Galaxy S8+**Exynos 8895**Mali-G71 MP20**4.97**21.57**49.57**OpenGL ES 3.1**2156**Nuckles56**????**Snapdragon 820**Adreno 530**13.33**19.69**37.29**OpenGL ES 3.1**1969**yeeeeman**Galaxy S7**Exynos 8890**Mali-T880 MP12**0.20**19.56**55.89**OpenGL ES 3.1**1955**Nuckles56**????**Snapdragon 820**Adreno 530**11.48**19.54**49.17**Vulkan 1.0**1954**JalleR**Galaxy S9+**Exynos 9810**Mali-G72 MP18**6.81**18.79**38.21**Vulkan 1.0**1878**Knoxx29**Galaxy S8+**Exynos 8895**Mali-G71 MP20**2.29**18.20**55.48**Vulkan 1.0**1819**fray_bentos**Galaxy S8**Exynos 8895**Mali-G71 MP20**3.43**18.19**34.54**Vulkan 1.0**1818**iWalkingCorpse**Key 2**Snapdragon 660**Adreno 512**7.02**11.15**22.79**OpenGL ES 3.1**1114**biffzinker**Mate SE**Kirin 659**Mali-T830 MP2**3.75**7.44**9.92**Vulkan 1.0**744**ViperXTR**Note 5**Snapdragon 636**Adreno 509**4.18**7.29**18.00**Vulkan 1.0**728*

Apple:

*Name**Phone**SoC**GPU**Lighting**Post-Processing**Compute**Instancing**API**Score**Athlon2K15**iPhone X**A11 Bionic**M11 Motion**78**79**87**100**Metal**1909**JalleR**iPhone X**A11 Bionic**M11 Motion**70**68**85**96**Metal**1849**BadFrog**iPhone 7**A10 Fusion**PowerVR GT7600 Plus**78**77**84**98**Metal**1654**BadFrog**iPhone 7+**A10 Fusion**PowerVR GT7600 Plus**70**75**86**97**Metal**1568**bubbleawsome**iPhone 6S**A9**PowerVR GT7600**71**82**87**98**Metal**1107**xkm1948**iPhone 6+**A8**PowerVR GT6450**73**62**81**98**Metal**419*



Spoiler: Information



* Just post a screenshot along with your CPU-Z or GPU-Z would do.*


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 21, 2018)

Yeah...no Vulkan for me either. Tried versions 1.1.70, 1.1.73, and 1.1.77. No go with any of them. 

And what's with a 3GB benchmark that runs for 45 seconds? I thought it kept crashing on me. Then I finally realized..that's it? That's all there is? Seriously?


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 21, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> Yeah...no Vulkan for me either. Tried versions 1.1.70, 1.1.73, and 1.1.77. No go with any of them.
> 
> And what's with a 3GB benchmark that runs for 45 seconds? I thought it kept crashing on me. Then I finally realized..that's it? That's all there is? Seriously?
> 
> View attachment 102729




Run the experience mode if you wanna, well, experience it.


----------



## Hardi (Jun 21, 2018)

vulkan works for me, but did one run with ogl also.


----------



## erixx (Jun 21, 2018)

But... are the graphics better than Crysis?


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 21, 2018)




----------



## R0H1T (Jun 21, 2018)

How accurate is this thing?


----------



## ViperXTR (Jun 21, 2018)

PC
3570K @4.2Ghz
16GB DDR3 1866
GTX 1070 SUper Jetstream @2Ghz





Android
(Redmi Note 5, Snapdragon 636 1.8Ghz Kryo 4GB ram 64GB rom)


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 21, 2018)

Seems Nvidia GPU has no problem running on Vulkan.

Also guys post your PC GPU-Z and CPU-Z!  @R0H1T


----------



## R0H1T (Jun 21, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Seems Nvidia GPU has no problem running on Vulkan.
> 
> Also guys post your PC GPU-Z and CPU-Z!  @R0H1T


That's why I said how accurate is this benchmark, notice the *0 min frames & 231 as max*? Here's the hardware specs of that benchmark run


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 21, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Download it fresh here from TPU:
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/download/basemark-gpu-benchmark/
> 
> ...


make a leader board and 1080p limit


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 21, 2018)

Here is my old junk.

Vulkan




OpenGL. I think the old CPU is holding GPU back a bit in this test.


----------



## dj-electric (Jun 21, 2018)

Damn test wont even run for me. Just freezes the second i click the button.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 21, 2018)

dj-electric said:


> Damn test wont even run for me. Just freezes the second i click the button.



I can confirm that the benchmark is rather unstable. Test crashed/failed severel times for me as well.


----------



## ShurikN (Jun 21, 2018)

Something I noticed while running Vulkan, CPU clocks never went beyond 900MHz.

During OGL it went to its standard boost clocks.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 21, 2018)

Scores are clickable (Green score)


*Name*
|
*GPU*
|
*Min. FPS*
|
*Avg. FPS*
|
*Max. FPS*
|
*API*
|
*Score*
*Tomgang*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*76*
|
*95*
|
*148*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9597*
*ruff0r*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*52*
|
*90*
|
*184*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9067*
*Hardi*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*72*
|
*90*
|
*139*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9013*
*Hardi*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*48*
|
*86*
|
*177*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*8684*
*Tomgang*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*40*
|
*77*
|
*161*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*7734*
*ViperXTR*
|
*GTX 1070*
|
*44*
|
*55*
|
*84*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*5556*
*Fluffmeister*
|
*GTX 980 Ti*
|
*42*
|
*53*
|
*81*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*5369*
*ShurikN*
|
*GTX 1060 6GB*
|
*25*
|
*32*
|
*48*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*3229*
*ShurikN*
|
*GTX 1060 6GB*
|
*19*
|
*31*
|
*75*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*3173*
*xkm1948*
|
*R9 FURY X*
|
*21*
|
*30*
|
*52*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*3081*
*MrGenius*
|
*R9 280X*
|
*17*
|
*21*
|
*33*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*2196*
Mobile:


*Name*
|
*GPU*
|
*Min. FPS*
|
*Avg. FPS*
|
*Max. FPS*
|
*API*
|
*Score*
*ViperXTR*
|
*Snapdragon 636*
|
*4.18*
|
*7.29*
|
*18.00*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*728*
concept table it shows what the leaderboard would look like


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 21, 2018)

T4C Fantasy is taking over folks! Please make sure to stick to his rules when posting!!


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 21, 2018)

Stock i7 920 / GTX 980 Ti run. This was literally my first run, ever since then it keeps telling me I need to be connected to the internet so I guess this will have to do!


----------



## ruff0r (Jun 21, 2018)

OPEN GL


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 21, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> T4C Fantasy is taking over folks! Please make sure to stick to his rules when posting!!



I asked W1zz to reassign who is in control of the OP, as that is where the rules and standings belong


----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 21, 2018)

I get the same message as @ruff0r I don't get why because it's allowed in the Windows Firewall


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 21, 2018)

puma99dk| said:


> I get the same message as @ruff0r I don't get why because it's allowed in the Windows Firewall



Yep happened to me on every bench after my first.

Also @T4C Fantasy don't forget to add @Tomgang scores he is killing it and doing the S1366 crowd proud!


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 21, 2018)

R9 280X


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jun 21, 2018)

Here is Vulkan result for my MSI GTX 970:





And here is the Open GL result....




I didn´t experience any problems with this benchmark....everything was working smooth,you need to be connected to the net tho.....I like this benchmark because it does stress FULL 100% your GPU and it takes less then few minutes for overall stress test.....


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Apparently they just released 1.0.2 already after 1 day.

http://downloads.basemark.com/BasemarkGPUFree_1.0.2.exe


----------



## ruff0r (Jun 22, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Apparently they just released 1.0.2 already after 1 day.
> 
> http://downloads.basemark.com/BasemarkGPUFree_1.0.2.exe



Does that mean we have to Rebench new scores?


----------



## ViperXTR (Jun 22, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Scores are clickable (Green score)
> 
> 
> *Name*
> ...


Perhaps it's more accurate if you put in Adreno 509, Snapdragon 636 is the SoC, Adreno is the GPU


----------



## Arctucas (Jun 22, 2018)

Uninstalled.


----------



## ruff0r (Jun 22, 2018)

Arctucas said:


> Uninstalled.



I had that too a few times try lunching the Test a few times.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

ruff0r said:


> Does that mean we have to Rebench new scores?


I wont care only if a v2



*Name*
|
*CPU*
|
*GPU*
|
*Min. FPS*
|
*Avg. FPS*
|
*Max. FPS*
|
*API*
|
*Score*
*Tomgang*
|
*i7 980X*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*76*
|
*95*
|
*148*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9597*
*ruff0r*
|
*i7 2600K*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*57*
|
*95*
|
*151*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9508*
*Hardi*
|
*R7 2700X*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*72*
|
*90*
|
*139*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*9013*
*Hardi*
|
*R7 2700X*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*48*
|
*86*
|
*177*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*8684*
*Tomgang*
|
*i7 980X*
|
*GTX 1080 Ti*
|
*40*
|
*77*
|
*161*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*7734*
*ViperXTR*
|
*i5 3570K*
|
*GTX 1070*
|
*44*
|
*55*
|
*84*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*5556*
*Fluffmeister*
|
*i7 920*
|
*GTX 980 Ti*
|
*42*
|
*53*
|
*81*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*5369*
*Zyll Goliath*
|
*Xeon E5645*
|
*GTX 970*
|
*36*
|
*36*
|
*54*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*3627*
*Zyll Goliath*
|
*Xeon E5645*
|
*GTX 970*
|
*27*
|
*35*
|
*54*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*3560*
*ShurikN*
|
*i5 7300HQ*
|
*GTX 1060 6GB*
|
*25*
|
*32*
|
*48*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*3229*
*ShurikN*
|
*i5 7300HQ*
|
*GTX 1060 6GB*
|
*19*
|
*31*
|
*75*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*3173*
*xkm1948*
|
*i7 6950X*
|
*R9 FURY X*
|
*21*
|
*30*
|
*52*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*3081*
*MrGenius*
|
*i7 3770K*
|
*R9 280X*
|
*15*
|
*23*
|
*36*
|
*OpenGL 4.3*
|
*2336*
Mobile:


*Name*
|
*CPU*
|
*GPU*
|
*Min. FPS*
|
*Avg. FPS*
|
*Max. FPS*
|
*API*
|
*Score*
*ViperXTR*
|
*Snapdragon 636*
|
*Adreno 509*
|
*4.18*
|
*7.29*
|
*18.00*
|
*Vulkan 1.0*
|
*728*


----------



## ruff0r (Jun 22, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> I wont care only if a v2
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Update my score please


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2018)




----------



## MrGenius (Jun 22, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Apparently they just released 1.0.2 already after 1 day.
> 
> http://downloads.basemark.com/BasemarkGPUFree_1.0.2.exe


Still no Vulkan. Still shoots my GPU load to 92% as soon as I open the thing. Nice little GPU preheat session before I can get the actual benchmark running. Which is helpful...NOT! Wish they'd take a little more time between updates and actually fix the damn thing. So disappoint...


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2018)

Open gl score... not much different:


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> Open gl score... not much different:
> 
> View attachment 102791


when you guys do runs  post both scores in 1 post it makes it easier for me.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 22, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> when you guys do runs  post both scores in 1 post it makes it easier for me.



Sorry!!!

I'm dumb and just realized the two options when re reading the thread.


----------



## delshay (Jun 22, 2018)

Radeon User(s)

Can someone who knows what their are doing please test this benchmark with the latest Vulkan version 1.1.77.0 which was released two days ago.

Download from this website https://vulkan.lunarg.com/sdk/home


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 22, 2018)

delshay said:


> Radeon User(s)
> 
> Can someone who knows what their are doing please test this benchmark with the latest Vulkan version 1.1.77.0 which was released two days ago.
> 
> Download from this website https://vulkan.lunarg.com/sdk/home





MrGenius said:


> Yeah...no Vulkan for me either. Tried versions 1.1.70, 1.1.73, and *1.1.77*. No go with any of them.


I'm going to try with earlier 1.0.xx versions too. Since their site states Vulkan 1.0. But it shouldn't matter since LunarG states the following...


			
				LunarG said:
			
		

> ...Vulkan 1.1 guarantees compatibility for 1.0 applications.


https://vulkan.lunarg.com/home/welcome

There's also a 1.1.78 somewhere...supposedly. I can't find it though.

*EDIT: AMD users(who can't get the benchmark to run with Vulkan) need to run  Adrenaline 18.5.1 drivers or earlier!!!*

I installed Adrenalin 18.2.1 which comes with Vulkan 1.0.65. Now my card(280X) runs the benchmark with Vulkan.

R9 280X


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> I'm going to try with earlier 1.0.xx versions too. Since their site states Vulkan 1.0. But it shouldn't matter since LunarG states the following...
> https://vulkan.lunarg.com/home/welcome
> 
> There's also a 1.1.78 somewhere...supposedly. I can't find it though.
> ...


GCN1.0 cards dont fully support vulkan 1.1 anyways 280x is gcn1

Conformance for gcn1 ends at vulkan 1.0


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Wait so which Vulkan should I install? SDK?


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Wait so which Vulkan should I install? SDK?


Runtime


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 22, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> GCN1.0 cards dont fully support vulkan 1.1 anyways 280x is gcn1
> 
> Conformance for gcn1 ends at vulkan 1.0


Well you better fix your database then. Because it says my card supports 1.1.73.


xkm1948 said:


> Wait so which Vulkan should I install? SDK?


Runtime. RT is what comes with the AMD drivers. SDK might work too(not 100% sure about that though). But if you're trying to install a version 1.0.xx with newer drivers it's not going to work. I don't know why. But even after completely uninstalling the version 1.1.70 RT from Adrenaline 18.6.1 and installing 1.0.65 RT instead the benchmark still fails to run. It's like the driver is calling for a version 1.1.xx that doesn't exist. Or something. I dunno. Kinda rubs me the wrong way that I have to revert to Adrenaline 18.2.1 to run the benchmark. Is what it is. I'd care more if I wasn't fully ready to pull the trigger on a Vega 64 ASAP. If I don't win one of these bids on ebay pretty soon I'm gonna have to break down and buy a new one.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> Well you better fix your database then. Because it says my card supports 1.1.73.
> 
> Runtime. RT is what comes with the AMD drivers. SDK might work too(not 100% sure about that though). But if you're trying to install a version 1.0.xx with newer drivers it's not going to work. I don't know why. But even after completely uninstalling the version 1.1.xx RT from Adrenaline 18.6.1 and installing 1.0.65 RT instead the benchmark still fails to run. It's like the driver is calling for a version 1.1.xx that doesn't exist. Or something. I dunno. Kinda rubs me the wrong way that I have to revert to Adrenaline 18.2.1 to run the benchmark. Is what it is. I'd care more if I wasn't fully ready to pull the trigger on a Vega 64 ASAP. If I don't win one of the bids on ebay pretty soon I'm gonna have to break down and buy a new one.


The thing is 1.1 api runs on gcn 1.0 but its not fully supported


----------



## Buznoob (Jun 22, 2018)

@amd guys. try driver 18.5.1, thank you

there seems to be a vulkan issue with driver 18.5.2 and am  awaiting a response from amd regarding the bug on vKCreateGraphicsPipeline


Update: My Results


----------



## delshay (Jun 22, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> I'm going to try with earlier 1.0.xx versions too. Since their site states Vulkan 1.0. But it shouldn't matter since LunarG states the following...
> https://vulkan.lunarg.com/home/welcome
> 
> There's also a 1.1.78 somewhere...supposedly. I can't find it though.
> ...



Excellent work & finding, Welldone!


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jun 22, 2018)

Buznoob said:


> @amd guys. try driver 18.5.1, thank you
> 
> there seems to be a vulkan issue with driver 18.5.2 and am  awaiting a response from amd regarding the bug on vKCreateGraphicsPipeline
> 
> ...


Hmmm.....seems a bit strange...it´s just so big difference between Vulkan and Open GL results....did you tried to repeat the test few times in Open GL?


----------



## Buznoob (Jun 22, 2018)

Zyll Goliath said:


> Hmmm.....seems a bit strange...it´s just so big difference between Vulkan and Open GL results....did you tried to repeat the test few times in Open GL?


Most likely since i was browsing while doing opengl ahaha ill redo it

update: i redid it.





weird. maybe its because im using a ryzen 7 1700 @4ghz ? no idea

retested vulkan and noticed that openGL only used a single core therefore limiting performance. ?


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 22, 2018)

When it finishes downloading, I'll run it on my RX480 and see how I score. But for now, here's my phone: Sony Xperia XZ w/ Snapdragon 820 Quad-core (2x2.15 GHz Kryo & 2x1.6 GHz Kryo), Adreno 530 GPU, 3GB RAM and 32 GB storage


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jun 22, 2018)

*8600k stock
GTX980 OC
8Gb DDR4 3066*

*Score 4212*
@jboydgolfer


----------



## JalleR (Jun 22, 2018)

Samsung G S9 Plus EU Exynos 9810 Octa GPU: Mali-G72 MP18




Lenovo T570 I5-7200U Intel HD620 16GB DC mem


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 22, 2018)

I'm really surprised that the Exynos 9810 is beaten by a SD 820 which is a 2 generation old flagship chip vs a current gen flagship


----------



## JalleR (Jun 22, 2018)

Yes The EU version of the S9 is NOT top of the line :/ same goes for the S8 btw. Mali has never ben the top end GPU for ARM devices more the Cheap solution sadly.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 22, 2018)

Looking at the anandtech benchmarks and substituting the Google Pixel XL with its SD821 for my phone, it has a fairly similar performance by the look of things


----------



## JalleR (Jun 22, 2018)

Yes, i will 4 Sure also go for a SD device next time, but my S8 was super grate, but the S9 compared to that is Meh,


----------



## Morgoth (Jun 22, 2018)

is it normal when running the bench mark you just see a bunch of tiles?
tough very nice use of the gpu at 100% cpu usage around 11% avarage spread nicely over 8 cores  2,4gb vram usage




1080p, mutch beter score


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 22, 2018)




----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 22, 2018)

JalleR said:


> Mali has never ben the top end GPU for ARM devices more the Cheap solution sadly.



Not true at all , last gen G71 ARM GPUs were as fast or faster than similar high end Adreno GPUs. Samsung screwed up this time around with horrible power consumption management , Mali GPUs are top of the line.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

i have everyones scores down, waiting to be unlocked so i can edit main post


----------



## sneekypeet (Jun 22, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> i have everyones scores down, waiting to be unlocked so i can edit main post



OP is yours.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 22, 2018)

leader board added


----------



## JalleR (Jun 22, 2018)

and my Gaming PC


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Still can't run on Vulkan. Weird.


----------



## Kunic (Jun 22, 2018)

1060 6GB OC: 2177 MHz clock and 5214 MHz Memory


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 22, 2018)

It is ironic AMD is having Vulkan problems, my non-future proof ancient Maxwell card had no such issues.

But seriously, it's most likely an issue with the bench itself or a simple driver update, but be careful what you wish for.


----------



## JalleR (Jun 22, 2018)

and with OC 2037-2050 GPU and 5977MEM


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 22, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> It is ironic AMD is having Vulkan problems



What's even more ironic is the fact that there are people out there still believing Vulkan is some fort of secret sauce AMD developed for their own benefit.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 22, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> What's even more ironic is the fact that there are people out there still believing Vulkan is some fort of secret sauce AMD developed for their own benefit only.



Indeedy, this should hopefully put all delusions to bed that one company has evil plans to push their own API, or indeed the other that apparently doesn't care for them.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Indeedy, this should hopefully put all delusions to bed that one company has evil plans to push their own API, or indeed the other that apparently doesn't care for them.



If we examine the results, it seems Pascal does well with Vulkan versus OGL. While on Maxwell it is the opposite.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 22, 2018)

Tomorrow i will try go for another run after i have installed these new puppies (se image below) on the my CPU cooler. To replace my old Silverstone F121 120 MM fans. Goal is that they shut give headroom for higher OC and by that better scores or at least the openGL shut benefit from it. Vulkan i dont think will give much more, since the gpu in vulkan is maxed out.

But i dont think you can get much better fans for the job than these. They have high CFM and static pressure so they shut be great on my Noctua NH-D14 cooler. Well time will tell.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 22, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> If we examine the results, it seems Pascal does well with Vulkan versus OGL. While on Maxwell it is the opposite.







I managed a few more runs in between the constant complaining about not being online....


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> View attachment 102874
> 
> I managed a few more runs in between the constant complaining about not being online....




Interesting. Only if I can get mine to run on Vulkan.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 22, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Interesting. Only if I can get mine to run on Vulkan.



Probably just a bench or driver update, I have no doubt you'll see a nice boost too!


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 22, 2018)

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X+ undervolted / 1974 GHz @ 0.943 V  (11 Gbps GDDR5X version running at 12.16 GHz)  / i7-4790K @ 4.9 GHz . Vulcan and OpenGL Scores.


----------



## Arctucas (Jun 22, 2018)

ruff0r said:


> I had that too a few times try lunching the Test a few times.



I tried four or five times.

Does the benchmark need to connect to the internet to function?

I noticed the first thing it did when I started it, was try to connect. Of course, I denied access.


----------



## IceShroom (Jun 22, 2018)

Score for Intel HD 4600


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 22, 2018)

Wait a minute, GPU-Z does not show Vulkan support level?


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 23, 2018)

Huawei Mate SE 
SoC Kirin 659 
CPU - 4xA53 2,360 MHz + 4xA53 1,700 MHz
GPU - Mali-T830 MP2 900 MHz (40.8GFlops)
Mem - LPDDR3 64-bit Dual Channel (933MHz)


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 23, 2018)

Arctucas said:


> Does the benchmark need to connect to the internet to function?


With the free version, yes.
https://www.basemark.com/products/basemark-gpu/


xkm1948 said:


> Wait a minute, GPU-Z does not show Vulkan support level?


It should. It does for me. Under the Advanced tab.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 23, 2018)

A slightly higher score with my phone,after I put it in the fridge for 10 minutes to try and keep the clocks up higher for longer




I'm pushing the absolute limit on the card under air here, I'm going to give it another run tomorrow with my rig outside as we're expecting -4 degrees tomorrow and see if I can squeeze a tiny bit more out of the card then (and crack the 4k mark)


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

for clarification, for phones, CPU i will only list the SoC name, for gpu ill list whats inside the SoC. it gets too complicated with the dual x4 cores A53 57 crap mainly its the space needed.


----------



## looniam (Jun 23, 2018)

will this work for a sub?





btw, i got 5030 running the card (980ti) at ~1318Mhz that score of 5430 is @1448. i'm sitting on a H61 mobo so no OCing the CPU ATM.


----------



## IceShroom (Jun 23, 2018)

One thing though, why does smartphone gpus score more than desktop gpus???


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

IceShroom said:


> One thing though, why does smartphone gpus score more than desktop gpus???


1080p which is why it has its own table xD

desktop is 4k tests


----------



## defiiancecp (Jun 23, 2018)

After the fun of DDU'ing and reverting back to 18.5.1 drivers, finally got this running in vulkan on my Vega 64.  Posting results from OpenGL and from Vulkan, but it's pretty clear something's very wrong with the OpenGL results.  In Vulkan, my GPU utilization stays near-continuously pegged at 99%, and the clocks are pegged in the 1600s (see hwinfo screen snip from that session- Avg GPU Utz is 91% in spite of the dead period as the benchmark is loading, average clock is 1543, etc).   In the OpenGL session, however, the utilization is terrible - average under 70%, and because it's not pushing the GPU the clocks stay low as well (avg just under 1200, and never even bumps into the 1500 range).


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 23, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> After the fun of DDU'ing and reverting back to 18.5.1 drivers, finally got this running in vulkan on my Vega 64.  Posting results from OpenGL and from Vulkan, but it's pretty clear something's very wrong with the OpenGL results.  In Vulkan, my GPU utilization stays near-continuously pegged at 99%, and the clocks are pegged in the 1600s (see hwinfo screen snip from that session- Avg GPU Utz is 91% in spite of the dead period as the benchmark is loading, average clock is 1543, etc).   I*n the OpenGL session, however, the utilization is terrible - average under 70%, and because it's not pushing the GPU the clocks stay low as well (avg just under 1200, and never even bumps into the 1500 range).*



Nothing wrong. GCN based GPU was never good at OpenGL. Vulkan was MADE to address this. All GCN GPU are pretty bad at keeping the compute engine fully utilized due to bad scheduler efficiency. Vulkan and DX12 removes the burden and allows close to max stream processor utilization, hence why a lot higher scores.


----------



## defiiancecp (Jun 23, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Nothing wrong. GCN based GPU was never good at OpenGL. Vulkan was MADE to address this. All GCN GPU are pretty bad at keeping the compute engine fully utilized due to bad scheduler efficiency. Vulkan and DX12 removes the burden and allows close to max stream processor utilization, hence why a lot higher scores.



I see very different behavior in OpenGL games.  Vulkan is much faster, of course, but it's not because the GPU isn't being utilized in OpenGL, like this benchmark shows.  I just tried it in Doom, which supports both OpenGL and Vulkan.  Set to 4k, ultra, load Kadengir Sanctum, observe framerate, load, and GPU clocks for 1:30->

Vulkan: 99-100 FPS, 1627 avg GPU clock, 99.0% avg GPU Utilization

OPENGL: 65-66 FPS, 1629 avg GPU clock, 97.3% avg GPU Utilization



To add, looks like there's something funky with AMD's OpenGL implementation specifically - see: https://community.amd.com/thread/206176 -- mentions the relatively very poor performance, as well as talking about the low GPU clocks I'm seeing.  In that thread there's some theory that maybe it's being locked to a CPU-bound thread, but that doesn't seem to be the case here (I'm not showing any CPU threads maxed out), and it looks like they came to the same conclusion..  

But I guess id found a way to work around it?    Doom OpenGL definitely isn't suffering from the same problem.  

I guess the fact that I couldn't find any other games running openGL in my library means I shouldn't be too worried about it, though.


----------



## Psychoholic (Jun 23, 2018)

Quick run with everyday settings..
EDIT: CPU is at 4.9.. although you wouldnt know it looking at cpuz.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jun 23, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> After the fun of DDU'ing and reverting back to 18.5.1 drivers, finally got this running in vulkan on my Vega 64.  Posting results from OpenGL and from Vulkan, but it's pretty clear something's very wrong with the OpenGL results.  In Vulkan, my GPU utilization stays near-continuously pegged at 99%, and the clocks are pegged in the 1600s (see hwinfo screen snip from that session- Avg GPU Utz is 91% in spite of the dead period as the benchmark is loading, average clock is 1543, etc).   In the OpenGL session, however, the utilization is terrible - average under 70%, and because it's not pushing the GPU the clocks stay low as well (avg just under 1200, and never even bumps into the 1500 range).
> View attachment 102896View attachment 102895View attachment 102897View attachment 102894


Indeed...very strange and a BIG gap between Open GL and Vulkan results with AMD cards as I already commented few pages before now you just confirmed.....this should be investigated furthermore....


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

Psychoholic said:


> Quick run with everyday settings..
> EDIT: CPU is at 4.9.. although you wouldnt know it looking at cpuz.
> View attachment 102904


I will add in morning


----------



## MrGenius (Jun 23, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> I will add in morning


My Vulkan score too please(plus the link to my OpenGL needs changed, since I combined both in the same post). Thanks!


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 23, 2018)

OpenGL scores are slightly higher for a phone than the Vulkan ones by the looks of things

I also ran a 4k test just for fun with my phone and it outperforms my gt 745m in my laptop by almost 2 to 1 (though it uses a different texture compression method) and is half as fast as my RX 480 when using openGL and the etc2 texture compression


I did encounter a strange issue with my laptop when I was doing runs with that, I could only run the vulkan tests on the nvidia GPU, as soon as I tried the OpenGL test it would revert to the intel iGPU for some reason.

And also a funny fail run which says my gt 745m is equal to 2 GTX 1080ti's assuming perfect SLI scaling


----------



## Sirillya (Jun 23, 2018)

8700@5.2 and GPU 1080TI ASUS STRIX OC 2113 Under Air


----------



## Arctucas (Jun 23, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> With the free version, yes.
> <SNIP>



I will have to pass, then.


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 23, 2018)

*1. Samsung Galaxy S8 (EU) SM-G950F*
CPU: Exynos 8895 Octa-core (4x2.3 GHz & 4x1.7 GHz)
GPU: Mali-G71 MP20



*2. *


Nuckles56 said:


> I did encounter a strange issue with my laptop when I was doing runs with that, I could only run the vulkan tests on the nvidia GPU, as soon as I tried the OpenGL test it would revert to the intel iGPU for some reason.



I solved this problem on my 970M laptop by going to the Nvidia control panel\manage 3D settings\program settings tab, and adding C:\\Program Files\Basemark GPU\binaries\BasemarkGPU_gl.exe and then setting this to use "High-performance NVIDIA processor". Similarly, you can force the Integrated graphics to be used instead, as I did under point 4. below.


*3. Gigabyte Aero 14 laptop with i7-6700HQ using 970M @1172 Mhz clock / 1303 MHz memory.*



*4. Gigabyte Aero 14 laptop with i7-6700HQ using iGPU Intel HD Graphics 530 (undervolted by -130mV)*


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

how cheap is that the average FPS is the score for phones.

well and for desktop aswel


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 23, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> how cheap is that the average FPS is the score for phones.
> 
> well and for desktop aswel



No it's not, it's the average FPS x100!  They would have wiser just to report the average FPS as the score without the x100 factor. Scores are arbitrary, but an FPS is something that people can relate to and understand.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

fray_bentos said:


> No it's not, it's the average FPS x100!  They would have wiser just to report the average FPS as the score without the x100 factor. Scores are arbitrary, but an FPS is something that people can relate to and understand.


they removed decimal for desktop tests but i bet they would be 27.27 score 2727, but for phone its exactly that


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 23, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> they removed decimal for desktop tests but i bet they would be 27.27 score 2727, but for phone its exactly that



Yep, dropped, and not even rounded the decimals on desktop. Also, using that x100 relationship, I spotted some typos in the table: 

Buznoob 24 ave. fps vs 3871 score
defiiancecp 63 ave. fps vs. 3254 score


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

fray_bentos said:


> Yep, dropped, and not even rounded the decimals on desktop. Also, using that x100 relationship, I spotted some typos in the table:
> 
> Buznoob 24 ave. fps vs 3871 score
> defiiancecp 63 ave. fps vs. 3254 score


Buzznoob is coorect with a 2470 score which would be 24.70 avg they didnt round xD


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 23, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Buzznoob is coorect with a 2470 score which would be 24.70 avg they didnt round xD



The bottom entry for Buzznoob is correct, but there is another one higher up the table that is wrong.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 23, 2018)

fray_bentos said:


> The bottom entry for Buzznoob is correct, but there is another one higher up the table that is wrong.


done thats a great  way to find errors atleast


----------



## johnspack (Jun 23, 2018)

Well,  I'm going to throw a new rock into the pond...  linux!   First of all,  had to fix permissions on the installed folder,  or else it would lock up my os.  Vulkan seems to suck compared to opengl on my maxwell card,  or is it linux?  Cpu is at 4.7ghz,  gpu is at +55 which is maybe 1500mhz it's saying,  and no ram oc,  not available under linux.  Arg.  And cpu-z only partially works,  and gpu-z not at all,  so I've used linux equivalents.














Guess this will be added to my last post...  I just figured out how to oc my card sorry hadn't really tried under linux yet...  also didn't know you would only count the vulkan results:





Sorry again,  realized you do score opengl,  this is a more correct run..


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 23, 2018)

Alright back with a new run after fine tunning GPU clocks a bit higher and oc CPU to 4.75 GHz

Vulkan. Just as i already knew, here GPU where already pretty much maxed out in the first runs. So only a few points better score. The limiting factor here is the GPU´s low power target at only 120 % max. So GPU hits power target often and force GPU to clock down. With a higher power target, i bet i cut get a few points more.






OpenGL. Again as i said in my early post, here CPU is the bottleneck. Just see score after a higher OC score clime significantly, but is still lower than other systems with stronger CPU´s so still a bottleneck here.








Hardware info





In the end X58 still handles a powerful GPU pretty well. Not as great as a new CPU, The OpenGL test clearly shows that. But for how old X58 is becoming, X58 and us owners has nothing to be a shame of up until now and properly a year or two more.


----------



## JalleR (Jun 23, 2018)

OpenGL is the best for Mali GPU's

*Exynos 9810 Mali-G72 MP18*


----------



## johnspack (Jun 23, 2018)

Sorry yet again!....  Yes you can oc vram under linux,  and there is more headroom than I thought for both clocks,  so final update for my gtx970:


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 24, 2018)

Well I tried to bench this morning in the -3 conditions outside (I managed to get the core temp of the GPU down to 2 degrees at desktop), but I couldn't manage to get a score higher than the 3993 point run I already had sadly. My RX 480 just runs out of overclocking potential under air at the 1450MHz core mark sadly and I can't push it any harder. Maybe under water it might manage a little more but I doubt it.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 24, 2018)

What I would like to see is someone who is still dual booting linux and windows to post results from both versions with the same hardware.
I killed my windows installs a while back,  so I can't do it....


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> After the fun of DDU'ing and reverting back to 18.5.1 drivers, finally got this running in vulkan on my Vega 64.  Posting results from OpenGL and from Vulkan, but it's pretty clear something's very wrong with the OpenGL results.  In Vulkan, my GPU utilization stays near-continuously pegged at 99%, and the clocks are pegged in the 1600s (see hwinfo screen snip from that session- Avg GPU Utz is 91% in spite of the dead period as the benchmark is loading, average clock is 1543, etc).   In the OpenGL session, however, the utilization is terrible - average under 70%, and because it's not pushing the GPU the clocks stay low as well (avg just under 1200, and never even bumps into the 1500 range).





Once again nothing wrong with your OpenGL. GCN based cards sucks at OpenGL and excels at Vulkan.







https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/basemark_gpu_performance_review/3


As you can see both Vega and Polaris works better under Vulkan


----------



## mouacyk (Jun 24, 2018)

5/4.7 8700K, 4266-17-18-18-38-2T, 1080Ti 2101/12627


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2018)

Who is gonna break 10K first? I wonder.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 24, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Who is gonna break 10K first? I wonder.


@NicklasAPJ

Im in bed atm not adding scores til morning


----------



## defiiancecp (Jun 24, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Once again nothing wrong with your OpenGL. GCN based cards sucks at OpenGL and excels at Vulkan.



You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep knowing it's not correct - repetition won't change it so let's agree to disagree.  This is clearly not a matter of poor GPU performance: The GPU is at extremely low utilization and clocks.  If this was a result of the GPU being bad at OpenGL, it would show high utilization and still relatively low results.  That's not what we're seeing.  Your graphs aren't contradicting anything, they're just restating the problem: We already know OpenGL scores are low.  I don't think it's the benchmark, I think something's wrong with the drivers (as supported by the fact that this is seen in other OpenGL apps, examples included in the AMD community issue discussion I linked before), but saying nothing's wrong simply ignores the low GPU utilization.  I mean, Radeon *is* weaker at OpenGL than vulkan (as in the Doom example), but Doom also shows that OpenGL *CAN* exercise the GPU (because GPU Utilization is very high during the doom OpenGL run).  So yes, something is wrong.

Still, it's not really important since basically nothing uses OpenGL anyway...


----------



## biffzinker (Jun 24, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep knowing it's not correct - repetition won't change it so let's agree to disagree.  This is clearly not a matter of poor GPU performance: The GPU is at extremely low utilization and clocks.  If this was a result of the GPU being bad at OpenGL, it would show high utilization and still relatively low results.  That's not what we're seeing.  Your graphs aren't contradicting anything, they're just restating the problem: We already know OpenGL scores are low.  I don't think it's the benchmark, I think something's wrong with the drivers (as supported by the fact that this is seen in other OpenGL apps, examples included in the AMD community issue discussion I linked before), but saying nothing's wrong simply ignores the low GPU utilization.  I mean, Radeon *is* weaker at OpenGL than vulkan (as in the Doom example), but Doom also shows that OpenGL *CAN* exercise the GPU (because GPU Utilization is very high during the doom OpenGL run).  So yes, something is wrong.
> 
> Still, it's not really important since basically nothing uses OpenGL anyway...


The problem is the OpenGL driver going back all the way to ATI before the merge. Nvidia's OpenGL ICD has always performed better on Windows.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jun 24, 2018)

biffzinker said:


> The problem is the OpenGL driver going back all the way to ATI before the merge. Nvidia's OpenGL ICD has always performed better on Windows.


Sure no doubt about that...however this is clearly such a HUGE gap in results that seems like something else causing some additional issue....Just look that Vega 64 result in Vulkan GPU scores 6333 but in Open Gl score is 3254.....I mean that´s like almost 100% difference....weird.....


----------



## fray_bentos (Jun 24, 2018)

Zyll Goliath said:


> Sure no doubt about that...however this is clearly such a HUGE gap in results that seems like something else causing some additional issue....Just look that Vega 64 result in Vulkan GPU scores 6333 but in Open Gl score is 3254.....I mean that´s like almost 100% difference....weird.....



...which is not *that* different from the 100fps reported for Doom under Vulcan vs. 66fps with OpenGL quoted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jun 24, 2018)

fray_bentos said:


> ...which is not *that* different from the 100fps reported for Doom under Vulcan vs. 66fps with OpenGL quoted earlier in this thread.


Well...it is different...this is even + 20 %(on top of that) worst result then your DOOM example and thats quite a lot in my eyes........


----------



## Justinus (Jun 24, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Who is gonna break 10K first? I wonder.



I did, but it was the first day the benchmark was out and I didn't take a screenshot with GPU-z/CPU-z. I'll have to rerun when I have a chance.





5960x at 4.7, DDR4 3200, 1080ti FTW3 at some settings I don't even remember, all in a custom loop. The GPU clocks were definitely unstable territory.





This is my daily/gaming/stable setting. Same CPU settings but GPU is at 2088 core, 12,410 mem.


----------



## Sirillya (Jun 24, 2018)

Second !


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2018)

*Damn nice! How about some TitanXp or TitanV? lol*


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 24, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> *Damn nice! How about some TitanXp or TitanV? lol*


Nick has the Xp


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 24, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> You keep saying that, and I'm going to keep knowing it's not correct - repetition won't change it so let's agree to disagree.  This is clearly not a matter of poor GPU performance: The GPU is at extremely low utilization and clocks.  If this was a result of the GPU being bad at OpenGL, it would show high utilization and still relatively low results.  That's not what we're seeing.  Your graphs aren't contradicting anything, they're just restating the problem: We already know OpenGL scores are low.  I don't think it's the benchmark, I think something's wrong with the drivers (as supported by the fact that this is seen in other OpenGL apps, examples included in the AMD community issue discussion I linked before), but saying nothing's wrong simply ignores the low GPU utilization.  I mean, Radeon *is* weaker at OpenGL than vulkan (as in the Doom example), but Doom also shows that OpenGL *CAN* exercise the GPU (because GPU Utilization is very high during the doom OpenGL run).  So yes, something is wrong.
> 
> Still, it's not really important since basically nothing uses OpenGL anyway...




Go download Unigine Superposition benchmark. Run 4K optimized first in DrectX11 then in OpenGL. Compare the score yourself.

OpenGL an DX11 requires A LOT OF driver optimization which RTG has little resources to devote to. DX12 and Vulkan on the other hand requires little driver optimization because they can saturate whatever GPU they run on. 

Fiji/Vega has 4096 SPs. They don't lack the raw resources. What they lack is efficient utilization of those resources. GCN has always been heavy on the raw power instead of focusing on the overall balancing of the structure. That is why under Vulkan GCN based cards really shine.


----------



## Anzlew (Jun 24, 2018)

My results, with slightly OC'ed GPU:


----------



## defiiancecp (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Go download Unigine Superposition benchmark. Run 4K optimized first in DrectX11 then in OpenGL. Compare the score yourself.
> 
> OpenGL an DX11 requires A LOT OF driver optimization which RTG has little resources to devote to. DX12 and Vulkan on the other hand requires little driver optimization because they can saturate whatever GPU they run on.
> 
> Fiji/Vega has 4096 SPs. They don't lack the raw resources. What they lack is efficient utilization of those resources. GCN has always been heavy on the raw power instead of focusing on the overall balancing of the structure. That is why under Vulkan GCN based cards really shine.




Yet another example proving my point - Superposition 4k OpenGL, GPU utilization  nearly100%, clocks consistently maxed, while this benchmark averages high 60's in utilization with clocks consistently extremely low.

YET AGAIN I REPEAT: I'm not arguing that OpenGL results shouldn't be lower.  They should, and will.  But right now that's being overstated, because the GPU *ISN'T BEING UTILIZED* by this benchmark.


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 25, 2018)

CPU is running at 4.7GHz. under load.
Maybe tomorrow It's coming apart to swap an 8700K into this case.
Will post again then.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

RealNeil said:


> View attachment 102989


You need to show cpu and gpuz


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> because the GPU *ISN'T BEING UTILIZED* by this benchmark.



Exactly. Unoptimized OpenGL driver for this benchmark by RTG


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 25, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> You need to show cpu and gpuz



Like this?

So it seems that this test doesn't like SLI mode? A pair of 1070Ti cards should fare better than this, shouldn't they?


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 25, 2018)

So even after an update that really didn't fix anything of great significance I still get an error when trying to run it in Vulcan and still see it lock up at 99% under OpenGL although the experience mode works fine in OpenGL but fails to even attempt to run in Vulcan mode so I've come to the conclusion that this benchmark app is poorly coded and a complete waste of time and probably shouldn't have been let out of the stable door until it worked properly on everything they seem to think it should work on


----------



## BadFrog (Jun 25, 2018)




----------



## defiiancecp (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Exactly. Unoptimized OpenGL driver for this benchmark by RTG



It's good that you're finally agreeing with me!  I said in my very first post this appeared to be a problem with OpenGL implementation in the driver, to which you replied that it was not a problem.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

defiiancecp said:


> It's good that you're finally agreeing with me!  I said in my very first post this appeared to be a problem with OpenGL implementation in the driver, to which you replied that it was not a problem.



Well we have been agreeing on the same thing since the beginning regarding the problem: the driver.

It is just I dont see RTG trying to improve the driver for this specific benchmark. It takes money and human resources to improve OpenGL for GCN, per application. That is where the beauty of Vulkan and DX12 shine---no need to do per application optimization.

So yeah, OpenGL performance is kinda irrelevant as long as the application has proper Vulkan or DX12 implementation.



Athlonite said:


> So even after an update that really didn't fix anything of great significance I still get an error when trying to run it in Vulcan and still see it lock up at 99% under OpenGL although the experience mode works fine in OpenGL but fails to even attempt to run in Vulcan mode so I've come to the conclusion that this benchmark app is poorly coded and a complete waste of time and probably shouldn't have been let out of the stable door until it worked properly on everything they seem to think it should work on



The problem maybe on both end. I did some digging with debugging tool. The problem seems to stem from both RTG's driver as well as the benchmark. The 18.6.1 driver has Vulkan 1.1.73 while this benchmark is still on Vulkan 1.0.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jun 25, 2018)

I ran this on my general purpose PC, but upon submission to BasemarkGPU website, it reports the version from here is out of date & thus not acceptable.


----------



## iWalkingCorpse (Jun 25, 2018)

https://powerboard.basemark.com/submit/546645/result

2000-score is pixel 2
1100-score is BlackBerry Key2


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

iWalkingCorpse said:


> https://powerboard.basemark.com/submit/546645/result
> 
> 2000-score is pixel 2
> 1100-score is BlackBerry Key2


this is awesome, we need more phones tested


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

Blackberry is still alive??? Holy shit. 

Too bad they don’t have IOS or macOS version


----------



## BadFrog (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Blackberry is still alive??? Holy shit.
> 
> Too bad they don’t have IOS or macOS version




iOS version is called Metal benchmark. Here’s my results on a iPhone 7 and then 7 plus


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

BadFrog said:


> iOS version is called Metal benchmark. Here’s my results on a iPhone 7 and then 7 plusView attachment 103016View attachment 103017


I need morr info say the SoC name and gpu name and which metal version is it
there is no min avg max score?
its hard to compare on the normal board unless it has the same setup


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> The problem maybe on both end. I did some digging with debugging tool. The problem seems to stem from both RTG's driver as well as the benchmark. The 18.6.1 driver has Vulkan 1.1.73 while this benchmark is still on Vulkan 1.0.




Perhaps we should send them the latest Vulcan SDK to use instead of them using old crap


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 25, 2018)

Where's the AMD CPU results?

I guess everyone has the same problem I do with AMD CPU?


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 25, 2018)

I'd put some up if only I could this dame bench to work properly


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

cadaveca said:


> Where's the AMD CPU results?
> 
> I guess everyone has the same problem I do with AMD CPU?




You mean GPU right? There are multiple RyZen 2 CPU up there


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> You mean GPU right? There are multiple RyZen 2 CPU up there


This thread has brought tpu so many new members xD


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> This thread has brought tpu so many new members xD




Really? I have no idea. People loves benchmark what can I say?

@theoneandonlymrk We need your EK water cooled Vega64 on there!


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> You mean GPU right? There are multiple RyZen 2 CPU up there


Some AMD CPUs have their own GPUs on board. Maybe he means them?


----------



## TheBigNoob (Jun 25, 2018)

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but here it goes anyways (someone here suggested I post this)


https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/21922/result


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

TheBigNoob said:


> I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but here it goes anyways (someone here suggested I post this)
> 
> 
> https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/21922/result


nothing makes sense anymore


----------



## cadaveca (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> You mean GPU right? There are multiple RyZen 2 CPU up there


ryzen2, but no ryzen, and no TR. For me with TR, test finishes, but as it is generating score or whatever the app just disappears  Shit software. Oh, I see some red tehre now, dunno how I missed it before...


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

TheBigNoob said:


> I'm not sure if I'm doing this right, but here it goes anyways (someone here suggested I post this)
> 
> 
> https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/21922/result





T4C Fantasy said:


> nothing makes sense anymore



Comparing with the rest of the 1080Ti this makes no sense. Unless he has SLI on?

Another possibility is the internal timer bug. Some benchmarks uses system time stamp for calculating avg FPS, bugs in system time stamp will result in strange results. This once score is ~twice as much as a similar system.

I recommend pull that score again until TheBigNoob have another one that at least have minium FPS on there. As of now it just makes no sense at all


----------



## mouacyk (Jun 25, 2018)

Look what I found:


Shamalamadingdong said:


> Despite the claim it took two years to make, it's remarkable how fast obvious bugs have been found.
> 
> If you run the benchmark minimized it'll double your score. That's a terrible design.
> 
> Tl;dr would not recommend.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

mouacyk said:


> Look what I found:


wow


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> wow



Looks like a ton of update fix incoming


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 25, 2018)

Here is my minimised Vulkan run:





GTX 1080 Ti performance baby!


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

I will not add minimized scores to be fair to everyone else


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 25, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> I will not add minimized scores to be fair to everyone else



Shhh, I'll edit the wording....

Just kidding!

Although it'll be interesting to see what more powerful hardware scores, I suspect 15k plus.


----------



## DR4G00N (Jun 25, 2018)

It seems the installer is the most demanding part of this "benchmark", it slows my system down so much that windows explorer stops responding. 
Does this even support SLI? Probably not I'm guessing.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

DR4G00N said:


> It seems the installer is the most demanding part of this "benchmark", it slows my system down so much that windows explorer stops responding.
> Does this even support SLI? Probably not I'm guessing.


Nope xD
Well yeah you run minimized and you activate sli


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 25, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Here is my minimised Vulkan run:
> View attachment 103054
> 
> GTX 1080 Ti performance baby!



Step aside little man and let me show you how a real X58 system scores 





after testing i can say this. Vulkan test minimized is completly screwed up, but it seems only to effect Vulkan test. OpenGL test still seems to score what i do when not minimized.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 25, 2018)

Tomgang said:


> Step aside little man and let me show you how a real X58 system scores
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No wonder why its free


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 25, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> No wonder why its free



Yeah and then maybe not. I just testet Version 1.0.2 now and it seems that they al ready knew the problem cause then i try to minimize the test it stop and fails in version 1.0.2


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

Maybe @T4C Fantasy should put in first post that only latest version of benchmark is accepted.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 25, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Maybe @T4C Fantasy should put in first post that only latest version of benchmark is accepted.



Yeah seems like a good idea and delete the link to version 1.0.0 on the first page and make a new one for version 1.0.2 and then as new versions comes out.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

New submission with 1.0.2 No cheating. CPU-Z and GPU-Z included. Even graphed the Core MHz versus GPU load generated with GPU-Z logging!






URL:

https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/22167/result


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 25, 2018)

Tomgang said:


> Step aside little man and let me show you how a real X58 system scores



Hahaha! I both hate and love you at the same time. 

But yes, X58 FTW


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 25, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Hahaha! I both hate and love you at the same time.
> 
> But yes, X58 FTW



hahaha love and hate at the same time. Thats something new. X58 is love x58 is life x58 to the end my friend.

but i have to ask, why are you running that poor i7 920 at stock?

its begging to get some more juice. All throw its a co revision it shut still be good for around 3.6-3.8 ghz.

had a i7 920 do @ 4.1 ghz before i got that i7 980x. A great little chip, but the 6 cores are just more fun. If any thing i can say for sure its wofh going to a 6 core. Specially as cheap the xeons for x58 has become. Its off cause our choise in the end, but i am sure as hell glad i got a 6 core cpu.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 25, 2018)

Tomgang said:


> hahaha love and hate at the same time. Thats something new. X58 is love x58 is life x58 to the end my friend.
> 
> but i have to ask, why are you running that poor i7 920 at stock?
> 
> ...



All valid my friend, she is indeed a C0 and will do 4Ghz, I guess the reality is after all the years (AKA years ago) of chasing performance I've realised the games I'm currently and mainly playing still perform at a level I'm happy with. Xeons have most definitely been on my radar especially the Westmere X56X0 chips which are no doubt complete bargains these days, but sadly my EVGA X58 is version 1 which doesn't support them, even now they apparently offer a free upgrade to 1.1 which will do the job, but at this this stage I'm happy to just see what hits the market and jump ship from where I am.

Almost 10 years on the same CPU, bonkers!


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 25, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Almost 10 years on the same CPU, bonkers!




You X58 folks plan to move on thanks to the current Core wars? 8 core mainstream Intel incoming along with juicy Zen2 next year.


Yeah I used my first X38 motherboard for about 8 years. Did switch from a Q6600 to a QX9650 midway though. However the CPU turfs are finally having some excitement now.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jun 26, 2018)

Amateur UI with this one, 
Can't see about version number with score at same time...
So how do we know scores are relevant?


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 26, 2018)

AlwaysHope said:


> Amateur UI with this one,
> Can't see about version number with score at same time...
> So how do we know scores are relevant?



not just the UI the whole thing is amateur time


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jun 26, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> not just the UI the whole thing is amateur time


But "impressive" website for them...


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 26, 2018)

bed time all further scores will be implemented in morning nini all xD


----------



## JalleR (Jun 26, 2018)

iPhone X (10) SOC: Apple A11 Bionic GPU: Apple GPU (three-core graphics)


----------



## Hardi (Jun 26, 2018)

Huawei Mate 10 Pro / Kirin 970 / Mali-G72 MP12





https://powerboard.basemark.com/submit/547127/result


----------



## Buznoob (Jun 26, 2018)

I forgot to mention or it was under the picture that my CPU is a Ryzen 7 1700 @4ghz


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 26, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> All valid my friend, she is indeed a C0 and will do 4Ghz, I guess the reality is after all the years (AKA years ago) of chasing performance I've realised the games I'm currently and mainly playing still perform at a level I'm happy with. Xeons have most definitely been on my radar especially the Westmere X56X0 chips which are no doubt complete bargains these days, but sadly my EVGA X58 is version 1 which doesn't support them, even now they apparently offer a free upgrade to 1.1 which will do the job, but at this this stage I'm happy to just see what hits the market and jump ship from where I am.
> 
> Almost 10 years on the same CPU, bonkers!



Alright fair enough if you only runs old games or games that arrent so demanding that's a valid choise then. Its the opposite for me. I game demanding games like Far Cry 5, crysis, BF1 and so on. So i need all the grunt i can cramp out of these old chips and luckely the grunt is pretty great still 



xkm1948 said:


> You X58 folks plan to move on thanks to the current Core wars? 8 core mainstream Intel incoming along with juicy Zen2 next year.
> 
> 
> Yeah I used my first X38 motherboard for about 8 years. Did switch from a Q6600 to a QX9650 midway though. However the CPU turfs are finally having some excitement now.



Sorry pal arrent gonna happen any time soon for my part. If the old X58 survive for so long, i am planning on running it a year or to more. I just have to much happy moments with X58 to let it go and it still runs the latest games fine.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 26, 2018)

Tomgang said:


> Alright fair enough if you only runs old games or games that arrent so demanding that's a valid choise then. Its the opposite for me. I game demanding games like Far Cry 5, crysis, BF1 and so on. So i need all the grunt i can cramp out of these old chips and luckely the grunt is pretty great still
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry pal arrent gonna happen any time soon for my part. If the old X58 survive for so long, i am planning on running it a year or to more. I just have to much happy moments with X58 to let it go and it still runs the latest games fine.



Your system seems really well tuned and is putting up some sweet gfx scores.  Honestly unless you're streaming or "playing" AOTS (and getting horrible gaming performance while you're streaming anyways) CPU doesn't have a huge impact in games... It seems to be all memory latency and gfx.

Im hoping they release a coffee lake / cascade lake 10 core that has a bit more cache and frequency overhead so i can stay on x299 for a while.  I like the 7820x but it could use some tweaks.


----------



## Tomgang (Jun 26, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> Your system seems really well tuned and is putting up some sweet gfx scores.  Honestly unless you're streaming or "playing" AOTS (and getting horrible gaming performance while you're streaming anyways) CPU doesn't have a huge impact in games... It seems to be all memory latency and gfx.
> 
> Im hoping they release a coffee lake / cascade lake 10 core that has a bit more cache and frequency overhead so i can stay on x299 for a while.  I like the 7820x but it could use some tweaks.



Yeah i have no complains how my X58 system performe in games. The latest game i have is Far Cry 5 and its running with settings maxed out with this old CPU and still keeps minimum FPS above 60 FPS accept for 4K where even the migthy GTX 1080 TI cant keep FPS above 60 the hole time.

You can se my build in benchmark Far Cry 5 runs below if you want to at 1200P, 1600P and 4K resolution. Yes my screen is a 16:10 thats why resolution is a bit of from 1080P, 1440P and so on.















T4C Fantasy if this is to much offtopic for this thread. Let me know and i will delete it again.


----------



## Justinus (Jun 27, 2018)

Here we go. A non-minimized run of 1.0.2 at 2138 core, 12,620 memory.


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jun 27, 2018)

Ok here's the best I've got so far.
4670k @ 4.0Ghz
16GB 1866Mhz DDR3
GTX 1070 @ 2,151Mhz Core and I think 9,820Mhz GDDR. Memory clocks have always confused me

5,755 Vulkan





5,908 OpenGL


Spoiler: Outdated Score










5,918 OpenGL





And then one time it froze and gave me this lol





And then I've got 1,108 on an iPhone 6s So this obviously says 1107. I've got another one that says 1109 but I'd rather go with 1107 than upload that again.


----------



## erixx (Jun 27, 2018)

I got 8500 with my new i9 system, totally all on auto, so I don't care to post a pic until I got it set up and rocking.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 27, 2018)

erixx said:


> I got 8500 with my new i9 system, totally all on auto, so I don't care to post a pic until I got it set up and rocking.



set the nv control panel to performance and it will help...


----------



## AlwaysHope (Jun 27, 2018)

2012 AMD tech with 2015 vga.
Silly me, forgot screenie with GPU-Z, but R9 nano @ stock.


----------



## max795 (Jun 27, 2018)

vulcan gpu1070 g1 afterburn core +104 mem +745 cpu i5 3570k 4.7 ram ddr3 2000 10\11\10\28\cr1     score5837   (gpu is water cooled)

opengl same oc above score 5960


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jun 28, 2018)

max795 said:


> vulcan gpu1070 g1 afterburn core +104 mem +745 cpu i5 3570k 4.7 ram ddr3 2000 10\11\10\28\cr1     score5837   (gpu is water cooled)
> 
> opengl same oc above score 5960


Dang you just couldn't let me have any time on top huh?  What are you boosting up to?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jun 28, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> @theoneandonlymrk We need your EK water cooled Vega64 on there!



Agreed, but he knows it's really no better than the 2 year old Pascal card so won't bother.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 28, 2018)

Fluffmeister said:


> Agreed, but he knows it's really no better than the 2 year old Pascal card so won't bother.




Now this might just trigger him enough to post a score. Or not. He may have ignored me so the burden to summon a Vega64 falls on someone else.


----------



## Justinus (Jun 28, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Now this might just trigger him enough to post a score. Or not. He may have ignored me so the burden to summon a Vega64 falls on someone else.



It's all right, his Vega 64 will never be as fast as my 1080ti


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 28, 2018)

Justinus said:


> It's all right, his Vega 64 will never be as fast as my 1080ti




You never know man, with Vulkan it IS possible for a Vega to be fairly fast.  And hey if you want competetion just page him with @theoneandonlymrk


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 28, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> You never know man, with Vulkan it IS possible for a Vega to be fairly fast.  And hey if you want competetion just page him with @theoneandonlymrk


It's only running on opengl for me ,vulkan crashes straight away on that bench, odd but ill retry later , open gl scores low.
I can't see it beating anything on this bench it seams to run better on pascal then any Amd cards , not surprised didn't Amd ditch basemarks creators for something??


----------



## Justinus (Jun 28, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> It's only running on opengl for me ,vulkan crashes straight away on that bench, odd but ill retry later , open gl scores low.
> I can't see it beating anything on this bench it seams to run better on pascal then any Amd cards , not surprised didn't Amd ditch basemarks creators for something??



No stability for Vulkan even on 1.0.2? That's strange. A friend with Polaris had significant stability issues that went away for the most part with 1.0.2.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 28, 2018)

Justinus said:


> No stability for Vulkan even on 1.0.2? That's strange. A friend with Polaris had significant stability issues that went away for the most part with 1.0.2.


Well only 1.0 link is posted in the Op so i have only tried that, I'll try it out and post here after the football.


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 29, 2018)

Justinus said:


> No stability for Vulkan even on 1.0.2? That's strange. A friend with Polaris had significant stability issues that went away for the most part with 1.0.2.



Even on the 1.0.2 update the Vulcan issue still persists someone on here suggested to uninstall the latest crimson driver and go back to 18.5.1 but I think that should not be required if basemark would get their collective shit together


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jun 29, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Even on the 1.0.2 update the Vulcan issue still persists someone on here suggested to uninstall the latest crimson driver and go back to 18.5.1 but I think that should not be required if basemark would get their collective shit together


cheers for the headsup , i downloaded what i thought was 1.02 still unsure because it didnt work, only V1.0 is listed on their website and the about tab tells you what the software is and who made it but not what version it is, totally useless about info ,fire the guy that wrote that, waf idiot.

anyway it works worse on open gl and not at all on vulkan.

and i'm not downgrading drivers to polish others epeen ,i dont mind running a bench for a giggle, even if my old pc with new gpu might make for a bad score but there is a limit.


----------



## zimilaci (Jun 29, 2018)

Hey There, 


the max I could squeeze out from my Ti ;((
i7 7700k Stock
16gb RAM


----------



## Vya Domus (Jun 29, 2018)

Doesn't seem like a very reliable or accurate test to me. I get extremely odd results , such as getting a worse score when the GPU is overclocked.


----------



## zimilaci (Jun 29, 2018)

Vya Domus said:


> Doesn't seem like a very reliable or accurate test to me. I get extremely odd results , such as getting a worse score when the GPU is overclocked.



I did not exceperience that.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 29, 2018)

basemark 1.0.2 is now on tpu and im adding scores now
link is updated

EDIT: im going to add which phone is in each score i dont like the way it is now



Nuckles56 said:


> OpenGL scores are slightly higher for a phone than the Vulkan ones by the looks of things
> View attachment 102909
> I also ran a 4k test just for fun with my phone and it outperforms my gt 745m in my laptop by almost 2 to 1 (though it uses a different texture compression method) and is half as fast as my RX 480 when using openGL and the etc2 texture compression
> View attachment 102910
> ...


phone name?


----------



## Justinus (Jun 29, 2018)

Nuckles56 said:


> I also ran a 4k test just for fun with my phone and it outperforms my gt 745m in my laptop by almost 2 to 1 (though it uses a different texture compression method) and is half as fast as my RX 480 when using openGL and the etc2 texture compression



The desktop benchmark runs on High Quality by default, and the mobile version runs on Medium Quality only. You need to re-test your GT745M on Medium Quality to get an accurate comparison, and you'll probably score quite a bit higher.

Running my 1080ti at 4k Medium Quality almost quadruples my score.


----------



## max795 (Jun 29, 2018)

new score i hope can see cpuz because is small    open gl 5968      vulcan 5840           gtx 1070
version 1.0.2




Spoiler: image


----------



## sam_86314 (Jun 29, 2018)

Ran on my laptop


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2018)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> It's only running on opengl for me ,vulkan crashes straight away on that bench, odd but ill retry later , open gl scores low.
> I can't see it beating anything on this bench it seams to run better on pascal then any Amd cards , not surprised didn't Amd ditch basemarks creators for something??




You may be pleasantly surprised by the Vulkan performance of GCN based GPUs


As it has been reviewed multiple times, Vulkan exist to remove the scheduler efficiency bottleneck on GCN cards and allow maximum utilization of the raw strength.


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 29, 2018)

@xkm1948 and what driver did they use to test those AMD based GPU's because apparently anything after 18.5.1 shits it's daks with Vulcan


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> @xkm1948 and what driver did they use to test those AMD based GPU's because apparently anything after 18.5.1 shits it's daks with Vulcan




They used 18.5.1

https://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/basemark_gpu_performance_review/1


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 103292


needs to be 4k high


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> needs to be 4k high



I pass.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> I pass.


4k works on 720p monitors its a weird test  its no problem xD


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> 4k works on 720p monitors its a weird test  its no problem xD



720p, who uses it these days?


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> 720p, who uses it these days?


people with X800 XTs


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2018)

Just run it on 4K Knoxx, it wont even be full screened.


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)

Does CPU's clock speed helps?


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> Does CPU's clock speed helps?



Don't know man. Check first page?


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)




----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> View attachment 103294


Thats default settings? It has custom score


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Thats default settings? It has custom score



What do you mean?


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 29, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> What do you mean?







Click the button circled out by yellow highlight


----------



## FireFox (Jun 29, 2018)




----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 30, 2018)

should i move this to the same thread section as my other benchmarking threads? in overclocking and cooling.


----------



## Caring1 (Jun 30, 2018)

I think it should be moved as it's more relevant there.


----------



## johnspack (Jun 30, 2018)

Has anyone else besides me run the linux version yet?  I'm really curious to see the results vs windows results....


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 30, 2018)

johnspack said:


> Has anyone else besides me run the linux version yet?  I'm really curious to see the results vs windows results....


post pics i may add another slot  that says (OS) and just combine them all but i need to make sure they are relevant first.


----------



## max795 (Jun 30, 2018)

sorry for add more but last run with vulkan score 5883



Spoiler: image


----------



## johnspack (Jun 30, 2018)

My results were all from linux,  one shows Ubuntu as the os....  also you have my nick on the results as johnpack,  and it should be johnspack. No biggie though,  nice job of organizing all this!


----------



## xkm1948 (Jun 30, 2018)

Yeah T4C is freaking awesome. Rarely see a dude enjoying organizing data and do such a DAMN GOOD JOB!


Edit: shit sorry i assumed T4C’s gender.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jun 30, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Yeah T4C is freaking awesome. Rarely see a dude enjoying organizing data and do such a DAMN GOOD JOB!
> 
> 
> Edit: shit sorry i assumed T4C’s gender.


im a dude and i just like  how the colors from amd nvidia and intel mix xD


----------



## Nuckles56 (Jun 30, 2018)

@T4C Fantasy The phone is a Sony XZ running Android 8.0


----------



## bubbleawsome (Jun 30, 2018)

max795 said:


> sorry for add more but last run with vulkan score 5883
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m actually super curious what your top boost speed is. My card is technically OCd higher than yours, but I’m guessing gpu boost is raising your clocks more under water. My full speed was 2139Mhz, going up to the 2152Mhz bin crashes it.


----------



## max795 (Jun 30, 2018)

bubbleawsome said:


> I’m actually super curious what your top boost speed is. My card is technically OCd higher than yours, but I’m guessing gpu boost is raising your clocks more under water. My full speed was 2139Mhz, going up to the 2152Mhz bin crashes it.


2103 with drop to 2088 memory 9500 you update the driver? if you push the card to much up with clock you lose
point you have to find the hotspot my memory go up to 9700 but i lose point with core i see artifact up to 2103 (my driver crash only up 2152)

i have to take some photo to my gpu because is like frankenstein for cooling max temp 42\44 degrees with 28.8c 34% ambient under bench 
2 years work like this i buy it day one


Spoiler: gpu


----------



## fusseli (Jul 3, 2018)




----------



## _Flare (Jul 3, 2018)

deinstalled it a few days ago

here is the Link to my official result
https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/24100/result

4283 Points

*Motherboard: *
ASRock B75M             

*GPU: *
Gainward GeForce GTX 980               

*CPU: *
GenuineIntel Intel Xeon E3-1230 V2


----------



## korn87 (Jul 12, 2018)

GTX1080 2190/12100
i7-8700k 5GHz
16Gb 3200Mhz 15-17-17-36 cr2

https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/26546/result


----------



## K2K (Jul 12, 2018)

i7 8700 4.4 GHz
Ram 2x8Gb 3000MHz
Intel UHD630


----------



## arni-gx (Jul 14, 2018)

new vga....





open GL 





vulkan API


----------



## jitherman (Jul 14, 2018)

Here is my current max score 

i7-7700K @5GHz
16GB DDR4 Kingston HyperX @2700MHz
ASUS 1080 ti Poseidon (+100 core =2113MHz / + 700 mem =6210MHz)
Custom water loop (both CPU and GPU water cooled in same loop)


----------



## Justinus (Jul 14, 2018)

jitherman said:


> Here is my current max score
> 
> i7-7700K @5GHz
> 16GB DDR4 Kingston HyperX @2700MHz
> ...



What core clockspeed does +125 run at on your card?


----------



## jitherman (Jul 14, 2018)

Justinus said:


> What core clockspeed does +125 run at on your card?



Sorry, made a typo it's +100 core and it runs 2113MHz


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Jul 14, 2018)

arni-gx said:


> new vga....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


list your cpu and gpu in your original post (the one im replying to) and tell me you updated it in a new post.


----------



## arni-gx (Jul 14, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> list your cpu and gpu in your original post (the one im replying to) and tell me you updated it in a new post.


----------



## IceShroom (Jul 14, 2018)

New score with dual channel ram.


----------



## Tarias (Aug 6, 2018)

Hi, here my vulkan



and opengl result:


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Aug 6, 2018)

Tarias said:


> Hi, here my vulkan
> View attachment 104967
> and opengl result:
> View attachment 104968


cant be custom though


----------



## Justinus (Aug 6, 2018)

I'm surprised we don't have any titan scores yet.


----------



## sam_86314 (Aug 7, 2018)

Ran on my main PC. Prime95 crashed my PC today, so I dialed back my OC a bit.

CPU at 4.3GHz
GPU boosts to 2114MHz


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 7, 2018)

So is this finally working properly on AMD cards now or  are we still having problems


----------



## AlwaysHope (Aug 12, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> So is this finally working properly on AMD cards now or  are we still having problems


Running fine on system in my specs. It's so AMD it's obnoxious.  
I'll have to bench it again with NB & HT tweaks.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 13, 2018)

AlwaysHope said:


> Running fine on system in my specs. It's so AMD it's obnoxious.
> I'll have to bench it again with NB & HT tweaks.



Which driver are you running


----------



## MrGenius (Aug 13, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> So is this finally working properly on AMD cards now or  are we still having problems


No more problems running the Vulkan test with the latest drivers(18.8.1) on my 280X.


----------



## xkm1948 (Aug 13, 2018)

Finally I can run it on Vulkan now. Not too bad TBH.

4.2GHz CPU and 1100MHz GPU.


----------



## Athlonite (Aug 13, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> No more problems running the Vulkan test with the latest drivers(18.8.1) on my 280X.



well then might have to download it again and run it fingers crossed



Well I guess not


----------



## AlwaysHope (Aug 15, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Which driver are you running



18.7.1 now but it's playing up with frame rate control in FO4...

I'll bench it with basemark gpu tonight when I get home.


----------



## AlwaysHope (Aug 16, 2018)

Can't run with Vulcan, app reports error.
OpenGL for now with 18.7.1, not going to bother with 18.8.1 until I upgrade some hardware.


----------



## Mr.KT (Aug 16, 2018)

With my 1080 normal setting without oc


----------



## MrGenius (Sep 6, 2018)

A little bottlenecked by my CPU(even @ 5.4GHz). But hey...still the best Vega 64 scores so far!   I just can't get it to score higher with higher clocks.  It'll run it @ 1695MHz core, but the scores stay the same.


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 8, 2018)

Alright back with a new score in the vulkan test and i manage to get the old girl to a top 3 place. I am very pleased with that thinking on how old the platform is i am using. GPU cant go higher or it crashes.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 8, 2018)

My score, 1080 on i7 7700K :


----------



## delshay (Sep 8, 2018)

Is vulkan 1.1 on AMD cards working with this program. Has it been fixed?

EDIT: It looks like no one has got Vulkan 1.1 to work with this program.


----------



## MrGenius (Sep 8, 2018)

delshay said:


> Is vulkan 1.1 on AMD cards working with this program. Has it been fixed?
> 
> EDIT: It looks like no one has got Vulkan 1.1 to work with this program.


Vulkan 1.1 isn't supported...yet.


			
				BASEMARK said:
			
		

> *Basemark GPU v1.0*
> 
> In the version 1.0, Basemark® GPU directly supports OpenGL 4.5, OpenGL ES 3.1 and *Vulkan 1.0* graphics APIs across Windows, Linux and Android. In upcoming releases additional graphics APIs will be supported including Apple Metal and Microsoft DirectX.


https://www.basemark.com/products/basemark-gpu/

The latest version of the benchmark is v1.0.2.


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 8, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> The latest version of the benchmark is v1.0.2.



And yet they still didn't fix it on AMD GPU's with latest drivers they expect you to downgrade your drivers to and older version just to run it


----------



## delshay (Sep 8, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> And yet they still didn't fix it on AMD GPU's with latest drivers they expect you to downgrade your drivers to and older version just to run it



Exactly, their should have fix it before releasing it. I'm almost sure Vulkan 1.1 was out before this benchmark.

& whats happened to compatibility from Vulkan 1.0 to 1.1


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 8, 2018)

delshay said:


> Exactly, their should have fix it before releasing it. I'm almost sure Vulkan 1.1 was out before this benchmark.
> 
> & whats happened to compatibility from Vulkan 1.0 to 1.1



They're the only ones it seems that are having a problem with compatibility no other bench I can run that uses Vulcan seems to have a problem with AMD's implementation or updating their tools to use the latest API's


----------



## MrGenius (Sep 8, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> And yet they still didn't fix it on AMD GPU's with latest drivers they expect you to downgrade your drivers to and older version just to run it


I'm able to run the Vulkan 1.0 test with drivers 18.8.1 and later, on both my AMD R9 280X & AMD RX Vega 64. It looks like it's working just fine with an AMD R9 Fury X now too.

I don't know what you're doing. But I suspect you're doing it wrong.


----------



## RealNeil (Sep 9, 2018)

1070Ti cards. SLI doesn't work in this test.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Sep 9, 2018)

@MrGenius What cooling are you running on that i7 3770k to support such insane voltages


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 10, 2018)

MrGenius said:


> I'm able to run the Vulkan 1.0 test with drivers 18.8.1 and later, on both my AMD R9 280X & AMD RX Vega 64. It looks like it's working just fine with an AMD R9 Fury X now too.
> 
> I don't know what you're doing. But I suspect you're doing it wrong.



Well It wont run on 18..8.2 on an RX580 8GB it just shits itself every time either it caks it right at the end or just wont run to start with but the demo runs perfectly fine though


----------



## robot zombie (Sep 10, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Well It wont run on 18..8.2 on an RX580 8GB it just shits itself every time either it caks it right at the end or just wont run to start with but the demo runs perfectly fine though


Same issue here with my RX580 4GB.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 10, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Well It wont run on 18..8.2 on an RX580 8GB it just shits itself every time either it caks it right at the end or just wont run to start with but the demo runs perfectly fine though





robot zombie said:


> Same issue here with my RX580 4GB.



Use DDU to uninstall old driver. That will remove your old Vulkan runtime as well. This should do the trick


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 10, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Use DDU to uninstall old driver. That will remove your old Vulkan runtime as well. This should do the trick



Well I did what you suggested and the result was 







Top one is OpenGL the bottom pic is with Vulcan and the driver version 18.8.2 and Vulkan™ Driver Version 2.0.49 Vulkan™ API Version 1.1.77 so for some unknown reason this test program just doesn't like my system


----------



## Justinus (Sep 11, 2018)

There hasn't been any competition, so I've just been competing with myself. My last attempt to make the 1080ti look good before it gets washed away under all the (marginally faster) Turing cards.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Sep 11, 2018)

This is my mobile score, Samsung Galaxy S9...Poco F1 results coming soon


----------



## os2wiz (Sep 21, 2018)

Here is my score for 4K high quality on Vulcan 1.0 fullscreen. I have an MSI Gaming X 1080 Ti on Ryzen 2700X and MSI X470 Gaming M7 AC at 4.2GHZ aand memory at 3466MHZ 15-15-15-32-64


----------



## max795 (Sep 29, 2018)

rtx 2080 10k with vulcan



Spoiler


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Sep 29, 2018)

max795 said:


> rtx 2080 10k with vulcan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


can you please go to the ff15 benchmark and run that too?
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...benchmark-results.242200/page-21#post-3912894


----------



## max795 (Sep 30, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> can you please go to the ff15 benchmark and run that too?
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...benchmark-results.242200/page-21#post-3912894


done


----------



## AnomalouS (Oct 2, 2018)




----------



## T4C Fantasy (Oct 2, 2018)

AnomalouS said:


> View attachment 107924


Nice! now do the ff15 benchmark!


----------



## AnomalouS (Oct 2, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Nice! now do the ff15 benchmark!


I'll DL it shortly and run it tonight.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 3, 2018)

Well here my little e5-1650 and 980Ti:


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 3, 2018)

Haven't played with it much but here we go


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Oct 3, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Haven't played with it much but here we go
> 
> View attachment 107936


Nice time for ff15 bench


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 3, 2018)

Annnnd beaten my own score. This card is fun!





Dialed in the GPU OC a bit more.

Nvidia GPUs are really fun to play with!


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 5, 2018)

@T4C Fantasy 

TPU is combing all my post so gonna need your help!

For anyone playing with Turing overclocking, use Afterburner. EVGA's Precision X1 is quite unstable and it will even cause system errors.





This is with latest EVGA BIOS that enables +30% power limiter


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 5, 2018)

Nooooooo my third place. That hurt the feels. Dam you 2000 series card

Oh well it whas fun the long it lasted. I whas prepared for it... but it still hurts...


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Oct 5, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> @T4C Fantasy
> 
> TPU is combing all my post so gonna need your help!
> 
> ...


Im more curious about ff15 benchmark, can u take #1?


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 5, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Im more curious about ff15 benchmark, can u take #1?



I will work on it over the weekend


----------



## os2wiz (Oct 5, 2018)

Here is my latest score plus cpu-z.


xkm1948 said:


> I will work on it over the weekend


 I paid $620 for a new MSI Gaming X Twin Frozr GTX 1080 Ti 6 weeks ago. I could have bought 2 for the price you paid for that 2080 Ti. I still do not see much value in the 2080 series as ray tracing is not worth a $300-400 premium and it isn't even supported yet in any games. Nvidia would have to kiss my buns and even then I wouldn't buy them until the price was a whole lot better. I may upgrade the end of 2019 when the AMD 7nm gaming cards are available. I am sure they will have ray tracing support at a more affordable cost.


----------



## johnspack (Oct 6, 2018)

Just got this card so didn't really have a chance to oc it to the max.  Needed to knock down a few more pascal cards....  Also added,  my asic,  may explain why this card ocs so high:


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 9, 2018)

New driver; rearranged my case airflow and most importantly I remembered to peel off all the plastic film off the damn GPU cooler. EVGA applied A LOT OF plastic film, I didn't even notice there were so many films on the GPU AND the fans! While I was at it I also peeled off some film on the PSU from a year ago. I need better eye glasses.

Well it helped the thermal a bit I guess.


----------



## AnomalouS (Oct 11, 2018)

Processor holding me back a little here maybe...    9900k might help soon...


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 11, 2018)

Careful OC the GDDR6, see some threads regarding going too far on VRAM and artifacting


----------



## AnomalouS (Oct 12, 2018)

xkm1948 said:


> Careful OC the GDDR6, see some threads regarding going too far on VRAM and artifacting


 I ended up backing it down quite a bit and found it more stable at +472Mhz (7472Mhz).   Even though without any change to core clock it would clock well above that and not artifact.    I am done for now with benchmarks and keeping it much more favorable clocks..


----------



## Enterprise24 (Oct 12, 2018)

How can I fix crash on startup ?


----------



## Athlonite (Oct 13, 2018)

Enterprise24 said:


> How can I fix crash on startup ?
> 
> View attachment 108537



you have to either dump new drivers and go back to an older version or just do what I did tell them it's shit on their FB page and uninstall it and forget it exists until they fix it to work with newer drivers and newer version of Vulcan/OpenGL


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 13, 2018)

Image 1  CPU: Apple A11 Bionic   GPU: M11 Motion
Image 2  CPU: Core i9 8350HK      GPU: GTX 1080   
Image 3  CPU: i7 7700                    GPU: Radeon Pro 555


----------



## Enterprise24 (Oct 13, 2018)

Enterprise24 / i7-8700K / GTX 1080 Ti / Min 86 / AVG 103 / Max 157 / API Vulkan 1.0 / Score 10384


----------



## xkm1948 (Oct 14, 2018)

New driver


----------



## AnomalouS (Oct 22, 2018)

There we go... well... I think there might be a glitch here...   flashed new bios to my 2080ti and first test I ran scored 19277....   gonna keep testing... this may be more for lolz than legit.   Based on the 
second score it is not legit?   22589?


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Oct 22, 2018)

AnomalouS said:


> There we go... well... I think there might be a glitch here...   flashed new bios to my 2080ti and first test I ran scored 19277....   gonna keep testing... this may be more for lolz than legit.   Based on the
> second score it is not legit?   22589?
> 
> View attachment 109170View attachment 109172


i dont know why  also minimum says 0


----------



## AnomalouS (Nov 2, 2018)




----------



## purecain (Nov 3, 2018)

purecain / R7 2700X / Titan V / Min 82 / AVG 125 / Max 212 / API Vulkan 1.0 / Score 12533  *I think the cpu is holding me back a little.. :/ good results from everyone though congrats


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 3, 2018)

purecain said:


> purecain / R7 2700X / Titan V / Min 82 / AVG 125 / Max 212 / API Vulkan 1.0 / Score 12533  *I think the cpu is holding me back a little.. :/ good results from everyone though congrats


you should run ff15 benchmark with that beast gpu
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/post-your-final-fantasy-xv-benchmark-results.242200/


----------



## argon (Nov 3, 2018)

4 Years old GPU, and still rocking it! Nothing special just may daily routine

argon / i7 - 6800k / R9-290X / Min 33 / AVG 38 / Max 53 / Vulkan 1.0 / Score 3881


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 4, 2018)

8700K @ 4.8GHz and stock Fury X. The GPU had a good new home.


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 14, 2018)

So I have a little good news for those of us AMD GPU owners who are having nothing but issues with this bench program direct from Basemarks FB team they say this...>>>

we are on the Release Candidate phase of Basemark GPU 1.1. It has a huge amount of performance and compatibility updates, these also include better performance for AMD drivers.

The public version is planned to be out by the end of November, there will be way more info this time about known issues, usability, support etc.

Best Regards
Basemark GPU Team


----------



## delshay (Nov 14, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> So I have a little good news for those of us AMD GPU owners who are having nothing but issues with this bench program direct from Basemarks FB team they say this...>>>
> 
> we are on the Release Candidate phase of Basemark GPU 1.1. It has a huge amount of performance and compatibility updates, these also include better performance for AMD drivers.
> 
> ...




This is why I have not bothered to upload my score. I don't have time to be playing around with old drivers just to get Vulkan working. This will change when I get the new update. I just don't understand why it has taken this long as Vulkan 1.0 to 1.1 is not much of a difference until lately when the new extensions were added.

EDIT: So it looks like when Basemark 1.1 is released a new thread is needed as it looks like a number of things has changed which may affect the scores.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 14, 2018)

delshay said:


> This is why I have not bothered to upload my score. I don't have time to be playing around with old drivers just to get Vulkan working. This will change when I get the new update. I just don't understand why it has taken this long as Vulkan 1.0 to 1.1 is not much of a difference until lately when the new extensions were added.
> 
> EDIT: So it looks like when Basemark 1.1 is released a new thread is needed as it looks like a number of things has changed which may affect the scores.


Im definitely not making another thread, it takes a lot of time linking scores and colors for 3 threads, move to my ff15 benchmark it's a much better benchmark


----------



## delshay (Nov 14, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Im definitely not making another thread, it takes a lot of time linking scores and colors for 3 threads, move to my ff15 benchmark it's a much better benchmark



This is why I would not have bothered starting such a thread. Any benchmark software that can't be bothered to work with the latest GFX drivers at that time, I just remove it from my hardrive.

If this thread does not close, then you will end up with users posting benchmark with the new 1.1 version. It's going to get messy if 1.1 scores are so different.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 14, 2018)

delshay said:


> This is why I would not have bothered starting such a thread. Any benchmark software that can't be bothered to work with the latest GFX drivers at that time, I just remove it from my hardrive.
> 
> If this thread does not close, then you will end up with users posting benchmark with the new 1.1 version. It's going to get messy if 1.1 scores are so different.


I can put an asterisk near all scores and version of score


----------



## purecain (Nov 15, 2018)

this is what happened to my thread and when I didnt take peoples suggestions, they took it personally. its all good, if you want your scores adding run the correct version. if not dont worry about it. it will still be interesting to see the scores on new drivers and versions of the benchmark in the thread itself... thanks for putting the scores up btw... much appreciated. @ T4C Fantasy


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Nov 15, 2018)

i7 7700K@4.8Ghz Aorus GTX1080Ti@1935/11664mhz


----------



## AnomalouS (Nov 15, 2018)

AnomalouS / i7-8700K / RTX 2080 Ti / Min 72 / AVG 144 / Max 287 / API Vulkan 1.0 / Score 14439


----------



## delshay (Nov 27, 2018)

@ALL

Basemark 1.1 is now available for download. Can someone please test with the latest driver for your GPU to see if it has been fixed & compare score to the old 1.0 version.


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 28, 2018)

@delshay on it like white on rice


----------



## trog100 (Nov 28, 2018)

with the latest one.. i dont have an earlier score to compare with.. 8700k at 4.9.. 






trog


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 28, 2018)

Basemark 1.1

6950X at 4.2GHz
2080Ti with +175 core and +650 VRAM 130% power limit.

Vulkan:





DirectX 12:






OpenGL:







I probably wont be able to test my old FuryX (now belongs to a teenage girl) any time soon. But I am definitely curious as how FuryX would stack up in the new version.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 28, 2018)

Are smartphone submissions still open?


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 28, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> Are smartphone submissions still open?


Always


----------



## Divide Overflow (Nov 28, 2018)

Something a little more modest:  i5 4690k at 4.4, Sapphire RX 590 OC Special Edition at 1620 / 2250
Vulcan:




DX12:


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 28, 2018)




----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 28, 2018)

R0H1T said:


> View attachment 111394View attachment 111395


Whats the phone and its specs


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 28, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> Whats the phone and its specs


SD845 | 6GB RAM | 64GB ROM | Poco F1


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 28, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> @delshay on it like white on rice



Apparently it's still not workin for me at any rate first run the standard one on the front page finished then BSOD (System_Thread_Exception_Not_Handled) while waiting for the results to appear
every other Custom run whether its Vulcan OpenGL or DX12 ends fully but sits there doing nothing forever open Task Manager and see Stopped responding msg next to the open window of the test


----------



## delshay (Nov 28, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Apparently it's still not workin for me at any rate first run the standard one on the front page finished then BSOD (System_Thread_Exception_Not_Handled) while waiting for the results to appear
> every other Custom run whether its Vulcan OpenGL or DX12 ends fully but sits there doing nothing forever open Task Manager and see Stopped responding msg next to the open window of the test



That does not look good. Let's see if anyone else has this problem. 

Is Basemark working with Vulkan 1.1?  Has anyone tested this.


----------



## XiGMAKiD (Nov 28, 2018)

Vulkan 




DX12 




OpenGL


----------



## kastriot (Nov 28, 2018)

Here you go:


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 28, 2018)

@kastriot but your using an old driver version 18.9.3 try using 18.11.2 and see what happens as the whole point of the 1.1 release was to fix the problem of having to use an old driver in order to get it to work with Vulcan


----------



## chris89 (Nov 28, 2018)

Here's mine with the latest version and the latest Nvidia Drivers to.

Chris


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 28, 2018)

kastriot said:


> Here you go:
> 
> View attachment 111405


i cant add this unless u tell me your cpu


----------



## Xuper (Nov 28, 2018)

I see Vulkan's Score  in AMD graphic is better than DX12's score , while Nvidia DX12 >> Vulkan.


----------



## delshay (Nov 28, 2018)

Xuper said:


> I see Vulkan's Score  in AMD graphic is better than DX12's score , while Nvidia DX12 >> Vulkan.



Well spotted, just notice this.


----------



## yeeeeman (Nov 28, 2018)

Galaxy S7 Exynos 8890 Mali T880MP12


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 28, 2018)

Since this benchmark now has a new DX12, here is a DX12 run as it is for now. Maybe try tweaking some more later.


----------



## trog100 (Nov 28, 2018)

is the several minute wait until it comes up with a score normal.. i assuming its contacting the mothership while this is going on.. i thought it had crashed at first but wait long enough and a score pops up.. though not always.. he he

trog


----------



## johnspack (Nov 29, 2018)

Fought with my card to finally get 1501 stable...  using newest version 1.1...  holding my spot as fastest 980ti!


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 29, 2018)

Iphone 6+

Kinda hard to believe i have been using this for 4 years now.


----------



## Gorstak (Nov 29, 2018)

A 3GB exe? Very nice. I suggest you make most of it some sort of database, and the installer a much, much smaller exe file...took me a minute to load it...I got a memory error message when trying to run vulcan, probably because I don't have drivers installed, I think it was the same error I got when running some other bench from this site....Opengl works, but I was watching a slideshow, and closed the test before it completed...


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 29, 2018)

the fastest Vega 56, Hell the only 56? what gives 

latest Version
Anyways here's just a little clock with the tiny tweeked voltages


----------



## Enterprise24 (Nov 29, 2018)

Gain marginal score from last run.
Benchmark V1.1
8700K @ 5.2Ghz + 1080 Ti @ 2214 / 1600


----------



## korn87 (Nov 29, 2018)

GTX1080 2253/12150.  417.01

*Vulkan 7823 *
https://powerboard.basemark.com/hwsubmit/44823/result
frequencies are stable:


----------



## infrared (Nov 29, 2018)

Hmm, not a lot of difference for me between 4.1ghz and CL14 timings, and 4.2ghz CL12 (I'm limited to 3333mhz, on a b350 board atm)

4.2ghz, 3333mhz cl12
1080Ti @ 2100mhz/1552mhz, I used heaven in the background to get the clocks to show on GPUZ

infrared | R7 1800X | GTX 1080 Ti | 80 | 97 | 150 |Vulkan 1.0 | 9709



Out of curiosity, daily settings, 4.1ghz 3333mhz cl14: 9675


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 29, 2018)

fullinfusion said:


> the fastest Vega 56, Hell the only 56? what gives
> 
> latest Version
> Anyways here's just a little clock with the tiny tweeked voltages



Can you try using 18.11.2 drivers as your still using old drivers (18.10.2) and the whole point of the update was meant to be to get it working properly with newer AMD drivers which this bench seems to hate with a passion


----------



## fullinfusion (Nov 29, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> Can you try using 18.11.2 drivers as your still using old drivers (18.10.2) and the whole point of the update was meant to be to get it working properly with newer AMD drivers which this bench seems to hate with a passion


I could but I wont, there's a reason I use this driver. TBH if I use 18.11.2 my card gimps, AMD has screwed something in the high state HBM that retards my card. I was the one that brought it to Vanguards attention and IMHO I believe they took something from the driver to compensate the high idle clock states. I seemed to be immune to that bug for some time till I tested whats out in the public now and it's garbage. As much as I'd love to help ya out I personally don't want to spend the next 2 days getting re-live and such working again. I'll run Decembers driver though for ya


----------



## oxrufiioxo (Nov 29, 2018)




----------



## Athlonite (Nov 30, 2018)

@fullinfusion yeah thanks I didn't even know they started gimping the RX Vega cards


----------



## FireFox (Nov 30, 2018)

I dont know how this works but here it's

*Samsung Galaxy 8+ GPU ARM Mali-G71 - CPU Samsung Exynos Octa 8895 2.31GHz *hope it is right


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 30, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> I dont know how this works but here it's
> 
> *Samsung Galaxy 8+*
> 
> View attachment 111553View attachment 111554


I will add in morning, add the cpu and gpu in ur phone to your post


----------



## FireFox (Nov 30, 2018)

Done.

What is the point running it at higher res?


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 30, 2018)

Knoxx29 said:


> Done.
> 
> What is the point running it at higher res?


your ok


----------



## FireFox (Nov 30, 2018)

T4C Fantasy said:


> your ok



I was just curious


----------



## trog100 (Nov 30, 2018)

8700K at 4.9 gig..






trog


----------



## johnspack (Nov 30, 2018)

Yep,  a bit lower in opengl than vulkan, oh well.  Still fastest 980ti on the block!  This is using ver 1.1 as well.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Nov 30, 2018)

johnspack said:


> Yep,  a bit lower in opengl than vulkan, oh well.  Still fastest 980ti on the block!  This is using ver 1.1 as well.


Thats 1.0 because thats opengl 4.3, 1.1 uses 4.5


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 30, 2018)

Open GL ftw.


----------



## johnspack (Nov 30, 2018)

Yep,  sorry:


----------



## MrGenius (Dec 1, 2018)

v1.1 with i7-3770K @ 5.0GHz + RX Vega 64 @ 1680-1690/1190






UPDATE: v1.1 OpenGL 4.5 with i7-3770K @ 5.4GHz + RX Vega 64 @ 1700/1190


----------



## Darmok N Jalad (Dec 1, 2018)

Tried to run it on my Ryzen 2400G, but we have a failure to launch. Too bad, as this little chip is pretty amazing as far as IGPs go.


----------



## MrGenius (Dec 1, 2018)

I edited my previous post. But I'm gonna put it here too. Because why not?

UPDATE: v1.1 OpenGL 4.5 with i7-3770K @ 5.4GHz + RX Vega 64 @ 1700/1190


----------



## Athlonite (Dec 2, 2018)

Holy shit I actually managed to get this work although only in custom bench mode 
Vulcan



DirectX 12


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

@Athlonite run it in 720p, your score should be double...
@MrGenius could you please run it in 2560x1080 resolution? I'd like to check some figures.
edit: hmm, I also tried running custom one, but It wanted network connection for some reason? Nice


----------



## Athlonite (Dec 2, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> @Athlonite run it in 720p, your score should be double...



I don't game in 720p so I choose to run it at the res I do game at 1920x1080p


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

Athlonite said:


> I don't game in 720p so I choose to run it at the res I do game at 1920x1080p



Well this is just a bench, not a game. What is 60 fps in bench isn't necessarily 60fps in a game. Your gpu does 40 gigapixels per seconds, meaning it loses power above 720p....at 1080p you will play without at least a third of it's power


----------



## Xuper (Dec 2, 2018)

i can't run bench , only 4K .wasted 3GB for this bench....i  knew i wouldn't download it


----------



## MrGenius (Dec 2, 2018)

Xuper said:


> i can't run bench , only 4K .wasted 3GB for this bench....i  knew i wouldn't download it


You don't need a 4K display to run the benchmark. If that's what you're thinking. It will render @ 4K on any size display.


Gorstak said:


> @MrGenius could you please run it in 2560x1080 resolution?


The only custom render resolutions it offers me are:

1280x720
1920x1080
2560x1440
3840x2160

I could do 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 I suppose. Which one, and which API?


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

No, none of those fit. I'd like to know how well a vega 64 would do, with it's 90 gp/s, which are perfect for 2560x1080.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Dec 2, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> No, none of those fit. I'd like to know how well a vega 64 would do, with it's 90 gp/s, which are perfect for 2560x1080.


Those are theoretical numbers they hardly mean anything anymore since architectures change a lot, especially over the years and bottlenecks in memory and other stuff etc etc


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

I've done some rough math and posted it at my website, http://napravio.ga
Not precise figures, but should be viable.


----------



## Xuper (Dec 2, 2018)

bench can't run.even custom test doesn't work.is there any output file about this error ?


----------



## MrGenius (Dec 2, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> I'd like to know how well a vega 64 would do, with it's 90 gp/s, which are perfect for 2560x1080.


Well, for one thing, I'm "overclocked"(in theory, not so much in practice) well beyond that. And, for another, the core clocks on Vega are all over the place(constantly changing) while running 3D apps. It all depends on temperature, load, and what P-states are enabled/disabled. Even with just 1 P-state enabled the core clocks will vary by at least 20-30MHz or more(on my card). So getting a steady 90 GPixel/s would be impossible anyway.

Not sure where you're getting that 90 GPixel/s from either. "Stock" for Vega 64 is 104.3 GPixel/s @ 1630MHz core.




I'd have to "underclock" to 1406MHz core to get 90 GPixel/s.


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

Oh, I think I saw 90 gps figure in this site's database...thanks.


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Dec 2, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> Oh, I think I saw 90 gps figure in this site's database...thanks.


Because we go by amds clocks, vega doesnt have a boost clock in reality, 1630 is the base clock according to bios and it throttles to "base"


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

ahh, so sites database is correct then...thanks


----------



## T4C Fantasy (Dec 2, 2018)

Gorstak said:


> ahh, so sites database is correct then...thanks


Their both right basically


----------



## Gorstak (Dec 2, 2018)

yup


----------



## infrared (Dec 3, 2018)

Just tried the mobile version, not bad 

Infrared | Sony XZ3 | Snapdragon 845 | Adreno 630 | 13. 62 | 32.75 | 66.46 | OpenGL ES 3.1 | 3274


----------



## yamaci17 (Dec 8, 2018)




----------



## Xuper (Dec 8, 2018)

When I click "run" , Nothing happens , any idea? Is there any Error output to see why Bench does not run?


----------



## FireFox (Dec 14, 2018)




----------



## FireFox (Dec 24, 2018)

Update


----------



## biffzinker (May 6, 2019)

Vulkan 1.0




DirectX 12




OpenGL 4.5




Hw Info.


----------



## TxGrin (Nov 3, 2019)

RTX 2080 Super


----------



## RealNeil (Nov 4, 2019)

Coffee Lake i7-8700K @4974MHz.
ASUS Prime Z370A
32GB Ram @ 3246MHz.
SLI GFTX-1080 FE's (only one enabled, as usual, in this test)


----------



## AnjuRatty (Nov 23, 2019)

a pretty surprising result for a GTX 1650 Mobile GPU


----------



## Vlada011 (Jun 11, 2020)

*GTX1080Ti Poseidon default
Basemark GPU 1.2.0

Vulkan*





*DX12





OpenGL



*


----------



## Athlonite (Jun 12, 2020)

V1.2   AMD R7 3700X and RX5700 8GB


----------



## RealNeil (Jun 12, 2020)

I9-9900K
64GB DDR4-4133 RAM
Two GTX-1080FE GPUs (SLI)


----------



## Deleted member 197986 (Jun 24, 2020)




----------



## puma99dk| (Jun 27, 2020)

What do I do when Basemark just freezes when it's done with the benchmark and tries to load the menu?

Because I don't get a crash report and event viewer doesn't give anything useful and just shows application crash?


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 2, 2020)

Finally after updating to AMD's Adrenalin 2020 Edition 20.5.1 June Beta I got Basemark to work 




Link: https://powerboard.basemark.com/benchmark-result/790879


----------



## argon (Jul 2, 2020)

here is my new 5700xt nitro+ pretty good graphics cards for 400eur ! stock voltage 2150/1900


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 2, 2020)

argon said:


> View attachment 160969
> 
> here is my new 5700xt nitro+ pretty good graphics cards for 400eur ! stock voltage 2150/1900



Nice do I really have to OC to keep up


----------



## argon (Jul 2, 2020)

oc is free for me, I didnt had to touch voltage so why not?

you already won imho, look at those fps drop I have, that my core getting saturated, 3900x gaming is good, 6/12 is getting poor like for 4/8 in 2016


----------



## Deleted member 197986 (Jul 3, 2020)




----------



## pyrotenax (Sep 26, 2021)

Late to the party ....
Vulcan set first first , then DX12

*Rizen 5900X | ROG STRIX RTX 3080 10G WHITE V2 | Vulcan*










*Rizen 5900X | ROG STRIX RTX 3080 10G WHITE V2 |DX12*


----------



## Athlonite (Sep 26, 2021)

Athlonite said:


> V1.2   AMD R7 3700X and RX5700 8GB
> 
> View attachment 158691


Well a marked improvement over the RX5700


----------



## DoH! (Sep 26, 2021)




----------



## ThrashZone (Sep 26, 2021)

Hi,
@W1zzard 
No fix for the leader board in the op ?


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 26, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> @W1zzard
> No fix for the leader board in the op ?


?


----------



## ThrashZone (Sep 26, 2021)

W1zzard said:


> ?


Hi,
Looks like it got borked after format change.


----------



## W1zzard (Sep 27, 2021)

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Looks like it got borked after format change.


done


----------



## QuietBob (Sep 27, 2021)

3300X @ 4.5 all core, 6600XT @ stock + SAM:


----------



## Justinus (Sep 27, 2021)

Just got a random email about new posts here, so I ran the latest version. 6900XT Strix and 5950X all stock, except the system ram at 3800C14.


----------

