# Unigine valley benchmark is getting an upgrade.



## purecain (Oct 4, 2016)

well my benchmark thread was taken away from me whilst I had a long stay in hospital(bone marrow problems).
anyway I seem to of beaten this illness back for now.
ive lost all privileges to even post in the thread and no one is updating it. so I'm dropping the scores below. post here from now on.
-
-
unigine Valley is at 1.4, run it and leave your scores here. I can copy most of the scores over from my old thread.
-
we have had two big upgrades since that thread started and the scores only become more relevant as we can compare them to our new systems.
-
I myself will be purchasing a titan x pascal at the end of the month and with that I will post up scores immediately.
-
looking forward to 2017. with pcie 4 on the way we have an amazing year to look forward to.
-
cheers TPU.


----------



## purecain (Oct 4, 2016)

Valley benchmark... NEW RULES!!!!!! please note that you must also rerun the benchmark @4k

1080p=Legacy
4k= New Industry Standard
(Both scores are relevant)
Thankyou TPU

Lets see who has the best silicon.

Tessellation should be set to maximum...
Preset: Custom
API: DX11
Quality: Ultra
Stereo 3d: Disabled
Monitors: Single
Anti Aliazing: x4
Full screen: yes
Resolution: 1920x1080 / 4096x2160

one last note. if you upgrade your gpu, I will leave your old gpu's score to help better build the database. 


heres the list without the template. btw whoever changed things whilst I was sick took away the scoring. I really don't appreciate this. the reason I bench is to get that number one slot. so I'm putting the numbers back in. lets see whos number 1 and for how long.

To be No1 is to have the most powerful gpu setup of all members at TPU.
the top 20 are numbered and are our most extreme members.

*         Score1080p * *User* *GPU* *Clocks    * *CPU* *GHz*
No1-8049 Mydog             GTX Titan X SLI 1732/4109 i7 5960x 3.0
2----7011 turner123         GTX980 SLI noinfo i7 4790k 4.8
3----6888 Mydog             GTX 780 Classified SLI 1305/1773 --------
4----6860 MetalRacer      GTX Titan SLI ------- i7 4930K 5.3
5----6659 purecain           Titan X Pascal +140/5000 i7 4770K 4.4
6----6542 15th Warlock   GTX 980 SC SLI 1532/2009 i7 4770k 4.7
7----6334 RealNeil           GTX 980 SLI 1498/3510 i7 4790k
8----6327 woun               GTX 1080 2220/5600 i7 4700MQ 4.4
9----6154 15th Warlock   GTX Titan SC SLI 1186/1687 i7 4770k 4.7
10----6072 D007                GTX 980 SLI i7 4770k
11----6067 mepesdhs        GTX 980 ACS2 SLIx3 1366/----- i7 3930k 4.8 x6
12----6022 HammerON     GTX 780 SLI MSI 1124/1552 i7 4770k 4.7
13---6010 springs113       R9 290X/2X R9 290 CF 1075/1250 i7 5930k 4.6
14---5985 slosomby        GTX1080 1887/        i7 6700K  4.6 HP off
14---5983 Vistaron           GTX 780Ti SLI stock i7 4960X
15---5979 kronik1             R9 290x qelid icy vision CF 1150/1600 i7 5820k 4.5
16---5854 Robert BourgoinGTX 980Ti SLI oc? 5930K CPU @ 3.57GHz x6
17---5825 Mydog             GTX Titan X 1519/7010 i7 5960x 3.0
18---5789 DinaAngel        GTX 780 SLI 1350/1600 i7 4930k 4.5
19---5761 JackATK            GTX 980 SLI stock i7 4790k 4.0
20---5745 MetalRacer       GTX 780Ti stock --------- ---------
5776 usmc362           GTX980m 1350/1500 i7 4960x 3.6 x6
5708 broken pixel     R9 290X CF 1100/1500 i7 3930k 4.9
5670 Alechord          GTX 780 x2 1346\3404 i7 4770k 4.2
5638 markyb2884     GTX970 SLI 1400/1900 i7 4930k 3.4 x6
5633 gdallsk             GTX 1080 2076/5500, 5820K 4.4 GHz
5584 fullinfusion       R9 290 CF 1037/1360 i7 4790k 4.8
5529 purecain           R9 290X CF 1100/1300 i7 4770k 4.4
5334 Vistaron           GTX 780Ti SLI ------- i7 4960X
5322 freeleacher       R9 290X2 1050/1350
5315 purecain          GTX Titan X @oc  i7 4770K 4.4
5282 DinaAngel       GTX Titan X base clock?+200/+400 i7 4930k 4.25
5253 HipCheck        GTX 970 SLI x4 1512/7605 i7 3770k 4.4
5215 Mydog            GTX 780Ti Classified 1500/2014 ---------
5183 Nossy              GTX 780Ti SLI i7 4930k ---------
5144 heky                GTX 1070 2100/4250 5820K@3.3 x6
5115 HipCheck        GTX 970 SLI 1445/8000 3770k 4.4
5110 fullinfusion      HD 7970 CF 1280/1790 i7 3770k
5098 WebTourist     GTX 780Ti Classified 1490/2050 i7 3960X
4919 almokinsgov   GTX 780Ti 1456/1917
4912 P4-630            GTX 1070 6500 @3.2
4896 Knoxx29          GTX 1080 X5677 @3.77 x8
4794 broken pixel   HD 7970 CF 1200/1700 i7 3930k
4792 Nullifier           GTX 970 1519/1853 i5 3570k
4780 Vehra86           GTX1070 2101/3373 i5 3570K
4776 usmc362         GTX 980m SLI 1360/1500 4960x 4.2
4752 radrock           GTX Titan 1400/1750
4747 Veyra              GTX 1070 +150/+300 i5 3570K 4.2
4721 Knoxx29          GTX 770 SLI i7 3770k
4678 ninja85            GTX 780Ti 1358/1975 i7 2700k
4655 HammerON    GTX 780 SLI 954/1502 i7 4770k
4606 Wastedslayer  GTX 780 Classified 1542/1965 i7 3770k 4.5
4601 Blin Dnero       HD 7970 CF 1175/1600
4594 webjeff            GTX 770 SLI 1201/1775 i5 4690k 4.4
4576 Tomgang        GTX 970 SLI 1513/1928 MHz I7 920 4.4
4571 AthlonX2         GTX 1080 stock i5 6500 3.2
4566 hanson1979    GTX 770 SLI 1267/1950 i7 4930k
4532 demo2fast      HD 7970 MATRIX CF 1200/1650
4532 fullinfusion     HD 7970 CF 1125/1575 i7 3770k
4526 Knight091      GTX 690 SLI i7 3820
4425 khemist          GTX Titan 1320/1914 i5 2500k 5.0
4425 broken pixel   HD 7950/7970 CF 1200/1600 i7 3930k 4.7
4384 the54thvoid   GTX 780Ti 1358/1825
4384 D007              GTX 680 SLI 1118/1842
4360 ursmeloman   R9 280X/7970 CF 1100/1500 i7 3770k
4335 Mydog           HD 7970 CF 1280/1700 i7 3960X 5.0
4323 LAN deRf       HA GTX 660Ti SLI 1267/1862 i7 3770k
4282 junclj              GTX 680 SLI 1150/1650
4258 20mmrain      GTX 780Ti 1243/1851
4252 MetalRacer      GTX Titan 1190/1727
4241 Wastedslayer   GTX 780 Classified 1358/1887 i7 3770k 4.5
4215 AlienDemigod GTX 780Ti 1200/1800 i7 4790k 4.6
4206 khemist            GTX Titan 1236/1877 i5 2500k 5.0
4202 HammerON     HD 7970 CF 1100/1375
4195 radrok              GTX Titan 1215/1883 i7 3930k 4.7
4192 Rdizz                GTX 780Ti i7 4790k
4165 rak526              R9 280X CF 1050/1650
4161 Zerosub            HD 7970 CF 1050/1375 i7 3930k 4.0
4095 Red_or_Dead    HD 7950 CF 1050/1600
4084 jordan1794       GTX 980 ACS 2 1531/2064 i7 4790 4.7
4078 dcf-joe             GTX 980 1556/3931 i7 2600k 4.8
4057 the54thvoid     GTX Titan 1202/1751 i7 3930k
4050 GreiverBlade    GTX 980 stock i5 4690k 3.5
4017 PainfulByte       GTX 780Ti ? i7 3770k 4.6
4009 quest4glory      GTX 780 classified 1361/1588 4790k 4.39
3988 SonDa5             R9 290X 1273/1616 i7 4770k
3959 EarthDog          GTX 780 1280/1603 i7 4770k
3957 Wastedslayer    GTX 780 Lightning 1385/1645 i7 3770k 4.5
3910 ninja85              GTX 780 1293/1800 i7 2700k
3905 rak526               R9 280X CF i5 4670k
3900 20mmrain         GTX Titan i7 3930k 4.6
3896 15th Warlock    R9 290X 1150/1515 i7 4770k 4.7
3865 Nossy                GTX 780Ti i7 4930k
3863 Dj-ElectriC         GTX 780Ti i7 4960X
3847 xtremesv           GTX 660Ti SLI 1033/1675 i5 3570k
3845 Johan45            GTX 580 SLI 950/1260 FX8350 5.3
3824 AgeirAsgaut      GTX 980 ACX2.0 no info i7 2600k 4.7Ghz
3815 The N                R9 280 CF stock i5 2500k 4.0
3800 Lgn                    GTX 780 ? i7 4790k 4.0
3782 z1tu                   GTX 780 1241/1584 i5 4690k 4.5
3774 Cuark                 GTX 980 1311/1858 i5 4690k
3770 Pinscher             HD 7970 1000/1400 i5 2500k
3768 NinkobEi           R9 Fury 1103/500  i5 3570K 4.0
3684 Locksmith          GTX 970 1568/8034 i7 4790k 4.6
3660 Lgn                    GTX 780 1100/1603 i7 4790k 4.6
3656 ajax                   GTX 780 stock i7 2600k 4.4
3648 erixx                  GTX 980 1542/3605 i7 4790k 4.0
3646 typicalintrovert GTX 780 1223/1502 i5 3570k
3641 purecain            R9 290X 1230/1395 i7 4770k 4.2
3617 ArkCursis           R9 290X 1190/1610 i7 4790k 4.75
3606 Deepcuts           GTX 970 Amp Omega oc i7 4770k
3596 gamble              GTX 970 1516/1867 i7 3770k 5.0
3591 jboydgolfer        GTX 970 1545/1866 Xeon E3-1231v3 3.4
3580 TheHunter         GTX 780 1228/1502
3542 renzkuken          R9 290X 1285/1625 i5 3570k
3499 Neolordz            R9 290X 1235/1425 i7 4820k
3478 cestessr              R9 290X 1100/1600 i7 3770k 4.7
3474 AlienDemigod    R9 290X 1245/1445 i7 4790k
3462 MxPhenom 216  GTX 780 1137/1550 i7 4770k
3428 garbagejuicer     HD 7870 CF 1175/1525 FX8350 4.9
3444 many167            GTX 970 1554/2000 i5 4670k 3.4
3352 Paulenski            R9 290X 1118/1500 i7 3770k 4.4
3340 petedread          R9 290X 1080/1362 i7 4770k
3332 Estaric                R9 Fury  1074/525 i7 2600k 3.5
3311 WhiteNoise        GTX 970 i5 2500k 4.4
3210 Jborg                  GTX 970 Windforce Superclocked oc FX 8350 4.3
3164 xzerqiin              R9 290 1100/1250 i7 3960X
3134 rtwjunkie            GTX 780 863/1502 i7 2600k
3129 kingdiamond     GTX 970 1314/1953 FX 8350 4.34
3077 kurosenpai         GTX 970 AMP Omega 1302/1862 i5 3450
3048 tanaka6149        GTX 970 -------- i5 750 3.9
3045 Durvelle27          HD 7870 CF 1150/1450 FX8320
3039 HammerON        GTX 780 954/1502 i7 4770k
3016 The N                  GTX 780 stock i5 2500k stock
3007 Rangerjr1            HD 7970 1350/1880 i7 3930k 4.7
2990 Durvelle27          R9 290 1100/1440 FX8350
2952 HazMatt             GTX 770 1306/2063 i5 2500k 4.0
2902 GreiverBlade       580 SLI 900/1050 Xeon E3-1275V2
2884 MightyMission   GTX 680 1259/1802 i5 2500k
2867 Fatal                   HD 6950 CF 930/1420 i7 950 i5 3450
2857 MYPG0306         GTX 780 967/1502 i5 3570k
2852 ImJJames            HD 7850 CF 1150/1400 FX-6300 4.6
2852 Nuckles              RX 480 1400/1900 i5 6500 3.2
2797 Dice                    GTX 680 1300/1750 ------- -------
2790 D1NKY HD 7970 i7 2700k ------- -------
2779 petedread HD 6970 CF 880/1375 i7 4770k
2773 Knoxx29 GTX 770 1280/1800 i7 4790k 4.6
2756 Arctucas GTX 560Ti SLI 1000/1100
2748 newconroer R9 290 i7 2600k
2742 erocker HD 7970 1300/1700 i7 3770k 4.6
2732 Durvelle HD 7970 1300/1850 FX8320
2704 Maleko GTX 770 i7 4770k 4.4
2700 The N HD 7970 1260/1625 i5 2500k 4.0
2693 dcf-joe GTX 670 1306/1851 i7 2600k 4.8
2688 xzerqiin HD 7970 1250/1850 i7 3960X
2666 Z77 HD 7850 CF 980/1200 i5 3570k
2642 Paulenski HD 7850 CF 1026/1395 i7 3770k 4.3
2640 GreiverBlade GTX 770 1268/1850 Xeon E3-1275V2
2639 kingdiamond GTX 770 1293/1944 FX8350
2633 Vayra86 GTX 770 1280/1950 i5 3570k
2553 The N HD 7950 1250/1700 i5 3570 3.4
2553 Recon-UK GTX 670 1202/3444 E5640 2.67
2503 D1NKY HD 7950 1225/1750 FX8350 4.4
2499 Recon-UK GTX 670  1150/3444 XEON E5640 4.3ghz
2497 Steevo HD7970 stock X6 1100T
2494 Tatty One Sapphire R9 280X VapourX 1190/1550 Pentium G3258 4.2
2455 xenocea GTX 670 i7 2700k 4.9
2451 ahujet    ASUS R9 280X V2 1150/1500 4670k@3.4
2553 Tatty_One R9 280X 1150/1550 i7 930 4.3
2415 EvolvA GTX 670 1086/1702 i5 3570k 4.4
2394 mingolito R9 280 1202/1818 FX8320
2392 bozo6 GTX 680 X6 1100T
2385 Schmuckley HD 7970 1184/1753 Pentium G3258 4.59
2371 kingdiamond R9 280X 1200/1750 FX8350
2342 itsakjt R9 280X 1200/1707 X4 955
2341 Eroticus HD 5870 CF 890/1290 i7 3930k
2336 puma99kd GTX 670 DC2 4GB 1135/1665
2325 Exceededgoku HD 7970 Sapphire 6GB 1149/1612 FX8350 4.6
2320 johnspack GTX 480 SLI 850/1000 i7 950 4.0
2314 shovenose GTX 670 954/1550 i7 4770k
2257 AphexDreamer R9 280X 1100/1600 FX8320
2197 MrGenius R9 280x 1200/1850 Core2Duo E8600 3.33
2123 Fluffmeister GTX 670 ------- i7 920
2107 toilet pepper HD 7950 1170/1470 FX8320
2084 Kapitan Harlock HD 7950 1150/1536 Xeon 3520 3.7
2071 CAPSLOCKSTUCK HD 7970 SC 1000/1450 Xeon X5670 4.4
1999 HammerON HD 7970 i7 970 4.4
1979 GreiverBlade GTX 580 950/1175 i7 920
1937 Wrigleyvillain HD 7950 1200/1350 i5 3570k 4.3
1922 paulobraveheart GTX 750Ti Twin Frozr stock phenom 2 955 BE 3.4
1909 grunt_408 HD 7950 i7 920 3.8
1871 Lui Layland Robert R9 270x tri x 1300/1530 i5 4570 3.2
1838 legion1capone GTX 580 i5 3570k
1804 Delta6326 HD 7870 1200/1600 Q6600
1759 gabber640 GTX 660 1250/1500 i7 975
1754 Brokenbc R9 270 1210/1500 X4 B50
1677 Tatty_One HD 7870 1220/1375 i7 930 4.2
1647 AlwaysHope HD 7870 i7 860
1640 Riktar R9 270 1100/1500 Xeon X5450
1621 GreiverBlade R9 270 1050/1500 Xeon E3-1275V2
1604 _larry HD 7770 CF 1100/1300 i5 3450
1534 freakshow GTX 480 830/1000 i7 3770k 4.7
1321 gdallsk HD 5870 1000/1300 Q6600
1315 toppedro GTX 560 1000/1200 i7 2600k 3.4
1259 Spider-Vice HD 6870 900/1050  Q6600 3.0
1182 CAPSLOCKSTUCK HD 6950 840/1250 Phenom ii x2 550 3.1
1130 rokazs1 GTX 560 950/1000  Q6600


*  Score @ 4K* *User* *GPU* *Clocks    * *CPU* *GHz*
No1 @4k - 2541 RealNeil GTX 980Ti SLI @ ? i7 4790K 4.0
2.1599 Tomgang GTX 970 SLI 1513/1928  i7 920 4.0
3.812   Nuckles56 RX 480 1400/1900 i5 6500 3.2
4.706   Recon-UK GTX 670 1202/3500 E5640 2.67
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.


----------



## ahujet (Oct 4, 2016)

ASUS R9 280X V2 1150 core / 1500 memory, will post a better result once I have time to get my old overclock stable again


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 4, 2016)

purecain said:


> well my benchmark thread was taken away from me whilst I had a long stay in hospital(bone marrow problems).
> anyway I seem to of beaten this illness back for now.
> ive lost all privileges to even post in the thread and no one is updating it. so I'm dropping the scores below. post here from now on.
> -
> ...



I'm truly glad you are doing better now!!


----------



## peche (Oct 4, 2016)

purecain said:


> 4721 Knoxx29 GTX 770 SLI i7 3770k


@Knoxx29 its that you ?

Regards,


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 5, 2016)

*Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0*
FPS:
*139.9*
Score:
*5854*
Min FPS:
*29.7*
Max FPS:
*220.0*
*System*
Platform:
Windows 8 (build 9200) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5930K CPU @ 3.50GHz (3570MHz) x6
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 21.21.13.7270 (4095MB) x2
*Settings*
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 4xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
tried to inset file but said extension not allowed. I couldn't find newer version. downloaded from site.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 5, 2016)

peche said:


> @Knoxx29 its that you ?
> 
> Regards,


Yes that's me.


----------



## purecain (Oct 5, 2016)

please use techpowerup image uploader. just type it into google pls if your having trouble posting a screen shot.
http://www.techpowerup.org/upload.php
thanks in advance!


----------



## peche (Oct 5, 2016)

Knoxx29 said:


> Yes that's me.


my 3770K was there


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 5, 2016)

Html file not allowed, that is what I get ,
 I tried the screen shot program but showed : could bot register hot key for full screen capture, tried twice,
I need some more assistance loading the screen shot.


----------



## purecain (Oct 5, 2016)

Robert Bourgoin said:


> Html file not allowed, that is what I get ,
> I tried the screen shot program but showed : could bot register hot key for full screen capture, tried twice,
> I need some more assistance loading the screen shot.


yeah that's what I get sometimes. just re up the screenshot. don't use drag n drop. copy the forum BBCode.
I got it to work and so I expect you can. just keep trying pls. good luck.

open the picture and then press print screen. then open paint and press paste. save as jpeg.

don't worry if it doesn't work dude. just let me know whats happening and i.ll try to help. this place has a good knowledgeable community.


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 5, 2016)

Ok I snipped it, saved and uploaded with  the techpowerup image uploader, where it actually uploaded to I don't know. LOL


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 5, 2016)

<a href="http://s1233.photobucket.com/user/stilup/media/Capture.png.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i1233.photobucket.com/albums/ff397/stilup/Capture.png" border="0" alt="10/04/2016 photo Capture.png"/></a>
program shows I have windows 8 but I have windows 10 pro and cpu running 4181.2    
  32   GB DDR 4 @ 2400


----------



## trog100 (Oct 5, 2016)

my machine seems to have problems with the valley benchmark.. it only scores around 5800 at 1080 (lower than it should be) but manages 5300 at 1440 which i recon is about right.. 

things have changed over time.. one of the things is the resolution these things should be run at.. 1080 is to low a resolution for modern high end graphics cards.. 1440 makes more sense.. time to move on i think.. 

trog


----------



## purecain (Oct 5, 2016)

trog100 said:


> my machine seems to have problems with the valley benchmark.. it only scores around 5800 at 1080 (lower than it should be) but manages 5300 at 1440 which i recon is about right..
> 
> things have changed over time.. one of the things is the resolution these things should be run at.. 1080 is to low a resolution for modern high end graphics cards.. 1440 makes more sense.. time to move on i think..
> 
> trog


I thought about this, the problem is we would lose the ability to compare the old to the new if I change the settings. 
@trog100 - it sounds like you may have the temp limit set too low on your oc software and the cards are dropping from full boost speed.
@Robert Bourgoin when you upload your pic, right at the bottom it will offer up two links. copy and paste those links here. then when you click on one it will link to the server where your pic is stored.


----------



## FireFox (Oct 5, 2016)




----------



## trog100 (Oct 6, 2016)

my card settings and boost are okay its just something weird i notice about the valley benchmark.. when set at 1080 i get way lower scores than i should do.. at 1440 they seem to be what they should be..

comparing with the old is good but there comes A point when a step up in resolution is needed.. else what is meant to be a gpu benchmark becomes a cpu benchmark.. 

trog


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

MSI GTX1070 Gaming X 2012/2415.4MHz i5-6500 3.2GHz


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 6, 2016)

Zotac GTX 970 SLI 1513/1928 MHz I7 920 4.4 GHz


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

Sapphire HD 7970 SC 1000/1450  Xeon X5670 @4.4ghz


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Sapphire HD 7970 SC 1000/1450  Xeon X5670 @4.4ghz
> 
> 
> View attachment 79748



Uhmmm... Windows 8 CAPS? 
Win 10 in your specs?


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 6, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Uhmmm... Windows 8 CAPS?
> Win 10 in your specs?




im running W 10. @Tomgang s results shows the same o/s so i dunno......


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 6, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> im running W 10. @Tomgang s results shows the same o/s so i dunno......



Must be a bug in Valley, just like the vram isn't showing the correct amount on many cards.


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 6, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Uhmmm... Windows 8 CAPS?
> Win 10 in your specs?





CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> im running W 10. @Tomgang s results shows the same o/s so i dunno......



Valley can not recognize windows 10 and calls it Windows 8. Valley came out in 2013 if im correct  and windows 10 last year so i think valley just docent recognize win 10 cause it came out before win 10 and have not got an update to recognize win 10.


----------



## Paladone (Oct 7, 2016)

I only score 5800. What's wrong with my PC


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2016)

Valley is becoming far too lightweight these days... Heaven seems a better candidate now, esp because of tesselation used.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 7, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Valley is becoming far too lightweight these days... Heaven seems a better candidate now, esp because of tesselation used.



But..but.. Heaven means lower scores..


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 7, 2016)

i7-4790K and SLI GTX-980 GPUs
Hopefully, I'll get the six core i7-6850K system installed this week so I can compare the two.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 7, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> Valley is becoming far too lightweight these days... Heaven seems a better candidate now, esp because of tesselation used.



I could never understand that considering Valley is actually a newer one...


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 7, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> i7-4790K and SLI GTX-980 GPUs
> Hopefully, I'll get the six core i7-6850K system installed this week so I can compare the two.



I don't think it makes much of a difference if at all, because Valley is GPU bound and there isn't much load on the CPU when you run it.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Oct 7, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> im running W 10. @Tomgang s results shows the same o/s so i dunno......



Probably because W10 is basically 8.2


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 7, 2016)

RejZoR said:


> I could never understand that considering Valley is actually a newer one...



More variety in assets, higher detail levels and far more liberal use of tesselation and post fx.

Valley is a showcase of Unigine engine in a different setting entirely, a setting mostly optimized for Flight simulators and stuff.


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 7, 2016)

Valley however is incredibly punishing if you use Transparency AA filtering. Since 90% if not more of it are transparent textures (vegetation).


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2016)

<---System

Score:


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 7, 2016)

heky said:


> <---System
> 
> Score:
> View attachment 79779



Nice score but I can't see your clocks, cannot enlarge the screenshot.

Can you run it at Extreme HD?
Thanks again!

You can post the full HD screenshot in jpg.


----------



## heky (Oct 7, 2016)

Sorry...clocks are around 2100 core(its boost so give or take) and 4250mem.


----------



## purecain (Oct 8, 2016)

trog100 said:


> my card settings and boost are okay its just something weird i notice about the valley benchmark.. when set at 1080 i get way lower scores than i should do.. at 1440 they seem to be what they should be..
> 
> comparing with the old is good but there comes A point when a step up in resolution is needed.. else what is meant to be a gpu benchmark becomes a cpu benchmark..
> 
> trog


I cant really get away from this so I'm going to add a second score board. so one at 1080p and one at 4k for those that are using the new 4k standard.
otherwise as people buy new TV's/monitors and 1080p panels stop being manufactured these numbers will lose their relevance for those purchasing a new gpu.

what do you think????


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 8, 2016)

Can you make it "Extreme HD" settings for 1080p?


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 8, 2016)

Ok here is mine with AAx4


----------



## purecain (Oct 8, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Can you make it "Extreme HD" settings for 1080p?
> 
> View attachment 79803
> 
> View attachment 79804


I cant change the 1080p settings or all previous scores will lose their relevance. all settings @1080 must be the same. you can run at extreme if you want and I will add your score. but you will score lower in the top 10.

please note, 1080p and 4k scores are now needed. one or the other or both at the same settings as before please. this will help people upgrading to see which configurations are bringing in the highest performance. thankyou!
we can already extrapolate where the newer 1080 and 1070 fall in performance just from the few numbers added. this is the whole point of the thread. that and Epeen for the No1 graphically accellerated pc at TPU.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 8, 2016)

purecain said:


> cant change the 1080p settings or all previous scores will lose their relevance. all settings @1080 must be the same. you can run at extreme if you want and I will add your score. but you will score lower in the top 10.
> 
> please note, 1080 and 4k scores are now needed. one or the other or both at the same settings as before please. this will help people upgrading to see which configurations are bringing in the highest performance. thankyou!



Yeah I understand, just add my last AAx4 score then.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...getting-an-upgrade.226448/page-2#post-3535963

Thanks!


----------



## purecain (Oct 8, 2016)

I'm seriously considering another maxwell titan x for sli. we need someone with the pascal titan to run the bench here now. I wont have mine for another 2weeks.
look how well Mydog's sli Maxwell titan x setup runs. 8049 points is no joke. the paskal version scores roughly 6000points on extreme preset @1080p @2200mhz core on water or Ln2

2200mhz is the fastest ive ever seen a gpu run. crazy numbers.

the new titan x pascal struggles to keep the  gpu clock around 1700mhz without dropping to 1500mhz over an hours heavy use unless you have the fan set to around 60-70 percent. which is loud.
they also dropped out of stock and when they reappeared they have now become 100 pounds more expensive due to the deflation of our currency over the last month.
I cant buy one until I'm back at home and I'm out of the uk atm.  

I still want one though....  because when it arrives i'll be  for days...


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 8, 2016)

4K resolution at 4X AA


 

4K resolution at 8X AA


----------



## Estaric (Oct 8, 2016)




----------



## Tomgang (Oct 8, 2016)

If its 4K you guys want. Well here is what my 4K monster (or the lag of it ) can do. Ny screen is native 1920 x 1200 so 4K is simulated whit nvidia DSR. But this time cpu is only clock to 4 GHz cause i dont think cpu is so importent at 4K and GPU´s where at 99-100 % load the hole time.

GTX 970 SLI 1513/1928 MHz I7 920 4 GHz


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 9, 2016)

GTX 670 reference SC fro EVGA at 1150mhz

XEON E5640 4.3ghz






Major bios mod to remove Thermal throttling and unlocked TDP.

1202mhz 7ghz memory.


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 9, 2016)

My best result ever.

1202mhz  / 7ghz but board power at 150%






I am in the middle of this lot.


2748 newconroer R9 290 i7 2600k
2742 erocker HD 7970 1300/1700 i7 3770k 4.6
2732 Durvelle HD 7970 1300/1850 FX8320
2704 Maleko GTX 770 i7 4770k 4.4
2700 The N HD 7970 1260/1625 i5 2500k 4.0
2693 dcf-joe GTX 670 1306/1851 i7 2600k 4.8
2688 xzerqiin HD 7970 1250/1850 i7 3960X
2666 Z77 HD 7850 CF 980/1200 i5 3570k
2642 Paulenski HD 7850 CF 1026/1395 i7 3770k 4.3
2640 GreiverBlade GTX 770 1268/1850 Xeon E3-1275V2
2639 kingdiamond GTX 770 1293/1944 FX8350
2633 Vayra86 GTX 770 1280/1950 i5 3570k
2553 The N HD 7950 1250/1700 i5 3570 3.4
2503 D1NKY HD 7950 1225/1750 FX8350 4.4
2494 Tatty One Sapphire R9 280X VapourX 1190/1550 Pentium G3258 4.2
2455 xenocea GTX 670 i7 2700k 4.9
2451 ahujet ASUS R9 280X V2 1150/1500 4670k@3.4
2435 Tatty_One R9 280X 1150/1550 i7 930 4.3
2415 EvolvA GTX 670 1086/1702 i5 3570k 4.4
2394 mingolito R9 280 1202/1818 FX8320
2392 bozo6 GTX 680 X6 1100T
2385 Schmuckley HD 7970 1184/1753 Pentium G3258 4.59
2371 kingdiamond R9 280X 1200/1750 FX8350
2342 itsakjt R9 280X 1200/1707 X4 955
2341 Eroticus HD 5870 CF 890/1290 i7 3930k



Happy with that 


Ok kicked the theoretical ass off my 670 now.. 4K result.

Despite it's meh result it was smooth and not stuttering, if you know the difference between low FPS and stutter that is


----------



## Nuckles56 (Oct 9, 2016)

My RX 480 4GB 1400MHz core and 1900 MHz memory, I suspect that I'm held back by my CPU badly looking at the other scores. I'm also running win 10 AE and the latest AMD beta driver (16.10.1)


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 9, 2016)

Your CPU is not holding you back, shocked to see it only do 7 more FPS than my lowly GTX 670 though.


----------



## Nuckles56 (Oct 9, 2016)

That's what was bothering me as well, as an RX 480 should hand a gtx 670 its head on a platter. And it shouldn't be an issue elsewhere either as 16GB of RAM and it is running off my SSD as well. The especially odd thing is that I was watching and it was at 100% GPU usage at all times as well, not throttling or anything.


----------



## purecain (Oct 10, 2016)

I cant believe we havnt had anyone with 2 titan x pascal gpu's take the benchmark. I'm sure wizard must have one or three. although I understand he's busy with reviews...


----------



## Recon-UK (Oct 10, 2016)

Bruh 1202mhz is my 670 core clock, fix it please


----------



## purecain (Oct 10, 2016)

look in the top right hand corner of the screen shot. I took your boost clock rates. ive changed it for you.


----------



## R00kie (Oct 10, 2016)

GTX 1080 2076/5500, 5820K 4.4 GHz


----------



## ผ่อมด (Oct 11, 2016)

GTX1080

GPU mostly 2214MHz, CPU 4GHz


Spoiler: 1920x1080










GPU mostly 2202MHz, CPU 4GHz


Spoiler: 4096x2160










Evening run with CPU increased to 4.4GHz and GPU averaging about 2220MHz


Spoiler: 1920x1080


----------



## purecain (Oct 17, 2016)

wow the new 1080ti is coming on the 28th of this month and its a monster. I'm just deciding weather to buy that instead of the titan.
dropped £1099.00 on the new Titan X pascal.
Should be here tomorrow.  cant wait...   yeah it should get here some time when the winds blow to the east.
I have no idea when this new titan is going to get picked for delivery never mind sent to me.
great scores from the 1080 crowd btw. i'll update the scores tomorrow.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 19, 2016)

8xAA and 4xAA. They're both on slightly dialed back clocks. My memory doesn't seem to like going past +340 or so, shame because there's frames to be had there ...


----------



## purecain (Oct 19, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> 8xAA and 4xAA. They're both on slightly dialed back clocks. My memory doesn't seem to like going past +340 or so, shame because there's frames to be had there ...



ive been looking into this. I'm almost positive when you use a high memory clock it uses power the gpu needs. so by lowering the mem clocks you should be able to get higher gpu clocks and vice versa.

until we get a new bios that is.
I'm getting gpu withdrawal symptoms right now...  I neeeed that titan x lol


----------



## Steevo (Oct 19, 2016)

Mine


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 20, 2016)

purecain said:


> ive been looking into this. I'm almost positive when you use a high memory clock it uses power the gpu needs. so by lowering the mem clocks you should be able to get higher gpu clocks and vice versa.
> 
> until we get a new bios that is.
> I'm getting gpu withdrawal symptoms right now...  I neeeed that titan x lol



Yes, I've noticed this too. I'm also still on the 112% limit BIOS, can switch to 122% still. Interesting times ^^


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 20, 2016)

1545 core 1866 memory
Reference GTX970.
I dont have 4k, just 1200p, and that DSR is B$, so i posted what ive got.
Also, i couldnt find anyone else asking this, I might have missed it, but where is this 1.4valley your speaking about in the OP? where are the tesselation settings option?
I know heaven does Tess, but I have no setting in valley for it, and direct from the unigine site, i get Version 1.0, maybe your speaking about a paid version, but Im not buying it.
otherwise, i did what I could , with what I could find, doesnt seem to be any "upgrades" that I have noticed, but it seems as though Im the only one missing them...please enlighten Me if You know what I missed.not TOO bad for the ole _free_ 970.T/Y BB 
P.S. I just noticed, Does valley only see 4 threads? i see x4 in the CPU listing, must not offer HT support?


----------



## ผ่อมด (Oct 20, 2016)

@Vayra86 If you have Micron memory then there's a fix coming out you might be interested in. So far AFAIK EVGA has released updated VBIOS for their 1070's and users are reporting higher memory clocks as well as improving the issue.

Not seeing any power problems myself but perhaps a stronger CPU would help min/max FPS.


----------



## purecain (Oct 21, 2016)

my Titan x pascal arrived this morning at 7.30.

I'm about to give valley a quick run and i'll update the scores.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 21, 2016)

ผ่อมด said:


> @Vayra86 If you have Micron memory then there's a fix coming out you might be interested in. So far AFAIK EVGA has released updated VBIOS for their 1070's and users are reporting higher memory clocks as well as improving the issue.
> 
> Not seeing any power problems myself but perhaps a stronger CPU would help min/max FPS.
> 
> View attachment 80234



Valley is not CPU bound, so another or higher clocked CPU won't make much of a difference.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 21, 2016)

Someone has to be last.....

Radeon HD 6950 840/1250
Phenom ii x2 550 3.1ghz


----------



## purecain (Oct 21, 2016)

Using precision x I'm having problems keeping the titan gpu under 84c. there's possible damage from 85+ and I'm trying not to fry my new gpu. what temps are people getting with their 1080.
my Maxwell titan never went above the temp I set. I'm going to bump up the fan speed and see if I can get a full run without hitting 90c.

luckily I took the watercooling off of my old 290x. looks like I might have to install it on my pascal titan if these temps continue.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 21, 2016)

purecain said:


> Using precision x I'm having problems keeping the titan gpu under 84c. there's possible damage from 85+ and I'm trying not to fry my new gpu. what temps are people getting with their 1080.
> my Maxwell titan never went above the temp I set. I'm going to bump up the fan speed and see if I can get a full run without hitting 90c.
> 
> luckily I took the watercooling off of my old 290x. looks like I might have to install it on my pascal titan if these temps continue.



Stock blower = throttling guaranteed... put that thing under water! 

Another thing is that I've seen some users reporting worse results on Precision XOC compared to Afterburner. It may be worth a shot trying to OC and set profile from Afterburner, at least for OC stability. I'm definitely rolling back to Afterburner tonight, XOC has the most crappy OSD too and I keep searching around to find different settings... everything is under this small annoying window behind tabs instead of a regular, large window as it is with MSI AB. Man did they fuck Precisiion XOC up over the years... I loved the old version back in 2012 but now... The OSD doesn't even show CPU load, only temps :S


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2016)

You should really take the time to separate multi GPU vs single.


----------



## purecain (Oct 21, 2016)

the only reason ive left multi gpu in there is to allow people to see which configs have similar horsepower. yet I take your point fully onboard.

ive downloaded the latest precision xoc and I don't like it much iether. it did allow me to raise the fan speeds this time though and I was able to get a stock benchmark for the new TITAN X pascal.





heres a pic of my old titan at stock for reference.

http://img.techpowerup.org/161021/titan5315.png


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 21, 2016)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> Radeon HD 6950 840/1250
> Phenom ii x2 550 3.1ghz



The leviathan Build......All those before the beast shall be lain to waste.
@CAPSLOCKSTUCK , I and everyone else knows You had to hold that beast back..
thank You for leaving some valley left for the rest of Us. 
I miss my 6950, what a great GPU.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 21, 2016)

I think some multi GPU and single are mixed up

As


purecain said:


> 4919 almokinsgov GTX 780Ti 1456/1917



How can this "single GTX780" score be a bit higher than my GTX1070?

And there are more of those GTX780 scores, it should be GTX780* SLI* scoring around 5000.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Oct 21, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> The leviathan Build......All those before the beast shall be lain to waste.
> @CAPSLOCKSTUCK , I and everyone else knows You had to hold that beast back..
> thank You for leaving some valley left for the rest of Us.
> I miss my 6950, what a great GPU.






switch to the left and to the right


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 21, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> I think some multi GPU and single are mixed up
> 
> As
> 
> ...


Another good reason to keep it separate.


----------



## purecain (Oct 21, 2016)

ahh well I had some people giving dodgy scores. and the scores were edited missing out important info like sli.
i'll check these out now.

ok can those whome still use the 780 or 780Ti please run the bench and give us a better idea which scores are legit.

i need to install my X41 kraken cooler onto the titan. I'm going to wait for 3rd party manufacturers to produce some heatsinks etc.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 21, 2016)

Pushed the core a little further while slightly backing off on mem OC. Memory won't go past +300 with or without new Micron fix BIOS - even with +0 Core and +325 Mem its a lockup.

But, I broke 4K points, which was kinda my goal when I saw the 39xx score yesterday  This is +175 Core / +250 Mem. Seems like backing off a bit on memory works because the avg clocks are only 13-26mhz higher, but the score has improved by 240 points with -50 mem OC compared to my previous +150 / +300.

This run 's first 7-8 scenes it pushed a 2164mhz core clock, by the end of the bench and at 60 C stable temp it landed on 2126mhz. Remarkably stable clocks - it only drops the bins at each temp limit and nothing more. 

@purecain I'll submit the 4780 score a few post earlier for the charts. For now...


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 21, 2016)

700MHz O/C on the CPU and stock clocks on the two GTX-980Ti cards.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 22, 2016)

Is there a huge difference between scores for Valley on Windows 7 vs Windows 10?


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 22, 2016)

I don't know, but they say that Win-10 is a little faster between the two.


----------



## NinkobEi (Oct 23, 2016)

Man this bench does not like the Fury apparently. Are all of these benches using the same settings?

3768 Ninkobei R9 Fury 1103core/500mem i5 3570k@4.0ghz


----------



## Tomgang (Oct 23, 2016)

Im surpriced that the old junk i have can still be so hig on the list as it is. I mean its a 8 year old pc now, off cause GTX 970 Arent that old but CPU also still have a thing or two to say whit this benchmark cause if the cpu is under powered the gpu or gpu´s cant be feed and you will lose points. But it looks like X58 and a I7 920 is still some what capable compared to new setups.

Se my scores at #19 and #45.


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 23, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> CPU also still have a thing or two to say whit this benchmark



CPU speed doesn't matter much in this benchmark, it's not CPU bound.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 24, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> CPU speed doesn't matter much in this benchmark, it's not CPU bound.



At high FPS I do have the feeling it has an impact - however slight it may be. I've seen CPU load go up significantly with the new card.


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 24, 2016)

I'm getting ready to do an upgrade on my CPU. I'll post if the CPU change makes much improvement in the score.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 24, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> I'm getting ready to do an upgrade on my CPU. I'll post if the CPU change makes much improvement in the score.



same here, going to an 6700K this Wednesday. Right now this 1080 performs like shit


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 24, 2016)

NinkobEi said:


> Man this bench does not like the Fury apparently. Are all of these benches using the same settings?
> 
> 3768 Ninkobei R9 Fury 1103core/500mem i5 3570k@4.0ghz


I'll say, your fury barely beat my 970

Honestly it's a pretty weak benchmark, maybe you could try 3-D Mark. Just launch steam click on the games tab go to software download the trial


----------



## GHOSTVAPER (Oct 24, 2016)

3807 gtx 1060 6gb and i5 2500k at 4.5ghz



purecain said:


> Valley benchmark... NEW RULES!!!!!! please note that you must also rerun the benchmark @4k
> 
> 1080p=Legacy
> 4k= New Industry Standard
> ...


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> Honestly it's a pretty weak benchmark



I'm with you on this, Unigine needs to get their DX12 benchmark done soon.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 24, 2016)

AthlonX2 said:


> I'm with you on this, Unigine needs to get their DX12 benchmark done soon.



 To make matters worse, I forget where I saw it but on some website similar to tech power up there's a thread where people are running valley at minimum settings and 1600 x 900 resolution it's a freaking joke .
 I have a Texas instruments calculator that could do that & score well


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> To make matters worse, I forget where I saw it but on some website similar to tech power up there's a thread where people are running valley at minimum settings and 1600 x 900 resolution it's a freaking joke .
> I have a Texas instruments calculator that could do that & score well



Almost all of the sites that I have seen, run the test at 1920X1080 with everything maxed out.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 24, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> Almost all of the sites that I have seen, run the test at 1920X1080 with everything maxed out.



Yes same here, but it doesn't change the fact that what I said above is 100% true


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> Yes same here, but it doesn't change the fact that what I said above is 100% true



Do you mind sharing a link to that site?


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 24, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Do you mind sharing a link to that site?






jboydgolfer said:


> To make matters worse, I forget where I saw it but on some website similar to tech power up there's a thread where people are running valley at minimum settings and 1600 x 900 resolution



i searched something about valley a while back, i think it might have been why on Win10 it kept crashing @ launch for me, and i was looking for a resolution, and stumbled upon the site i mentioned above.


----------



## RealNeil (Oct 24, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> Yes same here, but it doesn't change the fact that what I said above is 100% true



I don't doubt what you're saying, not one bit. They sure do get some great scores, don't they?


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 24, 2016)

RealNeil said:


> I don't doubt what you're saying, not one bit. They sure do get some great scores, don't they?


actually i found it....here.



P4-630 said:


> Do you mind sharing a link to that site?


----------



## agent_x007 (Oct 24, 2016)

purecain said:


> ahh well I had some people giving dodgy scores. and the scores were edited missing out important info like sli.
> i'll check these out now.
> 
> ok can those whome still use the 780 or 780Ti please run the bench and give us a better idea which scores are legit.





GTX 780 Ti (Ref), with stock settings.
Limit to thermal tho (I let it run to reach max temp), and because of this max. GPU clock was ~920MHz, while 90% of the time it was at base *875MHz*, no VRAM OC (7000MHz).
Give me few minutes to get OC'ed result...

EDIT :
OC'ed - *1176MHz* usually, with low of 1153MHz and high of 1209MHz, VRAM @ *7492MHz*
Power Limit reached (107%), max. temp 78C, FAN @ 100% (again, I'm using reference cooler here).
I waited for GPU to reach 76C, before I started benchmark.



I belive my scores are good baseline.
Oh, I am using latest driver available at this moment (375.57) with Win 10 x64 OS.

CPU is OC'ed to 4,65GHz (not 4,53GHz).

PS. As to "4919 almokinsgov GTX 780Ti 1456/1917"
It seems, that it can be done with a single GTX 780 Ti (I gained 30% for +34,4% GPU and +7% VRAM OC).
1456MHz = +23,8% (over my 1176MHz), and VRAM's 1917MHz = +2,3% over my 7492MHz.
Now, 20% over my score = 5004pkt, so a 4919pkt score is within reason to have at 1456/7868MHz (depending on how stable GPU clock was during bench run).


----------



## slozomby (Oct 24, 2016)




----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> At high FPS I do have the feeling it has an impact - however slight it may be. I've seen CPU load go up significantly with the new card.


When you have a chance, test that and report back. 

I would bet you will find the difference to be less than 1%... or margin of error. If that is 'slight' so be it... (but I disagree).


----------



## slozomby (Oct 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> When you have a chance, test that and report back.
> 
> I would bet you will find the difference to be less than 1%... or margin of error. If that is 'slight' so be it... (but I disagree).



well my 1080 beats @AthlonX2 's 1080 by nearly 30fps. and I don't think the 100mhz difference in boost accounts for that.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2016)

Here is a run from a 980Ti.. 4GHz and 4.4Ghz 6950x


The pictures are huge.. its across 2 screens...




We can see less than 1% difference in FPS and less than that in the score. This is what I would consider to be 'a lot of FPS'. I also have results from what most would consider 'not a lot of FPS'. I can't post screenshots today for two reasons(but can give you results), but can tomorrow...if someone shows me how to capture it on a single screen please...

So here are results for a slower card...

4.2Ghz 6700K

1729 Overall
41.3 FPS Average
23.4 Min / 76.5 Max

4.7Ghz 6700K

1745 Overall
41.7 FPS Average
25.4 Min / 78.6 Max

About the only thing I see different between those runs are the minimums on the 980Ti. That said, at times that can be a bit all over the place too. So... I don't see  much difference in these data sets.



slozomby said:


> well my 1080 beats @AthlonX2 's 1080 by nearly 30fps. and I don't think the 100mhz difference in boost accounts for that.


And his results were.............................?

EDIT: Found them. That 100Mhz is going to get it close bud. Also, Valley doesn't report right so who knows what BOTH of your clocks really are. You need to show a graph like in MSI AB to see where the clocks settle. 

I also think threads matter to some extent. He has 4, you have 8.

EDIT: Nope.. threads don't matter, cut back both the 6700K and 6950X, same 1% difference (back down to 4 GHz and 4.2 GHz results).


----------



## slozomby (Oct 24, 2016)

here's my i7 clocked back to 3.2 with hyperthreading turned off to simulate an i5-6500 running the same afterburner profile as my above test.  i'll buy the 9fps being clock speed and memory overclocking on the gpu.  he also has the overlay from precisionX running and it says 1898.





edit:   here's 4.6 with no hyperthreading. same afterburner profile.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 24, 2016)

I love it when I have to search to compare.... lol

Here is my 980Ti with the 6950x @ 3.5Ghz

EDIT: I see that was with only 10t too...

Difference for those that don't want to look for it...

4.4Ghz - 4171
3.5Ghz - 4111 (also 10t)

Difference in my testing (1080p extreme 8x AA) with this setup is 1.4%.





EDIT2: Yes, I see the Precision X clock, that one may be right, not sure... you are aware that puts you likely almost 200Mhz on core clocks faster, no? What GPUz reports as boost is always VERY low, like 100Mhz low in a lot of cases. This is why I am saying to check the graph/sensor tab to see what your actual clocks were.... and why I ask in the 3DMark Fire Strike thread to report the ACTUAL boost so people have valid clocks to compare to. 

EDIT3: I see this testing is at 4xAA... wonder if that makes a difference...


----------



## slozomby (Oct 24, 2016)

ok here's 139 MHz difference

1987 vs 1848 as reported by afterburner. for around a 9 fps difference.
i7 6700k set at 4.6 no hyperthreading.



 



edit.
ran it with 8x aa ( still @4.6 no HT)
1987 score 4606 110.1 fps
1848 score 4589 108.2 fps
edit 2:
8xaa @4.6 w/ht.
1987 4876 score 116.5 fps
8xaa @3.5 w/ht
1987 4396 score 105.1 fps



AthlonX2 said:


> I think it has more to do with clockspeed rather than cores or threads. I dont think my 6500 ever goes above 3.2GHz



that's what it looks like to me.  but your i5 should boost to 3.6 on all cores.
make sure you bios is set to sync cores and 36 multiplier.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 24, 2016)

I think it has more to do with clockspeed rather than cores or threads. I dont think my 6500 ever goes above 3.2GHz


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 26, 2016)

jboydgolfer said:


> actually i found it....here.



ROFL

The 16x9 8xAA Windowed says it all really

EDIT: Also very nice to see my suspicions confirmed about running Valley at high FPS with regards to CPU clocks.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 26, 2016)

How was it confirmed? Considering i showed barely a difference at 100FPS and sloz showed a  huge difference? How do you walk away with that conclusion?


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 26, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> How was it confirmed? Considering i showed barely a difference at 100FPS and sloz showed a  huge difference? How do you walk away with that conclusion?



My point was, at high FPS the influence of CPU clocks starts to show. Precisely the difference between running the 1080 at 4xAA versus the 980ti at your 8xAA benches - sloz runs Valley at a much, much higher average FPS and his 0.9 Ghz difference in OC accounts for about 9-10% more average FPS.


----------



## purecain (Oct 26, 2016)

holy shit my cards started working overclocked the way it should. xoc kept the power and temp linked no matter what.  it gave me a big problem.






 not to shabby for my second run on AB. definatly going to watercool this card with my kraken. I'm just looking at the fittings now.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 26, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> How was it confirmed? Considering i showed barely a difference at 100FPS and sloz showed a  huge difference? How do you walk away with that conclusion?


easy test. I turned off AA and my gpu wouldn't hit 100% utilization but one core was pegged at 100%
when I switch to 8x aa cpu utilization stays around 60%.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Oct 26, 2016)

Hi guys....this is my very first post...I love to tweak my GPU´s like all of you in here ....at the moment I am stuck with "old" GTX 660TI 2GB(MSI PE OC) that I Flash bios and rise clocks and power limit.....

Current Clocks:GPU 1090Mhz/Boost 1145  Memory 1835Mhz

Here is the result:


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 26, 2016)

slozomby said:


> easy test. I turned off AA and my gpu wouldn't hit 100% utilization but one core was pegged at 100%
> when I switch to 8x aa cpu utilization stays around 60%.
> 
> View attachment 80473


Ahh, well, that is what we get for running this benchmark at 1080p and not its highest setting... a benchmark where the CPU can get in the way on only the highest of high end cards.


----------



## DR4G00N (Oct 26, 2016)

Zotac & Gigabyte 780 Ti's in SLI @ 1250MHz/2000MHz 1.212V
Xeon X5670 @ 3.2 (Stock)

Both GPU have modded bios to remove GPU Boost & Power limit.

GPU's only at 75% usage, I need to oc the cpu to at least 4GHz again.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Oct 26, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> @GreiverBlade I thought you said that CPU speed doesn't matter much in Valley?


----------



## DR4G00N (Oct 26, 2016)

Here's a run with 4X AA @ same settings.

GPU's only used to about 50% each lol. Only gained 0.3FPS over 8X AA.


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 27, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> @GreiverBlade I thought you said that CPU speed doesn't matter much in Valley?


It depends on the card it seems. Anything above a 980Ti (read a 1080) can see a bottleneck if there is nearly a 1000Mhz gap in modern INtel processors.

And there are people calling out Greiver?  



DR4G00N said:


> GPU's only used to about 50% each lol. Only gained 0.3FPS over 8X AA.


You smashed into the glass ceiling because of a generations old processor and SLI. Scores would be way higher with a 66/6700K.


----------



## DR4G00N (Oct 27, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> You smashed into the glass ceiling because of a generations old processor and SLI. Scores would be way higher with a 66/6700K.


Well, no doubt but for just $100 it performs excellently when workloads can utilize all 6c/12t. (6700K is $450 here by comparison).


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 27, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> It depends on the card it seems. Anything above a 980Ti (read a 1080) can see a bottleneck if there is nearly a 1000Mhz gap in modern INtel processors.
> 
> And there are people calling out Greiver?
> 
> You smashed into the glass ceiling because of a generations old processor and SLI. Scores would be way higher with a 66/6700K.



Yeah removed my previous post.
People with a new high-end card with an older CPU can see a CPU bottleneck and then overclocking can help.


----------



## Vayra86 (Oct 27, 2016)

The above results are a very good reason to base Valley scores at a more demanding setting, like the 4K setup and/or 8x AA


----------



## trog100 (Oct 27, 2016)

yep 1080 is too low for modern high end cards.. 1440 would be okay..

my machine scores nearly the same on 1440 as it does on 1080.. having said that my cpu only shows around 15% usage.. for me something aint quite right with valley..

trog


----------



## slozomby (Oct 27, 2016)

Vayra86 said:


> The above results are a very good reason to base Valley scores at a more demanding setting, like the 4K setup and/or 8x AA


8x aa makes sense. i got the 1080 so i could play at 1080p with everything turned on and still have great fps. until they come out with a ultra wide x2160 monitor i don't think i'll be upgrading to 4k.

even with 8xAA theres still a cpu limit when i downclock 1ghz (to replicate the i5-6500) . but its a much smaller % difference .



trog100 said:


> yep 1080 is too low for modern high end cards.. 1440 would be okay..
> 
> my machine scores nearly the same on 1440 as it does on 1080.. having said that my cpu only shows around 15% usage.. for me something aint quite right with valley..
> 
> trog



I'm not sure how you're accomplishing that. with 4xaa i drop from 145fps at 1080p to 87fps at 1440p. unless dsr is adding stupid amounts of overhead


----------



## trog100 (Oct 27, 2016)

i am running sli.. and as i say something aint quite right with valley on my machine.. what i aint entirely sure.. i think my 1440 score is about right and 1080 score way too low.. 

trog


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 27, 2016)

slozomby said:


> (to replicate the i5-6500)



Well I own a i5 6500 and this was my score:


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 27, 2016)

Not putting anyone down here, but the score list is formatted something terrible. Doesn't someone know bbcode,php or HTML that we can inject a nice looking table? And yes we really need to separate resolutions as 1080p is weak and cant stress a 1080 worth a damn. Could we have three tables with 1080p, 1440p and 4K scores?


----------



## slozomby (Oct 27, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Well I own a i5 6500 and this was my score:
> 
> View attachment 80512


almost exactly what i got with my 1080 when i downclocked it.







trog100 said:


> i am running sli.. and as i say something aint quite right with valley on my machine.. what i aint entirely sure.. i think my 1440 score is about right and 1080 score way too low..
> 
> trog



i didn't see your scores. what were they?


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 27, 2016)

slozomby said:


> almost exactly what i got with my 1080 when i downclocked it.
> 
> View attachment 80513



I'm curious... To what clocks?
Do you still have the full original screenshot?
On that I can see your card's clocks and temp.


----------



## slozomby (Oct 27, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> I'm curious... To what clocks?
> Do you still have the full original screenshot?
> On that I can see your card's clocks and temp.



sorry i meant when i downclocked the cpu to 3.2 w/o HT. the 1080 stayed at the same clocks i normally run 1987 MHz
temps on the card is always ~60c give or take a coupla degrees while folding for days on end



here's afterburner profile 1


----------



## trog100 (Oct 27, 2016)

slozomby said:


> almost exactly what i got with my 1080 when i downclocked it.
> 
> View attachment 80513
> 
> ...



i think my g-sinc monitor limits my maximum fps.. i never seem to see anything higher than 144 now.. looking back at some runs done on an earlier monitor the max was around 240 and the score 6300.. this was 1080.. this would explain why i dont see much difference between 1440 and 1080.. this probably applies to anything that tries to bang out extra high frame rates much over 144.. ..

trog


----------



## slozomby (Oct 27, 2016)

trog100 said:


> i think my g-sinc monitor limits my maximum fps.. i never seem to see anything higher than 144.. looking back at some runs done on an earlier the max around 240 and score 6300.. this was 1080..
> 
> trog


that would make sense.

try disabling gsync and see if it changes

You must *turn off G*-*SYNC* in *two* locations in the Nvidia Control Panel. You must uncheck it on the *GSync* tab, and you have to turn it off in Manage 3D Settings. Scroll all the way down to Vertical *Sync* and you'll see an option that says "*G*-*SYNC*" with the Nvidia logo next to it


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 27, 2016)

slozomby said:


> that would make sense.
> 
> try disabling gsync and see if it changes
> 
> You must *turn off G*-*SYNC* in *two* locations in the Nvidia Control Panel. You must uncheck it on the *GSync* tab, and you have to turn it off in Manage 3D Settings. Scroll all the way down to Vertical *Sync* and you'll see an option that says "*G*-*SYNC*" with the Nvidia logo next to it


+1... this isn't a time to save power and limit frames in a benchmark Trog. Run those cards like they were meant to for once!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Oct 27, 2016)

Same clocks on the GTX1080 : 2100 core / 5100 memory.  Just tossed the 6700K in and ran it stock with bios set to default. Score jumped 1000 points!!


----------



## trog100 (Oct 27, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> +1... this isn't a time to save power and limit frames in a benchmark Trog. Run those cards like they were meant to for once!



all very true if benchmarking is your game.. he he

i run them when i first get stuff "just to see" but i am long past that now 

as you know i normally run a 75 fps cap.. 75 fps being plenty enough for me.. 

its only with looking back to an old valley score done before i got the g-sinc monitor that makes it obvious that its my g-sinc monitor even though its not set to do it limiting my max fps to 144-ish.. i commented because i thought it was of interest..

my old score from a while back.. pre g-sinc days..






trog


----------



## salemuta (Nov 3, 2016)

*Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0 GHz Quad-Core Processor (OC 4.7)*
*EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC GAMING ACX 3.0  1708 / 1847 (x2)*

 






*@ 3840 x 2160*


----------



## DR4G00N (Nov 4, 2016)

Bumped my X5670 to 4GHz and got a score increase of about 39% (Vs. 3.2GHz CPU & 1250/2000MHz GPU's) with my 2x 780 Ti's @ 1200/1750MHz 1.212V.

CPU speed really makes the difference in this bench.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2016)

It does with multiple gpus, yep. they need to be properly driven, particularly at these settings.

And thats and old cpu.. makes sense. you sense. you'd see less sense recalling with a faster processor that isn't limiting the gpus


----------



## purecain (Nov 7, 2016)

bare with me on updating the scores guys, ive just had another trip back to hospital and I'm sick as dog right now.  I should be back on it next week. 

ps. nice score salemuta.


----------



## slozomby (Nov 7, 2016)

salemuta said:


> *Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0 GHz Quad-Core Processor (OC 4.7)*
> *EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC GAMING ACX 3.0  1708 / 1847 (x2)*


ouch. only ~20fps gain in sli.


----------



## Wimpzilla (Nov 8, 2016)

R9 290@1270/1651@stable gaming clocks! 2600k@4.5Ghz


----------



## ผ่อมด (Nov 8, 2016)

GTX 1050 Ti

GPU clock capped to 1911MHz, Memory 7598MT/s, CPU 4.4GHz


----------



## Wimpzilla (Nov 8, 2016)

I was wondering why i got so shitty score but i noticed u were 4x AA lol!

So again r9 290@1280/1652@stable gaming clock! 2600k@4.5ghz


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 8, 2016)

slozomby said:


> ouch. only ~20fps gain in sli.


low res, High end cards....needs ghz on any cpu. I bet it scales better with a higher res.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 8, 2016)

I propose we run this bench at 1600x900 like they do elsewhere and compare CPUs instead.

Much more interesting. These 1080's all score the same anyway


----------



## purecain (Nov 9, 2016)

your missing the point of the thread. its supposed to help people see what they can expect fom certain configurations.

if any of the settings change. every single run would need to be run again at those new settings for the scores to hold any meaning and be any use at all.

I added a 4k section. run that res as its the next standard. ty


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 10, 2016)

slozomby said:


> -please explain how your 6500 is clocked up near 4.6



Uhmm , where did you see that?
My i5 6500 is running at 3.2GHz stock (a few MHz OC because of my XMP memory profile).

The other valley screenshot was from Greiverblade with OC'd i5 6600K @4.4GHz, his result was a little lower than mine with i5 6500 @ stock.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...uld-it-be-worth-it.227477/page-2#post-3552392


----------



## infrared (Nov 10, 2016)

Edit, disregard this run, new one a few posts down 

Here's my run,

6700k @ 4.6ghz (does cpu effect scores much in Valley? I'll do another run at 4.7ghz if it does.)
2x gtx titan 6gb at 1224mhz / 3460mhz


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 10, 2016)

infrared said:


> (does cpu effect scores much in Valley? I'll do another run at 4.7ghz if it does.)



I don't think that 100MHz will give you a _much_ better score, since this benchmark should be GPU bound, not CPU, curious though if it does...


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 10, 2016)

i have found its more CPU clock rather than cores that improves performance


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 10, 2016)

Athlon2K15 said:


> i have found its more CPU clock rather than cores that improves performance



Did you do a valley run with HT disabled?

@Athlon2K15

Sorry but I don't agree this with you:
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...uld-it-be-worth-it.227477/page-2#post-3552392


----------



## infrared (Nov 10, 2016)

Nope, enabled. I just realized that last run was actually done at 4.6ghz, must have forgot to save changes in bios.
I might try without HT later on tonight.

Run #2

6700k @ 4.7ghz
both cards same clocks as before, 1224/3460



Edit: Run #3 (last one, sorry for spamming) 7037!  Go little Keplers! 

Same on cpu, gpu's are clocked at 1236/3460


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 10, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Did you do a valley run with HT disabled?
> 
> @Athlon2K15
> 
> ...



You have every right to disagree, one fact is this benchmark isnt very consistent. Its hard to replicate results even with the same exact systems. I mean you and I had identical systems for the most part 6500 and 1070s and your scores were 400 points higher than mine. After getting the 1080 and the 6700K i have found that clocking higher nets me more performance, that could be do to relieving a bottleneck that previous CPUs had with the 1080


----------



## P4-630 (Nov 10, 2016)

Athlon2K15 said:


> You have every right to disagree, one fact is this benchmark isnt very consistent. Its hard to replicate results even with the same exact systems. I mean you and I had identical systems for the most part 6500 and 1070s and your scores were 400 points higher than mine. After getting the 1080 and the 6700K i have found that clocking higher nets me more performance, that could be do to relieving a bottleneck that previous CPUs had with the 1080



Anyways, glad that it works well for you finally!! (after all those upgrades)


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 10, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> Anyways, glad that it works well for you finally!! (after all those upgrades)



Yeah long journey from a RX480 to a GTX 1080. Lots of money wasted in between.


----------



## Recon-UK (Nov 10, 2016)

I think people need to make the resolution 1440P as standard, 4K as high end and 1080P as low end.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 15, 2016)

P4-630 said:


> I don't think that 100MHz will give you a _much_ better score, since this benchmark should be GPU bound, not CPU, curious though if it does...



Valley is very CPU bound.  Especially with higher end hardware.  To get better scores, your best bet it to disable hyperthreading, disable all but 2 cores (so you can get a higher core clock on the remaining 2 cores) and then run the Valley benchmark.

Valley NEEDS an upgrade....it just isn't getting it.  As a GPU test, it's become nearly completely irrelevant.


----------



## infrared (Nov 15, 2016)

Well, updated the bios on mobo and had to spend most of a day tweaking and getting it all stable again. While I was at it I thought I'd re-try Valley with 4.8ghz HT off, I got a few more points, not much more, but it's certainly very cpu dependent from 7k onwards.

gpu's @ 1224/3476 
cpu @ 4.8ghz (4.6ghz cache)
ram @ 3333mhz 14-18-18-30 1T






That's me done anyway, I'll stop spamming the thread now!


----------



## Terchal (Nov 20, 2016)

GPU : 2050 / Memory : 5500
CPU : 4.4Ghz
Ram : 3000mhz


----------



## Locksmith (Nov 21, 2016)

Upgraded My GTX 970 to a Gainward GLH-GS GTX 1080 - OC core 2100mhz Mem 5515

think the Ram can go a bit higher..  CPU @ 4.7Ghz


----------



## Steevo (Dec 8, 2016)

Same settings, but better score with new drivers, even on old hardware.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Valley is very CPU bound.  Especially with higher end hardware.  To get better scores, your best bet it to disable hyperthreading, disable all but 2 cores (so you can get a higher core clock on the remaining 2 cores) and then run the Valley benchmark.
> 
> Valley NEEDS an upgrade....it just isn't getting it.  As a GPU test, it's become nearly completely irrelevant.


MEH... 8xAA setting puts things back to the GPU.


----------



## Vellinious (Dec 9, 2016)

Not really.  It's still very CPU limited.  Even the 970s I had were limited by CPU clocks.  The 980tis were even worse, and the 1080s I have now are so bottlenecked, the 980tis actually scored higher.  

Valley simply isn't worth running any more.  I'm at that point with Heaven as well.  Hopefully, the new benchmark that Unigine is releasing at some point this month will have better multi-core support, so that a single core at ultra high clocks isn't required to get a good score.  I won't hold my breath, though.....


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 9, 2016)

I use Unigen for stability testing, that's how I found my daily clock of 5.1GHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 9, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Not really.  It's still very CPU limited.  Even the 970s I had were limited by CPU clocks.  The 980tis were even worse, and the 1080s I have now are so bottlenecked, the 980tis actually scored higher.
> 
> Valley simply isn't worth running any more.  I'm at that point with Heaven as well.  Hopefully, the new benchmark that Unigine is releasing at some point this month will have better multi-core support, so that a single core at ultra high clocks isn't required to get a good score.  I won't hold my breath, though.....


SLI is almost always limited by the CPU... I wasn't talking SLI.


----------



## Vellinious (Dec 9, 2016)

Doesn't matter.  A single 1080 / 980ti are still limited by CPU core clocks in Valley.  In the single card's case, they're not limited much, if at all in Heaven yet, but, it's getting very close to the point that they will be.

*Attention New Members- DO NOT FLASH YOUR FRIGGIN GPU BIOS- it will lead to a fancy expensive paper weight!*

I've flashed the bios on my GPUs a few hundred times, even done it on the 1080s and haven't made a paperweight yet.  Just sayin.....


----------



## beauryan (Dec 14, 2016)

here ya go any thoughts on how i could increase it ^^  on here it shows 3.30ghz but i swear i had the cpu oc to 3.9 maybe i don't :I 

FPS:
*113.7*
Score:
*4758*
Min FPS:
*25.0*
Max FPS:
*199.1*
*System*
Platform:
Windows 8 (build 9200) 64bit
CPU model:
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30GHz (3292MHz) x6
GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 21.21.13.7619 (4095MB) x1
*Settings*
Render:
Direct3D11
Mode:
1920x1080 4xAA fullscreen
Preset
Custom
Quality
Ultra
Powered by UNIGINE Engine
Unigine Corp. © 2005-2013


----------



## jaggerwild (Dec 14, 2016)

Over clock it!!!


----------



## trog100 (Dec 15, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Not really.  It's still very CPU limited.  Even the 970s I had were limited by CPU clocks.  The 980tis were even worse, and the 1080s I have now are so bottlenecked, the 980tis actually scored higher.
> 
> Valley simply isn't worth running any more.  I'm at that point with Heaven as well.  Hopefully, the new benchmark that Unigine is releasing at some point this month will have better multi-core support, so that a single core at ultra high clocks isn't required to get a good score.  I won't hold my breath, though.....



 its time they came out with a new one.. they are quite pretty.. 

trog


----------



## Vellinious (Dec 15, 2016)

https://unigine.com/en/products/benchmarks/superposition


----------



## smedla (Dec 30, 2016)

hi!
got myself a little christmas gift - Zotac 1070 AMP. Does 1929 boost out of the box, a quick oc to 2025 with fans set to 80% (only way to keep the boost stable) it is quite audible. However, im running a 1080 GSYNC monitor, so i dont even need that overclock (everything between 60-90fps@ultra) and at auto the fans are between inaudible and whisper quiet even under gaming loads 

edit: crappy phone pic


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jan 3, 2017)

Try pushing minimum fps as much as I can.

i5-6500 @ 5Ghz + DDR4-3333 15-15-15-28-278-2T + 980 Ti @ 1538Mhz/2000Mhz

Screenshot capture by phone. For some reason I can't use F12 or save score button. It just don't exist in folder. So no need to add my score.


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 4, 2017)

use the "Snipping tool"


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 4, 2017)

Enterprise24 said:


> Try pushing minimum fps as much as I can.
> 
> i5-6500 @ 5Ghz + DDR4-3333 15-15-15-28-278-2T + 980 Ti @ 1538Mhz/2000Mhz
> 
> Screenshot capture by phone. For some reason I can't use F12 or save score button. It just don't exist in folder. So no need to add my score.



 I also had a lot of trouble getting to the screenshots. Go to c Drive/users/ yourname/Valley/Unigen/screenshots

 Unless for some reason it's just not taking the picture of course


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jan 4, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> I also had a lot of trouble getting to the screenshots. Go to c Drive/users/ yourname/Valley/Unigen/screenshots
> 
> Unless for some reason it's just not taking the picture of course



It is empty. I try changing F12 to other key like F1 but still can't capture screenshot.  I will try snipping tool like NinkobEi suggest.


----------



## peche (Jan 4, 2017)

Enterprise24 said:


> Try pushing minimum fps as much as I can.
> 
> i5-6500 @ 5Ghz + DDR4-3333 15-15-15-28-278-2T + 980 Ti @ 1538Mhz/2000Mhz
> 
> Screenshot capture by phone. For some reason I can't use F12 or save score button. It just don't exist in folder. So no need to add my score.


interesting, you GTX 980Ti is detected as a unknown GPU , gotta test my GTX 980 to see if the "custom Bios" it has does something similar,


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jan 5, 2017)

peche said:


> interesting, you GTX 980Ti is detected as a unknown GPU , gotta test my GTX 980 to see if the "custom Bios" it has does something similar,


I bench in diagnostic mode to reduce background service to minimum.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 5, 2017)

Enterprise24 said:


> I bench in diagnostic mode to reduce background service to minimum.



"diagnostic mode"? what are you putting in diagnostic mode?


----------



## purecain (Jan 13, 2017)

will update soon guys.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 13, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> "diagnostic mode"? what are you putting in diagnostic mode?


Windows.

Though I don't imagine the score difference to be much.


----------



## purecain (Jan 17, 2017)

I think windows 'game mode' is going to be released in a coming update around march time. should make prepping your system for a high score much easier.


----------



## untrugby (Jan 18, 2017)

GTX1080 2125/5505 - i7-7700k @5.05 Ghz


----------



## Yukikaze (Jan 18, 2017)

R9 Fury 1050/500 - i7-4810MQ@2.8Ghz


----------



## Locksmith (Jan 20, 2017)

@purecain  when you updating the Leader board pal. 

3684 Locksmith GTX 970 1568/8034 i7 4790k 4.6  ::: This is way old..
had new gear for a while now thread seems to be going no where.


----------



## jboydgolfer (Jan 20, 2017)

Locksmith said:


> @purecain  when you updating the Leader board pal.
> 
> 3684 Locksmith GTX 970 1568/8034 i7 4790k 4.6  ::: This is way old..
> had new gear for a while now thread seems to be going no where.


1568/8034?! Srsly?8034 is wayyyy high,damn
 Going through the results list some of the highest numbers I saw for a GTX 970 we're around 2050 or less , is that accurate? I mean it's not a typo? if not 8Ghz is some REAL memory speed
_*
nevermind, i answered my ow question. Many people post what GPUz shows as posted speed, which needs to be x4 to get the actual apparently? atleast thats what i read after googling the issue. disregard.

essentially Memclock of 2005 or so.*_


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 20, 2017)

He is listing perceived speeds GDDR5 rate... 

8034 / 4 = 2008.xx

So its ~2008 Mhz as you found, yes.


----------



## Locksmith (Jan 20, 2017)

jboydgolfer said:


> 1568/8034?! Srsly?8034 is wayyyy high,damn
> Going through the results list some of the highest numbers I saw for a GTX 970 we're around 2050 or less , is that accurate? I mean it's not a typo? if not 8Ghz is some REAL memory speed
> _*
> nevermind, i answered my ow question. Many people post what GPUz shows as posted speed, which needs to be x4 to get the actual apparently? atleast thats what i read after googling the issue. disregard.
> ...



yes its correct. And thems the old results, using a GTX1080 since they came out. Got that beast at 10.5ghz


----------



## MrGenius (Jan 25, 2017)

purecain said:


> unigine Valley is at 1.4, run it and leave your scores here.
> -
> we have had two big upgrades since that thread started and the scores only become more relevant as we can compare them to our new systems.


_What_ is Valley _1.4_? And _where_ do I get it?
-
_We_ as in _who_? And _two big upgrades_ as in _what_ and _what_?

I am so lost here...what am I missing?


----------



## salemuta (Jan 27, 2017)

For me 1 card is better than 2 cards.
*Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0 GHz Quad-Core Processor (OC 4.7)*
*EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC GAMING ACX 3.0 1708 / 1847*







*@ 3840 x 2160*


----------



## shredifier (Feb 5, 2017)

purecain said:


> Unigine Valley is at 1.4, run it and leave your scores here. I can copy most of the scores over from my old thread.



There is NO version 1.4 of Unigine's Valley.....The official site only lists Valley at 1.0
Also the max resolution possible is at 2560x1600 so not too sure how some of you guys are able to test this bench at 4K?


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 6, 2017)

shredifier said:


> There is NO version 1.4 of Unigine's Valley.....The official site only lists Valley at 1.0
> Also the max resolution possible is at 2560x1600 so not too sure how some of you guys are able to test this bench at 4K?


AFAIK 1.0 is the latest version.

4K is obviously doable. Seeing is believing. And I've seen it done at least a few times now.


----------



## The Pack (Feb 19, 2017)

The Pack; i7 6850K@4,5GHz 2x GTX 1070 @ 2151MHz/4400MHz = 6476 @ 1080p


----------



## The Pack (Feb 19, 2017)

salemuta said:


> For me 1 card is better than 2 cards.
> *Intel Core i7-6700K 4.0 GHz Quad-Core Processor (OC 4.7)*
> *EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 SC GAMING ACX 3.0 1708 / 1847*
> 
> ...


You have lost the 4xAA...


----------



## ahujet (Feb 23, 2017)

r9 290 modded to r9 390 (1110/1520) with i5-4670k @ 4.4GHz


----------

