# 3Dmark Time Spy - Post your scores!



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

So Futuremark 3DMark + TimeSpy v2.1.2852 was released today... a pretty DX12 benchy from FM.

See news thread here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...spy-directx-12-benchmark.224141/#post-3489468


> 2.1.2852
> 
> This major update adds Time Spy, a new DirectX 12 benchmark test. With its pure DirectX 12 engine, which supports new API features like asynchronous compute, explicit linked multi-adapter, and multi-threading, 3DMark Time Spy is the ideal benchmark for testing the DirectX 12 performance of the latest graphics cards.
> 
> ...


DL: https://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/2744/futuremark-3dmark-timespy-v2-1-2852

Have a download (or update through the already installed version) and post up your scores! Please format the screenshot using standard hwbot requirements which need to be visible in the SS (See next post for an example:

3DMark overall score
3DMark subtest scores
CPU-Z CPU tab
CPU-Z Memory tab
CPU-Z Mainboard tab, ONLY required for submissions made with motherboard IGP
GPU-Z Graphics Card tab (Rivatuner may be used if GPU-Z fails to correctly report the GPU)
The goal here is to get the best score using the default settings of this test. Keep it 'hwbot' legal (LINK TO RULES). I'll keep track of them in the first post.

Follow this format:

SCORE - USERNAME / CPU X.x GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL XXXX MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock XXXX MHz





*Single GPU (Green = NVIDIA, Red = AMD)*

*10970 - MetalRacer / i7 6950X 5.0 / Titan X Pascal @ 1974 / 1426*
10738 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.5 / TitanX Pascal @ 2063 / 2801
*10783**-The Pack / i7 5960X @ 4.625GHz / Asus Poseidon GTX 1080Ti @ 2062MHz / 11700MHz* 
10729 - Sirillya / 8700K @ 5Ghz / 1080TI @ 2088/1553 
10214 - phanbuey / 7820x 4.6Ghz / 1080ti @ 1629 / 1424
10262 - Athlon2K15 / Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4GHz / GTX 1080Ti FE 1656 MHz / 1414 MHz
10103 - the54thvoid / Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3.822GHz / GTX 1080ti 2038Mhz / 1500 MHz
10030 - thesmokingman / 6700k X 4.9ghz / Titan X Pascal@2101mhz / 1451mhz
9854 - The Pack / i7 6850K@4.2Ghz / Asus Strix 1080ti @ 2050/1475
9807 - WhiteNoise / 7800X @ 4.7 GHz / EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 @ 1569 MHz + 1376 MHz
9278 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.67 GHz / GTX 1080 TI @ 2062/1555
9215 - UNTRugby / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz / GTX 1080ti @ 1602 mhz
9210 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.67 GHz / GTX 1080 TI @ 2050/1526
9108 - therealmeep/i7 6800k @ 3.9GHz/1080ti FTW3 @1974/5700
9072 - LordGuppi / i7-7700K 4.8 GHz / GTX 1080Ti @ 1607MHz (1721 MHz) / 3000 MHz
*8930 - Vellinious / 6950X @ 4.2 GHz / GTX1080 FTW @ 2151 / 1414*
8725 - Tardan / i7 3770K @ 4.1GHz / NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal @ 2063 MHz / 1376 MHz
8620 - MetalRacer / i7 5960X 5.4 / GTX 1080 @ 2126 / 1391
8292 - Earthdog / 6950X 4.2 GHz / ROG STRX GTX 1080 @ 2101 MHz / 1402 MHz
7894 - gdallsk / 5820K@4.5 GHz / GTX1080 FE @ 2088 - 1375
7888 - VarioShadow / I7 6950X 4.0 GHz / Nvidia GTX 1080 FE @ 1825 MHz (Boost) / 1351 MHz
7866 - phan / Ryzen @ 4.0 / GTX1080 SC @ 2009 - 1363
*7776** - ikeke / R7 1700 3.8 Ghz / Vega64 @ 1632 (1702) / 1100 *
7674 - UNTRugby / i7-7700k @ 5.05 Ghz / GTX 1080 @ 2134 mhz / 5405 mhz
7454 - maukkae / i7 4790k 4700 MHz / Palit GTX 1080 Super Jetstream @ 2139 - 1400 MHz
7415 - Agentbb007 / i7-6700K @4.6 GHz / GTX 1080 GMG X 8G @ 2139 MHz / Mem1323 MHz
7380 - Terchal / I7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ / KFA2 GTX 1080 EXOC : 2050 /  RAM : 3000Mhz
7132 - Vego / 6700k 4.8GHz / 1080 @ 2050 MHz / 1260 MHz
7286 - erocker / 4790K @ 4.8 GHz / Evga GTX 1080 @ 2126 MHz + 1325 MHz
7178 - Hockster / 6700K @ 4700 / MSi GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100 MHz / 1300 MHz
*7122 - The Pack/ i7 6850K @ 4.4GHz/ Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G @ 2151/4900 MHz*
7037 - Earthdog / 6950X 4.2 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2063 MHz / 2209 MHz
7019 - Liviu Cojocaru / i5 4690K@4.6 GHz / GTX 1080 Palit GR @ 2088 MHz / Mem 1376 MHz
*6939 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.0 / 980ti @ 1547 / 2153*
6860 - blacktruckryder / 4690k @ 4.7Ghz / Strix Gaming GTX 1080 @ 2066Mhz / Mem1314Mhz
6608 - Vellinious / i7 5820k 4.625 / 980ti @ 1567 MHz / 2140 MHz
6530 - heky / 5820K @ 4.5 GHz / Gainward Phoenix GTX1070 GS @ (2088 MHz / 2127 MHz
6358 - Enterprise24 / i5-6500 @ 5.07 GHz / GTX 980 Ti Reference @ 1556 MHz / 2000 MHz.
6243 - puma99dk| / i7-6700k 4.2 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2100 MHz (actual) / Mem 2202 MHz
*6178 - R-T-B / i7 6700K 4.5 GHz / Titan X @ 1443Mhz / 1913 Mhz*
6099 - TheHunter / 4770K @ 4.6 GHz / ZotaC GTX 980Ti Amp! Omga @ 1473MHz / 1855 MHz
6031 - fitbmx8806 / i7 3770K @ 4.5GHz/ Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G @ 1868/2330 MHz
*5939 - xkm1948 / 6950X 4.2 GHz / R9 FuryX @ 1090 MHz  / 500 MHz*
5877 - UrbanCamper / i5 6600k @ 4.5ghz / MSI GTX 1070 @ 1797Mhz / Memory @ 2025Mhz
5568 - LightningJR / i5 2500k @ 4.7Ghz / STRIX GTX 1070 Core @ 2063Mhz / Mem 2202Mhz
5475 - blacktruckryder / 4690k @ 4.7Ghz / EVGA 980ti FTW @ Boost 1316Mhz / Mem1878Mhz
5345 - gupsterg / i5 4690K 4.9 GHz / Fury X @ 1145MHz / Memory 545 MHz
5167 - MacNavy / i7-6700 / Sapphire Fury X @ stock
5087 - blacktruckryder / 4690k 4.7 Ghz / Radeon Fury X @ 1120 Mhz / 560 Mhz
*4959- Ninkobei / i5 3570k 4.6 GHz / R9 Nitro Fury @ 1145 MHz / Memory 500MHz*
4885 - Athlon2K15 / Ryzen 7 1800X @ 3.7 GHz / GTX 1060 6GB @ 2113 Boost / 2100 Memory
*4707 *- *fullinfusion / 4790K @ 4.8 GHz / MSI RX 480 Gaming X @ 1450 MHz / 2100 MHz.*
4447 - Ninkobei / i5 3570k 3.9 GHz / R9 Nitro Fury @ 1060MHz / 500 MHz
4337 - Nergal / i7 6700 stock / Sapphire Nitro+ Rx480 stock (1342MHZ/2000MHZ)
*4249 - Lt_JWS / 8320 @ 4.5Ghz/ MSI GTX1060 @ 1939 Mhz actual / Mem 2242 MHz*
4235 - Jetster / CPU 4.4 GHz / GPU @ 1291MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 1753 MHz
4201 - Silkstone / i5 2500K @ 4.4Ghz / Palit 1060 Dual Fan @ 1906 - 2262
4135 - ZyllGoliath / Xeon E5645 4.0Ghz / GPU MSI GTX 970(4gb) 1472Mhz / Mem 2005Mhz
4120 - Vya Domus / FX-6300 4.4 GHz / ASUS GTX 1060 @ 2075MHz / Memory clock 2250MHz
*3843 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU RX 470(4gb) 1369Mhz / Mem 1733Mhz*
3715 - Kanan / i7 3960X 4.80 GHz / Asus GTX 780 Ti DirectCU II @ 1202 MHz / 1925 MHz
3208 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming OC 3GB @ 1282MHz / 1850MHz
2873 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU R9 380(4gb) 1035Mhz / Mem 1425Mhz
2566 - DR4G00N / X5650 @ 4.52GHz / GTX 680 @ 1346MHz Core / 1753MHz Mem
2102 - Recon-UK / Intel XEON E5640 4.134ghz RAM@ 1582mhz / GTX 670 SC 1202 / 7000
1969 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.3Ghz / GPU GTX 660 TI 1215Mhz / Mem 1835Mhz
1861 - Laughing_Beast / G3220 @ 3Ghz / MSI GTX 960 @ 1190 MHz / 1753 MHz
1390 - Frick / G3220 @ 3Ghz / Asus GTX 760 DC2 @ 1123 / 1502
1349 - Frick / i3 2120 @ 3.3Ghz / Powercolor HD7850 PCS+ @ 1000 / 1225



*Dual GPU (Green = NVIDIA, Red = AMD)*

*15900 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.5 / 2 x 1080 @ 2202 / 5567*
14010 - 7700K @5.43GHz Cache @5.23GHz Memory @4.15GHz / GTX-1080 X2 @2.25GHz
13400 - Hockster - i7 8700K @ stock - MSi GTX 1080 Gaming X (SLI) @ 1772/1911 boost/5054 mem
13181 - VarioShadow / I7 6950X 4.0 GHz / 2x Nvidia GTX 1080 FE @ 1734 MHz / 1251 MHz
*12611 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.6 / 980ti x2 @ 1531 / 2143*
12343 - gint87 / i7 7700k 4.9GHz / GTX 1080 FEdition SLI @ 2012MHz / 1262 MHz
*12015 - The Pack/ i7 6850K @ 4.4GHz 2x Strix GTX 1070 @ 2126MHz / 9800MHz 
11543 - exceededgoku / 5960X @ 4.8Ghz / Radeon R295X2 x 2 @ stock clocks*
10,864 - Ascalaphus : i7-5930K @ 4.2 GHZ /2 x GTX 980 TI @ 1440mhz/MEM 1967
10032 - RJ / 4790K 4.8GHz / 980TI SLI / GPU 1481 MHz / Memory 1855
9223 - Athlon2K15 / Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4GHz / Radeon R9 Nano CrossFire 1000Mhz/500Mhz
*8238- cadaveca / 6700K @ 4.7 GHz / GTX980 x2 @ 1395/ Memory 1857 MHz*
8127 - Random Murderer / i7 4930K @ 4.5GHz / Sapphire R9 295X2 @ 1094 / 1650
8010 - RobertBourgoin / i7 5930 x 43 / GTX 980 SLI / 1854 / 1405
7472 - DR4G00N / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8GHz / 2x GTX 780 Ti's @ 1200/1750MHz  
*7385 - theoneandonlymrk / FX8350 @ 4.92 GHz / Saphire Rx480 x2 @ 1400 MHz *
7227 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.5 GHz / GTX 970 x 2 @ GPU 1500/MEM 1918
*6580 - JATownes / FX9370 @ 4.9 GHz / 2x Powercolor 290x @ 1100/ 1400[/COLOR]*
4466 - Jeffredo / i5-4690k @ 4200 / Galax GTX 960 x2 @ 1405 - 1753


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

Bone stock on the 1080... ("OC Profile" is on).

7369 - Earthdog / 5820K @ 4.25 GHz / MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 1987 MHz + 1264 MHz.






And the 1070...Also stock with OC Profile...

5884 - Earthdog / 6700K @ 4.20 GHz / MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X @ 1987 MHz + 2027 MHz.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 15, 2016)

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/3dmark-timespy-is-out.224135/

I take it you missed that thread?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

I didn't notice the part at the bottom where he said 'post your benchies'. Crap..  your call big guy.

Make this one 'official' like the other threads from that banned dude (except with more structure and knowledge behind it), or close it to leave the unorganized one open. This seems more official, organized, and not a bowl of results. Your call though.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> I didn't notice the part at the bottom where he said 'post your benchies'. Crap..  your call big guy.
> 
> Make this one 'official' like the other threads from that banned dude (except with more structure and knowledge behind it), or close it to leave the unorganized one open. This seems more official, organized, and not a bowl of results. Your call though.


Being discussed, carry on for now.


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 15, 2016)

Cant compete with the new systems of today, but this is my score.

6454 - TOMGANG / I7 920 @ 4.37 GHz / 2 x Zotac GTX 970 @ 1502 + 1928

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13200518?


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

Tomgang said:


> Cant compete with the top dogs, but this is my score.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13200518?


Please submit in the format requested including screenshot. See second post.


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Please submit in the format requested including screenshot. See second post.



I dont have a screenshot with the memory showing.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

Close enough on that... but you still didnt list the score, system etc like was requested in the first post. Example in the second post. 

This isnt rocket science guys! If my instructions are not clear, please let me know so i can edit the first post to help.


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Close enough on that... but you still didnt list the score, system etc like was requested in the first post. Example in the second post.
> 
> This isnt rocket science guys! If my instructions are not clear, please let me know so i can edit the first post to help.



Done.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jul 15, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> This isnt rocket science guys! If my instructions are not clear, please let me know so i can edit the first post to help



Ummm.....  I don't know what "HWbot legal" is.

More explanation for us dummies, please.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 15, 2016)

It varies, but in general for GPU benchmarks, you need to have a picture of the score and the subtest FPS along with CPUz CPU and Memory tabs along with GPUz. I have updated the first post.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 15, 2016)

6178 - R-T-B / i7 6700K 4.5 GHz / Titan X @ 1443Mhz + 1913Mhz





http://www.3dmark.com/spy/30308


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 15, 2016)

6608 - Vellinious / i7 5820k 4.625 / 980ti @ 1567 / 2140

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/22710







I'll post an SLI run tonight.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 15, 2016)

here r my scores i did with my MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X with my system specs.

GTX 1070 @ Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/27722

GTX 1070 @ OC Mode: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/28069

GTX 1070 @ Custom OC: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/28470

I did 3 so far to test how big of a difference it would make, the last one is just some OC I been trying to figure out my max but the newest driver (368.81) kinda crashes faster then version 368.39 which was the first GTX 1070.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Jul 16, 2016)

Puma you should update your scores to the suitable format as suggested by @EarthDog , impressive though fella I most say! 

This test does seem to scale wonderfully, my glass ceiling is gonna kill me!


----------



## JATownes (Jul 16, 2016)

This FX CPU is killing me!  Come on Zen or Intel will be taking my money!

6580 - JATownes / FX9370 @ 4.9 GHz / 2 x Powercolor 290x @ 1100/1400


----------



## erocker (Jul 16, 2016)

7286 - erocker / 4790K @ 4.8 GHz / Evga GTX 1080 @ 2126 MHz + 1325 MHz.


----------



## blacktruckryder (Jul 16, 2016)

Mine seems a bit low.


----------



## arbiter (Jul 16, 2016)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13220015

6910 - arbiter / i7 4770k 4.5 GHz / eVGA GTX1080 SC @ 2126mhz + 1377mhz mem
memory stuff is in 3d mark page.


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 16, 2016)

Anyone else noticing a really bad stutter at the very beginning of graphics test 1?  I can't seem to get a run without my fps dropping below 20 right there.  I've watched GPUz, and GPU usage is dropping to nothing right there for some reason.


----------



## D007 (Jul 16, 2016)

Kind of the third thread for this..lol. Unless you're going to make a chart, no need for a new one.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/3dmark-timespy-is-out.224135/


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2016)

D007 said:


> Kind of the third thread for this..lol. Unless you're going to make a chart, no need for a new one.
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/3dmark-timespy-is-out.224135/



I am keeping track of the scores in the first post. No other thread is doing so. But we've discussed that already in the first few posts. What i may do is post a link in that thread to this one since its more formal and data is more easily read here in that first post, as opposed through hundreds of posts with scores randomly put it in it.



Ill update late tonight or tomorrow. Today my yoingest turns 5!


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 16, 2016)

11416 - Vellinious / i7 5820k 4.625 / 980ti @ 1531 / 2128

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/66416


----------



## Hockster (Jul 16, 2016)

7178 - Hockster / 6700K @ 4700 / MSi GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100 - 1300

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/67336


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jul 16, 2016)

heres mine non valid 16.7.2 driver so not whql and thats the only reason its invalid
7862 gpu
3779 cpu
total 6765 ,2xRx480 on air @1320 and 2150mem
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13325289?

im having issues inserting my image i uploaded it


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 17, 2016)

I have updated all that have given the proper formatting and information requested. Please let me know if anything was missed!


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 18, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> here r my scores i did with my MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X with my system specs.
> 
> GTX 1070 @ Stock: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/27722
> 
> ...



Now with added pics hope that helps


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2016)

That is another step in the right direction! However, you are still forgetting this line:

SCORE - USERNAME / CPU X.x GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL XXXX MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock XXXX MHz

And for a working example.....

7369 - Earthdog / 5820K 4.25 GHz / GTX 1080 @ 1987 MHz / 1264 MHz


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 18, 2016)

6178 - puma99dk| / i7-6700k 4.2 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2050 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 2152 MHz

There u go, on my iPhone, and the gpu core clock was running 2050 had a little drip and higher then doing the test dunno why  but ran 2050 almost the while time.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 18, 2016)

Updated.

ALso......

6310 - Earthdog / 6700K 4.8 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2063 MHz / 2230 MHz


----------



## Frick (Jul 18, 2016)

1412 points. Yeeeaaaaahhhhhhhhh


----------



## blacktruckryder (Jul 19, 2016)

5087 / blacktruckryder / 4690k 4.7 Ghz / Radeon Fury X @ 1120 Mhz / 560 Mhz


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 19, 2016)

A update from me...

6243 - puma99dk| / i7-6700k 4.2 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2100 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 2202 MHz





I am comming to get ur i7/GTX1070 score @EarthDog 

Just dunno when I got time to OC my cpu so I can follow u sadly.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 19, 2016)

Come get some puma! 

Will update when i am not mobile.


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 19, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Come get some puma!
> 
> Will update when i am not mobile.



hehe, well mby oc of my i7-6700k will boost me to take u 

But I will come back when I can.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 19, 2016)

I feel slightly good that my Maxwell score ISN'T last place (it's only tied for it) when running with all Pascal's... lol.

Don't break my heart Puma...


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 19, 2016)

R-T-B said:


> I feel slightly good that my Maxwell score ISN'T last place (it's only tied for it) when running with all Pascal's... lol.
> 
> Don't break my heart Puma...



Too bad but I am


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 19, 2016)

puma99dk| said:


> hehe, well mby oc of my i7-6700k will boost me to take u
> 
> But I will come back when I can.


That was stock GPU, for the record. I still have the overclock to go, and its now  under a 6950X... you better bring it!


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 20, 2016)

5362 - xkm1948 / CPU 4.25 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1099 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 500 MHz

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105393


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 20, 2016)

Updated!

Let me know if I missed anyone that ha, at least close to, the proper format please!


----------



## puma99dk| (Jul 20, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Updated!
> 
> Let me know if I missed anyone that ha, at least close to, the proper format please!



Last run was 2100 on core not 2050 and 2202 on memory for me


----------



## silkstone (Jul 20, 2016)

Timespy isn't working in crossfire for me.

0% GPU usage on the second card throughout and dual GPU scores are lower than single 

Crossfire works fine with firestrike, just not timespy. I'm not sure what to do to attempt a fix.

Any ideas?

[Edit] It seems timespy may not support CF with different cards 
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?p=5308181


----------



## Drash (Jul 20, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Timespy isn't working in crossfire for me.
> 
> 0% GPU usage on the second card throughout and dual GPU scores are lower than single
> 
> ...


I got both my 7870s working in crossfire (scored 3301 iirc) they are both 7870s but different speed OC versions. That was 7.6.2 beta driver. 

Oops just seen you think because different cards, post anyhow just so you have a score to compare with. Sorry can't help more.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 20, 2016)

trog100-8882-Palit Super Jetstreams 980 TI X 2- 1414/1899-4790K @ 4.6-

trog


----------



## silkstone (Jul 20, 2016)

Drash said:


> I got both my 7870s working in crossfire (scored 3301 iirc) they are both 7870s but different speed OC versions. That was 7.6.2 beta driver.
> 
> Oops just seen you think because different cards, post anyhow just so you have a score to compare with. Sorry can't help more.



Yeah. Multi, different GPUs are not supported where they were in firestrike 

I got a total of 2486 with a single 280x, but I'll post officially later. I think I also have problems with my Motherboard or PSU as I'm getting pretty frequent system hangs whenever I open any application that queries my system specs (with CF on and off).


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 20, 2016)

That would have absolutely nothing to do with your PSU, but that troubleshooting is for another thread. 

Trog - You are missing the memory tab from cpuz in the screenshot. You do not have the required score line either. Please see the instructions in the first post and a proper example in post 2.


----------



## trog100 (Jul 21, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> That would have absolutely nothing to do with your PSU, but that troubleshooting is for another thread.
> 
> Trog - You are missing the memory tab from cpuz in the screenshot. You do not have the required score line either. Please see the instructions in the first post and a proper example in post 2.



added the missing bits.. i think.. he he

the boost figure (1414) is what the card is actually running at during the test.. the voltage and power limits are at default..

trog


----------



## Toothless (Jul 22, 2016)

It's valid.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 22, 2016)

trog100 said:


> added the missing bits.. i think.. he he
> 
> the boost figure (1414) is what the card is actually running at during the test.. the voltage and power limits are at default..
> 
> trog


It still wasn't close to right. See instructions in first post and my examples in 2nd.




To all - Are my instructions and examples still unclear? I will clarify even more if need be! But honestly, all you need to do is copy and paste the shell from post 1 or my example in post 2 and input your data. This way there is no guessing as to what separators to use, order of things, etc... its not that hard men!


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 22, 2016)

Toothless said:


> It's valid.



haha lol. You sir have a great score


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 22, 2016)

It's ridiculously easy to understand, man.  I wouldn't change a thing....


----------



## HTC (Jul 22, 2016)

Toothless said:


> It's valid.



Have you tried running it again a few more times to see if there's a margin of error?


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 22, 2016)

8238- cadaveca / 6700K @ 4.7 GHz / GTX980 x2 @ 1395/ Memory 1857 MHz


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/127858


----------



## Agentbb007 (Jul 23, 2016)

7415 - Agentbb007 / i7-6700K @4.6 GHz / GTX 1080 GAMING X 8G @ 2139 MHz / Memory clock 1323 MHz


----------



## silkstone (Jul 23, 2016)

My score: 4199
i5 2500K @4.4Ghz
Palit 1060 Dual Fan @ 1906/2260






A little bit disappointing overall - It's roughly the same score I get with my crossfire 280X


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 23, 2016)

silkstone said:


> A little bit disappointing overall - It's roughly the same score I get with my crossfire 280X


Just a bit lower than a single 980 @ stock, TBH.


----------



## Frick (Jul 23, 2016)

For the lulz

1390 - Frick  / G3220 @ 3Ghz / Asus GTX 760 DC2 @ 1123-1502







More lulz:

1349 - Frick / i3 2120 @ 3.3Ghz / Powercolor HD7850 PCS+ @ 1000-1225








The validation warnings comes from drivers. For some reason.


----------



## maukkae (Jul 23, 2016)

7454 - maukkae / i7 4790k 4700 MHz / Palit GTX 1080 Super Jetstream @ 2139 - 1400 MHz

GPU Score 8108

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/97820


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 23, 2016)

Updated anyone that was close! Let me know if I missed anything.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 23, 2016)

It seems the benchmark is completely bugged?

Barely any GPU usage from 670 and less than 1FPS in the DEMO part.



My result.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13458985

CPU score is worse than a Pentium IV too.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 23, 2016)

If you would like your score on the board, you need to follow the format bud.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 23, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> If you would like your score on the board, you need to follow the format bud.







It reached 1110mhz boost, 3DMark only shows the max clock under 70c, GPU hit 87c, throttled.

1957 - Recon-UK / intel XEON E5640 4155mhz / GTX 670 SC @ 1110/7000



*EDIT
*
New score, much better CPU score, before was RAM at 1100mhz, this is at 1582mhz.


 

This time i put the GPU clock up +71mhz

2013 - Recon-UK / Intel XEON E5640 4.155ghz RAM@ 1582mhz / GTX 670 SC 1171/7000


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 23, 2016)

980ti Factory oc 1418mhz boost;cpu 4.7ghz

Score:5726
Gpu:5817
Cpu:5263

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/17651

"Max" gpu oc 1480mhz, gpu score only.. crashed later with tdr by cpu test lol

Gpu score:6109
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/18240


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2016)

Nice!

Do you want to be posted on the board? See the first/second posts... 


EDIT: WTH... now when I run it i get a 'time measurement error'????
EDIT2: Reboot corrected it but...?

Anyway...put this under the big dog and overclocked it. 

8051 - Earthdog / 6950X @ 4 GHz / MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2101 MHz / 1402 MHz.


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Nice!
> 
> Do you want to be posted on the board? See the first/second posts...
> 
> ...



I finally broke down and bought the 6950X.  It'll be here on Wednesday.  = )


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Nice!
> 
> Do you want to be posted on the board? See the first/second posts...
> 
> ...


I was posting from a phone.. Will try to edit the post tomorrow.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2016)

Re-posting in correct format.

4201 - Silkstone* / *i5 2500K @ 4.4Ghz / Palit 1060 Dual Fan @ 1906 / 2262


----------



## Vego (Jul 24, 2016)

*7132* - Vego / 6700k 4.8GHz / 1080 @ 2050 MHz / 1260 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Re-posting in correct format.
> 
> *Score: 4201*
> i5 2500K @ 4.4Ghz
> Palit 1060 Dual Fan @ 1906/2262


THanks for trying again! The correct format however consists of the screenshot you provided as well as this line which has not been included in either attempt (just enter your data).

7369 - Earthdog / 5820K @ 4.25 GHz / MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 1987 MHz + 1264 MHz.

Please see post #2 for proper formatting. 



Updated!


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> THanks for trying again! The correct format however consists of the screenshot you provided as well as this line which has not been included in either attempt (just enter your data).
> 
> 7369 - Earthdog / 5820K @ 4.25 GHz / MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 1987 MHz + 1264 MHz.
> 
> ...



Where is my score in the chart?


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> THanks for trying again! The correct format however consists of the screenshot you provided as well as this line which has not been included in either attempt (just enter your data).
> 
> 7369 - Earthdog / 5820K @ 4.25 GHz / MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 1987 MHz + 1264 MHz.
> 
> ...



Updated.

As this gets bigger, you may want to format it into a table so it is easier to scan through the results.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2016)

Got silkstone and Recon.


----------



## maukkae (Jul 24, 2016)

Maybe also another table/list with only the GPU score to take the CPU out of the equation?


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2016)

maukkae said:


> Maybe also another table/list with only the GPU score to take the CPU out of the equation?



I'm pretty sure that the CPU factors heavily into the final 3DMark score. No real point in taking it out. If you want to look up how a GPU would likely perform in your rig, you're going to want to know the type of CPU it was tested with.

For example, I know i would get 500-1k more points if I had a 6xxx series i5/i7, but for someone wanting to upgrade their GPU on a 2xxx i5, my score would be a better way to base their judgement.

To compare my score on i5 ~ 4.2k. 
Guru3D get 4.6k on a 5960X @ 4.4 Ghz.


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 24, 2016)

Yes, the CPU is 100% of the physics score, and supposed to be about 50% of the combined score.  I've never sat down and figured out the math on how the calculate the overall score but, I know running a 5820k I can hit 18.5 to 19k physics scores and get a much lower overall score than someone with a 5960X, even with a higher graphics score.  The 3D Mark benches are heavily weighted that way.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 24, 2016)

maukkae said:


> Maybe also another table/list with only the GPU score to take the CPU out of the equation?


The point here is to get the highest score at TPU. The futuremark website has all the tools to do that (sort by cpu) already I believe. 

Ever since 3dmark 06, the cpu tests have played a fairly significant role in the overall score of these benchmarks.


----------



## R-T-B (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The point here is to get the highest score at TPU.



Well shit, then I'm done.

Oh well.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> The point here is to get the highest score at TPU. The futuremark website has all the tools to do that (sort by cpu) already I believe.
> 
> Ever since 3dmark 06, the cpu tests have played a fairly significant role in the overall score of these benchmarks.



Ahw shucks. I was going to do a run on my HTPC just for the hell of it, but there's no way I could beat my gaming rig.

Good point about the 3DMark database, I notice I am top with a 2500k and 1060. I wonder how long that will last


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 24, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Ahw shucks. I was going to do a run on my HTPC just for the hell of it, but there's no way I could beat my gaming rig.
> 
> Good point about the 3DMark database, I notice I am top with a 2500k and 1060. I wonder how long that will last



Probably quite a while....there aren't any full coverage blocks for the 1060, and the 2500k is getting a bit long in the tooth, so....I wouldn't be surprised to see it there for a good long while.


----------



## silkstone (Jul 24, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Probably quite a while....there aren't any full coverage blocks for the 1060, and the 2500k is getting a bit long in the tooth, so....I wouldn't be surprised to see it there for a good long while.



I'm going to have to overclock to the point it's just stable enough for a single run, just to make sure.

The 2500k is pretty old, I am looking for a well priced 2600k to replace it  unfortunately I blew this year's pc budget on a new gpu and psu.


----------



## Recon-UK (Jul 24, 2016)

Honestly upgrading your CPU for a synthetic benchmark is stupid.
My CPU can handle much better than a 670 that i currently use, it will feed a 1070 just fine, however synthetics do seem to go a bit far beyond real world usage.

I think the closest i have seen a synthetic benchmark to real world is probably Unigine benchmarks, the higher the FPS you scale, the more CPU you need.


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 24, 2016)

Heaven, yeah.  Valley not so much.  It's too CPU dependent.


----------



## TheHunter (Jul 26, 2016)

Ok, re my original post


TheHunter said:


> 980ti Factory oc 1418mhz boost;cpu 4.7ghz
> 
> Score:5726
> Gpu:5817
> ...



This is factory stock OC 1418mhz @ 1.187v boost


5726 - TheHunter / 4770K @ 4.7 GHz / ZotaC GTX 980Ti Amp! Omega @ 1418 MHz / 1805  MHz.






EDIT: cpu only part, had balanced power plan there..






Will try max OC again, maybe I can reach that magic 6K 
gpu score does 6110, maybe its enough if it doesn't crash again by cpu test with tdr lol


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 28, 2016)

Playing with the new toy....long way to go yet.

6939 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.0 / 980ti @ 1547 / 2153


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 28, 2016)

JATownes said:


> This FX CPU is killing me!  Come on Zen or Intel will be taking my money!
> 
> 6580 - JATownes / FX9370 @ 4.9 GHz / 2 x Powercolor 290x @ 1100/1400
> 
> View attachment 76960


@EarthDog  and @JATownes 

What's up with this score?

I mean something stinks here, either its my system that's f%cked up, or someone's playing games here, orrr just a glitched out bench mark 

Let me say this,  if I'm doing something wrong then PLEASE let me know... but JATownes score for what he's running is pretty darn high compared to what I'm getting.

The only difference is he runs twin 290X cards and I run a 290X and a 290 together and clocked even higher then buddie is, plus my CPU score is way higher 

Ok now please don't take this the wrong way and any info would help heaps for me ok, but what setting are you using?

I ended up buying the bench to unlock the BS demo mode and have more control over the bench and the only way I can come close is to set my monitor to default 1920:1080

I run the same GPU driver, cpu is in my favor clock vs clock as the link shows and memory is on par so what gives... or what am I missing?

Here is what I get and its the actual online score.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13668604?

Please take this post with a grain of salt and I mean no disrespect to any party but really what's up?


----------



## silkstone (Jul 28, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> @EarthDog  and @JATownes
> 
> What's up with this score?
> 
> ...



Heat issues?

I know i'd get wildly different results using my 280x crossfire on firestrike. One of the cards was downclocking when it got too hot and this would affect my overall score.
I also got different results between driver versions.

It could also be that time-spy doesn't support non-matched video cards correctly.


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 28, 2016)

silkstone said:


> Heat issues?
> 
> I know i'd get wildly different results using my 280x crossfire on firestrike. One of the cards was downclocking when it got too hot and this would affect my overall score.
> I also got different results between driver versions.
> ...


Yeah very possible on the 2 different cards.

but with heat I don't have any heat issues, even clocked up I only run high 70's to low 80's

the 290 in the bottom slot only runs 300MHz on the core in the bench while the 290X is running full steam ahead.

Id like other mixed R9 series to post there findings here just to see whats going on.

I'm currently re-installing the bench and also went back to the newest AMD driver...


----------



## silkstone (Jul 28, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> Yeah very possible on the 2 different cards.
> 
> but with heat I don't have any heat issues, even clocked up I only run high 70's to low 80's
> 
> ...



It just won't work with 2 different model cards. You'll need to wait for a 3DMark update.

It was frustrating the hell out of me too, until I did a bit of digging and found that anyone with mixed cards that still work in CF, do not work with Timespy.

Here's a discussion on the issue: https://community.futuremark.com/fo...-Time-Spy-and-Non-identical-GPUs-in-Crossfire


----------



## fullinfusion (Jul 28, 2016)

silkstone said:


> It just won't work with 2 different model cards. You'll need to wait for a 3DMark update.
> 
> It was frustrating the hell out of me too, until I did a bit of digging and found that anyone with mixed cards that still work in CF, do not work with Timespy.
> 
> Here's a discussion on the issue: https://community.futuremark.com/fo...-Time-Spy-and-Non-identical-GPUs-in-Crossfire


Thank you very much on the info, I was litterly ripping my rig apart looking for any issues lol 

Dam now I can go bench something else till this gets coded to work for us non matching card owners.

I wondered why there wasn't hardly any AMD R9 crossfire scores yet but yes it totally makes sense, but heck I'd wish there be an update already.

I can clock these cards into the 1200/1600+ range with ease


----------



## silkstone (Jul 28, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> Thank you very much on the info, I was litterly ripping my rig apart looking for any issues lol
> 
> Dam now I can go bench something else till this gets coded to work for us non matching card owners.
> 
> ...



Me too. I was reseating the card, checking the bridges, trying different slots . . . nothing worked.

Not too many people use different cards in CF, so googling the issue wasn't that straightforwards.


----------



## JATownes (Jul 28, 2016)

Whew! Glad nothing was fishy.   

The explicit multi-adapter version they use seems to scale better than Crossfire, but definitely has drawbacks. 

JAT


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 29, 2016)

Updated!


----------



## Vellinious (Jul 30, 2016)

Update

12611 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.6 / 980ti x2 @ 1531 / 2143

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/177380


----------



## Laughing_Beast (Jul 30, 2016)

1861 - Laughing_Beast / G3220 @ 3Ghz / MSI GTX 960  @ 1190 MHz / 1753 MHz


----------



## Lt_JWS (Aug 3, 2016)

4249 - Lt_JWS / 8320 @ 4.5Ghz/ MSI GTX1060 @ 1724/2242/1939Boost

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/201149


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 5, 2016)

SCORE - THEONEANDONLYMRK / CPU 4.7 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1266 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 2000 MHz

STOCK GPU CLOCKS XFIRE ON, CPU IN SUMMER FOLDING MILD MODE


----------



## NinkobEi (Aug 7, 2016)

Not the greatest I guess but its pretty much stock.


4447 - Ninkobei / i5 3570k 3.9 GHz / R9 Nitro Fury @ 1060MHz  / 500 MHz


----------



## _larry (Aug 8, 2016)

Stock clocked XFX R9 290
Intel i5 3450 @ 3.9ghz

Score 3447

My CPU cannot be overclocked much more because it is a non - "K" series... yeah, I messed up when I bought it.
Going to see how far I can push my card though. I have copper heatsinks on the VRM chips which helps overclocking a TON on this card. I will do further testing until my card is maxed out and post another score. 
This is simply the baseline score.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 8, 2016)

Will get caught up tomorrow.. 

_larry, if you would like your score posted on the front page, please follow the proper format.


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 13, 2016)

8127 - Random Murderer / i7 4930K @ 4.5GHz / Sapphire R9 295X2 @ 1094 / 1650


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 27, 2016)

Mine crashed... Stupid test needs SS*S*E3 to run... Funny how the graphics tests works just fine, is only the CPU test that needs it.


----------



## Recon-UK (Aug 27, 2016)

GoldenX said:


> Mine crashed... Stupid test needs SS*S*E3 to run... Funny how the graphics tests works just fine, is only the CPU test that needs it.


That means all AMD CPU's are not able to run it? SSSE3 is an intel only instruction.
SSE3 is on AMD though.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2016)

This can run just fine on AMD CPUs.


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 27, 2016)

On AMD CPUs newer than the Phenom II, APUs and FXs have SSSE3.

https://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark
"* Time Spy requires a processor with SSSE3 support."


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 27, 2016)

An 8 year old AMD chip or newer.


----------



## GoldenX (Aug 29, 2016)

My CPU: "Listen, you feeble human! I'm only 5 years old, you are older than that and you can never reach my level of computational power. My master, a '97 Pentium MMX is still younger than you and still is better at number crunching than any human on earth!"
Me: "Wut?"

FX processors are from 2011, Phenom II are from 2009.

To keep on-topic, I've reached 550 points in the graphics score, without overclock.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 29, 2016)

Phenom II was released in 2008 on AM2+, the AM3 came out in really early 09. 

My apologies... ALMOST an 8 year old CPU.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Aug 30, 2016)

im guessing this thread isnt updated anymore?


----------



## Random Murderer (Aug 30, 2016)

AthlonX2 said:


> im guessing this thread isnt updated anymore?


@EarthDog still posts here, but no, the OP hasn't been updated in almost a month.


----------



## NinkobEi (Aug 30, 2016)

AthlonX2 said:


> im guessing this thread isnt updated anymore?


Doesn't seem like it. I'd add my OC score if it would be updated though


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 30, 2016)

Sorry, I honestly thought it had been. Updated with any score that was close to using the right format. 

Thank for the poke RM.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Aug 30, 2016)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> View attachment 77595
> 
> 6437 - THEONEANDONLYMRK / CPU 4.7 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1266 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 2000 MHz
> 
> STOCK GPU CLOCKS XFIRE ON, CPU IN SUMMER FOLDING MILD MODE


Adjusted on this one


----------



## Kanan (Sep 8, 2016)

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/410161

3715 - Kanan / i7 3960X 4.80 GHz / Asus GTX 780 Ti DirectCU II @ 1202 MHz / 1925 MHz

I'm too lazy to add screenshots, because I forgot to make them and would need to do all over again (overclocking, benching etc.) - it's okay if you don't include it on the 1st post though.


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 8, 2016)

Will update today when I am not mobile.


----------



## NinkobEi (Sep 8, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Will update today when I am not mobile.


Up a few, the poster was using crossfire amd and you put him as an nvidia(green) single card set up


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 8, 2016)

Updated and corrected. That person didn't follow the format and didn't put his GPU in there and I did not check. 

Should be good to go!


----------



## Tardan (Sep 16, 2016)

8725 - Tardan / i7 3770K @ 4.1GHz / NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal @ 2063 MHz / 1376 MHz





New toy, wanted to test it out!


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 16, 2016)

Updated.


----------



## blacktruckryder (Sep 17, 2016)

Update me for a different GPU.

5475 - blacktruckryder / 4690k @ 4.7Ghz / EVGA 980ti FTW @ 1215Mhz (Boost 1316Mhz) / Memory @ 1878Mhz


----------



## fullinfusion (Sep 17, 2016)

blacktruckryder said:


> Update me for a different GPU.
> 
> 5475 - blacktruckryder / 4690k @ 4.7Ghz / EVGA 980ti FTW @ 1215Mhz (Boost 1316Mhz) / Memory @ 1878Mhz
> 
> View attachment 78898


Nice score!


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 17, 2016)

Morrow, OH? Wow.... Im in Cbus. 

UPdated.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 17, 2016)

I cant tell if it running in 1440 or 1080?

Try to find the custom settings and it say 1440 greyed out?

4235 - Jetster / CPU 4.4 GHz / GPU @ 1291MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 1753 MHz


----------



## RJ (Sep 19, 2016)

*EDIT per thread rules: *RJ-4790K 4.8GHz-980TI SLI 1481/1855







http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14930947


----------



## blacktruckryder (Sep 19, 2016)

Ok, last one for a while! Just picked up this Asus 1080.

Yeah I'm about 80 miles south of cbus.

6860 - blacktruckryder / 4690k @ 4.7Ghz / Asus Strix Gaming ROG GTX 1080 @ 1836Mhz (Boost 1975Mhz) Actual Boost 2066Mhz / Memory @ 1314Mhz


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 19, 2016)

I will update asap... thanks!


----------



## Kanan (Sep 19, 2016)

blacktruckryder said:


> Ok, last one for a while! Just picked up this Asus 1080.
> 
> Yeah I'm about 80 miles south of cbus.
> 
> ...


Asus? Which one?


----------



## Exceededgoku (Sep 19, 2016)

11543 - exceededgoku / 5960X @ 4.8Ghz / Radeon R295X2 x 2 @ stock clocks


----------



## LightningJR (Sep 19, 2016)

5568 - LightningJR / i5 2500k @ 4.7Ghz / ASUS STRIX GTX 1070 Core @ 1686Mhz (Actual Boost @ 2063Mhz) / Memory @ 2202Mhz








I am not too sure what you mean by "actual boost" but what I did was use GPUZ's render test to see how high the clock would go. I am guessing that highest boost since it keeps power % low but GPU usage high.


----------



## Kanan (Sep 19, 2016)

Maybe average boost frequency everything else would be pretty senseless.


----------



## gupsterg (Sep 19, 2016)

5345 - gupsterg / i5 4690K 4.9 GHz / Fury X @ 1145MHz / Memory 545 MHz

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/467838


----------



## TheHunter (Sep 20, 2016)

*6099* - TheHunter / 4770K @ 4.6 GHz / ZotaC GTX 980Ti Amp! Omega @ 1473 MHz / 1855 MHz.


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14947946?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 20, 2016)

Kanan said:


> Maybe average boost frequency everything else would be pretty senseless.


'actual boost' is the boost clock it runs at through the benchmark. There may be a different clock or two there...but just the one it ran the most is fine.

The point here is to more accurately report your clockspeeds. Gpuz only reports the 'minimum' boost on the main screen while cards boost WELL above that normally.

It helps staves off question like 'why does person a score 500 points higher with the same system, card and clocks' as well with that more accurate reporting.

You can have msi ab or gpuz running in the background to see these clocks. It's  the sensor tab in gpuz, or in the monitoring graph in msi ab.


----------



## Kanan (Sep 20, 2016)

Then the clock I wrote down is correct I guess. I didn't look for straight averages.

Yes, GPU-Z is minimum *guaranteed* boost. GPU Boost will then look for headroom and if any boost higher.


----------



## Jetster (Sep 20, 2016)

Earthdog, So default settings always run 1440 even on a 1080 monitor?


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 20, 2016)

Yes. It upscales it. 

Updated (anyone that was close to the right formatting - RJ please check out the first post for the text formatting)!!

I will be painting my new house for the next few days... no updates likely until mid next week. Thanks for your patience


----------



## RJ (Sep 20, 2016)

10032 RJ/4790K 4.8GHz/980TI SLI /GPU 1481 MHz/Memory 1855







http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14930947


----------



## heky (Sep 20, 2016)

*6530* - heky / 5820K @ 4.5 GHz / Gainward Phoenix GTX1070 GS @ 1733 MHz(2088 boost) / 2127 MHz






[/IMG] 



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14858144?


----------



## mrbudgie (Sep 21, 2016)

this is mine, would of thought a higher cpu score


----------



## Nergal (Sep 21, 2016)

Strange, I havent seen any 480´s yet?
Anyway, this is all @PureStock

*4337 *- Nergal / 6700@stock(none-K) / Sapphire Nitro+ Rx480 @stock (1342MHZ/2000MHZ)

Seems to get GTX980 scores; not too shabby

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/478087


----------



## Kanan (Sep 22, 2016)

Nergal said:


> Strange, I havent seen any 480´s yet?
> Anyway, this is all @PureStock
> 
> *4337 *- Nergal / 6700@stock(none-K) / Sapphire Nitro+ Rx480 @stock (1342MHZ/2000MHZ)
> ...


Nice do some OC and post again? I'm curious what the RX 480 can do.


----------



## Vellinious (Sep 27, 2016)

10738 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.5 / TitanX Pascal @ 2063 / 2801

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/339719







Got blocks going on the 1080 FTWs....will get some SLI scores up maybe this weekend.


----------



## mrbudgie (Oct 14, 2016)

this is RX480 gb crossfire results, these are the slightly over clocked xfx ones with the custom backplates


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 14, 2016)

here's mine


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 15, 2016)

I'll get this updated tomorrow night. I appreciate your patience.


----------



## MetalRacer (Oct 16, 2016)

8620 - MetalRacer / i7 5960X 5.4 / GTX 1080 @ 2126 / 1391


----------



## Robert Bourgoin (Oct 16, 2016)

8010 RobertBourgoin  i7 5930 x 43 GTX 980 SLI 1854/1405


----------



## MetalRacer (Oct 16, 2016)

10970 - MetalRacer / i7 6950X 5.0 / Titan X Pascal @ 1974 / 1426





http://www.3dmark.com/spy/597322


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 17, 2016)

I cannot update this thread anymore... reaching out to W1zz for adding the ability to edit again..........


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 20, 2016)

I updated anyone that was close to the right formatting... (is it really that hard?!!! LOL!)

Please do not add any formatting (like bold) to your scores people. Nobody else has it on the scoreboard so that makes me have to remove it.


----------



## Frick (Oct 20, 2016)

I'm pleased to see my scores holding up nicely. Very nicely.


----------



## Random Murderer (Oct 20, 2016)

Frick said:


> I'm pleased to see my scores holding up nicely. Very nicely.


I don't see anybody touching those scores in quite a while...


----------



## EarthDog (Oct 20, 2016)

I thought about leaving those scores off Frick... something is not right about them...


----------



## Kabiel (Oct 29, 2016)

Here is mine:

Intel i7 6850k @ 4.25 Ghz | Asus Strix Gtx 1080 @ 2123mhz | 32 GB G.Skills DDR4 @ 3000 mhz | Asus Rampage V Edition 10 | Corsair 115i CPU AIO Cooler | Samsung 950 Pro M.2 SSD | Strix Air cooled GPU, and Air cooled Thermaltake Core x5 Riing Case | EVGA 850w PS

You may notice the validation failure on the screenshot, if you zoom in you will see this is due to the graphics driver.  Which I just updated today, and it seems that has not filtered to 3dmark yet, but it is current newest build NVidia Driver


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 29, 2016)

My score: 0
I don't do windows 10 and DX12 (yet)....

Thanks for testing windows 10!


----------



## Vellinious (Oct 30, 2016)

15140 - Vellinious / i7 6950X  4.0 / 2 x 1080 @ 2164 / 5499

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15733297


----------



## BewareBoogeyMan (Nov 1, 2016)

Why use this... low very low program ?
You are not have eyes? 
Looks like dx9 all test thats not beauthy textures.
And Why scores??? Only reason reason/import/meaning is The minimum fps    if under 30 (sometimes 25) when you will not enjoy game 
but thats is the point what kind game 3dmark???


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

Clearly something you don't understand...its a BENCHMARK. It has DX12 testing elements in it and doesn't look remotely like anything DX9. 

Anyway, back to reality here... updated anyone that was close to using the right format (thanks Velli!)


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Anyway, back to reality here... updated anyone that was close to using the right format (thanks Velli!)




You should have some more updates, since I find that latest NVidia benchmark improves scores somehow with 1070. Currently running benchmarks, seen 1000 point difference (93xx to 103xx), could have been getting low scores due to potential hardware problems in test rig though.

Seen anything like this lately?


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

@cadaveca

Decided to post it here but leave some things out... 


I just received a new 1070 from a vendor a day or so ago... its clocks come in lower than their 1070 I tested a couple months ago... 1924 MHz boost vs 1987 MHz and the new card beats it out across the board except for in Rise of the Tomb Raider. In 3DM Time Spy, the 1924 MHz card scored 5,982 on 375.70 (latest WHQL), while the 1987 MHz card on 368.39 scored 5892.  I don't have the original card to test, but its 60Mhz less and scoring as much or MORE than the other one, as well as across the gaming/benchmarking suite (again besides ROTR).


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

I am using same cards as a month ago. I have one Samsung-based card and two Micron. I benched the cards separately, and they scored differently, sicn ethey all boost to different clocks, and have different voltages. I have screenshots and saved results on the ORB.

Today I got a memory sample in from Team Group, and started benching before reverting to review config, and noticed the point increase.

Here are some links:

old:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/614292


new:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/664806

Now, I do understand that this is with different boards, and different memory, but that's part of why I started to ask...


Does CPU and memory now account for such a large difference? Note the GPU clock speeds are within margin of error for successive benchmark runs...

another benchmark since there are differences in CPU speeds reported:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/614314

note that before, CPU accounting for 100-250 points was normal.


Thoughts? This is interesting because if I am working on a memory review, maybe there is a need to choose platform used for reviews wisely?

MS-B903 board model is MSI Aegis Ti PC, FYI. will swap cards back into MSI rig and retest in an hour or so, still handing out candy to kids and trying to finish memory benching at the same time, posting from my Surface.  Also looking at checking 980's since that's what I use for memory reviews... if benchmark is at fault, I have some serious re-benching to do.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

The only anomaly I have seen is between 2 1070's. The only difference in the system was the GPU and the driver...

... well, the clocks, but as I said the card running the latest driver runs 60Mhz less than the other 1070 and is faster... sometimes by a few % (not FPS, %) with less clocks (memory clocks are the same).


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

Can you run a single bench and see if there is any difference... look at the dates, etc... I am totally at a loss for what is going on. I'll bench at same speeds, see if we see some differences....

 I have tested all the benchmarks in 3DMark, 980 seems unaffected.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

Just confirm.... single bench to compare the drivers, yes? Once you confirm, I can do that...

EDIT: Wow, am I tired...

So, you want me to run this bench with both drivers (or any single bench with this card and the two drivers) right? LOL


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Just confirm.... single bench to compare the drivers, yes? Once you confirm, I can do that...


Yep.

Normal CPU difference, single GTX 1070:


Stock (old card Samsung) driver 21.21.13.7306:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/615231

CPU OC (old card, Samsung) driver 21.21.13.7557:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/632671

New card OC (Micron) driver 21.21.13.7290:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/535975



To add to your thing about old vs new cards... driver seems to paly a role as well, but not usually this much? I'd very much like to see your numbers to see how different they are from mine. I can pop in any of the cards I have to test, too. All are MSI GAMING 1070, Samsung is GAMING, Micron cards are GAMING X (but tend to clock slightly lower)


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

Old card was MSI 1070 Gaming X, new card... also a 1070(micron), but shall remain nameless until a slightly later date. 

testing now.. will update and 'ping' you when its done.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 1, 2016)

Memory speed, command rate and timings all make a difference in the CPU score.  I didn't notice any difference in GPU scores, though.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 1, 2016)

I've got an update, btw....went ahead and put some clock on the CPU.

15458 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.5 / 2 x 1080 @ 2202 / 5500

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/661446


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Memory speed, command rate and timings all make a difference in the CPU score.  I didn't notice any difference in GPU scores, though.


I did, and hence me bringing it up. AS I mentioned, 980 does not seem to be affected at all, but 1070 does in my testing today. Could be I had a problem earlier, but given that my scores seem in line with Earthdog's scores, I'm left a bit confused.

Like, is the difference then something only for TimeSpy? Or are some other apps affected as well? Free performance boost?


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 1, 2016)

In the GPU test?  Ya know, before today, and running Firestrike, trying my best to catch the guy sitting at #1 for 2 x 1080s, I would have said, "no, the CPU / memory makes very little difference in the graphics score".  I no longer think that's the case.  

That said, in Timespy, I've never noticed a difference in the graphics scores with clock / memory clock variations.  In fact, my best graphics score to date on TimeSpy was with neither the memory or the CPU overclocked at all.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> In the GPU test?  Ya know, before today, and running Firestrike, trying my best to catch the guy sitting at #1 for 2 x 1080s, I would have said, "no, the CPU / memory makes very little difference in the graphics score".  I no longer think that's the case.
> 
> That said, in Timespy, I've never noticed a difference in the graphics scores with clock / memory clock variations.  In fact, my best graphics score to date on TimeSpy was with neither the memory or the CPU overclocked at all.


Take a look at the scores I posted above in post #161.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 1, 2016)

I saw, and noticed that each run had a different driver version.  That, in and of itself, can make a world of difference in the graphics score....and considering all 3 runs are within a reasonable margin of error, I'd guess that's where the difference is.

Try the newest drivers, btw....they help a bit more, and can hold higher clocks than the earlier versions.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> I saw, and noticed that each run had a different driver version.  That, in and of itself, can make a world of difference in the graphics score....and considering all 3 runs are within a reasonable margin of error, I'd guess that's where the difference is.
> 
> Try the newest drivers, btw....they help a bit more, and can hold higher clocks than the earlier versions.


no, higher post up, the SLI scores. 1000 points is not within the margin of error. Do also keep in mind that STEAM says I have 158 hours of running this bench, so I am very familiar with it, since that doesn't account for all the hours spent before I added it to STEAM, or running it on lots of my review rigs.

So yeah, driver is likely the cause, but such a big jump is something I'd like someone else to confirm, because I may have  VGA with *ahem* ...issues. I am just about to swap back to MSI Aegis Ti and re-test to see if scores pass to other rig, of if it was something on the ASUS board (which is now scoring much higher)


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 1, 2016)

Scores are the same, 60 MHz difference in core speeds.

In games I am getting multiple % increases.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 1, 2016)

cadaveca said:


> no, higher post up, the SLI scores. 1000 points is not within the margin of error. Do also keep in mind that STEAM says I have 158 hours of running this bench, so I am very familiar with it, since that doesn't account for all the hours spent before I added it to STEAM, or running it on lots of my review rigs.
> 
> So yeah, driver is likely the cause, but such a big jump is something I'd like someone else to confirm, because I may have  VGA with *ahem* ...issues. I am just about to swap back to MSI Aegis Ti and re-test to see if scores pass to other rig, of if it was something on the ASUS board (which is now scoring much higher)



I saw a 850 point increase with the latest drivers with 1080s in SLI.  /shrug

**In Timespy**  Didn't do anything thus far in my testing for Firestrike.....


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> I saw a 850 point increase with the latest drivers with 1080s in SLI.  /shrug


850 for driver and 150 for CPU clocks is about a perfect match to what I'm seeing, so thanks very much. 




EarthDog said:


> View attachment 80694 View attachment 80695
> 
> Scores are the same, 60 MHz difference in core speeds.
> 
> In games I am getting multiple % increases.



So seems some improvements for SLI mostly in 3DMark, not so much single card. I am now on the Aegis Ti and am re-testing for that review (review is done, just need to re-run benches, upload results, and that review will be live soon!). Will be more interesting to me to watch power consumption and see how/if that was affected by the performance boost. Nothing quite like a driver update to make you re-do review results. I suppose I could have left well enough alone, but this ain't something I could let slide easily... it would bug me. Once the review stuff is done I can get to benching and will be back to post new results!


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 2, 2016)

I got a better score but notting to brag about. going from 6454 to 6487. But it is as good this old timer can do.

6487 - TOMGANG / I7 920 @ 4.37 GHz / 2 x Zotac GTX 970 @ 1502 + 1928


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Nov 3, 2016)

Hey guys..here is my Time Spy result with the GTX 660 TI

1932 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4Ghz / GPU GTX 660 TI 1202Mhz / Mem 1835Mhz


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 3, 2016)

Updated anyone that was close to the format required ( Zyl, please see the first post for instructions).


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Nov 3, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Updated anyone that was close to the format required ( Zyl, please see the first post for instructions).


I did fresh test right now and change pic in my post above....I hope that is better now!!!


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 3, 2016)

You are missing the entire score format man...

CORE - USERNAME / CPU X.x GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL XXXX MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock XXXX MHz




EDIT: Updated.......


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 4, 2016)

Newer Crimson driver continues to boost FuryX performance. 

5546 - xkm1948 / CPU 4.25 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1097 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 500 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2016)

Updated.



leonardj69 said:


> I have got up to 6.8 Windows Index Score


LOL..OK bud. Wrong thread.


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 4, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Old card was MSI 1070 Gaming X, new card... also a 1070(micron), but shall remain nameless until a slightly later date.



I'm guessing you have the card that sneeky had. 1 of 5 in the world.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2016)

No idea what he has...

Just a card that was under NDA at the time. Its up now, review published, etc...


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Nov 4, 2016)

This is my score:
CPU @ 4.6GHZ


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2016)

Great! If you want added to the list, please follow the instructions in the first post.


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Nov 4, 2016)

7019 - Liviu Cojocaru / i5 4690K@4.6 GHz / GTX 1080 Palit GR  @ 2088 MHz boost / Memory clock @1376 MHz


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 4, 2016)

Screenshot?

My goodness, people.  This is not that difficult.....


----------



## Liviu Cojocaru (Nov 4, 2016)

There you go, my bad


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 4, 2016)

Ive been pretty lenient on the screenshot requirements for everyone (a screenshot is needed, but many don't have the required CPUz tabs, etc). This place can't seem to consistently pull it together compared to OCF, LOL! You would think I am trying to teach quantum physics with the amount of users that bork it and can't follow the instructions or examples... 

Updated!


----------



## MacNavy (Nov 5, 2016)

i7-6700 (no K) -  LEPA Water coolind dissipator - Asus Z170i Pro Gaming - Patrio 3200MHz DDR4 XMP Mode - Sapphire R9 Fury X - LG 29UM67-P - Phanteks Mini-ITX


5167 - MacNavy / i7-6700 / Sapphire Fury X @ stock

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/686597


----------



## Jeffredo (Nov 5, 2016)

4466 - Jeffredo / i5-4690k @ 4200 / Galax GTX 960 x2 @ 1405 - 1753

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15883991


----------



## MacNavy (Nov 5, 2016)

xkm1948 said:


> Newer Crimson driver continues to boost FuryX performance.
> 
> 5546 - xkm1948 / CPU 4.25 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1097 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 500 MHz
> 
> View attachment 80774



each driver release optimized for the FURY! Yes,


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 6, 2016)

Lowered the ambients down by 5c for some testing in Firestrike.  Decided to give Timespy another run.  

15769 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.3 / 2 x 1080 @ 2202 / 5556

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/688549


----------



## MacNavy (Nov 6, 2016)

Vellinious said:


> Lowered the ambients down by 5c for some testing in Firestrike.  Decided to give Timespy another run.
> 
> 15769 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.3 / 2 x 1080 @ 2202 / 5556
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/688549


Very impressive!

Ram DDR4 3200 CL14 ???


----------



## Jeffredo (Nov 6, 2016)

How the heck do you guys do these huge, clear attachments?  Is it a free image hosting service or can we attach screenshots directly?


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 6, 2016)

Jeffredo said:


> How the heck do you guys do these huge, clear attachments?  Is it a free image hosting service or can we attach screenshots directly?


techpowerup.org


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 6, 2016)

MacNavy said:


> Very impressive!
> 
> Ram DDR4 3200 CL14 ???



Yeah.  TridentZ.  It's really outstanding memory.  Usually for Timespy I'd have it running at 3400 14 1T, but....I was really just kinda messing around with Firestrike tonight, trying to figure out how to break 49k graphics score....needless to say, I haven't unlocked the secrets to that yet.  The GPUs were running good, so I threw timespy up just to see.  Ended up being a pretty good run.




Jeffredo said:


> How the heck do you guys do these huge, clear attachments?  Is it a free image hosting service or can we attach screenshots directly?



Screenshot, then post to a hosting site.  I use imgur.com.


----------



## Recon-UK (Nov 6, 2016)

New result.

2077 - Recon-UK /E5640 @ 4.3 (CPU-Z is having issues) / EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC reference at 1189mhz / 7000 mem


----------



## Recon-UK (Nov 6, 2016)

Managed to fix my CPU speed reporting errors in CPU-Z but i have lost my voltage readings? well CPU is at 1.37v 4.34ghz

Also managed to maintain a slightly higher core clock on my 670.

2102 - Recon-UK /E5640 @ 4.34 (CPU-Z fixed!) / EVGA GeForce GTX 670 SC reference at 1202mhz / 7000 mem


----------



## MacNavy (Nov 6, 2016)

No people with a crossfire of Fury X ?

p.s.
Exciting forum


----------



## Recon-UK (Nov 6, 2016)

MacNavy said:


> No people with a crossfire of Fury X ?
> 
> p.s.
> Exciting forum



Way back in the thread it was mentioned that Crossfire is bugged.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 8, 2016)

8867 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.4 / 1080 @ 2193 / 5567

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/699181


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Nov 10, 2016)

I managed to push a bit more my "old horse"......

ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.3Ghz / GPU GTX 660 TI 1215Mhz / Mem 1835Mhz


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 10, 2016)

just benching timespy and heaven tonight, scores drop off cause my 290x cant keep from hitting 94c and throttling


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Nov 11, 2016)

NdMk2o1o said:


> just benching timespy and heaven tonight, scores drop off cause my 290x cant keep from hitting 94c and throttling


Put it outside? Winter time!!


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 11, 2016)

This thread does need more AMD scores, come on ladies don't be shy!


----------



## VarioShadow (Nov 11, 2016)

Here's mine, And about the "Needs more AMD posts" If I had my FX-8320 @ 5 GHz/ 2-way SLI GTX 780 Ti Rig up and running I'd post it too.

13,181 - VarioShadow / I7 6950X 4.0 GHz / 2x Nvidia GTX 1080 FE @ 1607 MHz (Boost 1734) / 1251 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

Updated.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Nov 11, 2016)

Athlon2K15 said:


> Put it outside? Winter time!!



feck that, am getting an accelero xtreme iv


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

Put the stock cooler on and go outside... that would be better than the accelero.... winter ambient temps FTW!


----------



## VarioShadow (Nov 11, 2016)

Submission for single GPU with SLI disabled and GTX 1080 OCed a little
7,888 - VarioShadow / I7 6950X 4.0 GHz / Nvidia GTX 1080 FE @ 1697 MHz (Boost 1825) / 1351 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

No rest for the weary, LOL... 

Updated.


----------



## VarioShadow (Nov 11, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> No rest for the weary, LOL...


Sorry, can't wait till I can get some waterblocks on these 1080s.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 11, 2016)

Still tuning the CPU.....the CPU portion is a real pita

15900 - Vellinious / i7 6950X 4.5 / 2 x 1080 @ 2202 / 5567

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/705550


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Nov 11, 2016)

Hey @EarthDog  I believe that you need to move Jeffredo result in the Dual gpu´s
4466 - Jeffredo / i5-4690k @ 4200 / Galax GTX 960 x2 @ 1405 - 1753


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

Seriously..I do two updates in one day and BAM, more immediately after... lolol! Updated again... and I am going to bed! 

I lied, just wanted to put the 1070's behind me before bed... 


7037 - Earthdog / 6950X 4.2 GHz / GTX 1070 @ 2063 MHz / 2209 MHz


----------



## VarioShadow (Nov 11, 2016)

Holy crap, Vellinious you're running 4.5Ghz?!? What kind of cooling are you using?


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 11, 2016)

VarioShadow said:


> Holy crap, Vellinious you're running 4.5Ghz?!? What kind of cooling are you using?



Dual loop, with an MORA3 420 on each loop.  230mm fans in push / pull.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

Using that cornfield fall air or inside ambient?

I can run 4.4 on mine all day long... looking for 4.6Ghz in Realbench for the OCF comp.


----------



## Vellinious (Nov 11, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Using that cornfield fall air or inside ambient?
> 
> I can run 4.4 on mine all day long... looking for 4.6Ghz in Realbench for the OCF comp.



Inside ambient for now....around 18c.  As the weather cools, I'll prop a window open and let it drop to around 5c, and then start making some hard pushes.

I have a homemade chiller in the works....on hold for a while though.  Will probably pick that project back up in the spring.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 11, 2016)

Ahh... nice! Yeah, I need to get mine colder... Its an ES so I can't 'bot the damn thing unless I jump up to 'paid overclocker' status.


----------



## VarioShadow (Nov 11, 2016)

Well I had a sudden realization today when I was preparing to attempt some overclocking. I fired up Coretemp to get some baseline temps and thats when I saw the cores instantly shoot to 100C. This is all following my recent installation of a full EK custom water cooling loop over the past couple of days including a EK R5-E10 Full Cover MB/CPU block, 560mm CE Series and 240mm XE Series Rads. I was shocked and perplexed to say the least. So I drained the loop and took the board out where I was met with this:

And what had caused this was me mistakenly using the i7-5000 series "CPU Tool" bracket that comes with the Edition 10 instead of the i7-6000 series one which I didn't even see in the motherboard accessories box when I swapped a R5E out for the R5E10 about a week ago. The manual simple said to use the "CPU Tool" not expanding upon the fact  that there were 2 different ones. By using the wrong "CPU Tool" it had caused the socket pressure plate to stick up maybe 1-1.5 mm above the surface of the IHS... FAIL! Well problem solved now but that was an interesting one. I have never encountered the plastic bracket before on any prior 2011 socket.

(edit) That spring-loaded plastic bracket is weirdest thing, I know Asus like to talk about their "Oh so special OC sockets" esp on ROG boards but spring assisted CPU lowering device?


----------



## The Pack (Nov 11, 2016)

i7 6850K @ 4.4 GHZ; Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G 1895Mhz/9200Mhz


----------



## Terchal (Nov 20, 2016)

I7 6700K @ 4.4 GHZ : KFA2 GTX 1080 EXOC : 2050/ Memoire 5250 : RAM : 3000Mhz


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 17, 2016)

Ok guys I swaped my old GTX 660 TI for R9 380 ASUS Strix 4Gb +60€....so far so good didn´t do 2 much OC yet so here is my Time Spy score:

2873 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU R9 380(4gb) 1035Mhz / Mem 1425Mhz


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 17, 2016)

@EarthDog am I blocked or can I post?


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 17, 2016)

Should be good to post!

I need to update this soon... sorry gents.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 19, 2016)

I didn´t like that much R9 380 so I changed for RX 470....and...yeah this litlle bugger going to stay with me for a while 

3799 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU RX 470(4gb) 1369Mhz / Mem 1650Mhz


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 19, 2016)

Zyll Goliath said:


> I didn´t like that much R9 380 so I changed for RX 470....and...yeah this litlle bugger going to stay with me for a while
> 
> 3799 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU RX 470(4gb) 1369Mhz / Mem 1650Mhz
> 
> View attachment 82225


I have the same feelings about my 480, it beat the crap outa my ol 290X even with the 290X overclocked to the wall... the 480 still beat it good even at stock clocks


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 19, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> I have the same feelings about my 480, it beat the crap outa my ol 290X even with the 290X overclocked to the wall... the 480 still beat it good even at stock clocks


No doubt man,RX series looking really good so far It´s just a shame that my CPU choke a bit this card but hey nobody is perfect right????


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 19, 2016)

Zyll Goliath said:


> No doubt man,RX series looking really good so far It´s just a shame that my CPU choke a bit this card but hey nobody is perfect right????


Sure there's other cards out there but as most already know I'm AMD all the way when it comes to gpu's

I play every single game of mine on ultra and absolutely love how it preforms 

Mind you I hope santa leaves one more under my tree this holiday so I can crossfire the system like I always do.


----------



## fullinfusion (Dec 20, 2016)

4707- fullinfusion / 4790kK @ 4.80 GHz / MSI RX 480 Gaming 8GB X @ 1450 MHz + 2100 MHz.

Sorry I didn't get the memory shot in the screen but here's the link to the actual run 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16780126?


----------



## Nergal (Dec 20, 2016)

fullinfusion said:


> 4707- fullinfusion / 4790kK @ 4.80 GHz / MSI RX 480 Gaming 8GB X @ 1450 MHz + 2100 MHz.
> 
> Sorry I didn't get the memory shot in the screen but here's the link to the actual run
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16780126?



Darn you!

Now I will actually need to OC and tweak to get a higher score.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 20, 2016)

Updated. 

Thank you, to the TWO people who entered everything properly.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 20, 2016)

9987  - thesmokingman / 6700k X 4.8ghz / Titan X Pascal@2101mhz / 1451mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/910384


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 20, 2016)

Updated again.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 20, 2016)

thesmokingman said:


> 9987  - thesmokingman / 6700k X 4.8ghz / Titan X Pascal@2101mhz / 1451mhz
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/910384



holy s***

titan x is no joke lol


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 20, 2016)

phanbuey said:


> holy s***
> 
> titan x is no joke lol



Thanks. 3dmark still puts way too much weight into the cpu. If it were ordered by graphics scores, my runs would be top 15 on the hof, but because its skewed to cpu it doesn't even make the leaderboard. Doh!


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 21, 2016)

thesmokingman said:


> Thanks. 3dmark still puts way too much weight into the cpu. If it were ordered by graphics scores, my runs would be top 15 on the hof, but because its skewed to cpu it doesn't even make the leaderboard. Doh!


 

Yeah what's sadder is actually the 6700K and 600k shows to run faster in games than and of the broadwell E chips due to higher clocks...

at the end of the day clockspeed is still king for games.


----------



## KrisCo (Dec 21, 2016)

Thought I'd throw mine in for a laugh.

5312 - KrisCo: i3 4160/ 295x2 Stock


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 21, 2016)

KrisCo said:


> Thought I'd throw mine in for a laugh.
> 
> 5312 - KrisCo: i3 4160/ 295x2 Stock
> 
> View attachment 82283


Well it´s not Titan X....but hey thats still great result for an"older"GPU,the only problem with that card could be power draw and heat...I guess you sorted that out...


----------



## Random Murderer (Dec 21, 2016)

Zyll Goliath said:


> Well it´s not Titan X....but hey thats still great result for an"older"GPU,the only problem with that card could be power draw and heat...I guess you sorted that out...


He's scoring a little low for the GPU, but that CPU is sorely bottlenecking him.
Also, @KrisCo Your VRAM will probably run 1600+ no problem, you have the same card I do and even when I was on the stock cooler, mine would do 1700.


----------



## KrisCo (Dec 21, 2016)

I don't think my PSU has enough grunt for a stable OC on this card. Try as I might , I cant get this card any hgiher. Although I've yet to find a game that this setup actually struggles with. Hoping another dual GPU card comes out relatively soon to replace it.


----------



## thesmokingman (Dec 21, 2016)

Random Murderer said:


> He's scoring a little low for the GPU, but that CPU is sorely bottlenecking him.



Nods, probably spot on. For comparisons sake.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/95752


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 21, 2016)

thesmokingman said:


> Nods, probably spot on. For comparisons sake.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/95752


His GPU score is perfectly fine...however P score is lower couse his CPU bottlenecking that beast obviously.......


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 21, 2016)

wait is that quadfire? nvm... googled it...

that GPU score is what my 1080 gets.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 22, 2016)

Keep the same clock but OC the memory....not such a huge a gain but still......

3843 - ZyllGoliath / Fx8300 4.0Ghz / GPU RX 470(4gb) 1369Mhz / Mem 1733Mhz


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 22, 2016)

8292 - Earthdog / 6950X X 4.2ghz / GTX 1080  @2101mhz / 1402mhz


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 27, 2016)

blacktruckryder score is labeled green, while he uses FuryX. Just saying.

I will be updating my FuryX score soon tonight.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 28, 2016)

Updated FuryX with ReLive driver and mild Wattman overclocking


5653 - xkm1948 / CPU 4.25 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1110 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 500 MHz


----------



## AndyGawg (Dec 29, 2016)

GPU four core, no HT. I wonder if HT would put me over 7,000pts?
GTX 1080FTU. i53750 @ 4.7GHz. Z77 System.

Link to FutureMark Score:

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/926005


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 29, 2016)

Nothing is right there andy.. see the first post for details and the post above you.


----------



## AndyGawg (Dec 29, 2016)

*Sorry about that*. I guess this won't help much, but my GDDRX5 was + 475Mhz. Core offset + 65MHz. Used AB, voltage +33%, Power limit 118.

Basic Time Spy DEFAULT settings. System Memory 16GB @ 1,820MHz.

I guess this is still wrong (*link is included, is it OK?) *but I am exceedingly busy with darn job so I will probably do this properly after reading the submission format in detail.

My apologies.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 29, 2016)

Proper screenshot and formatting are required, yep. The list will be here when you have the time.


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 30, 2016)

7421- phanbuey / CPU 4.66 GHz / GTX1080 @ ACTUAL 1985 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 5232MHz


----------



## NinkobEi (Dec 30, 2016)

Guess I can update mine
4789- Ninkobei / i5 3570k 4.0 GHz / R9 Nitro Fury @ 1150 MHz / Memory 500MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 30, 2016)

phanbuey said:


> 7421- phanbuey / CPU 4.66 GHz / GPU @ ACTUAL 1985 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 5232MHz
> 
> View attachment 82557


What gpu.. Needs To Be there..


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 30, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> What gpu.. Needs To Be there..


lol edited.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Dec 30, 2016)

6246 - Enterprise24 / i5-6500 @ 5 GHz / Nvidia GTX 980 Ti Reference @ 1556 MHz / 2000 MHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 30, 2016)

Updated.


----------



## xkm1948 (Dec 30, 2016)

EarthDog said:


> Updated.



Ehh, my score is not updated.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 30, 2016)

It is now!

Please be sure to fill out what GPU you have instead of leaving my generic place holders there.


----------



## thesmokingman (Jan 6, 2017)

10030  - thesmokingman / 6700k X 4.9ghz / Titan X Pascal@2101mhz / 1451mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17201278






Just had to bump the cpu to get that round 10K score.  

**lol, comparing my two runs, maybe I should have stayed on the old driver as it was faster.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 9, 2017)

Updated.


----------



## Vellinious (Jan 11, 2017)

Getting closer to 16k.....just need a little bit more.

15972 - Vellinious / 6950X @ 4.5ghz / GTX 1080 @2240 mhz / 5556 mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1023881


----------



## The Pack (Jan 11, 2017)

I7 6850K @ 4.4ghz/ GTX 1070 @ 1970mhz / 4900/4325


----------



## DOM (Jan 12, 2017)

3k with 7970 good?


----------



## Kanan (Jan 12, 2017)

DOM said:


> 3k with 7970 good?


Yes ofc, post proper screenshots for verification.


----------



## untrugby (Jan 16, 2017)

7674 - UNTRugby / i7-7700k @ 5.05 Ghz / GTX 1080 @ 2134 mhz / 5405 mhz


----------



## NinkobEi (Jan 22, 2017)

Took the Timespy title for my setup so this is the last one I'll do until Wattman allows memory OC or I get beat  Had to oc the ram quite a bit and pump some mVs through this ivy bridge to get it.

4959- Ninkobei / i5 3570k 4.6 GHz / R9 Nitro Fury @ 1145 MHz / Memory 500MHz


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 22, 2017)

thought I would post some overclocked results.

7385 - theoneandonlymrk / FX8350 @ 4.92 GHz / Saphire Rx480 ref x2 @ 1400 MHz + 1400 MHz.


----------



## Enterprise24 (Jan 29, 2017)

Updated

6330 - Enterprise24 / i5-6500 @ 5 GHz / Nvidia GTX 980 Ti Reference @ 1556 MHz / 2025 MHz.


----------



## The Pack (Jan 29, 2017)

11605, The Pack, 6850K@4.4Ghz, 2x Asus Strix O8G 1070 @ 2050Mhz / 8600Mhz


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 29, 2017)

Will get caught up shortly!


----------



## Tomgang (Jan 29, 2017)

Im joining the fun again since i got my cpu upgraded last week. Out the I7 920 got and in a I7 980X came. I seriously thinking getting two GTX 1070 in sli aswell, but i need to test this cpu some more in games to be sure its up to the task.
The cpu is still on the old side so maybe it cant handle it.

7227 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.5 GHz / GTX 970 x 2 @ GPU 1500/MEM 1918


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 29, 2017)

4120 - Vya Domus / FX-6300 4.4 GHz / ASUS GTX 1060 TURBO @ 2075MHz  / Memory clock 2250MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 29, 2017)

I'll update today or tomorrow when I'm at a pc and not mobile.


----------



## hapkiman (Jan 30, 2017)

New score with my i7 7700k/GTX 1080 combo.  I'm liking.  GPU was at default.

7516 - Hapkiman / i7 7700k @ 4.9GHz / GPU @ 2012MHz / Memory clock 5054MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 30, 2017)

Updated. 


(anyone that was close to the format/requirements... please see first post if you were not added).


----------



## Enterprise24 (Feb 5, 2017)

A little update. 

6358 - Enterprise24 / i5-6500 @ 5.07 GHz / GTX 980 Ti Reference @ 1556 MHz / 2000 MHz.


----------



## The Pack (Feb 5, 2017)

Hy @ all, a little update too

7122, The Pack/ i7 6850K @ 4.4GHz/ Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G @ 2151/4900 MHz


----------



## Tomgang (Feb 11, 2017)

After spanked the living crap out of my CPU i got a new and better score. Done with air cooling.

7343 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.62 GHz / GTX 970 x 2 @ GPU 1500/MEM 1913


----------



## Ascalaphus (Feb 11, 2017)

10,864 - Ascalaphus : i7-5930K @ 4.2 GHZ /2 x GTX 980 TI @ 1440mhz/MEM 1967


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 12, 2017)

Man...that sucker's brutal on my CPU. Barely wants to run it @ 4.7GHz. Any higher OC and it craps out. Pretty decent score for such a long-toothed old beast though! 

2935 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.7GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming 3GB @ 1224MHz / 1850MHz


----------



## pyon (Feb 12, 2017)

15194: 3770K@5.15GHz, Titan X (pascal) SLI.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 13, 2017)

Updated any results close to the formatting requested in the first post!!!


----------



## UrbanCamper (Feb 16, 2017)

UrbanCamper \ i5 6600k @ 4.5ghz \ MSI GTX 1070 @ 1797Mhz \ Memory @ 2025Mhz
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1222360


----------



## tastegw (Feb 18, 2017)

seems my cpu is getting quite dated ;/  will consider upgrading in the future for sure.






all stock clocks,  ran bench due to installing the new 1080,  should have ran it with my old titan beforehand to compare the differences.


----------



## The Pack (Feb 19, 2017)

A new score of me  

11899 The Pack i7 6850K@4.5GHz 2x GTX 1070 @ 2100MHz/4400MHz


----------



## Kanan (Feb 19, 2017)

tastegw said:


> seems my cpu is getting quite dated ;/  will consider upgrading in the future for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Upgrade to one of the 6 cores, I did the same, worth it.


----------



## tastegw (Feb 20, 2017)

Kanan said:


> Upgrade to one of the 6 cores, I did the same, worth it.



hey thanks for suggestion,  i think i should sell my titan i just replaced and use that cash to get a 3930k,  could see 10-15% cpu performance improvement if i do that.


----------



## Kanan (Feb 21, 2017)

tastegw said:


> hey thanks for suggestion,  i think i should sell my titan i just replaced and use that cash to get a 3930k,  could see 10-15% cpu performance improvement if i do that.


had a fat 50% growth in 3dmark FS. ;D 3820 @ 4.3GHz -> 3960X @ 4.8GHz

PS.
Here's the comparison:
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9331757/fs/6221667#


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 21, 2017)

Squeezed another 31 points out of 'er! Love how DX12 allows me to OC the sheeought out of my GC. 

2966 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming 3GB @ 1242MHz / 1850MHz


----------



## fitbmx8806 (Feb 24, 2017)

6031, fitbmx8806 / i7 3770K @ 4.5GHz/ Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G @ 1868/2330 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

I will update today...


----------



## The Pack (Feb 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> I will update today...


Suupeer


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 24, 2017)

This is gonna get interesting when all these zen cpus come online.


----------



## The Pack (Feb 24, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> This is gonna get interesting when all these zen cpus come online.


i`m wondering of this


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

thesmokingman said:


> This is gonna get interesting when all these zen cpus come online.


it won't change things too much.. cores matter here, but only a couple hundred points.

(Going from 4c8t to 8c16t...even less so from 6c12t to 8c16t)


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> it won't change things too much.. cores matter here, but only a couple hundred points.
> 
> (Going from 4c8t to 8c16t...even less so from 6c12t to 8c16t)



This is the multicore hero bench. If you want to be on the HoF, you need moar cores.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

Just tested it to confirm. I lost about 500 points (7000 to 6500) going from a 6950x @ 4.2 GHz to a 7700K at 5Ghz with the same clocks on the GPU. Mind you, thats a 10c/20t CPU down to a 4c/8t CPU. If someone jumps up from a comparable 8t CPU (4790K/6700K) to the 16t Ryzen around 4.3Ghz.. I would imagine around a couple (2)hundred points.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> Just tested it to confirm. I lost about 500 points (7000 to 6500) going from a 6950x @ 4.2 GHz to a 7700K at 5Ghz with the same clocks on the GPU. Mind you, thats a 10c/20t CPU down to a 4c/8t CPU. If someone jumps up from a comparable 8t CPU (4790K/6700K) to the 16t Ryzen around 4.3Ghz.. I would imagine around a couple (2)hundred points.



I would guess that a lot of ppl who don't or wont buy a $1.6K cpu, could make waves with a 1700 or similar on the cpu side of the bench. Futuremark really emphasizes cores when they are weighting the physics scores especially in firestrike. There's no way in hell for a 4c/8t part to can hit or even dream of 24K physics, even though the physics score has no real bearing on gpu score. Know what I mean? In some ways at least to me, they have some agreement to blow up physics numbers if core # <=8 then multiply factor 10, or some shiznits like that.

For ex. there's no way my 4.8ghz skylake will beat these 8c/16t or higher rigs even though my setup is faster! Put aside that this timespy is more cpu centric. If we move to the traditional firestrike, it starts to get even more hilarious.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1011822/spy/961871/spy/470208


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

It means more in FS, true...this is TS though. You are preaching to the chior...but it's only a few hundred points here from 8t 5ghz to 20t 4.2ghz.


----------



## thesmokingman (Feb 24, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> It means more in FS, true...this is TS though. You are preaching to the chior...but it's only a few hundred points here from 8t 5ghz to 20t 4.2ghz.



No the physics score difference in TS is more like 4-5k, which when combined gives a 800pt difference in Total Score in the example I linked above. You're missing the point. To get that 800pt difference back, you'd need to bridge that 4k-5k cpu score, which you'll never be able to do with a 4c part. You make the few hundred points sound like its nothing lol.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 24, 2017)

I get it... totally. But what can you do? At least it's more affordable to have more cores. 

But who's running anything at stock cpu (your link)? The less cores the higher it clocks, the closer you are (but likely never catching - a point never in question) to catching it. As I said, a realistic scenario, a 5 ghz 7700k and a 6950x at 4.2 yielded 500 points difference overall. Again, not something you will make up, but... it's only going to be a couple hundred points when you are talking the jump from 8t to 16t assuming similar overclocks on the intel 8t (close to or 5ghz which should cover 4790K-7800k), and the Ryzen in the low 4s where it seems to top out on ambient. 

Time will tell either way!


----------



## gint87 (Feb 25, 2017)

View attachment 84526 Might be adding another 1080 soon.View attachment 84526


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2017)

Updated anyone that was close to the formatting. If you were not updated, please refer to the first post for the screenshot and formatting requirements.

It really is not hard to copy and paste people... how can so many bork this so often?


----------



## R00kie (Feb 25, 2017)

7894 - gdallsk / 5820K@4.5 GHz / GTX1080 FE @ 2088 - 1375


----------



## The Pack (Feb 26, 2017)

11853-The Pack / i7 6850K@4,4GHz / 2x Asus Strix GTX 1070 O8G @ 2126/2200

The validation is failed, because i`ve got the new beta driver 378.77. He works fine, better than the whql before


----------



## pyon (Feb 26, 2017)

Score: 16976/ 7700K 5.3GHz / Titan X(pascal) X2 2.11GHz


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 2, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> It means more in FS, true...this is TS though. You are preaching to the chior...but it's only a few hundred points here from 8t 5ghz to 20t 4.2ghz.



This is what I'm talking about.

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...erclocking-results.231161/page-5#post-3611804


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 2, 2017)

Yep.. knew where you were going with it. 

Again though, this is TS, not FS. Percent wise it's going to be less than FS. It will still be helpful for these benchmarks, without a doubt, just perhaps not as much as i feel you are thinking here. 




Will update the thread soon...


----------



## gint87 (Mar 4, 2017)

I'll try to use correct formatting this time. Just got my second GTX 1080.

12343 - gint87 / i7 7700k 4.9GHz / GTX 1080 Founders Edition SLI @ 2012MHz / Memory 32Gb Corasair Vengeance LED 3200 MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 4, 2017)

Updated...


----------



## pyon (Mar 4, 2017)

Score: 14010/ 7700K @5.43GHz Cache @5.23GHz Memory @4.15GHz / GTX-1080 X2 @2.25GHz


----------



## MrGenius (Mar 8, 2017)

Just when I'd lost all hope of ever breaking 3000...the newest Radeon Beta drivers came through for me! In a BIG way too! Chalk me up for *another 106 points!!!* 

3072 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming 3GB @ 1229MHz / 1850MHz




I guess that answers the question of whether async compute has finally been fixed for GCN 1.0 with the 17.2.1 and later drivers. It's OBVIOUSLY working MUCH better now!!!


----------



## untrugby (Mar 16, 2017)

Just got my Ryzen and 1080ti in here is my score with the ryzen at 3.9 and the 1080ti at stock. Will have to mess around with the OC on it later

9215 - UNTRugby / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz / GTX 1080ti @ 1602 mhz


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 16, 2017)

Nice runs! Will update tonight!


----------



## R00kie (Mar 17, 2017)

Got a second 1080

5820K@4.5GHz - GTX 1080 1962/1375 MHz


----------



## The Pack (Mar 17, 2017)

gdallsk said:


> Got a second 1080
> 
> 5820K@4.5GHz - GTX 1080 1962/1375 MHz


Good Job, but look @ my 2 GTX 1070


----------



## R00kie (Mar 17, 2017)

The Pack said:


> Good Job, but look @ my 2 GTX 1070


You've got more PCI-E lanes than I do, plus you've pushed your cards way more than I did. But still, a difference is still a difference.


----------



## The Pack (Mar 17, 2017)

12015 - The Pack/ i7 6850K @ 4.4GHz 2x Asus Strix GTX 1070 @ 2126MHz / 9800MHz first card (Samsung RAM) + 8750 second card (Micron RAM)


----------



## The Pack (Mar 17, 2017)

gdallsk said:


> You've got more PCI-E lanes than I do, plus you've pushed your cards way more than I did. But still, a difference is still a difference.


Yes of course, but i paid only 1000 Dollars for 2 cards...


----------



## The Pack (Mar 17, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> You have more cores... have a cookie. With update shortly.


He has 6 C 12T too... but 28 lanes...


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 17, 2017)

The Pack said:


> He has 6 C 12T too... but 28 lanes...





The Pack said:


> Yes of course, but i paid only 1000 Dollars for 2 cards...




It's poor form to get into subjects you're headed towards.


----------



## The Pack (Mar 17, 2017)

Yes,sorry,you are right


----------



## Vellinious (Mar 18, 2017)

Testing the new 1080 FTW before I put the block on.  I reeaalllyy like this GPU.  It's gonna beast under water.

8930 - Vellinious / 6950X @ 4.2 GHz / GTX1080 FTW @ 2151 - 1414


----------



## freakshow (Mar 18, 2017)

A10-7860k w/ RX480


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 18, 2017)

7866 - phan / Raisin @ 4.0 / GTX1080 SC @ 2009 - 1363


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 28, 2017)

Updated results that were close to the correct formatting.

Please, dont put types of ram and other details in the passage... I then need to delete them so it will look proper on the front page. Please stick to the formatting on the front page. Don't add or change anything as this causes those running these threads more work and time.


----------



## DR4G00N (Mar 28, 2017)

Never ran Time Spy before but I have a few older cards kicking around so I'll give it a shot.


----------



## thesmokingman (Mar 28, 2017)

untrugby said:


> Just got my Ryzen and 1080ti in here is my score with the ryzen at 3.9 and the 1080ti at stock. Will have to mess around with the OC on it later
> 
> 9215 - UNTRugby / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz / GTX 1080ti @ 1602 mhz



You're not showing proper gpu clocks. GPUZ does not show the actual clocks in the graphics card tab. You need to switch to the sensors page and choose max clocks. In other words there's no way to hit that gpu score at 1600mhz, obviously.



EarthDog said:


> Updated results that were close to the correct formatting.
> 
> Please, dont put types of ram and other details in the passage... I then need to delete them so it will look proper on the front page. Please stick to the formatting on the front page. Don't add or change anything as this causes those running these threads more work and time.


----------



## DR4G00N (Mar 29, 2017)

2566 - DR4G00N / X5650 @ 4.52GHz / GTX 680 (PWR sense & cap modded) @ 1346MHz Core / 1753MHz Mem

Card was under water @ stock volts.

I miss my X58A-OC, this cpu would do 4.88GHz @ 1.66V on air. This X58 Classified 3 doesn't like going past 4.5GHz no matter the voltage.


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 15, 2017)

AMD must have heard me saying that I've been getting worse performance in Time Spy and Superposition with the latest drivers. So they made sure the very latest 17.7.1 drivers work better than any previous drivers with my card in both of those benchmarks. My Time Spy graphics score went up .74%(22 points more than my previous highest), and my Superposition score went up 3.19%(70 points more than my previous highest). Both ran with the same clocks and settings as before. Thanks AMD! 

3093 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming OC 3GB @ 1229MHz / 1850MHz


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 16, 2017)

New GPU means new scores and guess what.... This also means a goodbey to sli. I have really been waiting for at card like GTX 1080 TI that is capable of 4K with out the need for sli
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




9210 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.67 GHz / GTX 1080 TI @ 2050/1526

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2076604


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

.74% hahahahahaha 

Will update soonish.


----------



## therealmeep (Jul 16, 2017)

9038 - therealmeep/i7 6800k @ 3.6GHz/1080ti FTW3 @1911/5508


Tomgang said:


> New GPU means new scores and guess what.... This also means a goodbey to sli. I have really been waiting for at card lige GTX 1080 TI that is capable of 4K with out the need for sli


Me too. Picked this guy up yesterday and so far it destroys anything I throw at it. Unfortunately I don't have a good 4k panel so I can't put it to its full potential..


----------



## Tomgang (Jul 16, 2017)

therealmeep said:


> 9038 - therealmeep/i7 6800k @ 3.6GHz/1080ti FTW3 @1911/5508
> 
> Me too. Picked this guy up yesterday and so far it destroys anything I throw at it. Unfortunately I don't have a good 4k panel so I can't put it to its full potential..



Yeah same here. also need a 4K panel next. But a 1080 Ti sets you back a good deal, so have to save up for it in the coming time. But looking for to it. 4K is something else than this lowsy 1080P.


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> .74% hahahahahaha


Yeah I know. But it's far more than the variance between runs with the same drivers. Which is ~.2% or less. And compared to the most recent drivers before these(1 version prior) my graphics score is actually 1.78% higher. My previous highest graphics score came from much older drivers(10 versions earlier). And compared to my worst graphics score in this thread it's actually 5.87% higher. Anyway, stating it as a percentage difference can make it sound less significant...than it already is. Since from even my worst to best graphics scores(a gain of 165 points) the actual performance gained is less than 2 FPS. But this thread isn't about FPS, it's about scores. So I'll take whatever I can get there. So long as my score is higher than my previous high score, by more than the variance between runs, I'm calling that significant enough to post the new high score here.

Go ahead...laugh all you want. Seriously...it doesn't bother me.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

3% i can hang my hat on! 22 points out of nearly 3k, less than 3/4%, is run variance. Ive seen graphics scores vary by 50-100 points before.

Ill get to a desktop tonight and catch up.


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 16, 2017)

EarthDog said:


> 3% i can hang my hat on! 22 points out of nearly 3k, less than 3/4%, is run variance. Ive seen graphics scores vary by 50-100 points before.


I'm not seeing more than 5 points difference in graphics scores between runs with my card. They're very consistent for me. But my CPU scores vary by about 50 points. They're all over the place. It usually takes me several many runs to get a good CPU score to coincide with a graphics score I'm also happy with. Anyway, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just calling it how I see it from my end.


----------



## EarthDog (Jul 16, 2017)

Me too.


----------



## therealmeep (Jul 16, 2017)

Round 2. 9108 thanks to 6800k @ 3.9 1080ti @ 1974/1425


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 26, 2017)

Way more volts + Way more MHz = Way more points. Enough to earn me the silver(2nd place) for a single R9 280X on HWBOT even. Nice! 

3208 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming OC 3GB @ 1282MHz / 1850MHz




It'll be the highest valid score for a single R9 280X in the FM 3DMark record books too. If/when they get around to updating their list.


----------



## cadaveca (Jul 26, 2017)

MrGenius said:


> It'll be the highest valid score for a single R9 280X in the FM 3DMark record books too. If/when they get around to updating their list.



I should pull out my 7970 matrix, flash BIOS, and take #1, my card does 1350 MHz on GPU easy 

Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487



> 3 208 with AMD Radeon HD 7970(1x) and Intel Core i5-3570K Processor


----------



## MrGenius (Jul 27, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487


Well..what the heck? That's not right. It says AMD Radeon R9 200 Series on the screenshots. Going through my old results I can find a bunch that are listed as a 280X too. I wonder what the deal is with that. I also wonder what I should do as far as HWBOT. I mean the mistake isn't mine. But I imagine I might catch some flack about it. Oh well...hopefully not. Because I certainly don't want to be forced to compete against REAL 7970s. That's not even fair.

Speaking of BIOS, maybe that has something to do with it. I'm definitely not running a 7970 BIOS. But I have tweaked it quite a bit from its original form. I'm gonna try testing a non-tweaked version and see if it makes a difference. I need to test out these new 17.7.2 drivers anyway. Off I go...

EDIT: The switching to a stock 280X BIOS didn't work. I didn't really think it would. But now I'm fresh out of ideas as to what I might have done to cause it. Which is apparently nothing so far as I can tell. All my scores from before 7-16-17 are listed as a 280X. Everything after that date is listed as a 7970. I ordinarily wouldn't care about it. But now I'm all nervous it'll get me banned from HWBOT. Or whatever. Looks like I'm gonna have to contact FM and see what they can do...or undo. Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do about it on my own.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 27, 2017)

I need to rerun this with CPUz/GPUz I guess

2x1080Ti's

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2081561

3x980Ti's

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1723368


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 27, 2017)

cadaveca said:


> I should pull out my 7970 matrix, flash BIOS, and take #1, my card does 1350 MHz on GPU easy
> 
> Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487



I had quads that did up to 1350 and one of them actually did 1400 on water. But ugh by the time Timespy came around I'd already broken the quads up. The 1400mhz run was done by a friend after I retired that ole XFX gem. Sadly it died in transit back to the US.  

1330 run: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2563930

1400 single: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4282003




MrGenius said:


> EDIT: The switching to a stock 280X BIOS didn't work. I didn't really think it would. But now I'm fresh out of ideas as to what I might have done to cause it. Which is apparently nothing so far as I can tell. All my scores from before 7-16-17 are listed as a 280X. Everything after that date is listed as a 7970. I ordinarily wouldn't care about it. But now I'm all nervous it'll get me banned from HWBOT. Or whatever. Looks like I'm gonna have to contact FM and see what they can do...or undo. Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do about it on my own.



I wouldn't worry about it, no one really cares and we all know its the same card.


----------



## WhiteNoise (Jul 30, 2017)

8606 - WhiteNoise / 6600K @ 4.5 GHz / GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 @ 1974 MHz / 1377 MHz


----------



## xkm1948 (Aug 2, 2017)

5939 - xkm1948 / 6950X 4.2 GHz / R9 FuryX @ ACTUAL 1090 MHz (actual boost clock) / Memory clock 500 MHz


----------



## hapkiman (Aug 5, 2017)

Ran a new TimeSpy with i7 7700k boosting to 4.5, and my 1080 Ti at stock.  Over 9K!


----------



## WhiteNoise (Aug 8, 2017)

@EarthDog please use this score instead of the one earlier. New chip, board and ram.

I'm just starting on tweaking the BIOS to get the most out of this CPU. Here is my score for now. 


9807 - WhiteNoise / 7800X @ 4.7 GHz / EVGA GTX 1080 Ti FTW3 @ 1569 MHz + 1376 MHz.


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 8, 2017)

Finally updated anyone who was close. 

Thanks!


----------



## KentPH (Aug 16, 2017)

Pretty good for a Intel i7 3820 and still  going strong!


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Aug 18, 2017)

9223 - Athlon2K15 / AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4GHz / AMD Radeon R9 Nano CrossFire 1000 Core 500 Memory


----------



## the54thvoid (Aug 18, 2017)

10103 - the54thvoid / AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ 3.822GHz / Nvidia GTX 1080ti FE 2038 Core 1500 Memory


----------



## Kanan (Aug 22, 2017)

Here new results with new GPU I got a few days ago: 

6302 - Kanan / Core i7 3960X @ 4.8 GHz / G1 Gaming GeForce GTX 980 Ti @ 1450-1490 MHz core / 1978 MHz memory

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2242375


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Aug 25, 2017)

@EarthDog add me bro!!

@WhiteNoise we have an old fashion battle on our hands. 

10262 - Athlon2K15 / AMD Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4GHz / Geforce GTX 1080Ti Founders 1656 Core 1414 Memory


----------



## KentPH (Aug 27, 2017)

KentPH said:


> Pretty good for a Intel i7 3820 and still  going strong!
> 
> View attachment 91152



A little more and i love that i got same fps as those with more scores on Graphics!


----------



## Peter Lindgren (Aug 27, 2017)

Xeon 2680v2 @3.5Ghz and a R9 Nano @1050MHz


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 28, 2017)

Will update soon..

Fyi, several didnt follow instructions (peter, kent, kanan) for getting the score up... please read the first post for instructions.


----------



## Tomgang (Sep 4, 2017)

Been tweaking a bit more and played with Vram clocks. That gave a bit higher score.

9278 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.67 GHz / GTX 1080 TI @ 2062/1555

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21966383?






I know its Time spy but here is a little offtopic with a Fire Strike score... I´ll let the result speak for it self 

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21906959?


----------



## LordGuppi (Sep 5, 2017)

9072 - LordGuppi / i7-7700K 4.8 GHz / GTX 1080Ti @ 1607MHz (1721 MHz) / 3000 MHz


----------



## ikeke (Sep 15, 2017)

7 628 - ikeke / R7 1700 3.8 Ghz / Vega64 @ 1581 / 1100

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2375901

(no screenshot, unfortunately)


----------



## EarthDog (Sep 15, 2017)

Need screenshot.. see rule on front page. Please remove the extra info..just need what is asked for. 


Will update soon... promise! For real though. 





Updated! Please, PLEASE stop adding additional info... Clearly a Ryzen 7 1800x is an AMD. Clearly a GTX 1080 is NVIDIA. Please list the actual boost clock, not base and boost in parenthesis. Adding extra information makes me have to delete it in order for it to look clean on the front page. Thank you! 





Tomgang said:


> I´ll let the result speak for it self


Can you imagine what a real CPU would do with that card? I'm 1500 points behind, or 8%, with a GTX 1080 (non ti) at the same clockspeed. That thing is GASPING for air..


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 17, 2017)

4885 - Athlon2K15 / Ryzen 7 1800X @ 3.7 GHz / GTX 1060 6GB @ 2113 Boost / 2100 Memory


----------



## ikeke (Sep 17, 2017)

7 776 - ikeke / R7 1700 3.8 Ghz / Vega64 @ 1632 (1702) / 1100
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2399913






https://valid.x86.fr/e3d4wv
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details/9byew


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 19, 2017)

Good to see some Ryzen/Vega results coming in. Looks to match a 1080 pretty easy.


----------



## phanbuey (Sep 19, 2017)

10214 - phanbuey /  7820x 4.6Ghz / 1080ti @ 1629 / 1424


----------



## Athlon2K15 (Sep 19, 2017)

Clock it higher you're only behind me by 12.


----------



## Sirillya (Nov 30, 2017)

10729 - Sirillya - 8700@5Ghz - 1080TI @ Custom curve 2088/1553
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2795821


----------



## phanbuey (Dec 1, 2017)

Tweaked the CPU a bit
10302 - Phanbuey - 7820X@4.64Ghz - 1080TI silent @ 1703/1459


----------



## fusseli (Dec 8, 2017)

6896 - fusseli - i7 7700k @4.9ghz - 2x GTX970 SLI @1316mhz

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2871687


----------



## The Pack (Dec 10, 2017)

9854-The Pack-i7 6850K@4.2Ghz-Asus Strix 1080tiO11G@ 2050/1475


----------



## fusseli (Dec 11, 2017)

fusseli said:


> 6896 - fusseli - i7 7700k @4.9ghz - 2x GTX970 SLI @1316mhz
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2871687



Not sure I posted right the first time, here's a higher score anyway with more OC on the 970s

7080 - fusseli - i7 7700k @4.9ghz - GTX970 x2 SLI @1405mhz boost / 1753mhz ram

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2908980


----------



## Beucky (Dec 11, 2017)

so first post
i7 4790k@ 4.5 ghz   evga ftw  gtx 970(2x) sli @ 1903 mem/ 1466 gpu boost

seeing the 1080 post im happy not have bought it, not worth the difference


----------



## Hockster (Dec 12, 2017)

13400 - Hockster - i7 8700K @ stock - MSi GTX 1080 Gaming X (SLI) @ 1772/1911 boost/5054 mem


----------



## fusseli (Dec 12, 2017)

Beucky said:


> so first post
> i7 4790k@ 4.5 ghz   evga ftw  gtx 970(2x) sli @ 1903 mem/ 1466 gpu boost
> 
> seeing the 1080 post im happy not have bought it, not worth the difference



Agree 100%... together for my two 970s I am in less than $300 since I got both second hand... for 1070 and near 1080 speed


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Dec 12, 2017)

*4135 / ZyllGoliath / Xeon E5645 4.0Ghz / GPU MSI GTX 970(4gb) 1472Mhz / Mem 2005Mhz*



*Cool Result especially interesting as I didn´t add any additional voltage to the core + my power limit stayed on only 100%!!! *


----------



## fusseli (Jan 16, 2018)

Higher yet... more OC on the gpus and moved to 16gb 3200 CL15

7340 - fusseli - i7 7700k @4.9ghz - GTX970 x2 SLI @1466mhz boost / 1753mhz ram

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3139653


----------



## The Pack (Feb 15, 2018)

10783-The Pack / i7 5960X @ 4.625GHz / Asus Poseidon GTX 1080Ti @ 2062MHz / 11700MHz


----------



## er557 (Feb 15, 2018)

13868  - er557 -  dual xeon e5 2686 v3 @3.5ghz all cores-  gtx 1080 x2 SLI @120% tdp /+85 core /+410 ram


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 25, 2018)

Updated.

Several are continuing not to meet the requirements listed on the first page so those scores were not added. Again, please don't add erroneous data, copy and paste the format from the first post so it is a simply copy and paste.


----------



## DR4G00N (Mar 25, 2018)

7472 - DR4G00N / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8GHz / 2x GTX 780 Ti's @ 1200/1750MHz 
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3503528

Need to add my second 780 Ti to the loop, get's pretty toasty with the WF3 cooler.


----------



## EarthDog (Mar 25, 2018)

Hilarious... nothing since early Feb, I update and there is another minutes after!!! Haha!! Nice! Keep them coming.


----------



## DR4G00N (Mar 25, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Hilarious... nothing since early Feb, I update and there is another minutes after!!! Haha!! Nice! Keep them coming.


Gotta keep you busy with something. 

Might redo my GTX 680 score later now that I can increase the voltage.


----------



## Vego (Apr 4, 2018)

with two GTX1080Ti @ 2101MHz i got this some time ago


----------



## Kissamies (Apr 5, 2018)

Best score with 7600K: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2610010


----------



## BadFrog (Apr 5, 2018)

10793 - BadFrog / i7-5960x @ 4.6 Ghz / nVidia GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2076 MHz / 1494 MHz

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25957515?

https://valid.x86.fr/3gv1sq


----------



## fullinfusion (Apr 5, 2018)

7490/ fullinfusion/ I7 7700K  /4.8ghz/ Vega flashed to V64@ 1695 roughly/ HBM @ 1050

On an older Vanguard driver which is now public so I see no reason why I cant post this 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3532940

7528/ fullinfusion/ I7 -7700K @ 5.1GHz/ Vega 56 flashed to an un-names 64 Bios/ 1630MHz boost 1727MHz/ HMB 1100MHz

Sorry cant show driver this time around, as I'm sure @EarthDog you'll understand  







7609/ fullinfusion/ I7 -7700K @ 5.1GHz/ Vega 56 flashed to an un-names 64 Bios/ 1630MHz boost 1742MHz/ HMB 1100MHz


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 7, 2018)

The Pack said:


> 10783-The Pack / i7 5960X @ 4.625GHz / Asus Poseidon GTX 1080Ti @ 2062MHz / 11700MHz



I got ya beat mate! Just by a smidgen on the graphics score!  Shots fired!  haha jk, I don't know.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26003687? also below.  2075 core boost on my 1080 ti, its stable 24.7 as well in games not just benches


----------



## Vego (Apr 8, 2018)

check this out 
2139MHz


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 8, 2018)

wow thats amazing... i havent tried reaching my max yet.   i may try to beat you @Vego  hehehe its on mate!


----------



## Vego (Apr 9, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> wow thats amazing... i havent tried reaching my max yet.   i may try to beat you @Vego  hehehe its on mate!


theres a link for you, easier to track your progress 
GL
www.3dmark.com/spy/3203275


----------



## infrared (Apr 9, 2018)

This is with my usual daily settings 

10,773 - infrared / Ryzen 7 1800X @ 4.15 GHz / EVGA 1080Ti wc'd @ 2088 MHz / 1521 MHz


----------



## RealNeil (Apr 12, 2018)

Here is my i9-7900X after the DeLid at stock speeds. This system had several cores maxing out at 100C and was throttling because of it.
Now my temps are in the 50s and low 60s    (giggling)

11,469 - i9-7900X @3.3GHz. / Two Gigabyte GTX-1070 Gaming 8GB in SLI - 280mm AIO cooling CPU


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2018)

Unlocked this today... ram at 3737 17-17-17-36 1t  - with the overclock increased performance vs a stock 7820x by 50% i guess?













not bad for a 7820x


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 13, 2018)

lol that doesn't seem possible. i think maybe your first test was just in error. did you make sure to turn gsync and vsync off before running your tests?


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> lol that doesn't seem possible. i think maybe your first test was just in error. did you make sure to turn gsync and vsync off before running your tests?



yeah it runs that score consistently... the skylake X is super latency constrained.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 13, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> yeah it runs that score consistently... the skylake X is super latency constrained.



wow. would  i see similar gains trying to get those ram timings on my 8600k system? or does it only apply to skylake x?


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> wow. would  i see similar gains trying to get those ram timings on my 8600k system? or does it only apply to skylake x?


You might...

Here are some AIDA results:








I found a really good guide for skylake ram OC online, im trying to find it...

So the main thing that i did, is  not try to balance timings with speed at first, but:

so first I set my IMC voltages a bit higher:
set VCC SA at 1.1v
set VCC IO at 1.1v
then set ram at 1.375v

loosened timings to 18 to see how high ram would go, then from there started tightening... MASSIVE fps boosts - for ram that is, which usually doesnt make a difference at all...


Set Trfc at 400 (target 400-420 with maximum clocks)
set Trefi at 16000

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/773966-comprehensive-memory-overclocking-guide/

^ guide


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 13, 2018)

printed the first page of the guide, your settings, and timings. will give it a go. my ram might actually be capable of pulling it off.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2018)

lynx29 said:


> printed the first page of the guide, your settings, and timings. will give it a go. my ram might actually be capable of pulling it off.



you have better ram than me... i think you could probably do it with tighter timings

another run = no gsync:


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 14, 2018)

my previous CPU score was 6128. i gained about 800 points with your settings for the ram OC lol.

nice. ill try for tighter timings.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 14, 2018)

that is awesome!  Goal is 1K higher  - go man go!


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 14, 2018)

alright so i tested a few things and my max is  3800 16-16-16-36 1t 400 16000 at 1.380v and cpu max is 5.1ghz  at 1.415 at loadline calibration mode 5

here is my time spy with those settings:

i broke 7000 on cpu first time ever.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 14, 2018)

you're 200 pts off a 1700 and 900 points off 8700k...

@lynx29  can you post an aida latency run?  I bet you're in the 30's with that thing if not even lower.

This might be the fastest 8600k on TPU at the moment.


----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 14, 2018)

phanbuey said:


> you're 200 pts off a 1700 and 900 points off 8700k...
> 
> @lynx29  can you post an aida latency run?  I bet you're in the 30's with that thing if not even lower.
> 
> This might be the fastest 8600k on TPU at the moment.



Afraid I disappoint you. I did liquid metal tonight on CPU and IHS, temps dropped 20 celsius on all 6 cores, I am barely breaking 60 celsius now instead of 83ish on Time Spy.  lol. amazing.
AIDA latency test pic below timespy one.


----------



## er557 (Apr 14, 2018)




----------



## Space Lynx (Apr 15, 2018)

i got 5.2ghz stable at 1.425v and LLC mode 5 matching it in hwinfo readout. my temps are not breaking 66 celsius on liquid metal   very happy. golden chip cpu and gpu
i got ram still at 3800 16-16-16-36 1t


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 15, 2018)




----------



## EarthDog (Apr 23, 2018)

Just an FYI, I have decided to stop posting at this site a few weeks ago.

I have reached out to the staff here for someone else to take over last week (no reply).

Good luck to you all.


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 28, 2018)

I was not aware ED had contacted anyone, however I will close this thread for now, until/unless someone would like to take over the update responsibilities, if they do, please drop me a message and I will ask W1z to allow them OP edit powerz to continue the thread going...... thank you.


----------

