# PhysX FluidMark results thread



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 12, 2008)

you can dl FluidMark here 
this is like the Furmark thread. for your scores to be added you must have GPU-z,CPU-z in the screen shot of the score.* YOU MUST RUN IT ON 1280x1024 FOR YOUR SCORE TO BE ADDED * 
please post the SS,CPU and speed, GPU speed (core shaders mem) 
This is how it should look 
AMD Athlon 64 x2 5000+BE@3ghz
BFG 8800GT @625/1566/900






 RESULTS Current standing thanks to Laurijan

name...........score.......card(core/shaders/mem) ..... CPU

Tatty_one....18955....Gainward GTX260 @ 800/1725/1200......C2QQ9650 @ 3.825ghz
BUCK NASTY…16533….MSI 8800GTS @ 777/2033/999.................C2D E8400 @ 4203MHz
Tatty_One…….16009….Gainward GTX260 @ 800/1725/1100..........C2D E8200 @ 3200MHz
Wile E...........13420....Palit 8800GT 1GB @ 925/2312/925............C2QE QX9650 @ 4455MHz
BUCK NASTY..11655….2x EVGA 8800GS @ 745/1847/935............C2D E8400 @ 4095MHz
DOM.............10371....Palit 9600GSO 384MB @ 900/2250/1150...Xeon X3350 @ 3600MHz
dadi_oh……....10111….Nvidia 8800GT @ 700/1750/1000...............C2D E8400 @ 3881MHz
francis511…...9648…...XFX 8800GTS 320MB @ 681/1577/1006.....C2Q Q6600 @ 3331MHz
soldier242…...9251…..Nvidia GTX260 @ 690/1544/1025...............C2Q Q6600 @ 2718MHz
Laurijan………..8981…..Inno3D 8800GT @ 755/1800/1120.............C2Q Q6600 @ 4006MHz
Shurakai……...8869…..Point of View 8800GTX @ 576/1350/900......C2D E8400 @ 4000MHz
infrared………..8773……Nvidia 8800GTS 640MB @ 701/1623/1055...C2D E6400 @ 3500MHz
erocker………..8418…...Nvidia 8800GS 384MB @ 772/1900/1014.....C2D E7200 @ 4013MHz
bundyrum&coke...8417...XFX 8800Ultra @ 700/1729/1150............C2Q Q6700 @ 3500MHz
Kursah.........8314......EVGA GTX260 @ 770/1570/1300 ...............C2Q Q6600 @ 3600MHz
Puma…………..8291……..Leadtek GTX260 @ 576/1242/999..............C2D E6750 @ 3200MHz
farlex85.......8125......EVGA 8800GTS @ 811/2052/1124...............C2D E6750 @ 4000MHz
johnspack....7610......XFX 9800GTX @ 802/1898/1201 ........Athlon X2 5600+ @ 3303MHz
fitseries………7319…....Nvidia 8800GTS 512MB @ 650/1625/972.....C2D E8600 @ 4500MHz
pbmaster.....6641.....EVGA 9800GTX @ 700/1728/1100........Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3000MHz
newtekie1....6487.....2x EVGA 9800GTX SLI @ 778/1946/1150......C2Q Q6600 @ 3200MHz
Mussels.......6402.....Nvidia 8800GTX @ 576/1350/900.................C2Q Q6600 @ 3519MHz
Mussels.......6257.....EVGA 8800GT @ 756/1782/900....................C2Q Q6600 @ 3606MHz
Demon_82…5551…...XFX 8800GTS 320MB @ 621/1512/945..........C2D E6600 @ 3000MHz
p_o_s_pc....5505.....BFG 8800GT @ 625 /1566/900.............Athlon X2 5000+ BE @ 3030MHz
kRT…………….4874……2x Inno3D 9800GTX SLI @ 675/1688/1100....C2Q Q6600 @ 2400MHz
Bytor………….1839…..Asus P1 PhysX Card+3870 @ 931/1395..........C2D E7200 @ 3600MHz


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 12, 2008)

Only 32 bit?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 12, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Only 32 bit?



sorry that you can't run it.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 12, 2008)

is their a point to use this bench? vantage already takes advantafe of physx so why use another bench


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 12, 2008)

ShiBDiB said:


> is their a point to use this bench? vantage already takes advantafe of physx so why use another bench



for the people that don't have and can't run vantage. It also shows just the physX not everything else. also alot smaller download


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 12, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> for the people that don't have and can't run vantage. It also shows just the physX not everything else. also alot smaller download



ahh true forgot their isnt really a free version of vantage


----------



## johnspack (Aug 12, 2008)

AMD Athlon X2 5600+ @ 3.3Ghz - 7610 o3marks
XFX 9800GTX @ 800/1900/1200  running on xp64!




Should run fine on any x64 windows...


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 12, 2008)

All stock settings.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

thanks for posting. updated 
@pbmaster i added yours but you didn't set it up like i asked for.


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 13, 2008)

Ah well I didn't think that would matter cause I gave all 3 ss's. 
AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+ 3.0 GHz(250 x 12)
Evga GeForce 9800 GTX 700/1128/1100


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

pbmaster said:


> Ah well I didn't think that would matter cause I gave all 3 ss's.
> AMD Athlon64 X2 6000+ 3.0 GHz(250 x 12)
> Evga GeForce 9800 GTX 700/1128/1100



thanks ... It just makes it easier to update that way.


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 13, 2008)

Aye np. Just goes to show it's always best to read first lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 13, 2008)

Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600@3.2GHz
2x eVGA 9800GTX SLI 778/1944/1152


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

how does everything look?


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Looks nice p_o_s, keep the list simple..you can go color coded like the rest if you want...some like it some don't, I don't care really...considering this is PhysX only, it's a lot more limited atm! 

As said in the other thread, I'm getting kind of a low score it seems in Vista x64, along with the "blank/black" screen deal..my first run was only good for 2.2k with GPU F@H going...turned that off and got this:






Still kind of weak imo...at least from what I found on the submitted GTX 260 scores on oZone's list...but who knows how fast they were running too! This is the last time I'll run this PhsyX bench until it supports x64, kinda wanna see it in action just to see what it does. Soon enough I suppose!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

thank.  i will add your score to the list.ATI should be getting physx soon so i am going to keep Nvidia green.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

Does cpu effect this bench at all? I don't want to waste my time clocking if it isn't necessary.


----------



## johnspack (Aug 13, 2008)

If cpu power/speed counted,  Kursah would have kicked my butt.....
Looks like both gpu and shader speed directly effect the score,  I'll have to try to clock higher!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Does cpu effect this bench at all? I don't want to waste my time clocking if it isn't necessary.



I don't think it does if it does it does VARY LITTLE. I do get a higher score clocking my CPU as the SS will show. I have ran it many times and i still get the same results. I wouldn't spend much time on clocking the CPU just run it at your 24/7 settings then later when your benching more overclock the CPU and repost.
OC





STOCK


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

johnspack said:


> If cpu power/speed counted,  Kursah would have kicked my butt.....
> Looks like both gpu and shader speed directly effect the score,  I'll have to try to clock higher!



Well just for that! 

I gave it one more go at my current "Max Stable OC" profile I have saved in "0" in my EVGA Precision..770/1570 1300. Now the stock clocks in GPU-Z are because I modified and flashed to an EVGA 260 FTW bios...I'm running 1.18v in Extra mode instead of 1.12v, so far I've gotten a little higher than my max 1.12v OC's, but at the cost of 3-5C extra heat thus far. Stock clocks for my card is: 576/1246 1000. But I got almost another 1k from my last score lol!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

nice score. btw updated again


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 13, 2008)

So it does work w/ x64. Here's mine


----------



## johnspack (Aug 13, 2008)

Niiiiiice! Kursah now that's what I thought you should get!
Now thats 2 intels pulling ahead,  I want to go to the dark side.....


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

I think I'll take the lead for now. 

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650@ 3.6Ghz
Palit 8800GT 1GB 900/2250/900
*12261*


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 13, 2008)

Holy...Wile E you bastard!


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Nice WileE, that is insane! Single 8800GT pwns ALL! I wonder what I would get in XP Pro SP3 now...lol!

Could you try it in Vista x64 by chance? Or is that a Vx64 run?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

XP sp3. Give me a few, and I'll do an V64 run for you. Need to boot over and download and install the new drivers.


----------



## Katanai (Aug 13, 2008)

Well I just get a black screen from this. PhysX work ok tho and I got the latest driver, so what's up?


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Did you let it sit there and finish? Are you on x64? I get a black screen, but the test lasts like 30 seconds or so iirc, just let it run, then you'll go back to desktop with the verifacation/score screen. It's running, just not displaying for some...


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 13, 2008)

Pushed a bit more for 8k. Seems cpu does make a difference, although not huge.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Nice Farlex! You guys are making my GTX 260 shy damn you all!  It's all good though, she shines in games!


----------



## johnspack (Aug 13, 2008)

Ouch, I wanna wing my athlon mobo out the window......


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

Damn. This bench takes a HUGE hit in Vista x64. This is the whole reason I still keep XP around for benching.

All the same settings

9488






Don't use this bench in Vista x64, if you can help it.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Still 1K up on me Wile E...we're both running procs at 3.6, 400FSB, my 2x2GB is at 1000, your 2x1 is at 1200, my card's OC'd specs for bandwidth, and fillrates are higher, but your clocks except for memory are higher...especially them shaders! So I'm assuming the speed of shaders for PhsyX makes a BIG difference in performance eh?


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

Kursah said:


> Still 1K up on me Wile E...we're both running procs at 3.6, 400FSB, my 2x2GB is at 1000, your 2x1 is at 1200, my card's OC'd specs for bandwidth, and fillrates are higher, but your clocks except for memory are higher...especially them shaders! So I'm assuming the speed of shaders for PhsyX makes a BIG difference in performance eh?


I'm guessing shaders. It made a rather large difference in Furmark as well. Oh, and I haven't changed my specs, I run my ram @ 960 4-4-4-12 now.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> I'm guessing shaders. It made a rather large difference in Furmark as well. Oh, and I haven't changed my specs, I run my ram @ 960 4-4-4-12 now.



I'll have to keep playing with my OC's, my goal is 1600 on the shaders...I'm pegged on bios vMods for now...1.18v was the highest choosable at this time. But that still pales in comparison to 2250! That's an awesome card you have there man!

It is interesting to see the results here tho..between PhysX performance in benches, and performance in games, I'm curious to see how the 8, 9 and 200 series all pan out and how hard they all get hit.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

You have to realize I'm heavily voltmodded and watercooled tho.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 13, 2008)

Kursah said:


> I'll have to keep playing with my OC's, my goal is 1600 on the shaders...I'm pegged on bios vMods for now...1.18v was the highest choosable at this time. But that still pales in comparison to 2250! That's an awesome card you have there man!
> 
> It is interesting to see the results here tho..between PhysX performance in benches, and performance in games, I'm curious to see how the 8, 9 and 200 series all pan out and how hard they all get hit.



You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing that here.......


----------



## johnspack (Aug 13, 2008)

Thats gotta add fps in games,  for the first time in 17yrs,  I want an intel system bad..


----------



## Wile E (Aug 13, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing the score difference here.......



Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> You have quite a few more shaders though, that's gotta count for something. It does seem a bit odd to me that a 2xx series card is around the same as my 8-series for this bench. Especially since I was under the impression that the 2xx cards were specifically made to have cuda optimization and such. I wonder what's causing the score difference here.......



Yeah that's another part that has me wondering what's going on...I'm guessing the drivers aren't optimized yet...maybe because I'm on PCI-e 1.1? I dunno...but like you said the 2xx cards were designed with Cuda in mind, it's supposed to be the big CUDA representative for NV...if an 8xxx and 9xxx series can keep up...hard saying what's really going on. All I can say is the card is a gaming monster for me!

I guess we'll have to see what happens with other GTX2xx users submitting here with different OC's, chips, MB's, and such..and see what happens in later versions of this bench and newer drivers.



> Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.



Yeah, even so, your 112 shaders at 2250 are putting the hurt on my 192 shaders at 1570...but like said earlier, shader speed must be a very important thing here. Wonder if the 200b's have some heavy increases in speeds here with higher clocks than I could reach on my best day? Who knows...I do know even if I went into Xp Pro x86, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't hit your score!


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 13, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Vista x64 is the culprit. It lost me almost 3000pts.



No we're both using vista x64. So I guess you could add 3000 to each of ours (mine and Kursahs) if we had xp. I'm on stock volts and cooling (w/gpu), yet am able to nearly match a quad w/ a gtx 260, that just doesn't seem quite right....... Although it may not work out evenly, perhaps vista does have much to do w/ it atm.



Kursah said:


> Yeah that's another part that has me wondering what's going on...I'm guessing the drivers aren't optimized yet...maybe because I'm on PCI-e 1.1? I dunno...but like you said the 2xx cards were designed with Cuda in mind, it's supposed to be the big CUDA representative for NV...if an 8xxx and 9xxx series can keep up...hard saying what's really going on. All I can say is the card is a gaming monster for me!
> 
> I guess we'll have to see what happens with other GTX2xx users submitting here with different OC's, chips, MB's, and such..and see what happens in later versions of this bench and newer drivers.



Shouldn't be 1.1, don't think that makes much of a bottleneck yet, I guess yeah we'll just have to wait and see. Maybe pos you can split these by vista and xp or no?


----------



## Katanai (Aug 13, 2008)

Ah ok. I don't want to run a black screen for more than two seconds, let alone 30. Maybe I'll try it out again when they get it sorted out...


----------



## Kursah (Aug 13, 2008)

Katanai said:


> Ah ok. I don't want to run a black screen for more than two seconds, let alone 30. Maybe I'll try it out again when they get it sorted out...



OK, it won't hurt anything...the screen'll just be black while the bench runs...then it pops back into desktop with the score. I don't blame ya tho...I want to see what's going on for the score I'm recieving.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 13, 2008)

i got a shit score on me HD4850, I think it was 563 totla, goes to show ya we need some updated drivers.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 13, 2008)

CHAOS_KILLA said:


> i got a shit score on me HD4850, I think it was 563 totla, goes to show ya we need some updated drivers.



Ati cards don't have physX yet. As of right now, this bench is pretty much strictly nvidia.


----------



## Lionheart (Aug 13, 2008)

yeah i thought so, just wanted to give it a go anyways for the heck of it


----------



## Mussels (Aug 13, 2008)

Vista x64. i saw the images fine and i'm on OLDER drivers. (177.79)
This is my LAN rig (NOT the one in specs)
score of 6402.






What i will do now, is update to the 'required' drivers and see how she goes.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 13, 2008)

Updated on the 'required' drivers

Score has changed from 6402 to 6415. More or less no difference so i wont bother posting a screeny

i'll go test my 8800GT now...

edit:

8800GT - 6257


----------



## Bundy (Aug 13, 2008)

Here is mine, Q6700 @ 3300 and XFX 8800 Ultra xxx stock. Not bad for a card getting a bit middle aged I guess.


----------



## DOM (Aug 13, 2008)




----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 13, 2008)

list has been updated. I have got to say dom that is one hell of a score coming from that card.


----------



## PuMA (Aug 13, 2008)

heres mine cpu:3200mhz GTX260 stock clocks (576/999/1242)


----------



## PuMA (Aug 13, 2008)

got 2000 points lower with 8800gts 320mb doing the physics...


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 13, 2008)

Well that just goes to show how much of a beast the GTX 260 is.


----------



## Demon_82 (Aug 13, 2008)

My humble score, under Vista 64.

Demon_82 - 5551 - XFX 8800GTS320@621/1512/945 - C2D E6600@3.0ghz


----------



## DOM (Aug 13, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> list has been updated. I have got to say dom that is one hell of a score coming from that card.



 got lil better score with the 177.83 drivers


----------



## ghost101 (Aug 13, 2008)

should differentiate bewteen xp and vista as there is a huge difference in scores


----------



## soldier242 (Aug 13, 2008)

Hi guys, 1st time poster and a long time lurker ... i wanted to share my results 

9173 - C2Q Q6600 @ 2718 - Geforce GTX 260 @ 690/1544/1025 @ XP64 bit... somehow fluidmark doens't show the real cpu clock

EDIT: damn silly me, should have read the first post a bit better >_> 

ok i'll redo this later


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 14, 2008)

ghost101 said:


> should differentiate bewteen xp and vista as there is a huge difference in scores



Yeah I was thinkin so too.


----------



## DOM (Aug 14, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Yeah I was thinkin so too.



yep 3k  i ran it on vista u x64 got 7k


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 14, 2008)

DOM said:


> yep 3k  i ran it on vista u x64 got 7k



Huh so I guess it's about 3k no matter what. We could just add 3k to us vista user scores.  Eh whatever, that's up to whether pospc feels like separating them i guess.


----------



## DOM (Aug 14, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Huh so I guess it's about 3k no matter what. We could just add 3k to us vista user scores.  Eh whatever, that's up to whether pospc feels like separating them i guess.



thats why I got XP and Vista


----------



## Wile E (Aug 14, 2008)

DOM said:


> thats why I got XP and Vista



Exactly. I do all my gaming in Vista no probs, XP is still a requirement for any semi-serious bencher tho.


----------



## soldier242 (Aug 14, 2008)

so i redid the bench and now have it done right i guess ....

9251 - Geforce GTX 260 @ 690/1544/1025 - C2Q Q6600 @ 2718 MHz - XP64 bit


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 14, 2008)

i will update when i get home, kinda hard to do on a lappy when you use a desktop most of the time/


----------



## a111087 (Aug 14, 2008)

Hehe, interesting results Intel vs AMD:
pbmaster.....6641.....EVGA 9800GTX@700/1128/1100.... Athlon x2 6000+@3ghz
newtekie1....6487....2x eVGA 9800GTX SLI 778/1944/1152...C2QQ6600@3.2GHz
Mussels......6402......8800GTX@576/1350/900..................C2Q Q6600@3.5ghz


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 14, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Exactly. I do all my gaming in Vista no probs, XP is still a requirement for any semi-serious bencher tho.



Yeah I guess. Hey I got a quick dual boot question for you guys, the operating systems operate completely independent from one anther correct? Like more specific to my cause if I have DRM from WMP 11 on Vista (b/c you have to) can I revert to having DRM from WMP 10 on Xp, w/o having to worry about the DRMs from vista interfering?


----------



## pbmaster (Aug 15, 2008)

a111087 said:


> Hehe, interesting results Intel vs AMD:
> pbmaster.....6641.....EVGA 9800GTX@700/1128/1100.... Athlon x2 6000+@3ghz
> newtekie1....6487....2x eVGA 9800GTX SLI 778/1944/1152...C2QQ6600@3.2GHz
> Mussels......6402......8800GTX@576/1350/900..................C2Q Q6600@3.5ghz



Hey, that is pretty interesting. I didn't even notice that lol


----------



## Bundy (Aug 16, 2008)

I had an overwhelming desire to beat a 260 (temporarily)...LOL sorry kursah

Q6700 @ 3500ghz
XFX 8800ultra 700/1729/1150

Score 8417


----------



## Kursah (Aug 18, 2008)

That's pretty nice man! Shows the Ultra's still pack a serious punch! Even in PhysX! 

Don't worry I'll getcha back! Maybe...


----------



## Shurakai (Aug 18, 2008)

Just thought i'd chuck in my results, i was actually worried physx support wasn't comming to the 8800gtx, it's just no threads ever even mentioned the poor thing, ah well, all good now 

E8400 @ 4ghz
Point of View 8800GTX @Stock(576/1350/900)


----------



## Bundy (Aug 18, 2008)

Kursah said:


> That's pretty nice man! Shows the Ultra's still pack a serious punch! Even in PhysX!
> 
> Don't worry I'll getcha back! Maybe...



If I find drops of molten ultra in the bottom of my case, I know why I tried hard....


----------



## Bundy (Aug 18, 2008)

Shurakai said:


> Just thought i'd chuck in my results, i was actually worried physx support wasn't comming to the 8800gtx, it's just no threads ever even mentioned the poor thing, ah well, all good now



Wow - good score. Shows that CPU clock speed is a significant contributer to the score.


----------



## DOM (Aug 18, 2008)

bundyrum&coke said:


> Wow - good score. Shows that CPU clock speed is a significant contributer to the score.


Vista get like 3k drop from XP vs Vista


----------



## deathvirus_me (Aug 18, 2008)

Here's mine 

Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 3.2 GHz , XFX 8800GT 512 MB 670/1675/1900

Score : 8050


----------



## Wile E (Aug 18, 2008)

Geez. I thought for sure somebody would've dethroned me by now.


----------



## Kursah (Aug 19, 2008)

I must've had a lucky break on my 8.3k runs...I can't get above 8155 anymore lol! Yet!


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 19, 2008)

*I'm gunnin' for ya Wile E!* Here's my first run: 11655
C2D E8400 @ 4.10ghz on h2o/P5Q Pro MoBo
2 X EVGA 8800GS 512mb @ 745/1847/935(2nd 8800GS is running the Physx processing).
PS...I'm having problems with CPU-Z right now. I have Coretemp to show core speed


----------



## Wile E (Aug 20, 2008)

Just so you are aware, I'm still sandbagging. lol


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 20, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Just so you are aware, I'm still sandbagging. lol


In that case(takes off gloves), I may have to swap my 8800GTS in place of my primary 8800GS. Looks like I might have to make a record run on the E8400....


----------



## Kursah (Aug 20, 2008)

Looks like it's on! I may have to get XP loaded up and see if my GTX can even stand up to you guys lol! Probably not tho! 

Looking forward to *PhysX Fluidmark TPU Battle-Royale*!


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 20, 2008)

Kursah said:


> Looks like it's on! I may have to get XP loaded up and see if my GTX can even stand up to you guys lol! Probably not tho!
> 
> Looking forward to *PhysX Fluidmark TPU Battle-Royale*!


Oh, this is gonna be good...


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 21, 2008)

*13052*
C2D E8400 @ 4.095ghz
MSI 8800GTS G92 @795/1999/1002
And to think, i'm just gettin started...





Sorry for the photo, but screenies are problematic with my dual card set-up


----------



## trt740 (Aug 21, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> *13052*
> C2D E8400 @ 4.095ghz
> MSI 8800GTS G92 @795/1999/1002
> And to think, i'm just gettin started...
> ...



nice score actually for a older card.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 21, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> *13052*
> C2D E8400 @ 4.095ghz
> MSI 8800GTS G92 @795/1999/1002
> And to think, i'm just gettin started...
> ...



Nice score man, I'd be interested to see what you get in vista, so I can see how much my 6750 is holding back my score. There seem to be a number of factors in this bench, w/ gpu only offering a portion of the equation.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 21, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> *13052*
> C2D E8400 @ 4.095ghz
> MSI 8800GTS G92 @795/1999/1002
> And to think, i'm just gettin started...
> ...



Very, VERY nice score. I didn't expect someone to beat me by breaking straight into the 13k's.

But to that, I offer this retort. 

*13420*
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 @ 4.455Ghz
Palit 8800GT 1GB @ 925/2312/925





But seriously, I expect you to win. My card is close to tapped out. I wish my best clocker wouldn't have died. At best I have a few more Mhz to squeeze out of it, and probably some driver tweaks.


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 22, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Very, VERY nice score. I didn't expect someone to beat me by breaking straight into the 13k's.
> 
> But to that, I offer this retort.
> 
> ...


_Let me start by saying very nice OC on the QX_. Although it was not my intention to *"drop the hammer"*,  a slight 100mhz increase on the E8400 yeilded the following:
*16533*
*C2D E8400 @ 4.202Gghz/MSI 8800GTS G92 512mb*
I regret that I must retire from this round of benchmarking, as I have just rec'd 2 more 9600GSO's to fold with and they must go in this rig. It's has been fun and let me know if another round is necessary.
*P.S. Everyone that submitted scores in this thread has the ability to Fold for TPU with their Nvidia GPU. The F@H GPU2 client scales nicely and you can play games/surf/anything else while folding for a great cause as well as representing TPU. Please give it a try and check out the link.* http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=13038


----------



## Kursah (Aug 22, 2008)

Wow BUCK you got double my score! That's insanity!


----------



## Wile E (Aug 22, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> _Let me start by saying very nice OC on the QX_. Although it was not my intention to *"drop the hammer"*,  a slight 100mhz increase on the E8400 yeilded the following:
> *16533*
> *C2D E8400 @ 4.202Gghz/MSI 8800GTS G92 512mb*
> I regret that I must retire from this round of benchmarking, as I have just rec'd 2 more 9600GSO's to fold with and they must go in this rig. It's has been fun and let me know if another round is necessary.
> ...


Judging by this post, I think you won the war. lol.

But that does lead me to wonder, are the extra 16 shaders actually enough to make up for an almost 125Mhz core advantage, or might there be an issue with my setup?


----------



## dark2099 (Aug 22, 2008)

I almost wish I had a nice NVidia card to match up with my QX and see what I could get at this bench, but seeing what scores you got in XP and Vista Wile E, I really need to get my system dual booting see if I can get any better scores with my QX and the ATI cards.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 22, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Judging by this post, I think you won the war. lol.
> 
> But that does lead me to wonder, are the extra 16 shaders actually enough to make up for an almost 125Mhz core advantage, or might there be an issue with my setup?



No those shaders have little to do w/ it. Buck what did you change between the first and second run? Looks like you may have upped the shaders, but maybe not (due to the way they clock), the other clocks are lower, a slightly higher cpu speed, and 3k more?  Driver tweaks? My gts 512 is clocked a large amount further than that one, yet I can only achieve half the score. For some reason vista and cpu core speed seem to actually be the largest factor in this bench atm, I'm wondering if this is truly representative of physX........


----------



## cdawall (Aug 23, 2008)

i'll post mine as soon as i get a mobo that works lol


----------



## DOM (Aug 23, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Judging by this post, I think you won the war. lol.
> 
> But that does lead me to wonder, are the extra 16 shaders actually enough to make up for an almost 125Mhz core advantage, or might there be an issue with my setup?


the only thing I noticed was the 13k run the card was at X8 pci-e 2.0 also idk if XP sp2 vs 3 would be that big 

cuz you can uninstall sp3 right ?


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 23, 2008)

1st run was 2x 8800gs with pci-e @ x8. 2nd run was 1x 8800GTS @ x16 pci-e. No driver changes between runs.  It's not a fluke, as i made the run three times and posted my best run. All runs were within 100pts of each other. The GPU has not topped out yet, but it is in another case folding right now. In the next week I may give it another run. We will see what it can do....


----------



## soldier242 (Aug 23, 2008)

BUCK could you run i few tests with the same configuration as you topscore-config but with different CPU clocks so we could see how much difference the CPU makes? PLZ


----------



## BUCK NASTY (Aug 23, 2008)

soldier242 said:


> BUCK could you run i few tests with the same configuration as you topscore-config but with different CPU clocks so we could see how much difference the CPU makes? PLZ


Yes, give me the criteria you want the test runs completed with.
Keep in mind it may not be until later this week...


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 23, 2008)

This is a new one on me, a might give this a run, back in a bit!


----------



## infrared (Aug 23, 2008)

Wow, there's some awesome scores showing up now!

This is with my 24/7 config. No record braker, but thought it was quite respectable for an old G80 card!

Score: 8773

C2D e6400 @ 3.5ghz (500x7)
2gb @ 1200mhz 5-5-5-12
8800GTS 640mb (G80)


----------



## cdawall (Aug 23, 2008)

i'm going to try this with a G92 8800GTS and a 8400GS for physics


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 23, 2008)

13,735.....This is my first run, no control panel or desktop tweaks, straight in!  funny thing is, if I increase core/shaders higher, my score gets lower 

I am guessing here the CPU speed makes no difference at all as I only had mine at 3.2gig on this run as I am testing a passive cooler on my CPU to see how it cools.


----------



## infrared (Aug 23, 2008)

Very nice!


----------



## francis511 (Aug 23, 2008)

q6600@3.33 ghz
8800 gts (g80) @ 681/1006
9517


----------



## EnergyFX (Aug 23, 2008)

I'm only getting around 8000 with dual 280GTXs.  Is this because I'm running 64bit Vista?


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 23, 2008)

EnergyFX said:


> I'm only getting around 8000 with dual 280GTXs.  Is this because I'm running 64bit Vista?



Try it with just one, bet the score is higher.


----------



## EnergyFX (Aug 23, 2008)

not much of a difference


----------



## francis511 (Aug 23, 2008)

Need MOAR megahurtz !!
9648


----------



## Kursah (Aug 23, 2008)

EnergyFX said:


> I'm only getting around 8000 with dual 280GTXs.  Is this because I'm running 64bit Vista?



Vista has some effect, average -3K compared to XP, but beyond that it seems this bench is somewhat CPU dependant too...best I've gotten with an OC'd GTX260 and Q6600 at 3.6 is 8.3k in Vista x64...I think some of it is the new PhysX support and drivers. That and maybe the program is Beta and not intended for x64 yet...things can change in upcoming versions...just look at their Furbench...the differences in performance for some cards between version 1.0 and 1.4 can get pretty drastic....so don't worry too much about it.


----------



## DOM (Aug 24, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> 1st run was 2x 8800gs with pci-e @ x8. 2nd run was 1x 8800GTS @ x16 pci-e. No driver changes between runs.  It's not a fluke, as i made the run three times and posted my best run. All runs were within 100pts of each other. The GPU has not topped out yet, but it is in another case folding right now. In the next week I may give it another run. We will see what it can do....


lol the 13054 run was at x8


----------



## Mussels (Aug 24, 2008)

yeah it does seem that this is limited in vista - we'll give them some time to work the kinks out, but its still craploads faster than purely CPU.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 24, 2008)

ahhhhhh I see, it's a 32bit only app........that solves it Energy!


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 24, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> ahhhhhh I see, it's a 32bit only app........that solves it Energy!



That's a good point. I though originally I couldn't install it b/c it said 32-bit, but after I did and it worked I forgot all about it. I guess that's coming into play too. So operating system is actually currently the largest determining factor.  

Oh and cpu score does play a small role, I got 300 extra points (in vista x64 no less) for a 400mhz oc on a conroe.


----------



## soldier242 (Aug 24, 2008)

BUCK NASTY said:


> Yes, give me the criteria you want the test runs completed with.
> Keep in mind it may not be until later this week...



hmmm criteria, graphicscard max stable oc, or like the settings in your bets run, different cpu speeds, like stock clock, mild oc and max oc AND if you have time some comparisons between different fps speeds but with the "same" cpu clock ... it would be really nice if you had time and if you feel like it


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 24, 2008)

Slightly better, almost 14000 now.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 27, 2008)

sorry about not updating. I have been moving and don't have my computer working right now. it won't post. will update when i am on my main rig don't like this one that well


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 27, 2008)

Broke 16000 with a single card, done a few tweaks in my BIOS and came up with this, it's amazing how these cards accelerate as you add on the shader clocks..............


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 27, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Broke 16000 with a single card, done a few tweaks in my BIOS and came up with this, it's amazing how these cards accelerate as you add on the shader clocks..............



Wow, great oc on that tatty. What kind of bois mod's are you talking about, bios vmod? And is that on stock cooling?


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> Wow, great oc on that tatty. What kind of bois mod's are you talking about, bios vmod? And is that on stock cooling?



Yes stock cooling, she runs fine although to bench I have to up the fan to 100% but game at 60-70% depending on game......I tried the BIOS 1.18V Mod and dint think it was working so flashed back to stock, then a friend of mine who has a 260 said that he read on a forum, where a member basically ran his GPU underspeed at 550mhz core for 3 days, then did the 1.18V mod, so I tried it and it seems to have let me have a bit more on the core but more importantly for this bench....the shaders.....it's a set of shaders that do the PhsicX so the really important thing in this bench seeems to be high shader speed.......(probably why the G92 GTS's are doing well)I think I just got lucky with the overclock, it's not 100% stable though, I can play Source and COD4 (for 20 minutes) but not do a 2006 run, need to drop to 785 with shaders linked for that.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Yes stock cooling, she runs fine although to bench I have to up the fan to 100% but game at 60-70% depending on game......I tried the BIOS 1.18V Mod and dint think it was working so flashed back to stock, then a friend of mine who has a 260 said that he read on a forum, where a member basically ran his GPU underspeed at 550mhz core for 3 days, then did the 1.18V mod, so I tried it and it seems to have let me have a bit more on the core but more importantly for this bench....the shaders.....it's a set of shaders that do the PhsicX so the really important thing in this bench seeems to be high shader speed.......(probably why the G92 GTS's are doing well)I think I just got lucky with the overclock, it's not 100% stable though, I can play Source and COD4 (for 20 minutes) but not do a 2006 run, need to drop to 785 with shaders linked for that.



Interesting. You keep saying you get lucky but I think your being modest.  You seem to always end up w/ some sick oc's that no-one else around here can match w/ the same means (air and stock cooling). I guess little tricks like that one you picked up there will do it though. 

I think shaders do play a big role in physX, but I'm not convinced that's the biggest factor w/ this bench, unless it's just crippled by x64 and vista, I have seen very minimal gains from shader oc w/ my set-up.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 28, 2008)

just so you guys know i am not going to be updating this list anymore now that i am back in school and i am going to be picking up a job soon.(don't ask where i am shamed)


IF ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE OVER THIS THREAD PM ME AND I WILL GET A MOD TO HELP US OUT.
Thanks and sorry for caps


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 28, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> just so you guys know i am not going to be updating this list anymore now that i am back in school and i am going to be picking up a job soon.(don't ask where i am shamed)
> 
> 
> IF ANYONE WANTS TO TAKE OVER THIS THREAD PM ME AND I WILL GET A MOD TO HELP US OUT.
> Thanks and sorry for caps



YGPM


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Aug 29, 2008)

tatty i sent a PM to dan to see if he can do like thermo did in the teen thread if he can then you will have the 2nd post of the thread to update it.


----------



## Bytor (Aug 31, 2008)

By my score its easy to see that this was designed around Nvidia cards and drivers...

Intel e7200 @ 3.6 ghz
Visiontek 3870 @ 931/1395
Asus P1 PhysX card


----------



## Kursah (Aug 31, 2008)

Bytor said:


> By my score its easy to see that this was designed around Nvidia cards and drivers...



Yep! It was designed using NV's GeFroce PhysX Engine!



> PhysX FluidMark is a physics benchmark based on NVIDIA PhysX engine. This benchmark performs a fluid simulation by imitating the renderering of lava. Real physics parameters such as viscosity are used. SPH (Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics) algorithm is enabled to increase the realism of the simulation.



Source: http://www.ozone3d.net/benchmarks/physx-fluidmark/

But if sources are true that NV and ATI are working together on physx for both sides...then ATI guys will eventually benefit more and more from what is happening now with NV cards.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 31, 2008)

Kursah said:


> Yep! It was designed using NV's GeFroce PhysX Engine!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's good to share!


----------



## kRT (Sep 10, 2008)

4874?! Why do i get that low score ?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 10, 2008)

running vista, you get lower scores than XP users.


----------



## kRT (Sep 10, 2008)

Yeah 64bit also, but still, isnt that to low ? Im running 2x 9800 gtx, 8gb ddr2 corsair xms, quad q6600, and xfx 780I mb..


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 10, 2008)

kRT said:


> Yeah 64bit also, but still, isnt that to low ? Im running 2x 9800 gtx, 8gb ddr2 corsair xms, quad q6600, and xfx 780I mb..



Yes that is very low, look about a page back, I got 16000 with an overclocked GTX260!

Whilst the CPU obviously isnt the main factor, as it's not multithredded, your Q6600 at 2.4gig stock will be severley bottlenecking those cards, try raisng the speed some to see if that helps.


----------



## kRT (Sep 10, 2008)

I raised my fsb to 1150, and bus speed is now 287.5, and speed 2587 and i got 5211score now.

So, is my CPU to slow ?


----------



## btarunr (Sep 10, 2008)

GeForce PhysX relies heavily on the CPU.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 10, 2008)

btarunr said:


> GeForce PhysX relies heavily on the CPU.



Strange that, I have run it several times, my highest score (16,000) was with my CPU at 3.2gig, with my CPU at 4gig I got a lesser score, all other GPU/Windows settings the same, and 4gig isnt pushing the CPU that can bench at over 4.4gig.


----------



## kRT (Sep 10, 2008)

Well, any idea what to do? Or can it be what my CPU can handle ?


I got less score with SLI enable!?


Could it be my PSU, that aint working as it should ?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 10, 2008)

This bench is not very good yet. Your in vistax64, and using sli, I think those are your two biggest score killer's w/ this bench (although of course they shouldn't effect physX performance). Try one card, and maybe xp x32 if you can dual boot w/o too much trouble, your score will probably go up over 10k.


----------



## kRT (Sep 10, 2008)

I have tested my PSU, and its only peak @ 660W, so i have bought a new one, and getting it tommorow, ill be back with a new result hopefully


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 10, 2008)

if someone will PM me an updated list i will be more then happy and grateful to post it.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 10, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> This bench is not very good yet. Your in vistax64, and using sli, I think those are your two biggest score killer's w/ this bench (although of course they shouldn't effect physX performance). Try one card, and maybe xp x32 if you can dual boot w/o too much trouble, your score will probably go up over 10k.



yeah, your right.....I did forget to mention.....this is currenly a 32bit bench!


----------



## kRT (Sep 12, 2008)

Now i have xp32 bit, i only get 8000 score, same with one or sli enable. I have watch something wierd, Speedfan shows only 9.87v on the +12v, but bios says 12.03, what should i trust?


In 3dmark06 i get 16500...


----------



## Mussels (Sep 12, 2008)

speedfan is nowhere near accurate, bios is vaguely accurate. trust a multimeter/voltmeter only.


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 12, 2008)

Mussels said:


> speedfan is nowhere near accurate, bios is vaguely accurate. trust a multimeter/voltmeter only.



+1
if what speed fan is staying is true your computer wouldn't even run and if it did it would be having hangs and BSOD after a short time. you wouldn't be able to bench or even post


----------



## erocker (Sep 12, 2008)




----------



## kRT (Sep 13, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> +1
> if what speed fan is staying is true your computer wouldn't even run and if it did it would be having hangs and BSOD after a short time. you wouldn't be able to bench or even post



Yeah though so, anyways, i have load a voltmeter on sunday, so ill test it there.. Is the bench OK for my system ?


----------



## dadi_oh (Sep 13, 2008)

Looking at the scores on the first page this shouldn't be right? I have a lowly 8800GT on an E8400@3.88GHz and scoring over 10K?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2008)

XP gets higher than vista. Most users here are testing in vista.


----------



## Shurakai (Sep 13, 2008)

kRT said:


> Now i have xp32 bit, i only get 8000 score, same with one or sli enable. I have watch something wierd, Speedfan shows only 9.87v on the +12v, but bios says 12.03, what should i trust?
> 
> 
> In 3dmark06 i get 16500...



I'd grab Everest, personally i think it's the most accurate of the applications i've tried, i think it shows the voltages a little lower than my bios though


----------



## Mussels (Sep 13, 2008)

software just read it from a chip. the problem is that those chips are basically guessing - your bios gets it from the same place, they just say 'read the chip, add 0.3v'


----------



## kRT (Sep 13, 2008)

I have tryed almost everything now, and cant get it over 8k.. Something it wrong...


----------



## Kursah (Sep 13, 2008)

I wouldn't stress too much about this bench...they need to revise it more and make it less CPU dependant and more GPU dependant, that and with the Vista/XP difference as great as it is, I dont' necessarily believe what this bench has to say.

It should be more of a fun gimmick to run than something to get serious about. Run some games, if they kick ass and run smooth, then you're on the right track!


----------



## kRT (Sep 13, 2008)

Yeah, but thats why i run the test, my games dont run smooth enough imo..


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 13, 2008)

your games should be running smooth with your hardware kRT. have you tried overclocking the cpu and video card(s)? maybe you need to update drivers for everything. you never know what can cause problems like that. also have you made sure SLI is enable? (i am sure you have) tried setting the image performance settings in nCP (NV CP)


----------



## Kursah (Sep 13, 2008)

kRT said:


> Yeah, but thats why i run the test, my games dont run smooth enough imo..



Here's what I would do if I were you, because in reality, you should not need any OC to run smooth at most resolutions with that setup.

Run 3dmark 06 and vantage, a few game benches (World In Conflict Demo, DMC4 Demo, Crysis Demo, etc all have benchmarks). Start a help inquiring thread outside of this thread and with your compiled info, driver version lists, etc we can track down what the situation is.

I don't think this bench will help or hinder you. My GTX260 was getting around the same as your SLI setup with a Q6600, yet could handle Crysis and all other games just fine, now this was at 1440x900, I'm getting a 22" monitor monday that does 1680x1050, but I'm not very worried about negative impacts on performance. Hopefully it'll utilize more of my GPU and less CPU at this point.

What games do you play that "dont run smooth enough" how do you know they don't run smooth enough? What driver versions are you running, what resolutions, how much AA/AF is used, in game set or NV Panel set? What tweaks have you done to your system/OS/drivers?

There are lots of questions that can be asked that may or may not be related to your issue...for that I suggest you start a new thread dedicated to your situation!


----------



## kRT (Sep 14, 2008)

Yeah i have tryed oc abit, and it help, but cant get my cpu over 2850 without its gonna freeze.. SLI is enable yeah  Ill try reinstall the hole system, and DL all the new driver, and try again..


----------



## Kursah (Sep 14, 2008)

kRT said:


> Yeah i have tryed oc abit, and it help, but cant get my cpu over 2850 without its gonna freeze.. SLI is enable yeah  Ill try reinstall the hole system, and DL all the new driver, and try again..



I wouldn't say a fresh OS install is necessary. Though if you do, install the 177.83's..imo I've found the best stability with them and still great performance.

You may want to start a help thread for your case anyways, to help you attain a higher OC and find good stability. Like I said before you shouldn't really need to overclock to attain at least good results with your setup...but what resolution do you run at? What driver version are you using? What other games/benches have you tried?

I apologize for going off topic, this will be my last post doing so...I plan on running the PhysX fluidmark again when I decide on an OC for my e8600. I'm good at 4.3 w/1.304v so I might call it good there. 

So KRt, please start a thread so we can help you outside of this thread and get your rig running the way you'd like it to!


----------



## kRT (Sep 14, 2008)

Kursah said:


> Here's what I would do if I were you, because in reality, you should not need any OC to run smooth at most resolutions with that setup.
> 
> Run 3dmark 06 and vantage, a few game benches (World In Conflict Demo, DMC4 Demo, Crysis Demo, etc all have benchmarks). Start a help inquiring thread outside of this thread and with your compiled info, driver version lists, etc we can track down what the situation is.
> 
> ...





Most World of warcraft, 1680*1050 and settings high.

With my old system i had same fps, 5600+, 4gb ram, 1x 9800gtx and a old 570ultra mb.

But ill try reinstall, if same happens ill make a new tread. Thank for advice everyone


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2008)

i wonder if he has Vsync enabled, and thats capping the benchmark?


----------



## farlex85 (Sep 14, 2008)

Mussels said:


> i wonder if he has Vsync enabled, and thats capping the benchmark?



That's a good point, this could be nvidia cp settings. Did you set them up for pure performance before running the bench ktr? I usually run very high settings in the cp for gaming, in benches though those settings provide me w/ a far lesser score. Defaults are usually somewhere in between, not all the way towards performance or quality. And like mussels said, if vsync is enabled, your frames will be locked to your refresh rate, most likely 60.

And it seems reasonable to me that you haven't really noticed any increase in fps in WOW. The game is probably not made for multi-card set-ups, and as such you see no benefit from sli. And although having a faster proc is all nice and good for everything you do, it won't do much when it comes to gaming. 

On that note what kind of problems are you having w/ smoothness. Are you having any of the  "micro-stuttering" that sometimes accompanies two cards? Is wow jerky? That could be your internet. Just some ideas......


----------



## kRT (Sep 14, 2008)

V-Sync is off.

In wow, my fps aint running 100 all the time.. and it should, as it did with my old system?

My ms in wow is fine.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 14, 2008)

we're going off topic here, i'll PM you.


----------



## johnspack (Sep 21, 2008)

Test.. I beat my 9800gtx score,  but I had to use 1900x1200 8xAA this time!


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 23, 2008)

can i join?


----------



## DOM (Sep 23, 2008)

fit you know vista kills your score ?

like by 3k


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 23, 2008)

thats not vista... but no.. i didn't. i'll give it a try in xp tonight.


----------



## dadi_oh (Sep 23, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> can i join?



No you can't. Your setup is too nice and liable to promote jealousy and dissention.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 23, 2008)

am i the first ATI card?


----------



## DOM (Sep 23, 2008)

but isnt 07 like vista just better ?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Sep 23, 2008)

sorta. it's a totaly rebuilt OS but looks much like vista. its' way faster though.


----------



## DOM (Sep 23, 2008)

yeah that might be killing the score if its more or less the same I get like 7k over 10k in XP

so it that the OS that let you run red and green


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 23, 2008)

DOM said:


> fit you know vista kills your score ?
> 
> like by 3k



Also because Fluidmark is a 32bit app, Windows XP 64 does not run as good as 32bit either.


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 23, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> am i the first ATI card?



Thinks so, but with that score I just wouldnt bother ....whispers 16K


----------



## Laurijan (Sep 28, 2008)

C2Q Q6600 @ 4006MHz
Inno3D 8800GT @ 755/1800/1120


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

nice score.BTW still looking for someone that will give me an updated list


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

Thanks Laurijan for the updated list.  everyone that is thankful for the update please think Laurijan to show you appreciation


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 28, 2008)

Just thought I would add this one to the mix

Gainward GTX260 @ 800core/1725shader/1200 mem

18,995


----------



## Laurijan (Sep 28, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Just thought I would add this one to the mix
> 
> Gainward GTX260 @ 800core/1725shader/1200 mem



Nice score


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

tatty what CPU are you running also what speed was this bench ran on? need it for score list


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 28, 2008)

p_o_s_pc said:


> tatty what CPU are you running also what speed was this bench ran on? need it for score list



Q9650 @ just 3.825gig for the bench, she will do 4.5gig flat out but am saving a fluidmark run at that speed until someone beats my current score!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

thanks. I updated the list


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 28, 2008)

The results of the REAL Asus P1 PhysX Card sux!!


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

+1 they do but before nvidia started this that is all that you could get


----------



## lemonadesoda (Sep 28, 2008)

Why do you insist on GPU-z,CPU-z when the key info is already shown in the Fluidmark screen?


----------



## p_o_s_pc (Sep 28, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Why do you insist on GPU-z,CPU-z when the key info is already shown in the Fluidmark screen?



because fluidmark doesn't always get it right and it is just nice to see the same thing from more then one thing


----------



## soldier242 (Sep 29, 2008)

tatty your scores are amazing, i should put my gtx on water to achive some higher clocks ... but
i think even with clocks like yours i won't beat ya ... strange, must be xp64 or the low cpu clock or everything


----------



## Tatty_One (Sep 29, 2008)

soldier242 said:


> tatty your scores are amazing, i should put my gtx on water to achive some higher clocks ... but
> i think even with clocks like yours i won't beat ya ... strange, must be xp64 or the low cpu clock or everything



It's all in shader speed to be honest coupled with cpu speed of course, I am saving a 4.4gig CPU overclock run for when someone beats me!, try lowering your core clock down but whacking your shaders up, you should see a decent difference, Px is predominantly (but not exclusively) shaders, ohhhhh and of course, if you have a 64bit operating system, forget it, it a 32bit bench, you will still get a score of course but nowhere near what it could be.


----------



## GrandAdmiralThrawn (Oct 3, 2008)

*nVidia PhysX*

I just registered here, because I was looking for information regarding my FluidMark Score. First, my System Config:

HW:
==
Intel D975XBX2 Rev.305
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 @ Stock Speed (3166MHz)
4GB Corsair DDR-II/1000 5-5-5
Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
3ware 9650SE-8LPML RAID-6 Controller
BFG GeForce 280 GTX @ 632/1296/2322

SW:
==
Windows XP SP3, fully updated
ForceWare 178.13 + PhysX 8.09.04 (the new WHQL package, drivers fully uninstalled beforehand with assistance of DetonatorRip and NFR)
No FSAA, no AF for this test, VSync forced OFF
FluidMark 1.0.0, 640x480, 60secs


The system's pretty "fresh", this is only the second ForceWare installation here.

First, I noticed that ANY CPU hog running alongside of FluidMark will kill the score, so i completely freed up my CPU, no more SETI@Home, no more AV running..

Now, the result is around *700* in Software and around *3600* using Hardware PhysX. I just don't get it..  3DM06 Score sits slightly above ~15.000.

Now, question is, what am I doing wrong here..  I also noticed, that when running FurMark for instance, the loud fan of my 280 GTX starts to spin up like hell almost immediately. However, when running FluidMark, the Fan stays silent and the card below 80°C...

Oh, I also tested SuperPi and Everest too, SuperPi Mod 1.5 gave me ~14 secs for 1M and Everest gave me 7GB/s mem writes, so i guess those components should not be the cause?

Am I forgetting something?

Help appreciated, thanks a lot..


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 3, 2008)

GrandAdmiralThrawn said:


> I just registered here, because I was looking for information regarding my FluidMark Score. First, my System Config:
> 
> HW:
> ==
> ...




Well in a nutshell, your shaders are running slow, but that cant be the only answer, your still slow and should be quicker....Px is basically about shader power, I hope that is 32bit Windows XP?


----------



## GrandAdmiralThrawn (Oct 3, 2008)

*Windows XP*

Normal 32-Bit XP, yes.

Shaders are Stock, but still.. Every 8800 beats me. 

By the way: Is the 3DM06 score of ~15.000 ok? I didn't run 3DMark for a pretty long time, last time I was comparing results was back with 3DM01...  Just trying to find out if this is somehow a graphics card issue or a PhysX issue..

Edit: I'm suspecting the card doesn't enter "Performance 3D" mode here, and keeps running with 2D or Low-Power 3D clocks. May that be a cause? The fan not spinning up keeps me thinking..


----------



## Bytor (Oct 3, 2008)

Ahahahahahaa   I'm dead last.....And the only ATI guy on the list.....

Oh well its a Nvidia bench anyway... Nice scores guys...


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 3, 2008)

GrandAdmiralThrawn said:


> Normal 32-Bit XP, yes.
> 
> Shaders are Stock, but still.. Every 8800 beats me.
> 
> ...



Every 8800 beats you because their stock shader speed is higher, of course as I said thats not the complete answer, something else is wrong here, let me give it some thought.........


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 3, 2008)

Bytor said:


> Ahahahahahaa   I'm dead last.....And the only ATI guy on the list.....
> 
> Oh well its a Nvidia bench anyway... Nice scores guys...



Yes, so you will probably be running in software mode.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 4, 2008)

Thrawn: 15,000 in 06 is slow as well.

You wouldnt have Vsync, antialiasing or anisotropic filtering forced on in the forceware panel would you?


----------



## GrandAdmiralThrawn (Oct 4, 2008)

*Scores*

Unfortunately, no. VSync is forced off in nVidia CP, and so are FSAA and AF.

8800 shader clock is higher, but shouldn't my 240 shader processors make up for this? Or does PhysX only run on a limited amout of shader units?

Well, whatever, if my 3DM06 result is also too low, something else must be wrong, but I can't figure out what...


----------



## Tatty_One (Oct 4, 2008)

GrandAdmiralThrawn said:


> Unfortunately, no. VSync is forced off in nVidia CP, and so are FSAA and AF.
> 
> 8800 shader clock is higher, but shouldn't my 240 shader processors make up for this? Or does PhysX only run on a limited amout of shader units?
> 
> Well, whatever, if my 3DM06 result is also too low, something else must be wrong, but I can't figure out what...



In that case, your GPU is bottlenecked by your CPU, you have a powerful card and I would guess you would not get the full performance out of it on anything less than about 3.6gig........anyways, games is where it really matters, remember these test are "synthetic" and dont necessarily give a real world gaming indicator.

For example, with my quad at 4.4gig and a heavily overclocked GTX260, I get over 22,000 in 2006, that overclock not only improves the CPU score, it really bangs up the SM2 and SM3 scores as well.


----------

