NEW - 3DMark 11 Compilation

[HammerON]

15th Warlock | 2xEVGA GTX680s SLI | 1257/6076 | 18280 | i7 3930K@5Ghz


http://img.techpowerup.org/120408/18280.jpg

Very nice

Nice score war I had got 18.4k twice but it locks up when I open gpu-z

So you are saying that you do not open GPU-Z before running the bench? Did you try opening GPU-Z then running the bench?

 

[DOM]

Yeah was going to try that next.... I try to have apps that I don't need running off

But idk why when I open gpu-z its like putting the card on 3d mode ???

 

[lowrider_05]

lowrider_05|2X AMD HD 6950|940/1425|10319|AMD FX 8120 @ 4.8

 

[DOM]

DOM|HD7970's|1250/1800|18695|i7 2600K@5GHz

 

[dj-electric]

What kind of way to achieve a high place at the 3DM11 charts by basically "cheating", using driver quality manipulation and compering score with others that didn't?

 

[DOM]

What kind of way to achieve a high place at the 3DM11 charts by basically "cheating", using driver quality manipulation and compering score with others that didn't?

dude stfu how is it cheating when its using just settings i made in ccc :shadedshu

just shows how many nubs are here in tpu

 

[dj-electric]

Just settings you made in CCC i see... like disabling tessellation (The very basic reason why this test is so heavy). For all other immature comments i wont respond, way too low.
Next time show some default setting results, not ones created by manipulations to add 25-33% extra score. If someone is a "nub" sir, might as well be you.
This thread contains apples-to-apples comparisons (all at 3 presets of settings, no extra manipulation BS), so you might as well just run the test at 800X600 just to show-off with a big number.

 

[EarthDog]

dude stfu how is it cheating when its using just settings i made in ccc :shadedshu

just shows how many nubs are here in tpu

+1 man... this place just does not REMOTELY understand benchmarking. The vantage thread allows PhysX for pete's sake.

Its the same reason why dragsters have nothing inside it except what is needed to get down he track. Gut the fat for it to run fast.

Next time show some default setting results, not ones created by manipulations to add 25-33% extra score. If someone is a "nub" sir, might as well be you.
This thread contains apples-to-apples comparisons (all at 3 presets of settings, no extra manipulation BS), so you might as well just run the test at 800X600 just to show-off with a big number.

The benchmark was run at default settings. Running at 8x600 is not default.

 

[AnomalouS]

DOM|MSI N580GTX Lightning|1400/1200/2800|P9798|2500K 5.6GHz

View attachment 44952

DOM... How the heck... 1400MHz core? LN2? What voltage if I dare ask?

* i know this is old...

 

[dj-electric]

+1 man... this place just does not REMOTELY understand benchmarking. The vantage thread allows PhysX for pete's sake.

Its the same reason why dragsters have nothing inside it except what is needed to get down he track. Gut the fat for it to run fast.

The benchmark was run at default settings. Running at 8x600 is not default.

As i mentioned, disabling tess and forcing lower image quality just to get a higher number and compere it to others that ran the test at driver default is useless.

 

[DOM]

Just settings you made in CCC i see... like disabling tessellation (The very basic reason why this test is so heavy). For all other immature comments i wont respond, way too low.
Next time show some default setting results, not ones created by manipulations to add 25-33% extra score. If someone is a "nub" sir, might as well be you.
This thread contains apples-to-apples comparisons (all at 3 presets of settings, no extra manipulation BS), so you might as well just run the test at 800X600 just to show-off with a big number.

nub thats called cheating im running the test at defualt setting call AMD a cheater cuz there the on that added it in there settings

+1 man... this place just does not REMOTELY understand benchmarking. The vantage thread allows PhysX for pete's sake.

Its the same reason why dragsters have nothing inside it except what is needed to get down he track. Gut the fat for it to run fast.

The benchmark was run at default settings. Running at 8x600 is not default.

DOM... How the heck... 1400MHz core? LN2? What voltage if I dare ask?

* i know this is old...

ln2 like around 1.5 been so long lol

 

[dj-electric]

nub thats called cheating im running the test at defualt setting call AMD a cheater cuz there the on that added it in there settings

Fo'Sho' bro, only cuz u said so, i wont Dis bro. Have a gr8 time haxing the sys bro. no h8 for ze nubs bro.

*Idontwannaliveonthisplanetanymore.jpg

 

[erocker]

I don't see any rules stating you can't turn off tesselation. This isn't some official compilation or anything, I don't see a problem.

 

[dj-electric]

Not complaining, nothing against the rules, sure, but at least mention you made the image quility into raw sh*t so people won't think that this is the performance under default settings.

 

[erocker]

Meh, you do what you can to achieve the highest score. It's fun.

 

[cadaveca]

These sorts of arguments are why I stopped benching.


To make accurate compares, default settings all around should be used. I subscribe to this camp, because many people will take benchmarking scores to relate gaming expereince/performance.


However, when benchmarking for the highest score, anything goes, as long as everyone has access to the tweak. Disabling tesselation is one of those tweaks, and Futuremark realizes this, and as such, tests with tesselation disabled in CCC will show that tesselation has been disabled when viewed on the ORB, so this practice is fine for me.

It's also very common to change LOD levels, and this is one tweak i do not find OK, but many will do it for the extra points. There is no way to know this tweak was enabled other than by viewing the benchmark when it's run, or if the person running the benchmark is open with all settings used, and not everyone is honest about using this one.

Since I am now doing reviews, and want to relate performance as the end user will get when gaming or other such "normal" things, I've stopped "extreme benchmarking" for scores, stopped posting in threads like this, and disabled my score reporting in HWBOT. I want to appeal to the larger gernal public, and not the niche of enthusiasts that do "extreme benchmarking".

At the same time though, I 100% expect guys to do whatever they can to get a bigger score in threads like this, and have no issue with them enjoying tweaking for points. If more people were honest about the tweaks they used, rather than holding the info back as "an advantage", then there'd be no issues about any of this at all, but that's how it works when people keep secrets.


I am not one of these people.

 

[PopcornMachine]

I thought, that a least in part, this thread was to see the relative performance of video cards. To do this things would have to be done on as equal a basis as possible. I thought quality of hardware and overclocking were the only variables.

Now I understand what this and other threads are about.

 

[erocker]

Big deal. If someone wants to make a 3D Mark 11 thread with particular guidelines they are always welcome to do just that.

These sorts of arguments are why I stopped benching.


To make accurate compares, default settings all around should be used. I subscribe to this camp, because many people will take benchmarking scores to relate gaming expereince/performance.


However, when benchmarking for the highest score, anything goes, as long as everyone has access to the tweak. Disabling tesselation is one of those tweaks, and Futuremark realizes this, and as such, tests with tesselation disabled in CCC will show that tesselation has been disabled when viewed on the ORB, so this practice is fine for me.

It's also very common to change LOD levels, and this is one tweak i do not find OK, but many will do it for the extra points. There is no way to know this tweak was enabled other than by viewing the benchmark when it's run, or if the person running the benchmark is open with all settings used, and not everyone is honest about using this one.

Since I am now doing reviews, and want to relate performance as the end user will get when gaming or other such "normal" things, I've stopped "extreme benchmarking" for scores, stopped posting in threads like this, and disabled my score reporting in HWBOT. I want to appeal to the larger gernal public, and not the niche of enthusiasts that do "extreme benchmarking".

At the same time though, I 100% expect guys to do whatever they can to get a bigger score in threads like this, and have no issue with them enjoying tweaking for points. If more people were honest about the tweaks they used, rather than holding the info back as "an advantage", then there'd be no issues about any of this at all, but that's how it works when people keep secrets.


I am not one of these people.

Thanks for your nice story. Like I said, it's for fun, taking things like this seriously is a waste of time and energy.

 

[15th Warlock]

DOM|HD7970's|1250/1800|18695|i7 2600K@5GHz

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=46593&stc=1&d=1333995197

Nice score Dom! thanks for rising up to the challenge

Although, IMHO I think turning tesselation off sort of defeats the purpose of running 3DMark 11 as it specifically mentions tesselation as a feature right before each test, so basically what you're doing is running it in DX10 mode perhaps we should open a different ladder for benchies run without tesselation, like we did for the ppl who use vantage with PhysX enabled

This is just a suggestion, not accusing anybody of cheating, just my $0.02, not looking to start an argument

I wonder how high my cards would score if Nvidia gave me the option of turning tesselation off, nothing wrong with some healthy competition, props to AMD for giving you guys that option, cheers

 

[cadaveca]

Thanks for your nice story. Like I said, it's for fun, taking things like this seriously is a waste of time and energy.

You're not a reviewer, so I do not expect you to take it seriously, but when results are put into question, I have interest, period. Accurate result reporting is what makes or breaks what I do here on TPU. You just enforce the forum rules.

That said you are right, and like I said, I expect certain things in threads like this, and I do not think they detract from their purpose.


You and I both have opinions on the subject...neither is correct for everyone. And neither carries any less merit.

 

[erocker]

You're not a reviewer, so I do not expect you to take it seriously, but when results are put into question, I have interest, period. Accurate result reporting is what makes or breaks what I do here on TPU. You just enforce the forum rules.

That said you are right, and like I said, I expect certain things in threads like this, and I do not think they detract from their purpose.


You and I both have opinions on the subject...neither is correct for everyone. And neither carries any less merit.

Like I said, I don't care. Being a reviewer or whatever has nothing to do with this thread. I'm quite comfortable with my level of knowledge and I really don't need some "reviewer" to tell me otherwise. I really have no idea what your post, what I do or what you do has to do with this thread. I suppose it's an attempt to validate yourself and point me out as some sort of rule enforcer? Meh, don't care. Post results.

 

[cadaveca]

Grouchy this morning? lulz.

DJ Electric is a reviewer, hence his similar opinion to my own. That is all. I was responding to HIM in my original post this morning, not you. YOU have nothing to do with it, until you commented on my post.

Don'y get me wrong, I'm not complaining about any of the results here, nor am I complaining at all. Just stating it is what it is, and arguing about results is pointless...not sure where you play in that.

 

[erocker]

I don't see any rules stating you can't turn off tesselation. This isn't some official compilation or anything, I don't see a problem.

Grouchy this morning? lulz.

DJ Electric is a reviewer, hence his similar opinion to my own. That is all. I was responding to HIM in my original post this morning, not you. YOU have nothing to do with it, until you commented on my post.

Don'y get me wrong, I'm not complaining about any of the results here, nor am I complaining at all. Just stating it is what it is, and arguing about results is pointless...not sure where you play in that.

Read my initial post about the subject. Internet validity verified.

 

[t_ski]

Time to hug and get back to posting more scores, or I'll report you all

 

[PopcornMachine]

Big deal.

Big deal. Well, gee, have to say I don't much care what you consider a big deal.

Have a right to my opinion.