• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

3Dmark Time Spy - Post your scores!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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)
Click to expand...

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

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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
View attachment 84526 Might be adding another 1080 soon.View attachment 84526
newbenchmarkrecord.JPG
benchmarkscreenshot.JPG
cpuzmem.JPG
 
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? :(
 
7894 - gdallsk / 5820K@4.5 GHz / GTX1080 FE @ 2088 - 1375

upload_2017-2-25_14-20-16.png
 
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

Screenshot (54).jpg
 
Score: 16976/ 7700K 5.3GHz / Titan X(pascal) X2 2.11GHz
無題75.png
 
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...
 
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

w0381.png
 
Last edited:
Score: 14010/ 7700K @5.43GHz Cache @5.23GHz Memory @4.15GHz / GTX-1080 X2 @2.25GHz
無題69.png
 
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!!! :rockout:

3072 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming 3GB @ 1229MHz / 1850MHz
Time Spy 9.PNG


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!!! :clap:
 
Last edited:
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

ye5ZnkP.jpg
 
Got a second 1080

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

l3Mmb50.png
 
The Pack said:
Good Job, but look @ my 2 GTX 1070 :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
12015 - The Pack/ i7 6850K @ 4.4GHz 2x Asus Strix GTX 1070 @ 2126MHz / 9800MHz first card (Samsung RAM) + 8750 second card (Micron RAM)
Screenshot (57).jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...
Yes of course, but i paid only 1000 Dollars for 2 cards...:-)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top