*GTX 260/280 Unofficial TPU! Thread*

[waxking1]

I don't care about benchmarking either except for stability testing and comparison. The reason I asked to see a 3d06 score from Tatty is because his 260 clocks faster than anyone else's I have seen.

I don't believe Tatty is dishonest but I still wonder why his chip is that much faster. A verified 3dmark06 score significantly higher than what I can get with my clocks at 756/712 would validate his claim. I'm only interested in seeing the graphics scores but I agree that a slower CPU will bottleneck this score.

I just ran 3d06 at 756/712 and scored 8061/8340 SM2/SM3.
If anyone would like to see my score I have a jpeg screen image I would be happy to send to anyone that asks. I only have the free version. Since my score is not that remarkable I doubt too many will question it. I ran the test at 3.9 Ghz so I don't think the CPU speed hurt the score.

 

[Kursah]

Feel free to post what you want here...as long as it's GTX 260/280 related, I don't care!

I am sure Tatty will submit results once he get's his new sweet cpu up to par, be patient wasking, he won't leave us hanging! Well for too long at least!

 

[Tatty_Two]

Hey, do any of you guys tweak image quality settings in any way in the driver settings panel when benchmarking, or do you just leave it at default/quality?

If I am doing a death run for the highest possible score then everything in control panel goes to performance settings, where as nortmally I have everything in there set to highest image quality settings.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I don't care about benchmarking either except for stability testing and comparison. The reason I asked to see a 3d06 score from Tatty is because his 260 clocks faster than anyone else's I have seen.

I don't believe Tatty is dishonest but I still wonder why his chip is that much faster. A verified 3dmark06 score significantly higher than what I can get with my clocks at 756/712 would validate his claim. I'm only interested in seeing the graphics scores but I agree that a slower CPU will bottleneck this score.

I just ran 3d06 at 756/712 and scored 8061/8340 SM2/SM3.
If anyone would like to see my score I have a jpeg screen image I would be happy to send to anyone that asks. I only have the free version. Since my score is not that remarkable I doubt too many will question it. I ran the test at 3.9 Ghz so I don't think the CPU speed hurt the score.

I understand, which is why in part I asked you to do a fluidmark bench run, and see what clocks you can run it to completetion, fluidmark TBH is largely shaders as its Px but if you look a couple of pages back I did a 16000 run at 800/1725 with screenies included......although I did say then that those speeds would be no way stable in 2006......give it a go and I will update you Thursday night on 2006.

 

[waxking1]

I tried running a fluidmark the other day but it told me I lacked a driver or something. I'm not sure what fluidmark measures and how it stresses your graphics card. It looked to me like it was more for physics. Also the scores on fluidmark mean nothing to me.

I read in another post where you ran 3dmark06 at 770 linked six times in a row. I just would like to see a link to one of them. Your CPU is really not important, what is important is that you finish the test at these clocks.

 

[Tatty_Two]

I tried running a fluidmark the other day but it told me I lacked a driver or something. I'm not sure what fluidmark measures and how it stresses your graphics card. It looked to me like it was more for physics. Also the scores on fluidmark mean nothing to me.

I read in another post where you ran 3dmark06 at 770 linked six times in a row. I just would like to see a link to one of them. Your CPU is really not important, what is important is that you finish the test at these clocks.

Having just gone through the entire thread, I cannot see anywhere where I have said that, unless you are confused with Post 147 where on the first day of getting the card I said I had done "5 loops of Furmark" for stability testing, you will also notice from that, the clocks were at 760.

As I said, I didnt take screenies or save to my project the run I did yesterday as it was just for stability purposes and the fact that I clearly stated it WOULDNT do 790......if I had of said that it WOULD do 790 then I would have posted some evidence......make sense?.........purely because it was not a competative run as explained, the last competative 2006 run I did that is recorded in my Futuremark Project Manager was in November 2007 when I scored 17,211 with an 8800GTS 512MB clocked at 825mhz on the core...........I usually accept stability as doing the things I want it to do, at the speeds I want to do it in the games I play.

As for Fluidmark, there is a whole benching thread for it here, it tests/benches the whole GPU but is predomintly shader intensive (but of course any shader process involves the GPU) as it is a Physicx bench, again it does not mean a lot but it shows at least some shader stability to complete at high speeds, it does not punish the GPU anywhere near as much as 2006 does tho....the bench only lasts about a minute and a half, my point being that as you kind of indicated earlier that anyone can apply 800 on the core with shaders linked at 1725mhz in a 2D envioirnment I am simply asking.....OK....so can you? (See post 212 for mine) Did you install NVidia's Powerpack that included the Physicx drivers because from what you have said, it would appear that your Px drivers are missing?

Apart from that, Thursday night is not far away!.....pending Q9650 potential problems of course...... I have started a thread for testing the Q9650, there will be a whole host of benches in there, from 2006 to Fluidmark.....Sceincemark2 and SuperPi etc.

 

[waxking1]

Nice, my 260 seems to loosten as time goes by, I am upto 770 stable now with shaders linked at 1675 I think, she is flying! I like this card more and more as time goes by, just wondering now if my PSU will take two of them!

Tatty,
Maybe the 3dmark06 I was remembering was with your other card but as the quote above, you have been claiming to have the fastest 260 around. I would just like to see some hard evidence. Personally, if I can game with Crysis, Farcry, COD4, FEAR, etc. and remain stable, then I usually don't have any trouble with 3Dmark06. If I freeze up in Crysis, you can bet the same will happen in 3d06.

Here is another quote from you earlier in this thread.

"No, no noticeable difference in temps either for me, I am gonna flash mine back sometime I think. Although I am more than happy running 24/7 for gaming at 760 linked, I dont bench anymore so I dont need to voltmod otherwise the soldering iron would already be out!"

 

[Tatty_Two]

Tatty,
Maybe the 3dmark06 I was remembering was with your other card but as the quote above, you have been claiming to have the fastest 260 around. I would just like to see some hard evidence. Personally, if I can game with Crysis, Farcry, COD4, FEAR, etc. and remain stable, then I usually don't have any trouble with 3Dmark06. If I freeze up in Crysis, you can bet the same will happen in 3d06.

Here is another quote from you earlier in this thread.

"No, no noticeable difference in temps either for me, I am gonna flash mine back sometime I think. Although I am more than happy running 24/7 for gaming at 760 linked, I dont bench anymore so I dont need to voltmod otherwise the soldering iron would already be out!"

I have never once claimed that I have the fastest 260 around, not once.......I have claimed to have benched at 800 linked (and clearly stated it wouldnt do a 2006 run at that), and I provided the screenies to support the fluidmark run at 800....you may not be aware that some of us in this thread (Kursah the OP included) were doing Fluidmark runs in the Fluidmark thread whilst this thread was going to test/bench the cards performance in there, hence my reference to it..................I would be grateful if you can find a single sentance in any of my posts where I have once said that I have the fastest card around??????? Secondly, I did make reference to the fact that I did a run in COD4 at 790 I think it was and it only lasted for about 15 or 20 minutes without BSOD and I also quoted did I not that it wouldnt run 2006 at that speed.

Not quite sure of your quote of me in the final paragraph?.......bottom line here is, as I said before, try running fluidmark and see how yours does at 800mhz linked to shaders......I have never said mine would do a run in 2006 at those speeds........my whole point is to post my successes (and failures) in games and benches with the card with where applicable....tweaks enabled......isnt that the point of the thread?

If you really beleive from my first quote you posted that by me saying MY card was flying......I was actually saying........"My card is faster than all yours" I can only assume your grasp of grammar is different to mine!

 

[nflesher87]

sub'd and thanked for when me card arrives

 

[Tatty_Two]

sub'd and thanked for when me card arrives

Welcome Nate! Which model is on it's way?

 

[waxking1]

Lol, did some more modding of my BIOS.......did some of me "Tatty" tweaks........think you might like the results, check core....but especially linked shaders

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17803&d=1219848190

Maybe you didn't actually say that you have the fastest 260 but you insinuated it with posts like the one above. I haven't seen anyone with shaders running near this fast.

 

[Tatty_Two]

You might be in luck Wax.....where you quoted me saying I was more than happy to game at 760, I have found a screenie of the first run I did on the first day the card arrived but only at the 760.....shaders linked of course .............I have also included here the fluidmark deathrun at 800mhz with shaders linked, when I get the new Q9650 up and running I will try a run at 780+ linked.

Bare in mind I did this for stability, so as I said, CPU was only at 3.2gig (which is probably why the SM2 score is down), no processes were closed down and my image settings in Control Panel were set for high quality, not for performance.

 

[Tatty_Two]

http://forums.techpowerup.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17803&d=1219848190

Maybe you didn't actually say that you have the fastest 260 but you insinuated it with posts like the one above. I haven't seen anyone with shaders running near this fast.

Thank you.....I didnt......So you did look at my fluidmark screenie?..from what you are saying, by me posting a fluidmark score with a high shader overclock you think I shouldnt in case I am trying to say I have the fastest card? So noone with good results should post them?..Did you notice the linked 1725mhz on the shaders but of course you have said "I havent seen anyone with shaders running anywhere near that".....well you have! granted fluidmark is nowhere near as intensive as 2006 BUT......the shaders ARE running that fast As far as 2006 goes, you may well be right and my card wont do any better than any decent 260 at around 760-770 but in my case, as shown in the 1st run 760 core.....the shaders were linked.

Could we know get back on topic? As I said, see what you can get with your shaders on Fluidmark.....you should get more than normal.

 

[waxking1]

Thank you.....I didnt......So you didnt look at my fluidmark screenie?......1725mhz, granted thats nowhere near as intensive as 2006 BUT......the shaders are running that fast

They probably are Tatty but I don't see the proof. Fluidmark is CPU dependent. See Link
http://www.geeks3d.com/?p=845

I could run fluidmark and then afterward open up Precision or GPUz and take a screenshot.

I'm using 177.79 drivers and have tried the newer drivers and had problems. Since Fluidmark is not a test I see anyone else using to gauge graphics card speed I see no need to use it.

 

[Tatty_Two]

They probably are Tatty but I don't see the proof. Fluidmark is CPU dependent. See Link
http://www.geeks3d.com/?p=845

I could run fluidmark and then afterward open up Precision or GPUz and take a screenshot.

I'm using 177.79 drivers and have tried the newer drivers and had problems. Since Fluidmark is not a test I see anyone else using to gauge graphics card speed I see no need to use it.

Okey dokey.....so how would you get a single card score over 16000 then if you are suggesting "someone" could cheat.....they cant cheat the score!........you clearly dont know me very well do you .....by the way, I edited my post above after you quoted me.....are we good for now? Because you dont know me, I am happy to overlook the fact that you have come as near to calling me a cheat on 2 occasions now.

Edit: Can you run in 2006 at even just 760 core with linked shaders?

 

[waxking1]

Well, I apologize if thats what you think Tatty. I don't know you but I don't believe you are a cheat. I just don't think you stressed you card at the high speeds.

I can't run 3D06 linked with a 760 core because 756 is as high as you can go with the shaders at 1512. The next shader stop is like 1566 and my card will only get about halfway through 3d06 at this shader speed.

 

[nflesher87]

Welcome Nate! Which model is on it's way?

eVGA GTX260 SC
Arriving tomorrow I'm on the hunt for a waterblock for this baby!

 

[johnspack]

Wow, this palit 280gtx is a beastie! Sure like running crysis @ 1920x1200 with aa and still be able to play it!

 

[Tatty_Two]

Well, I apologize if thats what you think Tatty. I don't know you but I don't believe you are a cheat. I just don't think you stressed you card at the high speeds.

I can't run 3D06 linked with a 760 core because 756 is as high as you can go with the shaders at 1512. The next shader stop is like 1566 and my card will only get about halfway through 3d06 at this shader speed.

Well it did pretty much sound like it to me, especially when you stated anyone could do that fluidmark run then just up the clocks and screenie Precision tool, hence my comment that you couldnt get the score though.......OK, no probs.....so you acknowledge the fact that on the 3D Mark 2006 screenie, even at just 760 on the core, my shaders were linked at 1628Mhz.....maybe I just got lucky if you and Kursah can only get around 1512, but there is more than 1628 in this card I am sure.

 

[Tatty_Two]

Wow, this palit 280gtx is a beastie! Sure like running crysis @ 1920x1200 with aa and still be able to play it!

Glad to see you got the Palit Have you pushed her yet?

 

[johnspack]

Just starting to, 700/1500/1150 so far, smashing all my old benchmarks from my 9800gtx!
Went from 3500 in furmark to almost 5000 without trying....!

 

[johnspack]

crazy fps in cod4 @ 1920x1200 full aa everything cranked, some lows at 80fps, but mostly in the 100s to 200s... think this setting is stable, will try higher shaders soon....
oh and max temps seem to be 70c with fan at 100%....

 

[waxking1]

Very nice clocks for a 280 John. I almost bought a 280 this morning. I had it in the basket and I waited a while due to uncertainty. I decided to pull the trigger and the deal had changed. It went for 12 percent MS live cashback to 5 percent. This amounted to about $31 and I decided to wait for a better deal.

I really don't need a 280 since I already have a 260 and a 4870, but these cards are fun to play with.

 

[johnspack]

Doesn't seem to want to be stable above 700/1500, the mem iv got to 1200 so far but don't care if I can't get the shaders up any more... and the gpu above 700 seems to throw artifacts as well, I hope this thing breaks in!

 

[Kursah]

Give it a week or two john, she might loosen up a little bit for ya!

Nice OC's thus far tho! Glad you're liking the card so far.