• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

NEW Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0 Scores

Vellinious said:
5820k @ 4.7
970 @ 1607 / 2105

I know it probably won't count, but.....it's the 2nd highest single 970 score I've seen.
Click to expand...
It doesn't count for this thread. As far as the list is concerned. Since one of my, albeit stupid, rules does truly apply(the multi GPU showing in the score panel rule). I would make an exception to the no previously posted scores rule. Since it wouldn't apply, if the other rules were followed. Which are "honor system" rules. If you say they were followed, or even if you say nothing about them, then they were followed(or I will assume they were at least). What I meant by scores from the previous thread do no apply is mostly because of the 4x AA thing(though other new rules have been added or clarified that could potentially disqualify it too.). Otherwise though it's definitely worth posting here for reference purposes. Since it's still a nice score regardless. Its disqualification only being due to a minor technicality. So far as I know.

It'll all make sense in the end. Though I still agree with you for the moment. It doesn't make much, if any, sense right now. The only scenario I can imagine so far is someone crying foul because you beat their single GPU score, and they don't want to believe it because it says "x2". So you must have photoshopped the upper right corner to make it look like a single GPU. It's a long shot...I know.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you are really reaching there... :)

But uh... who are you talking to? You didn't quote anyone and the post 'above' you doens't have anything to do with your response?
 
Generally to the person in the post above. Like right now.;)

The post above became invisible when the new page was created.

Anyways...fixed.

On the stretch of the imagination...it's not really a big deal. Like I said before. If it's such a big deal to pull the power cables from one or more of your GPUs...then who's really being silly here? At least I have an excuse at all.
 
See if this works
jaggerwild
3770K@4600
GTX 780TI DCIIOC 1147/1852=5246
heaven7_zpsz4kqb8b3.png
 
Last edited:
Ran a test at Bone stock just to see what it would do.....*voltages were not stock, but clocks ARE*
Boost Core @ 1278Mhz
Boost Memory @ 1753Mhz

Valley Score = 2538
GMchZ8M.png



and heres the Plain old results with no readings in the way for validity's sake
VWrmaxN.png
 
Wait...what?^^

Oh...I get it. Not really. But whatever floats your boat. :p

@jaggerwild :twitch: :eek: :wtf: :confused: o_O :laugh: ;) :) :D :cool: :pimp: :toast: :clap:

I don't know how you did that. But none-the-less...that's amazing! :rockout:
 
jboydgolfer said:
You dont get my post? o_O
Click to expand...
No. I do? I think? I just don't know what to do with it. You're not under the impression that I'm going to add it to the list right? Top scores only. 1 score per member. Unless the CPU or GPU changes. Then I will put it in there. Same GPU and CPU right? Just the GPU clocked lower? Am I missing something?

Do I need to make another rule? Please tell me I don't.
 
no, i just posted it for the sake of posting it, and was done, but when you made that comment, i became confused. no i dont expect you to add the score, i just post em, ive done it this way for a long time, just ignore 'em
 
So, do I interpret right, no updating the score if it improves? I just wanted to be clear. :-)
 
Top scores only. As in if you post a higher score with your particular GPU and CPU combo, that one gets listed, old score goes bye bye. 1 score(highest posted) per member per each particular GPU and CPU combo. Unlimited top scores per member if they are all with a different GPU and CPU combo. A different GPU and CPU combo can be either a different GPU and the same CPU, or the same GPU and a different CPU.
 
Highest entry per gpu. CPU isn't terribly relevant here...at least not enough to have two entries on the same gpu...

Make it easy on yourself. :)
 
I appreciate the input. But I beg to differ. Especially in the case of this particular benchmark. In my experience, with Valley, CPU can make a major difference in scores. Whether through core count or through clock speed.

For instance. My old score in the old Valley thread with my 280X @ 1200/1850 + E8600 @ 3.33GHz = 2197 points. My later(unlisted) score with my 280X @ 1207/1850 + 3570K @ 4.8GHz = 2727 points. Now I can't believe that +7MHz on the GPU core gained me 530 points. I'm fairly certain that had to do with more CPU cores at a higher frequency.

Heaven doesn't seem to be similar in that respect. With a difference of only 31 points between those setups. 1059 points vs. 1090 points.

In both cases it appears to make a difference that is significant enough to be noteworthy. It is also keeping within the spirit of both previous threads to list such differences. It gives a better idea of what one can expect to see results wise with whichever GPU combined with whichever CPU. These threads are not just about top scores with certain GPUs. That's not to say they couldn't or even shouldn't be. It's just how it is, and how it's always been.
 
Only been 3 days, you guys are stressing him out. It's FRIDAY! FRIDAY FRIDAY!!!!! :rockout:
 
MrGenius said:
I appreciate the input. But I beg to differ. Especially in the case of this particular benchmark. In my experience, with Valley, CPU can make a major difference in scores. Whether through core count or through clock speed.

For instance. My old score in the old Valley thread with my 280X @ 1200/1850 + E8600 @ 3.33GHz = 2197 points. My later(unlisted) score with my 280X @ 1207/1850 + 3570K @ 4.8GHz = 2727 points. Now I can't believe that +7MHz on the GPU core gained me 530 points. I'm fairly certain that had to do with more CPU cores at a higher frequency.

Heaven doesn't seem to be similar in that respect. With a difference of only 31 points between those setups. 1059 points vs. 1090 points.

In both cases it appears to make a difference that is significant enough to be noteworthy. It is also keeping within the spirit of both previous threads to list such differences. It gives a better idea of what one can expect to see results wise with whichever GPU combined with whichever CPU. These threads are not just about top scores with certain GPUs. That's not to say they couldn't or even shouldn't be. It's just how it is, and how it's always been.
Click to expand...
That is a huge generational gap/IPC performance difference (what 50%+?) and massive clockspeed difference . Nearly 50% over the e8600 dual core. Makes sense considering the e8600 likely choked the GPU at those speeds. ;)

I have a lot more left in the CPU, so I will post something up at some point with the same clocks and faster clockspeeds on the CPU and see what happens. :)
 
Last edited:
Valley is really CPU bound. I can add 100 points to my score just going from my daily clock of 4.4, down to 2 cores and no hyperthreading with the clock at 4.9. It gets worse the more powerful the GPU is, and with multi-GPU setups, it's even more evident.
 
Bumped cpu to 4.2 and gpu boosted to 1505 ... vram speeds unchanged.

i5-3570K, 4.2GHz, GTX 970, 1505/1753, 2499, BiggieShady
valley_2016_05_07_15_06_09_714.jpg
 
Vellinious said:
Valley is really CPU bound. I can add 100 points to my score just going from my daily clock of 4.4, down to 2 cores and no hyperthreading with the clock at 4.9. It gets worse the more powerful the GPU is, and with multi-GPU setups, it's even more evident.
Click to expand...
I glad you mentioned the multi GPU part. That seems to give some explanation as to why a certain member could increase their score with a certain pair of GPUs so drastically as was recently the case. I'm still having a very hard time understanding how that was possible. But the rules were followed so far as I can tell. So the score appears to be valid. And I did list it as such. But I'm not necessarily the scores judge here. I have a rough idea of what's realistic. At least I think I do. My job as I see it is just to police the scores and keep track of them. I don't feel I have the experience required to deem a score as unrealistic or impossible unless it were supposedly achieved with a similar GPU to the one I own currently.

Anyhow, maybe you or someone else could help me understand better how or why that score was possible. I think it's pretty obvious by a quick look at the list which score by which member I'm referring to. I'm just not willing to name names or point fingers at this point. I'm big on the benefit of the doubt theory.

However I did mention in the other thread that if anyone sees anything that they think is contestable scores wise to please let me know about it. I would prefer, or rather insist, that the protest be made publicly. That seems most fair to the parties involved. I am willing to try and keep the lists as free of deception as I can. But I will need help with that from other members. Like I said, I just don't have enough experience to make a judgment call in each particular case as to which scores are obviously fake. So unless somebody has a particular complaint about a certain score, and can make a reasonable argument as to why, I'm going to assume nobody has a problem with any listed scores. As I feel I've done the best I could, barring any potential oversights on my part, to keep invalid scores off the list.

Lastly, I apologize to the member who's score I'm making an example of. It's not accusatory. I just don't fully understand it. And you didn't provide any explanation of it. So it's left some of us wondering.
 
Last edited:
Upping cpu clocks helps?
Or dropping cores,and i creasing clocks....
I wouldnt have guessed, cpu usage seems fairly low during benching

Ill need to try that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top