# 3DMark Time Spy Benchmark Top 30



## Jpmboy

*3D Mark Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme*

Time Spy Extreme
*Link to Top30 TSE Spreadsheet*

Time Spy
*Link to Top 30 TS Spreadsheet*




> Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable
> FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result
> Requirements for entries in this thread:


[*] *Dataline: Username -- [email protected] --- [email protected] --- SCORE*
[*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.
[*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)
[*] Beta drivers allowed
[*] For AMD users, please use "Optimal Performance" settings (or your best settings) without disabling tessellation. tess off will be rejected..
[*] Please use the most recent version of 3D Mark and sysinfo. ("New" or "New-1"). If FM issues a version which significantly departs from historic scores, a VersionTab will be added.










This OP is still a work in progress with the new forum format


----------



## Jpmboy

October 12. 2017: Time Spy Extreme Added. Same rule apply.


----------



## Silent Scone

Nice move!

I didn't take a screenshot for this run sadly, but gave it a run earlier.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13261063


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Nice move!
> 
> I didn't take a screenshot for this run sadly, but gave it a run earlier.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13261063


nice run! I'm sure you got a higher score coming...

I have the 2 TXs on the R5E10 right now.. gotta put the 1080 back in there!


----------



## alawadhi3000

Single:-
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13266225

SLI:-
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13265020

i7 6800K @ 4.3GHz
Titan X @ 1500MHz/4000MHz

Too lazy to run the banches again to get screenshots Jpmboy.


----------



## lilchronic

Lilchronic --- 5820k @ 4.7Ghz --- Titan X @ 1534Mhz / 2114Mhz --- 6854
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13263302


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Single:-
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13266225
> 
> SLI:-
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13265020
> 
> i7 6800K @ 4.3GHz
> Titan X @ 1500MHz/4000MHz
> 
> Too lazy to run the banches again to get screenshots Jpmboy.




*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

time measurement error would not be acceptable anyway.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> Lilchronic --- 5820k @ 4.7Ghz --- Titan X @ 1534Mhz / 2114Mhz --- 6854
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13263302


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*


LOL yah first place! .......till 1070 / 80's get in here.


----------



## Zurv

can i have a #1 too


----------



## kx11

kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.2Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2076Mhz / 5569Mhz --- 13656



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47059

i'm having a weird issue , the 1st Graphics get frame drops 4 seconds into the benchmark and it lasts for 2 seconds , the drops causes the fps to go from 80s/90s to 24fps









same issue with firestrike ultra , extreme is fine


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.2Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2076Mhz / 5569Mhz --- 13656
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47059
> 
> i'm having a weird issue , the 1st Graphics get frame drops 4 seconds into the benchmark and it lasts for 2 seconds , the drops causes the fps to go from 80s/90s to 24fps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same issue with firestrike ultra , extreme is fine


i get that too in the 1st graphics test in time spy, have not ran firestrike after the update so haven't seen it there.


----------



## ssgwright

ssgwright --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1080gtx @ 2128Mhz / 5500Mhz --- 7669
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13272725


----------



## phenom01

phenom01 [email protected] 4.7GHZ-- GTX 970 [email protected] 1592/1966 Overall score 7530
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47359



Sighs its 970's but its a quick and dirty overclock run i tried.









Updated with validation link dont worry about editing the list







Just happy to try


----------



## kx11

kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.29Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2088Mhz / 5535Mhz --- 13828



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47933

Quote:


> i get that too in the 1st graphics test in time spy, have not ran firestrike after the update so haven't seen it there.


i'm sure it's OC thing , memory too high or something like that

on the other hand i can't OC this damn CPU higher than 4.29ghz





















i suck at manual voltage settings


----------



## Kimir

Kimir --- 5960X @ 4.7Ghz --- GTX980Ti HoF @ 1500Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6660



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47657


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i'm sure it's OC thing , memory too high or something like that
> 
> on the other hand i can't OC this damn CPU higher than 4.29ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i suck at manual voltage settings


My BW-E needs the same voltage as yours at the same frequency. For 4.4GHz it needs about 1.4V.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8307:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48195*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zurv*
> 
> can i have a #1 too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

c'mon guys the sub requirements are only a few posts up.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.2Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2076Mhz / 5569Mhz --- 13656
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47059
> i'm having a weird issue , the 1st Graphics get frame drops 4 seconds into the benchmark and it lasts for 2 seconds , the drops causes the fps to go from 80s/90s to 24fps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> same issue with firestrike ultra , extreme is fine












I get the same thing with the 6950x. Not seeing it with 6700K or 5960X... will try the 4960X ASAP.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ssgwright*
> 
> ssgwright --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1080gtx @ 2128Mhz / 5500Mhz --- 7669
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13272725












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phenom01*
> 
> phenom01 [email protected] 4.7GHZ-- GTX 970 [email protected] 1592/1966 Overall score 7530
> 
> Sighs its 970's but its a quick and dirty overclock run i tried.


close, but no validation link.
Rejected
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.29Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2088Mhz / 5535Mhz --- 13828
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47933
> i'm sure it's OC thing , memory too high or something like that
> on the other hand i can't OC this damn CPU higher than 4.29ghz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i suck at manual voltage settings












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Kimir --- 5960X @ 4.7Ghz --- GTX980Ti HoF @ 1500Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6660
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47657


----------



## versions

I'm at #1 for 6700K+1x 1080 at the time of writing this, though I'm sure I'll get run over by one of those lucky people with 2200MHz 1080s soon.









versions ---- [email protected] --- GTX [email protected] --- 7777


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48466


----------



## criminal

criminal --- 4930k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1070 @ 2100Mhz / 2338Mhz --- 6570

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13274967?


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *GTX 1080*


When did this happen?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Haha a few hours ago!


----------



## ssgwright

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8307:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48195*


wow +750 on your ram? how did you do that? Also, I noticed you're not using the curve, how are you able to lock your overclock using the slider like that?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

IDK man, just got the card and now I'm reading up. I'll check out that curve thing, thanks man!


----------



## versions

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8307:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48195*


Have you checked if +750 actually improves your performance? I can also apply a high memory speed offset but it hurts performance. For me I got a higher score at +550 than +600, so the breakpoint for my card is somewhere inbetween there I guess.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8307:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48195*











took longer than I thought.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *versions*
> 
> I'm at #1 for 6700K+1x 1080 at the time of writing this, though I'm sure I'll get run over by one of those lucky people with 2200MHz 1080s soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> versions ---- [email protected] --- GTX [email protected] --- 7777
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48466












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> criminal --- 4930k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1070 @ 2100Mhz / 2338Mhz --- 6570
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13274967?












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *versions*
> 
> Have you checked if +750 actually improves your performance? I can also apply a high memory speed offset but it hurts performance. For me I got a higher score at +550 than +600, so the breakpoint for my card is somewhere inbetween there I guess.


must be your first time witnessing the tooshort's bench subs.


----------



## Jpmboy

I think I got everybody...


----------



## Kimir

The rush of the first day ahah


----------



## Zurv

pooo..
i demand special treatment









http://www.3dmark.com/spy/37519
Zurv ---- [email protected] --- 4 way SLI - GTX 1080 --- 20119


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *versions*
> 
> Have you checked if +750 actually improves your performance? I can also apply a high memory speed offset but it hurts performance. For me I got a higher score at +550 than +600, so the breakpoint for my card is somewhere inbetween there I guess.


Does this answer your question?









Update...
*
MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2139MHz -- 8344:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48906*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zurv*
> 
> pooo..
> i demand special treatment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/37519
> Zurv ---- [email protected] --- 4 way SLI - GTX 1080 --- 20119


lol - if I accept "special students" this early.. the veracity of the thread is lost. Yes, I saw your HOF #1 score.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Does this answer your question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update...
> *
> MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2139MHz -- 8344:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48906*


----------



## Kimir

It's pretty easy to open 3DMark, going to results tab and hit the LOAD button, then select the auto save that correspond to your score and make a god darn screenshot.
This is not 3D11, this one save the score automatically, you can't come and say you don't have the screenshot mens!


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2xGTX TitanX 1512/8036 -- 12236

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13276470


----------



## criminal

criminal --- 4930k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1070 @ 2113Mhz / 2340Mhz --- 6606

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13276588?



Sorry, I should have tweaked a little more before submitting earlier. But this is probably all this 1070 has got, so this may be the last one anyway.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Maintenance Bot --- 6700k @ 4.6ghz --- 1080 Amp Ex @ 2088mhz/11000mhz --- 7506

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/19240


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Damm I miss those 1 mhz clock adjustments.


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Gpu boost 3.0 blows.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2xGTX TitanX 1512/8036 -- 12236
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13276470


Your GPU score is about 15% higher than mine even though we have similar clocks, what are you doing differently?


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ Right now, I'm using this "old" rig...









jpmboy -- [email protected] --0 R9 295x2 1080/1400 --- 7558

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13277379


----------



## mr2cam

mr2cam

5820K @ 4.7

1080 @ 2100 / 10,908 (stock bios)

7678



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13277496?resultRegistrationOutcome=KEY_IN_ANOTHER_ACCOUNT_CURRENT_ACCOUNT_FREE


----------



## Menthol

I get some weird errors trying to run this, it starts to load and stops and spits this out, any ideas

ava.lang.RuntimeException: Failed to run workloadat com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:633)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.runBenchmark(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:129)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BenchmarkRunApi.runTest(BenchmarkRunApi.java:135)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BaseApi.handleRequest(BaseApi.java:132)at com.futuremark.choros.server.ChorosServer.lambda$onMessage$0(ChorosServer.java:246)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: not allowed to use invalid value 'stretched' for mutable setting SCALING_MODE!at com.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.validateAndMerge(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:504) atcom.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.complementBenchmarkRunState(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:237)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:618)... 7 more


----------



## Duality92

Duality92 ---- [email protected] --- R7 integrated APU, 512 shaders --- 639


I will be updating with a valid result with a GPU, RAM OC too.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> I get some weird errors trying to run this, it starts to load and stops and spits this out, any ideas
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ava.lang.RuntimeException: Failed to run workloadat com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:633)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.runBenchmark(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:129)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BenchmarkRunApi.runTest(BenchmarkRunApi.java:135)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BaseApi.handleRequest(BaseApi.java:132)at com.futuremark.choros.server.ChorosServer.lambda$onMessage$0(ChorosServer.java:246)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: not allowed to use invalid value 'stretched' for mutable setting SCALING_MODE!at com.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.validateAndMerge(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:504) atcom.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.complementBenchmarkRunState(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:237)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:618)...
> 
> 
> 7 more


You get that when trying to run the software, or the benchmark?
If when launching 3DMark, best bet it that it's broken. During update or whatnot, I had that multiple times. Fresh download and install was the only fix.
If it's only when trying to run Time Spy, then it could be some driver issue. Remove any monitor frequency OC if you have that.
There is a mention of SCALING_MODE in the error, check if you have some modified any scaling parameter in graphic driver parameters.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Might as well go ahead and do this... not sure how long I will stay near the top, though.

Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k (stock) -- 2 x GTX 1070 FE @ +150/+500 -- 9355
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13278059


----------



## dagget3450

Wish i could post a result but its not working out for me. Time measurement errors even at stock looks like cpu overhead may still be an issue for fiji also. I'll keep fiddling with it but i think my patience is gone for the evening.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> I get some weird errors trying to run this, it starts to load and stops and spits this out, any ideas
> 
> ava.lang.RuntimeException: Failed to run workloadat com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:633)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.runBenchmark(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:129)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BenchmarkRunApi.runTest(BenchmarkRunApi.java:135)at com.futuremark.choros.apis.BaseApi.handleRequest(BaseApi.java:132)at com.futuremark.choros.server.ChorosServer.lambda$onMessage$0(ChorosServer.java:246)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1142)at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:617)at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)Caused by: java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: not allowed to use invalid value 'stretched' for mutable setting SCALING_MODE!at com.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.validateAndMerge(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:504) atcom.futuremark.arielle.util.BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.complementBenchmarkRunState(BenchmarkRunStateBuilder.java:237)at com.futuremark.choros.util.BenchmarkRunUtil.getRunState(BenchmarkRunUtil.java:618)... 7 more


Driver 368.91? I had to update to this driver to get TS to do anything but disconnect the DP signal.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Wish i could post a result but its not working out for me. Time measurement errors even at stock looks like cpu overhead may still be an issue for fiji also. I'll keep fiddling with it but i think my patience is gone for the evening.


Might be related to that:
Quote:


> July 14, 2016
> Preliminary list for Time Spy results. Time Spy result validation will change in the near future with stricter HPET validation.


from the HOF
I suppose we need HPET enabled to get valid score. I had few time measurement errors, had to restart the PC to "fix" it.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- R9 295x2 --- 7649

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13278014

been quite a while since I benched this rig.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- R9 295x2 --- 7649
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13278014
> 
> been quite a while since I benched this rig.


Still doing mighty fine! I will have to put w10 on the 4930K & 780Ti SLI to run that someday...
Meanwhile, I fighting against myself to get past that: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/50054/spy/50009


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> You get that when trying to run the software, or the benchmark?
> If when launching 3DMark, best bet it that it's broken. During update or whatnot, I had that multiple times. Fresh download and install was the only fix.
> If it's only when trying to run Time Spy, then it could be some driver issue. Remove any monitor frequency OC if you have that.
> There is a mention of SCALING_MODE in the error, check if you have some modified any scaling parameter in graphic driver parameters.


Just time spy, deleted nvidia drivers, uninstalled 3Dmark and reinstalled, on my RVE and 6950X with 2 980ti KPE's, I put one 1080 in my sons rig and one in my Skylake rig, hoping 1080 availability gets better soon
Maybe my system is just to awesome
I'll give it a shot on my Skylake rig then maybe a complete reinstall on the RVE


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Still doing mighty fine! I will have to put w10 on the 4930K & 780Ti SLI to run that someday...
> Meanwhile, I fighting against myself to get past that: http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/50054/spy/50009


lol - near impossible to get the exact same score twice!








Yeah - over two years and the 295x2 is still a good single slot solution. Fire breather tho.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Might be related to that:
> from the HOF
> I suppose we need HPET enabled to get valid score. I had few time measurement errors, had to restart the PC to "fix" it.


Well this is grand, i dont see an HPEt option in my bios and i just got the time measurement error on bios default stock. I may just request a refund then on the app. this really irks me.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Well this is grand, i dont see an HPEt option in my bios and i just got the time measurement error on bios default stock. I may just request a refund then on the app. this really irks me.


open a admin command prompt, type:

bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes


----------



## Menthol

Same thing on my Skylake rig, so maybe it's some setting that I use on both systems


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> open a admin command prompt, type:
> 
> bcdedit /set useplatformclock yes


does this stick on a reboot, or just until shutdown?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> does this stick on a reboot, or just until shutdown?


sticks until you

bcdedit /set useplatformclock no


----------



## chronicfx

Chronicfx --- 6700k 4.9GHz ---- GTX 1080 SLI 2075/10800



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13279894?


----------



## Kimir

Kimir --- 5960X @ 4.7Ghz --- GTX980Ti HoF @ 1515Mhz / 2153Mhz --- 6738

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50054
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Same thing on my Skylake rig, so maybe it's some setting that I use on both systems


Is it like this in option:


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> sticks until you
> 
> bcdedit /set useplatformclock no


gave it a whirl i lost a big chunk of performance and still get the error. sadly.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> gave it a whirl i lost a big chunk of performance and still get the error. sadly.


time measurement error can be due to instability anywhere in the rig. load defaults and run the bench at stock clocks on all components. ??


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Kimir --- 5960X @ 4.7Ghz --- GTX980Ti HoF @ 1515Mhz / 2153Mhz --- 6738
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50054
> Is it like this in option:


For me it will fail every time if tried to run in stretched mode. Also using the nvidia control panel tweaks seems to make it more choppy for me especially at that beginning.

And when im not right up on the limit of my cards core clocks it seems to be smoother.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> time measurement error can be due to instability anywhere in the rig. load defaults and run the bench at stock clocks on all components. ??


Yep it does it on stock/ bios defaults its a no go. I don't think its my system, but ill give fire strike a go and see if it cries to me.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> For me it will fail every time if tried to run in stretched mode. Also using the nvidia control panel tweaks seems to make it more choppy for me especially at that beginning.
> 
> And when im not right up on the limit of my cards core clocks it seems to be smoother.


isn't it a 1440P benchmark... stretched to fit 4K?


----------



## dagget3450

firestrike works fine, its Timespy then. Just ran firestrike and it was valid.....

Really sucks because i'd be in top ten HOF even if its only for a day.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it's a 1440P benchmark... stretched to fit 4K?


I'm using a 1440p monitor so if i change the scaling mode to stretched it wont work only centered works.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> firestrike works fine, its Timespy then. Just ran firestrike and it was valid.....
> 
> Really sucks because i'd be in top ten HOF even if its only for a day.


yeah - try validating the module install on the options tab in 3DMark. other than that IDK... don't get hooked on a time error score. It can be off by quite a bit.


----------



## chronicfx

@Jpmboy I posted on the last page. Is everything okay with it?


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - try validating the module install on the options tab in 3DMark. other than that IDK... don't get hooked on a time error score. It can be off by quite a bit.


I see, so I'm just hallucinating then. it's all good, thank for the help. I'll see myself out the door now.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chronicfx*
> 
> @Jpmboy I posted on the last page. Is everything okay with it?


I'll do an update tomorrow...









doin' what you guys are ATM.


----------



## chronicfx




----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 --- 8534

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13280646

had an 8593, but it was a time error.


----------



## Menthol

Has to be centered instead of stretched, always ran 3DMark in stretched mode

Here's mu Skylake at 4.8 GHZ and single 1080 FE at whatever it is, somewhere around 2000MHZ


----------



## looniam

*looniam - - - - - [email protected] - - - - GTX 980TI - - - - 5176*



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13282299*

bringing up the rear.


----------



## FastEddieNYC

4790k(4.8Ghz) 290x Crossfire 1185/6100


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/52048
Everything at default except Radeon settings texture filter quality set to performance.
Will try later at my max settings 4.9Ghz 1225/6600.


----------



## SoloCamo

welp, running it now.. going to be in last probably but I guess I'll get the 290x reference cooler up there


----------



## OnEMoReTrY

OnEMoReTrY ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 7676
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285726?


If anyone has any tips for increasing this score, I would love to hear them. Looks like my CPU and GPU are beast overclockers, with the CPU benching fine at 5.0GHz and the GPU benching fine at 2156 core / 5584 memory, but I have lower scores than several people with lower CPU overclocks, and lower GPU overclocks. I think I can squeeze some more points out of this with some help from you guys


----------



## SoloCamo

SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.4Ghz --- 290X @ 1150 / 1500Mhz --- 4475

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285989?


----------



## stahlhart

stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming GTX 980Ti SLI --- 10490



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/53176


----------



## Hydrored

[email protected]'s---11616



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13286348?


----------



## DoomDash

3930k @ 4.4, 2 980 ti's

Score 9773.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/53604


----------



## Silent Scone

Need a better CPU







...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13288608

Silent Scone-- [email protected] --1080GTX 2114/5695--- 8165


----------



## vmanuelgm

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47080

[email protected] [email protected]


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47080
> 
> [email protected] [email protected]


http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/47080/spy/37079

Looks like there is a bug with some HWE CPU scores (being lower)


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/47080/spy/37079
> 
> Looks like there is a bug with some HWE CPU scores (being lower)


Overclocker experience I would say...










6950x helps a lot in this bench... Hope I have it for nex weekend...

The user Enio must have some kind of hardmod in his 1080, his scores are higher at the same frequencies...


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Overclocker experience I would say...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6950x helps a lot in this bench... Hope I have it for nex weekend...
> 
> The user Enio must have some kind of hardmod in his 1080, his scores are higher at the same frequencies...


Make sure to re-test your memory settings with the new cpu, speaking from experience.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Of course, Silent, I will start from the beginning with the new cpu...

Different voltages, adjustments and timings...

Thanks.

By the way, a 5960x like this would be great too...

http://www.overclock.net/t/1605951/5960x-at-4-7ghz-cache-at-4-5ghz-low-voltages-g-skill-8x4gb-ddr4-at-3200mhz-bios-screenshots

Mine has degraded a lot, I should have passed time spy at 4.8 but it needs a lot more voltage now... I wish I could go back and be less rude with my cpu!!!


----------



## dagget3450

Well the good news is in order for my FuryX CF to get a "valid" score is to severely under clock them.

513/500 quadfire furyx VALID!

exact same system clocks but gpus set to stock

NOT VALID SIR NEED TO UNDERCLOCK

After trying a Xeon cpu that cannot be Oc'd, and different ram ran under spec it still failed, except for 2 runs which didn't validate due to cpu not recognized. Good stuff no doubt.

Edit : looks like i'm not the only one:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Medusa666*
> 
> *Radeon Pro Duo and HW-E 5960X*
> 
> 3DMark Score: 9699
> Graphics Score: 9637
> CPU Score: 10 067
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13298316
> 
> I'm happy and suprised with the scores, looks like the Pro Duo will be a good card for the coming years.


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1675 --- 4579

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/60132


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2xGTX TitanX 1512/8036 -- 12236
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13276470











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> criminal --- 4930k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1070 @ 2113Mhz / 2340Mhz --- 6606
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13276588?
> 
> Sorry, I should have tweaked a little more before submitting earlier. But this is probably all this 1070 has got, so this may be the last one anyway.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Maintenance Bot --- 6700k @ 4.6ghz --- 1080 Amp Ex @ 2088mhz/11000mhz --- 7506
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/19240











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr2cam*
> 
> mr2cam
> 5820K @ 4.7
> 1080 @ 2100 / 10,908 (stock bios)
> 7678
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13277496?resultRegistrationOutcome=KEY_IN_ANOTHER_ACCOUNT_CURRENT_ACCOUNT_FREE











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Duality92 ---- [email protected] --- R7 integrated APU, 512 shaders --- 639
> 
> I will be updating with a valid result with a GPU, RAM OC too.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Might as well go ahead and do this... not sure how long I will stay near the top, though.
> Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k (stock) -- 2 x GTX 1070 FE @ +150/+500 -- 9355
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13278059











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- R9 295x2 --- 7649
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13278014
> been quite a while since I benched this rig.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chronicfx*
> 
> Chronicfx --- 6700k 4.9GHz ---- GTX 1080 SLI 2075/10800
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13279894?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Kimir --- 5960X @ 4.7Ghz --- GTX980Ti HoF @ 1515Mhz / 2153Mhz --- 6738
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/50054
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Is it like this in option:











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 --- 8534
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13280646
> had an 8593, but it was a time error.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *looniam - - - - - [email protected] - - - - GTX 980TI - - - - 5176*
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13282299*
> bringing up the rear.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastEddieNYC*
> 
> 4790k(4.8Ghz) 290x Crossfire 1185/6100
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/52048
> Everything at default except Radeon settings texture filter quality set to performance.
> Will try later at my max settings 4.9Ghz 1225/6600.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OnEMoReTrY*
> 
> OnEMoReTrY ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 7676
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285726?
> 
> 
> If anyone has any tips for increasing this score, I would love to hear them. Looks like my CPU and GPU are beast overclockers, with the CPU benching fine at 5.0GHz and the GPU benching fine at 2156 core / 5584 memory, but I have lower scores than several people with lower CPU overclocks, and lower GPU overclocks. I think I can squeeze some more points out of this with some help from you guys











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.4Ghz --- 290X @ 1150 / 1500Mhz --- 4475
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285989?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming GTX 980Ti SLI --- 10490
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/53176











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hydrored*
> 
> [email protected]'s---11616
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13286348?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DoomDash*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3930k @ 4.4, 2 980 ti's
> Score 9773.
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/53604











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Need a better CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13288608
> Silent Scone-- [email protected] --1080GTX 2114/5695--- 8165











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/47080
> [email protected] [email protected]












*NOTE:* If your sub is missing the validation link, it cannot be accepted. No "Rejected" post, just not added.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected]9GHz --- R9 [email protected]/1675 --- 4579
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/60132


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1675 --- 4579
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/60132
> Quote:
Click to expand...

and last place by 104 points... thanks buddy










Using Trixx now instead of afterburner... not going to be outclassed here!


----------



## melodystyle2003

melodystyle2003 ---- i7 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1500 --- 4436


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13252265

Will update with higher clocks.


----------



## Rabit

Rabit , X4 860k @4,4Ghz , 7790 1GB 1290/1700 - score 974

3Dmark used 1745MB my 1GB is not enough









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13306558

http://hwbot.org/submission/3265290_deathrabit_3dmark___time_spy_radeon_hd_7790_974_marks

My GPU after some spare heat-sinks


----------



## versions

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OnEMoReTrY*
> 
> OnEMoReTrY ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 7676
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13285726?
> 
> 
> If anyone has any tips for increasing this score, I would love to hear them. Looks like my CPU and GPU are beast overclockers, with the CPU benching fine at 5.0GHz and the GPU benching fine at 2156 core / 5584 memory, but I have lower scores than several people with lower CPU overclocks, and lower GPU overclocks. I think I can squeeze some more points out of this with some help from you guys


You should be able to beat me. Are you using the curve or offset? I have been able to get higher max clock speeds with the curve but it has lowered my score, so been sticking with offset for now. My graphics score is 51 points higher than yours at 2139MHz. Edit: Saw now that you're using offset, strange then. Tried lowering memory offset a bit? I also have 265 higher CPU score despite running at 4.9GHz, are you perhaps not closing other programs?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> melodystyle2003 ---- i7 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1500 --- 4436
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13252265
> 
> Will update with higher clocks.


Odd that your 290 at 1160/1500 is beating my 290x at 1150/1500 by one point on the graphics score... What driver are you using?


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2000 --- 6517



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13310431?


----------



## Puck

Haven't benched in ages, but out of curiosity I did a quick run with my normal 24/7 settings and my poor ancient 7970s are struggling LOL. Just updated drivers this morning and they show as invalid so its not acceptable, but only got 4418 anyway. CPU has another 200mhz in it, GPUs can be pushed a bit more, and no graphics settings were changed...so have a bit more in it but getting new GPUs so not too worried lol.

Puck -- 24/7 settings -- 4790k @ 4.8ghz -- 2x7970s @ 1150/1500 -- 4418


TimeSpy247settings.png 7313k .png file


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311164


----------



## Baasha

*Baasha* ---- i7 6950X @ 4.30Ghz --- GTX-1080 FE SLI @ 2076Mhz / 1382Mhz --- *13,460*

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311632


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *looniam - - - - - [email protected] - - - - GTX 980TI - - - - 5176*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13282299*
> 
> bringing up the rear.


*looniam - - - - - [email protected] - - - - GTX 980TI - - - - 5434*



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13312167*

fyi, actual clock speed was 1456/2000


----------



## arrow0309

Trying to start this bench and it instantly finishes ending up in 0 score and the "error" notice on the top








Do I have to get a key and register first?
I have the advanced version of the 3DMark.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- Titan-X @1586MHz -- 7180:*



*
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13238462*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> melodystyle2003 ---- i7 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1500 --- 4436
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13252265
> 
> Will update with higher clocks.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rabit*
> 
> Rabit , X4 860k @4,4Ghz , 7790 1GB 1290/1700 - score 974
> 
> 3Dmark used 1745MB my 1GB is not enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13306558
> 
> http://hwbot.org/submission/3265290_deathrabit_3dmark___time_spy_radeon_hd_7790_974_marks
> 
> My GPU after some spare heat-sinks


Rejected
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2000 --- 6517
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13310431?


Rejected
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Time Error in the Validation Link
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Puck*
> 
> Haven't benched in ages, but out of curiosity I did a quick run with my normal 24/7 settings and my poor ancient 7970s are struggling LOL. Just updated drivers this morning and they show as invalid so its not acceptable, but only got 4418 anyway. CPU has another 200mhz in it, GPUs can be pushed a bit more, and no graphics settings were changed...so have a bit more in it but getting new GPUs so not too worried lol.
> 
> Puck -- 24/7 settings -- 4790k @ 4.8ghz -- 2x7970s @ 1150/1500 -- 4418
> 
> 
> TimeSpy247settings.png 7313k .png file
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311164











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> *Baasha* ---- i7 6950X @ 4.30Ghz --- GTX-1080 FE SLI @ 2076Mhz / 1382Mhz --- *13,460*
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311632
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *looniam - - - - - [email protected] - - - - GTX 980TI - - - - 5434*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13312167*
> 
> fyi, actual clock speed was 1456/2000


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- Titan-X @1586MHz -- 7180:*
> 
> 
> 
> *
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13238462*


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rejected
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> 
> Rejected
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> 
> Time Error in the Validation Link


Sorry, but I do not know how to solve this time error.
So no more benchmarks here


----------



## Kimir

Simple, make sure you let sysinfo detect the hardware _before_ running the bench, have an OC stable enough for not giving the error.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Simple, make sure you let sysinfo detect the hardware _before_ running the bench, have an OC stable enough for not giving the error.


How do you know if system info detects the hardware or not ?


----------



## looniam




----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*


This I had before running it


----------



## looniam

sorry i can answer only easy questions.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Sorry, but I do not know how to solve this time error.
> So no more benchmarks here


if it's not incomplete SI detection, the time error can be caused by disabled HPET (I think ) or instability anywhere in the rig - most times the gpu OC. Time error means the bench timer could not track the FPS in one or more sections/modules. Therefore the score is glitched and the value can be off a little or a lot, low or high.









here is the problem:


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

I got the time error once when just bumping up the CPU multiplier and not adding enough vcore to compensate. The benchmark finished, but I got the time error. Bumping the vcore up a little more and no more error.


----------



## kivikas14

Updated score posted later on.








*kivikas14 ---- [email protected] --- [email protected]/1350 --- 4177*
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13313561?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> sorry i can answer only easy questions.


Thanks ! In fact I didn't wait enough for SI detection..
Thank you also to Kimir


----------



## GRABibus

Here I am :

GRABibus ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX TITAN X @1450/2000 --- 6488

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16071606460917369814377983.png

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13314450?


----------



## done12many2

done12many2 ---- 5960x @ 4.825 --- GTX 1080 SLI --- 12,229

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/64690


----------



## TONSCHUH

TONSCHUH --- 3770k @4700MHz --- GTX980-Ti-OC-STRIX-SLI, 1531 / 8250 --- 9880



Source: 9880


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Look at all the subs coming in, thanks a bunch Jpmboy for the work you're putting in!


----------



## RedM00N

Not submitting scores just yet, just wanted to see how it ran on my notebook.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13316553?

I mean, at least it ran it, so thats something right...right? Plus I got a Steam Achievemnt for having sub 5 FPS for the test too


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Not submitting scores just yet, just wanted to see how it ran on my notebook.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13316553?
> 
> I mean, at least it ran it, so thats something right...right?


----------



## kivikas14

After small tweaking








*kivikas14 ---- [email protected] --- [email protected]/1350 --- 4495*
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13316812?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Not submitting scores just yet, just wanted to see how it ran on my notebook.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13316553?
> 
> I mean, at least it ran it, so thats something right...right? Plus I got a Steam Achievemnt for having sub 5 FPS for the test too


From the other thread...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Running it on my 15w tdp less than $260 when new laptop bought over a year ago...
> 
> AMD A8 6410 APU (R5 GRAPHICS)
> 8gb DDR3 1866 single channel (no dual channel support for this apu)
> 
> I'll post the score when it finishes... if it doesn't crash that is. Looks like it's averaging 2-4 fps... wheee


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13205649?
> 
> Welp, it finished atleast...
> 
> 3DMark Score *187*
> Graphics Score *170*
> CPU Score *435*
> 
> 15w tdp power!


Seems yours just edged mine out.. mostly due to your cpu score killing mine.


----------



## dagget3450

Well i posted on futuremark my issue, not sure if anything was done but today i changed nothing on my system and ran a gpu stock run again...

Finally... made it to top 10 hof, only 10th though... yesterday it would have been closer to 6th. Anyways i am just happy to have a valid result...
-dagget3450 --- [email protected] --4xCF FuryX @ stock 1050/500 --

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13318515?


----------



## PhilthyClean

wish the motherboard to my 3930k didn't die so i could've ran it with that instead. http://www.3dmark.com/spy/66627

PhilthyClean ---- [email protected] --- [email protected]/7404 --- 5574


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Well i posted on futuremark my issue, not sure if anything was done but today i changed nothing on my system and ran a gpu stock run again...
> 
> Finally... made it to top 10 hof, only 10th though... yesterday it would have been closer to 6th. Anyways i am just happy to have a valid result...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13318515?


Nice score! I think you have plenty of push left in that 5960x.


----------



## dagget3450

I just realized i did change one setting before i ran that. In Crimson UI under profile for 3dmark i set "disabled" for CF - It still ran all gpus loaded, so either the profile change did nothing or maybe it's something to do with Dx12 multigpu? My thought was instead of CF maybe the gpus would be linked but not using crossfire... this probably isn't true and it probably just ran CF anyways because the score is identical to my previous runs.

Long short is i did change one setting that probably had 0 effect.

Edit:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Nice score! I think you have plenty of push left in that 5960x.


thank you sir, i hope to see what i can do now!


----------



## SoloCamo




----------



## melodystyle2003

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Odd that your 290 at 1160/1500 is beating my 290x at 1150/1500 by one point on the graphics score... What driver are you using?


I am using the latest beta 16.7.2. I also use modded 390x to 290 bios, i bet there is the performance explanation.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*


Ironic to post that in a benchmark app... lol... I guess HOF site is down now i cannot get to it?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Ironic to post that in a benchmark app... lol... I guess HOF site is down now i cannot get to it?


Yeah...Futuremark is having some issues with the website. I noticed it as I was trying to post scores up a few minutes ago.


----------



## Edge0fsanity

*Edge0fsanity --- 6700k @ 4.95ghz --- 980ti SLI @ 1555/8316*
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13318706?


----------



## Vellinious

Vellinious --- 5820k @ 4.625ghz --- 980ti SLI @ 1521/2128

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/66416



Vellinious --- 5820k @ 4.625ghz --- 980ti @ 1562/2140

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/22710


----------



## ssgwright

ssgwright --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1080gtx @ 2150Mhz / 5500Mhz --- 7714
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13320467


----------



## Rasclatt

Rasclatt --- 5820k @4.4Ghz --- MSI R9 390 @ 1140Mhz/1600Mhz --- 4530
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/67291


----------



## dagget3450

dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- FuryX 3wayCF - 1120/500

total score 14272 GPU score 15269
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13323917?



Edit, just noticed it says 1x gpu... that's totally wrong. DOH! I really hate AMD drivers sometimes lol or 3dmarks detection...









Looks like i will have to go back to yanking GPUs again.


----------



## dagget3450

LOL well, i inadvertently took 1st place.... i should delete this run i suppose and yank gpus as needed....









http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu























































































Edit: ss for once it's gone


----------



## ozyo

ozyo -- [email protected] -- fury x @1205/555 ----5864

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/56491


----------



## ski-bum

ski-bum --- [email protected] 4.5 --- [email protected] --- 6052





http://www.3dmark.com/spy/69824


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected] [email protected]





Validation Link
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13329693


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Here I am :
> 
> GRABibus ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX TITAN X @1450/2000 --- 6488
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=16071606460917369814377983.png
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13314450?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> done12many2 ---- 5960x @ 4.825 --- GTX 1080 SLI --- 12,229
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/64690











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TONSCHUH*
> 
> TONSCHUH --- 3770k @4700MHz --- GTX980-Ti-OC-STRIX-SLI, 1531 / 8250 --- 9880
> 
> 
> 
> Source: 9880











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kivikas14*
> 
> After small tweaking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *kivikas14 ---- [email protected] --- [email protected]/1350 --- 4495*
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13316812?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Look at all the subs coming in, thanks a bunch Jpmboy for the work you're putting in!


thanks bro.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Well i posted on futuremark my issue, not sure if anything was done but today i changed nothing on my system and ran a gpu stock run again...
> 
> Finally... made it to top 10 hof, only 10th though... yesterday it would have been closer to 6th. Anyways i am just happy to have a valid result...
> -dagget3450 --- [email protected] --4xCF FuryX @ stock 1050/500 --
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13318515?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> *Edge0fsanity --- 6700k @ 4.95ghz --- 980ti SLI @ 1555/8316*
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13318706?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Vellinious --- 5820k @ 4.625ghz --- 980ti SLI @ 1521/2128
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/66416
> 
> 
> 
> Vellinious --- 5820k @ 4.625ghz --- 980ti @ 1562/2140
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/22710










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ssgwright*
> 
> ssgwright --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 1080gtx @ 2150Mhz / 5500Mhz --- 7714
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13320467











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rasclatt*
> 
> Rasclatt --- 5820k @4.4Ghz --- MSI R9 390 @ 1140Mhz/1600Mhz --- 4530
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/67291











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- FuryX 3wayCF - 1120/500
> 
> total score 14272 GPU score 15269
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13323917?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit, just noticed it says 1x gpu... that's totally wrong. DOH! I really hate AMD drivers sometimes lol or 3dmarks detection...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like i will have to go back to yanking GPUs again.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> LOL well, i inadvertently took 1st place.... i should delete this run i suppose and yank gpus as needed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: ss for once it's gone


this is why we have benchmark threads.








happens too often at HOF
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozyo*
> 
> ozyo -- [email protected] -- fury x @1205/555 ----5864
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/56491











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ski-bum*
> 
> ski-bum --- [email protected] 4.5 --- [email protected] --- 6052
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/69824











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected] [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Validation Link
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13329693


----------



## Duality92

Duality92 --- [email protected] integrated 512 [email protected] (stock)----655



Validation Link
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13330353

Can you make a category with no GPU and only integrated


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Duality92 --- [email protected] integrated 512 [email protected] (stock)----655
> 
> 
> 
> Validation Link
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13330353
> 
> Can you make a category with no GPU and only integrated


interesting idea... iGPU tab?

edit: done.


















and a new medal


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> interesting idea... iGPU tab?
> 
> and a new medal


That's great hjahahaha


----------



## ssgwright

a little better:

ssgwright -- 5820k @4.5 -- 1080gtx 2132/5500 -- 7810

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13331133


----------



## Kimir

Isn't it painful to watch with such slow fps?


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Isn't it painful to watch with such slow fps?


It is, especially since I have a 970 laying beside it. I can't wait 'til I get my 6600K back up for real results xD


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> That's great hjahahaha


all in good fun.








and now I'm very curious to try yher iGPU on the 6700k...







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ssgwright*
> 
> a little better:
> 
> ssgwright -- 5820k @4.5 -- 1080gtx 2132/5500 -- 7810
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13331133


----------



## d4nim4l

d4nim4l -- 6900k @ 4.5 -- 980ti -- 6431

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/71816


----------



## Cannon19932006

Cannon19932006 ---- i7-6700k @ 4.6GHz --- Sapphire r9 Fury Nitro 1190/550 --- 5393

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/72231


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> Cannon19932006 ---- i7-6700k @ 4.6GHz --- Sapphire r9 Fury Nitro 1190/550 --- 5393
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/72231


good score! hey can you test and see if overclocking your fury is getting you any headway? I am finding mine to be flat lined when upping gpu clocks. I am not seeing any real gains when overclocking gpu.


----------



## alawadhi3000

alawadhi3000---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX Titan X [email protected]/4000 --- 9821

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13334264


----------



## Cannon19932006

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> good score! hey can you test and see if overclocking your fury is getting you any headway? I am finding mine to be flat lined when upping gpu clocks. I am not seeing any real gains when overclocking gpu.


It's working for me, but I've heard reports that some cards have negative scaling with voltage.

Here's my stock vs best run overclocked.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/72039/spy/71879


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> It's working for me, but I've heard reports that some cards have negative scaling with voltage.
> 
> Here's my stock vs best run overclocked.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/72039/spy/71879


I guess i was expecting more gains for the clocks. On the other hand i have to keep an open eye on crimson ui turning on power saving settings.

My best single gpu score so far

dagget3450--- [email protected] -- 1x furyx 1200/560 -- score 6125

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13335532?


----------



## dagget3450

After looking at another fury score, it appears negative scaling with voltage is still a thing. Or these gains are really minimal in a bad way.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/56491/spy/72998

Edit: NM i was looking at wrong gpu clocks somehow. lol to many tabs open


----------



## Kimir

The graphic score alone is not far appart, could be the added memory OC on the card that result in the 0.5% increase in the graphic score.


----------



## alex4069

Alex4069 I5 4690k/4.2ghz Zotac Gtx 1070 Amp Edition score of 5483
Here is the 3dmark link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/73338


----------



## mr2cam

Guess mine needs updating, did some more playing with the 1080 OC.

mr2cam

[email protected]
[email protected] / 10,991

7784



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13326567?


----------



## Kimir

Remove the "?resultRegistrationOutcome=KEY_IN_ANOTHER_ACCOUNT_CURRENT_ACCOUNT_FREE" from your link and it will remove that silly message.


----------



## dagget3450

dagget3450 --- 2 way FuryX 1200/540 -- [email protected] --- score 10851

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13341053?



These gains seem really weak in this bench....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d4nim4l*
> 
> d4nim4l -- 6900k @ 4.5 -- 980ti -- 6431
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/71816











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cannon19932006*
> 
> Cannon19932006 ---- i7-6700k @ 4.6GHz --- Sapphire r9 Fury Nitro 1190/550 --- 5393
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/72231











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> alawadhi3000---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX Titan X [email protected]/4000 --- 9821
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13334264











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> I guess i was expecting more gains for the clocks. On the other hand i have to keep an open eye on crimson ui turning on power saving settings.
> 
> My best single gpu score so far
> 
> dagget3450--- [email protected] -- 1x furyx 1200/560 -- score 6125
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13335532?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> Alex4069 I5 4690k/4.2ghz Zotac Gtx 1070 Amp Edition score of 5483
> Here is the 3dmark link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/73338











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr2cam*
> 
> Guess mine needs updating, did some more playing with the 1080 OC.
> mr2cam
> [email protected]
> [email protected] / 10,991
> 7784
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13326567?resultRegistrationOutcome=KEY_IN_ANOTHER_ACCOUNT_CURRENT_ACCOUNT_FREE











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> dagget3450 --- 2 way FuryX 1200/540 -- [email protected] --- score 10851
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13341053?
> 
> 
> 
> These gains seem really weak in this bench....
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











1050 to 1200 core and a good increase in score... seems appropriate to me. Don;t try gfx score per MHz... work work due to error correction in these architectures.


----------



## Jpmboy

hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).

*I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*

1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.

I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.

Right here:


----------



## sew333

6700k stock, Gigabyte 1080 Xtreme


----------



## kx11

i talked about this issue in Timespy and FS Ultra tests only

take it to their Steam forums


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1700 --- 4640

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/79010

Last update for now...gpu struggles to get over 1200 on air and the summer heat doesn't help either. Should clock alot higher when it's under water again.


----------



## looniam

seeing these cpu scores pummel my old sandy is certainly making the wait for kaby lake long.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i talked about this issue in Timespy and FS Ultra tests only
> take it to their Steam forums


Forums? Nah... I'll talk to some of the tech management if I can present the data properly.

and it is present on all the DX11 and DX12 modules. It is a system Info glitch. Anyone's/Everyone's data wil lhelp.


----------



## Silent Scone

I get the same spike also with sig rig


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1700 --- 4640
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/79010
> 
> Last update for now...gpu struggles to get over 1200 on air and the summer heat doesn't help either. Should clock alot higher when it's under water again.


----------



## Jpmboy

*You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.*


----------



## Edge0fsanity

*Edge0fsanity --- 6700k @ 4.95ghz --- 980ti @ 1585/8316*
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13355420?


----------



## ElectroGeek007

electrogeek007 ---- [email protected] --- 1x GTX [email protected]/7400 --- 5810

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13355113


----------



## Bender82

This is not bad for my AMD fury ;-) http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13356251?


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.*


GTRtank ---- i7 [email protected] ---- [email protected]/8300 ---- 5785



I didn't spike at all, referring to what you were posting about earlier. Highest temps were during the CPU test. Ambient is 28c.

Edit: validation link!! http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80425


----------



## Kielon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).
> 
> *I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*
> 
> 1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
> 2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
> 3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.
> 
> I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.
> 
> Right here:


I'm having similar spike with 5960X, fps dropping from 50s to 25 and then quickly back to 50s.


----------



## Duality92

Duality92 --- [email protected] --- GTX 970 @ 1556/8012 --- 3570



edit :

This score : Puck 4790K HD 7970 4418 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311164 is dual 7970 (says 280X(x2) on page)


----------



## versions

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).
> 
> *I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*
> 
> 1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
> 2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
> 3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.
> 
> I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.
> 
> Right here:


This is what it looks like with my 6700K. Not getting the drop in framerate you speak of.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).
> 
> *I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*
> 
> 1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
> 2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
> 3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.
> 
> I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.
> 
> Right here:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.*


Thanks for pointing this out. It's happening with my 5960x as well. I recorded a screen play of it and I'm uploading it now. I'll post a link as soon as YouTube finishes its "processing".


----------



## SoloCamo

For the IGPU section as a reference point...

SoloCamo --- A8 6410 - stock 2ghz --- AMD R5 @ 800/933 --- 194

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13356983?



__________________________________________________________________________________

On a side note..

Puck's score with 2x 7970's is under the single gpu chart in error

_________________________________________________________________________________

*on another side note, please update my main rig score with the following... THANKS!*

SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.4Ghz --- 290X @ 1165 / 1500Mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13359252?


----------



## N3RORE

N3RO_RE --- I5 [email protected] --- R9 290X(R9 290 Unlocked) @ 1150/1500 --- 4334



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/81327

Scaling results @ 1050/1100/1150 GPU Core, Vram 1500 MHz, CPU @ 4.5 GHz, Ram 16 GB @ 2133 MHz.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/81327/spy/77084/spy/76970


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).
> 
> *I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*
> 
> 1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
> 2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
> 3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.
> 
> I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.
> 
> Right here:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.*


Here's a link to a video capture that I think shows what you've identified. Definitely a spike upon load and around the 300 frame mark of graphics test 1.






*edited - shorter run


----------



## RelicIT

RelicIT ---- i7 [email protected] ---- [email protected]/7780 ---- 6022

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13342940?


----------



## Kimir

I'll look at that CPU load stuff, I'm on tux now, will restart to w10 and see what's up now.


----------



## dagget3450

From this thread:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> It is LDA Explicit, or Linked-Node Explicit Multi-adapter. Identical GPUs only, but with tasks related to mGPU dispatching handled by the engine, not the driver.
> 
> Problem with MDA is that if you do it like Ashes of Singularity, you get at best 2x the slowest GPU and everyone would be complaining why 3DMark isn't using all the resources of both GPUs. And to do it so that it would actually use all resources of two wildly different GPUs would require hideously complex code that would somehow "feel out" what the GPUs can do and then somehow load balance them, while responding to variances in performance and... uuuh, it would be very very complex piece of code and potentially a very fragile piece of code.
> 
> dGPU + iGPU the gains would be marginal and again the complexity would go through the roof.
> 
> I'm not saying a future 3DMark test can't ever support MDA, but Time Spy was designed for Linked-node. Partially because we wanted to ship it in 2016 and not 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and partially because mixed GPU (NV+AMD) setups basically do not exist outside press test labs.
> 
> Now if game developers suddenly decide that MDA is the best way to go and multiple games support NV+AMD mixed cards and everyone starts buying them so NV+AMD mixed setups are relevant for actual gaming, we'll definitely take notice.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Also note that DX12 has some kinks in this regard - more than 2 cards performance will differ with full screen vs. borderless window.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Here is an example of a custom run from 3x R9 290X setup using Borderless Window and 4K resolution


I plan to test this, however if there is gains from using border less window this is a custom run test. Its not applicable to HOF/valid/top30, which is quite interesting. I want to see what the differences are first.


----------



## TUFinside

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *versions*
> 
> I'm at #1 for 6700K+1x 1080 at the time of writing this, though I'm sure I'll get run over by one of those lucky people with 2200MHz 1080s soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> versions ---- [email protected] --- GTX [email protected] --- 7777
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/48466


maybe, but hard to get a perfect 7777


----------



## OnEMoReTrY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *versions*
> 
> You should be able to beat me. Are you using the curve or offset? I have been able to get higher max clock speeds with the curve but it has lowered my score, so been sticking with offset for now. My graphics score is 51 points higher than yours at 2139MHz. Edit: Saw now that you're using offset, strange then. Tried lowering memory offset a bit? I also have 265 higher CPU score despite running at 4.9GHz, are you perhaps not closing other programs?


I think I figured it out. Seems as though Mini-ITX motherboards score anywhere between 50-150 points lower.


----------



## kx11

i'm on windows 10 build 14390 and i'm losing like 600 points in timespy









why did i even bother to enter the fast ring ?!


----------



## Kimir

I don't get the load at 300 frames here, no fps drop either. There is a little load before GT1 start, still not as high load as in the CPU test.

HardwareMonitoring.zip 14k .zip file

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13364958


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> I don't get the load at 300 frames here, no fps drop either. There is a little load before GT1 start, still not as high load as in the CPU test.
> 
> HardwareMonitoring.zip 14k .zip file
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13364958


I get a really bad lag spike right at the beginning of graphics test 1. Sometimes it drops into the teens, other times it just drops down to around 20, but it's always there. GPU usage always drops down sharply there too. Seems quite a few people are seeing the exact same thing.


----------



## Silent Scone

Those getting the CPU spikes, does it do it if you run custom test, and only the first graphics test?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those getting the CPU spikes, does it do it if you run custom test, and only the first graphics test?


I ran it custom, graphics test 1 and 2 a few times, just to test and tune, but, I still get it. It's not a CPU spike though. The GPU usage drops really steep, than jumps immediately back up. It's only lasts for a second, but it's enough to really jack up the score. I tried stock clocks, overclocks on both the CPU and GPU, did a complete new download and install, and it's still doing it. One out of every 10 runs it's not HORRIBLE, but it's still dropping.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I ran it custom, graphics test 1 and 2 a few times, just to test and tune, but, I still get it. It's not a CPU spike though. The GPU usage drops really steep, than jumps immediately back up. It's only lasts for a second, but it's enough to really jack up the score. I tried stock clocks, overclocks on both the CPU and GPU, did a complete new download and install, and it's still doing it. One out of every 10 runs it's not HORRIBLE, but it's still dropping.


Ok, I'll play more with it in the week


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those getting the CPU spikes, does it do it if you run custom test, and only the first graphics test?


Yes.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Those getting the CPU spikes, does it do it if you run custom test, and only the first graphics test?


No, I just noticed this but only ran it once in custom mode and windowed 720p.

Edit. it still does it in custom mode with default setting. But there has been times like kimir said where it happens at the begging and i don't get frame drops at the 300 frame mark.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8428*



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13369297*


----------



## dagget3450

Update

Dagget340 --- [email protected] -- 4x [email protected] 1150/540-1150/540-1100/540-1100/540 --- score 16100

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13369730?


----------



## mr2cam

Did some more tinkering..

Update

mr2cam

GTX 1080 @ 2138 / 10,908
5820K @ 4.8ghz



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13370615


----------



## dagget3450

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



From this thread:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> It is LDA Explicit, or Linked-Node Explicit Multi-adapter. Identical GPUs only, but with tasks related to mGPU dispatching handled by the engine, not the driver.
> 
> Problem with MDA is that if you do it like Ashes of Singularity, you get at best 2x the slowest GPU and everyone would be complaining why 3DMark isn't using all the resources of both GPUs. And to do it so that it would actually use all resources of two wildly different GPUs would require hideously complex code that would somehow "feel out" what the GPUs can do and then somehow load balance them, while responding to variances in performance and... uuuh, it would be very very complex piece of code and potentially a very fragile piece of code.
> 
> dGPU + iGPU the gains would be marginal and again the complexity would go through the roof.
> 
> I'm not saying a future 3DMark test can't ever support MDA, but Time Spy was designed for Linked-node. Partially because we wanted to ship it in 2016 and not 2017
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and partially because mixed GPU (NV+AMD) setups basically do not exist outside press test labs.
> 
> Now if game developers suddenly decide that MDA is the best way to go and multiple games support NV+AMD mixed cards and everyone starts buying them so NV+AMD mixed setups are relevant for actual gaming, we'll definitely take notice.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Also note that DX12 has some kinks in this regard - more than 2 cards performance will differ with full screen vs. borderless window.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Here is an example of a custom run from 3x R9 290X setup using Borderless Window and 4K resolution


I plan to test this, however if there is gains from using border less window this is a custom run test. Its not applicable to HOF/valid/top30, which is quite interesting. I want to see what the differences are first.



So i followed FMJarnis's suggestion and ran quafire furyx stock with only setting borderless window in custom settings leaving rest default and it's saddening. I gained over 1k on gpu score alone with STOCK gpu against my max overclock run ....




Edited: i accidentally deleted the dry run. so ill just post a screen cap of my official top valid score to compare to the above stats as proof.
max overclock official run stats to compare

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/85228

That would be huge if it was a valid score where i am at ...









Edit added settings shot
Edit: post added from FMJarnis
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FMJarnis*
> 
> I meant that when using more than 2 GPUs, DX12 full screen path has some... quirks. Borderless window does not have these, so it is definitely possible to get a higher graphics score with 3 and 4 GPUs using Borderless Window.
> 
> It is possible Microsoft will improve DX12 exclusive full screen at some point, or vendors do something in drivers, but that's how it works now.


this may apply to Nvidia as well?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sew333*
> 
> 
> 6700k stock, Gigabyte 1080 Xtreme


no link
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> *Edge0fsanity --- 6700k @ 4.95ghz --- 980ti @ 1585/8316*
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13355420?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElectroGeek007*
> 
> 
> electrogeek007 ---- [email protected] --- 1x GTX [email protected]/7400 --- 5810
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13355113











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTRtank*
> 
> GTRtank ---- i7 [email protected] ---- [email protected]/8300 ---- 5785
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't spike at all, referring to what you were posting about earlier. Highest temps were during the CPU test. Ambient is 28c.


thanks.
Need validation link
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Duality92 --- [email protected] --- GTX 970 @ 1556/8012 --- 3570
> 
> 
> 
> edit :
> 
> This score : Puck 4790K HD 7970 4418 http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13311164 is dual 7970 (says 280X(x2) on page)


Need Validation link.
(corrected puck entry)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> For the IGPU section as a reference point...
> 
> SoloCamo --- A8 6410 - stock 2ghz --- AMD R5 @ 800/933 --- 194
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13356983?
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> On a side note..
> 
> Puck's score with 2x 7970's is under the single gpu chart in error
> 
> _________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> *on another side note, please update my main rig score with the following... THANKS!*
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.4Ghz --- 290X @ 1165 / 1500Mhz
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13359252?










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *N3RORE*
> 
> N3RO_RE --- I5 [email protected] --- R9 290X(R9 290 Unlocked) @ 1150/1500 --- 4334
> 
> 
> 
> Scaling results @ 1050/1100/1150 GPU Core, Vram 1500 MHz, CPU @ 4.5 GHz, Ram 16 GB @ 2133 MHz.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/81327/spy/77084/spy/76970











you posted a comparo link. i fished the correct on out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RelicIT*
> 
> RelicIT ---- i7 [email protected] ---- [email protected]/7780 ---- 6022
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13342940?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8428*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13369297*











highest 1 gpu gfx score I've seen.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Update
> 
> Dagget340 --- [email protected] -- 4x [email protected] 1150/540-1150/540-1100/540-1100/540 --- score 16100
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13369730?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr2cam*
> 
> Did some more tinkering..
> 
> Update
> 
> mr2cam
> 
> GTX 1080 @ 2138 / 10,908
> 5820K @ 4.8ghz
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13370615












you know you can post a pic directly from the OCN editor using the picture tool in the editor tool bar - right?


----------



## mr2cam

I edited my post, thx


----------



## marc0053

If you disable hardware info/monitoring and leave system info enable the drop in FPS goes away and still validates on the 3dmark hof website. I 1st noticed this issue with a gtx 1080/ i7 6950x combo for firestrike in physics scene 3.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> If you disable hardware info/monitoring and leave system info enable the drop in FPS goes away and still validates on the 3dmark hof website. I 1st noticed this issue with a gtx 1080/ i7 6950x combo for firestrike in physics scene 3.


that's it!! no frame rate drop! +1 (and a bunch more!)

Marc - do you see the cpu temperature spike? Load the Aura software and set it to the cpu temperature monitor... orange - red? (well, with your cpu at like 4.4)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mr2cam*
> 
> I edited my post, thx


cool.


----------



## stahlhart

Single GPU score:

stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming GTX 980Ti --- 6326



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/86731


----------



## alex4069

I push mine a little father.
alex4069 I5 4690k zotac GTX 1070 Amp Edition score 5564.



validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13375539


----------



## alex4069

My cpu score is holding me back.


----------



## dagget3450

update
dagget3450 --- [email protected] -- 3way FuryX 1150/540 - 1150/540 - 1100/540 - 14448



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/87068


----------



## kciN

kciN --- 2550k @ 4.9GHz --- 980 Ti @ 1524MHz / 2000MHz --- 5563
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13376541


----------



## alex4069

Ok did a little more fast tweaking and this is what I got.
alex4069 --- I5 4690k @ 4.3ghz --- Zotac GTX 1070 Amp Edition Score 5707



Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13377296

I will try to break the 6000 score with in the next couple of days.

The 1070 I added +160 core +500 memory 120% on power voltage is on auto.


----------



## kx11

kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.29Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2114Mhz / 11080Mhz --- 13963



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/87649

windows10 stable build is so awesome

i used this launch options line btw
-preWorkloadDelay 5000

not sure if it does anything though


----------



## M3TAl

M3TAl ---- [email protected] --- 290X --- 4883 Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13377800?

Ran the Lightning at 1255/1575, driver settings all on default. Driver version: 16.7.2

Looks like highest single card Hawaii submission so far, I'm sure someone will come along and destroy it soon enough.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Single GPU score:
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming GTX 980Ti --- 6326
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/86731











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> update
> dagget3450 --- [email protected] -- 3way FuryX 1150/540 - 1150/540 - 1100/540 - 14448
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/87068


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kciN*
> 
> kciN --- 2550k @ 4.9GHz --- 980 Ti @ 1524MHz / 2000MHz --- 5563
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13376541











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> Ok did a little more fast tweaking and this is what I got.
> alex4069 --- I5 4690k @ 4.3ghz --- Zotac GTX 1070 Amp Edition Score 5707
> 
> 
> 
> Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13377296
> 
> I will try to break the 6000 score with in the next couple of days.
> 
> The 1070 I added +160 core +500 memory 120% on power voltage is on auto.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11 --- 6950x @ 4.29Ghz --- 1080 Strix SLi @ 2114Mhz / 11080Mhz --- 13963
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/87649
> 
> windows10 stable build is so awesome
> 
> i used this launch options line btw
> -preWorkloadDelay 5000
> 
> not sure if it does anything though











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> M3TAl ---- [email protected] --- 290X --- 4883 Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13377800?
> 
> Ran the Lightning at 1255/1575, driver settings all on default. Driver version: 16.7.2
> 
> Looks like highest single card Hawaii submission so far, I'm sure someone will come along and destroy it soon enough.


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> thanks.
> Need validation link


Here you go: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80425

Post is edited too, sorry man.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> M3TAl ---- [email protected] --- 290X --- 4883 Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13377800?
> 
> Ran the Lightning at 1255/1575, driver settings all on default. Driver version: 16.7.2
> 
> Looks like highest single card Hawaii submission so far, I'm sure someone will come along and destroy it soon enough.


You know, I was happy to be the fastest 290x card here and checked on futuremark for other 290x's and didn't feel too bad about being towards the top-ish. Then I saw your score on the futuremark site and realized it's a matter of time until you post it here making me look bad









I'm working with a day one (bought within an hour of release) sapphire 290x reference cooled card. I'm not sure if it's drivers or not but I can't seem to get as stable of higher core clocks as I used to. I used to be able to bench it at 1180-1190 now I'm not getting even 1175 as stable without bumping volts higher than I used to need to.

Not going to be able to hit 1200 so you've got this in the bag here I think , congrats


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTRtank*
> 
> Here you go: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/80425
> 
> Post is edited too, sorry man.


----------



## DoomDash

It's amazing how much my 3930k is holding me back for benchmarks these days







.


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DoomDash*
> 
> It's amazing how much my 3930k is holding me back for benchmarks these days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I hear ya brother. I have 2 less cores. I have this thing pushed up all the way and can't even hang. Still, this 'ole Ivy is still truckin, no reason to upgrade.


----------



## done12many2

done12many2 --- 5960x @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 FE --- 8401

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/91047


----------



## alex4069

It looks like every score above mine it be case the are running I7. So may look at sending my I5 back and get the I7 4790k. What does everybody thank?


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> It looks like every score above mine it be case the are running I7. So may look at sending my I5 back and get the I7 4790k. What does everybody thank?


Not worth it for a benchmark..IF you are happy with it's gaming performance. I'll never go back to less than 8 threads personally though.


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Not worth it for a benchmark..IF you are happy with it's gaming performance. I'll never go back to less than 8 threads personally though.


This.


----------



## rexolaboy

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/92974

AMD FX-8350 4.6ghz
AsRock 990fx Killer
8gbs of Kingston HyperX DDR3 1866mhz
AMD R9 Fury Undervolted -72mv Powerlimit +50
Western Digital Blue 1tb


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> You know, I was happy to be the fastest 290x card here and checked on futuremark for other 290x's and didn't feel too bad about being towards the top-ish. Then I saw your score on the futuremark site and realized it's a matter of time until you post it here making me look bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm working with a day one (bought within an hour of release) sapphire 290x reference cooled card. I'm not sure if it's drivers or not but I can't seem to get as stable of higher core clocks as I used to. I used to be able to bench it at 1180-1190 now I'm not getting even 1175 as stable without bumping volts higher than I used to need to.
> 
> Not going to be able to hit 1200 so you've got this in the bag here I think , congrats


Not very fair if you are on reference with reference cooler. Got this Lightning used with a full cover block included. Running 960mm of total radiator area so I can push stupid volts on this thing and not worry about temps







.

As far as clock degrading with newer driver I'm not sure. Honestly haven't benched this card much so I don't even know what the usual safe/top clocks are on this thing.

I want to see how 780 Ti's and GTX 980's at max OC compare to the Hawaii cards in this bench. Don't seem to be any in here yet.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> done12many2 --- 5960x @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 FE --- 8401
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/91047











Nice, my card can barely get over 8000 graphics score... tops out at 2114 with a uniblock.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> It looks like every score above mine it be case the are running I7. So may look at sending my I5 back and get the I7 4790k. What does everybody thank?


don't let a benchmark be the deciding factor if the most CPU intensive thing you use the rig for is gaming. If your games play to your liking... stand pat.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rexolaboy*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/92974
> 
> AMD FX-8350 4.6ghz
> AsRock 990fx Killer
> 8gbs of Kingston HyperX DDR3 1866mhz
> AMD R9 Fury Undervolted -72mv Powerlimit +50
> Western Digital Blue 1tb


If this ^^^ was a sub:
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice, my card can barely get over 8000 graphics score... tops out at 2114 with a uniblock.


Thanks bud. I'm just trying to do what I can to hang with you. CPU score wise, my 5960x seems to be holding it's own against the 6900k submissions so far, but I've got nothing on your 6950x CPU score. Complete beast.


----------



## Kravicka

Kravicka
i7 5820k 4,3GHZ
980ti Strix 1425/7800
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/11323


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> I want to see how 780 Ti's and GTX 980's at max OC compare to the Hawaii cards in this bench. Don't seem to be any in here yet.


I have access to an i7-2700K build with 980 SLI; I'll post SLI and single card scores from it here tonight.


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> I have access to an i7-2700K build with 980 SLI; I'll post SLI and single card scores from it here tonight.


Sweet, sounds good.


----------



## marc0053

marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.5ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2177MHz / 2750MHz - Score 8685

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13399618?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.5ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2177MHz / 2750MHz - Score 8685
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13399618?













Boom!


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boom!


Thanks!
A few observations:
- forcing pcie gen 2.0 in bios gave a higher physic score and higher overall score (i think this is a trick for 3dmark11 as well)
- 32gb for me gave the exact same physic score as 64gb at same speed and timings.
- seems you need to do a quick run with hardwareinfo enabled before disabling if not you'll get score not valid when doing a run emmediately after pc restart.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Thanks!
> A few observations:
> - forcing pcie gen 2.0 in bios gave a higher physic score and higher overall score (i think this is a trick for 3dmark11 as well)
> - 32gb for me gave the exact same physic score as 64gb at same speed and timings.
> - seems you need to do a quick run with hardwareinfo enabled before disabling if not you'll get score not valid when doing a run emmediately after pc restart.


Thanks for the tips... lol, this card tops out at 2114, any higher and it's a driver crash.








See ya this weekend.


----------



## marc0053

Small update
marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.5ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8757
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13404670?


----------



## mr2cam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Small update
> marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.5ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8757
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13404670?


dat cable management.. legit


----------



## stahlhart

stahlhart--- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G SLI -- 7923



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96604

Jpmboy: I'm posting this and an incoming single GPU 980 score at M3TAl's request -- if we are not allowed to have multiple scores in the standings, then these can be disregarded there.


----------



## stahlhart

Single GPU score:

stahlhart --- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G -- 4699



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96785


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Single GPU score:
> 
> stahlhart --- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G -- 4699
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96785


Haha look at that! Our graphics scores are almost identical (4796 vs 4791) but your core is only at 1365? Push it more and the graphics score will blow right past this 290X.


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> Haha look at that! Our graphics scores are almost identical (4796 vs 4791) but your core is only at 1365? Push it more and the graphics score will blow right past this 290X.


The FM run details show the core at 1516 and memory 2001 -- you know, I had these cards in my build a couple of years back, and for the life of me I can't remember how high I used to push them. Maybe it's in one of the old submissions in one of the other threads here. I'll take a look.


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> The FM run details show the core at 1516 and memory 2001 -- you know, I had these cards in my build a couple of years back, and for the life of me I can't remember how high I used to push them. Maybe it's in one of the old submissions in one of the other threads here. I'll take a look.


Ah I don't know how clocks work on Nvidia, GPU-z was showing 1365 and now that I look close boost shows 1466? Anyways it seems these cards are really dang close in a bench where CPU overhead isn't a big deal and with them being pushed near the limit, interesting.


----------



## dagget3450

update

dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- 4x [email protected] 1150/560 1150/560 1100/560 1100/560 -- score 16261
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13406834?



going to have to try this with a valid driver so i can gain another spot in top 10 hof


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> update going to have to try this with a valid driver so i can gain another spot in top 10 hof


Speaking of which, why does it seem some of runs are valid drivers and some get counted as invalid when I am using the same drivers? Futuremark has always been weird about that... is there something I'm somehow failing to do for this?


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Speaking of which, why does it seem some of runs are valid drivers and some get counted as invalid when I am using the same drivers? Futuremark has always been weird about that... is there something I'm somehow failing to do for this?


I had alot of trouble a few days ago on this. One thing i think thats worked best is when you first load 3dmark wait for systeminfo to load your system stats on that first page it opens. Once it populates your system stats, wait a few seconds or 10s even then hit run. This bench has some issues being impatient i guess. Outside that it may be system instability?


----------



## Menthol

Some really great scores here, I seem to be struggling with this benchmark for some reason


----------



## robbo2

Accidentally covered my CPU score. Was 16.5fps score around 4950ish? Not entering anyway.


----------



## alex4069

I think I have pushed as far as I can go, for now.
Alex4069 ---- I5 4690k/4.4

Zotzac GTX 1070 AMP edition/core2076-memory2276 score 5783



Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13407418


----------



## looniam

^nice









welp it was nice being in the top 30 while it lasted.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Some really great scores here, I seem to be struggling with this benchmark for some reason


Hi bud,

Since putting in the 6950 I was getting some weird results with the CPU test. Need to play more tonight. Scores seem to vary quite heavily, although being forthright there is probably some tweaking going on there, also.


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Some really great scores here, I seem to be struggling with this benchmark for some reason


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Hi bud,
> 
> Since putting in the 6950 I was getting some weird results with the CPU test. Need to play more tonight. Scores seem to vary quite heavily, although being forthright there is probably some tweaking going on there, also.


Try disabling hardware info to avoid massive gpu throttle in scene 1. Also start with gpu mem at stock and move up 100mhz at a time until your score start decreasing. Altough i can run the bench with up to + 900mhz mem offset it prefers around +450mhz for the best score in my case. A high refresh rate monitor such as 144hz seems to give a better score than 60hz.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Try disabling hardware info to avoid massive gpu throttle in scene 1. Also start with gpu mem at stock and move up 100mhz at a time until your score start decreasing. Altough i can run the bench with up to + 900mhz mem offset it prefers around +450mhz for the best score in my case. A high refresh rate monitor such as 144hz seems to give a better score than 60hz.


Not having any issues with the graphics tests


----------



## melodystyle2003

A small update: melodystyle2003 -- i7 3770k @ 4.8Ghz -- r9 290 @ 1180/1500Mhz -- score 4522 (graphics 4479)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13414062


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Small update
> marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.5ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8757
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13404670?











Fantastic score! (I'd hide the FrankenRig picture tho







.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> stahlhart--- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G SLI -- 7923
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96604
> Jpmboy: I'm posting this and an incoming single GPU 980 score at M3TAl's request -- if we are not allowed to have multiple scores in the standings, then these can be disregarded there.











Different GPU - no problem,
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Single GPU score:
> stahlhart --- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G -- 4699
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96785











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> update
> 
> dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- 4x [email protected] 1150/560 1150/560 1100/560 1100/560 -- score 16261
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13406834?
> 
> 
> 
> going to have to try this with a valid driver so i can gain another spot in top 10 hof











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> I think I have pushed as far as I can go, for now.
> Alex4069 ---- I5 4690k/4.4
> 
> Zotzac GTX 1070 AMP edition/core2076-memory2276 score 5783
> 
> 
> 
> Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13407418


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> A small update: melodystyle2003 -- i7 3770k @ 4.8Ghz -- r9 290 @ 1180/1500Mhz -- score 4522 (graphics 4479)
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13414062


no screenshot


----------



## melodystyle2003

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no screenshot


updated


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Hey marc, great scores bud!









Thanks for the tips too.


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Try disabling hardware info to avoid massive gpu throttle in scene 1. Also start with gpu mem at stock and move up 100mhz at a time until your score start decreasing. Altough i can run the bench with up to + 900mhz mem offset it prefers around +450mhz for the best score in my case. A high refresh rate monitor such as 144hz seems to give a better score than 60hz.


mar0053, thanks for sharing the info, your killing it dude, 144hz monitor is the one thing I don't own


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Hi bud,
> 
> Since putting in the 6950 I was getting some weird results with the CPU test. Need to play more tonight. Scores seem to vary quite heavily, although being forthright there is probably some tweaking going on there, also.


I noticed most scores submitted with a 6950X have been at 44 or 45 ghz, I can bench mine at 47ghz on chilled water but I have very little difference in CPU score from 45 to 47, not sure if it starts to throttle or I need to perfect my memory timings or maybe the loss of brain cells is influencing my scores


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> A small update: melodystyle2003 -- i7 3770k @ 4.8Ghz -- r9 290 @ 1180/1500Mhz -- score 4522 (graphics 4479)
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13414062











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> I noticed most scores submitted with a 6950X have been at 44 or 45 ghz, I can bench mine at 47ghz on chilled water but I have very little difference in CPU score from 45 to 47, not sure if it starts to throttle or I need to perfect my memory timings or maybe the loss of brain cells is influencing my scores


4.7 - that's sick. What physics score is it producing at that freq?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> hey guys.. anyone else seeing these effects... It may be a 6950X or BWE thing - I do not see this with a 6700K/Max8Extreme rig, or a 4960X/r9 295x2 rig (my R5E/5960X is waiting for a caselab delivery!).
> 
> *I'm trying to figure this out before reporting to FM.*
> 
> 1) during the bench startup, while it is gathering system information (before starting a run) Futuremark SI puts a momentary high load on the CPU, hitting a temperature higher than the Physics test ever does.
> 2) this then repeats when the bechmark run "Collects System info".
> 3) at the beginning of the benchmark, from frames 290 to ~ 350 the frame rate drops and the CPU again gets a very high load. Then the run proceeds normally without these glitches.
> 
> I can see the cpu temperature spike on both the OC panel ("CPU temp" which is not core) and with the Mobo LEDs set to change color with temperature. CoreTemp records the three spikes and they are the highest temperatures posted during the benchmark. You can also use the CPU temperature sensors within MSI Afterburner. Would love to see a few posts with the MSI AB graphs up.
> 
> Right here:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


update on this:

3) Marc_0053 pointed out that disabling System Monitoring in "options" fixes the FPS drop in scene 1 - it works!

1) and 2) - no resolution (maybe I'm the only one seeing this cpu load spike?). FM would need more instances of the issue (than just 1) to look into it.

If you have a R5E-10/6950X. Load the Aura software, and set it to CPU Temperature. At the beginning of the benchmark (just when loading scene 1, right before handoff) does the MB light up RED?


----------



## Kravicka

thx for skipping my post

and u have Kravicka OCN in name at bench link u dont need pointless screenshot


----------



## josephimports

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13417281

josephimports -- i7 6700k @ 4.7Ghz -- 3X R9 Fury X @ 1160/550Mhz -- score 12469 (graphics 15788)


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kravicka*
> 
> thx for skipping my post
> 
> and u have Kravicka OCN in name at bench link u dont need pointless screenshot


Says screenshot in the op, so yes it does need a screenshot. Duh.


----------



## rony07

TimeSpyOC.jpg 2534k .jpg file


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13417356?

rony07 -- i7 4790k @ 4.6Ghz -- GTX 1080 @ 2035/10500Mhz -- score 7019 (graphics 7624)

Results from my humble rig


----------



## Kravicka

So what, rules can and must be edited at some point

They are outdated now, why u need screenshot when u can edit benchmark name with your OCN name


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4.7 - that's sick. What physics score is it producing at that freq?


as embarrassing as it is to say a couple hundred points less than yours at 4500, I need to install universal block on my card and and fresh OS install and see if I can figure out what is up, this is my best score so far

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/97621


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> as embarrassing as it is to say a couple hundred points less than yours at 4500, I need to install universal block on my card and and fresh OS install and see if I can figure out what is up, this is my best score so far
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/97621


Needs LOD tweaks.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Needs LOD tweaks.


LOD tweaks wont effect the physics score.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> LOD tweaks wont effect the physics score.


Was not talking of/mention the physics score


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Was not talking of/mention the physics score


Well menthol and jpmboy sure were.









Must be tired with all the 6950 overclocking you have been doing. better get some sleep. ain't it pretty late over there


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Arne Saknussemm [email protected] TitanX x2 @1450Mhz 12182



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/100291


----------



## Kimir

There is something about the physics score indeed, see Arne CPU score,
11078 with core @ 4.8, cache @ 4.5 and ram @ 3200c13 while mine
11076 with core @ 4.7, cache @ 4.3 and ram @ 3200c13.
A compare of 12 of my runs and it seems like it's consistant, except one that was really lower 9778 and a few over 11K.








I guess I'm just looking at some shenanigans while there is none.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kravicka*
> 
> Kravicka
> i7 5820k 4,3GHZ
> 980ti Strix 1425/7800
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/11323


Sorry - didn't mean to skip your sub

Rejected
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *josephimports*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13417281
> 
> josephimports -- i7 6700k @ 4.7Ghz -- 3X R9 Fury X @ 1160/550Mhz -- score 12469 (graphics 15788)











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Arne Saknussemm [email protected] TitanX x2 @1450Mhz 12182
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/100291










nice gfx score with those 2 TXs!


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice gfx score with those 2 TXs!


Cheers Jpmboy! they are still pulling their weight....while waiting for TitanP

Seem to do best in this bench when not on the raggedy edge of memory or core OC...


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Sorry - didn't mean to skip your sub
> 
> Rejected
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*


The burn, it's real.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Cheers Jpmboy! they are still pulling their weight....while waiting for TitanP
> 
> Seem to do best in this bench when not on the raggedy edge of memory or core OC...


You bet they do... still putting mine to work. Epic GPU.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> The burn, it's real.


lol - I really do not like rejecting subs... but this one earned it.


----------



## Leipatemeibbaa

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13422917?

leipatemeibbaa -- i7 4930k @ 4.4Ghz -- GTX 1080 @ 2080/5300 -- score 11665 (graphics 13525)


----------



## marc0053

Small update: trying to beat Vince (Kingpin's) score while he his still playing ambient temps....lol. We've been going back and forth since yesterday morning.
Tons of fun!
marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.53ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8815
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13423125?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> update on this:
> 
> 3) Marc_0053 pointed out that disabling System Monitoring in "options" fixes the FPS drop in scene 1 - it works!
> 
> 1) and 2) - no resolution (maybe I'm the only one seeing this cpu load spike?). FM would need more instances of the issue (than just 1) to look into it.
> 
> If you have a R5E-10/6950X. Load the Aura software, and set it to CPU Temperature. At the beginning of the benchmark (just when loading scene 1, right before handoff) does the MB light up RED?


The Aura light does come on solid red on the RE10 when I reach the throttling part in Scene 1 with hardware info enabled. When disabled the lighting remains green.


----------



## Kravicka

CPU test is wierd..
one run 22 FPS then 20 FPS 20 FPS 22 FPS 21 FPS

22 vs 20 FPS is like 500 points


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2139MHz -- 8573:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/101619*


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Small update: trying to beat Vince (Kingpin's) score while he his still playing ambient temps....lol. We've been going back and forth since yesterday morning.
> Tons of fun!
> marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.53ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8815
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13423125?


That's insane!


----------



## ZealotKi11er

*Zealotki11er --- 3770K @ 4.6Ghz --- 290X+290 @ 1150/1500 --- 7600*

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96801



This is my 24/7 Stable OC.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> *Zealotki11er --- 3770K @ 4.6Ghz --- 290X+290 @ 1150/1500 --- 7600*
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96801
> 
> 
> 
> This is my 24/7 Stable OC.


Just curious, what voltage are you using for 1150/1500? I have always played it safe with +100mv.


----------



## dagget3450

Im gonna have to put my cpu under water and try to go higher. The cpu is bottlenecking me bad in timespy.... cant believe i am saying this for dx12...


----------



## marc0053

Last update of the day
marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.53ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8860
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/102317


----------



## Silent Scone

lol, almost 2200 on core. Nicely done


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> lol, almost 2200 on core. Nicely done


Thanks Silent Scone


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leipatemeibbaa*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13422917?
> 
> leipatemeibbaa -- i7 4930k @ 4.4Ghz -- GTX 1080 @ 2080/5300 -- score 11665 (graphics 13525)











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2139MHz -- 8573:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/101619*











which nvidia bios did you flash to that Gigibyte card?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> *Zealotki11er --- 3770K @ 4.6Ghz --- 290X+290 @ 1150/1500 --- 7600*
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96801
> 
> 
> 
> This is my 24/7 Stable OC.











Approved, but only for 24/7.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Last update of the day
> marc0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.53ghz - GTX 1080 G1 2190MHz / 2790MHz - Score 8860
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/102317











wow... did you do the resistor shunt on the card?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Jpmboy, it's an MSI Sea Hawk card.

I'm using the MSI FE bios from techpowerup. Card is only loading @1.043v for that last screen. I'm sure there is enough left to break 8600. Next time though, need to sleep right away for work.


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which nvidia bios did you flash to that Gigibyte card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Approved, but only for 24/7.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wow... did you do the resistor shunt on the card?


Yes I did apply CLU on the 3 power resistors of the G1 card following this guide
http://overclocking.guide/increase-the-nvidia-power-limit-all-cards/

in the end it looked like this on my card


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

marc did you notice an improvement with the mod?


----------



## marc0053

I had major throttling before the mod and after the mod it stopped. Did not help my overclock tho.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

No throttling for me, so I don't think it'll help me out. I have a full cover ek block on my card. Probably helps a ton.


----------



## Jpmboy

my card is slamming the power limit and dropping clock bins. I'll give it a try to see if it will at least hold the clock I set. hopefully will have time tonight.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Just curious, what voltage are you using for 1150/1500? I have always played it safe with +100mv.


+75mV. I can OC more but not with my current loop. Card hit 60C and OC ability drops for these cards. New drivers also act every differently. Have also used them for mining so that could have done something too but my HD 7970 have not been effected.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> +75mV. I can OC more but not with my current loop. Card hit 60C and OC ability drops for these cards. New drivers also act every differently. Have also used them for mining so that could have done something too but my HD 7970 have not been effected.


Thanks. I'm on reference cooling so I've got to crank the fan a bit when going past 1150/1500 at all.. I'll try +75mv on it though. Also, what do you set the power limit to? I've found some odd results where sometimes +20% gives me more stability over +50% - and I know my PSU is more than capable for a single 290x and 4790k.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> Thanks. I'm on reference cooling so I've got to crank the fan a bit when going past 1150/1500 at all.. I'll try +75mv on it though. Also, what do you set the power limit to? I've found some odd results where sometimes +20% gives me more stability over +50% - and I know my PSU is more than capable for a single 290x and 4790k.


I use +20% too. Not really tested with 50% unless score drops. It does not effect overclocking.


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I use +20% too. Not really tested with 50% unless score drops. It does not effect overclocking.


Thanks for confirming. Going to do some runs again tonight to see. I'd like to hit at least 4600 for a single reference 290x


----------



## done12many2

Update

done12many2 --- 5960x @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 FE --- 8426

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/101935


----------



## Hequaqua

Update

[email protected](2)---7325



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13429788

If anyone has any input I would be thankful.

If you look at my GPU-Z readings, you can see during the second graphics test that GPU-Z shows a percap for utilization. Any idea as to why/what would cause this. I don't see a drop in core/memory speed?

One more quick question....what is the max voltage I should throw at my CPU? I had it set to [email protected], but it crashed during the CPU test. I think CPU-Z showed the actual voltage at 1.328.


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13427987

[email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]

I have another result which is not showing in HOF but it is valid and a bit higher...







Dont know why...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13427563

[email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]


----------



## Decade

Decade | 4790K @ 4.4ghz | Fury X | 5290



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13430928

16.7.2 Hotfix drivers, logged in under 3DMark account, same name "decade".


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Decade*
> 
> Decade | 4790K @ 4.4ghz | Fury X | 5290
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13430928
> 
> 16.7.2 Hotfix drivers, logged in under 3DMark account, same name "decade".


That seems kind of low. I am going to try single 290X and see.


----------



## Decade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That seems kind of low. I am going to try single 290X and see.


4790K at 4.4ghz really holds back my physics score, graphics score is 300pts below comparative Fury X's due to 1150mhz core versus 1200mhz+ with current top Fury X in this thread at 555mhz memory. Seems just about right considering I'm running conservative numbers for a quiet small form factor build.
Stock 1050 on gpu core was hardly breaking 5K with 16.7.2 hotfix cats.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Decade*
> 
> 4790K at 4.4ghz really holds back my physics score, graphics score is 300pts below comparative Fury X's due to 1150mhz core versus 1200mhz+ with current top Fury X in this thread at 555mhz memory. Seems just about right considering I'm running conservative numbers for a quiet small form factor build.
> Stock 1050 on gpu core was hardly breaking 5K with 16.7.2 hotfix cats.


Dont put too much faith in Fury clock speed numbers. I am finding there is a negative voltage scaling in overclocks. I am going to do more testing soon but you can also try it on yours. There are gains in higher clocks and voltage but its just barely if at all better. I am not sure why but I seem to have the same dx11 like issues in this benchmark. That is reduced scaling on overclocks with fury gpu and even throttling or load bouncing in multigpu that acts like overhead as in dx11.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Decade*
> 
> 4790K at 4.4ghz really holds back my physics score, graphics score is 300pts below comparative Fury X's due to 1150mhz core versus 1200mhz+ with current top Fury X in this thread at 555mhz memory. Seems just about right considering I'm running conservative numbers for a quiet small form factor build.
> Stock 1050 on gpu core was hardly breaking 5K with 16.7.2 hotfix cats.


I was only comparing it to a 290X. I get 4.2k with 1075/1375 OC. Fury X should be 30-40% faster but it never is under 3DMark.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX1080 --- 8579

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96002

figure I better squeak this in before Mr.T gets back from work.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Update
> done12many2 --- 5960x @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 FE --- 8426
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/101935











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Update
> [email protected](2)---7325
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13429788
> If anyone has any input I would be thankful.
> If you look at my GPU-Z readings, you can see during the second graphics test that GPU-Z shows a percap for utilization. Any idea as to why/what would cause this. I don't see a drop in core/memory speed?
> One more quick question....what is the max voltage I should throw at my CPU? I had it set to [email protected], but it crashed during the CPU test. I think CPU-Z showed the actual voltage at 1.328.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13427987
> [email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]
> I have another result which is not showing in HOF but it is valid and a bit higher...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont know why...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13427563
> [email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]











Sometimes unless the score moves you in position, it does not show on the HOF.. but not always.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Decade*
> 
> Decade | 4790K @ 4.4ghz | Fury X | 5290
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13430928
> 16.7.2 Hotfix drivers, logged in under 3DMark account, same name "decade".











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX1080 --- 8579
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/96002
> figure I better squeak this in before Mr.T gets back from work.


----------



## Hequaqua

OK....my last update....lol

Hequaqua---i7-4770k---GTX 970(2)---7343



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13432954

I just can't get my CPU stable at 4.6ghz. I did OC the ram to 1866(1600). It did help with the CPU score.

I limited the utilization that I was seeing by dropping the voltage back to 1.275v(It was at the max for the card in the bios(1.31v). My second card is holding me back. It's not a good overclocker, especially the Vram. I did get PWR perfcap, a first in any of the 3DMark benchmarks since I modded the bios. The only benchmark I still get PWR perfcap is Catzilla, and like this one, it is brief.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> OK....my last update....lol
> 
> Hequaqua---i7-4770k---GTX 970(2)---7343
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13432954
> 
> I just can't get my CPU stable at 4.6ghz. I did OC the ram to 1866(1600). It did help with the CPU score.
> 
> I limited the utilization that I was seeing by dropping the voltage back to 1.275v(It was at the max for the card in the bios(1.31v). My second card is holding me back. It's not a good overclocker, especially the Vram. I did get PWR perfcap, a first in any of the 3DMark benchmarks since I modded the bios. The only benchmark I still get PWR perfcap is Catzilla, and like this one, it is brief.


I get almost same CPU score with 4.6GHz IVY + 2400MHz RAM. Really CPU progression from Intel has been pathetic.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I get almost same CPU score with 4.6GHz IVY + 2400MHz RAM. Really CPU progression from Intel has been pathetic.


That's why I have no reason to upgrade...lol

I don't see a reason to upgrade my gpu's either. The only advantage would be power consumption. I'm a overclocker, I don't care about that!! lol









The only reason I *might* upgrade the gpu's is so my son can have something a little better in his rig. Although, he doesn't complain about the R9 270(4gb) having any issues in his games.

Oh well....maybe the big chips from both vendors will compel me to want to upgrade.









I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in nVidia not offering SLI with the 1060. I guess if they did, that would cut in the 1080/1070 sales.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> That's why I have no reason to upgrade...lol
> 
> I don't see a reason to upgrade my gpu's either. The only advantage would be power consumption. I'm a overclocker, I don't care about that!! lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason I *might* upgrade the gpu's is so my son can have something a little better in his rig. Although, he doesn't complain about the R9 270(4gb) having any issues in his games.
> 
> Oh well....maybe the big chips from both vendors will compel me to want to upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in nVidia not offering SLI with the 1060. I guess if they did, that would cut in the 1080/1070 sales.


They can still add SLI support if they wanted lol. DX12 Multi GPU still works.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Yes I did apply CLU on the 3 power resistors of the G1 card following this guide
> http://overclocking.guide/increase-the-nvidia-power-limit-all-cards/
> 
> in the end it looked like this on my card


UGH - don;t know how you got the CLU (or CLP) to stick... it just stays too flowable for me to put the card vertical on the bench:


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> UGH - don;t know how you got the CLU (or CLP) to stick... it just stays too flowable for me to put the card vertical on the bench:


My cards are mounted in the same orientation so please let me know what you come up with as I'm interested in doing the same thing.

Additionally, I have an update to single and SLI scores.

done12many2 --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 8476

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105110



done12many2 --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 SLI --- 13,974

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/104807



**edited to combine subs**


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> UGH - don;t know how you got the CLU (or CLP) to stick... it just stays too flowable for me to put the card vertical on the bench:


1st i tried with a pencil but left the pencil residue. Then i put the clu but had to rub it on using the tip of the clu applicator


----------



## SoloCamo

This is driving me nuts... my cpu score is staying relatively the same...

4.4ghz, 4.5ghz, 4.6hz and now 4.7ghz are all netting me in the 49xx range for cpu score yet I see people with the same cpu scoring in the 5k+ range at these speeds. Anyone else having less than stellar cpu scaling?

Edit:

Welp final submission, not enough to bump me up ahead but I broke 4600 as I wanted. I think it's all this 290x has got in it.. Just can't get the thing as stable as I used to be able to... so this score change is only reflecting the cpu going from 4.4ghz to 4.7ghz.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105581

SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1165 / 1500Mhz --- 4608



______________

I know this won't count because I'm stupid and didn't save the screenshot but I did have a run at 1170 / 1500mhz and got 4624...

So just for reference ...

SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1170 / 1500Mhz --- 4624

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105437


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> This is driving me nuts... my cpu score is staying relatively the same...
> 
> 4.4ghz, 4.5ghz, 4.6hz and now 4.7ghz are all netting me in the 49xx range for cpu score yet I see people with the same cpu scoring in the 5k+ range at these speeds. Anyone else having less than stellar cpu scaling?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Welp final submission, not enough to bump me up ahead but I broke 4600 as I wanted. I think it's all this 290x has got in it.. Just can't get the thing as stable as I used to be able to... so this score change is only reflecting the cpu going from 4.4ghz to 4.7ghz.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105581
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1165 / 1500Mhz --- 4608
> 
> ______________
> 
> I know this won't count because I'm stupid and didn't save the screenshot but I did have a run at 1170 / 1500mhz and got 4624...
> 
> So just for reference ...
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1170 / 1500Mhz --- 4624
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105437


On a previous run at 4.7 GHz I was getting 5200+ on CPU score with this 4790K. Your ram speed and timings likely play a role here and disabling any unnecessary processes likely helps too. Also my cache is at 4.3 GHz.


----------



## dagget3450

update!

Dagget3450 --- [email protected] -- 4x furyx 1150/560 - 1150/560 - 1100/560 - 1100/560 -- score 16 282
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/106526


My cpu is on water now, so i hope to push it to 5~ghz? we will see but i already got an improvement from water alone, maybe i was throttling before and unstable. Seems fairly stable now so gonna inch her up









Closing in on top5 HOF if she holds up (in x4 bracket)


----------



## SoloCamo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> On a previous run at 4.7 GHz I was getting 5200+ on CPU score with this 4790K. Your ram speed and timings likely play a role here and disabling any unnecessary processes likely helps too. Also my cache is at 4.3 GHz.


Thanks. Seems I'm now scoring around 5100 @ 4.7ghz after doing a bunch more runs. Made no changes so I have no clue what that was about. My ram was at 2400mhz / Cas10 with relatively loose timings at (2T vs 1T as well as per the xmp profile) and I didn't touch the cache. It was a quick and dirty overclock in desperation for more points









I'll have to mess with it more. Truthfully I haven't really oc'ed it too much as I'm at 4k and my 290x is the issue at this res by far so I've had no need to really dial in a good overclock.


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99, CPU x5660 @ 4.2GHz. R9 290 @ 1200MHz and 1500MHz. Score 4449.

http://s1214.photobucket.com/user/Kelticwarrior00/media/Test.jpg.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> My cards are mounted in the same orientation so please let me know what you come up with as I'm interested in doing the same thing.
> 
> Additionally, I have an update to single and SLI scores.
> 
> done12many2 --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 8476
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105110
> 
> 
> 
> done12many2 --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 SLI --- 13,974
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/104807
> 
> 
> 
> **edited to combine subs**










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SoloCamo*
> 
> This is driving me nuts... my cpu score is staying relatively the same...
> 
> 4.4ghz, 4.5ghz, 4.6hz and now 4.7ghz are all netting me in the 49xx range for cpu score yet I see people with the same cpu scoring in the 5k+ range at these speeds. Anyone else having less than stellar cpu scaling?
> 
> Edit:
> 
> Welp final submission, not enough to bump me up ahead but I broke 4600 as I wanted. I think it's all this 290x has got in it.. Just can't get the thing as stable as I used to be able to... so this score change is only reflecting the cpu going from 4.4ghz to 4.7ghz.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105581
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1165 / 1500Mhz --- 4608
> 
> 
> 
> ______________
> 
> I know this won't count because I'm stupid and didn't save the screenshot but I did have a run at 1170 / 1500mhz and got 4624...
> 
> So just for reference ...
> 
> SoloCamo --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- 290X @ 1170 / 1500Mhz --- 4624
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/105437











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> update!
> 
> Dagget3450 --- [email protected] -- 4x furyx 1150/560 - 1150/560 - 1100/560 - 1100/560 -- score 16 282
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/106526
> 
> 
> My cpu is on water now, so i hope to push it to 5~ghz? we will see but i already got an improvement from water alone, maybe i was throttling before and unstable. Seems fairly stable now so gonna inch her up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Closing in on top5 HOF if she holds up (in x4 bracket)











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> 99belle99, CPU x5660 @ 4.2GHz. R9 290 @ 1200MHz and 1500MHz. Score 4449.
> 
> http://s1214.photobucket.com/user/Kelticwarrior00/media/Test.jpg.html


need a validation link.


----------



## 99belle99

Okay here it is http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108101


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> Okay here it is http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108101


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8585:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108790*


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8585:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108790*


Are those core clock game stable or just bench runs?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- GTX 1080 @2152MHz -- 8585:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/108790*











loool - called it. Nice one T.
Good example of the impact of physics on overall score. I'm running 2.5K higher CPU score... not good enough to overcome ~300pts in graphics score. "Proper weighting".








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Are those core clock game stable or just bench runs?


TimeSpy stable is all that you need for the benchmark - right?


----------



## Kravicka

Have u fps drops in some CPU runs ? Like 50-50-50-12-33-33-33-33-33-22-22-22-22 end


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/109021

[email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]

Tooshort and me tied, who goes first???









With a less degraded cpu I would have reached more than 8600...

This weekend I'll have a new one, 5960x or 6950x...


----------



## Kimir

We have a tie, woot!


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

I guess we have to have an arm wrestle now!









ZealotKi11er, Just bench clocks on the benchies.

And thanks Jpmboy, I have the need to get over the 8600 hump. It's possible.


----------



## hht92

Old mighty 780









hht92 --- 3770k @4.5 GHz --- GTX 780 @1254 MHz --- 3168 :



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/109186


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1710 --- 4750

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/110878


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/109021
> [email protected]@3200CL13--GTX [email protected]
> Tooshort and me tied, who goes first???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a less degraded cpu I would have reached more than 8600...
> This weekend I'll have a new one, 5960x or 6950x...











lol - I do several bench threads... first tie! Always ranked in order of submission. BTW - nice card!
pulled the 1080, put 2 TXs back on this rig.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hht92*
> 
> Old mighty 780
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hht92 --- 3770k @4.5 GHz --- GTX 780 @1254 MHz --- 3168 :
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/109186











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1710 --- 4750
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/110878


----------



## stahlhart

Updated 980 SLI score:

stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G SLI --- 8060



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113258


----------



## stahlhart

Updated 980 single card score:

stahlhart --- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G -- 4772



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113300


----------



## SoloCamo

As a heads up just to keep it clean...

fyzzz 4690K R390 4640 - is no longer valid and needs to be removed as you've added his higher score to the list.


----------



## dagget3450

dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- 4x furyx - 1175/560- 1175/560 - 1105/560- 1105/560 - score 16710
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13468567?



Newest drivers are now WHQL thank you AMD. On the other hand they have altered my gpu Oc's in a possibly negative way. Top 5 keeps running away


----------



## SuperZan

Aww, didn't take any screenshots (results are from release day) but I'll drop this here just for fun.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/12227

6 929 with AMD Radeon R9 390(2x) and AMD FX-8370

Graphics Score

8 035

CPU Score

3 893


----------



## alex4069

Time to move a little more. Alex4069 --- I5 4690k/4.6 --- Zoitac GTX 1070 AMP edition Core clock 2063, Memory clock 2257 score 5813
Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13471284


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Aww, didn't take any screenshots (results are from release day) but I'll drop this here just for fun.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/12227
> 
> 6 929
> with
> AMD Radeon R9 390(2x) and
> AMD FX-8370
> 
> Graphics Score
> 8 035
> 
> CPU Score
> 3 893


Not too bad, i am surprised how much the cpu counts in this bench. It seems like i get more points for pushing cpu further than vs gpu clocks. Cpu nets me both cpu and gpu points, where gpu oc nets only small gpu gains. Would you feel up to running it with same gpu settings and drop cpu clocks some and see if it has a similar effect? Im curious


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Not too bad, i am surprised how much the cpu counts in this bench. It seems like i get more points for pushing cpu further than vs gpu clocks. Cpu nets me both cpu and gpu points, where gpu oc nets only small gpu gains. Would you feel up to running it with same gpu settings and drop cpu clocks some and see if it has a similar effect? Im curious


Unfortunately the second card is already headed to my brother via post but I did a couple of runs with a single card at those clocks, 4.8GHz OC in one, 4.4GHz OC in the other.

4.8GHz: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/115499

4.4GHz: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/115603


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Unfortunately the second card is already headed to my brother via post but I did a couple of runs with a single card at those clocks, 4.8GHz OC in one, 4.4GHz OC in the other.
> 
> 4.8GHz: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/115499
> 
> 4.4GHz: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/115603


Quite odd the gpu score went up on lower cpu? Do you think it is throttling at 4.8? Yeah, i am hoping to catch more amd multigpu results. Given the insight on the benchmark and it showing amd gpus in wait states on cpu. I have 390s already waterblocked just wanted to push my furies first for high scores. Thank you for the results!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Updated 980 SLI score:
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G SLI --- 8060
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113258











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Updated 980 single card score:
> stahlhart --- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G -- 4772
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113300











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> dagget3450 -- [email protected] -- 4x furyx - 1175/560- 1175/560 - 1105/560- 1105/560 - score 16710
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13468567?
> 
> Newest drivers are now WHQL thank you AMD. On the other hand they have altered my gpu Oc's in a possibly negative way. Top 5 keeps running away











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> Aww, didn't take any screenshots (results are from release day) but I'll drop this here just for fun.
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/12227
> 6 929
> with
> AMD Radeon R9 390(2x) and
> AMD FX-8370
> 
> Graphics Score
> 8 035
> 
> CPU Score
> 3 893


Run it again... and take a screenshot.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> Time to move a little more. Alex4069 --- I5 4690k/4.6 --- Zoitac GTX 1070 AMP edition Core clock 2063, Memory clock 2257 score 5813
> Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13471284


----------



## dagget3450

update for x3

dagget3450- [email protected] - furyx 1100/560 - 1150/560 - 1150/560 -- 14701

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13493981?


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1550 --- 7732

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/120533


----------



## Devildog83

Just a prelim, run. 6700k @ stock 4.0/4.2 boost, R9 390 @ 1100/1525. 16 Gbs DDR4 @2133
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13494273


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Run it again... and take a screenshot.


Would that I could. One of those cards is already on its way to my brother, the second will be in a mate's PC by Monday next. I was just throwing my result into the thread to see where it stood relative to some of the other excellent scores.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Devildog83*
> 
> Just a prelim, run. 6700k @ stock 4.0/4.2 boost, R9 390 @ 1100/1525. 16 Gbs DDR4 @2133
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13494273


Looking forward to seeing the overclocked scores. It's good to see another Leatherneck on deck.


----------



## Devildog83

Jarheads stick together







I will try 4.7. 1200/1525 and set the XMP on my RAM which is 2800. Should be interesting.

Need to work on the over clock but I got 4.4 1125/1500 XMP failed so RAM is still stock.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13496087


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> update for x3
> dagget3450- [email protected] - furyx 1100/560 - 1150/560 - 1150/560 -- 14701
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13493981?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1550 --- 7732


need validation link.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Devildog83*
> 
> Jarheads stick together
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try 4.7. 1200/1525 and set the XMP on my RAM which is 2800. Should be interesting.
> Need to work on the over clock but I got 4.4 1125/1500 XMP failed so RAM is still stock.
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13496087


Welcome aboard! You're on this - I'll wait till you tune things up.
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*


----------



## Praz

Praz --- 6950X @ 4.2Ghz --- GTX1070 @ 1920MHz / 2275MHz --- 7032



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/121321


----------



## done12many2

Well it looks like we should have entries from the 1080's big daddy here shortly.

http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/titan-x-pascal


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Well it looks like we should have entries from the 1080's big daddy here shortly.
> 
> http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/titan-x-pascal


I am curious just how many will be seen after launch. Considering 1080 is hard to get now even.


----------



## fat4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Yes I did apply CLU on the 3 power resistors of the G1 card following this guide
> http://overclocking.guide/increase-the-nvidia-power-limit-all-cards/
> 
> in the end it looked like this on my card


Nice man, THanks !


----------



## Sean W.

can you only downlaod this on steam?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> can you only downlaod this on steam?


No. You can get it here


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> I am curious just how many will be seen after launch. Considering 1080 is hard to get now even.


I wouldn't be surprised if they were much easier to get a hold of than the 1080 was at launch.


----------



## Sean W.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> No. You can get it here


Thanks a bunch!


----------



## Sean W.

OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score

Sean W.

Intel Core i7 [email protected]

SLI GTX980

8,391

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13503208


----------



## fyzzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> need validation link.


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/120533


----------



## Ish416

Single Card

Ish416 --- 5820k @ 4.55Ghz --- 290X @ 1255Mhz Core/ 1625Mhz Memory --- Score 5093

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/123475



2 Card CFX

Ish416 --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 290X/290X @ 1225Mhz Core/ 1625Mhz Memory --- Score 8918

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/123884


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Praz*
> 
> Praz --- 6950X @ 4.2Ghz --- GTX1070 @ 1920MHz / 2275MHz --- 7032
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/121321











daum good score with that 1070!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Well it looks like we should have entries from the 1080's big daddy here shortly.
> http://www.geforce.com/hardware/10series/titan-x-pascal


Should be unveiled at August gamescon
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score
> Sean W.
> 
> Intel Core i7 [email protected]
> 
> SLI GTX980
> 
> 8,391
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13503208











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/120533











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ish416*
> 
> Single Card
> Ish416 --- 5820k @ 4.55Ghz --- 290X @ 1255Mhz Core/ 1625Mhz Memory --- Score 5093
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/123475
> 
> 2 Card CFX
> Ish416 --- 5820k @ 4.5Ghz --- 290X/290X @ 1225Mhz Core/ 1625Mhz Memory --- Score 8918
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/123884










*x2*


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Should be unveiled at August gamescon


I will be there, can't wait!


----------



## alex4069

I am the only I5/GTX 1070 combo in the top 30.


----------



## Jpmboy

is that a happy or sad moment?


----------



## alex4069




----------



## eddward

eddward ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 1080 GAMING X 2076/11008 Mhz --- 7551
latest beta hotfix driver 368.95
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13517948
I have also valid result on 368.81, however only validation link, I assume it cannot be charted - http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13413514

hopefully I added every needed information


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eddward*
> 
> eddward ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 1080 GAMING X 2076/11008 Mhz --- 7551
> latest beta hotfix driver 368.95
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13517948
> I have also valid result on 368.81, however only validation link, I assume it cannot be charted - http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13413514
> 
> hopefully I added every needed information











You can load the auto saved result in 3DMark, put you settings where they were for the run and do a sub.


----------



## Sean W.

Im amped that my SLI 980s are beating 1080s


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> Im amped that my SLI 980s are beating 1080s


I think you can do better. CPU score is looking kinda low.


----------



## Sean W.

I thought so too...

I think the Asus AI Suit is mucking stuff up...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> Im amped that my SLI 980s are beating 1080s


you mean beat A SINGLE 1080.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> I thought so too...
> 
> I think the Asus AI Suit is mucking stuff up...


OC your rig directly in bios (remove AI suite)


----------



## Sean W.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> you mean beat A SINGLE 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OC your rig directly in bios (remove AI suite)


Haha yes, a single 1080









I use AI suit to control my fans. It turns all but my cpu fan off at idle. I love that feature


----------



## eddward

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can load the auto saved result in 3DMark, put you settings where they were for the run and do a sub.


Thanks, but unfortunately I do not have a paid version of 3DMark, so not available for me







Nevermind I tried another run with slightly more Mhz on core









eddward ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 1080 GAMING X 2088/11008 Mhz --- 7624

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13519942


----------



## vmanuelgm

Managed 8600...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521055


----------



## kx11

kx11 - i7 6950x @ 4.29ghz - GTX 1080 HOF 2151MHz / 5508MHz - Score 8493



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/127741


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Managed 8600...


Nice!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *eddward*
> 
> Thanks, but unfortunately I do not have a paid version of 3DMark, so not available for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevermind I tried another run with slightly more Mhz on core
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eddward ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 1080 GAMING X 2088/11008 Mhz --- 7624
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13519942











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Managed 8600...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521055


Great score, but I'm guessing this is not a sub... since you know the needed format for table entry.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11 - i7 6950x @ 4.29ghz - GTX 1080 HOF 2151MHz / 5508MHz - Score 8493
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/127741












loikely last update until Sunday... PA LN2 party!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Sorry, forgot the numbers...

Managed 8600...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521055

[email protected]@[email protected]


----------



## Sean W.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Sorry, forgot the numbers...
> 
> Managed 8600...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13521055
> 
> [email protected]@[email protected]


Oh noes! a 1080 & 6950X has bested my 5960X and SLI 980s!


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> Oh noes! a 1080 & 6950X has bested my 5960X and SLI 980s!


You are like 2000 point's lower than other 5960x's @ 4.5Ghz in the CPU Test.

I get around 8000 with my 5820k @4.8Ghz
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523642


----------



## Sean W.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> You are like 2000 point's lower than other 5960x's @ 4.5Ghz in the CPU Test.
> 
> I get around 8000 with my 5820k @4.8Ghz
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523642


I re-ran the test, overclocked my 5960X to 4.7ghz, and only got a CPU score of 9746

Sean W.

5960X @ 4.7ghz ---- SLI GTX980

8472
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13524321


----------



## vmanuelgm

Jmp, forget the 8606, new result...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523555

[email protected]@[email protected]

Sorry again


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> I re-ran the test, overclocked my 5960X to 4.7ghz, and only got a CPU score of 9746
> 
> Sean W.
> 
> 5960X @ 4.7ghz ---- SLI GTX980
> 
> 8472
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13524321
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


The only reason for your cpu score to be that low is that your cache is at stock and ram is slow as hell.
4.7Ghz gives me about 11k.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Jmp, forget the 8606, new result...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523555
> 
> [email protected]@[email protected]
> 
> Sorry again


You might as well add the CPU-z required tab, just saying.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Is it needed???

I subbed before without em...


----------



## Kimir

It is tho, see the OP screenshot, everything that is squared red is required, green is optional. Every 3DMark JPMboy and I manage are the same, that follow HWbot screenshot requirement.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I would swear that red square was green yesterday...

Well, here you are...



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523555

[email protected]@[email protected]

Hope now it is valid, this is worse than burocracy...


----------



## kx11

man turn off some of the stuff you don't need during Benchmarking for even better results

Bluetooth is a start


----------



## vmanuelgm

Took it today only for sub. Yesterday all was disabled, but thanks dude...


----------



## alawadhi3000

alawadhi3000 ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX 980M 1261/6008 MHz --- 3130

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13540152


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I would swear that red square was green yesterday...
> 
> Well, here you are...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523555
> 
> [email protected]@[email protected]
> 
> Hope now it is valid, this is worse than burocracy...


I can;t update the table on the road.. but please read the OP and make a screenshot that is the same as shown... what is needed for a valid enty - and especially for a top 10 entry - is listed and shown. Nothing ambiguous. I'm sure you are just oo excited and not reading the instructions.


----------



## vmanuelgm

You accepted my previous shots with result and gpuz...

Well, if I have time after coming from beach I will take a new shot with cpuz showing the same clocks I used, but it doesnt make sense when you accept scores, Heaven for example, which can be easily edited. 3DMark result in HOF is totally legit...










Burocracy for foreigners...


----------



## rv8000

rv8000 --- 6600k @ 4.6Ghz --- EVGA GTX 1080 SC @ 2114Mhz / 1393Mhz --- 7081



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/135242

A lot of throttling due to PL, card bounced between 2038-2088 during most of both GPU tests even though 2114 was the max reported. The card needs a bios edit, and I'm totally handicapping my score with my 6600k







. Too bad I'm selling the card soon so no reason to go crazy unfortunately.

Forgot to add the link


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> You accepted my previous shots with result and gpuz...
> 
> Well, if I have time after coming from beach I will take a new shot with cpuz showing the same clocks I used, but it doesnt make sense when you accept scores, Heaven for example, which can be easily edited. 3DMark result in HOF is totally legit...


That's awesome. The guy helps you out once and you throw it back in his face. Nice.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Burocracy for foreigners...


I'm sure that you believe this.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I am only being coherent, mate, because:

1. My previous posts didn`t show all the stuff and were accepted.
2. A result posted in HOF from Futuremark is legit, more than a capture from Heaven which can be edited...

I am not being rude, since I said I will post my cpuz's later or tomorrow, so that I can finally sub it...

And one more thing, if I have to read people having a good time cos of my english (I remind you I am spanish), I think my jokes about the burocracy must be admitted in the same way.

Would like you guys to write in spanish to see your level, and would like also to promote the change of oc.net to ec.net=english college.net.... This is a joke too...



















*[email protected]@[email protected]*

Espero que esta vez sea la definitiva, amigos foráneos!!!


----------



## Kimir

1. Mistakes happens I guess
2. Being Valid Score on Futuremark is only one of the requirement, it's not everything.
Wasn't hard to pop CPU-z there, was it?








Your felling of being discriminated because English is not your mother's tongue is wrong. I'm not a native English speaking either (heck I don't even speak it, just write it) and never felt discriminated in anyway. Sassy comment about baguette here and there is nothing to me.


----------



## Nemesis158

Nemesis158 - 3930k @ 4.1GHz - Sapphire Tri-X R9 Fury @ 1100MHz - 5024 points


Validation link:
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13566746?


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> 1. Mistakes happens I guess
> 2. Being Valid Score on Futuremark is only one of the requirement, it's not everything.
> Wasn't hard to pop CPU-z there, was it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your felling of being discriminated because English is not your mother's tongue is wrong. I'm not a native English speaking either (heck I don't even speak it, just write it) and never felt discriminated in anyway. Sassy comment about baguette here and there is nothing to me.


Its not the first time I read about my english, Scone or the same Raja told me about my translation... Its a little odd since my english is not worse than others' and always see comments like those...

So I remind I am spanish and english is not my first language, spanish is also spoken in USA so some of you could probably use it and would like to see your level in this language...

Now I have posted with the gpuz and cpuz shots, hope Jpmboy finally accept my foreigner score... By the way, is he missing???









And I am not excited, I am simply happy for my scores, like other mates.

Abrazos desde España!!!


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Would like you guys to write in spanish to see your level


vmanuelgm! De verdad tio no creo que nadie aqui te esta tomando el pelo por tu nivel de ingles! Al reves, muestras un dominio muy superior a la de mucha gente nativa. La "grammar police" tiene agentes en todos lugares y no discriminan por nacionalidad...solo por ortografia y sintaxis.

Si hay reglas, hay que cumplirlas. Que las habias saltado una vez muestra la generosidad de nuestros anfitriones; que las tengas que cumplir cuando te estas metiendo en la cabeza de la tabla...normal diria yo.

Abriendo ventanas de CPUz al final de correr un Bench...pues es como forma parte de la prueba....no veas la cantidad de veces que me ha salido un BSOD al hacerlo y un score perfecto se ha esfumado...

Que sigues rompiendo records!...sin romper tu hardware!

Ahi lo llevas...que no seas demasiado duro con la evaluacion y el uso del rotulador rojo!

Un abrazo

Arne


----------



## vmanuelgm

Joder Arne, qué bien le das al español, me acabas de dejar KO... No me lo esperaba!!!

Has estudiado español o tienes familia???

En mi caso a la hora de escribir inglés me encuentro con la típica cosa del que no lo habla todos los días, y piensas en español y muchas veces traduces literalmente. Por ejemplo, en español se dice "pensar en", la traducción literal sería "think in", pero no, en inglés es think about o think of. Meto muchos gazapos de ese tipo por no forzarme en mi vida cotidiana a hablar o escribir mucho inglés.

En cuanto al posteo, simplemente comento que antes se aceptaron y ahora no y por eso no me parecía coherente. Pero he cumplido y puesto la captura, aunque lo normal es que se haga en el momento, y si no lo hice fue por el motivo antedicho de que se habían dado por válidos los resultados que puse sin las citadas, amén de tener en cuenta la propia idoneidad del HOF a la hora de legitimarlo...

Otro abrazo, Arne...


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Has estudiado español o tienes familia???


Bueno..la verdad es que llevo diez años viviendo con una Sevillana en Sevilla asi....









Te entiendo perfectamente....has leido El Castillo....de Kafka jejeje

Here it's too hot for Benching....unless I run the AC for a few hours and dunk a RAD in ice water....


----------



## vmanuelgm

Sip, en Sevilla la verdad es que ahora mismo hace mucho calor...

Yo vivo en Galicia y las temperaturas son un poco más frescas, aunque también estamos sobrepasando estas semanas los 30 grados.

Buen gusto, con una "zevillana"...

Saludos para ambos.

PD: Phase change could do a great job in Sevilla!!!


----------



## Kimir

Jpmboy did say he was on the road, meaning away from a computer to update anything.
Please let's not derail from the ToS and keep it to English in here, you are free to pm in Spanish.


----------



## Praz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Please let's not derail from the ToS and keep it to English in here, you are free to pm in Spanish.


Hello

^^ This. Posting in English is also part of the forum rules.


----------



## dentnu

Dentnu -- [email protected] -- GTX1080 --- 8040



Validation Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13585093


----------



## MR-e

sexpot ---- 5960X @ 4.70GHz --- Titan X @ 1545MHz / 4146MHz --- 7066
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13590193

_Time_ to join this party too


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> sexpot ---- 5960X @ 4.70GHz --- Titan X @ 1545MHz / 4146MHz --- 7066
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13590193
> 
> _Time_ to join this party too


Nice score!









That's the second best Titan-X score on this bench.


----------



## Hequaqua

I have a dumb question.....

Why did they include the CPU test? It doesn't seem to have that much bearing on just the graphics score. They really needed to include a combined test in my opinion.


----------



## MR-e

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Nice score!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the second best Titan-X score on this bench.


Thanks MrTOOSHORT! I did a bunch of reading in the Titan X thread and had to flash the bios. Your Titan X score not too shabby either


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> I re-ran the test, overclocked my 5960X to 4.7ghz, and only got a CPU score of 9746
> 
> Sean W.
> 
> 5960X @ 4.7ghz ---- SLI GTX980
> 
> 8472
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13524321


Rejected : Time Error


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I would swear that red square was green yesterday...
> Well, here you are...
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13523555
> [email protected]@[email protected]
> Hope now it is valid, this is worse than burocracy...


No bureaucracy.... without consistency and "Referees" the rankings are meaningless. (tho some consider them meaningless anyway.







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> alawadhi3000 ---- i7 [email protected] --- GTX 980M 1261/6008 MHz --- 3130
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13540152











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> You accepted my previous shots with result and gpuz...
> Well, if I have time after coming from beach I will take a new shot with cpuz showing the same clocks I used, but it doesnt make sense when you accept scores, Heaven for example, which can be easily edited. 3DMark result in HOF is totally legit...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burocracy for foreigners...


nothing to do with foreigners... we're all foreigners depending on perspective. Unfortunately, there are a number oif glitched scores in the HOF, and yoiu really have to pester Futuremark to correct them. At least they are tightening things up regarding the RTC (real time clock) and Tess/LOD "exploits".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rv8000*
> 
> rv8000 --- 6600k @ 4.6Ghz --- EVGA GTX 1080 SC @ 2114Mhz / 1393Mhz --- 7081
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/135242
> A lot of throttling due to PL, card bounced between 2038-2088 during most of both GPU tests even though 2114 was the max reported. The card needs a bios edit, and I'm totally handicapping my score with my 6600k
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Too bad I'm selling the card soon so no reason to go crazy unfortunately.
> Forgot to add the link










the PL limit is brutal







.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> I am only being coherent, mate, because:
> 1. My previous posts didn`t show all the stuff and were accepted.
> 2. A result posted in HOF from Futuremark is legit, more than a capture from Heaven which can be edited...
> I am not being rude, since I said I will post my cpuz's later or tomorrow, so that I can finally sub it...
> And one more thing, if I have to read people having a good time cos of my english (I remind you I am spanish), I think my jokes about the burocracy must be admitted in the same way.
> Would like you guys to write in spanish to see your level, and would like also to promote the change of oc.net to ec.net=english college.net.... This is a joke too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *[email protected][email protected]@2164-5580--8632*
> Espero que esta vez sea la definitiva, amigos foráneos!!!


not sure which post you are talking about which was accepted - since there are so many that lack the correct screenshot. If you were granted a one time exception, don't ask for two.
I had to fish thru your posts for this score to find the link. It's simple to post a proper entry.
Last "Special case"... you really do not want, or need to be a "Special case".









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nemesis158*
> 
> Nemesis158 - 3930k @ 4.1GHz - Sapphire Tri-X R9 Fury @ 1100MHz - 5024 points
> 
> Validation link:
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13566746?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dentnu*
> 
> Dentnu -- [email protected] -- GTX1080 --- 8040
> 
> Validation Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13585093











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> sexpot ---- 5960X @ 4.70GHz --- Titan X @ 1545MHz / 4146MHz --- 7066
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13590193
> _Time_ to join this party too










Welcome to the Paaartay!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Nice score!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the second best Titan-X score on this bench.


Motivational post... eh. _"no one likes to be number two_" - quote (but from who?)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I have a dumb question.....
> 
> Why did they include the CPU test? It doesn't seem to have that much bearing on just the graphics score. They really needed to include a combined test in my opinion.


It's a good thing that cpu score and gpu score are this independent in this 3D Mark Benchmark. There are lots of complaints that they were too linked in the past. DX12 really makes this much more possible.

It does seem that only Timespy is using all of the cpu core count. Mk11 and Firestrike physics scores are not scaling with core count as TS is.


----------



## Cakewalk_S

I know this won't pass the test to get in the club but does this score seem decent for a 2500k @ 4.5GHz and GTX970 @ 1500MHz?


Seems decent for the GTX970 but haven't seen enough benchmarks to tell... Are there tweaks in NVCP that actually apply to Time Spy or will they not apply?


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cakewalk_S*
> 
> I know this won't pass the test to get in the club but does this score seem decent for a 2500k @ 4.5GHz and GTX970 @ 1500MHz?
> 
> 
> Seems decent for the GTX970 but haven't seen enough benchmarks to tell... Are there tweaks in NVCP that actually apply to Time Spy or will they not apply?


Pretty similar score to what I had with my 970 on my 7870K. (temp setup). I had 3570 because the CPU score was low.

Mine was at 1556/8012 though.

I also forgot the link, which makes my entry non-valid









I will redo with my 6600K when I get my board


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It's a good thing that cpu score and gpu score are this independent in this 3D Mark Benchmark. There are lots of complaints that they were too linked in the past. DX12 really makes this much more possible.
> 
> It does seem that only Timespy is using all of the cpu core count. Mk11 and Firestrike physics scores are not scaling with core count as TS is.


I can agree with that. It would be nice to see how they both interact together though(CPU+GPU). The reason I say that is because my scores(overall) are sometimes better with users that have much better CPU's. I do keep a spreadsheet that just uses the Graphics scores though, since that is really what this is supposed to be.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!





Source



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Pretty similar score to what I had with my 970 on my 7870K. (temp setup). I had 3570 because the CPU score was low.
> 
> Mine was at 1556/8012 though.
> 
> I also forgot the link, which makes my entry non-valid
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will redo with my 6600K when I get my board


You can get the link without running it again, if you have the full version I think. Just load the result. They should be in your documents folder(3Dmark).


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I can agree with that. It would be nice to see how they both interact together though(CPU+GPU). The reason I say that is because my scores(overall) are sometimes better with users that have much better CPU's. I do keep a spreadsheet that just uses the Graphics scores though, since that is really what this is supposed to be.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> 
> You can get the link without running it again, if you have the full version I think. Just load the result. They should be in your documents folder(3Dmark).


The results is too low anyways, I'll get much higher with my 6600K


----------



## Sean W.

rejected for time stamp? what?


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> rejected for time stamp? what?


I'm fairly certain he's referring to the fact that the run you submitted returned a time measurement error.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I'm fairly certain he's referring to the fact that the run you submitted returned a time measurement error.


yes, thank you. Beat me to it.








"Not a Valid" run.


----------



## Sean W.

thats annoying... why did it do that


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sean W.*
> 
> thats annoying... why did it do that


usually if you start the bench mark before the initial screen has displayed your system info this will happen, that is assuming the OC did not bork the RTC report.


----------



## DStealth

DStealth -- i7 - 5820k/ 4.6 Ghz -- GB WF2 1070 @2113 /9600 -- 6831


----------



## kx11

KX11 - I7 6950x @ 4.29ghz - 1080 HOF 2176 / 5508 - score = 8 647



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/152690


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth -- i7 - 5820k/ 4.6 Ghz -- GB WF2 1070 @2113 /9600 -- 6831


Rejected: no validation link
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> KX11 - I7 6950x @ 4.29ghz - 1080 HOF 2176 / 5508 - score = 8 647
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/152690










Nice Card !! Should be able to spin that 6950X up to 4.5GHz.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Finally broke down and upgraded W8.1Pro to W10 Pro, now I can finally use DX12 - that is if anything ever really utilizes it.


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Arne Saknussemm [email protected] 4900MHz Titan X x2 @ 1248MHz 12350#



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/154232

Squeezing the last drop.....


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Arne Saknussemm [email protected] 4900MHz Titan X x2 @ 1248MHz 12350#
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/154232
> 
> Squeezing the last drop.....


Remarkable CPU score bud! 250+ better than my best 5960x CPU score.

I can't get mine to successfully complete the Time Spy physics test any higher than around 4825 to 4850. I may need to man up and plug my chip directly to the wall.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Finally broke down and upgraded W8.1Pro to W10 Pro, now I can finally use DX12 - that is if anything ever really utilizes it.


i "upgraded" just to have a sub here. if the NSA comes knocking on my door, i'll blame jpmboy.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i "upgraded" just to have a sub here. if the NSA comes knocking on my door, i'll blame jpmboy.


I built a previous W10 rig, so knew where to dig to turn off all the stuff I didn't want running. But if the NSA comes calling, it'll just be to tell me I am the most boring person on the internet.


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> I may need to man up and plug my chip directly to the wall.


LOL! cheers done12many2....I got lucky with this chip for sure.

I had the GPUs running on Gen2.0 in BIOS...someone in this thread said that gives a bit more CPU score...

I see your 1080s are flying!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Finally broke down and upgraded W8.1Pro to W10 Pro, now I can finally use DX12 - that is if anything ever really utilizes it.











... you just got on the "Windows 10 Watch List"
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Arne Saknussemm [email protected] 4900MHz Titan X x2 @ 1248MHz 12350#
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/154232
> 
> Squeezing the last drop.....











Boom! And only a week to go until Pascal Titan launches.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i "upgraded" just to have a sub here. if the NSA comes knocking on my door, i'll blame jpmboy.


another one on the W10WL.


----------



## dagget3450

The only criminals are the law abiding citizens! Those dirty mongrels benchmarking are the worst ones to watch for!! They dont call it Timespy for nothing *evil mechanical laughter*


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> And only a week to go until Pascal Titan launches.


Yep...time to change to the next gen...Titan Xm is dead...long live the Titan Xp


----------



## Duality92

Still feels like maxwell "just got here"


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Still feels like maxwell "just got here"


Nvidia gpus are now like iPhones!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Yep...time to change to the next gen...Titan Xm is dead...long live the Titan Xp


well... your 2 TXs certainly are not "dead". Frankly, SLI TXs are nothing to sneeze at.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Still feels like maxwell "just got here"


it did. product cycle times are too short.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

I put my TX SLI under water 7-16-2015, so a year and a week here. I bought an 8 core CPU because I saw where DX12 was supposed to offload a bunch of something or other to the CPU. Only thing offloaded so far has been my wallet.

Now where are those Pascal Titans?









I can't really complain, that rig has been nothing but sweet and solid since I got it X99 stabilized, it doesn't owe me a dime.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I put my TX SLI under water 7-16-2015, so a year and a week here. I bought an 8 core CPU because I saw where DX12 was supposed to offload a bunch of something or other to the CPU. Only thing offloaded so far has been my wallet.
> Now where are those Pascal Titans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really complain, that rig has been nothing but sweet and solid since I got it X99 stabilized, it doesn't owe me a dime.


It will be quite a while until sli TXs can't hold their own at 1440P 144HZ or 4K 60Hz. I will get a TP or 2, but keep these TXs for a hand-me-down rig. Heck, I gave one nephew a 980Ti Kingpin (80.4%), his cousin is next. It's always a deal tho... grades and Little League!


----------



## M3TAl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> grades and Little League!


5 home runs this season and you get 2 Titan X's kiddo!


----------



## chronicfx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M3TAl*
> 
> 5 home runs this season and you get 2 Titan X's kiddo!


And no errors







gotta praise the defense too


----------



## G00BY

Well, here is my not so op SLI bench.With: i7-4790K @ Stock 4.00Ghz - x2 GTX 970



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13638514?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G00BY*
> 
> Well, here is my not so op SLI bench.With: i7-4790K @ Stock 4.00Ghz - x2 GTX 970
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13638514?


I need a data line for table entry: Username --- [email protected] ---- GPU ---- SCORE


----------



## Devil Inc

Devil Inc --- i5 6600K @ 4.5GHz --- 980ti --- 6146

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/157587



EDIT was a slightly better score.


----------



## lilchronic

lilchronic - 6600k @ 4.9Ghz - 780Ti air cooled @ 1290Mhz / 1925Mhz - 3925
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13640103


----------



## EduardoB

EduardoB --- Intel G3258 @ 4.6Ghz --- GTX 970 @ 1503Mhz / 1831Mhz --- 3313
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/157569


----------



## G00BY

G00BY --- i7-4790K @ 4.00 Ghz ---- GTX 970 TURBO (x2) ---- 6396


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Frankly, SLI TXs are nothing to sneeze at.


This for sure! Only in the bench chasing world could they look like week old lettuce.

I'll probably keep them actually...might finally make a gaming rig and make a separate bench...save on OS installs and BSODs on what's supposed to be my 24/7 PC


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Devil Inc*
> 
> Devil Inc --- i5 6600K @ 4.5GHz --- 980ti --- 6146
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/157587
> 
> EDIT was a slightly better score.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - 6600k @ 4.9Ghz - 780Ti air cooled @ 1290Mhz / 1925Mhz - 3925
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13640103











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EduardoB*
> 
> EduardoB --- Intel G3258 @ 4.6Ghz --- GTX 970 @ 1503Mhz / 1831Mhz --- 3313
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/157569


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G00BY*
> 
> Well, here is my not so op SLI bench.With: i7-4790K @ Stock 4.00Ghz - x2 GTX 970
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13638514?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *G00BY*
> 
> G00BY --- i7-4790K @ 4.00 Ghz ---- GTX 970 TURBO (x2) ---- 6396


Accepted Updated


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected] 970(Single Card)@1563/8400---4243



Validation Link:
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/160645


----------



## alex4069

alex 4069---I5 4690k/4.4ghz---2 Zotac GTX1070 AMP editions---score 8365



Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13666177


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/164692

[email protected]@[email protected]

Graphic driver approved!!!


----------



## Jpmboy

*Added Gfx Score for the Top 30 Single Card Subs. - July 28, 2016*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected] 970(Single Card)@1563/8400---4243
> 
> Validation Link:
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/160645











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> alex 4069---I5 4690k/4.4ghz---2 Zotac GTX1070 AMP editions---score 8365
> 
> Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13666177











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/164692
> [email protected]@[email protected]
> Graphic driver approved!!!


----------



## Vellinious

I've got a lot more work to do here, obviously, but....eh, pretty decent anyway.

Vellinious---i7 6950X @4.0ghz---GTX 980ti (Single Card)@1562/2153--6939

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/163016


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I've got a lot more work to do here, obviously, but....eh, pretty decent anyway.
> 
> Vellinious---i7 6950X @4.0ghz---GTX 980ti (Single Card)@1562/2153--6939
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/163016
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!










5820K score removed. I'm sure you'll be dialing up that 6950X.


----------



## Radox-0

Hope this is okay for a submission









5960x @ 4.6 Ghz --- 3 x GTX 1080's @ 2088 / 2740 ---- 15996


----------



## MR-e

ooo 4 pts short break that 16k!









*Edit* - looks like first page is the top 56 single card results now, kakaka


----------



## Radox-0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sexpot*
> 
> ooo 4 pts short break that 16k!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edit* - looks like first page is the top 56 single card results now, kakaka


Yerrr, just need to give the CPU a small OC to bust 16k. Always end up on the cuff with my results


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Radox-0*
> 
> Hope this is okay for a submission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5960x @ 4.6 Ghz --- 3 x GTX 1080's @ 2088 / 2740 ---- 15996


It would be if you had included the Validation link... I got it off the HOF. One-time gratruity!









http://www.3dmark.com/spy/168168


----------



## Radox-0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> It would be if you had included the Validation link... I got it off the HOF. One-time gratruity!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/168168


Oppsy. Thanks for grabbing the link


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ NP

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX TitanX -- 1522/8000 ---- 12424

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13691385

oops - typo. cpu is at 4.5, not 4.9


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ NP
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX TitanX -- 1522/8000 ---- 12424
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13691385


Good god....what kind of voltage do you have to run through that CPU to get to 4.9? And, what kind of cooling? Teach me....best I can do is 11.9k at 4.510. lol


----------



## Vellinious

Vellinious -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX 980ti -- 1518/2128 ---- 12460

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/169415


----------



## Kimir

The 4.9 is a typo, I see 4.5 in the screen.


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13699197

[email protected]@[email protected]


----------



## outofmyheadyo

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13701387

What is wrong with this score ? I thought it will be north of 8K

6700K @ 4.8
3600ram
gtx 1080 @ 1936mhz

and

7071 points, the hell ?


----------



## stahlhart

n/m


----------



## MunneY

Why... why did I come in this thread... Now I wanna get a new GPU and see what I can shake out


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MunneY*
> 
> Why... why did I come in this thread... Now I wanna get a new GPU and see what I can shake out


What are you waiting for


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> ^^ NP
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX TitanX -- 1522/8000 ---- 12424
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13691385
> oops - typo. cpu is at 4.5, not 4.9











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Vellinious -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX 980ti -- 1518/2128 ---- 12460
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/169415











Nice... you need an EVBOT








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13699197
> [email protected]@[email protected]


----------



## Lord Winchester

Time measurement data not available...

How can i fix this?


----------



## Menthol

Menthol 6950X @ 4600 .. 1080 @ 2164 Time Spy = 8462

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/174657


----------



## Menthol

Menthol 6950X @ 4600 .. 1080 X2 @ 2151 Time Spy = 14211

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/174776


----------



## Menthol

Menthol 6950X @ 4700 .. 1080 X3 @ 2062 Time Spy = 18816

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113211



Air cooled EVGA FTW X 3 stock bios, only have universal blocks for 2 cards


----------



## Radox-0

That's a pretty amazing clock on that 6950x. Nice. You need a forth 1080 and top the HOF board


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Winchester*
> 
> Time measurement data not available...
> How can i fix this?


let system info finish it's hardware survey before starting the benchmark.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol 6950X @ 4600 .. 1080 @ 2164 Time Spy = 8462
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/174657











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol 6950X @ 4600 .. 1080 X2 @ 2151 Time Spy = 14211
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/174776











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol 6950X @ 4700 .. 1080 X3 @ 2062 Time Spy = 18816
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113211
> 
> 
> 
> Air cooled EVGA FTW X 3 stock bios, only have universal blocks for 2 cards











*! Overall First Place !*
Damn good scaling with DX12.








lol - I have a spare Ek uniblock laying around... well at least until Tuesday.








no really - PM me if you want to borrow it.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol 6950X @ 4700 .. 1080 X3 @ 2062 Time Spy = 18816
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113211
> 
> 
> 
> Air cooled EVGA FTW X 3 stock bios, only have universal blocks for 2 cards


Nice score, menthol...

And nice post repeating...










Suggest you to flash the latest 3301 bios, runs a bit better...


----------



## Menthol

Thanks I seem to have e decent 6950 but I had damaged the socket oins and got a new RVE but it is acting temperamental with either the 6950 or 5960, hangs for long time on a couple codes, may have to send it back
Jpmboy thanks for the offer but I need to sell these soon for the big brother TX


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Thanks I seem to have e decent 6950 but I had damaged the socket oins and got a new RVE but it is acting temperamental with either the 6950 or 5960, hangs for long time on a couple codes, may have to send it back
> Jpmboy thanks for the offer but I need to *sell these soon for the big brother TX*


lol - sold my (one) a few days ago.








Yeah - I was going to mention the physics score seemed low for that clock...








That just means higher scores to come!

(psst - get the R5E-10)


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol 6950X @ 4700 .. 1080 X3 @ 2062 Time Spy = 18816
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/113211
> 
> 
> 
> Air cooled EVGA FTW X 3 stock bios, only have universal blocks for 2 cards


What are you using for cooling on the CPU, and what voltage did you need to bump to, to get it to run there?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> What are you using for cooling on the CPU, and what voltage did you need to bump to, to get it to run there?


the voltage is in the screenshot. If the chip is capable, vccin and I suspect not much more would be needed. That's one of the best 6950X's I've seen.
Many of the voltage controls available on the R5E or R5E-10 are not provided in the X99A bios.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> the voltage is in the screenshot. If the chip is capable, vccin and I suspect not much more would be needed. That's one of the best 6950X's I've seen.
> Many of the voltage controls available on the R5E or R5E-10 are not provided in the X99A bios.


Just looked at it. There's no way mine would run there. I can barely keep 4.6 any kind of stable at that voltage.


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Thanks I seem to have e decent 6950 but I had damaged the socket oins and got a new RVE but it is acting temperamental with either the 6950 or 5960, hangs for long time on a couple codes, may have to send it back
> Jpmboy thanks for the offer but I need to sell these soon for the big brother TX


Comparing scores, I am not seeing much difference between RVE and RV10 with a 6950x...

If you finally purchase the RV10 I'll see your impressions...










I waiting for Titans too, but don't know how to buy em here in Spain. My preferred local store told me Nvidia plans to sell em in its web, but cant order it that way in my country...


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- TITAN-X @1591MHz -- 7221:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/178504*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Just looked at it. There's no way mine would run there. I can barely keep 4.6 any kind of stable at that voltage.


same here. mine 4.5 @ 1.425V, it will do 1x4.6 + 9x4.5 at the same voltage. But that does not help with this benchmark, which looks to be the only FM benchmark that uses all 20 threads.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- TITAN-X @1591MHz -- 7221:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/178504*


----------



## Leipatemeibbaa

leipatemeibbaa -- i7 4930k @ 4.4Ghz -- GTX 1080 @ 2080/5300 -- score 11952 (graphics 13897)

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/144877

I did another Time Spy benchmark run got a little bit improvement.


----------



## Lord Winchester

Lord Winchester -- i7 5960x @ 4.5Ghz -- GTX 980 @ 1514/1798 -- score 9176 (graphics 9138)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13738245




Looks like the stronges 980´s (for now)


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> same here. mine 4.5 @ 1.425V, it will do 1x4.6 + 9x4.5 at the same voltage. But that does not help with this benchmark, which looks to be the only FM benchmark that uses all 20 threads.


I seemed to find a decent combination last night. 4.6 @ 1.485v with memory at 3200. It worked well for both Firestrike and Timespy.

Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 980TI x2 @ 1531 / 2138 -- 12611

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/177380



Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 980TI x1 @ 1567 / 2153 -- 7001

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/177630


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leipatemeibbaa*
> 
> leipatemeibbaa -- i7 4930k @ 4.4Ghz -- GTX 1080 @ 2080/5300 -- score 11952 (graphics 13897)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/144877
> 
> I did another Time Spy benchmark run got a little bit improvement.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Winchester*
> 
> Lord Winchester -- i7 5960x @ 4.5Ghz -- GTX 980 @ 1514/1798 -- score 9176 (graphics 9138)
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13738245
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the stronges 980´s (for now)











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I seemed to find a decent combination last night. 4.6 @ 1.485v with memory at 3200. It worked well for both Firestrike and Timespy.
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 980TI x2 @ 1531 / 2138 -- 12611
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/177380
> 
> 
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 980TI x1 @ 1567 / 2153 -- 7001
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/177630










x2
May need to tune the ram oc a bit.
Something is holding back that 6950X. *This rig gets >13K CPU score @ 4.5GHz*.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x2
> May need to tune the ram oc a bit.
> Something is holding back that 6950X. *This rig gets >13K CPU score @ 4.5GHz*.


Memory may not have been stable? I noticed that getting the memory clock back above 3000 really helped the score a lot. I'm installing the new board today, and will see what I come up with on it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Memory may not have been stable? I noticed that getting the memory clock back above 3000 really helped the score a lot. I'm installing the new board today, and will see what I come up with on it.


yeah, the x99A, tho a good board, is a base model. What new board?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, the x99A, tho a good board, is a base model. What new board?


Trying the EVGA X99 FTW K. My first impression is...I don't like the layout of the bios. The MSI and ASUS bios were much easier to navigate. But....I've only ever used MSI and ASUS boards. /shrug


----------



## looniam

*looniam - - - i7-2600K @ 4.9 - - - 780TI @ 1267/7700 - - - 3551*



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13750119*


----------



## Vellinious

Ok. That was a big mistake. The bios on these EVGA boards is just awful. It's going back. I'll get the new revision X99A or something instead. Ugh


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Ok. That was a big mistake. The bios on these EVGA boards is just awful. It's going back. I'll get the new revision X99A or something instead. Ugh


That CPU deserves the Rampage.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> That CPU deserves the Rampage.


Not a big fan of the ROG boards, and would like to stay away from ASUS all together this time. MSI maybe....


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *looniam - - - i7-2600K @ 4.9 - - - 780TI @ 1267/7700 - - - 3551*
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13750119*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Not a big fan of the ROG boards, and would like to stay away from ASUS all together this time. *MSI maybe*....


I'll say my condolences in advance then.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll say my condolences in advance then.


Read some reviews, and honestly.....not really impressed with any of them. So, I stuck with the familiar. I bought the X99A II. When it arrives on Wednesday, the FTW K goes back. RMA is already approved, just gotta put the return shipping label on the box and wash my hands of one of the worst bios versions I have ever encountered.


----------



## looniam

but but but the FTW K is. . . 










on more of a side note, eVGA is great w/RMAs. i called last night that my 980TI SC+ was all flonky crashing 64c in benches and 71c in games. dropped it off at the fedex store today . .hopefully get something "better" in a week or so.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> but but but the FTW K is. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on more of a side note, eVGA is great w/RMAs. i called last night that my 980TI SC+ was all flonky crashing 64c in benches and 71c in games. dropped it off at the fedex store today . .hopefully get something "better" in a week or so.


EVGA's customer service is absolutely the best in the business. They're quick to respond and very attentive to their customer's needs. However....I feel they could have....and should have, paid a lot more attention to what other company's were using in their "enthusiast" platform motherboards, and created a bios that was not only worthy of putting on an enthusiast platform build but would also be, at a minimum, competitive with them, instead of the travesty that they used that looks more like something you'd see on an entry level board, with overly simplistic capabilities.

Very simply...putting that bios on an enthusiast platform board is something akin to giving doctoral students finger paints with which to do their thesis.

I buy EVGA almost exclusively for PSUs and GPUs, but....it'll be a good long while before I buy another one of their motherboards.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Very simply...putting that bios on an enthusiast platform board is something akin to giving doctoral students finger paints with which to do their thesis.
> 
> I buy EVGA almost exclusively for PSUs and GPUs, but....it'll be a good long while before I buy another one of their motherboards.












i'll take your word for it, not that i am judging your thoughts, i haven't had one of their board since a 650 ultra. funny thing is both OCers and i think anandtech or tweaktown said they have improved the bios layout - mind you eVGA was the last to use a GUI. i haven't had any issues with asus (knock on wood) so sticking with what i know.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> *EVGA's customer service is absolutely the best in the business.*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> They're quick to respond and very attentive to their customer's needs. However....I feel they could have....and should have, paid a lot more attention to what other company's were using in their "enthusiast" platform motherboards, and created a bios that was not only worthy of putting on an enthusiast platform build but would also be, at a minimum, competitive with them, instead of the travesty that they used that looks more like something you'd see on an entry level board, with overly simplistic capabilities.
> 
> Very simply...putting that bios on an enthusiast platform board is something akin to giving doctoral students finger paints with which to do their thesis.
> 
> I buy EVGA almost exclusively for PSUs and GPUs, but....it'll be a good long while before I buy another one of their motherboards.


Absolutely. No other is even close!


----------



## octiny

OCTINY - - - i7 5820K @ 4.8 - - - GTX 1080 SLI @ 1894/11100 - - - 12547


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/195212


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *octiny*
> 
> OCTINY - - - i7 5820K @ 4.8 - - - GTX 1080 SLI @ 1894/11100 - - - 12547
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/195212


----------



## kx11

ah crap

can't find a link to this result


maybe because i'm on the new driver ?!!


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> ah crap
> 
> can't find a link to this result
> 
> 
> maybe because i'm on the new driver ?!!


Out of curiosity...what was your CPU score during that run.

Also, I believe if you click on the results tab, next to the options tab, you should be able to load up that result for a proper screenshot. Once loaded, click on Compare Result Online, and it'll be there.


----------



## kx11

i forgot what it was but it running @ 4.39ghz actually


----------



## kx11

kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Galax HOF 1080 SLix2 @ 2113mhz/11012mem --- 14 075



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13799012?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Galax HOF 1080 SLix2 @ 2113mhz/11012mem --- 14 075
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13799012?












you really need to work on your system ram. c17 is the ceiling for CAS, higher values (and even 17 at times) can screw up RTLs and IOL on the ram timings. You system ram alone is costing a lot of points.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

I downloaded Time Spy, every time I tried to run it I got "OOps, an error occurred" and a 0 score. So I uninstalled the whole Futuremark everything, I never could find out how to make it run, or what was causing the error.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you really need to work on your system ram. c17 is the ceiling for CAS, higher values (and even 17 at times) can screw up RTLs and IOL on the ram timings. You system ram alone is costing a lot of points.


i'll try to knock it down until i learn how memory OC works


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> I downloaded Time Spy, every time I tried to run it I got "OOps, an error occurred" and a 0 score. So I uninstalled the whole Futuremark everything, I never could find out how to make it run, or what was causing the error.


rt click the MS menu> run? DXDIAG. you have W10 and a TX. TimeSpy should work. Oops usually shows up with a GPU that is not DX12 capable.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Yeah, W10 Pro, latest WHQL driver, running DX12. I just flushed the whole thing, I had the paid version of 3DMark stuff, but couldn't tell if I was just adding Time Spy or what - it seemed like it DL'd a whole new 3DMark suite of stuff, like 3.9GB, and maybe that was jacking it up. No biggie, I just wanted to run _something_ in DX12.


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GnarlyCharlie*
> 
> Yeah, W10 Pro, latest WHQL driver, running DX12. I just flushed the whole thing, I had the paid version of 3DMark stuff, but couldn't tell if I was just adding Time Spy or what - it seemed like it DL'd a whole new 3DMark suite of stuff, like 3.9GB, and maybe that was jacking it up. No biggie, I just wanted to run _something_ in DX12.


I improved stability quite a bit by updating to 3301 BIOS, shutting off RivaTuner OSD and disabling HPET, which I forgot I had enabled. It added a couple of hundred points on average to the scores, too. I can still crash it now, but only by pushing the GPU overclock too high.


----------



## Baasha

This is not a submission per se but just ran Time Spy with one Titan X (Pascal) @ 2050 / 5832 (+225 / + 825) and here's the score:



Also, not sure why I'm getting the 'Validation Warning' - "GPU Not recognized" error. Do I need to reinstall drivers?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> This is not a submission per se but just ran Time Spy with one Titan X (Pascal) @ 2050 / 5832 (+225 / + 825) and here's the score:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, not sure why I'm getting the 'Validation Warning' - "GPU Not recognized" error. Do I need to reinstall drivers?


FM has not pushed out an SI that will verify the GPUs or the driver.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] -- SLI GTX TitanXP ---- 2050/11000 -- 16124

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13841563


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX TXP --- 10577

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13843743


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX TXP --- 10577
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13843743


Noice!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Noice!


Just waiting for you to sub...


----------



## Lord Winchester

How is it, that people get much higher Results with about the same Clock speed? Or does it all go to my silicone lottery fail 5960x max 4.5ghz?


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Winchester*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it, that people get much higher Results with about the same Clock speed? Or does it all go to my silicone lottery fail 5960x max 4.5ghz?


Reported GPU frequency detected by Sysinfo is not necessarily the real frequency, cpu core frequency is not all, cache and memory frequency is also helping, same thing for gpu. Also, locking the frequency at 100% does help.


----------



## Lord Winchester

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Reported GPU frequency detected by Sysinfo is not necessarily the real frequency, cpu core frequency is not all, cache and memory frequency is also helping, same thing for gpu. Also, locking the frequency at 100% does help.


Locking what frequency?

?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4875MHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2075MHz -- 10 430:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/209968*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- SLI GTX TitanXP ---- 2050/11000 -- 16124
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13841563











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX TXP --- 10577
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13843743











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4875MHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2075MHz -- 10 430:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/209968*












Can only get better as drivers improve.


----------



## Silent Scone

What I've managed so far on daily clocks (not an entry, yet







)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13863099


----------



## Menthol

My first run with TXP

Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2062 -- 10638



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/211381


----------



## Silent Scone

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13863689

Why, Menthol, why you gotta go and do that?


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> My first run with TXP
> 
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2062 -- 10638
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/211381


Why pcie Gen 2 8x ?


----------



## MR-e

Possibly less overhead on CPU for higher score overall, since PCIe gen 3 isn't even saturated?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> My first run with TXP
> 
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2062 -- 10638
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/211381


What memory are you running? I haven't been able to find any 3400 certified memory running less than 15....had to drop to 3200 to get 14.


----------



## Menthol

Not sure why it is pcie 8, maybe because a couple pcie ssd's, will have to look into that, had pcie set to 2.0 in bios for CPU overhead
memory is Gskill 3200 14-14-14, same as Jpmboy is using I believe and he runs even tighter timings, I do seem to have a decent CPU purchased from Silicon lottery


----------



## Baasha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Not sure why it is pcie 8, maybe because a couple pcie ssd's, will have to look into that, had pcie set to 2.0 in bios for CPU overhead
> memory is Gskill 3200 14-14-14, same as Jpmboy is using I believe and he runs even tighter timings, I do seem to have a decent CPU purchased from Silicon lottery


What kind of cooling do you have for your CPU?

4.6Ghz on a 6950X is amazing...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> My first run with TXP
> 
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2062 -- 10638
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/211381


----------



## Menthol

Add a little chilled water and things start to get interesting, will see what it tops out at later tonight

Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2151 -- 11001



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13870816


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> What kind of cooling do you have for your CPU?
> 
> 4.6Ghz on a 6950X is amazing...


Using a water chiller, can 3D bench at 4.7 but CPU scores about the same in 3D

Had to make some bios changes in onboard devices to get PCIE 2.0X16 back, it's the USB 3.1 U.2 on this board that wasn't on the RVE, funny I didn't have to do it with the 1080's, I'll have to review my submissions to check this


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Add a little chilled water and things start to get interesting, will see what it tops out at later tonight
> 
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2151 -- 11001
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13870816


Damn...


----------



## chronicfx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Radox-0*
> 
> Yerrr, just need to give the CPU a small OC to bust 16k. Always end up on the cuff with my results


Overclock your ram a touch. Probably easier


----------



## chronicfx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- SLI GTX TitanXP ---- 2050/11000 -- 16124
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13841563


Wish I could have been your apprentice when you were going up the ladder at work! You have it made! Top notch tech all the time!


----------



## Baasha

Trying out SLI for the first time:

*Baasha* -- 6950X @4.30GHz -- TITAN X Pascal SLI @ 2025 MHz / 11404 MHz -- *16,091*

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13872320


----------



## marc0053

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Add a little chilled water and things start to get interesting, will see what it tops out at later tonight
> 
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2151 -- 11001
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13870816


Great job Menthol!!


----------



## Jpmboy

I think this is the best I can do on air...








Hitting 67C and throttling starts at 45C. ugh

jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP --- 10734

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13872824


----------



## chronicfx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can only get better as drivers improve.


and they will







You don't see the nvidia plan, hold back 1080 SLI scaling until Titan releases and have titan be just a bit slower that 1080 SLI... Then bam, here are your real drivers as of mid-september when the titan X sales slow down.


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Great job Menthol!!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Great job Menthol!!


Thanks marc0053 but I can't tough you guys using Win 10, I don't know how to tweak it like I can Win 7
You guys are besting me in every 3DMARK benchmark I need to figure this out


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Add a little chilled water and things start to get interesting, will see what it tops out at later tonight
> Menthol -- 6950X @ 4600MHZ -- Titan X Pascal @ 2151 -- 11001
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13870816











premature Boom shaklaka!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Trying out SLI for the first time:
> *Baasha* -- 6950X @4.30GHz -- TITAN X Pascal SLI @ 2025 MHz / 11404 MHz -- *16,091*
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13872320











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I think this is the best I can do on air...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitting 67C and throttling starts at 45C. ugh
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP --- 10734
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13872824


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP -- 17299 (stock air)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13899408


----------



## kx11

looking good


----------



## vmanuelgm

Bored waiting for TitanX Pascal (which I bought on 2 august and didnt arrive), did a better score:



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/224397

[email protected]@[email protected]


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Bored waiting for TitanX Pascal (which I bought on 2 august and didnt arrive), did a better score:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/224397
> 
> [email protected]@[email protected]


That's a very good score, beat marc( one of the best )!









With that set up and a decent Titan-X, you should get 11,000 no problem. Hope your cards come soon. Take care!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Thanks tooshort, i am angry with digital river, they know nothing about my order!!! Not serious.

Ordered only one, maybe next month purchase the second.

Best regards.


----------



## Kimir

You didn't bought it directly from Nvidia?
A colleague of mine bought the 1080 there, got it in 3 days.


----------



## vmanuelgm

I bought from nvidia.es webpage, but its digital river which processes the order and you have to contact them to know about it...

So I ordered mine on august 2nd 14:40 english hour and I dont know if it has shipped, or its coming, or the delivering Company... I think its not serious, first time I purchase something of 1000+ euros in stock (1-3 working days) and after 3 days I ignore everything about the order... Digital River doesn't even know which is the pickup location!!! Its pathetic...



Wrote to Nvidia directly and no reply yet...


----------



## stahlhart

stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming 6G 980Ti SLI --- 10718

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/228219



stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming 6G 980Ti --- 6409

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/228310

Updated scores. Changes: motherboard BIOS 3301, Windows 10 1607 build, HPET disabled.

I think that this is about all I'm going to get out of it.


----------



## GTRtank

Update:

GTRtank --- 3770K @ 5.1GHz --- 980ti @ 1503/2076 --- 6081

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/229548


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 290 [email protected]/1375 --- 7849

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/230922

You can remove my old 290/390 CF run.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP -- 17299 (stock air)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13899408











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Bored waiting for TitanX Pascal (which I bought on 2 august and didnt arrive), did a better score:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/224397
> [email protected]@[email protected]











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming 6G 980Ti SLI --- 10718
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/228219
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI Gaming 6G 980Ti --- 6409
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/228310
> Updated scores. Changes: motherboard BIOS 3301, Windows 10 1607 build, HPET disabled.
> I think that this is about all I'm going to get out of it.










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTRtank*
> 
> Update:
> GTRtank --- 3770K @ 5.1GHz --- 980ti @ 1503/2076 --- 6081
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/229548











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 290 [email protected]/1375 --- 7849
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/230922
> 
> You can remove my old 290/390 CF run.


----------



## Lord Winchester

Correct me, if i'm wrong. I thought the Windows 10 Anniversary update was very bad for the total Performance of the computer.

I ran the timespy benchmark and couldn't get a higher score than the one i have posted, but it was very close to my highest. The only thing i figured out is, that geforce experience showing only half the framerate (30 fps instead of 60).

I will reinstall some Drivers and give it a go.


----------



## fyzzz

Update

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 290 [email protected]/1475 --- 8041
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/257122


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 6700k @ 4.944 -- Titan XP @ 2063/5544 --- 9407

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/256499


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Update
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 290 [email protected]/1475 --- 8041
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/257122


Hey bud - do me a favor and disable Tess in CCC. Curious to see how much tessellation TS uses.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 6700k @ 4.944 -- Titan XP @ 2063/5544 --- 9407
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/256499


----------



## fyzzz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Hey bud - do me a favor and disable Tess in CCC. Curious to see how much tessellation TS uses.


I did a quick test with single card. Am I missing something?
Clocks 1200/1425 - Tess on http://www.3dmark.com/spy/275921 - 4524 gpu score and tess off, exactly the same score:


----------



## WarchildReese

WarchildReese--- 4770k @ 3.7GHz -- Titan XP @ 2076/5607 --- 8121
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14124952


Air cooled system, stock CPU. Once again interesting to see in these benchmarks how the CPU affects the scores. I dont mind having the worst Titan XP score!







I am providing insight into the range of CPU's


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> I did a quick test with single card. Am I missing something?
> Clocks 1200/1425 - Tess on http://www.3dmark.com/spy/275921 - 4524 gpu score and tess off, exactly the same score:


if you had disabled tess, the run would/should not validate. Need to set surface opt off and tess off. I'll post one for my 295x2 in a bit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarchildReese*
> 
> WarchildReese--- 4770k @ 3.7GHz -- Titan XP @ 2076/5607 --- 8121
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14124952
> 
> Air cooled system, stock CPU. Once again interesting to see in these benchmarks how the CPU affects the scores. I dont mind having the worst Titan XP score!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am providing insight into the range of CPU's


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> I did a quick test with single card. Am I missing something?
> Clocks 1200/1425 - Tess on http://www.3dmark.com/spy/275921 - 4524 gpu score and tess off, exactly the same score:


Nah man - you are right. I tried the same on my 4960X/R9 295x2 rig...The AMD driver controller is not changing the tessellation setting in TS, or maybe DX12 is not impacted by any settings in CCC. Interesting!


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX Titan XP --- 11021

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/249799


----------



## Kimir

When you are hitting the power limit when your card's only at 19°c.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

The good card? nice score.









water block is on mine, nice difference.


----------



## KillerBee33

Don't have a screenshot , not Home







here's my 2 cents








http://www.3dmark.com/spy/283962


----------



## dante`afk

dante`afk --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- TitanX(Pascal) @ 2063 / 1377Mhz --- 9172
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/287508


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- TITAN X (Pascal) @2113MHz -- 10818:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/285350*


----------



## Silent Scone

EK need to get their act together so I don't have to listen to that terrible blower anymore lol.


----------



## alawadhi3000

alawadhi3000 -- [email protected] -- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2038MHz/10912MHz -- 12453



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/194837


----------



## KillerBee33

killerbee33 -- 6700K @ 4.6GHz TITANX Pascal @ 2100MHZ/1389MHz -- 9406
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288093


----------



## Jpmboy

yeah, this one card is a whole lot better than it's stable mate.









jpmboy --- [email protected] -- TX Titan XP --- 11179

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288417

lol- I have an 11208 but didn;t screenshot it.








http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288478
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> When you are hitting the power limit when your card's only at 19°c.


makes a major difference in performance... even with my crap card. I'd rather not do the clu "soft" mod... a bios editor would fix the PL problem!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> EK need to get their act together so I don't have to listen to that terrible blower anymore lol.


On I know... but they are not all that bad for OEM coolers. I haven't received a shipping notice on my blocks yet - daaum. running uni blocks atm.


----------



## Baasha

*Baasha* -- i7 6950X @ 4.30 Ghz -- GTX TITAN X PASCAL SLI @ 2000 Mhz / 11404 Mhz -- *16,294*

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14178076


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dante`afk*
> 
> dante`afk --- 4790k @ 4.7Ghz --- TitanX(Pascal) @ 2063 / 1377Mhz --- 9172
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/287508
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.75GHz -- TITAN X (Pascal) @2113MHz -- 10818:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/285350*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> alawadhi3000 -- [email protected] -- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2038MHz/10912MHz -- 12453
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/194837











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> killerbee33 -- 6700K @ 4.6GHz TITANX Pascal @ 2100MHZ/1389MHz -- 9406
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288093











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah, this one card is a whole lot better than it's stable mate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- TX Titan XP --- 11179
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288417
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> lol- I have an 11208 but didn;t screenshot it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/288478
> makes a major difference in performance... even with my crap card. I'd rather not do the clu "soft" mod... a bios editor would fix the PL problem!
> On I know... but they are not all that bad for OEM coolers. I haven't received a shipping notice on my blocks yet - daaum. running uni blocks atm.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> *Baasha* -- i7 6950X @ 4.30 Ghz -- GTX TITAN X PASCAL SLI @ 2000 Mhz / 11404 Mhz -- *16,294*
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14178076
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Mad Pistol

Mad Pistol -- i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz -- SLI GTX 1070 FE (+150/+600) -- 9574

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/289139


----------



## opt33

opt33-- i7 6900k @ 4.4ghz...Titan XP 2088/1377 score 10608
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14192311?


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/291926

[email protected]@3344--TitanX [email protected]


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Mad Pistol -- i7 4790K @ 4.8Ghz -- SLI GTX 1070 FE (+150/+600) -- 9574
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/289139











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> opt33-- i7 6900k @ 4.4ghz...Titan XP 2088/1377 score 10608
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14192311?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/291926
> [email protected]@3344--TitanX [email protected]


----------



## Mad Pistol

Here's the single 1070 as requested.

Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k @ 4.8Ghz -- GTX 1070 FE (+180/+700) -- 6138

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14200785


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.94GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11030:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/303235*

11,000+ across the board gpu, cpu and score!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.94GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11030:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/303235*
> 
> 11,000+ across the board gpu, cpu and score!


Nice score, Tooshort...

And nice cpu oc!!! Great silicon!!!


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> Nice score, Tooshort...
> 
> And nice cpu oc!!! Great silicon!!!


Thanks man. I seen you got your TXP earlier. Glad you got it and a good one too!


----------



## vmanuelgm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Thanks man. I seen you got your TXP earlier. Glad you got it and a good one too!


Titans are all the same more or less...

Voltage unlocking would be great, hope it is possible in the near future!!!


----------



## Silent Scone

Didn't save this one, blocked up though









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14248925


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.94GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11030:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/303235*
> 
> 11,000+ across the board gpu, cpu and score!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Didn't save this one, blocked up though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14248925











Dude - grab a screenshot next time!!


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Maintenance Bot -- 6700k @ 4.6Ghz -- TXP @ 2088Mhz -- 9349



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14252475?


----------



## Vellinious

Can't wait to get these under water.

Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 1080x2 @ 2113 / 2778 -- 9349

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/307360


----------



## Baasha

I'm trying to run Time Spy w/ 4-Way SLI Titan XP and am getting a lower score than with 2-Way SLI.

Is there some setting/tweak we have to use to get it to work properly? The GPU usage seems to be quite low across all four cards: ~ 50% which is turd-like.

Please help!


----------



## KillerBee33

killerbee33--6700k @ 4.6--titanx pascal @ 2126/1401--9580
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14255910


----------



## opt33

opt33....6900K @ 4.4ghz.....titan XP 2138/1389..... 10738

With power throttling, 12C lower ambient (A/C ducting) with +50 higher gpu didnt do much.
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/312404


----------



## fyzzz

Update

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1700(290 mem 1500) --- 8080

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/313384
My 390 seems to be working again. Managed to beat my old 290 CF score, even with much lower clockspeeds.


----------



## vmanuelgm

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/314052

[email protected]@[email protected]


----------



## looniam

*UPDATE*
looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1485/7800 - - - 5440



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14298966*


----------



## lilchronic

lilchronic - 6600K @ 5.3Ghz - GTX 780Ti @ 1466Mhz -1953Mhz - 4362

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14305469


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Maintenance Bot -- 6700k @ 4.6Ghz -- TXP @ 2088Mhz -- 9349
> 
> [IM
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> G ALT=""]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2854289/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14252475?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Can't wait to get these under water.
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- 1080x2 @ 2113 / 2778 -- 9349
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/307360
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> killerbee33--6700k @ 4.6--titanx pascal @ 2126/1401--9580
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14255910
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> opt33....6900K @ 4.4ghz.....titan XP 2138/1389..... 10738
> 
> With power throttling, 12C lower ambient (A/C ducting) with +50 higher gpu didnt do much.
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/312404
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Update
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1700(290 mem 1500) --- 8080
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/313384
> My 390 seems to be working again. Managed to beat my old 290 CF score, even with much lower clockspeeds.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vmanuelgm*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/314052
> 
> [email protected]@[email protected]











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1485/7800 - - - 5440
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14298966*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - 6600K @ 5.3Ghz - GTX 780Ti @ 1466Mhz -1953Mhz - 4362
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14305469


----------



## fat4l

Fat4l - 4790K @ 5.1Ghz - GTX 1080 @ 2189MHz Core / 11016MHz Mem

7900Points, 8508Graphics score!
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14317122?


----------



## Edge0fsanity

Edge0fSanity -- 6700K @ 4.932ghz -- Titan XP @ 2088/5899 -- 9849

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14320292? 10831 graphics


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1485/7800 - - - 5440
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14298966*
Click to expand...

sorry, didn't mean to make you do that work for a few points (didn't realize that until much later)









but thanks for the help/advice about getting a uni block; seeing ~45c benching on the card and then 74c-76c on the cpu with 54c on the gpu _running both prime95 blend and furmark_ with a single EK-CE280 rad w/push fans.


----------



## done12many2

**Updated SLI run**

done12many2 ---- 5960x @ 4.8 --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2113/2746 --- 14,146

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/325185


----------



## Salem13

Salem13 [email protected] EVGA1070 FTW DT 2113/4605 6270

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/325561


----------



## sdhunter67

sdhunter67 --- 6850k/4.4 GHz --- MSI 1080 SEAHAWK EK SLI @ 2063/5508 --- 12308

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/330269


----------



## GRABibus

Is this a cheat ?

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/331508

One TITAN X Maxwelll with graphics score 10440pts...
Core clock 2GHz ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> Fat4l - 4790K @ 5.1Ghz - GTX 1080 @ 2189MHz Core / 11016MHz Mem
> 
> 7900Points, 8508Graphics score!
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14317122?











Hellofa GFX score!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> sorry, didn't mean to make you do that work for a few points (didn't realize that until much later)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but thanks for the help/advice about getting a uni block; seeing ~45c benching on the card and then 74c-76c on the cpu with 54c on the gpu _running both prime95 blend and furmark_ with a single EK-CE280 rad w/push fans.


NP bro!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> **Updated SLI run**
> 
> done12many2 ---- 5960x @ 4.8 --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2113/2746 --- 14,146
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/325185











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Salem13*
> 
> Salem13 [email protected] EVGA1070 FTW DT 2113/4605 6270
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/325561











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdhunter67*
> 
> sdhunter67 --- 6850k/4.4 GHz --- MSI 1080 SEAHAWK EK SLI @ 2063/5508 --- 12308
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/330269











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Is this a cheat ?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/331508
> 
> One TITAN X Maxwelll with graphics score 10440pts...
> Core clock 2GHz ?


a TXM @ 2000? then the score is about right.


----------



## Vellinious

Newest toy

Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- TitanXp @ 2063 / 2797 -- 10738

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/339719


----------



## GTRtank

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Newest toy
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- TitanXp @ 2063 / 2797 -- 10738
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/339719


Nice... Hell of an upgrade! Haha jealous...


----------



## Bride

Bride -- 6600K @ 4.4 -- GTX 950 @ 1582 / 2003 -- 2335

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14424004


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Newest toy
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.6 -- TitanXp @ 2063 / 2797 -- 10738
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/339719
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bride*
> 
> Bride -- 6600K @ 4.4 -- GTX 950 @ 1582 / 2003 -- 2335
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14424004


----------



## fyzzz

Update,

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1700(290 mem 1500) --- 8207

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/352312


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.94GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11 069:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/360450*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Update,
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1700(290 mem 1500) --- 8207
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/352312











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.94GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11 069:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/360450*











have you tried the CLU mod?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

No mod, just cold air. Maybe the next cold day I will try it.


----------



## ottoore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> just cold air


23C max temp, you meant cold water?


----------



## Kimir

nono, cold air through the radiators.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> No mod, just cold air. Maybe the next cold day I will try it.


eh - I just have this thing about doing a mod that has no "standard". I mean we're hoping the change in resistance is "just right".


----------



## ottoore

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> nono, cold air through the radiators.


----------



## owikhan

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14530577?

Zotac GTX 1070 AMP EXTREME EDITION


----------



## KillerBee33

killerbee33--6700k @ stock 4.2--TitanX Pascal @ 2126+1411---9604 New Driver 372.70
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14539732


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.5 -- Titan XP @ 2101 / 1418 --- 11248

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/375199


----------



## owikhan

Owikhan | 6518 | Core i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz | Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme Edition @ 1708/ 2435Mhz | Gskill Trident X 2666mhz 8GB

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14548749?



@Jpmboy


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> killerbee33--6700k @ stock 4.2--TitanX Pascal @ 2126+1411---9604 New Driver 372.70
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14539732











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.5 -- Titan XP @ 2101 / 1418 --- 11248
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/375199












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *owikhan*
> 
> Owikhan | 6518 | Core i7 4790k @ 4.8ghz | Zotac 1070 Amp Extreme Edition @ 1708/ 2435Mhz | Gskill Trident X 2666mhz 8GB
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14548749?
> 
> 
> 
> @Jpmboy











@owikhan
If you want to "ping" a member, type the name, select it and click the @ tool in the post editor.


----------



## KickAssCop

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14591939?

KickAssCop ---- [email protected] GHz --- 2050/11000 in SLi --- 12,361

No screenshot available.

Will try for higher and comply with thread rules once done.


----------



## KillerBee33

killerbee33--6700K @ 4.6--TitanX Pascal @ 2126 / 1411
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14622455

Finally 372.70 is approved and can't get the same GFX score as that








http://www.3dmark.com/spy/373279


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> killerbee33--6700K @ 4.6--TitanX Pascal @ 2126 / 1411
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14622455
> 
> Finally 372.70 is approved and can't get the same GFX score as that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/373279











Didn't have to wait for the driver to be approved to post here.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't have to wait for the driver to be approved to post here.


Let's see if Swiftechs loop will keep my 6700 @ 4.9 with reasonable Temps







i might get into 10K


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX Titan XP -- 11443

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14634542


----------



## Lennyx

Lennyx -- [email protected],8GHz -- Titan XP -- 9343

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/397175


----------



## dante`afk

update

dante`afk --- 4790k @ 4.6Ghz --- TitanX(Pascal) --- 9445 
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/401270


----------



## Bride

Hi guys, with my overclock settings I haven't problems with Firestrike Benchmark, Heaven Benchmark, Valley Benchmark and Firestrike Stress Test... but I can not pass Time Spy. I have the memory at 2055MHz, changing it on 2000MHz, I'm also passing Time Spy... there is a different load with the DirectX 12 right? I keep 2000 or 2055MHz? thanks in advance for any advice


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX Titan XP -- 11443
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14634542











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lennyx*
> 
> Lennyx -- [email protected],8GHz -- Titan XP -- 9343
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/397175











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dante`afk*
> 
> update
> 
> dante`afk --- 4790k @ 4.6Ghz --- TitanX(Pascal) --- 9445
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/401270


----------



## KedarWolf

One Titan XP Beating x2 Titan X's (not Pascal). And that's with a
healthy CPU and GPUs OC.









You think there is something wrong with my bench or is this to be expected?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> One Titan XP Beating x2 Titan X's (not Pascal). And that's with a
> healthy CPU and GPUs OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is something wrong with my bench or is this to be expected?


Your Graphics Score is low....you should be up above 12k.


----------



## Kimir

that one sick CPU tho! I'm jelly.


----------



## KedarWolf

Question?

Do you need SLI enabled with Directx12 with two identical video cards?

I ask because I was trying to run a max voltage BIOS for a few benches on my custom air Titan X, it works, except no matter what I do when I try to enable SLI I get a TDR Failure BSOD, even on a clean install of Windows.

I'm sure i physically messed up the card somehow that's causing this issue, I tried every fix in the book, flashing different bios's, DDU, older drivers, TDRDelay and TDRLevel registry tweaks, different pci-e slots and I'm sure I need to RMA the card.









But can I run TimeSpy effectively without SLI?

I haven't tried yet.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> One Titan XP Beating x2 Titan X's (not Pascal). And that's with a
> healthy CPU and GPUs OC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think there is something wrong with my bench or is this to be expected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Graphics Score is low....you should be up above 12k.
Click to expand...

You sure about that?

Bad day, I messed up a Titan X flashing a bios for benching purposes and now it has issues, even flashing different bios's.









But my CPU at 4.8GHZ, cache at 4.5GHZ, memory at 3200, one older Titan X at 1493/3993 I only get around 5500. Don' see how even if I could still run SLI still I'd get 12k and over. They are NOT Titan XPs.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Bad day, I messed up a Titan X flashing a bios for benching purposes and now it has issues, even flashing different bios's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my CPU at 4.8GHZ, cache at 4.5GHZ, memory at 3200, one older Titan X at 1493/3993 I only get around 5500. Don' see how even if I could still run SLI still I'd get 12k and over. They are NOT Titan XPs.


Go here and see Titan-X' in sli scores in Timespy, note gpu scores:

*http://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=1.218744409.118373690.1470252456#/?mode=advanced&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpuname/spy/P/NVIDIA%20GTX%20TITAN%20X&gpuName=NVIDIA*

For *Number of GPUs* in the *Any* box, enter *2*.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> You sure about that?
> 
> Bad day, I messed up a Titan X flashing a bios for benching purposes and now it has issues, even flashing different bios's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But my CPU at 4.8GHZ, cache at 4.5GHZ, memory at 3200, one older Titan X at 1493/3993 I only get around 5500. Don' see how even if I could still run SLI still I'd get 12k and over. They are NOT Titan XPs.


Considering I was pulling mid-12k graphics scores with a couple of 980tis with average clocks, yeah.....I'd say 12k is right where I'd put the measuring stick for the Titan X.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Anyone have a problem when I am running Time Spy for the first time and get stuck waiting at "Collecting System info". I tried to uninstall but still the same thing.


----------



## Stupid0303

Stupid0303

i7 4790k @4.6Ghz
Gigabyte GTX 980Ti , 1497/1843
Rams 32gb @2400 Mhz

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14712519?

http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/adiltahir353/media/Untitled_zps0811rojo.png.html


----------



## owikhan

@Stupid0303

Good score ...


----------



## owikhan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Anyone have a problem when I am running Time Spy for the first time and get stuck waiting at "Collecting System info". I tried to uninstall but still the same thing.


Re install it another drive... Not in C


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Question?
> 
> Do you need SLI enabled with Directx12 with two identical video cards?
> 
> I ask because I was trying to run a max voltage BIOS for a few benches on my custom air Titan X, it works, except no matter what I do when I try to enable SLI I get a TDR Failure BSOD, even on a clean install of Windows.
> 
> I'm sure i physically messed up the card somehow that's causing this issue, I tried every fix in the book, flashing different bios's, DDU, older drivers, TDRDelay and TDRLevel registry tweaks, different pci-e slots and I'm sure I need to RMA the card.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But can I run TimeSpy effectively without SLI?
> 
> I haven't tried yet.


I just realized yesterday when trying to stop the BSODs the lights on the SLI bridge weren't on.

I'm hoping it's the problem, will pop in a ribbon one I have as spare when I get home.

Working a 19 hour day today with the three jobs have scheduled, be a long time until I'm home to check, here's hoping.


----------



## DStealth

DStealth -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 stock cooler 2164/11080 -- 8311

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14777651

Made a better run but forgot the validation







)


Ok some update
DStealth -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 stock cooler 2164/11080 -- 8327
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14783184


----------



## Mr.N00bLaR

Feast your eyes on this... Tied for first place on 3dmark's results with an integrated Intel HD 530









Mr.N00bLaR --- 6600k @ 4.8Ghz --- (Integrated) HD Graphics 530 @ 1150Mhz / 1667Mhz --- 402
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14793520


----------



## kx11

kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- [email protected] 2075mhz/11088mem --- 10 753



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/435274


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stupid0303*
> 
> Stupid0303
> 
> i7 4790k @4.6Ghz
> Gigabyte GTX 980Ti , 1497/1843
> Rams 32gb @2400 Mhz
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14712519?
> 
> http://s1367.photobucket.com/user/adiltahir353/media/Untitled_zps0811rojo.png.html











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 stock cooler 2164/11080 -- 8311
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14777651
> 
> Made a better run but forgot the validation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Ok some update
> DStealth -- [email protected] --- GTX1080 stock cooler 2164/11080 -- 8327
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14783184











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.N00bLaR*
> 
> Feast your eyes on this... Tied for first place on 3dmark's results with an integrated Intel HD 530
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.N00bLaR --- 6600k @ 4.8Ghz --- (Integrated) HD Graphics 530 @ 1150Mhz / 1667Mhz --- 402
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14793520











lol - daaum bro... that's screaming graphics!








At least the new iGPUs can do DX12


----------



## ir88ed

Ir88ed ---- [email protected] --- 2x GTX-980ti (SLI) @ 1490mhz --- 9910
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14833429


----------



## KickAssCop

KickAssCop ---- [email protected] Ghz ---- 2X GTX 1080 SLi @ 2050/10500 ---- 12184
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14835152?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Ir88ed ---- [email protected] --- 2x GTX-980ti (SLI) @ 1490mhz --- 9910
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14833429











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KickAssCop*
> 
> KickAssCop ---- [email protected] Ghz ---- 2X GTX 1080 SLi @ 2050/10500 ---- 12184
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14835152?


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 GTX TitanX SLI --- 12646

Finally got this kit in a case and running again...


----------



## dagget3450

Mmmm, looks like after revisiting timespy on newest drivers Furyx Quad made some nice gains.... i am matching my max overclocked scores with my stock gpu now. When i get some time this week i will load up my old oc profiles and see what happens. Curious if overclocking is nerfed on these drivers.

Quick test on stock gpu/ game oc on cpu

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/445563

Technically on GPU score i passed my max OC score by a small margin. This should yield even better results once i setup again for bench runs.

GPu score stock 18637 vs 18412 @1150/560
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/445563/spy/120380

Apples to apples gpu score stock vs stock 17266 vs 18637
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/87593/spy/445563

6% and 9.4% gains on gpu tests.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 GTX TitanX SLI --- 12646
> 
> Finally got this kit in a case and running again...


dude you ignored my results


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 GTX TitanX SLI --- 12646
> 
> Finally got this kit in a case and running again...


Haven't put on c13 yet?








Those OSD graph look nice, I've never even tried that with aquasuite, shame.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- [email protected] 2075mhz/11088mem --- 10 753
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/435274











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> dude you ignored my results


Ignored is a bit harsh... missed is more accurate. If I ignored it it would never be updated.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 GTX TitanX SLI --- 12646
> 
> Finally got this kit in a case and running again...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Haven't put on c13 yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those OSD graph look nice, I've never even tried that with aquasuite, shame.


it's either the ripjaws or this 3202 bios.. will know for sure with 1701. Even my 64GB TZ kit had trouble on this bios.








(also trying to stay near 1.4V)

but yeah, the AQ OSD charts are useful, some overhead tho.


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> it's either the ripjaws or this 3202 bios.. will know for sure with 1701. Even my 64GB TZ kit had trouble on this bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (also trying to stay near 1.4V)
> 
> but yeah, the AQ OSD charts are useful, some overhead tho.


if the ripjaws are B-die as well, I would be surprised they can't run c13. I mean 13-14-14-30 1T like I'm running atm, with 1.38v. 13-13-13, you know your IMC can do it, so yeah either bios or the ram.

AQ software is an "usine a gaz" like we say in French, countless possibilities but not really easy, definitely require some tinkering and time to make it like you want. I never bothered with the OSD, but I like they way you put water temp in there.


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Ignored is a bit harsh... missed is more accurate. If I ignored it it would never be updated.










thnx man


----------



## pLuhhmm

*2088Mhz max OC*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pLuhhmm*


[


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



IMG ALT=""]http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/2872423/width/500/height/1000[/IMG] *2088Mhz max OC*




[/quote]

please see POST # 1 for the requirements for a proper sub.


----------



## Bride

UPDATE

Bride -- 6600K @ 4.4 -- GTX 950 @ 1569 / 2003 -- 2381

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/456661


----------



## dagget3450

I have mobo/cpu malfunction here, sadly waiting on another board to do an updated score with newer drivers


----------



## chronicfx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr.N00bLaR*
> 
> Feast your eyes on this... Tied for first place on 3dmark's results with an integrated Intel HD 530
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.N00bLaR --- 6600k @ 4.8Ghz --- (Integrated) HD Graphics 530 @ 1150Mhz / 1667Mhz --- 402
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14793520


I bow to you sir.. Your patience is otherworldly...


----------



## TechSilver13

Mr.N00bLaR --- 5930K @ 4.7Ghz --- 1080 Classifieds SLI --- 11834

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14913717?


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Maintenance Bot -- 6700k @ 4.6 -- 2x TXP (SLI) @ 2000 -- 13,857

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/463639


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bride*
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> Bride -- 6600K @ 4.4 -- GTX 950 @ 1569 / 2003 -- 2381
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/456661











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TechSilver13*
> 
> Mr.N00bLaR --- 5930K @ 4.7Ghz --- 1080 Classifieds SLI --- 11834
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14913717?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Maintenance Bot -- 6700k @ 4.6 -- 2x TXP (SLI) @ 2000 -- 13,857
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/463639











Nice!


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice!


Nice and toasty in here now


----------



## IsaacFL

IsaacFL ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1060 [email protected]/9216MHz Mem ---4556

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/476829


----------



## glnn_23

glnn_23 -- 6950X @ 4.5 -- TitanX Pascal 2126 / 1400 --- *11181*

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14992262


----------



## DooRules

update...

DooRules -- 6950X @ 4.598 --- 2114/1418 --- 11312

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/392276


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IsaacFL*
> 
> IsaacFL ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1060 [email protected]/9216MHz Mem ---4556
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/476829











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glnn_23*
> 
> glnn_23 -- 6950X @ 4.5 -- TitanX Pascal 2126 / 1400 --- *11181*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14992262











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> update...
> 
> DooRules -- 6950X @ 4.598 --- 2114/1418 --- 11312
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/392276











Nice!


----------



## Bride

UPDATE

Bride -- 6600K @ 4.6 -- GTX 950 @ 1582 / 2053 -- 2392

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/485281


----------



## ski-bum

ski-bum -- 4930K @ 4.5mhz -- (1) GTX980ti @ 1494mhz / 3623mhz mem -- 6228

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15017930





This is an update. Noticed my link was dead so I retested and jumped up a couple of spots.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bride*
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> Bride -- 6600K @ 4.6 -- GTX 950 @ 1582 / 2053 -- 2392
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/485281











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ski-bum*
> 
> ski-bum -- 4930K @ 4.5mhz -- (1) GTX980ti @ 1494mhz / 3623mhz mem -- 6228
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15017930
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an update. Noticed my link was dead so I retested and jumped up a couple of spots.


----------



## Duality92

Duality92 --- [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/4001--- 4205

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15076547


----------



## opt33

opt33......6900k @ 4.4ghz, TitanXP....2113/1381 --- 10922
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/500280


----------



## DooRules

DooRules ---6950X @ 4.5 --- Titan XP at 2088/ 1411 --- 11637

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/499964


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Duality92 --- [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/4001--- 4205
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15076547











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> opt33......6900k @ 4.4ghz, TitanXP....2113/1381 --- 10922
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/500280











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules ---6950X @ 4.5 --- Titan XP at 2088/ 1411 --- 11637
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/499964











*! New First Place !*


----------



## DooRules

update...

DooRules 6950x @ 4.598 --- Titan XP @ 2101/ 1411 --- 11748

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/504441


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1485/7800 - - - 5440
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14298966*





Spoiler: nevermind



*UPDATE*
looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/7860 - - - 5745



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15105145*

i know just moved up a place but biggerish jump in GS!










*UPDATE*

looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/8000 - - - 5773



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506924*


----------



## opt33

update...finally 11k
opt33....6900k @ 4.5ghz....Titan XP @ 2100/1392...11057
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506964


----------



## DooRules

Nice run opt33


----------



## opt33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> Nice run opt33


Thanks...still a mile away from yours, ill have to go 10 core comes skylake e and need your winter air.


----------



## DooRules

Frost warning here tonight.







Calling for 0' C, actually having a hail storm out there right now. Great for o/c ing.









Still, that 6900k is no slouch. Good stuff.


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.598 --- Titan XP @ 2126 / 1418 --- 11859

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/513097


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: nevermind
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/7860 - - - 5745
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15105145*
> 
> i know just moved up a place but biggerish jump in GS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/8000 - - - 5773
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506924*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opt33*
> 
> update...finally 11k
> opt33....6900k @ 4.5ghz....Titan XP @ 2100/1392...11057
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506964











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.598 --- Titan XP @ 2126 / 1418 --- 11859
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/513097


----------



## fyzzz

Update,

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1710 --- 4879
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/526909


----------



## KillerBee33

R.I.P Burned Titan








[email protected] 2050C-1451M--6700K @4.8G-1.44V ---9762
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/530704


----------



## misoonigiri

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1512 / 8102 --- 6416
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/536018


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.9GHz -- Titan X Pascal @2164MHz -- 11 421:*



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/547626*


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1520 / 8102 --- 6473
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/549466


----------



## looniam

*^nice job getting more*









i really can't wait until i get off this 1155 socket.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] -- R9 295x2 --- 8281

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15287567
lol - this old clunker is running with the 1080 bigboys!








(will update tomorrow )


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *^nice job getting more*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i really can't wait until i get off this 1155 socket.


Thanks! Having great fun oc'ing


----------



## fyzzz

Crossfire update,
fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1710(290 mem 1500) --- 8237
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/539613


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> (will update tomorrow )


Oh I didn't realize you were the OP & maintaining this thread








Thanks Jpmboy!!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Update,
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 [email protected]/1710 --- 4879
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/526909











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> R.I.P Burned Titan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [email protected] 2050C-1451M--6700K @4.8G-1.44V ---9762
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/530704











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1512 / 8102 --- 6416
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/536018











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.9GHz -- Titan X Pascal @2164MHz -- 11 421:*
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/547626*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1520 / 8102 --- 6473
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/549466











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- R9 295x2 --- 8281
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15287567
> lol - this old clunker is running with the 1080 bigboys!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (will update tomorrow )











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Crossfire update,
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- R9 390/290 [email protected]/1710(290 mem 1500) --- 8237
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/539613


----------



## misoonigiri

Hi @Jpmboy, thanks for the update. FYI for "Gfx Score" you'd mistakenly put my CPU Score instead of my Graphics Score (which should be 6516)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Hi @Jpmboy, thanks for the update. FYI for "Gfx Score" you'd mistakenly put my CPU Score instead of my Graphics Score (which should be 6516)


fixed. Thanks.


----------



## fat4l

Still noone matched my gfx score?















http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14317122
GTX 1080 owners. Cmon!


----------



## DooRules

small bump, had gpu at 3' with the cold air, think most it got to was 11' during run

DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.653 --- Titan XP @ 2126/1420 --- 11895

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/589896


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> Still noone matched my gfx score?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/14317122
> GTX 1080 owners. Cmon!


can't you do better?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> small bump, had gpu at 3' with the cold air, think most it got to was 11' during run
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.653 --- Titan XP @ 2126/1420 --- 11895
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/589896


----------



## fat4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> can't you do better?


I can mate!









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15528227?

*8 629 Graphics Score.*
GTX 1080 FE - 2202/11016MHz (TDP increased)
i7 4790K @5100MHz
The rest in the sig.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fat4l*
> 
> I can mate!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15528227?
> 
> *8 629 Graphics Score.*
> GTX 1080 FE - 2202/11016MHz (TDP increased)
> i7 4790K @5100MHz
> The rest in the sig.











Nice - picked up a position.









Futuremark overall score relies heavily on CPU, try a unigine benchmark: http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores/3440_20


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Futuremark overall score relies heavily on CPU


Firestrike ultra less so.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Firestrike ultra less so.


ABSOLUTELY.


----------



## fat4l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice - picked up a position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Futuremark overall score relies heavily on CPU, try a unigine benchmark: http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores/3440_20


Will try. thanks!


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 Titan XM --- 13130

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15593905


----------



## marc0053

marc_0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.7ghz (water at 16C) - Titan X Pascal - 2115MHZ - 12,000MHZ - Score = 11683

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15657383


----------



## Iceman2733

Iceman2733 (username with 3dmark Fate0n3) i7 6700K @ 4.6ghz - 2ea EVGA 1080 FTW (Stock clocks for now) system on water. Score = 11,551

Timespy2.png 1775k .png file


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/639036


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- Titan XP --- 11826

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/641100


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 Titan XM --- 13130
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15593905











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> marc_0053 - i7 6950x @ 4.7ghz (water at 16C) - Titan X Pascal - 2115MHZ - 12,000MHZ - Score = 11683
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15657383











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Iceman2733 (username with 3dmark Fate0n3) i7 6700K @ 4.6ghz - 2ea EVGA 1080 FTW (Stock clocks for now) system on water. Score = 11,551
> 
> Timespy2.png 1775k .png file
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/639036











PLease read post#1 for proper dataline. (one time exception







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- Titan XP --- 11826
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/641100


----------



## ski-bum

UPDATE
ski-bum ---- [email protected] ---- [email protected] ---- 6278
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/651130


----------



## Vellinious

Delete


----------



## DStealth

DStealth --- [email protected] --- Palit JS [email protected]/1111 --- 8356

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15694338


----------



## Vellinious

Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.5Ghz --- 2 x GTX 1080 @ 2202 / 11000 --- 15458

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/661446


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ski-bum*
> 
> UPDATE
> ski-bum ---- [email protected] ---- [email protected] ---- 6278
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/651130












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth --- [email protected] --- Palit JS [email protected]/1111 --- 8356
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15694338












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.5Ghz --- 2 x GTX 1080 @ 2202 / 11000 --- 15458
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/661446


----------



## stahlhart

Updated SLI score; 375.70 drivers and MSI Afterburner 4.3:



stahlhart ---- [email protected] ---- MSI Gaming 6G GTX 980Ti SLI ---- 10929

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/666196


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> Updated SLI score; 375.70 drivers and MSI Afterburner 4.3:
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] ---- MSI Gaming 6G GTX 980Ti SLI ---- 10929
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/666196


----------



## Vellinious

Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.4Ghz --- GTX 1080 @ 2189 / 11120 --- 8867

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15941119



Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.5 -- 2 x GTX 1080 @ 2189 / 11120 -- 15900

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/705550


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.4Ghz --- GTX 1080 @ 2189 / 11120 --- 8867
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15941119
> 
> 
> 
> Vellinious -- 6950X @ 4.5 -- 2 x GTX 1080 @ 2189 / 11120 -- 15900
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/705550










*x2*


----------



## Menthol

Menthol here again [email protected] - 4X Titan X [email protected] = 26785

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16022376



4 way is a beach to play with


----------



## Silent Scone

Damn.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: nevermind
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/7860 - - - 5745
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15105145*
> 
> i know just moved up a place but biggerish jump in GS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/8000 - - - 5773
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506924*


*UPDATE*

looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1482/7012 - - - 5851



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16029431*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol here again [email protected] - 4X Titan X [email protected] = 26785
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16022376
> 
> 4 way is a beach to play with




















*! Overall First Place !*
Nice!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1482/7012 - - - 5851
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16029431*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol here again [email protected] - 4X Titan X [email protected] = 26785
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16022376
> 
> 4 way is a beach to play with




















*! Overall First Place !*
Nice!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1482/7012 - - - 5851
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16029431*


----------



## Dragonsyph

Evga gtx 1080 FTW hybrid, +150 core +1000 memory, 2164-2177 core 6000mhz memory, 4.8ghz 4790k. *8507 Graphics score.*


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Evga gtx 1080 FTW hybrid, +150 core +1000 memory, 2164-2177 core 6000mhz memory, 4.8ghz 4790k. *8507 Graphics score.*


Gonna need a validation link....nice score, though.


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Gonna need a validation link....nice score, though.


The link to the benchmark page?

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16078037


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> The link to the benchmark page?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16078037


That'd be it. Yup.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> Evga gtx 1080 FTW hybrid, +150 core +1000 memory, 2164-2177 core 6000mhz memory, 4.8ghz 4790k. *8507 Graphics score.*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> The link to the benchmark page?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16078037











Accepted "with a little help from friends".


----------



## fyzzz

fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2249 --- *6153*

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/742176


----------



## Nafu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2249 --- *6153*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/742176


That's a very good overclocking on Haswell Refresh chip. i have i5 4670K and it's take heat quite high after 4.4GHz.


----------



## stahlhart

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16175559?

Not submitting this, as the drivers are not Futuremark approved yet, but seeing a score improvement for Maxwell with 375.95 drivers.


----------



## looniam

drivers being approved or not doesn't matter here.


----------



## stahlhart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> drivers being approved or not doesn't matter here.


From the OP: _Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable_

Unapproved drivers are okay?


----------



## looniam

go look at post #712 and see being approved accepted; difference between a valid result and approved drivers.

approved drivers ALWAYS happens the first few days after they are released, futuremark just isn't aware of them yet.


----------



## stahlhart

Okay, I stand corrected -- just wanted to make sure I was playing by the rules.


----------



## stahlhart

stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980Ti Gaming 6G SLI - --- 11036



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/752576


----------



## Mad Pistol

I FINALLY broke 10k!!!

Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k @ 4.8 Ghz -- GTX 1070 FE SLI (+200/+600) -- 10278

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/753575


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I FINALLY broke 10k!!!
> 
> Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k @ 4.8 Ghz -- GTX 1070 FE SLI (+200/+600) -- 10278
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/753575


congrats


----------



## Bride

UPDATE

Bride --- G4400 @ 4.2 --- Gainward GTX 970 --- 1469 / 1853 --- 3234

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/754874


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2249 --- *6153*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/742176











New card - nice!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stahlhart*
> 
> stahlhart ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX 980Ti Gaming 6G SLI - --- 11036
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/752576











Dirver "unapproved" is acceptable.








"[*] Beta drivers allowed"
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I FINALLY broke 10k!!!
> Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k @ 4.8 Ghz -- GTX 1070 FE SLI (+200/+600) -- 10278
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/753575











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bride*
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> Bride --- G4400 @ 4.2 --- Gainward GTX 970 --- 1469 / 1853 --- 3234
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/754874


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6545
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/769003




Spoiler: My Previous Result



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1520 / 8102 --- 6473
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/549466


----------



## Derek1

Derek1 --- i7 4820K @ 4.7 --- GTX 1080 --- 2139/11510 --- 7405

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16262527


----------



## Dragonsyph

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Derek1 --- i7 4820K @ 4.7 --- GTX 1080 --- 2139/11510 --- 7405
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16262527


8268 graphics score nice.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dragonsyph*
> 
> 8268 graphics score nice.


Thanks

Not sure I am liking TS all that much, half the time it won't even load up. More than half actually.

Definitely need to upgrade the cpu though. Without changing platforms I think that 4960x is the nest step up for me. So will need to put away a few $.
Though someone did recommend the Xeon 2687w to me.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Not sure I am liking TS all that much, half the time it won't even load up. More than half actually.
> 
> Definitely need to upgrade the cpu though. Without changing platforms I think that 4960x is the nest step up for me. So will need to put away a few $.
> Though someone did recommend the Xeon 2687w to me.


No, don't get the 4960x or a 2687w

Get this instead:

*http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-v2-Six-Core-3-5GHz-SR1AQ-Ivy-Bridge-EP-LGA2011-CPU-Processor-/272330935387?hash=item3f68304c5b:g:0b4AAOSwmtJXVv4y*

Unlocked too.

Or spend $1100 on a 1680 V2, at this stage, not recommended.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> No, don't get the 4960x or a 2687w
> 
> Get this instead:
> 
> *http://www.ebay.com/itm/Intel-Xeon-E5-1650-v2-Six-Core-3-5GHz-SR1AQ-Ivy-Bridge-EP-LGA2011-CPU-Processor-/272330935387?hash=item3f68304c5b:g:0b4AAOSwmtJXVv4y*
> 
> Unlocked too.
> 
> Or spend $1100 on a 1680 V2, at this stage, not recommended.


Well the price certainly is hard to beat.
Any particular limitations compared to the other two?
I didn't seem to find any on my own.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Well the price certainly is hard to beat.
> Any particular limitations compared to the other two?
> I didn't seem to find any on my own.


1650 v2 is a 4930k, but with server parts activated.

The server version of the I7s are usually binned better.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6545
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/769003











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Derek1 --- i7 4820K @ 4.7 --- GTX 1080 --- 2139/11510 --- 7405
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16262527


----------



## melodystyle2003

melodystyle2003 --- i7 4790K @ 4.5 --- GTX 1060 3gb --- 2152/9408 --- 4501 (stable 24/7 clocks, w/c)
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/787191


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> melodystyle2003 --- i7 4790K @ 4.5 --- GTX 1060 3gb --- 2152/9408 --- 4501 (stable 24/7 clocks, w/c)
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/787191


----------



## Rabit

3947 Graphic score for a £95 second hand Graphic card is good









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16379895


----------



## Devildog83

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> melodystyle2003 --- i7 4790K @ 4.5 --- GTX 1060 3gb --- 2152/9408 --- 4501 (stable 24/7 clocks, w/c)
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/787191


Wow those clocks !!! I would however expect a GPU score to be better. My R9 390 is only 300 points under at half the clock speed. Still can't get over how high those GPU's clock.


----------



## melodystyle2003

a small and probably final update for the 1060 3gb
melodystyle2003 --- i7 4790K @ 4.8 --- GTX 1060 3gb --- 2214/9445 --- 4565 (w/c)
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16400929?


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected]@2126mhz/9500mhz---4642

Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/819157


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Update

Maintenance Bot -- 6950X @ 4.4ghz -- TXP @ 2000 / 11000 -- 10523

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/820101


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melodystyle2003*
> 
> a small and probably final update for the 1060 3gb
> melodystyle2003 --- i7 4790K @ 4.8 --- GTX 1060 3gb --- 2214/9445 --- 4565 (w/c)
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16400929?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected]@2126mhz/9500mhz---4642
> 
> Validation: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/819157











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Update
> 
> Maintenance Bot -- 6950X @ 4.4ghz -- TXP @ 2000 / 11000 -- 10523
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/820101


----------



## ir88ed

Update: Back to two cards again. Upped the uncore and kept the two faster cards (asic=74% on both). Looks like two 980ti's hold thier own against maintenanceBot's well OC'ed TXP!

Ir88ed -- 5930K @ 4.8ghz -- 2xSLI 980ti @ 1540 / 3900 -- 10510

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16497148


----------



## looniam

nevermind . .










Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: nevermind
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/7860 - - - 5745
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/15105145*
> 
> i know just moved up a place but biggerish jump in GS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1496/8000 - - - 5773
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/506924*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1482/7012 - - - 5851
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16029431*
Click to expand...








*UPDATE* (sorry another small one







)

looniam - - - i7-*3770K*@4.9 - - - 980TI 1481/7808 - - - 5884



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/836435*

on a side note:
my card drops 6 boost bins (78Mhz) as soon as it hits 36c . . .weird for maxwell and kills my second graphics test score.


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> *UPDATE* (sorry another small one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> looniam - - - i7-*3770K*@4.9 - - - 980TI 1481/7808 - - - 5884
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/836435*
> 
> on a side note:
> my card drops 6 boost bins (78Mhz) as soon as it hits 36c . . .weird for maxwell and kills my second graphics test score.


Seems strange. What does gpuz report as the reason for the bottle neck? I needed to mod my 980ti bios to a higher TDP to get much over 1420 or so. I had an ASIC of 64 on one of my cards though.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Seems strange. What does gpuz report as the reason for the bottle neck? I needed to mod my 980ti bios to a higher TDP to get much over 1420 or so. I had an ASIC of 64 on one of my cards though.


AH HA!









you're a genius. long story short - i needed to increase my min boost voltage. (for what ever reason, though i have some inclination)


nice solid 1481 now.









as soon as i saw just V.Rel and not VRel and V.Op in GPU-Z i knew it wasn't getting all the voltage though AB kept it at 1.274; thats the max AB will read, since i set 1.281 in the bios _i am going to assume that is what i am getting._

V.Rel= all the speed i can get for this voltage.
V.Op= all the voltage i am allowed to have (from the bios).

i could be wrong but in this instance being wrong seemed to work.


----------



## looniam

*UPDATE
*
looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1481/7806 - - - 5940



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16515991*


----------



## ir88ed

Nice bump in scores. What ASIC is your card?


----------



## looniam

thank you.









ASIC is 66.9% got it back from an RMA of a ~73% ASIC and the behavior with the clock states/voltages are defiantly different.


----------



## looniam

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE
> *
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1481/7806 - - - 5940
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16515991*






*UPDATE*
looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6044



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16556661*

i think that's all she's got captain!

well that RAM sucks (cheap PNY xlr8)


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6044
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16556661*
> 
> i think that's all she's got captain!
> 
> well that RAM sucks (cheap PNY xlr8)


Nice work! Now pick up a second 980ti on the cheap and run with the titan pascal X's!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Update: Back to two cards again. Upped the uncore and kept the two faster cards (asic=74% on both). Looks like two 980ti's hold thier own against maintenanceBot's well OC'ed TXP!
> 
> Ir88ed -- 5930K @ 4.8ghz -- 2xSLI 980ti @ 1540 / 3900 -- 10510
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16497148











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6044
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16556661*
> 
> i think that's all she's got captain!
> 
> well that RAM sucks (cheap PNY xlr8)











Nice gfx score!


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE
> *
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1481/7806 - - - 5940
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16515991*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6044
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16556661*
> 
> i think that's all she's got captain!
> 
> well that RAM sucks (cheap PNY xlr8)
Click to expand...

I think *NOT SURE* that later drivers allowed for higher clocks for Time Spy. IIRC in earlier drivers I had to use lower clocks in TS compared to FS Valley etc.
But with later drivers I get significantly lower FS, Valley, Heaven DX11 scores haha.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/549466/spy/769003/spy/819421#


----------



## DStealth

DStealth - - - [email protected] - - - 1080 2177/11080 - - - 8396



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/848861


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Nice work! Now pick up a second 980ti on the cheap and run with the titan pascal X's!


thanks.

but i'd have to get another PSU, this card alone is hitting ~325 watts.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Nice gfx score!












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> I think *NOT SURE* that later drivers allowed for higher clocks for Time Spy. IIRC in earlier drivers I had to use lower clocks in TS compared to FS Valley etc.
> But with later drivers I get significantly lower FS, Valley, Heaven DX11 scores haha.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/549466/spy/769003/spy/819421#


i haven't played driver roulette in awhile - i picked an old one after looking at my score history. i may have some time later to try out a few others.











Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *UPDATE
> *
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1481/7806 - - - 5940
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16515991*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> *UPDATE*
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6044
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16556661*
> 
> i think that's all she's got captain!
> 
> well that RAM sucks (cheap PNY xlr8)
Click to expand...





*BOOM* (thanks jpm







)
looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6205



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16578974*


----------



## ir88ed

What did you change to get the 150 point bump?


----------



## looniam

i had neglected some driver tweaks using inspector.

also swapped drivers, though likely not a huge difference alone but my first bench is always my best. last time i ran it a dozen times dialing in clocks/voltage/temps.

so not just one variable but probably a few involved.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> thanks.
> but i'd have to get another PSU, this card alone is hitting ~325 watts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i haven't played driver roulette in awhile - i picked an old one after looking at my score history. i may have some time later to try out a few others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/SPOILER]
> *BOOM* (thanks jpm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6205
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16578974*











_Secret_ sauce, eh?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth - - - [email protected] - - - 1080 2177/11080 - - - 8396
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/848861


----------



## looniam




----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *BOOM* (thanks jpm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> looniam - - - [email protected] - - - 980TI 1501/7960 - - - 6205
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16578974*


Wow, very nice increase!


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/856161



I only managed a small 20pts improvement in graphics score, with gpu voltage up a notch


Spoiler: My Previous Result



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6545
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/769003


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/856161
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I only managed a small *20pts improvement in graphics score*, with gpu voltage up a notch
> 
> 
> Spoiler: My Previous Result
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6545
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/769003
Click to expand...

*HEY!* i was eyeballing that ~10pt difference between our's in my last sub.








not sure now about turning off the furnace all day to get some sub ~32c benches.









j/k







nice to see folks keeping at it. but yeah, i *think* i see better results when i stay under ~34c-36c.


----------



## misoonigiri

Ahh with those nice low temps, I'm quite sure your scores will surpass mine once you manage to increase the clocks just abit more!
I'm still novice though - have not tried changing gpu thermal paste and vbios, still very unsure if I understand what I have to do to not fudge it


----------



## looniam

thanks for the vote of confidence but i am convinced there isn't much left unless i strap an LN pot on but my budget isn't compliant.

replacing TIM is easy peasy, though the first time the factory applied seems to have bonded like mortar. just a firm but gentle hand with maybe a little wiggle and it gives. the 2 sets of wires going to the fans seem short but after getting one of them, the other is much easier. the led connection i never cared about but never damaged either.

it's like the first time swimming; scary as hell until you stay calm and do it.

@Mad Pistol i see you!

gonna let these old GM200 cards slap around your 1070 like this?


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> thanks for the vote of confidence but i am convinced there isn't much left unless i strap an LN pot on but my budget isn't compliant.
> 
> replacing TIM is easy peasy, though the first time the factory applied seems to have bonded like mortar. just a firm but gentle hand with maybe a little wiggle and it gives. the 2 sets of wires going to the fans seem short but after getting one of them, the other is much easier. the led connection i never cared about but never damaged either.
> 
> it's like the first time swimming; scary as hell until you stay calm and do it.
> 
> @Mad Pistol i see you!
> 
> gonna let these old GM200 cards slap around your 1070 like this?


Thanks for the tip - I've ordered some TIM, but am still short on guts!


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> thanks for the vote of confidence but i am convinced there isn't much left unless i strap an LN pot on but my budget isn't compliant.
> 
> replacing TIM is easy peasy, though the first time the factory applied seems to have bonded like mortar. just a firm but gentle hand with maybe a little wiggle and it gives. the 2 sets of wires going to the fans seem short but after getting one of them, the other is much easier. the led connection i never cared about but never damaged either.
> 
> it's like the first time swimming; scary as hell until you stay calm and do it.
> 
> @Mad Pistol i see you!
> 
> gonna let these old GM200 cards slap around your 1070 like this?


Ask and ye shall receive.

Update - Single card.

MadPistol --- 4970k @ 4.8Ghz --- GTX 1070 FE @ 2050 / 9400 --- 6312

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16606037



I can probably push it further. I only made one tweak to reach that goal (and overclocked the snot out of my system.)


----------



## looniam

yeah, i'm always asking for:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







seriously, nice job!

i wanted to see newer score(s) after folks had some more experience with those pascal cards.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> yeah, i'm always asking for:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seriously, nice job!
> 
> i wanted to see newer score(s) after folks had some more experience with those pascal cards.


I attempted to push it further, but no dice. Lots of artifacts on screen and about 20 points increase overall. Not to mention, my i7 4790k does not like 4.8Ghz (it takes like 1.42V to get there stable.)

I was actually kinda surprised at the gains. I was half expecting my system to fall short of 6000. I'm really surprised I was able to beat your 980 Ti.

EDIT: believe it or not, my 1070 FE beat both your 980 Ti and misoonigiri in graphics score. I guess these Pascal cards really do excel in DX12 compared to Maxwell GM200's.

I'd be interested to know if a non-reference 1070 could push it even further.


----------



## looniam

i don't get artifacts unless i am OCing just the vram; yellow ascii like boxes everywhere and freeze usually second test when panning the balconies.

other than that, when pushing the clocks it just fails "oops an unexpected error" then closes or just freezes, again during the second test but when panning looking at the showcases. not first test with the character.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i don't get artifacts unless i am OCing just the vram; yellow ascii like boxes everywhere and freeze usually second test when panning the balconies.
> 
> other than that, when pushing the clocks it just fails "oops an unexpected error" then closes or just freezes, again during the second test but when looking at the showcases.


Nvidia probably pushed Pascal to the limits in terms of its memory controller, then. I had my memory @ +700 (9400 effective). When the core was @ +200 / +700, no artifacts. However, as soon as I jumped the core to +220 leaving memory at +700, artifacts started showing up. Lowering the memory to 680 or 660 reduced the artifacts, but they still showed up.


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected] GTX 1060 6gb--- 4687

**Updated**



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16608643


----------



## fyzzz

Update,
fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2240 --- 6284
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/784046


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/856161
> 
> 
> 
> I only managed a small 20pts improvement in graphics score, with gpu voltage up a notch











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Ask and ye shall receive.
> Update - Single card.
> MadPistol --- 4970k @ 4.8Ghz --- GTX 1070 FE @ 2050 / 9400 --- 6312
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16606037
> 
> I can probably push it further. I only made one tweak to reach that goal (and overclocked the snot out of my system.)


----------



## alawadhi3000

TDP limited but still good result.

alawadhi3000 --- 6820HK @ 4.0GHz --- GTX 1070 (Notebook) @ 1949 / 8808 --- 5728


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/876326


----------



## DooRules

DooRules-- 6950x @ 4.653 --- Titan XP @ 2148 / 1451 --- 12052

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/878925


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> TDP limited but still good result.
> 
> alawadhi3000 --- 6820HK @ 4.0GHz --- GTX 1070 (Notebook) @ 1949 / 8808 --- 5728


*Need a validation link*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules-- 6950x @ 4.653 --- Titan XP @ 2148 / 1451 --- 12052
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/878925











Still 1st place!


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected] GTX 1060 6gb--- 4687
> 
> **Updated**
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16608643


Why isn't my score being updated?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *Need a validation link*


Forgot about that, sorry.









I added the link to the last post.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Why isn't my score being updated?


i have updated it.. since it does not change your position in the rankings... The reason is this:

FM has invalidated your score for an unexplained reason... this conflicts with the screenshot you posted and when this discrepancy exists, I go with FM's vetting.
NOte: many recent scores with the new 376.19 NV driver are flagged as invalid but without a reason.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Forgot about that, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I added the link to the last post.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> i have updated it.. since it does not change your position in the rankings... The reason is this:
> 
> FM has invalidated your score for an unexplained reason... this conflicts with the screenshot you posted and when this discrepancy exists, I go with FM's vetting.
> NOte: many recent scores with the new 376.19 NV driver are flagged as invalid but without a reason.


OK, I can understand about the rankings.









Odd that all the runs I made that morning that were valid, are now invalid.....









Oh well....I know FM has update the benchmark suite 3 times in the last week.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> OK, I can understand about the rankings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that all the runs I made that morning that were valid, are now invalid.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well....I know FM has update the benchmark suite 3 times in the last week.


no worries - a bunch of HOF entries are "not valid"


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no worries - a bunch of HOF entries are "not valid"


Any clue as to why?

A bit odd really.


----------



## Vellinious

There was an exploit using a different resolution than prescribed, and it was allowing for artificially higher scores. Some people were taking advantage of it. It took them a while to get it sorted, but.....I would imagine many of the "invalid" scores were now flagged for using it, or the memory exploit (super high memory clocks causing dropped textures, increasing frame rates). I would imagine they have some sort of things in the run that flag runs as possible exploit runs.

At least they caught it and got it fixed....it was starting to turn people off from using their benchmarks. Me included.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> There was an exploit using a different resolution than prescribed, and it was allowing for artificially higher scores. Some people were taking advantage of it. It took them a while to get it sorted, but.....I would imagine many of the "invalid" scores were now flagged for using it, or the memory exploit (super high memory clocks causing dropped textures, increasing frame rates). I would imagine they have some sort of things in the run that flag runs as possible exploit runs.
> 
> At least they caught it and got it fixed....it was starting to turn people off from using their benchmarks. Me included.


I ran super high memory clocks.....

My card will hit 9600 pretty easily. I also overclocked my system ram from 1600 to 2000.

As far as resolution....I never change it for benchmarks, only gaming.

Interesting info though.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I ran super high memory clocks.....
> 
> My card will hit 9600 pretty easily. I also overclocked my system ram from 1600 to 2000.
> 
> As far as resolution....I never change it for benchmarks, only gaming.
> 
> Interesting info though.


When I say super high memory clocks, I'm talking about ridiculously high....like 11.8 and 12k on the 5x memory. I tested it again after I saw the update, and they don't have that part fixed yet. Unfortunate.

It works in firestrike as well. This run bugged out, dropped textures and ran in black and white. Pretty easy to duplicate.... In Timespy the textures on the floor start to disappear, then items in the cases. /smh

They need to get this crap fixed.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> When I say super high memory clocks, I'm talking about ridiculously high....like 11.8 and 12k on the 5x memory. I tested it again after I saw the update, and they don't have that part fixed yet. Unfortunate.
> 
> It works in firestrike as well. This run bugged out, dropped textures and ran in black and white. Pretty easy to duplicate.... In Timespy the textures on the floor start to disappear, then items in the cases. /smh
> 
> They need to get this crap fixed.


Wow....I guess I should have qualified my statement with...."High memory clocks for me!"









That is crazy.


----------



## Vellinious

Yeah....they haven't fixed it yet. They must be having issues identifying the offenders. This is pretty blatant...no idea why they haven't been able to spot this.


----------



## ir88ed

Ir88ed --- 5930k @ 4.9Ghz --- 2x SLI GTX 980ti @ 1571gpu / 4000mem --- 10670

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16716929



Chilled my cooling fluid down using these chilly winter days for good. (Yes, I am watching out for condensation)


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/907582



It's a rerun because my previous results became invalid - ugh! Funnily enough, I got the same score but graphics up abit







, cpu down abit...









Spoiler: My Previous Result



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/856161
> 
> 
> 
> I only managed a small 20pts improvement in graphics score, with gpu voltage up a notch


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Yeah....they haven't fixed it yet. They must be having issues identifying the offenders. This is pretty blatant...no idea why they haven't been able to spot this.


what - you think Vince's second place score is bugged?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Ir88ed --- 5930k @ 4.9Ghz --- 2x SLI GTX 980ti @ 1571gpu / 4000mem --- 10670
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16716929
> 
> Chilled my cooling fluid down using these chilly winter days for good. (Yes, I am watching out for condensation)











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/907582
> 
> 
> 
> It's a rerun because my previous results became invalid - ugh! Funnily enough, I got the same score but graphics up abit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , cpu down abit...


----------



## owikhan

Owikhan 7384--i7 4790k @4.5Ghz--Zotac Gtx 1080 Amp Edition--Core Clock 2088--Gskill Tridentx 2666mhz 8GB

*Graphic Score 8095*

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16821850?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> what - you think Vince's second place score is bugged?


lol, obviously! = P


----------



## Hequaqua

~~Update~~ Hequaqua ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1060 6gb --- 4726

This can replace my "invalid" score











Verification Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17027859


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *owikhan*
> 
> Owikhan 7384--i7 4790k @4.5Ghz--Zotac Gtx 1080 Amp Edition--Core Clock 2088--Gskill Tridentx 2666mhz 8GB
> *Graphic Score 8095*
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/16821850?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> ~~Update~~ Hequaqua ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1060 6gb --- 4726
> This can replace my "invalid" score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Verification Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17027859


----------



## Vellinious

Update. Got a little bump.

Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.5 / 4.6 --- 2x SLI GTX 1080 @ 2240 gpu / 5556 mem --- 15972

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1023881


----------



## DooRules

Update

DooRules--- 6950x @ 4.65 --- SLI Titan XP @ 2138 / 5832 --- 20690

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1031394


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Update. Got a little bump.
> 
> Vellinious --- 6950X @ 4.5 / 4.6 --- 2x SLI GTX 1080 @ 2240 gpu / 5556 mem --- 15972
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1023881











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> Update
> 
> DooRules--- 6950x @ 4.65 --- SLI Titan XP @ 2138 / 5832 --- 20690
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1031394


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5552 --- 8108

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17431082?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17011611353817369814777167.png


----------



## ir88ed

Nice clock speed on that 5930k, GRABibus!
I can do 4.9 through timespy on mine @ 1.45v or so, but I have gone as high as 1.55v and it won't get through the crystaline CPU-thrash phase of timespy at 5.0ghz. I have been close a couple of times.
Have you ever tried 5.0?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Nice clock speed on that 5930k, GRABibus!
> I can do 4.9 through timespy on mine @ 1.45v or so, but I have gone as high as 1.55v and it won't get through the crystaline CPU-thrash phase of timespy at 5.0ghz. I have been close a couple of times.
> Have you ever tried 5.0?


I will give a try for 5GHz


----------



## ir88ed

Keep an eye on those temps. I had my cooling water down to 4 degC and was seeing temps in the 70-80 range.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5552 --- 8108
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17431082?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17011611353817369814777167.png


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.6GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5500 --- 8161

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17447343?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17011710223017369814780404.png


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Nice clock speed on that 5930k, GRABibus!
> I can do 4.9 through timespy on mine @ 1.45v or so, but I have gone as high as 1.55v and it won't get through the crystaline CPU-thrash phase of timespy at 5.0ghz. I have been close a couple of times.
> Have you ever tried 5.0?


I did try 5GHz with Vcore=1.45V.
I hang the computer 3 seconds before the end of the CPU test









As i don't want to go over 1.45V, even for bench, let's forget 5GHz


----------



## ir88ed

This is the same result I got. I had the rig cooled way down to the point where the water was just a few degrees from freezing, cranked the volts up to 1.55 and still couldn't get past those last 10 seconds or so @ 5.0ghz. So close!


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I FINALLY broke 10k!!!
> 
> Mad Pistol -- i7 4790k @ 4.8 Ghz -- GTX 1070 FE SLI (+200/+600) -- 10278
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/753575


congrats


----------



## dagget3450

AMD/3dmark still hasn't fixed fullscreen on timespy. Losing quite a bit of performance from that issue alone.

Guess the three guys running AMD gpus just have to endure it lol


----------



## GRABibus

I have no difference in score between GPU=2100MHz and 2200MHz.

Anyone knows what could be the reason ?
Is there any botleneck somewhere or is it benchmark related ?


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I have no difference in score between GPU=2100MHz and 2200MHz.
> 
> Anyone knows what could be the reason ?
> Is there any botleneck somewhere or is it benchmark related ?


Heat, most likely. 2200 will run on a good card, with air cooling and the right curve set....but it'll probably run like crap, or even out with what 2100 will do. If you want 2200+ to run decent, gotta keep the GPU cooler than 25c peak, or you'll start to lose frame rates. At least, that's been my experience.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Heat, most likely. 2200 will run on a good card, with air cooling and the right curve set....but it'll probably run like crap, or even out with what 2100 will do. If you want 2200+ to run decent, gotta keep the GPU cooler than 25c peak, or you'll start to lose frame rates. At least, that's been my experience.


I am on water with Gigabyte xtreme gaming waterforce.
GPU is not more than 40°C at 2200MHz under 1.09V (Agressive fan curve from Precision X), 20°C ambiant.

According to me, temperature is not the explanation


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I am on water with Gigabyte xtreme gaming waterforce.
> GPU is not more than 40°C at 2200MHz under 1.09V (Agressive fan curve from Precision X), 20°C ambiant.
> 
> According to me, temperature is not the explanation


Then you'd be wrong.

I can pretty much guarantee you, that if you drop the peak temp by 15c to 25c, 2200 will not only run better, but you may even get lucky enough to be able to drop the voltage a step.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Then you'd be wrong.
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee you, that if you drop the peak temp by 15c to 25c, 2200 will not only run better, but you may even get lucky enough to be able to drop the voltage a step.


You mean GPU at 40°C is too hot to run 2200Mhz efficiently ??


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> if you want 2200+ to run decent, gotta keep the GPU cooler than 25c peak,


what do you mean ?
What does mean "Cooler than 25C peak" ?

PS : sorry, I am french


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> what do you mean ?
> What does mean "Cooler than 25C peak" ?
> 
> PS : sorry, I am french


No higher than 25c (peak temps of 25c). These GPUs run better when they're cooler. The cooler you keep them, the better they'll run at higher clocks. As temps increase, efficiency will decrease, causing frame rates to go down. 40c is too warm for 2200 to run well on probably 98% of the cards out there. I have yet to see a card that runs really well at 2200 on air, or even middling watercooling....not without taking steps to lower the ambient temps, so that the peak temps are in turn also lower.


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.6GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5500 --- 8176

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17501836?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012004322117369814787513.png


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.6GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5500 --- 8176
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17501836?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012004322117369814787513.png


Strange that above you were only getting 8108 with 4.9ghz cpu, and dropping to 4.6 increased your score a bit. Have you tried running GPU-z during benching to see what your bottleneck is?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> Strange that above you were only getting 8108 with 4.9ghz cpu, and dropping to 4.6 increased your score a bit. Have you tried running GPU-z during benching to see what your bottleneck is?


when I active Gsynch on my PG278Q, I have a better score.
Just above it is with Gsynch "on".

I am going to post a new score with Gsynch "on" and 4.9GHz.


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5500 --- 8242

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17502360?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012005023217369814787539.png

Please not my cache is at 4.6GHz.
It was at 4.5Ghz formerly.

PLEASE JPMBOY, put this is the score table when you have time


----------



## ir88ed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> when I active Gsynch on my PG278Q, I have a better score.
> Just above it is with Gsynch "on".
> 
> I am going to post a new score with Gsynch "on" and 4.9GHz.


That is even stranger. Gsync should lock your fps down to your monitor refresh rate and negatively impact your score. I guess since you have a 144hz monitor it ends up not hurting you. Weird that the score goes up, though.

edit: grabbed wrong quote


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ir88ed*
> 
> That is even stranger. Gsync should lock your fps down to your monitor refresh rate and negatively impact your score. I guess since you have a 144hz monitor it ends up not hurting you. Weird that the score goes up, though.
> 
> edit: grabbed wrong quote


Yes, ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q is a 144Hz monitor.


----------



## Vellinious

Not sure why that would increase the score though.....it shouldn't really do anything at all.

EDIT: it's not doing anything at all, actually. The graphics scores are identical. The CPU scores are all over the place, which would indicate that the CPU overclock is either unstable, or something else was done between runs to increase the CPU score. Memory or cache clock perhaps.

The comparison of those 3 runs:

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1075578/spy/1089706/spy/1089833


----------



## Derek1

I think it is extremely difficult to compare just 3 scores. You would not be able to make any attributions to normal variability between runs. I am not sure what the variance is in Time Spy and it may be listed somewhere on the 3D Mark website but I think it is safe to assume it is around 5%. (That is what I usually use anyway) Be sure to factor that into your comparisons. For more accurat comparison of course you must make a larger number of runs at each setting and then compare. The more the better.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> I think it is extremely difficult to compare just 3 scores. You would not be able to make any attributions to normal variability between runs. I am not sure what the variance is in Time Spy and it may be listed somewhere on the 3D Mark website but I think it is safe to assume it is around 5%. (That is what I usually use anyway) Be sure to factor that into your comparisons. For more accurat comparison of course you must make a larger number of runs at each setting and then compare. The more the better.


True, a larger sample size would be better, but he only had 3 runs posted. And given that those 3 runs had very similar graphics scores, and VERY similar frame rates, where the only real variance was in the CPU score.....it's a pretty easy deduction to make.


----------



## GRABibus

Yes you are right...
I checked and in fact, the lowest scores I have (Graphics score roughly 8050 to 8150) is when I close a lot of background processes before launching Time Spy (After PC reboot).
When I reboot and don't close any background processes, my graphics score is more close to 8200 - 8240.

We could expect the opposite effect, but that's it for me








I could reproduce this with a lot of tests.

Concerning the comparison you posted, last test is with CPU at Core=4.9Ghz / Cache = 4.6GHz.
The first 2 one's are with Core = 4.6GHz / Cache = 4.5GHz.


----------



## Hequaqua

Doesn't the Cache control the NB?

I've noticed that if I keep it within 100mhz of core clock, I get better scores.

I really don't know though....I'm not big on OC'ing the CPU.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yes you are right...
> I checked and in fact, the lowest scores I have (Graphics score roughly 8050 to 8150) is when I close a lot of background processes before launching Time Spy (After PC reboot).
> When I reboot and don't close any background processes, my graphics score is more close to 8200 - 8240.
> 
> We could expect the opposite effect, but that's it for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could reproduce this with a lot of tests.
> 
> Concerning the comparison you posted, last test is with CPU at Core=4.9Ghz / Cache = 4.6GHz.
> The first 2 one's are with Core = 4.6GHz / Cache = 4.5GHz.


Makes sense why the CPU score went up then. That's the only real difference in the scores.

Not sure why closing processes would decrease graphics scores....it shouldn't have an impact. CPU scores possibly, but not graphics scores.


----------



## dagget3450

Dagget3450 - [email protected] - 4x [email protected]/1700 - 15428



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17511324?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus --- [email protected] 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 @ 2152 / 5500 --- 8242
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17502360?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012005023217369814787539.png
> 
> 
> Please not my cache is at 4.6GHz.
> It was at 4.5Ghz formerly.
> PLEASE JPMBOY, put this is the score table when you have time











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Dagget3450 - [email protected] - 4x [email protected]/1700 - 15428
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17511324?


----------



## madweazl

6600k/GTX1070 (highest score for this combo?)
6297 Graphics score 6840
Validation Link

__
https://flic.kr/p/QUMV3N

Edit: Oops, wrong image


----------



## madweazl

Slight improvement.
6309/6858
Validation


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!





__
https://flic.kr/p/RuZhix


----------



## marc0053

Had a good LN2 session
marc_0053 - i7 6950x @ 5.0ghz - Titan X Pascal 2319MHz/1450Mhz - Score = 12,548





http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1107009


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Nice run Marc, congrats!


----------



## looniam

your tool bench is so neat its disgusting.


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5500 - 8306

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17579255?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012401094017369814797595.png


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Had a good LN2 session
> marc_0053 - i7 6950x @ 5.0ghz - Titan X Pascal 2319MHz/1450Mhz - Score = 12,548
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1107009


Nice!


----------



## madweazl

Eeked out a few more points

madweazl ---- [email protected] ---- GTX 1070 ---- 6409 ---- 6993
Validation

__
https://flic.kr/p/RtdzHu


----------



## looniam

UPDATE:

looniam - - - [email protected] 4.6Ghz - - - 980TI 1481/3980 - - - 6209 (*GS 6709!*)



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17617877*

sorry being a tard w/same overall score but higher graphics score lower cpu clock/score. maybe some want to go the newest drivers a spin (378.49).

nvrmnd - i didn't submit that one result - i gained 4 points overall.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] 4.6Ghz - - - 980TI 1481/3980 - - - 6209 (*GS 6709!*)
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17617877*
> 
> sorry being a tard w/same overall score but higher graphics score lower cpu clock/score. maybe some want to go the newest drivers a spin (378.49).
> 
> nvrmnd - i didn't submit that one result - i gained 4 points overall.


Wow 6709 for graphics, that's a HUUGE jump!


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6650
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1121565



Yeah new driver gives big increase in graphics score at same settings









Spoiler: My Previous Result



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1531 / 8182 --- 6565
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/907582
> 
> 
> 
> It's a rerun because my previous results became invalid - ugh! Funnily enough, I got the same score but graphics up abit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , cpu down abit...


----------



## looniam

^ very nice.









skylake decimates my ivy. wish ryzen hurries up so i know which way to upgrade.


----------



## GRABibus

Update : *GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming WATERFORCE 8G flashed with Strix 1080 OC t4 Bios*

2202MHz/5500MHz @ 1.1V
No crash, no artefacts in Time Spy.

GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5500 - 8416

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17627544?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012701594217369814803527.png


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> UPDATE:
> 
> looniam - - - [email protected] 4.6Ghz - - - 980TI 1481/3980 - - - 6209 (*GS 6709!*)
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17617877*
> 
> sorry being a tard w/same overall score but higher graphics score lower cpu clock/score. maybe some want to go the newest drivers a spin (378.49).
> 
> nvrmnd - i didn't submit that one result - i gained 4 points overall.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : *GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Xtreme Gaming WATERFORCE 8G flashed with Strix 1080 OC t4 Bios*
> 
> 2202MHz/5500MHz @ 1.1V
> No crash, no artefacts in Time Spy.
> 
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5500 - 8416
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17627544?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17012701594217369814803527.png











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Had a good LN2 session
> marc_0053 - i7 6950x @ 5.0ghz - Titan X Pascal 2319MHz/1450Mhz - Score = 12,548
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1107009











*! New First Place !*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> Eeked out a few more points
> 
> Validation[
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/RtdzHu


pleae see POst #1 for the required Dataline. Newbee gratuity.


----------



## madweazl

So the system information from the results is what I'm missing? All that info is in the validation link, right?


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> So the system information from the results is what I'm missing? All that info is in the validation link, right?


psssst that validation link goes to a firestrike result.









anyhow make it easier on *the old guy* and use:

USERNAME - - - [email protected] - - - GRAPHICS CARD @ CORE/VRAM - - -SCORE

a few seconds of your time save minutes for him.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> psssst that validation link goes to a firestrike result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyhow make it easier on *the old guy* and use:
> 
> USERNAME - - - [email protected] - - - GRAPHICS CARD @ CORE/VRAM - - -SCORE
> 
> a few seconds of your time save minutes for him.


Bah, I screwed that up. The correct validation is here; this is what happens when you drink and clock...
6600k @4876, 1070 @ 2152/4860, 6409 (GS 6993).

I was excited about my Firestrike score too LOL.


----------



## misoonigiri

I just noticed PhysX is unticked in GPU-Z with newest driver 378.49 - wonder what's up with that


----------



## stugots101

First run.. With the Sli HB Installed yesterday.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> I just noticed PhysX is unticked in GPU-Z with newest driver 378.49 - wonder what's up with that


right OFF | left ON (enabled it between gpu-z instances


fluidmark is also effected. so since it could have a negative inpact on gaming - guess nvidia may have just killed what little life physx had there.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> I just noticed PhysX is unticked in GPU-Z with newest driver 378.49 - wonder what's up with that


I ran with the latest driver and it was still checked in my image above (I left everything in GPU-Z default).


----------



## looniam

i'll just make this my last (maybe







) OT post on physX
left OFF right ON:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> right OFF | left ON (enabled it between gpu-z instances
> 
> 
> fluidmark is also effected. so since it could have a negative inpact on gaming - guess nvidia may have just killed what little life physx had there.


That's interesting - Thanks!















However when I attempted the same, the PhysX box doesn't get enabled for me though - Optimize for Compute to ON in Global, and I also tried the same for 3dmark profile (and GPU-Z re-opened a few times)


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!






Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i'll just make this my last (maybe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) OT post on physX
> left OFF right ON:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I see, so if I see PhysX logo in my game I should see if anything improves with Optimize for Compute set to ON

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I ran with the latest driver and it was still checked in my image above (I left everything in GPU-Z default).


Now it gets a little more confusing for me LoL, but no worries








Thanks!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> So the system information from the results is what I'm missing? All that info is in the validation link, right?


please read post#1 in this thread. it's explained there.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I ran with the latest driver and it was still checked in my image above (I left everything in GPU-Z default).


its only maxwell cards that are affected; a new option in the NVCP for compute performance. the only word nvidia mentioned is address spacing in vram for compute tasks.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> right OFF | left ON (enabled it between gpu-z instances
> 
> 
> fluidmark is also effected. so since it could have a negative inpact on gaming - guess nvidia may have just killed what little life physx had there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's interesting - Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However when I attempted the same, the PhysX box doesn't get enabled for me though - Optimize for Compute to ON in Global, and I also tried the same for 3dmark profile (and GPU-Z re-opened a few times)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i'll just make this my last (maybe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) OT post on physX
> left OFF right ON:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so if I see PhysX logo in my game I should see if anything improves with Optimize for Compute set to ON
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I ran with the latest driver and it was still checked in my image above (I left everything in GPU-Z default).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now it gets a little more confusing for me LoL, but no worries
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

i did a lot of whacky stuff. uninstall physx in window's add/remove in programs and features, tried stand alones of different versions, switched physx folders using an older version before installing the latest driver. i also installed over an old driver after completely deleting the physx installation folder so it wouldn't(?) get touched.

everything looked ok system information/components in NVCP showed physx and saw select gpu(recommended). but fliudmark showed only cpu and gpu-z had no check mark. well until i realized it was only for this latest driver . . . i then had my second cup of coffee.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> its only maxwell cards that are affected; a new option in the NVCP for compute performance. the only word nvidia mentioned is address spacing in vram for compute tasks.
> 
> i did a lot of whacky stuff. uninstall physx in window's add/remove in programs and features, tried stand alones of different versions, switched physx folders using an older version before installing the latest driver. i also installed over an old driver after completely deleting the physx installation folder so it wouldn't(?) get touched.
> 
> everything looked ok system information/components in NVCP showed physx and saw select gpu(recommended). but fliudmark showed only cpu and gpu-z had no check mark. well until i realized it was only for this latest driver . . . i then had my second cup of coffee.


Oh no, I hope you didn't do all this investigating because of my question!















Fluidmark sounds like serious business for all this effort!


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Oh no, I hope you didn't do all this investigating because of my question!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fluidmark sounds like serious business for all this effort!


naw. your question brought it to my attention but i have been a physx nut for awhile.

my first benchmark i use on any nvidia gpu is metroLL or 2033 to see what out of the box behavior i get. though its been a while since i play mush physx games, i'm still looking for a functional copy of Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason. it came with a GT 9600 1Gb i bought and completely decimated it but that copy is looong gone.

now i a thinking about recoil;a fun tank game that i can only find the demo for. that came with diamond multimedia 3D sound card. good stuff use to be bundled with hardware. now a days you only get some vendor specific app suite crap.


----------



## stugots101

Did better on my 2nd test once I increased max temp limits to 84 c .on afterburner



i6700k oc to 4.4ghz
Gtx 1080 FE Sli


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stugots101*
> 
> Did better on my 2nd test once I increased max temp limits to 84 c .on afterburner
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i6700k oc to 4.4ghz
> Gtx 1080 FE Sli


if you are making submissions to the Top 30, read post #1.


----------



## stugots101

stugots101 - i7-6700k @ 4.4ghz / GTX 1080 FE SLI HB - 11826 Score

Hope I did it right

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17707499?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stugots101*
> 
> Hope I did it right
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17707499?


yo, stugots.. need a dataline.

username--- [email protected] --- GPU(s)--- score


----------



## stugots101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yo, stugots.. need a dataline.
> 
> username--- [email protected] --- GPU(s)--- score


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yo, stugots.. need a dataline.
> 
> username--- [email protected] --- GPU(s)--- score


Fixed on previous post


----------



## 99belle99

Here is my score:

R9 Fury X

Xeon X5660 at 4.2GHz

6GB of RAM

Gigabyte X58A-UD7

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/922026

http://s1214.photobucket.com/user/Kelticwarrior00/media/Bench.jpg.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stugots101*
> 
> stugots101 - i7-6700k @ 4.4ghz / GTX 1080 FE SLI HB - 11826 Score
> Hope I did it right
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17707499?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> Here is my score:
> R9 Fury X
> Xeon X5660 at 4.2GHz
> 6GB of RAM
> Gigabyte X58A-UD7
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/922026
> http://s1214.photobucket.com/user/Kelticwarrior00/media/Bench.jpg.html


please read post#1 (or the two right above your post)


----------



## 99belle99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> Here is my score:
> 
> R9 Fury X
> 
> Xeon X5660 at 4.2GHz
> 
> 6GB of RAM
> 
> Gigabyte X58A-UD7
> 
> Username: 99belle99
> 
> Score: 5382
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/922026
> 
> http://s1214.photobucket.com/user/Kelticwarrior00/media/Bench.jpg.html


See in the quoted part.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> please read post#1 (or the two right above your post)


----------



## madweazl

I was able to post the top score for a 6600k/GTX1070 in Fire Strike the other day so I decided to take a shot at Time Spy today and landed in the 5th position. I thought to myself, not to shabby for a first shot (though I pretty much know what my hardware can take at this point so I dont have to inch along in tiny increments) but then I started to look at the four results above mine and they seemed a little odd. The only score with a user name above me has significantly lower clocks (especially on the CPU) yet destroyed my graphics scores. The only differences I could note regarding hardware was that they were running 32gb RAM compared to my 16gb (2x8gb) which I figured would be a hindrance if anything but perhaps that makes a difference? The only other thing I noticed from the results was that a different version of 3dmark was being used (2.2.3488 *s64* vs 2.2.3509 64 that I'm using). Above him, the scores get substantially higher real quick (to the tune of 30% and getting close to SLI top results). Any ideas what may be causing the huge delta between these scores?

Details

__
https://flic.kr/p/RQg2Dr


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I was able to post the top score for a 6600k/GTX1070 in Fire Strike the other day so I decided to take a shot at Time Spy today and landed in the 5th position. I thought to myself, not to shabby for a first shot (though I pretty much know what my hardware can take at this point so I dont have to inch along in tiny increments) but then I started to look at the four results above mine and the results seemed to a little odd. The only score with a user name above me has way significantly lower clocks (especially on the CPU) yet destroyed my graphics scores. The only differences I could note regarding hardware was that they were running 32gb RAM compared to my 16gb (2x8gb) which I figured would be a hindrance if anything but perhaps that makes a difference? The only other things I noticed from the results was that a different version of 3dmark was being used (2.2.3488 *s64* vs 2.2.3509 64 that I'm using). Above him, the scores get substantially higher real quick (to the tune of 30% and getting close to SLI top results). Any ideas what may be causing the huge delta between these scores?
> 
> Details
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/RQg2Dr


The clocks are not always reported correctly so they could be higher and not reported correctly. Also, it doesn't account for cooling also which if clocks are much higher but doesn't report properly you cannot know that either.

For me personally as an example my 5960x gets misreported all the time by futuremarks detection. I know once i had it @ 4.3ghz and some how it kept saying it was clocked to 4.9/5ghz see my qoute below. it says my stock core frequency of the 5960x is 4,980mhz, also it reports my 390x as 290x wich is misleading as well.
Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Dagget3450 - [email protected] - 4x [email protected]/1700 - 15428
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17511324?
Click to expand...

Also, my 390x clocks never seem to be accurate either on the summary.


----------



## madweazl

I understand the clocks could be reported differently, these results just seem insane (not terribly so on the one above me that I just posted but the ones above that are hitting 8k +). The CPU results indicate the mhz isnt just being reported incorrectly though as I'm scoring 50+% higher in those areas. I want to know the secret! LOL.

Anyways, here is an update for our results.

madweazl ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1070 --- 6505 (6987)

Validation


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!





__
https://flic.kr/p/RfMo8G


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I understand the clocks could be reported differently, these results just seem insane (not terribly so on the one above me that I just posted but the ones above that are hitting 9k +). I want to know the secret! LOL.
> 
> Anyways, here is an update for our results.
> 
> madweazl ---- [email protected] --- GTX 1070 --- 6505 (6987)
> 
> Validation
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/RfMo8G


its possible there was an issue with people posting bugged results.(was mentioned previously in one of the futuremark threads) Even so again, if the clocks are way off then that would explain the difference as well. Maybe try comparing the top results with that of 2x gpus and see if they are close. That may be what you are seeing.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I was able to post the top score for a 6600k/GTX1070 in Fire Strike the other day so I decided to take a shot at Time Spy today and landed in the 5th position. I thought to myself, not to shabby for a first shot (though I pretty much know what my hardware can take at this point so I dont have to inch along in tiny increments) but then I started to look at the four results above mine and the results seemed to a little odd. The only score with a user name above me has way significantly lower clocks (especially on the CPU) yet destroyed my graphics scores. The only differences I could note regarding hardware was that they were running 32gb RAM compared to my 16gb (2x8gb) which I figured would be a hindrance if anything but perhaps that makes a difference? The only other things I noticed from the results was that a different version of 3dmark was being used (2.2.3488 *s64* vs 2.2.3509 64 that I'm using). Above him, the scores get substantially higher real quick (to the tune of 30% and getting close to SLI top results). Any ideas what may be causing the huge delta between these scores?
> 
> Details
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/RQg2Dr


i don't see that score listed here but regardless.

as mentioned both the clock speed not always reported correctly (both cpu/gpu) temp is a factor though likely not the only variable since it's highly likely a combination:

driver version - some go up, others go down; some will increase the OC but give a hit on the score. people have searched for that _magical driver_ for their card.

first run as opposed to having already run several - i ALWAYS get my best score first time unless i crank up the OC.

driver tweaks - using inspector to fine tune such as maximum performance; quite a few benchmark threads have them listed, such as for valley.

as i said there are several factors and not just one will have an impact. well . . i have had "one off" scores that i didn't screen shot and was never able to accomplish again.

so yeah "luck" happens too.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *i don't see that score listed here but regardless.*...


The scores I was referring to were on the 3dMark results pages.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> *i don't see that score listed here but regardless.*...
> 
> 
> 
> The scores I was referring to were on the 3dMark results pages.
Click to expand...

ah, missed that.

not to sound like a squealer getting pwn'd in COD; some results can be attained from creative and frowned upon optimizations. there are reasons why screenshots of other monitoring software is required at times.


----------



## madweazl

Yea, I didnt want to cry foul either but I found it odd that I went from the highest results in Fire Strike to almost 20% lower in Time Spy.


----------



## Derek1

Anyone have the Timing Inconsistency error?

I promise I ain't trying to cheat lol.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1165859


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Anyone have the Timing Inconsistency error?
> 
> I promise I ain't trying to cheat lol.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1165859


I get it occasionally near my max overclocks; doesnt mean you cheated, just means you dont have a valid result.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I get it occasionally near my max overclocks; doesnt mean you cheated, just means you dont have a valid result.


Ok thanks.
Still trying to get the OC stable so that is probably it.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> its possible there was an issue with people posting bugged results.(was mentioned previously in one of the futuremark threads) Even so again, if the clocks are way off then that would explain the difference as well. Maybe try comparing the top results with that of 2x gpus and see if they are close. That may be what you are seeing.


I was looking at the results in this thread and the top 4790k/1080 score is one point lower than the 6600k/1070 score at the top of the results on 3dMark (no username with the top three results either).


----------



## 99belle99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> I was looking at the results in this thread and the top 4790k/1080 score is one point lower than the 6600k/1070 score at the top of the results on 3dMark (no username with the top three results either).


Where can you view those results?


----------



## 99belle99

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> Where can you view those results?


Nevermind found them.


----------



## madweazl

Not sure if this will work or not?


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> LOL well, i inadvertently took 1st place.... i should delete this run i suppose and yank gpus as needed....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/timespy+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: ss for once it's gone


Bugged results are possible also, this is from a while back in this thread right after the benchmark was released. It was a pita with the green vs red fanboy thread because i was yanking gpus after this bug. I since now just disconnect the 6/8 psu cables instead.


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dagget3450*
> 
> Bugged results are possible also, this is from a while back in this thread right after the benchmark was released. It was a pita with the green vs red fanboy thread because i was yanking gpus after this bug. *I since now just disconnect the 6/8 psu cables instead*.


why not just disable the card in device manager?

i've wondered that from time to time.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> why not just disable the card in device manager?
> 
> i've wondered that from time to time.


i tried at one point but benchmarks still detect the gpus, esp heaven/valley. if i disconnect the gpus power they wont even be detected by windows.

EDIT: the benchmarks still detect the gpus, while i can't use them because they are disabled in device manager. However they still show up as "detected"


----------



## looniam

ah. thanks.


----------



## misoonigiri

Update,

misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1535 / 8182 --- 6654

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1171078


----------



## looniam

^nice but STAHP!

you have me eyeballing one of the lightnings gunslinger has on the block; a little tough to manage on unemployment.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> ^nice but STAHP!
> 
> you have me eyeballing one of the lightnings gunslinger has on the block; a little tough to manage on unemployment.


Actually there is less than 1 fps difference between our results - in Test 1 my results are slightly lower


----------



## looniam

hey! 32 points is still 33 points too many!


----------



## misoonigiri

Heh!









Btw I kinda noticed when I used high fan speeds for my case fans, my physics / cpu scores are usually lower - strange?


----------



## looniam

that is odd.


----------



## Vellinious

Anecdotal.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Anyone have the Timing Inconsistency error?
> 
> I promise I ain't trying to cheat lol.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1165859


See below from Future Mark.

FM_Jarnis, Official Rep
10933 Posts 683 Reply Likes

Time differences:
Real time clock 376.0
Local time 375.338
Tick count 375.343
Multimedia time 375.338

Your motherboard RTC thinks the run took 376 seconds.

Windows "local time" clock and two other time measurements disagree by about 0.65 seconds.

Ensure motherboard BIOS is up to date. If problem persists, something in your BIOS settings is throwing off clocks in your system, making the benchmark result inaccurate. Either motherboard RTC is lagging behind, or something in system settings is causing other clock measurements to go faster. Can't tell which is the cause, so the score is suspect.

Remember that in Windows 10, any OC adjustments outside BIOS can throw off the clocks. "Feature" of Win 8.1/10 by Microsoft.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> that is odd.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Anecdotal.


Yeah sorry, no comparitive results to show. I'm only asking around wondering if anyone has experienced it
Previously when attempting max gpu clocks, I'd increase or max out the fan speed of my casing fans thinking to increase airflow to gpu (and since the cpu temps during the graphics tests are rather low)

Most of the time, while I'd be happy to top my previous highest graphics scores







, I'd also be sad that the cpu scores are mostly "very very low"







- after more runs, I'd be lucky to get cpu scores that were "average". I was imagining the low cpu scores were due to gpu power "stresses" affecting cpu when maxing gpu clocks - sorry I know that makes no sense









There were other times when after updating motherboard bios, I'd set a new fan profile with higher fan speeds at idle
Then be wondering why my cpu scores no longer reach the "highs" that I used to get

Just recently I changed my fan profile to lower idle speeds - lower than what I've used before
Ran Time Spy & Fire Strike with side panel off
On my latest batch of runs, my cpu scores mostly seemed to be on the "high side" even when pushing max gpu clocks

Btw during the FS/TS cpu test phase, all my casing & cpu fans will ramp up to 100% - for both my current & old fan profiles. Only difference now is lower casing fan speed during graphics test phases. Really strange why it would seem to have any effect on the FS/TS cpu tests









Or maybe it was just a good day


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Yeah sorry, no comparitive results to show. I'm only asking around wondering if anyone has experienced it
> Previously when attempting max gpu clocks, I'd increase or max out the fan speed of my casing fans thinking to increase airflow to gpu (and since the cpu temps during the graphics tests are rather low)
> 
> Most of the time, while I'd be happy to top my previous highest graphics scores
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I'd also be sad that the cpu scores are mostly "very very low"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - after more runs, I'd be lucky to get cpu scores that were "average". I was imagining the low cpu scores were due to gpu power "stresses" affecting cpu when maxing gpu clocks - sorry I know that makes no sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were other times when after updating motherboard bios, I'd set a new fan profile with higher fan speeds at idle
> Then be wondering why my cpu scores no longer reach the "highs" that I used to get
> 
> Just recently I changed my fan profile to lower idle speeds - lower than what I've used before
> Ran Time Spy & Fire Strike with side panel off
> On my latest batch of runs, my cpu scores mostly seemed to be on the "high side" even when pushing max gpu clocks
> 
> Btw during the FS/TS cpu test phase, all my casing & cpu fans will ramp up to 100% - for both my current & old fan profiles. Only difference now is lower casing fan speed during graphics test phases. Really strange why it would seem to have any effect on the FS/TS cpu tests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe it was just a good day


You're using motherboard standoffs for your case fans? I can't imagine they'd draw enough power away from the motherboard to make that much of a difference, but I suppose it's possible.....


----------



## octiny

OCTINY -- 6950x @ 4.3ghz -- Titan X Pascal SLI -- +200/+575 -- 18906
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17827157


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> You're using motherboard standoffs for your case fans? I can't imagine they'd draw enough power away from the motherboard to make that much of a difference, but I suppose it's possible.....


Unsure what you mean about motherboard standoffs for the fans? But I have 2x NF-A14 PWM fans at the front using the fan screws that came with stock case fans. Then 1x NF-A14 2000 PWM fan at the back using Noctua's rubber pins to secure to the casing - Is that what you're asking?

Weird thing with the lower idle fan speeds, I can only imagine them having an affect during the GPU test phases (when cpu temp is low). And not during CPU test phase, where the fans would ramp up to 100% anyway (when cpu temp is highest)

Well I could be totally wrong abt everything from the start, since I have only made a handful of runs (mostly good so far!). But I'll stay with my current settings for now and see how it goes


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Unsure what you mean about motherboard standoffs for the fans? But I have 2x NF-A14 PWM fans at the front using the fan screws that came with stock case fans. Then 1x NF-A14 2000 PWM fan at the back using Noctua's rubber pins to secure to the casing - Is that what you're asking?
> 
> Weird thing with the lower idle fan speeds, I can only imagine them having an affect during the GPU test phases (when cpu temp is low). And not during CPU test phase, where the fans would ramp up to 100% anyway (when cpu temp is highest)
> 
> Well I could be totally wrong abt everything from the start, since I have only made a handful of runs (mostly good so far!). But I'll stay with my current settings for now and see how it goes


Mobo fan headers.....


----------



## looniam

i think standoffs could mean fan headers(?) *(NINJA'D)*

personally if i would spitball . . increasing fan speed might cause more air blow than air flow and end up just blowing around hot air, increasing temps.


----------



## misoonigiri

Oh ok, yes I'm using the mobo fan headers for all fans, all PWM


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i think standoffs could mean fan headers(?) *(NINJA'D)*
> 
> personally if i would spitball . . increasing fan speed might cause more air blow than air flow and end up just blowing around hot air, increasing temps.


It was early, still.....I don't wake up fully until noon. = P


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> i think standoffs could mean fan headers(?) *(NINJA'D)*
> 
> personally if i would spitball . . increasing fan speed might cause more air blow than air flow and end up just blowing around hot air, increasing temps.


Air blow sounds good for hot GPU, but its could be bad for airflow? Heheh, ok will take note








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> It was early, still.....I don't wake up fully until noon. = P


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Anyone have the Timing Inconsistency error?
> 
> I promise I ain't trying to cheat lol.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1165859


just need to allow the system info to complete on the main window before running the benchmark. It's a very common problem - we're too anxious to run the bench!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Update,
> 
> misoonigiri --- 6700k @ 4.725GHz --- 980Ti @ 1535 / 8182 --- 6654
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1171078











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *octiny*
> 
> OCTINY -- 6950x @ 4.3ghz -- Titan X Pascal SLI -- +200/+575 -- 18906
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17827157


New second place!


----------



## Derek1

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> just need to allow the system info to complete on the main window before running the benchmark. It's a very common problem - we're too anxious to run the bench!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New second place!






I wish it were that simple.
Since paying for the software package my ability to get TS runs to even start has been ridiculously difficult.
Typically, after clicking to load up TS it moves to the Graphics Test 1 Loading page and then just quits giving me a Valid 0.
I have been arguing with Support over this issue going back 4 months and they cannot figure out what the problem is after me sending them numerous log files.
It has nothing to do with OC as I have tried running TS at default on both CPU and GPU.
I am hoping the new release of their bench, whatever it is called I forget, is going to be more reliable. It is due out sometime soon is it not??

ETA LMAO Typical, after ranting it loads up and runs to completion but still getting the damn Timing error. (made sure to wait for sys info to complete







)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17832839


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> 
> I wish it were that simple.
> Since paying for the software package my ability to get TS runs to even start has been ridiculously difficult.
> Typically, after clicking to load up TS it moves to the Graphics Test 1 Loading page and then just quits giving me a Valid 0.
> I have been arguing with Support over this issue going back 4 months and they cannot figure out what the problem is after me sending them numerous log files.
> It has nothing to do with OC as I have tried running TS at default on both CPU and GPU.
> I am hoping the new release of their bench, whatever it is called I forget, is going to be more reliable. It is due out sometime soon is it not??
> 
> ETA LMAO Typical, after ranting it loads up and runs to completion but still getting the damn Timing error. (made sure to wait for sys info to complete
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17832839


Does it do this when you "load optimized defaults"?
Tho it should not matter, do you have HPET disabled?
in an elevated command prompt (as admin)...
enable with: bcdedit /set useplatformclock true
disable with: bcdedit /set useplatformclock false.


----------



## WarchildReese

WarchildReese--- 4770k @ 4.6GHz -- Titan XP @ +200/+550 --- 9057
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17854201



Air cooled system. I check this every now and then and I got tired of my Titan XP rig getting beat by 1080's


----------



## madweazl

Guess 3dMark thought the scores were suspect as well because they've been removed (nothing I did, they're just gone). Sitting at the top of Time Spy and Fire Strike, for now









Time Spy


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!





__
https://flic.kr/p/QH1mdD




Fire Strike


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!





__
https://flic.kr/p/RWXBFi


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> Guess 3dMark thought the scores were suspect as well because they've been removed (nothing I did, they're just gone). Sitting at the top of Time Spy and Fire Strike, for now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time Spy
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/QH1mdD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fire Strike
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/RWXBFi


I had pointed out some issues with some valid scores. Some very large issues. 1080's pulling 12k graphics scores in Timespy on a single card, and hitting 20k+ with 2. 980tis outrunning TitanXPs....it's been pretty ridiculous the crap they've let slide over the last year or so.

Got this back from them last night.


----------



## madweazl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> I had pointed out some issues with some valid scores. Some very large issues. 1080's pulling 12k graphics scores in Timespy on a single card, and hitting 20k+ with 2. 980tis outrunning TitanXPs....it's been pretty ridiculous the crap they've let slide over the last year or so.
> 
> Got this back from them last night.


Well I guess I have you to thank for the house cleaning


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Does it do this when you "load optimized defaults"?
> Tho it should not matter, do you have HPET disabled?
> in an elevated command prompt (as admin)...
> enable with: bcdedit /set useplatformclock true
> disable with: bcdedit /set useplatformclock false.


Ok tried the HPET thing and got a valid run, finally! At slightly reduced OC's

UPDATE

Derek1---4930K @ 4.6---EVGA GTX 1080 FTW---2152/1440 (+130/+755)---8031

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17862247


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WarchildReese*
> 
> WarchildReese--- 4770k @ 4.6GHz -- Titan XP @ +200/+550 --- 9057
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17854201
> 
> 
> 
> Air cooled system. I check this every now and then and I got tired of my Titan XP rig getting beat by 1080's











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Ok tried the HPET thing and got a valid run, finally! At slightly reduced OC's
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> Derek1---4930K @ 4.6---EVGA GTX 1080 FTW---2152/1440 (+130/+755)---8031
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17862247











nice work!


----------



## Maintenance Bot

Update, found a bit more speed from cpu.

Maintenance Bot --- 6950x @ 4.6ghz --- TXP @ 2036 / 11112 --- 11000

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1205364


----------



## SavageBrat

think I got all info..

SavageBrat- 6700k @ 4.5 ghz - MSI 1070 Gaming X 1712/2277 (+130/+550) (no extra voltage added) --6162

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17943741


----------



## CptSpig

CptSpig --- 5930k @ 4.6Ghz --- Titan XP @ 227 / 575 --- 10,308
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1167492
http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy 3_zpsxrauuyc3.png.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Maintenance Bot*
> 
> Update, found a bit more speed from cpu.
> 
> Maintenance Bot --- 6950x @ 4.6ghz --- TXP @ 2036 / 11112 --- 11000
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1205364











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SavageBrat*
> 
> think I got all info..
> 
> SavageBrat- 6700k @ 4.5 ghz - MSI 1070 Gaming X 1712/2277 (+130/+550) (no extra voltage added) --6162
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/17943741











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> CptSpig --- 5930k @ 4.6Ghz --- Titan XP @ 227 / 575 --- 10,308
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1167492
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy 3_zpsxrauuyc3.png.html











Nice graphics scores!


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger i7 6950X @ 5.2 --- Titan X Pascal --- 2000/1368 --- 12127

LOD tweaked



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1246029


----------



## Hillguy

Hillguy ---- 3960x @ 5.252 ---- Titan XP @ 2068/2904 ---- 9965 ---- 1/20/17



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1087250


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger i7 6950X @ 5.2 --- Titan X Pascal --- 2000/1368 --- 12127
> *LOD tweaked*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1246029


needs to be a valid run.. only exception is Driver not recognized/approved. Sorry.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hillguy*
> 
> Hillguy ---- 3960x @ 5.252 ---- Titan XP @ 2068/2904 ---- 9965 ---- 1/20/17
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1087250


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> LOD tweaked


I've always kinda wondered.......where does one do the LOD tweaks? What settings are you actually changing?


----------



## looniam

first rule of the fight club . . . .


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> first rule of the fight club . . . .


Is tell the other fight club members what the rules are? = P


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Is tell the other fight club members what the rules are? = P


LOD tweak invaildation is not allowed with TimeSpy, here or on HWBOT. We do allow LOD (HWBOT rules) for Firestrike Extreme and Firestrike SLI/CFX threads (again, Bot rules). You can tweak LOD using Nvidia Inspector.


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> LOD tweak invaildation is not allowed with TimeSpy, here or on HWBOT. We do allow LOD (HWBOT rules) for Firestrike Extreme and Firestrike SLI/CFX threads (again, Bot rules). You can tweak LOD using Nvidia Inspector.


Hmm....they can't be doing a whole lot, if anything at all, if I'm scoring near the top. /shrug


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update...

MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.92GHz -- Titan X(P)@2164MHz -- 11 573:



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1274721*

All this RyZen talk and soon to be release has got me excited. Just seeing how the old 1680 V2 was still doing!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update...
> 
> MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.92GHz -- Titan X(P)@2164MHz -- 11 573:
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1274721*
> 
> All this RyZen talk and soon to be release has got me excited. Just seeing how the old 1680 V2 was still doing!











oh.. I don't think there's any reason to check the rear view mirror.


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh.. I don't think there's any reason to check the rear view mirror.


Unless you want to see ryzen/vega eating dust.


----------



## looniam

well, i am excited w/expectation to see some ryzen/1080TI benches.









might end up being a battle of clock speeds between 2011 and AM4 sockets.


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- Titan X Pascal @ 2088MHz --11562



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1276255

Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- 2x Titan X Pascal @ 2088MHz --20193



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1296066

.


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.619 --- Titan XP --- 1658 / 1495 --- 12156

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1312278



DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.619 --- Titan XP SLI --- 1653 / 1451 --- 20860

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1311867


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- Titan X Pascal @ 2088MHz --11562
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1276255
> 
> Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- 2x Titan X Pascal @ 2088MHz --20193
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1296066
> 
> .










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.619 --- Titan XP --- 1658 / 1495 --- 12156
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1312278
> 
> 
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.619 --- Titan XP SLI --- 1653 / 1451 --- 20860
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1311867










x2


----------



## CptSpig

Update CptSpig --- 5930k @ 4.6Ghz --- Titan XP @ 227 / 675 --- 10,421

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1331826

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/untitled_zps4ieghof3.png.html


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- 2x Titan XP @ 2088 / 1358 -- 20623

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1336437


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Update CptSpig --- 5930k @ 4.6Ghz --- Titan XP @ 227 / 675 --- 10,421
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1331826
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/untitled_zps4ieghof3.png.html











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- 2x Titan XP @ 2088 / 1358 -- 20623
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1336437


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf ---- [email protected] --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE --- 10506

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18513401?


----------



## Beagle Box

New Entry

OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.84GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8114 - March 7, 2017



EDIT:
*See later post for faster entry including verification URL.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf ---- [email protected] --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE --- 10553

With my Ripjaws 5 CL14 32GB kit in at really tight timings.



After reading memory clocked too high can slow benchmarks on a 1080 Ti I turned the memory from +562 to +456 and..

KedarWolf ---- [email protected] --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE --- 10585

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18515818?



To stop posting several times I don't need to make a new post for this better result, right?


----------



## DooRules

@Kedarwolf

Have you tried with anything close to say +200 core and say +400 mem for a TS run? Most any Titan XP can run those settings, thinking you probably can as well. I realize you are only on air right now, and I am not sure what your ambient temps are.


----------



## Baasha

Finally got Time Spy to somewhat scale - still in the 80% range though - probably because my CPU is "only" @ 4.30Ghz. Grr... I really want 4.50Ghz but I'm a noob at CPU OC'ing...









*Baasha* -- 6950X @ 4.30GHz -- 4x GTX-1080 Ti FE @ 2012 / 6055 -- *24,954*



Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1356654


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> @Kedarwolf
> 
> Have you tried with anything close to say +200 core and say +400 mem for a TS run? Most any Titan XP can run those settings, thinking you probably can as well. I realize you are only on air right now, and I am not sure what your ambient temps are.


I just opened my windows to lower ambients temps just for a TimeSpy bench run.

I'm pretty sure I can't do 200 core though, can go as high as 650 memory with really low room temps. Find the sweet Spot for TimeSpy is around 520 though, higher drops the benchmark scores.









I'll have a waterblock in a few weeks though, so here's hoping, and don't forget Ti core clock is already higher the Pascal Titan X which might be why I'm not crashing at only +144 core.

Custom voltage curve at 2088 at 1.093v and +520 memory. 10676.

Now to try at 2101.









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18522117?


----------



## DooRules

Nice job KedarWolf







For sure water block will help steady things out for you. You may find turning off systeminfo hardware monitoring in options will help a little as well. Good luck with over 2100, hope you can do it. Would bode very well for the ti's.


----------



## Baasha

My score with 3-Way SLI 1080 Ti FE:

*Baasha* -- 3970X @ 4.50GHz -- 3x GTX-1080 Ti FE 3 Way SLI @ 2012 / 6026 -- *16,089*



Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1371420


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> New Entry
> 
> OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.84GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8114 - March 7, 2017


Rejected. Need a validation link.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf ---- [email protected] --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE --- 10553
> 
> With my Ripjaws 5 CL14 32GB kit in at really tight timings.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading memory clocked too high can slow benchmarks on a 1080 Ti I turned the memory from +562 to +456 and..
> 
> KedarWolf ---- [email protected] --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE --- 10585
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18515818?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To stop posting several times I don't need to make a new post for this better result, right?





Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> Finally got Time Spy to somewhat scale - still in the 80% range though - probably because my CPU is "only" @ 4.30Ghz. Grr... I really want 4.50Ghz but I'm a noob at CPU OC'ing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Baasha* -- 6950X @ 4.30GHz -- 4x GTX-1080 Ti FE @ 2012 / 6055 -- *24,954*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1356654











Nice!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baasha*
> 
> My score with 3-Way SLI 1080 Ti FE:
> 
> *Baasha* -- 3970X @ 4.50GHz -- 3x GTX-1080 Ti FE 3 Way SLI @ 2012 / 6026 -- *16,089*
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1371420


----------



## Beagle Box

New Entry

OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.95GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8158 - March 13, 2017

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18561798



Absolute highest I can go.


----------



## lilchronic

lilchronic - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2050 / 12000 - 10335

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18616587


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> New Entry
> 
> OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.95GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8158 - March 13, 2017
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18561798
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute highest I can go.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2050 / 12000 - 10335
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/18616587











new 1080ti - nice!


----------



## RedM00N

Did a quick run at my 24/7 clocks to see how it would compare to the 1080ti I plan to get.

RedM00N - [email protected] - Titan X Maxwell @ 1405/8000 - 6503

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1407503

Looks like going off some scores here, the 1080ti is close to a 2x in this bench vs my card/clocks.


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Did a quick run at my 24/7 clocks to see how it would compare to the 1080ti I plan to get.
> 
> RedM00N - [email protected] - Titan X Maxwell @ 1405/8000 - 6503
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1407503
> 
> Looks like going off some scores here, the 1080ti is close to a 2x in this bench vs my card/clocks.


Amazing how slow titan x maxwell is now, or how fast 1080ti will be for its short duration. Im holding out longer this year but at some point i will get something.


----------



## lilchronic

I also moved up from a TXM.
Compare results
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/43194/spy/1383044


----------



## sliflex

SLIFleX // 5820k @ 4100 mhz // 980TI @ 1535 mhz // score: 6595



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1185118


----------



## RedM00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> I also moved up from a TXM.
> Compare results
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/43194/spy/1383044


http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1407503/spy/1383044
So about a 70% increase vs what my scores are. Maybe 75% with a better oc / optimizing. Not bad from flagship Maxwell to 2nd best Pascal card.

And your card vs SLI'd TXM's
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/1409217/spy/1383044

And since SLI doesnt scale perfectly in games, that ~16% difference might not have any say on things other than I need to get me a 1080ti even more







.


----------



## Hulio225

Hulio225 - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2076/12312 - 10012

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1424761

GPU Clock fluctuates, the 2076 is max peak ive seen, still at stock FE cooling until friday.


----------



## Vellinious

Finally hit 9k with a single 1080. Been workin at it for a while.

Vellinious - 6950X @ 4.4Ghz - 1080 @ 2189 / 11160 - 9040

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1422510


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RedM00N*
> 
> Did a quick run at my 24/7 clocks to see how it would compare to the 1080ti I plan to get.
> 
> RedM00N - [email protected] - Titan X Maxwell @ 1405/8000 - 6503
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1407503
> 
> Looks like going off some scores here, the 1080ti is close to a 2x in this bench vs my card/clocks.











Not surprising... the TXM is what.. 2-3 years old?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sliflex*
> 
> SLIFleX // 5820k @ 4100 mhz // 980TI @ 1535 mhz // score: 6595
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1185118











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hulio225*
> 
> Hulio225 - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2076/12312 - 10012
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1424761
> GPU Clock fluctuates, the 2076 is max peak ive seen, still at stock FE cooling until friday.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Finally hit 9k with a single 1080. Been workin at it for a while.
> 
> Vellinious - 6950X @ 4.4Ghz - 1080 @ 2189 / 11160 - 9040
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











*LINK PLEASE*


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising... the TXM is what.. 2-3 years old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LINK PLEASE*


Sorry, I added it to the post.


----------



## Hulio225

Hulio225 - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2088/12344 - 10119


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1437992

Now with waterblock and no fluctuations of core clock xD and the most important part, silent cuz no 100% FE fan yet engine noise!!!!

Edit: I tested and benched the **** out of the card 6 days long on the FE cooler at 100% Fanspeed, after i installed the Waterblock, i had a strange feeling the first hours, because it felt wrong somehow, but good at the same time


----------



## KickAssCop

Timespy.jpg 622k .jpg file


KickAssCop - 5930K @ 4.4 GHz - 1080 Ti FE @ 2000/12000 - 9678

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1442248


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected]@1510/2160----4662



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1444658


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Sorry, I added it to the post.


Added.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KickAssCop*
> 
> Timespy.jpg 622k .jpg file
> 
> 
> KickAssCop - 5930K @ 4.4 GHz - 1080 Ti FE @ 2000/12000 - 9678
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1442248











next time, your screenshot needs to have CPUz main and ram, and GPUZ (one time gratuity







)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected]@1510/2160----4662
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1444658











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hulio225*
> 
> Hulio225 - [email protected] - 1080Ti @ 2088/12344 - 10119
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1437992
> 
> Now with waterblock and no fluctuations of core clock xD and the most important part, silent cuz no 100% FE fan yet engine noise!!!!
> 
> Edit: I tested and benched the **** out of the card 6 days long on the FE cooler at 100% Fanspeed, after i installed the Waterblock, i had a strange feeling the first hours, because it felt wrong somehow, but good at the same time


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected]@1530/2170----4755



*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1453527*

NOTE: That should put the RX480 ahead of my GTX1060 on the list.


----------



## KickAssCop

KickAssCop - 5930K @ 4.5 GHz - 1080 Ti FE @ 2050/12200 - 9726

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1465458

Timespy2.jpg 827k .jpg file


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vellinious*
> 
> Finally hit 9k with a single 1080. Been workin at it for a while.
> 
> Vellinious - 6950X @ 4.4Ghz - 1080 @ 2189 / 11160 - 9040
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1422510


Great


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected]@1530/2170----4755
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1453527*
> 
> NOTE: That should put the RX480 ahead of my GTX1060 on the list.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KickAssCop*
> 
> KickAssCop - 5930K @ 4.5 GHz - 1080 Ti FE @ 2050/12200 - 9726
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1465458
> 
> Timespy2.jpg 827k .jpg file


----------



## Beagle Box

*Update*

*OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.95GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8169 - April 7, 2017*

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1515435



This is truly, without doubt, the absolute highest I can go.


----------



## fearthisneo

fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.8Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2070 / 5508 - 9689
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1519051


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 12555

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19121044
new TXFp


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 12555
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19121044
> new TXFp


Didn't even have to try that hard did you







nice score jpmboy


----------



## Lefty23

New Entry

lefty23 - [email protected] - EVGA 1080 Ti FE @ 2100/12150 - 9501

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1520590


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> *Update*
> 
> *OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.95GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ base settings 1821 MHz / 1400 MHz - 8169 - April 7, 2017*
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1515435
> 
> 
> 
> This is truly, without doubt, the absolute highest I can go.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fearthisneo*
> 
> fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.8Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2070 / 5508 - 9689
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1519051


rejected - sorry, would really like to get your 1700X in the charts, but your validation link is dead and your screenshot is covering the subscores.
*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 12555
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19121044
> new TXFp











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lefty23*
> 
> New Entry
> 
> lefty23 - [email protected] - EVGA 1080 Ti FE @ 2100/12150 - 9501
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1520590


----------



## fearthisneo

fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.8Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2063 / 5704 - 9804
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523093


Let's try this again


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 12555
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19121044
> new TXFp


Nice score! On chilled water? Trying to sell my Titan X Pascal. Got to have one of these beasts.


----------



## ski-bum

UPDATE

ski-bum [email protected]@1494nhz.............6319

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1529166


----------



## Edge0fsanity

edge0fsanity - 6700K @ 4.93ghz - Titan XP SLI @ 2126mhz core / 5760mhz mem - 16431


----------



## CptSpig

CptSpig --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan X Pascal ---- 11074

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1530646


----------



## jsutter71

Please add my results.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1474159


----------



## Hequaqua

[email protected]@1525/[email protected]/1850---7179



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1534709


----------



## GRABibus

Little update :

[email protected]@2177/5544---8449

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19211274?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041202164217369814977611.png


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fearthisneo*
> 
> fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.8Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2063 / 5704 - 9804
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523093
> 
> 
> Let's try this again












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> CptSpig --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan X Pascal ---- 11074
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1530646











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> edge0fsanity - 6700K @ 4.93ghz - Titan XP SLI @ 2126mhz core / 5760mhz mem - 16431


*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Need a validation link
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ski-bum*
> 
> UPDATE
> 
> ski-bum [email protected]@1494nhz.............6319
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1529166











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> [email protected]@1525/[email protected]/1850---7179
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1534709











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Little update :
> 
> [email protected]@2177/5544---8449
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19211274?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041202164217369814977611.png











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Please add my results.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1474159


*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*

Need Data line (UserName---CPU--GPU---Score) and proper screenshot...


----------



## Menthol

Menthol [email protected] [email protected] 2100 - 1589 12684

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1548406


----------



## Menthol

Menthol [email protected]@2100/1566.......................21397

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1542296


----------



## Kimir

.


----------



## Duality92

I'll be competing against myself tonight, I'll be facing off this vs my current top iGPU submission xD


----------



## jsutter71

Please post..Amazing what updated drivers can do.

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1550036


----------



## Arne Saknussemm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol [email protected] [email protected] 2100 - 1589 12684
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1548406


Nice Menthol!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol [email protected] [email protected] 2100 - 1589 12684
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1548406











New first PLace!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Menthol [email protected]@2100/1566.......................21397
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1542296











New First Place!
Nice one bud








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Please post..Amazing what updated drivers can do.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1550036


Again... REJECTED. For the same reason your previous sub was. READ the instructions in POST#1... please.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> I'll be competing against myself tonight, I'll be facing off this vs my current top iGPU submission xD


Don't do that.. you'll go blind.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- TitanXp --- 12696

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19234688


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- TitanXp --- 12696
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19234688


juuuuust taking first.

I tried, I need moar RAM. the system only had 4GB, but I need to get 4GB more and allocate more to the GPU.


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- TitanXp --- 12696
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19234688


Nice JP, very nice, I think I have run out of steam, no more coal for the oven here


----------



## Duality92

You have an entry labeled wrong.

Hequaqua 4770K GTX 480 7179 http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1534709

Should be RX 480. It's in the 2 card config tab.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> You have an entry labeled wrong.
> 
> Hequaqua 4770K GTX 480 7179 http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1534709
> 
> Should be RX 480. It's in the 2 card config tab.


I'm not sure I follow...but when I pull that validation link up and look at the graphics cards, it's right:



Or am I missing something?


----------



## Edge0fsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> 
> Need a validation link


Here is the missing link
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523088


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arne Saknussemm*
> 
> Nice Menthol!


Arne, thank you my friend


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I'm not sure I follow...but when I pull that validation link up and look at the graphics cards, it's right:
> 
> 
> 
> Or am I missing something?


GTX 480


RX 480


GTX 480 =/= RX 480


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> GTX 480
> 
> 
> RX 480
> 
> 
> GTX 480 =/= RX 480


I don't have two RX480's?

That was with a RX480/RX470.

You got me confused now....


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I don't have two RX480's?
> 
> That was with a RX480/RX470.
> 
> You got me confused now....


The validation in the table says GTX 480. The NVidia card. This card is not the same as yours. I just want him to change GTX to RX so it shows the right GPU on the list.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> The validation in the table says GTX 480. The NVidia card. This card is not the same as yours. I just want him to change GTX to RX so it shows the right GPU on the list.


I submitted it correctly, I see what you are talking about though. Here is the original post that was submitted:

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/980#post_26001310

EDIT: That would be a heck of score for a GTX480 though....


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I submitted it correctly, I see what you are talking about though. Here is the original post that was submitted:
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/980#post_26001310


I know, it's not anything you did, it was just entered wrong in the table.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> I know, it's not anything you did, it was just entered wrong in the table.


OK....I was just a bit confused. I'm good now....at least for the next few minutes.


----------



## jsutter71

Lets try this again and this time it looks exactly like your example. 3rd time is the charm. Please PM me if it's not right.


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> Lets try this again and this time it looks exactly like your example. 3rd time is the charm. Please PM me if it's not right.


Quote:


> Requirements for entries in this thread:
> 
> Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable
> 
> [*] *OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score (this is the first line in a sub - please)*
> [*] FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result (prtscrn, open paint, cntrl-V, cntrl-S [name it], post with the Picture or Paperclip tool)
> [*] *Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.*
> [*] *Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)*
> [*] Beta drivers allowed
> [*] For AMD users, please use "Optimal Performance" settings (or your best settings) without disabling tessellation. (tess off will be rejected... for now smile.gif)
> [*] Please use the most recent version of 3D Mark and sysinfo. ("New" or "New-1"). If FM issues a version which significantly departs from historic scores, a VersionTab will be added.


You're not doing the first, third and frourth rules....


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> You're not doing the first, third and frourth rules....


[*] OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- (this is the first line in a sub - please)

Username is Johnsutter71 which shows in the pic
[email protected] which shows in the CPU-Z pic 3.00 GHz

[*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.

Again johnsutter71 which shows in the window to the right which states logged in as johnsutter71

[*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)

How are you not seeing the validation window. which is the first big window on the left.


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> [*] OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- (this is the first line in a sub - please)
> 
> Username is Johnsutter71 which shows in the pic
> [email protected] which shows in the CPU-Z pic 3.00 GHz
> 
> [*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.
> 
> Again johnsutter71 which shows in the window to the right which states logged in as johnsutter71
> 
> [*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)
> 
> How are you not seeing the validation window. which is the first big window on the left.


It's because he can then copy and paste then and not have to write every single of your values. It's easy for you to do one, than him doing ALL of the entries. That's why the rules are in place and until you abide to them, I doubt you'll get into the leader board.

All entries so far have done this, you won't be an exception.

edit : Also your username on OCN jsutter71 and not johnsutter71.


----------



## jsutter71

I can understand that you need to follow a certain guideline to validate the scores. I get that. Not to sound rude because I know how this is about to sound, but who makes the rules, and why is the moderator so anal? Again not trying to sound rude.


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> It's because he can then copy and paste then and not have to write every single of your values. It's easy for you to do one, than him doing ALL of the entries. That's why the rules are in place and until you abide to them, I doubt you'll get into the leader board.
> 
> All entries so far have done this, you won't be an exception.
> 
> edit : Also your username on OCN jsutter71 and not johnsutter71.


I understand, but is he getting so many of these a day that it takes that long. Maybe it's because I use to do code for Ericsson and Nortel switches for AT&T Wireless. It's all relative i suppose. So in addition to the pic he what? wants to add the details below. Fine. NO worries. I can adjust fire.


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I can understand that you need to follow a certain guideline to validate the scores. I get that. Not to sound rude because I know how this is about to sound, but who makes the rules, and why is the moderator so anal? Again not trying to sound rude.


The one making the rules is the thread creator, the one asking you in the first place to abide to them.

He creates a thread like this, with his set of rules, one needs to abide to them.

As far as saying I'm "so anal", I try to be as professional as possible, if you create a thread with rules and someone posting in it doesn't respect the rules to participate, I will enforce those rules. The forum has rules and I try to have them applied as much as I view posts.

I think it's part of the *Professional Initivate* OCN strives for.

edit :

Considering he has 5 of these thread, it's possible.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30
http://www.overclock.net/t/1443196/fire-strike-extreme-top-30
http://www.overclock.net/t/872945/top-30-3d-mark-13-fire-strike-scores-in-crossfire-sli
http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores
http://www.overclock.net/t/1464813/3d-mark-11-extreme-top-30


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> The one making the rules is the thread creator, the one asking you in the first place to abide to them.
> 
> He creates a thread like this, with his set of rules, one needs to abide to them.
> 
> As far as saying I'm "so anal", I try to be as professional as possible, if you create a thread with rules and someone posting in it doesn't respect the rules to participate, I will enforce those rules. The forum has rules and I try to have them applied as much as I view posts.
> 
> I think it's part of the *Professional Initivate* OCN strives for.
> 
> edit :
> 
> Considering he has 5 of these thread, it's possible.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1443196/fire-strike-extreme-top-30
> http://www.overclock.net/t/872945/top-30-3d-mark-13-fire-strike-scores-in-crossfire-sli
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1464813/3d-mark-11-extreme-top-30


Again..It's all good...No worries...


----------



## jsutter71

I have a better score to post anyways...

Johnsutter71 ---6950x @ 3.00GHz ---Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1377MHz ---18511

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19246283


----------



## Duality92

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I have a better score to post anyways...
> 
> Johnsutter71 ---6950x @ 3.00GHz ---Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1377MHz ---18511
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19246283


Your 6950X is at 4.2, not 3, just fyi









Great score!


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Just for reference, here is an example.












Thank you sir and apologies for sounding like a fat Turd. No excuses but I'm a old retired combat veteran. Old dogs and tricks right???


----------



## jsutter71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> Your 6950X is at 4.2, not 3, just fyi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great score!


I stand corrected. I was going by the 1st like in CPU-Z. I can't wait to rerun the test after my new memory arrives today..And THANK YOU








Just to be fair my scores were massively improved after updating the software yesterday.

My new memory..
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?item=N82E16820232349


----------



## marc0053

Congrats both Jpmboy and Menthol amazing scores on the TXp and Time spy! I am about 350 points behind you guys so I won't post results until I find what's wrong hehe


----------



## Duality92

Push it guys, let's get that 13k single card score!


----------



## Menthol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Congrats both Jpmboy and Menthol amazing scores on the TXp and Time spy! I am about 350 points behind you guys so I won't post results until I find what's wrong hehe


Thanks marco, I'm sure you'll fly by me soon enough

[email protected]@2100/1638........................12718

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19250122#


----------



## Duality92

When I get my 290X lightning next week, I'll be aiming for at least half of what you guys are getting.


----------



## jsutter71

johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1382 --- 18877
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1554816


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Nice JP, very nice, I think I have run out of steam, no more coal for the oven here


oh.. we know better.

hey - do your two cards boost to the same clock? I just hooked up my second and at the same offset in AB it's running a lower freq.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marc0053*
> 
> Congrats both Jpmboy and Menthol amazing scores on the TXp and Time spy! I am about 350 points behind you guys so I won't post results until I find what's wrong hehe


and when you do, it's usually waay beyond us mortals. Thanks Champ!

... to the rest: I'll update and fix any entries shortly. And thanks to @Duality92 ... It is only fair to all participants that no user gets "special treatment". The sub format is clearly explained in the OP. One warning ususlly does it. AFTER that I basically ignore the attempted justification as to why a "special exception" to the rules should be made. If I do it once, then it's the new standard and the veracity of the Bench thread is lost. Appreciate your efforts.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I'm not sure I follow...but when I pull that validation link up and look at the graphics cards, it's right:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or am I missing something?


fixed
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> Here is the missing link
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523088


please resub the entry.. i'd rather not go hunting for the parts.


----------



## Jbravo33

Jbravo33 6850k 4.6 Titan Xp 2126/1676 -- 11181
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1558627


----------



## DStealth

DStealth - [email protected] - MSI GX [email protected]/12000 - 10431
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1558062


----------



## Edge0fsanity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> please resub the entry.. i'd rather not go hunting for the parts.


Here is the resubmit

edge0fsanity - 6700K @ 4.93ghz - Titan XP SLI @ 2126mhz core / 5760mhz mem - 16431


http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523088


----------



## Hequaqua

Hequaqua----i7-4770 4.5----GTX1060 1747/2427----4776



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19271546


----------



## fyzzz

Update,
fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2277 --- 6421
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1563518

Card is still air cooled, but cold air from a window definitely helps. Could clock memory about 100+ mhz higher than on normal ambient temperature.


----------



## Barefooter

Barefooter --- [email protected] GHz --- 3x GTX 980ti Classified --- 11,831
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19305315?


Hope I got everything.


----------



## fearthisneo

update
fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.9Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2088 / 5954- 10041
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19311886


----------



## CptSpig

Update: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan X Pascal --- 11197

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy OCN 11197_zpsktnu0myg.png.html

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1575675


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus -- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/5544 --- 8480

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19330519?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041701050417369814985526.png

For information :
V/F curve :

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041701055017369814985527.png

2215MHz at 1.15V (BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4)

It seems that Windows 10 Creator has given me more headroom for overclock for the GTX1080.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf - 5960xK @ 4.724GHZ GHz - Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE under water @ 2088/6177 - 11098


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19336418?

Might not get accepted for leaderboard, not sure why my older Maxwell Titan X I'm using as dedicated PhysX until I sell it in the marketplace here shows in the 3DMark link instead of my 1080 Ti. 1080 Ti shows in GPU-Z though.









Here's the marketplace link to confirm.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1627837/older-asus-12gb-maxwell-titan-x-ek-nickel-waterblock-and-black-backplate-with-predator-qdcs/0_20


----------



## hotrod717

Hotrod717 - 5950x 49/45 -- TXP 2126/1550. -- 12388

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19327180


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> I have a better score to post anyways...
> 
> Johnsutter71 ---6950x @ 3.00GHz ---Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1377MHz ---18511
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19246283


dead link. rejected.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Menthol*
> 
> Thanks marco, I'm sure you'll fly by me soon enough
> 
> [email protected]@2100/1638........................12718
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19250122#











Still First Place!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1382 --- 18877
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1554816


Dead link - rejected
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jbravo33*
> 
> Jbravo33 6850k 4.6 Titan Xp 2126/1676 -- 11181
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1558627











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth - [email protected] - MSI GX [email protected]/12000 - 10431
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1558062











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Edge0fsanity*
> 
> Here is the resubmit
> 
> edge0fsanity - 6700K @ 4.93ghz - Titan XP SLI @ 2126mhz core / 5760mhz mem - 16431
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1523088











Thanks
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Hequaqua----i7-4770 4.5----GTX1060 1747/2427----4776
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19271546











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fyzzz*
> 
> Update,
> fyzzz ---- i5 [email protected] --- GTX [email protected]/2277 --- 6421
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1563518
> 
> Card is still air cooled, but cold air from a window definitely helps. Could clock memory about 100+ mhz higher than on normal ambient temperature.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Barefooter*
> 
> Barefooter --- [email protected] GHz --- 3x GTX 980ti Classified --- 11,831
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19305315?
> 
> 
> Hope I got everything.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fearthisneo*
> 
> update
> fearthisneo - 1700 X @ 3.9Ghz - 1080 Ti @ 2088 / 5954- 10041
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19311886











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Update: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan X Pascal --- 11197
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy OCN 11197_zpsktnu0myg.png.html
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1575675











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus -- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/5544 --- 8480
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19330519?
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> URL=http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041701050417369814985526.png]
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> For information :
> V/F curve :
> 
> [
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> URL=http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041701055017369814985527.png]
> 
> 
> [/URL]
> 
> 2215MHz at 1.15V (BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4)
> 
> It seems that Windows 10 Creator has given me more headroom for overclock for the GTX1080.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf - 5960xK @ 4.724GHZ GHz - Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE under water @ 2088/6177 - 11098
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19336418?
> 
> *Might not get accepted for leaderboard,* not sure why my older Maxwell Titan X I'm using as dedicated PhysX until I sell it in the marketplace here shows in the 3DMark link instead of my 1080 Ti. 1080 Ti shows in GPU-Z though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the marketplace link to confirm.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1627837/older-asus-12gb-maxwell-titan-x-ek-nickel-waterblock-and-black-backplate-with-predator-qdcs/0_20


yeah... you are right. got that alias/second card thing going...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hotrod717*
> 
> Hotrod717 - 5950x 49/45 -- TXP 2126/1550. -- 12388
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19327180











Great card bro!


----------



## jsutter71

johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2088/1384 --- 18947
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1563686


----------



## hotrod717

Thanks. Got it figured out now. Will do 2138 in some benches, but 2126 is sweetspot.


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus -- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/5544 --- 8480
> 
> ...
> 
> For information :
> V/F curve :
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17041701055017369814985527.png
> 
> 2215MHz at 1.15V (BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4)
> 
> It seems that Windows 10 Creator has given me more headroom for overclock for the GTX1080.


What???!!!

All my benchmarking scores have gone down.








That's including Superposition where my card now can do 2227MHz @ 1.093 for the first 3 scenes...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2088/1384 --- 18947
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1563686











Finally.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hotrod717*
> 
> Thanks. Got it figured out now. Will do 2138 in some benches, but 2126 is sweetspot.


Killer card Rod!


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Does someone know what`s the deal, I cannot reinstall my 3dmark, or run any benches, I have the advanced version with the key but its all grey on me


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Does someone know what`s the deal, I cannot reinstall my 3dmark, or run any benches, I have the advanced version with the key but its all grey on me


Seen it. Says you don't have the bench tests in inventory and you lack the license to download them? Happened to me when an update to one of the benchmarks failed. I chalked it up to allowing the latest update while running unstable clocks, but maybe it's just a bad update module? Eventually did a complete and thorough uninstall with REVO, pulled down the latest installation executable from guru3d and reinstalled with safe clocks. Works again.









*Mine was free version, though.* Don't know what this reinstallation method may to your license info.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Yeah I used a qbit uninstaller aswell and removed all files related to 3dmark now I can run it again, had nothing to do with my clocks tho


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> What???!!!
> 
> All my benchmarking scores have gone down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's including Superposition where my card now can do 2227MHz @ 1.093 for the first 3 scenes...


Don't worry my friend, I receive my "MSI GTX 1080 Ti Sea Hawk X" tomorrow.
Then you will win one rank in GTX 1080 rankking


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Don't worry my friend, I receive my "MSI GTX 1080 Ti Sea Hawk X" tomorrow.
> Then you will win one rank in GTX 1080 rankking


Why don't I feel any better?


----------



## FuriousReload

FuriousReload ---- 7700k @ 4.8 GHz --- (1) GTX 1080 Ti --- 9912
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1596876



LOL, forgot to change one of the CPU-Z windows.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2025/6004 -- 10230

MSI Sea Hawk X with ASUS Strix Bios

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19427603?


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2025/6004 -- 10230
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk X with ASUS Strix Bios
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19427603?


You didn't even try it with the stock MSI BIOS did you? You just had to install the turbo on the showroom floor and then burn rubber through the front lot and halfway down the street...









Very well done.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> You didn't even try it with the stock MSI BIOS did you? You just had to install the turbo on the showroom floor and then burn rubber through the front lot and halfway down the street...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well done.












I lost Silicon lottery here lol

Even with GPU temeprature at 40°C, unable to hit more than 2025MHz at 1.093V.
Otherwoise, crash.

I don't understand how I can't over 2025MHz with a well cooled GPU when at the same time I see some people at 2050MHz with a GPU at 70°C...


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lost Silicon lottery here lol
> 
> Even with GPU temeprature at 40°C, unable to hit more than 2025MHz at 1.093V.
> Otherwoise, crash.
> 
> I don't understand how I can't over 2025MHz with a well cooled GPU when at the same time I see some people at 2050MHz with a GPU at 70°C...


So you're limited to 1.093V with this BIOS?
That's 2 cards for you that have required greater than average voltage...







I wonder if your MOBO's PCI bus is somehow underpowered?


----------



## GRABibus

No,
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> So you're limited to 1.093V with this BIOS?
> That's 2 cards for you that have required greater than average voltage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if your MOBO's PCI bus is somehow underpowered?


No, this Bios doesn't unlock the voltage as on gtx1080.

My concerned is my power limit which is low at 40C.
This is my opinion versus what I can read


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> So you're limited to 1.093V with this BIOS?
> That's 2 cards for you that have required greater than average voltage...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if your MOBO's PCI bus is somehow underpowered?


Honest my, I don't see any reasons why my my pcie bus would be underpowered...

i use the 3rd slot PCIE for my card which is at Pcie 16x.
I will try the first slot, but I doubt it will improve


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> No,
> No, this Bios doesn't unlock the voltage as on gtx1080.
> 
> My concerned is my power limit which is low at 40C.
> This is my opinion versus what I can read


Are the Voltage and Power sliders enabled for you in Afterburner? It's my understanding that MSI 1080tis were locked out of Voltage, but the Power slider was available.

How much max wattage can it pull while testing?
How much would the original MSI BIOS allow you to pull?

Is it time to consider the shunt mod so soon?









I don't know why your PCI bus might be under-powered, either. It was just a thought...

If it's not a Voltage problem, but a power issue, then it's not a bus problem because the card should draw power from the 8-pin connector on top. BTW: It's a very nice Motherboard that allows PCIe 3.0X16 in so many slots. _Very_ nice. I think you can just leave the card where it is.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> Are the Voltage and Power sliders enabled for you in Afterburner? It's my understanding that MSI 1080tis were locked out of Voltage, but the Power slider was available


Yes, you can adjust slider with last beta version 4.4.0.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2025/6004 -- 10230
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk X with ASUS Strix Bios
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19427603?


Don't put this core in the table Jmpboy please.


----------



## GRABibus

My sea hawk is unoverclockable.
Shunt mod and new Bioses are necessary.

I will give it back to the store

In France you can send back something you bought with total refund during 14 days after date of purchase, if you were delivered at home (This is my case).
So, I will be totally refunded and will wait for better improvments


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> My sea hawk is unoverclockable.
> Shunt mod and new Bioses are necessary.
> 
> I will give it back to the store
> 
> In France you can send back something you bought with total refund during 14 days after date of purchase, if you were delivered at home (This is my case).
> So, I will be totally refunded and will wait for better improvments


It won't overclock with either BIOS? This just seems all wrong. MSI cards are usually the best at overclocking, which is why I buy them. I was so happy that you got this card because I had hopes of selling my own 1080 Gaming X and getting a 1080ti Seahawk EK. I was so hoping yours would be an awesome card. Now, I'm disappointed for us both!

Have you tried the BIOS from the 1080ti Gaming X?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> It won't overclock with either BIOS? This just seems all wrong. MSI cards are usually the best at overclocking, which is why I buy them. I was so happy that you got this card because I had hopes of selling my own 1080 Gaming X and getting a 1080ti Seahawk EK. I was so hoping yours would be an awesome card. Now, I'm disappointed for us both!
> 
> Have you tried the BIOS from the 1080ti Gaming X?


Yes I tried it.
I tried several.
Best case => 2012MHz at 1.093V


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> It won't overclock with either BIOS? This just seems all wrong. MSI cards are usually the best at overclocking, which is why I buy them. I was so happy that you got this card because I had hopes of selling my own 1080 Gaming X and getting a 1080ti Seahawk EK. I was so hoping yours would be an awesome card. Now, I'm disappointed for us both!
> 
> Have you tried the BIOS from the 1080ti Gaming X?


By the way I am sure you will get a good card !









Maybe it is a underpowered PCIE bus but I really doubt...


----------



## GRABibus

I like these comments of one guy on GTX1080Ti thread :

*bet that card is fine. In fact, 2012/2025 is at or above average OC on these. they have 1000 more cores than a 1080, remember that. Seeing all these repeat posts of the same dozen guys who managed to get 2100 to stick can be disheartening. But look at how many cards some of us run through. Look at all the extra paste and heatsinks and shunt mods and soldered wires and a few burned out cards; and bios mods and time spent benching/testing/forum posting, returning and rebuying and reselling and tearing apart our rigs and draining loops again and again...

The guy who bought the Zotac and plugged it in and was running 2037 right off the bat with 2 minutes involved in the whole process is 100% the winner in this whole thread. Luckily I enjoy the whole process, but it is work, no doubt about it. I.T. work for fun.

Keep your chin up. That GPU smokes any you've ever had by A LOT. It's probably better than anybody you know in real life's gpu. It's probably overkill for your current monitor anyway. It games silently and it doesnt run hot. It's all good, brother. We are here to help if you really need to see 2037 or 2050 to be happy. I bet we can get you there at least.*

he is fully right


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I like these comments of one guy on GTX1080Ti thread :
> 
> *bet that card is fine. In fact, 2012/2025 is at or above average OC on these. they have 1000 more cores than a 1080, remember that. Seeing all these repeat posts of the same dozen guys who managed to get 2100 to stick can be disheartening. But look at how many cards some of us run through. Look at all the extra paste and heatsinks and shunt mods and soldered wires and a few burned out cards; and bios mods and time spent benching/testing/forum posting, returning and rebuying and reselling and tearing apart our rigs and draining loops again and again...
> 
> The guy who bought the Zotac and plugged it in and was running 2037 right off the bat with 2 minutes involved in the whole process is 100% the winner in this whole thread. Luckily I enjoy the whole process, but it is work, no doubt about it. I.T. work for fun.
> 
> Keep your chin up. That GPU smokes any you've ever had by A LOT. It's probably better than anybody you know in real life's gpu. It's probably overkill for your current monitor anyway. It games silently and it doesnt run hot. It's all good, brother. We are here to help if you really need to see 2037 or 2050 to be happy. I bet we can get you there at least.*
> 
> he is fully right


He is right. We're so used to 1080 speeds, we've forgotten a larger, more powerful engine need not spin as fast. The performance of the card is in the testing, benchmarks and usage, not the MHz. And a slow Ti does smoke even my well-overclocked 1080 (2227MHz) by an _embarrassing_ amount. I guess you need to compare your benchmark results to others' and see whether you're actually 'slow' or not.


----------



## jsutter71

johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1382 --- 19043



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19441436


----------



## glnn_23

glnn_23 - 7700k @ 5.1Ghz - EVGA 1080Ti FE @ 2101 / 1534 - 10215
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19419870


----------



## DStealth

DStealth - [email protected] - MSI GX [email protected]/12000 - 10578
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1562028


----------



## GRABibus

Update : for my friend Beagle Box









GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5544 - 8515

GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19453505?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042212304317369814994532.png

V/F curve :


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : for my friend Beagle Box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5544 - 8515
> 
> GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19453505?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042212304317369814994532.png
> 
> 
> 
> V/F curve :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


That's fast. As usual, your overall score is 300 pts higher than my highest, even with your old 1080.








The highest Graphics score I've been able to obtain is 8556, even though my MSI runs @2227 for short periods.

That is a very nice curve. Looks much like mine, only farther right. Have you tried bumping the highest curve point to 2227?







I wonder if my card could do better than 2227under water, but since I want to sell this card to get a Ti, spending the $150USD just to run that experiment makes little sense... Of course, after your Ti experiences, I'm undecided on what to do next...

Have you finalized your decision on whether to keep or return the Sea Hawk? I haven't spent much time looking at Ti bench scores, yet. Where does your card fall on the Ti performance continuum?

I've been thinking about your voltage issues. Are all your chipset drivers and BIOS up-to-date? Have you tried changing out the cable that powers the card? Does your motherboard have additional power connectors where you can connect more juice from the PSU?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> That's fast. As usual, your overall score is 300 pts higher than my highest, even with your old 1080.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highest Graphics score I've been able to obtain is 8556, even though my MSI runs @2227 for short periods.
> 
> That is a very nice curve. Looks much like mine, only farther right. Have you tried bumping the highest curve point to 2227?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if my card could do better than 2227under water, but since I want to sell this card to get a Ti, spending the $150USD just to run that experiment makes little sense... Of course, after your Ti experiences, I'm undecided on what to do next...
> 
> Have you finalized your decision on whether to keep or return the Sea Hawk? I haven't spent much time looking at Ti bench scores, yet. Where does your card fall on the Ti performance continuum?
> 
> I've been thinking about your voltage issues. Are all your chipset drivers and BIOS up-to-date? Have you tried changing out the cable that powers the card? Does your motherboard have additional power connectors where you can connect more juice from the PSU?


In the leaderboard your graphics score is 8620, not 8550 ?
My Bios is not updated.
This is the 1401.
But I won't update I it as I willl have to retest my CPU overclock which is Chipset drivers are updated.
I did not test another cable.
Yes, I Will be refunded for the 1080ti.
It was doing best case 2000Mhz at 1.093v....under water.....


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> In the leaderboard your graphics score is 8620, not 8550 ?
> My Bios is not updated.
> This is the 1401.
> But I won't update I it as I willl have to retest my CPU overclock which is Chipset drivers are updated.
> I did not test another cable.
> Yes, I Will be refunded for the 1080ti.
> It was doing best case 2000Mhz at 1.093v....under water.....










You are _almost_ correct! I did score a Graphics: _8602_ in that run and ~8600 in some others, but usually when my Graphics score is that high, my CPU score is so low I don't get a good overall score. ... My mistake.









Sorry that Ti card didn't work out. Are you considering a different model, or will you be content to keep kicking my ass with your STRIX?


----------



## GRABibus

Just a test without rebooting before.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19461327?

Why don't you flash with the Strix Bios ? You wil kill everybody with your skilled card....


----------



## GRABibus

delete


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a test without rebooting before.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19461327?
> 
> Why don't you flash with the Strix Bios ? You wil kill everybody with your skilled card....


Not sure it's compatible with my card. And not certain my card can run any faster and translate it into actual FPS. I may flash it, if I decide to keep the card.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5544 - 8527
> 
> GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19462089?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Whoo hooo!







That's some score. 2228? Excellent!
You should give lessons on the subject.









I've reached a plateau. My scores are consistently going down and my system is less stable since taking the Windows Creators Update. I'm experiencing USB I/O stuttering and monitor drop outs and and video error BSODs. I hate Microsoft.








.


----------



## GRABibus

Look :

Update :

GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]*2253*/5544 - 8534

GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19462559?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042207145617369814995178.png

8629 Graphics score, not too bad









I changed the power cable of the card...No...Tell me, this shouldn't influence the test ?.....









I also set in NVCP max performances for power supply and high performances for textures

NOT STABLE IN GAMES.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> Not sure it's compatible with my card. And not certain my card can run any faster and translate it into actual FPS. I may flash it, if I decide to keep the card.
> [/SPOILER]
> 
> Whoo hooo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's some score. 2228? Excellent!
> You should give lessons on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've reached a plateau. My scores are consistently going down and my system is less stable since taking the Windows Creators Update. I'm experiencing USB I/O stuttering and monitor drop outs and and video error BSODs. I hate Microsoft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I am more stable with my card since creator update...


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> Not sure it's compatible with my card. And not certain my card can run any faster and translate it into actual FPS. I may flash it, if I decide to keep the card.
> [/SPOILER].


Apparently, you need less voltage than me.

Here is what I conclude :
I first apply an offset of 240Mhz on core with MSI AB.
If I apply more, I artefact in Time Spy.

Then, I tweak curves as you can see and here is what I can have stable (Stable=no artefacts and no crash in games, Time Spy and Firestrike) :
2214MHz requires 1.15V (I have to retry 1.1V) stable in bench + games.
2227MHz requires 1.2V => stable in bench + games
2240MHz requires 1.2V => stable in bench and 15mns BF1 (Must test more)
2252 requires 1.2V => Stable in bench, not in games (BF1 crashed after 5 minutes).

Of course, those voltages can be applied only on xwater (My card is on water).

So, be careful..but you could test.


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look :
> 
> Update :
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]*2253*/5544 - 8534
> 
> GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19462559?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042207145617369814995178.png
> 
> 
> 
> 8629 Graphics score, not too bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I changed the power cable of the card...No...Tell me, this shouldn't influence the test ?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also set in NVCP max performances for power supply and high performances for textures
> 
> NOT STABLE IN GAMES.


You are _*really*_ putting up the numbers!








. I'm envious. Makes me want to go buy a water block and flash my BIOS...









These spiky curves are to twitchy for gaming. I never game at those speeds anyway. You'll find that your same curve will be be great for gaming if you just take out the spike and run a long, flat plateau.







If it's still too much, leave the body of the curve as is and drop the max flat part down by 13 MHZ at a time until it's stable.

My machine is currently sitting in pieces on my desk. I'm running @ 5GHz and when Windows won't boot, I'm forced to remove my GPU, boot to IGP and reinstall my GPU. Never happened before the update.









I actually think your power cable may have been the cause of your Voltage problems all along... Stranger things have happened. You should retest the Sea Hawk.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I am more stable with my card since creator update...


I should probably perform a complete reinstallation of Windows. Not sure that's going to cure my issues, though...


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Apparently, you need less voltage than me.
> 
> Here is what I conclude :
> I first apply an offset of 240Mhz on core with MSI AB.
> If I apply more, I artefact in Time Spy.
> 
> Then, I tweak curves as you can see and here is what I can have stable (Stable=no artefacts and no crash in games, Time Spy and Firestrike) :
> 2214MHz requires 1.15V (I have to retry 1.1V) stable in bench + games.
> 2227MHz requires 1.2V => stable in bench + games
> 2240MHz requires 1.2V => stable in bench and 15mns BF1 (Must test more)
> 2252 requires 1.2V => Stable in bench, not in games (BF1 crashed after 5 minutes).
> 
> Of course, those voltages can be applied only on xwater (My card is on water).
> 
> So, be careful..but you could test.


"I first apply an offset of 240Mhz on core with MSI AB."

Is that your memory setting or your Power Curve?
If it's the power and all curves are different, where does that +240 put your 1.093 point on the graph?

Your card is similar to the Sapphire 380 NITRO I have. It's a great overclocker. It took more voltage and more power to run, as long as I could keep it cool, it would run almost as fast as my 380x NITRO. Yours is what they call a low ASIC quality chip. Everyone is always looking for the high ASIC quality chips, but with proper cooling the low quality ones are much, much faster. They're also more tolerant of over-volting. Put too much voltage into a high-ASIC-quality chip and it will degrade to the point it won't run Cinebench opengl.

Heh. Not ready to flash just yet!


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> "I first apply an offset of 240Mhz on core with MSI AB."
> 
> Is that your memory setting or your Power Curve?
> If it's the power and all curves are different, where does that +240 put your 1.093 point on the graph?
> 
> Your card is similar to the Sapphire 380 NITRO I have. It's a great overclocker. It took more voltage and more power to run, as long as I could keep it cool, it would run almost as fast as my 380x NITRO. Yours is what they call a low ASIC quality chip. Everyone is always looking for the high ASIC quality chips, but with proper cooling the low quality ones are much, much faster. They're also more tolerant of over-volting. Put too much voltage into a high-ASIC-quality chip and it will degrade to the point it won't run Cinebench opengl.
> 
> Heh. Not ready to flash just yet!


I am on iPhone now and can't see the curves.
At which fréquency is the point 1,093v on the curve ?


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> I am on iPhone now and can't see the curves.
> At which fréquency is the point 1,093v on the curve ?


I don't know. I'm on a MacBook and can't see a thing!


----------



## Clukos

Clukos ---- Ryzen 1700 @ 3.960GHz --- 1080 Ti (2075/6300) air, no shunt mod --- 10656



Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19479512?


----------



## rt123

rt123 --- 1800X @ 4.2GHz --- Titan XFp @ 2066/1624 --- 11169










http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19487092


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuriousReload*
> 
> FuriousReload ---- 7700k @ 4.8 GHz --- (1) GTX 1080 Ti --- 9912
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1596876
> 
> 
> LOL, forgot to change one of the CPU-Z windows.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2025/6004 -- 10230
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk X with ASUS Strix Bios
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19427603?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsutter71*
> 
> johnsutter71 --- 6950X @ 4.3GHz --- Titan XP SLI @ 2101/1382 --- 19043
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19441436











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glnn_23*
> 
> glnn_23 - 7700k @ 5.1Ghz - EVGA 1080Ti FE @ 2101 / 1534 - 10215
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19419870











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth - [email protected] - MSI GX [email protected]/12000 - 10578
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1562028











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : for my friend Beagle Box
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]/5544 - 8515
> 
> GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19453505?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042212304317369814994532.png
> 
> 
> 
> V/F curve :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look :
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus - [email protected] - GTX [email protected]*2253*/5544 - 8534
> 
> GIGABYTE with BIOS ASUS Strix OC t4
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19462559?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17042207145617369814995178.png
> 
> 
> 
> 8629 Graphics score, not too bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I changed the power cable of the card...No...Tell me, this shouldn't influence the test ?.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also set in NVCP max performances for power supply and high performances for textures
> 
> NOT STABLE IN GAMES.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Clukos ---- Ryzen 1700 @ 3.960GHz --- 1080 Ti (2075/6300) air, no shunt mod --- 10656
> 
> 
> 
> Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19479512?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rt123*
> 
> rt123 --- 1800X @ 4.2GHz --- Titan XFp @ 2066/1624 --- 11169
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19487092


----------



## hotrod717

Hotrod717 - 5960xx @ 54/45 - TXp 2228/1550 - 12893

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19578776


----------



## veg28

veg28 - 5775C @4.5GHz 1080ti @2101/6054 - 9568



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1650816http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1643270


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2050/6004 -- 10283



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19590292?

GTX1080Ti ZOTAC Founders Edition
+150MHz on core in MSI AB
Fan at 100%
Power limit => 120%
Voltage slider => 100%

PS : I don't understand why 3DMark says "drivers not approved"...
I have the latest from NVIDIA 381.89 WHQL


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2050/6004 -- 10283
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19590292?
> 
> GTX1080Ti ZOTAC Founders Edition
> +150MHz on core in MSI AB
> Fan at 100%
> Power limit => 120%
> Voltage slider => 100%
> 
> PS : I don't understand why 3DMark says "drivers not approved"...
> I have the latest from NVIDIA 381.89 WHQL


What?! You bought a ZOTAC Ti?! How does it compare to the Seahawk for overclocking?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> What?! You bought a ZOTAC Ti?! How does it compare to the Seahawk for overclocking?


As you can see, this one is better than Sea Hawk.
It is a founder edition.

I am of course power limited mainly by temperature.

But I can bench Time Spy at 2050MHz / 1.05V.
2050MHz is of course not stable, frequency fluctuates during the benchmark.

In games, I am stable (To confirm) if I set 2088MHz at 1.081V.
Heer also Frequency fluctuates, and fluctuataes a lot when GPU reaches 60°C.
Thi sis why I put the fan at 100%.

In Time Spy, 2088MHz at 1.081V is noty possible.
I am powerr limited and since the beginn,ing of the benchmark, frequency is 2063MHz (Instead of 2088MHz) and voltage is 1.063V instead of 1.081V.

At the hend, my score is much more better at 2050MHz 1.05V than 2088MHz 1.081V.

Now, I have toi find a way to cool this card (First I will probably repaste with Grizzly Kryonaut).

With Sea HAwk, I was reaching only 2012MHz at 1.093V !


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hotrod717*
> 
> Hotrod717 - 5960xx @ 54/45 - TXp 2228/1550 - 12893
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19578776


Nice run


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> As you can see, this one is better than Sea Hawk.
> It is a founder edition.
> 
> I am of course power limited mainly by temperature.
> 
> But I can bench Time Spy at 2050MHz / 1.05V.
> 2050MHz is of course not stable, frequency fluctuates during the benchmark.
> 
> In games, I am stable (To confirm) if I set 2088MHz at 1.081V.
> Heer also Frequency fluctuates, and fluctuataes a lot when GPU reaches 60°C.
> Thi sis why I put the fan at 100%.
> 
> In Time Spy, 2088MHz at 1.081V is noty possible.
> I am powerr limited and since the beginn,ing of the benchmark, frequency is 2063MHz (Instead of 2088MHz) and voltage is 1.063V instead of 1.081V.
> 
> At the hend, my score is much more better at 2050MHz 1.05V than 2088MHz 1.081V.
> 
> Now, I have toi find a way to cool this card (First I will probably repaste with Grizzly Kryonaut).
> 
> With Sea HAwk, I was reaching only 2012MHz at 1.093V !


All you need now is a good waterblock. Is there one available that fits the ZOTAC Ti FE?


----------



## done12many2

done12many2 --- 7700k @ 5.4 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti SLI @ 2037/1566 --- 16449


----------



## M1aSocom2

m1asocom2 --- 6700k @ 4.7Ghz --- 2xgtx1070 @ 2088 / 9036 --- 11252


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> All you need now is a good waterblock. Is there one available that fits the ZOTAC Ti FE?


Yes there are.
But honestly, I don't want to make all this stuff only to win 60MHz and 40mW.
I am gonna see how to improve first my air cooling for the card (Repasting, additionnal fans, etc...)


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hotrod717*
> 
> Hotrod717 - 5960xx @ 54/45 - TXp 2228/1550 - 12893
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19578776











*! New First Place !*

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *veg28*
> 
> veg28 - 5775C @4.5GHz 1080ti @2101/6054 - 9568
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1650816http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1643270











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABibus ---- 5930k @ 4.8 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2050/6004 -- 10283
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19590292?
> 
> GTX1080Ti ZOTAC Founders Edition
> +150MHz on core in MSI AB
> Fan at 100%
> Power limit => 120%
> Voltage slider => 100%
> 
> PS : I don't understand why 3DMark says "drivers not approved"...
> I have the latest from NVIDIA 381.89 WHQL











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> done12many2 --- 7700k @ 5.4 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti SLI @ 2037/1566 --- 16449


*Validation Link Please*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M1aSocom2*
> 
> m1asocom2 --- 6700k @ 4.7Ghz --- 2xgtx1070 @ 2088 / 9036 --- 11252


*Validation Link Please*


----------



## M1aSocom2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M1aSocom2*
> 
> m1asocom2 --- 6700k @ 4.7Ghz --- 2xgtx1070 @ 2088 / 9036 --- 11252


sorry,
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19611035


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *Validation Link Please*


Sorry about that.

done12many2 --- 7700k @ 5.4 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti SLI @ 2037/1566 --- 16449

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1657466


----------



## Hulio225

UPDATE: (Please delete old entries from charts)

Hulio225 --- 7700k @ 5.2GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2113 / 1571 --- 10385

Edit: Managed to get 10422 or something will upload link and screenshot tomorrow ;-)


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hulio225*
> 
> UPDATE: (Please delete old entries from charts)
> 
> Hulio225 --- 7700k @ 5.2GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2113 / 1571 --- 10385
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1660558


That's a man sized voltage you're running through that 7700k.


----------



## Hulio225

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> That's a man sized voltage you're running through that 7700k.


Hehe yeah got a potato chip... luckily my cooling is sufficient and temps are okay with that voltage...#

Edit: You at the other hand got a very good one, have you binned a lot for that? and have you checked if you can get more out of it if you go ham like me?^^


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hulio225*
> 
> Hehe yeah got a potato chip... luckily my cooling is sufficient and temps are okay with that voltage...#
> 
> Edit: You at the other hand got a very good one, have you binned a lot for that? and have you checked if you can get more out of it if you go ham like me?^^


Hey, at least you got a very nice 1080 Ti!! That thing is a beast.

Yeah, I go through a lot of chips hunting for good ones. The one I'm running now will do R15 at 5.55 with 1.5 to 1.52v and some cold (really cold) ambient. Still nothing like @Jpmboy's chip.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hulio225*
> 
> Hehe yeah got a potato chip... luckily my cooling is sufficient and temps are okay with that voltage...#
> 
> Edit: You at the other hand got a very good one, h*ave you binned a lot for that?* and have you checked if you can get more out of it if you go ham like me?^^


you have no idea...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> Sorry about that.
> 
> done12many2 --- 7700k @ 5.4 GHz --- GTX 1080 Ti SLI @ 2037/1566 --- 16449
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1657466
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


thx. added.


----------



## CptSpig

New: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 11800
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1710216

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled_zpsxpgypdwi.png.html


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> New: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 11800
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1710216
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled_zpsxpgypdwi.png.html











Nice!


----------



## Duality92

I amaze myself, this 0.5L PC is amazing for the size. Processor is not recognized because it is identified as a i5 7500U, that's because it doesn't exist, it's an ES. it's actually a i5 7300U with turbo always on, on both cores.

Note : RAM speed fluctuates because of special C states on this platform. Benching speed is most likely always at 2400/14.

Ram upgraded to 2*4GB Kingston Impact 2400/14

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19880688

Duality92 ---- i5 [email protected] --- Intel HD 620--- 401


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.8GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2215/5544 --- 14530

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19917582?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17051308323817369815039997.png


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Duality92*
> 
> I amaze myself, this 0.5L PC is amazing for the size. Processor is not recognized because it is identified as a i5 7500U, that's because it doesn't exist, it's an ES. it's actually a i5 7300U with turbo always on, on both cores.
> 
> Note : RAM speed fluctuates because of special C states on this platform. Benching speed is most likely always at 2400/14.
> 
> Ram upgraded to 2*4GB Kingston Impact 2400/14
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19880688
> 
> Duality92 ---- i5 [email protected] --- Intel HD 620--- 401




















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.8GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2215/5544 --- 14530
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19917582?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17051308323817369815039997.png


----------



## Duality92

I'm supposed to be in the igpu category


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.8GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2240/5544 --- 14586

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19987339?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17051709175817369815047309.png


----------



## Beagle Box

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.8GHz --- *GTX 1080 SLI* @ 2240/5544 --- 14586
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19987339?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17051709175817369815047309.png


You are clocking some great scores.








So you have decided 1080 SLI is best?
Did you give up on the Ti, or are you still experimenting?


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> You are clocking some great scores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have decided 1080 SLI is best?
> Did you give up on the Ti, or are you still experimenting?


Yes, I experiment








But SLI runs good at the moment, except one strange thing when I rebooted the computer some minutes ago....computer didn't restart , shut down, and finally restarted , as à kind of instability....I feel cache instability (I didn't have time to check Qcode).
I am gonna increase my offset Vcache and see if this happens again in the next weeks and see if SLI is the cause....


----------



## Derek1

[email protected] GTX1080 x 2----2139/5400----13416


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20021582


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update :
> 
> GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.8GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2240/5544 --- 14586
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/19987339?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17051709175817369815047309.png











creeping up 10 pts at a time... no change in position.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> [email protected] GTX1080 x 2----2139/5400----13416
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20021582


----------



## Derek1

UPDATE (sorry lol)

[email protected] GTX 1080 Hybrid x 2

2152/5800----13774



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20056070


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## seven7thirty30

i7 7700K @ 5.0, 16GB DDR4-3600, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2062/5940



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1775004


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seven7thirty30*
> 
> i7 7700K @ 5.0, 16GB DDR4-3600, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2062/5940
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1775004


Nice Graphic score!


----------



## seven7thirty30

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> Nice Graphic score!


Thank you. Just lucky enough to get a good GPU.


----------



## GRABibus

UPDATE :

*17000 points graphics score with GTX 1080 SLI passed !!*









GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2202/5544 --- 14685

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20063832?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17052212161217369815053901.png

PS : not stable (Some artefacts), but valid score.


----------



## lilchronic

lilchronic - 5820k @ 4.7Ghz - GTX 1080Ti FE @ 2063Mhz / 6204Mhz - 10495

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20064138


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - 5820k @ 4.7Ghz - GTX 1080Ti FE @ 2063Mhz / 6204Mhz - 10495
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20064138


Nice run with a great score!


----------



## seven7thirty30

Final submission: I think I squeezed all that I can out of this rig.

i7-7700K @ 5.0 - 16GB DDR4-3600, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE 2088/5940



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20064578


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> UPDATE (sorry lol)
> 
> [email protected] GTX 1080 Hybrid x 2
> 
> 2152/5800----13774
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20056070











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> UPDATE :
> 
> *17000 points graphics score with GTX 1080 SLI passed !!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GRABIbus --- 5930k @ 4.9GHz --- GTX 1080 SLI @ 2202/5544 --- 14685
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20063832?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17052212161217369815053901.png
> 
> 
> 
> PS : not stable (Some artefacts), but valid score.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - 5820k @ 4.7Ghz - GTX 1080Ti FE @ 2063Mhz / 6204Mhz - 10495
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20064138











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seven7thirty30*
> 
> Final submission: I think I squeezed all that I can out of this rig.
> 
> i7-7700K @ 5.0 - 16GB DDR4-3600, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE 2088/5940
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20064578


It is a good score.. but your screenshot is missing all the required components:CPUZ main and memory, GPUZ.. look at other user's posts (like lilchronic's right above) and see post #1 for details
Rejected.


----------



## Spectre-

1700 @ 4ghz 980ti G1 1531/4111mhz

6858

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1799423


----------



## seven7thirty30

seven7thirty30 --- 7700K @ 5.0 --- NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2088 / 5940 --- 9972

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1792777


----------



## dupp

dupp --- 4790k @ 4.8 ghz --- SLI 1080 TI 2050mhz
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1807699


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1700 @ 4ghz 980ti G1 1531/4111mhz
> 
> 6858
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1799423


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seven7thirty30*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> ]i7-7700K @ 5.0, NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2088/5940
> 
> TimeSpy: 9972
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1792777


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dupp*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> New:
> 4790k @ 4.8 ghz
> SLI 1080 TI's 2050mhz under load
> 2X8gb hyperx CAS10/1866mhz Downclocked to 1600mhz and 9-9-9-24


Guys.. please:


*See post #1*


----------



## dupp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Guys.. please:
> 
> 
> *See post #1*


Added my 3dmark link on which I have the same username, anything else?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spectre-*
> 
> 
> 
> 1700 @ 4ghz 980ti G1 1531/4111mhz
> 
> 6858
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1799423










[/CENTER
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seven7thirty30*
> 
> seven7thirty30 --- 7700K @ 5.0 --- NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti FE @ 2088 / 5940 --- 9972
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1792777










[/CENTER
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dupp*
> 
> dupp --- 4790k @ 4.8 ghz --- SLI 1080 TI 2050mhz
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1807699











Thank you.[/CENTER


----------



## madweazl

madweazl ---- R7 [email protected] --- GTX1070 --- 7150
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1813518


__
https://flic.kr/p/UA7MzW


----------



## Hequaqua

Hequaqua --- Ryzen R5 [email protected] --- NVIDIA GTX 1060 @ 1742 / 2427--- 4837



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20175952


----------



## CptSpig

Updte: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 11947
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1825484

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled 3_zpsulthkxax.png.html


----------



## OZrevhead

My best is 11732, I will submit properly with the correct screenshots next time I get a good score.

OZrevhead -- 5960x @4.9 -- TITAN Xp -- 11732

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1808777


----------



## FastEddieNYC

I just installed my 1080 Ti so this score is conservative with +75, 500 mem OC. When my waterblock arrives I'll be more aggressive with clocks. Score with latest non-whql driver. Will edit with Valid driver
Fasteddieknyc I7-4790K @ 4.7 , EVGA 1080 Ti SC Black 2050/6003


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20186325?


----------



## dupp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dupp*
> 
> dupp --- 4790k @ 4.8 ghz --- SLI 1080 TI 2050mhz
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1807699


Is there anything wrong? Its not being added to the list.


----------



## Hequaqua

Sometimes the guy who takes care of the thread takes a few days. Be patient. He'll update things when he gets the chance. I hope...lol


----------



## dupp

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Sometimes the guy who takes care of the thread takes a few days. Be patient. He'll update things when he gets the chance. I hope...lol


Oh yeah I have no problem with that, I think he accepted some that were posted after me though.


----------



## OZrevhead

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OZrevhead*
> 
> My best is 11732, I will submit properly with the correct screenshots next time I get a good score.
> 
> OZrevhead -- 5960x @4.9 -- TITAN Xp -- 11732
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1808777


Update :

OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 5ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6210 - 11867

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1831438#


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OZrevhead*
> 
> Update :
> 
> OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 5ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6210 - 11867
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1831438#


Very nice score! Don't forget your screen shot.


----------



## OZrevhead

Thanks mate, I should have one saved on the bench rig.










Edit: I have this one I just ran for 11843, is this sufficient:

OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 5ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6210 - 11843

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1836316


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf --- i7 [email protected] --- Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2062 / 6147 --- 11098

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1579532

Older Maxwell Titan X is my secondary dedicated PhysX card, card this was rendered on is my 1080 Ti in GPU-Z, 3DMark puts it as my secondary card, hope this doesn't disqualify me.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *madweazl*
> 
> madweazl ---- R7 [email protected] --- GTX1070 --- 7150
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1813518
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/UA7MzW











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Hequaqua --- Ryzen R5 [email protected] --- NVIDIA GTX 1060 @ 1742 / 2427--- 4837
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20175952











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Updte: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 11947
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1825484
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled 3_zpsulthkxax.png.html











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FastEddieNYC*
> 
> I just installed my 1080 Ti so this score is conservative with +75, 500 mem OC. When my waterblock arrives I'll be more aggressive with clocks. Score with latest non-whql driver. Will edit with Valid driver
> Fasteddieknyc I7-4790K @ 4.7 , EVGA 1080 Ti SC Black 2050/6003
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20186325?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dupp*
> 
> dupp --- 4790k @ 4.8 ghz --- SLI 1080 TI 2050mhz
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1807699


just forgot to grab your post in the multi above, your saub has been in the table for a while. sorry.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OZrevhead*
> 
> Thanks mate, I should have one saved on the bench rig.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I have this one I just ran for 11843, is this sufficient:
> 
> OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 5ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6210 - 11843


need a validation link for table entry.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf --- i7 [email protected] --- Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2062 / 6147 --- 11098
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1579532
> 
> Older Maxwell Titan X is my secondary dedicated PhysX card, card this was rendered on is my 1080 Ti in GPU-Z, 3DMark puts it as my secondary card, hope this doesn't disqualify me.


yeah, sorry bro.. if FM sysInfo picks up a second GPU, it would need to go in the 2 card category. only way to avoid this (even for unigine) is to switch off the second card via the PCIE lane switches.








So, I did not put the score in the SLI/CFX table.
btw - A TXM makes one hellofa physics card!

______________
lol - patience guys - it is a Holiday weekend.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Anyone have a problem where Steam Version just get stuck in the splash screen?


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Anyone have a problem where Steam Version just get stuck in the splash screen?


Usually means the SystemInfo service is disabled or not running or it got uninstalled. You can download it separately.

https://www.futuremark.com/support/systeminfo


----------



## OZrevhead

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> need a validation link for table entry.


Link added


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Usually means the SystemInfo service is disabled or not running or it got uninstalled. You can download it separately.
> 
> https://www.futuremark.com/support/systeminfo


That is installed.


----------



## OZrevhead

Update:

OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 4.9ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6502 - 11921

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20221014?


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2100/6210 - 11089

XOC BIOS flashed.


----------



## KedarWolf

This is my 1080 Ti with Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.

Likely won't be recognised here as 3DMark in the link says it's an unrecognised GPU even though it detects it in the program itself.

Too bad, for a Ti it's a really great score.









I reinstalled the drivers, might try a DDU clean install. It Device Manager it's detected as a 1080 TI.

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6177 - 11132

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20309997?

Edit: I reflashed the BIOS, did a DDU reinstall of the Nvidia drivers, same issue with 3DMark.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *OZrevhead*
> 
> Update:
> 
> OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 4.9ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6502 - 11921
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20221014?












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> This is my 1080 Ti with Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.
> 
> Likely won't be recognised here as 3DMark in the link says it's an unrecognised GPU even though it detects it in the program itself.
> 
> Too bad, for a Ti it's a really great score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reinstalled the drivers, might try a DDU clean install. It Device Manager it's detected as a 1080 TI.
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6177 - 11132
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20309997?
> 
> Edit: I reflashed the BIOS, did a DDU reinstall of the Nvidia drivers, same issue with 3DMark.











Sreeenshot has it as a 1080Ti, so it's valid here.
The sub above this one is not tho... no validation link.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *OZrevhead*
> 
> Update:
> 
> OZrevhead -- 5960x @ 4.9ghz -- TITAN Xp 2101/6502 - 11921
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20221014?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> This is my 1080 Ti with Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.
> 
> Likely won't be recognised here as 3DMark in the link says it's an unrecognised GPU even though it detects it in the program itself.
> 
> Too bad, for a Ti it's a really great score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I reinstalled the drivers, might try a DDU clean install. It Device Manager it's detected as a 1080 TI.
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6177 - 11132
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20309997?
> 
> Edit: I reflashed the BIOS, did a DDU reinstall of the Nvidia drivers, same issue with 3DMark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sreeenshot has it as a 1080Ti, so it's valid here.
> The sub above this one is not tho... no validation link.
Click to expand...

Is okay, second one is better anyways.


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6210 - 11166

Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20358488?


----------



## chibi

chibi -- 6950X @ 4.40ghz -- EVGA 1080 Ti FE 2000/6000 -- 10862
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20396399


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 7700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 (Notebook) SLI - Score: 13350

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1894856


----------



## CptSpig

Updte: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 12068
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1898516

http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled 5_zpse5y3yamw.png.html


----------



## feznz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6210 - 11166
> 
> Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20358488?


Nice run representing


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- Asus Strix 1080 Ti 2365/1576 -- 12229

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1908899


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- Asus Strix 1080 Ti 2365/1576 -- 12229
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1908899


Is the GPU under L2N or is that a typo on the clocks?


----------



## Kimir

Both cpu and gpu are on LN2 I believe.








http://hwbot.org/submission/3575761
http://hwbot.org/submission/3575764

Nice results Gun!


----------



## Gunslinger.




----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*


You can remove "Overclocker in training" from your profile now


----------



## Dagamus NM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*


That is quite the collection of stickers. Looks like my beer fridge.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742ghz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti 2088/6210 - 11166
> 
> Zotac Arctic Storm BIOS flashed.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20358488?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chibi*
> 
> chibi -- 6950X @ 4.40ghz -- EVGA 1080 Ti FE 2000/6000 -- 10862
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20396399











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 7700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 (Notebook) SLI - Score: 13350
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1894856











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Updte: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xfp --- 12068
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1898516
> 
> http://s1164.photobucket.com/user/CptSpig/media/Time Spy Chilled 5_zpse5y3yamw.png.html











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger. -- 6950X @ 5.2GHz -- Asus Strix 1080 Ti 2365/1576 -- 12229
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1908899











"Stay Frosty" !


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 7700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 (Notebook) SLI - Score: 13385

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1937439


----------



## Vellinious

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 7700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 (Notebook) SLI - Score: 13385
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1937439


That's pretty stout for a laptop.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 7700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 (Notebook) SLI - Score: 13385
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1937439


----------



## smithsrt8

My 7700k @ 5ghz 1080 ti setup with (one Aorus 1080 ti/one EGVA FTW3)

I am running the XOC Bios

This isnt even my best run but its the one I had everything open for


----------



## Hequaqua

Hequaqua---AMD R5 [email protected] 4904



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20785655

Not much, but it should move me up a little....


----------



## looniam

FERMI will NEVER DIE!!!

looniam - - - i7-3770K 4.6Ghz - - - gtx 570 797/1900 - - - 497



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20840146



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







#1!


----------



## agentx007

Let's turn up the Heat









Core i7 3820 @ 4,65GHz + GTX 580 Lighting (832/4200) - 962 : LINK

GTX 570 1,28GB got rekt


----------



## looniam

amazing what difference 256Mb can make.

best i got but kept getting timing errors/invalid results.
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/2015292/spy/2014213


----------



## Rolandooo

Rolandooo - 4770K @ 4.3 Ghz - 1080 - 7396

http://i.imgur.com/2ANcEZi.jpg

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20855908?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smithsrt8*
> 
> My 7700k @ 5ghz 1080 ti setup with (one Aorus 1080 ti/one EGVA FTW3)
> 
> I am running the XOC Bios
> 
> This isnt even my best run but its the one I had everything open for


good thing it's not your best run, 'cause the sub is not acceptable. PLease see post#1 for requirements.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Hequaqua---AMD R5 [email protected] 4904
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20785655
> 
> Not much, but it should move me up a little....











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> FERMI will NEVER DIE!!!
> 
> looniam - - - i7-3770K 4.6Ghz - - - gtx 570 797/1900 - - - 497
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20840146
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1!











wait - wut? I don;t think TS/dx12 will run on my 550Ti

















Quote:


> Originally Posted by *agentx007*
> 
> Let's turn up the Heat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Core i7 3820 @ 4,65GHz + GTX 580 Lighting (832/4200) - 962 : LINK
> 
> GTX 570 1,28GB got rekt


should make a sub.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rolandooo*
> 
> Rolandooo - 4770K @ 4.3 Ghz - 1080 - 7396
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/2ANcEZi.jpg
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20855908?











no need to use 3rd party for the images, just use the OCN picture tool in the editor


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> FERMI will NEVER DIE!!!
> 
> looniam - - - i7-3770K 4.6Ghz - - - gtx 570 797/1900 - - - 497
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/20840146
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #1!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wait - wut? I don;t think TS/dx12 will run on my 550Ti
Click to expand...









:


----------



## Tame

Tame --- i7 [email protected] GHz --- R9 290 --- Score 5221



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2045081

CPU and GPU are watercooled.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tame*
> 
> Tame --- i7 [email protected] GHz --- R9 290 --- Score 5221
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2045081
> 
> CPU and GPU are watercooled.


----------



## hurricane28

Hurricane28 AMD [email protected] GTX1970 Score 4496



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2072109

Not too shabby i guess.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tame*
> 
> Tame --- i7 [email protected] GHz --- R9 290 --- Score 5221
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2045081
> 
> CPU and GPU are watercooled.


At 1345 MHz, it's got to be watercooled. One of Mine only goes up to 1330.


----------



## Tame

Yep, the heat is real, and you need to cool the 5 phase vrm well. Timespy is hard to pass, got a succesful run witj Firestrike at 1375/1700


----------



## weyburn

Just a quick question, does time spy fully utilize multi threaded cpu (aka ryzen), or is it more dependent on single core?


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> Just a quick question, does time spy fully utilize multi threaded cpu (aka ryzen), or is it more dependent on single core?


I would say multi-core. When you look at the hall of fame physics scores they are mostly 8 and 10 core processors dominating the list. But they are not Ryzen they are Intel i7 5960x and 6950x


----------



## weyburn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> I would say multi-core. When you look at the hall of fame physics scores they are mostly 8 and 10 core processors dominating the list. But they are not Ryzen they are Intel i7 5960x and 6950x


so would that be because it's more orientated towards intel or because AMD hasn't tried making a chip yet that can compete against their top dogs?


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> so would that be because it's more orientated towards intel or because AMD hasn't tried making a chip yet that can compete against their top dogs?


Its more oriented towards Intel. Remember, AMD had NO Answer to Intel so all the codes are for Intel. Nonetheless, AMD has an significantly improved themselves and it gets even better when they start coding for AMD Instead of Intel alone.

AMD can compete to Intel top dogs but not just yet in benchmarks. That being said, i think its pretty darn impressive that i get higher than 18 K physics in Firestrike on an chip that costs me around €200.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> so would that be because it's more orientated towards intel or because AMD hasn't tried making a chip yet that can compete against their top dogs?


The bench marks are orientated towards Intel. That being said AMD can not compete on any level against i7-6950x at this time that I have seen.







Buy the way my physics score in Fire Strike is 27653 and I don't run this much. More of a Time Spy guy.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> so would that be because it's more orientated towards intel or because AMD hasn't tried making a chip yet that can compete against their top dogs?


I have a quad core Intel 7700K and it cannot compete with the 8 and 10 core Intel processors in this benchmark despite my GPU performing very strong. So my 7700K is not an AMD chip, and is not competitive.


----------



## looniam

charlie my friend, i am sorry to tell you that i think you've been duped. i suspect if you delid your 7700K you will in fact see an AMD logo on the die.


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> charlie my friend, i am sorry to tell you that i think you've been duped. i suspect if you delid your 7700K you will in fact see an AMD logo on the die.


Drats!


----------



## Radox-0

Radox-0 - 5960x @ 4.6 Ghz, EVGA FE 1080Ti x 3 @ 2050 Mhz / 11,980 - 22,756

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2076158

I am pretty sure I have messed up my 5960x somehow as it could bench 4.8 Ghz, but now days barely is happy to go above 4.6 Ghz


----------



## Clukos

New Time Spy Run: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21070566

Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.0GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2088/6300 -- 10791


----------



## hurricane28

Impressive score especially at those clocks.

Maybe you can push your 1700 a little more? 4.2 GHz should be possible for only a benchmark.


----------



## rdr09

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> so would that be because it's more orientated towards intel or because AMD hasn't tried making a chip yet that can compete against their top dogs?


The CPUs on the leaderboard cost more than most rigs.


----------



## Tame

Tame --- i7 [email protected] GHz --- R9 290 CF --- Score 9033



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2093729

It's over 9000! My crossfire doesn't like Timespy though, really hard to not crash...


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *weyburn*
> 
> Just a quick question, does time spy fully utilize multi threaded cpu (aka ryzen), or is it more dependent on single core?


The physics test is multithreaded... no limit on core/thread count scaling.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Hurricane28 AMD [email protected] GTX1970 Score 4496
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2072109
> 
> Not too shabby i guess.











This bench is heavily weighted to the graphics card.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Its more oriented towards Intel. Remember, AMD had NO Answer to Intel so all the codes are for Intel. Nonetheless, AMD has an significantly improved themselves and it gets even better when they start coding for AMD Instead of Intel alone.
> 
> AMD can compete to Intel top dogs but not just yet in benchmarks. That being said, i think its pretty darn impressive that i get higher than 18 K physics in Firestrike on an chip that costs me around €200.


NOt really, the physics portion it's core count. Memory speed is an edge Intel has over Ryzen (by a wide margin) right now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Radox-0*
> 
> Radox-0 - 5960x @ 4.6 Ghz, EVGA FE 1080Ti x 3 @ 2050 Mhz / 11,980 - 22,756
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2076158
> 
> I am pretty sure I have messed up my 5960x somehow as it could bench 4.8 Ghz, but now days barely is happy to go above 4.6 Ghz











seems like we see more cache degradation on the 5960X than core. Maybe dial back on cache and up core?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> New Time Spy Run: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21070566
> 
> Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.0GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2088/6300 -- 10791











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rdr09*
> 
> The CPUs on the leaderboard cost more than most rigs.


heck, some graphics cards cost more than most rigs. Put 'em both together and it costs more than my first (new) car.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tame*
> 
> Tame --- i7 [email protected] GHz --- R9 290 CF --- Score 9033
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2093729
> 
> It's over 9000! My crossfire doesn't like Timespy though, really hard to not crash...











Actually crossfire doesn't like TimeSpy... my 295x2 suffers also.









sorry for the delayed update guys... I need to set a calendar reminder.


----------



## Clukos

Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.05GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2100/6350 -- 10850

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2130095


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11198

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21263545


----------



## TahoeDust

TahoeDust ---- [email protected] --- 1080 ti @ 2038/6000 --- 10,901


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Old Titan X Maxwell benched just now:



*http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21375142*

New beta driver 385.12(1526MHz core), old score with driver 368.81(1592MHz core):

*http://www.3dmark.com/spy/178504*

Nice improvement over the months.


----------



## kx11

kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Titan Xp 2017 @ 2088mhz/6210mem --- score 11210



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2167574

nice jump with the new beta driver for TXp


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11200

Beta Nvidia drivers though and they are not approved.

Still, hit 11200.









http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21387603?


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11298

This is with a clean Windows install with services tweaks, Autorun64 tweaks, Control Panel and Boostspeed 9 tweaks as well. The Nvidia Control Panel settings i used are the ones in the OP on the 1080 Ti thread.









Beta driver again so likely won't be accepted here but I'm pushing Titan Xp territory on a 1080 Ti.









http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2173470


----------



## MrFox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11298
> 
> This is with a clean Windows install with services tweaks, Autorun64 tweaks, Control Panel and Boostspeed 9 tweaks as well. The Nvidia Control Panel settings i used are the ones in the OP on the 1080 Ti thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beta driver again so likely won't be accepted here but I'm pushing Titan Xp territory on a 1080 Ti.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2173470


Beta drivers should not be an issue. It still counts at HWBOT.org even though 3DMark flags it.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> Beta drivers should not be an issue. It still counts at HWBOT.org even though 3DMark flags it.


Quote:


> Requirements for entries in this thread:
> 
> Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable
> 
> [*] OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score (this is the first line in a sub - please)
> [*] FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result (prtscrn, open paint, cntrl-V, cntrl-S [name it], post with the Picture or Paperclip tool)
> [*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.
> [*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)
> *[*] Beta drivers allowed*
> [*] For AMD users, please use "Optimal Performance" settings (or your best settings) without disabling tessellation. (tess off will be rejected... for now smile.gif)
> [*] Please use the most recent version of 3D Mark and sysinfo. ("New" or "New-1"). If FM issues a version which significantly departs from historic scores, a VersionTab will be added.


OP


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> Beta drivers should not be an issue. It still counts at HWBOT.org even though 3DMark flags it.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Requirements for entries in this thread:
> 
> Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable
> 
> [*] OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score (this is the first line in a sub - please)
> [*] FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result (prtscrn, open paint, cntrl-V, cntrl-S [name it], post with the Picture or Paperclip tool)
> [*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.
> [*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)
> *[*] Beta drivers allowed*
> [*] For AMD users, please use "Optimal Performance" settings (or your best settings) without disabling tessellation. (tess off will be rejected... for now smile.gif)
> [*] Please use the most recent version of 3D Mark and sysinfo. ("New" or "New-1"). If FM issues a version which significantly departs from historic scores, a VersionTab will be added.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OP
Click to expand...

Awesome, it'll count then!!


----------



## kx11

kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Titan Xp 2017 @ 2088mhz/6210mem --- score 11311



http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21423315

MSI AB read the CPU clock as 4.5 while 3dmark got 4.498


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.05GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2100/6350 -- 10850
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2130095











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11198
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21263545











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TahoeDust*
> 
> TahoeDust ---- [email protected] --- 1080 ti @ 2038/6000 --- 10,901


Validation Link required.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Old Titan X Maxwell benched just now:
> 
> 
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21375142*
> 
> New beta driver 385.12(1526MHz core), old score with driver 368.81(1592MHz core):
> 
> *http://www.3dmark.com/spy/178504*
> 
> Nice improvement over the months.


Still a powerful card T.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Titan Xp 2017 @ 2088mhz/6210mem --- score 11210
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2167574
> nice jump with the new beta driver for TXp











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11200
> Beta Nvidia drivers though and they are not approved.
> Still, hit 11200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21387603?











Beta drivers accepted.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf -- 5960x @ 4.742 GHz -- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE 2088/6210 -- 11298
> 
> This is with a clean Windows install with services tweaks, Autorun64 tweaks, Control Panel and Boostspeed 9 tweaks as well. The Nvidia Control Panel settings i used are the ones in the OP on the 1080 Ti thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beta driver again so likely won't be accepted here but I'm pushing Titan Xp territory on a 1080 Ti.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2173470


@Jpmboy This is my highest run, you may have missed it, I think you only approved the 11200 run.

Thanks Jpmboy, you've probably been more help over the years in advice and stuff than anyone here.


----------



## TahoeDust

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Validation Link required.


Oops...

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2153450

TahoeDust ---- [email protected] --- 1080 ti @ 2038/6000 --- 10,901


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TahoeDust*
> 
> Oops...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2153450
> 
> TahoeDust ---- [email protected] --- 1080 ti @ 2038/6000 --- 10,901











Thanks!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> @Jpmboy This is my highest run, you may have missed it, I think you only approved the 11200 run.
> 
> Thanks Jpmboy, you've probably been more help over the years in advice and stuff than anyone here.


that's the one I accepted. 11298?


probably quoted the wrong post... in all the excitement.


----------



## NYU87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TahoeDust*
> 
> Oops...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2153450
> 
> TahoeDust ---- [email protected] --- 1080 ti @ 2038/6000 --- 10,901


Awesome CPU score! My thought about going Ryzen disappeared once I found out Skylake Xs can clock 4.6GHz+ vs 3.9GHz.


----------



## TahoeDust

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Awesome CPU score! My thought about going Ryzen disappeared once I found out Skylake Xs can clock 4.6GHz+ vs 3.9GHz.


Thanks. The 7820x has impressed me. It is a really well rounded chip. Few enough cores to still clock nice and high, and enough cores for big multicore performance.


----------



## gamingarena

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> kx11---- i7 [email protected] --- Titan Xp 2017 @ 2088mhz/6210mem --- score 11311
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21423315
> 
> MSI AB read the CPU clock as 4.5 while 3dmark got 4.498


Why is 5960x at same 4.5ghz clock so much faster then 6900k? i thought Broadwell-e should do better then Haswell-e

this is my score at same clocks with 5960x
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1635906

Basically 10% slower


----------



## Clukos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gamingarena*
> 
> Why is 5960x at same 4.5ghz clock so much faster then 6900k? i thought Broadwell-e should do better then Haswell-e
> 
> this is my score at same clocks with 5960x
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1635906
> 
> Basically 10% slower


Memory performance is crucial in Time Spy, quad vs dual channel and faster memory vs slower memory makes a _huge_ difference. He is running 2666 quad, you are running 3200 quad. There's your difference


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Memory performance is crucial in Time Spy, quad vs dual channel and faster memory vs slower memory makes a _huge_ difference. He is running 2666 quad, you are running 3200 quad. There's your difference


yeah pretty much


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gamingarena*
> 
> Why is 5960x at same 4.5ghz clock so much faster then 6900k? i thought Broadwell-e should do better then Haswell-e
> 
> this is my score at same clocks with 5960x
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1635906
> 
> Basically 10% slower


Could be lower temps for less throttling or higher cashe overclock. It's important to have stable memory overclocking when bench marking. Even a fresh Windows install or making sure all back ground apps are turned off......


----------



## Pyounpy-2

[email protected] Titan XP SLI @2152MHz
Score:17924
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2143148


----------



## NoodleGTS

Hi guys,

I'm on 3.7GHz with a Ryzen 7 1700 and 2x GTX 980Ti

My score is 10,310.

Is that low, high, or expected for my hardware?

From the front page of this group it seems in line with other people. I could overclock my CPU more I guess.

Thanks!


----------



## criminal

I think I just broke GTX 1070 records: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2230603


----------



## looniam

very nice, i like!









the difference a year makes, eh?

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/49213/spy/2230603


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> very nice, i like!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the difference a year makes, eh?
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/49213/spy/2230603


Ha, I wish. That is a GTX 1080ti run. My 1070 is still in the primary pci-e slot since I don't have a waterblock for my Ti yet. Still shows as a 1070 run... lol


----------



## looniam

thanks for pointing out that i am gullible.


----------



## zGunBLADEz

Memory
8,192 MB
11,264 MB

XD


----------



## NoodleGTS

How does this look w my Ryzen 1700 and 2x GTX 980Ti ?


----------



## Clukos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoodleGTS*
> 
> 
> 
> How does this look w my Ryzen 1700 and 2x GTX 980Ti ?


You can get a lot more out of the 1700, I'm in the 9000-9500 range, your memory is probably holding you back


----------



## NoodleGTS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> You can get a lot more out of the 1700, I'm in the 9000-9500 range, your memory is probably holding you back


BIOS on my board is pretty crap, I'm having a hard time just getting it to run at my memory's designated speed...


----------



## 113802

WannaBeOCer - 6700k @ 4.8Ghz - RX Vega 64 XTX @ 1857/1100 - 7778 - Date (19/08/2017)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21660674?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> [email protected] Titan XP SLI @2152MHz
> Score:17924
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2143148


ruh oh.. see POST#1 for entry requirements.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WannaBeOCer*
> 
> WannaBeOCer - 6700k @ 4.8Ghz - RX Vega 64 XTX @ 1857/1100 - 7778 - Date (19/08/2017)
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21660674?


Rejected. *Time Error* is unacceptable.
try Unigine Heaven http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores


----------



## Clukos

Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.1GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2101/6350 -- 10891

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2260122










Improved my CPU score a bit


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus -- I7-5930K @ 4.9GHz -- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2101/6003 -- 10579

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21753483?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17082405474117369815237698.png

Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with EVGA FTW3 Bios version "86.02.39.01.90"
Last WHQL NVIDIA Drivers v385.41


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.1GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2101/6350 -- 10891
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2260122
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Improved my CPU score a bit











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus -- I7-5930K @ 4.9GHz -- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2101/6003 -- 10579
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21753483?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17082405474117369815237698.png
> 
> Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with EVGA FTW3 Bios version "86.02.39.01.90"
> Last WHQL NVIDIA Drivers v385.41












updated a while ago - I missed posting the "Acceptance".


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> updated a while ago - I missed posting the "Acceptance".


My graphics score is 11132, not 11123


----------



## alawadhi3000

alawadhi3000 -- Core i7 7820HK @ 4.1GHz -- GTX 1080 (Notebook) @ 2012/5400 -- 6770

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21966303

Actual GPU Clock is bouncing around 1900MHz due to hitting the TDP Limit (180W).


----------



## NYU87

Just finished building this badboy. Was about to go with Ryzen but when I saw what the 7820x can do, it was a no brainer.

First run everything on auto voltage. With little bit of tweaking think I can break 11K.

NYU87 -- 7820X @ 4.6GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2080/6000 -- 10978

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2364577


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> alawadhi3000 -- Core i7 7820HK @ 4.1GHz -- GTX 1080 (Notebook) @ 2012/5400 -- 6770
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/21966303
> 
> Actual GPU Clock is bouncing around 1900MHz due to hitting the TDP Limit (180W).











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> Just finished building this badboy. Was about to go with Ryzen but when I saw what the 7820x can do, it was a no brainer.
> 
> First run everything on auto voltage. With little bit of tweaking think I can break 11K.
> 
> NYU87 -- 7820X @ 4.6GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2080/6000 -- 10978
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2364577


----------



## Beagle Box

*Update*

OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.991GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2190 MHz/1386 MHz - 8317 - August 21, 2017

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2255555


----------



## NYU87

*Update:*

NYU87 -- 7820X @ 4.7GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2101/6200 -- 11048

I think I can push the 7820x a little bit more...

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2371837


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Beagle Box*
> 
> *Update*
> 
> OCN: Beagle Box (Tex Nomex) - i7 6700K @ 4.991GHz - MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2190 MHz/1386 MHz - 8317 - August 21, 2017
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2255555











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NYU87*
> 
> *Update:*
> 
> NYU87 -- 7820X @ 4.7GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti Gaming X 2101/6200 -- 11048
> 
> I think I can push the 7820x a little bit more...
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2371837


----------



## criminal

Criminal -- 5960x @ 4.4 GHz -- Asus Turbo 1080 Ti 2050/5792 -- 10215

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2412380


----------



## looniam

^ you're changing gpus faster than i change my underwear.


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> ^ you're changing gpus faster than i change my underwear.


----------



## Iceman2733

Iceman2733-- [email protected] -- Asus Strix SLI [email protected]/12,006mhz -- 18771
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2422120


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> Criminal -- 5960x @ 4.4 GHz -- Asus Turbo 1080 Ti 2050/5792 -- 10215
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2412380


Dead validation link.,









(lol - maybe it expired since I've been unable to get to update this thread for a while)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Iceman2733-- [email protected] -- Asus Strix SLI [email protected]/12,006mhz -- 18771
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2422120


----------



## alex4069

alex4069 ---- I5 [email protected] --- Msi gtx 1080 Armor 8G OC--- 6783

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22531915?


----------



## Hequaqua

Hequaqua----R5 [email protected] G1 [email protected]/1451----7847



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22534877


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 --- Xeon X5660 @ 4.6GHz --- R9 Fury X @ 1150MHz / 550 MHz --- 5675

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2504652


----------



## alex4069

alex4069 ---- I5 [email protected] --- Msi gtx 1080 Armor 8G OC 1833MHZ/1389

will be my last run before I get my Ryzen 1700x and my x370 asrock taichi MOBO


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> alex4069 ---- I5 [email protected] --- Msi gtx 1080 Armor 8G OC--- 6783
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22531915?











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Hequaqua----R5 [email protected] G1 [email protected]/1451----7847
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22534877











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> 99belle99 --- Xeon X5660 @ 4.6GHz --- R9 Fury X @ 1150MHz / 550 MHz --- 5675
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2504652


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> alex4069 ---- I5 [email protected] --- Msi gtx 1080 Armor 8G OC 1833MHZ/1389
> 
> will be my last run before I get my Ryzen 1700x and my x370 asrock taichi MOBO


*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*


no validation link


----------



## alex4069

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> 
> 
> no validation link


Sorry about that. Just got new equipment in and will redo it.


----------



## alex4069

Alex4069 ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX1080 Armor 8G OC 1833/1314 score 3633

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22615140?



This is Time Spy Extreme run.


----------



## alex4069

Alex4069 ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX1080 Armor 8G OC 1833/1314 score 8045

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2520682


----------



## Jpmboy

*What do you guys think.. add Time Spy Extreme to this thread, or do we need a new one?*


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *What do you guys think.. add Time Spy Extreme to this thread, or do we need a new one?*


Add it to this thread...easier to manage.


----------



## 99belle99

I say new thread as I don't see it being easier to manage having them all in the one thread.


----------



## Jpmboy

Thanks guys... more "recommendations" please.


----------



## Iceman2733

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Thanks guys... more "recommendations" please.


Go with a different thread buddy, it will be easier on you to manage if it is a TS or TS Extreme run. What did you run it at? My god this benchmark def puts a hurting on modern PCs lol


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Go with a different thread buddy, it will be easier on you to manage if it is a TS or TS Extreme run. What did you run it at? My god this benchmark def puts a hurting on modern PCs lol


well.. I already do 5 other bench threads.. and checking separate ones is not an advantage IMO. Not sure yet, I did separate out the FireStrike Ultra and Extreme threads.








(and thank Kimir for taking responsibility for Ultra!)


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Go with a different thread buddy, it will be easier on you to manage if it is a TS or TS Extreme run. What did you run it at? My god this benchmark def puts a hurting on modern PCs lol
> 
> 
> 
> well.. I already do 5 other bench threads.. and checking separate ones is not an advantage IMO. Not sure yet, I did separate out the FireStrike Ultra and Extreme threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (and thank Kimir for taking responsibility for Ultra!)
Click to expand...

I'm thinking if you find an easy way to add Extreme to this existing thread it would be better.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> I'm thinking if you find an easy way to add Extreme to this existing thread it would be better.


I have to work that out with @enterprise yet.


----------



## DooRules

You are doing the heavy lifting here with all these threads. Just do it whatever way lessens the burden.


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iceman2733*
> 
> Go with a different thread buddy, it will be easier on you to manage if it is a TS or TS Extreme run. What did you run it at? My god this benchmark def puts a hurting on modern PCs lol


No kidding, cpu test is darn near a slide show


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> No kidding, cpu test is darn near a slide show


oh yeah.. had to drop a multiplier compared to regular TS on this 6950x to get a decent score in TSE cpu test. I think we really need AVX512 to get a decent score.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quick run not really pushing my GPU or CPU, just at what I know I'm 100% stable.

Not for the charts.

Time Spy Extreme that is.


----------



## KedarWolf

Time Spy Extreme

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.6Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2077Mhz /6156Mhz --- 5085

Latest drivers vs the 385.12 beta on first bench.. A good bit better than previous score.









https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22632368


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> *What do you guys think.. add Time Spy Extreme to this thread, or do we need a new one?*


It depends, what do you mean by "a new one" ?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> It depends, what do you mean by "a new one" ?


new thread. it's settled tho, Gonna add Extreme to this thread.


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> new thread. it's settled tho, Gonna add Extreme to this thread.


Alright, good to know.

But i don't have an "extreme" GPU, can i still join?


----------



## Jpmboy

extremely possible.

(gonna take me a while to mod the OP and make a second google sheet)


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> extremely possible.
> 
> (gonna take me a while to mod the OP and make a second google sheet)


lol, good answer









Looking forward to it, good luck.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Timespy Extreme:

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.8GHz -- Titan X Pascal @2101Mhz and throttling -- 5031:*



*https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22638766*

When I get the new x299 cpu, I'll shunt mod the card again and give this bench another go.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> Alex4069 ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX1080 Armor 8G OC 1833/1314 score 3633
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22615140?
> 
> This is Time Spy Extreme run.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alex4069*
> 
> Alex4069 ---- [email protected] --- MSI GTX1080 Armor 8G OC 1833/1314 score 8045
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2520682











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.6Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2077Mhz /6156Mhz --- 5085
> Latest drivers vs the 385.12 beta on first bench.. A good bit better than previous score.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22632368











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Timespy Extreme:
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.8GHz -- Titan X Pascal @2101Mhz and throttling -- 5031:*
> 
> *https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22638766*
> When I get the new x299 cpu, I'll shunt mod the card again and give this bench another go.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP --- 5768 TSE

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22639824


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Guess I should feel proud I broke 5,000 huh jpmboy?









nice score buddy!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Guess I should feel proud I broke 5,000 huh jpmboy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nice score buddy!


bro.. your 1680 is simply amazing. not sure I would toss that chip


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> bro.. your 1680 is simply amazing. not sure I would toss that chip


Thanks.

I did try to sell it a couple weeks ago, but no interest at the price I was asking. So now it's staying in the R4BE until either dies.


----------



## hurricane28

What a bummer, i bought 3Dmark before the date they said people could get this upgrade for free.. I have to pay € 9,99 now.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> What a bummer, i bought 3Dmark before the date they said people could get this upgrade for free.. I have to pay € 9,99 now.


Did you try installing it anyway? I pretty sure I bought mine before that date....not 100% sure though.

EDIT: It might go by the date you bought Time Spy, I believe that was a upgrade, just like the VRMark was. Again...bad memory here...lol


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Did you try installing it anyway? I pretty sure I bought mine before that date....not 100% sure though.


I bought the whole 3Dmark suite in 2015, i can't install Time Spy upgrade because i have to buy it unfortunately. I know when i purchased it because its in the Steam library.

Do you have Time Spy extreme installed and can you check purchase date for me plz?


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> I bought the whole 3Dmark suite in 2015, i can't install Time Spy upgrade because i have to buy it unfortunately. I know when i purchased it because its in the Steam library.
> 
> Do you have Time Spy extreme installed and can you check purchase date for me plz?


I bought mine directly from 3DMark(Digital River). I looked in my email, but I don't see the receipt.









EDIT: It had to be after the date they list. It wasn't released until July 2016. Makes sense on why they are giving the purchasers upgrades.

EDIT II: @hurricane28 check your PM's.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> What a bummer, i bought 3Dmark before the date they said people could get this upgrade for free.. I have to pay € 9,99 now.


People who bought the Time Spy upgrade get Extreme free. People who have Time Spy but did not buy the upgrade have to pay $9.99.


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.5 --- Titan XP @ 2100 / 5800 --- Score --- 5588 TSE



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2531816


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXP --- 5768 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22639824












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 6950x @ 4.5 --- Titan XP @ 2100 / 5800 --- Score --- 5588 TSE
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2531816


----------



## done12many2

done12many2 --- 7900X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti *SLI* --- 9310 TSE



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2532130


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *done12many2*
> 
> done12many2 --- 7900X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti *SLI* --- 9310 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2532130











nice!


----------



## KedarWolf

Time Spy Extreme, Benching Run

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2077Mhz /6210Mhz --- 5128

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22648666


----------



## looniam

someone has to bring up the rear









looniam - - - i7-3770K 4.6 - - - gtx 980ti 1341/3505 - - - *2640* - - - *TSE*



*https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22649226*


----------



## Hequaqua

*Hequaqua----R5 [email protected] 2113/5562----Score 3496 TSE*



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22650781


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme, Benching Run
> 
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2077Mhz /6210Mhz --- 5128
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22648666











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> someone has to bring up the rear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> looniam - - - i7-3770K 4.6 - - - gtx 980ti 1341/3505 - - - *2640* - - - *TSE*
> 
> 
> 
> *https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22649226*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> *Hequaqua----R5 [email protected] 2113/5562----Score 3496 TSE*
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22650781


----------



## hurricane28

Hurricane28----R5 1600 @ 3.950----GTX 970 1555/2089.8----Score 2109 TSE



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2535719


----------



## Tame

Applying for the old hardware class, lol.

Tame --- 3970X @ 5.0 Ghz --- Gigabyte R9 290 @ 1330Mhz/1675Mhz --- 2508 TSE

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2538336

Damn this extreme version is demanding... Squeezed the last drops out of Sandy Bridge and Hawaii


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 5828

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22669729
a little better. The wait on a 7980XE is painful.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX Titan Xp --- 10000










https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22670140


----------



## schubaltz

anyone can confirm what cpu instruction set 3dmark Timespy Extreme is using if set to Auto? In my experience on my 1700, it's around 500points lower than manually setting AVX2. AVXFMA and AVX512. Only SSE3 trails behind it by around 600 points.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schubaltz*
> 
> anyone can confirm what cpu instruction set 3dmark Timespy Extreme is using if set to Auto? In my experience on my 1700, it's around 500points lower than manually setting AVX2. AVXFMA and AVX512. Only SSE3 trails behind it by around 600 points.


CPU instruction sets
In the Time Spy test, the boids simulation is implemented in SSE3.
In the Extreme CPU test, half of the boids systems can use more advanced CPU
instruction sets, up to AVX2 if supported by the processor. The remaining half
use the SSE3 code path.
The split makes the test more realistic since games typically have several types
of simulation or similar tasks running at once and would be unlikely to use a
single instruction set for all of them.

This is from the Whitepaper.

EDIT:

Custom run
With Custom run settings, you can choose which CPU instruction set to use, up
to AVX512. The selected set will be used for all boid systems, provided it is
supported by the processor under test.
You can evaluate the performance gains of different instruction sets by
comparing custom run scores, but note that the choice of set doesn't affect the
physics simulations, which always use SSE3 and are 15-30% of the workload.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schubaltz*
> 
> anyone can confirm what cpu instruction set 3dmark Timespy Extreme is using if set to Auto? In my experience on my 1700, it's around 500points lower than manually setting AVX2. AVXFMA and AVX512. Only SSE3 trails behind it by around 600 points.


I assume you mean AVX2 or AVXFMA or AVX512, right? Can't switch one off and leave the others in play afaik.


----------



## schubaltz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> CPU instruction sets
> In the Time Spy test, the boids simulation is implemented in SSE3.
> In the Extreme CPU test, half of the boids systems can use more advanced CPU
> instruction sets, up to AVX2 if supported by the processor. The remaining half
> use the SSE3 code path.
> The split makes the test more realistic since games typically have several types
> of simulation or similar tasks running at once and would be unlikely to use a
> single instruction set for all of them.
> 
> This is from the Whitepaper.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Custom run
> With Custom run settings, you can choose which CPU instruction set to use, up
> to AVX512. The selected set will be used for all boid systems, provided it is
> supported by the processor under test.
> You can evaluate the performance gains of different instruction sets by
> comparing custom run scores, but note that the choice of set doesn't affect the
> physics simulations, which always use SSE3 and are 15-30% of the workload.


That clears everything up. Thanks!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I assume you mean AVX2 or AVXFMA or AVX512, right? Can't switch one off and leave the others in play afaik.


I mean set individually per run. I think Hequaqua explained it nicely already, sorry for the OT, back to posting bench results. I'll post mine later


----------



## Hequaqua

You're all welcome.









Sometimes it's helpful to dig through the guides for things....lol

EDIT:







Does any remember the thread where you can just install the nvidia driver without all the telemetry crap and other unwanted items? lol


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schubaltz*
> 
> That clears everything up. Thanks!
> I mean set individually per run. I think Hequaqua explained it nicely already, sorry for the OT, back to posting bench results. I'll post mine later


it's not OT imo, we're talking Time spy!


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> You're all welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's helpful to dig through the guides for things....lol
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does any remember the thread where you can just install the nvidia driver without all the telemetry crap and other unwanted items? lol


I unpack the driver, then deleted all the unwanted stuff I don't need until I'm left with what's in the pic:


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I unpack the driver, then deleted all the unwanted stuff I don't need until I'm left with what's in the pic:


Thanks!


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6210Mhz --- 5187

XOC BIOS at 1.2v.









Going to try a run with my CPU benching profile now. Maybe with that voltage I can up the memory on the GPU as well.

Don't update the results until I see if I do better, @Jpmboy









https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22671619



KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5196

Not much better, but it's something.









XOC BIOS at 1.2v.









https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22671984



Okay, I'm done here.

Time Spy Extreme

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5217

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22672284



Last one is likely highest I'm going to get, will be for a while though before I try again, @Jpmboy

Might try to beat it if I ever do another benching tweaked Windows install.

I'm pretty happy with it.


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX Titan Xp --- 10000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22670140


Holy moly! That's simply an amazing score









Congratulations


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> You're all welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes it's helpful to dig through the guides for things....lol
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does any remember the thread where you can just install the nvidia driver without all the telemetry crap and other unwanted items? lol


That's very simple actually, during the installation you simply do an advanced install and select what you want to install and the program installs it.

I personally always use DDU before i install new GPU drivers to make sure no resentments from the previous driver is there to interfere.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> That's very simple actually, during the installation you simply do an advanced install and select what you want to install and the program installs it.
> 
> I personally always use DDU before i install new GPU drivers to make sure no resentments from the previous driver is there to interfere.


I do it that way, but it still installs all the telemetry and other items. MrTOOSHORT got me hooked up though.

I only run DDU if the main branch changes.

Example:

365.25
365.85(no DDU)

365.85
371.11(DDU clean install)


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> I do it that way, but it still installs all the telemetry and other items. MrTOOSHORT got me hooked up though.
> 
> I only run DDU if the main branch changes.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 365.25
> 365.85(no DDU)
> 
> 365.85
> 371.11(DDU clean install)


Ah, alright then. Glad it sorted out, i will try MrTOOSHORT way next time too


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> I unpack the driver, then deleted all the unwanted stuff I don't need until I'm left with what's in the pic:


Do you find that it helps vs custom install with only the driver and physx selected?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

I believe it helps to potentially not install hidden stuff you don't need/want, like telemetry for example. Less bloatware. looniam gave me the idea a while back, so now I just go with it to have a leaner driver, but ofcourse if it helps at all.


----------



## Hequaqua

It certainly cuts down on processes running in the background. I think I have two now, there were probably 7-8 before.









I keep a log of benchmarks...I will run them later to see if it make a difference at all. I did do a quick run of Time Spy(non-Extreme), and it appeared my score went up a little.


----------



## Hequaqua

Has anyone tried in the last few minutes to submit a score to 3DMark?

I've made two runs that won't validate. I also tried to look at some scores from earlier, but the pages won't load.

Thinking it's a issue on their end. Grrrrrr.

EDIT: Still having the issue btw. I also have another dumb question...lol Is me having a different version of the WDDM Driver model in Windows going to affect scores? I'm on a different Windows10 build 1709 Build 16299.19, it has Driver Model WDDM 2.2 in DxDiag listed.


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> Has anyone tried in the last few minutes to submit a score to 3DMark?
> 
> I've made two runs that won't validate. I also tried to look at some scores from earlier, but the pages won't load.
> 
> Thinking it's a issue on their end. Grrrrrr.
> 
> EDIT: Still having the issue btw. I also have another dumb question...lol Is me having a different version of the WDDM Driver model in Windows going to affect scores? I'm on a different Windows10 build 1709 Build 16299.19, it has Driver Model WDDM 2.2 in DxDiag listed.


I had the same issue with chrome browser. I cleaned it and it works again, couldn't even enter the site before.


----------



## KedarWolf

I'm so upset.









Got this Time Spy with XOC BIOS.

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2544644



But because I never registered my 3DMark (put my code in) it wouldn't let me validate it, had only put in my serial key for Time Spy.

And after I put the key in it wouldn't let me go back to the benchmark I finished.

So I couldn't take a screenshot with the bench done and it validated, never took a screen of the program at all.









So, by far my best bench ever, no good here, and I have been unable to replicate it in another bench.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Awesome score, and awesome Extreme score too!

fastest watercooled TI I've seen yet!


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> I'm so upset.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got this Time Spy with XOC BIOS.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2544644
> 
> 
> 
> But because I never registered my 3DMark (put my code in) it wouldn't let me validate it, had only put in my serial key for Time Spy.
> 
> And after I put the key in it wouldn't let me go back to the benchmark I finished.
> 
> So I couldn't take a screenshot with the bench done and it validated, never took a screen of the program at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, by far my best bench ever, no good here, and I have been unable to replicate it in another bench.


Not sure I follow. Could you not have used the saved result in the 3dmark file in " Documents" file?


----------



## KedarWolf

Time Spy

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 11490









https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22687598



Never say die.


----------



## KedarWolf

Time Spy Extreme

KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5228

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2545413


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Awesome score, and awesome Extreme score too!
> 
> fastest watercooled TI I've seen yet!


Did better on both in posts above.

Don't quite know how I got that regular Time Spy score, somehow I'm pushing into Titan Xp territory.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update,

*MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.84GHz -- TX Pascal @2.11GHz -- 5134 -- TS Extreme:
*

*
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2546000*


----------



## mohiuddin

Don't u guys think this new timespy extreme cpu bench is favoring Intel cups a bit? 1700x scoring 3.2k only @3.8ghz?


----------



## Jpmboy

if you guys do not already have this, it's a very handy utility.. will even save your cpuz and gpuz layout and restore the positions and tabs.

OCSnap_0.9.2.zip 565k .zip file


will update the table later today.


----------



## done12many2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you guys do not already have this, it's a very handy utility.. will even save your cpuz and gpuz layout and restore the positions and tabs.
> 
> OCSnap_0.9.2.zip 565k .zip file
> 
> 
> will update the table later today.


Oh snap, OCSnap! Thanks for sharing. That should come in very handy.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> if you guys do not already have this, it's a very handy utility.. will even save your cpuz and gpuz layout and restore the positions and tabs.
> 
> OCSnap_0.9.2.zip 565k .zip file
> 
> 
> will update the table later today.


Works nice, but what if you have two monitors? One just shows up blank.....









Still very helpful.


----------



## Tame

Here's my try with Hawaii pro crossfire :3

Tame --- 3970X @ 5.0 Ghz --- 2x Gigabyte R9 290 @ 1300Mhz/1600Mhz --- 4280 TSE

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2547916


----------



## hurricane28

@Jpmboy

You made a little typo, in the Time Spy table it says that i am running 1070 but in fact i have 970


----------



## Derek1

Derek1----i7 [email protected] GTX 1080 Hybrid SLi @ 2152/5600----TSX 5932

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2548892



One 1080 Ti is scoring as well as my SLi 1080's? Or is that mainly the CPU difference?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Derek1----i7 [email protected] GTX 1080 Hybrid SLi @ 2152/5600----TSX 5932
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2548892
> 
> 
> 
> One 1080 Ti is scoring as well as my SLi 1080's? Or is that mainly the CPU difference?


look at gpu score to compare.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> look at gpu score to compare.


Ya, 5200 vs 7400, still not as much as I would have expected.

And the Ti Sli is 9800 vs my 7400.

Hmmm pondering.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Ya, 5200 vs 7400, still not as much as I would have expected.


I find that's a big difference in TS Extreme. Your cards are rocking!


----------



## DR4G00N

Using an AMD cpu so the score is not too great.

DR4G00N - Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8GHz - 2x GTX 780 Ti @ 1200/1750 - 3436 - TSE
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2525132


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Hurricane28----R5 1600 @ 3.950----GTX 970 1555/2089.8----Score 2109 TSE
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2535719











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tame*
> 
> Applying for the old hardware class, lol.
> Tame --- 3970X @ 5.0 Ghz --- Gigabyte R9 290 @ 1330Mhz/1675Mhz --- 2508 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2538336
> Damn this extreme version is demanding... Squeezed the last drops out of Sandy Bridge and Hawaii











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp ---- 5828
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22669729
> a little better. The wait on a 7980XE is painful.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- 2x GTX Titan Xp --- 10000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22670140











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6210Mhz --- 5187
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> XOC BIOS at 1.2v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going to try a run with my CPU benching profile now. Maybe with that voltage I can up the memory on the GPU as well.
> 
> Don't update the results until I see if I do better, @Jpmboy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22671619
> 
> 
> 
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5196
> 
> Not much better, but it's something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XOC BIOS at 1.2v.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22671984
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm done here.
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> 
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5217
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22672284
> 
> 
> 
> Last one is likely highest I'm going to get, will be for a while though before I try again, @Jpmboy
> 
> Might try to beat it if I ever do another benching tweaked Windows install.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with it.












Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Time Spy
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 11490
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22687598
> 
> Never say die.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> KedarWolf --- 5960x @ 4.742Ghz --- Gigabyte 1080 Ti FE @ 2126Mhz /6220Mhz --- 5228
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2545413











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Update,
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 1680 V2 @4.84GHz -- TX Pascal @2.11GHz -- 5134 -- TS Extreme:
> *
> 
> *
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2546000*











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tame*
> 
> Here's my try with Hawaii pro crossfire :3
> 
> Tame --- 3970X @ 5.0 Ghz --- 2x Gigabyte R9 290 @ 1300Mhz/1600Mhz --- 4280 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2547916


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Derek1----i7 [email protected] GTX 1080 Hybrid SLi @ 2152/5600----TSX 5932
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2548892
> 
> 
> 
> One 1080 Ti is scoring as well as my SLi 1080's? Or is that mainly the CPU difference?











if you are comparing the GPUs and configuration, use the GFX score, not the overall score
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DR4G00N*
> 
> Using an AMD cpu so the score is not too great.
> 
> DR4G00N - Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.8GHz - 2x GTX 780 Ti @ 1200/1750 - 3436 - TSE


----------



## Derek1

Perhaps you could add a GFX score column to the chart?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hurricane28*
> 
> Holy moly! That's simply an amazing score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations


thx. it's in the cards.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derek1*
> 
> Perhaps you could add a GFX score column to the chart?


single card GFX score (only) is included.









edit: yeah okay, - I added it for TSE, not gonna back-fill TS. Takes a while for the form update to publish to OCN


----------



## hurricane28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> thx. it's in the cards.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> thx. it's in the cards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> single card GFX score (only) is included.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: yeah okay, - I added it for TSE, not gonna back-fill TS.


Terrific TY









Your cards freaking awesome. Amazing score.


----------



## DR4G00N

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Rejected
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> 
> no validation link


Right, been a while haha. Fixed it.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DR4G00N*
> 
> Right, been a while haha. Fixed it.


----------



## lilchronic

lilchronic - 5820k @ 4.7Ghz - 1080Ti @ 2012Mhz / 6000Mhz - Sorce 4625 / Gfx - 4952
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22760641


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus --- 5930K @ 4.8Ghz --- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti @ 2101Mhz / 1514Mhz --- Score = 4831 / Gfx = 5191

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22843864?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> lilchronic - 5820k @ 4.7Ghz - 1080Ti @ 2012Mhz / 6000Mhz - Sorce 4625 / Gfx - 4952
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22760641











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> GRABibus --- 5930K @ 4.8Ghz --- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti @ 2101Mhz / 1514Mhz --- Score = 4831 / Gfx = 5191
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22843864?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!












Thanks for including the GFX scores in your dataline!


----------



## looniam




----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for including the GFX scores in your dataline!


Hi,
you put wrong scores for me in the table.
i updated my scores and I think you put in the table the old ones.

My score is 4831
My Gfx score is 5191


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Hi,
> you put wrong scores for me in the table.
> i updated my scores and I think you put in the table the old ones.
> 
> My score is 4831
> My Gfx score is 5191


No, I did not put the wrong one in... you changed your post.
*do not edit posts, make a new one*. I entered the sub from this run: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22814928
As shown in my "ACCEPTED" POST.
Once I update the thread - i do not go back pages to see if someone has change an earlier sub.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> No, I did not put the wrong one in... you changed your post.
> *do not edit posts, make a new one*. I entered the sub from this run: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22814928
> As shown in my "ACCEPTED" POST.
> Once I update the thread - i do not go back pages to see if someone has change an earlier sub.


Yes, next Time I Will créate an "update" post


----------



## GRABibus

UPDATE :









GRABibus --- 5930K @ 4.8Ghz --- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti @ 2101Mhz / 1514Mhz --- Score = 4831 / Gfx = 5191

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22843864?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17102210585717369815335001.png


----------



## Pyounpy-2

pyounpy-2 i9 [email protected] Nvidia Titan XP Hybrid SLi @ 2100/6300 Time Spy 20045

I have my account of 3d maerk using another different account name, before joining Overclock.net.
But still can you accept this result?
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2609394


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Sorry this is the link to my result.

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2609394


----------



## looniam

you can edit your first/previous post and add the link:


----------



## lilchronic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> No, I did not put the wrong one in... you changed your post.
> *do not edit posts, make a new one*. I entered the sub from this run: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22814928
> As shown in my "ACCEPTED" POST.
> Once I update the thread - i do not go back pages to see if someone has change an earlier sub.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can edit your first/previous post and add the link:


----------



## looniam

thats for _another_ submission.


----------



## Jpmboy

certainly can add a link to complete a sub. easy. It is a problem when a complete over-write is done AFTER I've already enter the sub in to the Table(s). I look for new subs below my last Thread update. Savey?


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp -- 6081 / 5633 GFX (struggling with this platform and graphics in general







)



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22900570


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> you can edit your first/previous post and add the link:


Thank you a lot.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] --- GTX Titan Xp -- 6081 / 5633 GFX (struggling with this platform and graphics in general
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22900570


So modest number two on the Halll of Fame list.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> So modest number two on the Halll of Fame list.


lol -still figuring out the gfx performance. not as good as the 6950x/r5e10








I think it can do better. gotta play with uncore settings.


----------



## 99belle99

TimeSpy Extreme

99belle99 ---- X5660 @ 4.6GHz

R9 Fury X @ 1250MHz / 500MHz

Score: 2448

GFX Score: 2645

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2621674


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXp --- 6362

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22935875


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXp --- 6362
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22935875


Number 1 on HOF! I guess you figured everything out for that beast of a processor.








If you want to shoot me your bios setup that would be awesome!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Number 1 on HOF! I guess you figured everything out for that beast of a processor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to shoot me your bios setup that would be awesome!


YGPM


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXp --- 6362
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22935875


Thank you for not beating my time spy extreme cpu score









Yes I know, I use som old 1080ti's


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nizzen*
> 
> Thank you for not beating my time spy extreme cpu score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I know, I use som old 1080ti's


should I? only running 4.6... main thing was to figure out the graphics on this platform.
But since you _keep_ insisting...









Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!








I'm sure you'll do better.


----------



## looniam

savage!


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Pyounpy-2 [email protected] Titan XP SLI Time Spy Extreme 1.0 score 10017


https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2623744


----------



## kx11

a quick one with *TS Extreme*

kx11 --- 7900x @ 4.79 --- Titan Xfp @ 1525Mhz / 1539Mhz --- 5571



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2629151


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> UPDATE :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GRABibus --- 5930K @ 4.8Ghz --- GIGABYTE 1080 Ti @ 2101Mhz / 1514Mhz --- Score = 4831 / Gfx = 5191
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22843864?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17102210585717369815335001.png











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> pyounpy-2 i9 [email protected]0GHz Nvidia Titan XP Hybrid SLi @ 2100/6300 Time Spy 20045
> 
> I have my account of 3d maerk using another different account name, before joining Overclock.net.
> But still can you accept this result?
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2609394











Easiest way to deal with that is open a notepad or sticky and type your OCN username. Accepted as a one time exception.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *99belle99*
> 
> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> 99belle99 ---- X5660 @ 4.6GHz
> 
> R9 Fury X @ 1250MHz / 500MHz
> 
> Score: 2448
> 
> GFX Score: 2645
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2621674











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] -- GTX TitanXp --- 6362
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/22935875











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> Pyounpy-2 [email protected] Titan XP SLI Time Spy Extreme 1.0 score 10017
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2623744











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> a quick one with *TS Extreme*
> 
> kx11 --- 7900x @ 4.79 --- Titan Xfp @ 1525Mhz / 1539Mhz --- 5571
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2629151


----------



## KillerBee33

FIXED!!!


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Fist try , new Toy
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2642121


Unfortunately, your screenshot is not "Corporate"...


----------



## glnn_23

Time Spy

glnn_23 -- 7940x @ 4.9 -- Galax 1080Ti -- 2101 / 1527 -- 11572
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23001082

Time Spy Extreme

glnn_23 -- 7940x @ 4.8 -- Galax 1080Ti -- 2139 / 1559 -- 5526
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23011359

Cpu delid and custom water / Gpu Air.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Unfortunately, your screenshot is not "Corporate"...


Corporate? c'mon man. when you are keeping several of these benchmark threads up-to-date, then you can complain. The format is there so the OP (me in this thread) is not searching for the info tyo be entered in a Google Spreadsheet. If you want to help out, I can allow you write and referee permissions.









anyway - Killerbee33 is not a newbie. He knows.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *glnn_23*
> 
> Time Spy
> 
> glnn_23 -- 7940x @ 4.9 -- Galax 1080Ti -- 2101 / 1527 -- 11572
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23001082
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> 
> glnn_23 -- 7940x @ 4.8 -- Galax 1080Ti -- 2139 / 1559 -- 5526
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23011359
> 
> Cpu delid and custom water / Gpu Air.










*x2*


----------



## dagget3450

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Corporate? c'mon man. when you are keeping several of these benchmark threads up-to-date, then you can complain. The format is there so the OP (me in this thread) is not searching for the info tyo be entered in a Google Spreadsheet. If you want to help out, I can allow you write and referee permissions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anyway - Killerbee33 is not a newbie. He knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *x2*


Thank you good sir for maintaining this thread and others. You are golden in my book!


----------



## NBrock

Anyone have issues with the benchmark crashing regardless of what you do? This is the Steam version.

Software also says I have GSync enabled...but I don't I don't have a GSync monitor (it's Freesync)...but no adaptive sync is enabled and not forcing any type of refresh rates.

I have tried removing the program and then installing it again.
Tried "check file integrity"
I tried DDU with different versions of drivers.
Trying a fresh install of windows isn't gonna happen since I don't have a spare drive to use.
Tried stock clocks on both CPU and GPUs.

System is 5775c and dual 1080ti. Win 10 1703 (15063.674)

Fire Strike also crashes.


----------



## Hequaqua

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NBrock*
> 
> Anyone have issues with the benchmark crashing regardless of what you do? This is the Steam version.
> 
> Software also says I have GSync enabled...but I don't I don't have a GSync monitor (it's Freesync)...but no adaptive sync is enabled and not forcing any type of refresh rates.
> 
> I have tried removing the program and then installing it again.
> Tried "check file integrity"
> I tried DDU with different versions of drivers.
> Trying a fresh install of windows isn't gonna happen since I don't have a spare drive to use.
> Tried stock clocks on both CPU and GPUs.
> 
> System is 5775c and dual 1080ti. Win 10 1703 (15063.674)
> 
> Fire Strike also crashes.


You can get your key from Steam, and try installing the stand-alone version. Sometimes when uninstalling 3DMark, there are still some registry files left over.

EDIT: I think I used the Revo uninstaller to get rid of everything, including the registry entries.


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> anyway - Killerbee33 is not a newbie. He knows.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *x2*


Will do it right in a few


----------



## NBrock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hequaqua*
> 
> You can get your key from Steam, and try installing the stand-alone version. Sometimes when uninstalling 3DMark, there are still some registry files left over.
> 
> EDIT: I think I used the Revo uninstaller to get rid of everything, including the registry entries.


Thanks I'll give it a shot later today.


----------



## NBrock

Seems to be an SLI issue.


----------



## Pyounpy-2

pyounpy-2 i9 [email protected] Nvidia Titan XP Hybrid SLi @ 2152/1589 Time Spy Extreme 10182


https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2666094


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix i7 7820X @4,6 Asus Strix 1080 A8g @2164/1400

Time Spy Score: 8854 GFX 8611 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2509341

Time Spy Extreme Score: 4042 GFX 3907 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2611092


----------



## criminal

@Jpmboy

Did you see your shoutout by Jayztwocents and Kingpin?


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 8700K @ 5.0GHz -- 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid @ 2101/1426 -- Time Spy: 10601

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2677035


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Did you see your shoutout by Jayztwocents and Kingpin?


yes. from the canadian jz tho.









hey, where's the link from your 10215 sub?


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> pyounpy-2 i9 [email protected] Nvidia Titan XP Hybrid SLi @ 2152/1589 Time Spy Extreme 10182
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2666094











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> AvengedRobix i7 7820X @4,6 Asus Strix 1080 A8g @2164/1400
> Time Spy Score: 8854 GFX 8611 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2509341
> Time Spy Extreme Score: 4042 GFX 3907 https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2611092










*x2*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.0GHz -- 1080 Ti SC2 Hybrid @ 2101/1426 -- Time Spy: 10601
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2677035


----------



## KillerBee33

KillerBee33 --- 6820HK @ 4.0 -- GTX1070NOTEBOOK X2 @ 1860 / 2202 --- TimeSpy @ 9907


https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23116625


----------



## bardacuda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *criminal*
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> Did you see your shoutout by Jayztwocents and Kingpin?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes. from the canadian jz tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey, where's the link from your 10215 sub?
Click to expand...

Haha I just watched that video and came here to say the same thing but criminal is way ahead of the game


----------



## criminal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yes. from the canadian jz tho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey, where's the link from your 10215 sub?


I forgot about that! I got a better run I need to post anyway.


----------



## looniam

icymi:

new egg has a few futuremark benches on sale until early next week (nov 13th)

~$5 to unlock extreme in TS and FS(?) and skip that life time stealing demo









i snatched PCmark10 just because . . . ~30min from order to email w/code.

that is all.


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> icymi:
> 
> new egg has a few futuremark benches on sale until early next week (nov 13th)
> 
> ~$5 to unlock extreme in TS and FS(?) and skip that life time stealing demo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i snatched PCmark10 just because . . . ~30min from order to email w/code.
> 
> that is all.


I got PCMark 10 in a Humble Bundle for $12 I think it was.


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2xTitan Xfp --- 11610

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23161134


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2xTitan Xfp --- 11610
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23161134


You delidded your XE, @Jpmboy ?


----------



## Kimir

Time Spy Extreme
Kimir ---- [email protected] --- 980Ti HOF --- 3131 --- gfx: 2976


https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23166553

No idea if that's any good, been updating my Win10 drive since yesterday and gave that a try from work, had to close teamviewer instance for the bench to run tho.


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Look here Kimir:

*https://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=2.165410431.1359882831.1510140238-1928747233.1509942043#/?mode=basic&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpuname/spy/X/NVIDIA%20GeForce%20GTX%20980%20Ti&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti*

Number of GPUs, select "1"


----------



## Kimir

Oh yeah there is that function on the hof, seems about right for my daily clock.








weird it didn't linked my score to my account, I thought I was connected, guess not.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> You delidded your XE, @Jpmboy ?


no, not yet.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> no, not yet.


Got my new Corsair AX1500i psu yesterday. Started my bench mark overclock and hit core [email protected] cashe [email protected] water at 14c. Very happy with this processor still has a lot of head room. Ran out of time last night to see what it will do.....


----------



## KedarWolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> You delidded your XE, @Jpmboy ?
> 
> 
> 
> no, not yet.
Click to expand...

The debauer (I think it's called) delidding tool is the way to go.

You just need to make sure the CPU is positioned in it the right way, needs to be put in a certain way or you'll break some caps on it.

When I upgrade I'll be getting the tool for sure.


----------



## Derek1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> Look here Kimir:
> 
> *https://www.3dmark.com/search?_ga=2.165410431.1359882831.1510140238-1928747233.1509942043#/?mode=basic&url=/proxycon/ajax/search/gpuname/spy/X/NVIDIA%20GeForce%20GTX%20980%20Ti&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti*
> 
> Number of GPUs, select "1"


Here is a comparison between me @ #42 (yay top 50! lol) and random selections up to 1st place.

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/2548892/spy/2601728/spy/2641542/spy/2596554/spy/2654206#

Seems my boys graphics wise are up to the task.
I am assuming frame simulation time should be low but not sure how to adjust for that. Any ideas?

ETA Never mind, it is a cpu metric which explains the high score here.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KedarWolf*
> 
> The debauer (I think it's called) delidding tool is the way to go.
> 
> You just need to make sure the CPU is positioned in it the right way, needs to be put in a certain way or you'll break some caps on it.
> 
> When I upgrade I'll be getting the tool for sure.


I have the rockit tool - used it for my 7740X. I have everything needed, just have not felt compelled to delid this yet.


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have the rockit tool - used it for my 7740X. I have everything needed, just have not felt compelled to delid this yet.


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> I have the rockit tool - used it for my 7740X. I have everything needed, just have not felt compelled to delid this yet.


Have the rockit as well, but also have not delidded yet


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- 2 Titan XP's --- 11151

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691785


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- Titan XP --- 6115

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691966


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*


oooh - that's just sooo wrong!


----------



## ThrashZone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- 2 Titan XP's --- 6115
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691966


Hi,
Wow that was ugly
Can we say GSync borked the score ?


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

single Titan X Pascal in that screenie^^


----------



## KillerBee33

.


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> KillerBee33 --- 6820HK @ 4.0 -- GTX1070NOTEBOOK X2 @ 1860 / 2202 --- TimeSpy @ 9907
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23116625











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2xTitan Xfp --- 11610
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23161134











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kimir*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> Kimir ---- [email protected] --- 980Ti HOF --- 3131 --- gfx: 2976
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23166553
> 
> No idea if that's any good, been updating my Win10 drive since yesterday and gave that a try from work, had to close teamviewer instance for the bench to run tho.











oooh.. the win 10 "creature" update.








Kimir - I disabled w10 updates on my R5E/5960X 'cause it kept screwing up. used gpedit.msc to disable Feature, Quality or both.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- 2 Titan XP's --- 11115
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691785











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- 2 Titan XP's --- 6115
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691966


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oooh - that's just sooo wrong!


----------



## kx11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> DooRules --- 7980EX @ 4.8 --- 2 Titan XP's --- 6115
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2691966


you're just 600 points above my score ?

that is not right


----------



## Kimir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> oooh.. the win 10 "creature" update.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kimir - I disabled w10 updates on my R5E/5960X 'cause it kept screwing up. used gpedit.msc to disable Feature, Quality or both.


lol, I toyed with the Fall creator update at work and felt like updating my Win10 SSD at home after that (I mostly use Win7 usually).
But of course I didn't do it with windows update, with my prehistoric internet speed at home, I used the iso I downloaded at work.








No issues so far, I had to limit the speed of windows update in gpedit cause when it started downloading office updates, I couldn't even YouTube at 360p


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> you're just 600 points above my score ?
> 
> that is not right


I screwed up. That was single gpu


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DooRules*
> 
> I screwed up. That was single gpu


that's how it's entered. yes? (on my phone atm)


----------



## DooRules

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> that's how it's entered. yes? (on my phone atm)


You have it entered correctly. When I made my post I had 2 Titans in the submission line when it was of course only one. I edited my post.


----------



## KillerBee33

Just a "tiny" mistake there Chief









https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23116625


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> Just a "tiny" mistake there Chief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23116625


yeah - M for mobile. I use to use N for notebook but, you know, someone complained about "N" and wanted "m".


----------



## KillerBee33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> yeah - M for mobile. I use to use N for notebook but, you know, someone complained about "N" and wanted "m".


Well, lets try again , shall we?
"Top 30 SINGLE GPU"
and now my Link with 1070X2






















I mean i wish 1070"M" or "N" can beat a TXP but not today










Just being Snobby


----------



## KillerBee33

KillerBee33--i7 6820HK @ 4.1--GTX 1070"M" X2 @ 1658/2227 Time Spy @ 10 020


https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23219428

KillerBee33--i7 6820HK @ 4.1--GTX 1070"M" X2 @ 1658/2227 Time Spy Extreme @ 4 628


https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23219782


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 4129/gfx 4093 tse

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23244754


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- R9 295x2 --- 3733/gfx 3970 TSE

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23244809


----------



## CptSpig

CptSpig --- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/1620 --- 6180 TSE



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2763626


----------



## Clukos

Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.1 -- 1080 Ti @ 2101/1589 -- TimeSpy 10938

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23405597


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KillerBee33*
> 
> KillerBee33--i7 6820HK @ 4.1--GTX 1070"M" X2 @ 1658/2227 Time Spy @ 10 020
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23219428
> 
> KillerBee33--i7 6820HK @ 4.1--GTX 1070"M" X2 @ 1658/2227 Time Spy Extreme @ 4 628
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23219782










x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX 1080 --- 4129/gfx 4093 tse
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23244754











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- R9 295x2 --- 3733/gfx 3970 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23244809











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> CptSpig --- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/1620 --- 6180 TSE
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2763626











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clukos*
> 
> Clukos -- Ryzen 1700 @ 4.1 -- 1080 Ti @ 2101/1589 -- TimeSpy 10938
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23405597


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2088/12000 - Time Spy: 10877

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2760357



MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2088/12000 - Time Spy Extreme: 5004

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2760381


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 8700K @5.3GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11 600:*



*https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2804104*


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2088/12000 - Time Spy: 10877
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2760357
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2088/12000 - Time Spy Extreme: 5004
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2760381











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrTOOSHORT*
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 8700K @5.3GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2152MHz -- 11 600:*
> 
> 
> 
> *https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2804104*


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2102/12,110 - Time Spy: 10923

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23658285


----------



## GRABibus

Update : TimeSpy

GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2114/6003 - 10690

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23854559?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17120901561517369815407678.png

Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.
Cooling system reseted with the cooling system of the Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme Waterforce.
Max Core temp : 40°C at 21°c ambient !!!!


----------



## GRABibus

Update : TimeSpy extreme

GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2114/6003 - 4882

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23854806?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17120901560317369815407677.png


----------



## looniam

so yeah, who's waiting to get boxes on monday morn and bench in the eve?


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.5GHz - 1080 Ti Strix OC @ 2366 - Score: 12741

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2901155


----------



## CptSpig

Update:
CptSpig --- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/1624 --- 12651 TS
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2907701


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2102/12,110 - Time Spy: 10923
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23658285











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : TimeSpy
> 
> GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2114/6003 - 10690
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23854559?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17120901561517369815407678.png
> 
> Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.
> Cooling system reseted with the cooling system of the Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme Waterforce.
> Max Core temp : 40°C at 21°c ambient !!!!











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : TimeSpy extreme
> 
> GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 1080 Ti @ 2114/6003 - 4882
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23854806?
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17120901560317369815407677.png











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> so yeah, who's waiting to get boxes on monday morn and bench in the eve?


more like tuesday/wednesday.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.5GHz - 1080 Ti Strix OC @ 2366 - Score: 12741
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2901155











lol - what did you do to that poor cpu.







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Update:
> CptSpig --- [email protected] -- GTX [email protected]/1624 --- 12651 TS


Need a validation link


----------



## looniam

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> more like tuesday/wednesday.


lol i was just going to ask if it was ~24:00:00 from now . . .


----------



## CptSpig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> more like tuesday/wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol - what did you do to that poor cpu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Need a validation link


Done,


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CptSpig*
> 
> Done,


ditto.


----------



## The EX1

I'm not sure if it matters, but my Titan Xp is the CE version so it reports differently.

New Entry
The_EX1 --- 6950X @ 4.4 -- GTX Titan Xp CE(?) @ 2000/1620 --- 11445 TS



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23890250

New Entry
The_EX1 --- 6950X @ 4.4 -- GTX Titan Xp CE(?) @ 2000/1620 --- 5295 TSE



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23890467


----------



## looniam

empire or order?

acceptance of the scores may depend on that,


----------



## kx11

i see glnn_23 score iin TS Extreme is above mine even though my score is higher


----------



## The EX1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *looniam*
> 
> empire or order?
> 
> acceptance of the scores may depend on that,


I believe dark forces made me buy that card, so Empire was a fitting choice!


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The EX1*
> 
> I'm not sure if it matters, but my Titan Xp is the CE version so it reports differently.
> New Entry
> The_EX1 --- 6950X @ 4.4 -- GTX Titan Xp CE(?) @ 2000/1620 --- 11445 TS
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23890250
> 
> New Entry
> The_EX1 --- 6950X @ 4.4 -- GTX Titan Xp CE(?) @ 2000/1620 --- 5295 TSE
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/23890467











x2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kx11*
> 
> i see glnn_23 score iin TS Extreme is above mine even though my score is higher


fixed.

________________________________ new entry____________________________

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- Titan V --- 8180 TSE 7741gfx

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2921125


----------



## BrainSplatter

Hi, I am not sure whether this thread is strictly for posting results or whether it's ok to discuss some TimeSpy benching techniques. Just let me know.

Even though I managed to get 1st place in the Timespy category 6850K + 2x1080Tis: 17084 pts (didn't think about this thread so no screenshots, but will try next time). My cards score consistently lower in the 2nd graphics benchmark compared to the next lower places although GFX bench 1 is usually higher compared to the same configurations.

See here (Punkworks is my system): https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/2966630/spy/2611345/spy/2504736#

That's why I wonder which component need to be tweaked to achieve higher scores in the 2nd GFX benchmark? Is it VRAM speed, power limit or sth else ?

Regarding my system, the 1080Ti cards are actually reference cards and I only managed those scores because I use the cold winter air to cool the cards and modified the voltage curve to avoid excessive power throttling.

Thanks for any tips!


----------



## DStealth

DStealth - 8700K @ 5.5GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti @ 2177/1550 -- Time Spy: 11452
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24135451


----------



## hotrod717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth - 8700K @ 5.5GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti @ 2177/1550 -- Time Spy: 11452
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24135451


Nice 8700k you got there!


----------



## DStealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hotrod717*
> 
> Nice 8700k you got there!


Thanks was worried putting 400+ W video in this pure AIO Predator cooler from EK would result in reduced 8700k performance for the CPU...but just have to rise the Vcore from 1.42 to 1.43 to bench over 5.5 and 5.2 cache


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2150 - Score: 18805

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2991860



Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2150 - Score: 9694

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2991714


----------



## Gunslinger.

XOC bios engaged

Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2417 - Score: 21145

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2996243


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - i9-7940X @ 4.7GHz - 2x1080 Ti SC SLI @ 1962/11,000 - Time Spy Score: 19551

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2955821



MrFox - i9-7940X @ 4.7GHz - 2x1080 Ti SC SLI @ 2049/12,000 - Time Spy Extreme Score: 9709

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2959823


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.5GHz - 1080 Ti KPE @ 2505 - Score: 13001

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2998085


----------



## GRABibus

Update : Time Spy

GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.9GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2126/1514 --- Score = 10783

GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24258163?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17122902205317369815429519.png


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> DStealth - 8700K @ 5.5GHz -- MSI 1080 Ti @ 2177/1550 -- Time Spy: 11452
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24135451











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2150 - Score: 18805
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2991860
> 
> 
> 
> Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2150 - Score: 9694
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2991714











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> XOC bios engaged
> 
> Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.4GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2417 - Score: 21145
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2996243











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - i9-7940X @ 4.7GHz - 2x1080 Ti SC SLI @ 1962/11,000 - Time Spy Score: 19551
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2955821
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrFox - i9-7940X @ 4.7GHz - 2x1080 Ti SC SLI @ 2049/12,000 - Time Spy Extreme Score: 9709
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2959823











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger - 7900X @ 5.5GHz - 1080 Ti KPE @ 2505 - Score: 13001
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2998085











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Update : Time Spy
> 
> GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.9GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2126/1514 --- Score = 10783
> 
> GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24258163?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17122902205317369815429519.png


----------



## GRABibus

Update : Time Spy

GRABibus - 5930K @ 4.9GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2164/1501 --- Score = 10796

GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24276262?

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17122908521717369815430704.png

it is only 13pts more than previous score, but I wanted to pass 11400 GX score before 2018 !









Happy new year !


----------



## Pyounpy-2

pyounpy-2 - [email protected] 5.4GHz - 1080 Ti Zotac extreme XOC mod bios @ 2200MHz SLI - Score: 18632
(water cooling custom)



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3031124


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> pyounpy-2 - [email protected] 5.4GHz - 1080 Ti Zotac extreme XOC mod bios @ 2200MHz SLI - Score: 18632
> (water cooling custom)
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3031124


Nice GPU core clock !









You are gaming stable with this OC ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Nice GPU core clock !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are gaming stable with this OC ?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


It depends on the game. For the game giving very heavy load, I decrease the GPU frequency to [email protected] or 2100MHz @1.1V.
Thank you.


----------



## Nizzen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> It depends on the game. For the game giving very heavy load, I decrease the GPU frequency to [email protected] or 2100MHz @1.1V.
> Thank you.


Stock v and 2000mhz


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> It depends on the game. For the game giving very heavy load, I decrease the GPU frequency to [email protected] or 2100MHz @1.1V.
> Thank you.


You can improve your score.
As I can see, you have ASUS XOC Bios and your base clock is only 1592MHz.
You should first apply an offset as +100MHz on core for example, and then tweak your V/F curve to have 2200MHz at the required voltage.

For bench, this is my curve :
+111MHz on Core
+ 497MHz on Memory
Tweaking of the curve for all V/F points above 1.062V and flat curve at 2164MHz between 1.143V and 1.2V
=> Base clocks : Core=1682MHz and Memory=1501MHz

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123001312717369815430917.png

For gaming, this is my curve :
+111MHz on Core
+ 441MHz on Memory
Tweaking of the curve for all V/F points above 1.062V and flat curve at 2152MHz between 1.125V and 1.2V
=> Base clocks : Core=1681MHz and Memory=1487MHz

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123001312817369815430918.png


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> You can improve your score.
> As I can see, you have ASUS XOC Bios and your base clock is only 1592MHz.
> You should first apply an offset as +100MHz on core for example, and then tweak your V/F curve to have 2200MHz at the required voltage.
> 
> For bench, this is my curve :
> +111MHz on Core
> + 497MHz on Memory
> Tweaking of the curve for all V/F points above 1.062V and flat curve at 2164MHz between 1.143V and 1.2V
> => Base clocks : Core=1682MHz and Memory=1501MHz
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123001312717369815430917.png
> 
> For gaming, this is my curve :
> +111MHz on Core
> + 441MHz on Memory
> Tweaking of the curve for all V/F points above 1.062V and flat curve at 2152MHz between 1.125V and 1.2V
> => Base clocks : Core=1681MHz and Memory=1487MHz
> 
> http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123001312817369815430918.png


Thank you, GRABibus, for your detailed introduction to improve the score.
I will try and test your way to make the V/F curve.
Thank you.


----------



## DStealth

Running lower Frequency and voltages wont improve your score








2164 1.143 vs 2202 1.2
Flattening the line/curve means you'll run the voltage set from the first higher point








Can you please run single card your system seems very strong, thanks in advance


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> Running lower Frequency and voltages wont improve your score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2164 1.143 vs 2202 1.2
> Flattening the line/curve means you'll run the voltage set from the first higher point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please run single card your system seems very strong, thanks in advance


What I explained is that if he has only 1592MHz base clock, he will have a lower score than if he has base clock 1650MHz for example.
Putting a significant offset on Core in MSI AB (Or PX) and then tweaking the curve at 2200MHz gives a much better score than tweaking only teh curve at 2200MHz without any offset on Core.

I can post results if you want


----------



## DStealth

Yes please post for comparison...
Here's one better result from me w/o curve offset optimizations








DStealth 1080ti 2215/12200 [email protected] 11700+ GPU score

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3037002


----------



## Pyounpy-2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> Yes please post for comparison...
> Here's one better result from me w/o curve offset optimizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DStealth 1080ti 2215/12200 [email protected] 11700+ GPU score
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3037002


Marvelous result!! Both frequency of CPU and GPU.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DStealth*
> 
> Yes please post for comparison...
> Here's one better result from me w/o curve offset optimizations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DStealth 1080ti 2215/12200 [email protected] 11700+ GPU score
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3037002


OK.
Now, post your V/F curve.
Do you apply an offset in MSI AB ? Which value ?


----------



## GRABibus

Here, 2100MHz/1.100V, without any offset in MSI AB.
=> Base clock=1570MHz

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123006442217369815431463.png

Here, 2100MHz/1.100V, with Core offset in MSI AB=100MHz.
=> Base clock=1669MHz

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123006442317369815431464.png

What I meant, is that in second case, with offset in MSI AB, Time Spy graphic scores are much higher.


----------



## GRABibus

Results ::

Without offset : 10709

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123007044517369815431514.png

With offset : 10860

http://www.casimages.com/img.php?i=17123007044417369815431512.png

Yeah, only 150pts difference....I thoughjt it was much more.


----------



## levontraut

OCN user name - LevonTraut
[email protected] 4790 stock clock - no idea what it is, i think its 4GHZ
GPU1 Gigabyte 980Ti
GPU2 Palit 980Ti
Drivers - Std windows 10 build 1709

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3038709

https://valid.x86.fr/9bu705

Can not see the score very well in the pictures but this is what is showing up.

*SCORE
9 186 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 Ti(2x) and Intel Core i7-4790K
Graphics Score 11 302
CPU Score 4 458
*


----------



## lilchronic

@GRABibus stop giving every one the secrete sauce. lol He's already benching with 1°c ambient temps.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> @GRABibus stop giving every one the secrete sauce. lol He's already benching with 1°c ambient temps.


----------



## DStealth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lilchronic*
> 
> @GRABibus stop giving every one the secrete sauce. lol He's already benching with 1°c ambient temps.


20*C actually just put a chiller to the loop


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.5GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2430 - Score: 11270

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3059773



Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.5GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2430 - Score: 21124

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3059793


----------



## Jpmboy

regarding the above discussion, I'm not sure why an offset to the base clock should affect any score if the card is locked in the P0 state. Once you have set and applied an OC and curve window up, select the frequency point that corresponds to the card's load voltage with a single click. Then hit ctrl-L and hit the "Apply" button. The card will run at the P0 frequency and not any other P-state, and only drop frequency according to the power and temp limit throttles.

... and I'll fish thru all the post to find the subs.


----------



## AvengedRobix

Time Spy:
AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 5Ghz --- [email protected] 2138Mhz / 1652Mhz --- 11577
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3088061


----------



## AvengedRobix

Time Spy Extreme:
AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 4.8Ghz --- [email protected] 2126Mhz / 1647Mhz --- 5355
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3073203


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.5GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2430 - Score: 11270
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3059773
> 
> 
> 
> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.5GHz - 2x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2430 - Score: 21124
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3059793










x2
you had a higher TS score with the 7900








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyounpy-2*
> 
> pyounpy-2 - [email protected] 5.4GHz - 1080 Ti Zotac extreme XOC mod bios @ 2200MHz SLI - Score: 18632
> (water cooling custom)
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3031124











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> Time Spy:
> AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 5Ghz --- [email protected] 2138Mhz / 1652Mhz --- 11577


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme:
> AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 4.8Ghz --- [email protected] 2126Mhz / 1647Mhz --- 5355


*Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
_Need a validation link for both subs_


----------



## AvengedRobix

Edite my post... sorry
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x2
> you had a higher TS score with the 7900
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Please read the instructions in post 1 of this thread for entry requirements.*
> _Need a validation link for both subs_


----------



## GRABibus

Hi Jpmboy,

maybe you forgot this one :

http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/1440#post_26522965

Thanks !


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> Time Spy:
> AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 5Ghz --- [email protected] 2138Mhz / 1652Mhz --- 11577
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3088061


Very nice graphic score


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> Time Spy:
> AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 5Ghz --- [email protected] 2138Mhz / 1652Mhz --- 11577
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3088061











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvengedRobix*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme:
> AvengedRobix --- 7820X @ 4.8Ghz --- [email protected] 2126Mhz / 1647Mhz --- 5355
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3073203


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Hi Jpmboy,
> 
> maybe you forgot this one :
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1606006/3dmark-time-spy-benchmark-top-30/1440#post_26522965
> 
> Thanks !


updated, no change in position.









________________________________________________
Google sheet sorting corrected.


----------



## GRABibus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> updated, no change in position.


Yes I know, but I passed 11400 at Graphics score








This was my aim


----------



## idahosurge

Please add me to Time Spy

idahosurge --- 7820X @ 4.6Ghz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 1607Mhz / 11.2Ghz --- 10596

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24460708


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2062 / 12,110 - Time Spy Score: 10927

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24520450#


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] 4.9 -- Titan V --- 15988

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2927553


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GRABibus*
> 
> Yes I know, but I passed 11400 at Graphics score
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was my aim


good aim.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *idahosurge*
> 
> Please add me to Time Spy
> 
> idahosurge --- 7820X @ 4.6Ghz --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 1607Mhz / 11.2Ghz --- 10596
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24460708











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrFox*
> 
> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.2GHz - 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2062 / 12,110 - Time Spy Score: 10927
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24520450#











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> jpmboy -- [email protected] 4.9 -- Titan V --- 15988
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2927553


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy -- [email protected] -- 2 Titan Xp -- 23115

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/2762161


----------



## truehighroller1

Time Spy Extreme

truehighroller1 - 5820k @ 4.6GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - Score: 4839

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3135441



Time Spy

truehighroller1 - 5820k @ 4.6GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - Score: 10417

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3135408


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *truehighroller1*
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> 
> truehighroller1 - 5820k @ 4.6GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - Score: 4839
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3135441
> 
> 
> 
> Time Spy
> 
> truehighroller1 - 5820k @ 4.6GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - Score: 10417
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3135408










x2

just fyi - if you use ABeta to OC the card, after setting the oc offset, put the mouse in the graph, hit ctrl-F, then select the point on the graph which is the load voltage for the card and then hit ctrl-L and "Apply". close the window. the gpu clocks are locked in P0 at the frequency set. Usually results in higher scores in any bench (and higher FPS and framerates when gaming). When done, save it to a save slot and reset. It's there to use when you want.


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 3x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2088 - Score: 27044

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3139750



Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 3x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2088 - Score: 14093

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3166476


----------



## truehighroller1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jpmboy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x2
> 
> just fyi - if you use ABeta to OC the card, after setting the oc offset, put the mouse in the graph, hit ctrl-F, then select the point on the graph which is the load voltage for the card and then hit ctrl-L and "Apply". close the window. the gpu clocks are locked in P) at the frequency set. Usually results in higher scores in any bench (and higher FPS and framerates when gaming). When done, save it to a save slot and reset. It's there to use when you want.


That is a very cool trick. Thank you for that tip sir







Now if I could just get the thing over 1.093v. +rep


----------



## Jpmboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gunslinger.*
> 
> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 3x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2088 - Score: 27044
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3139750
> 
> 
> 
> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 3x 1080 Ti KPE @ 2088 - Score: 14093
> 
> working on the link










x1
TSE sub needs a validation link.


----------



## Gunslinger.

added the link


----------



## truehighroller1

New Entry Extreme

truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - 1603 Score: 5325

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3179349



New Entry Normal

truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - 1603 Score: 11276

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3179168


----------



## Bride

Bride - i7 7700k @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming @ 1506 / 3505 - 6454

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24761247


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 1080 Ti KPE @ 2555 - Score: 13621

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3184473


----------



## Jpmboy

Gunslinger. said:


> added the link


fixed. 


truehighroller1 said:


> New Entry Extreme
> 
> truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - 1603 Score: 5325
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3179349
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Entry Normal
> 
> truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2063 - 1603 Score: 11276
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3179168




:thumb: x2​


Bride said:


> Bride - i7 7700k @ 4.8GHz - Gigabyte GTX 980 Ti G1 Gaming @ 1506 / 3505 - 6454
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/24761247

















:thumb:​


Gunslinger. said:


> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - 1080 Ti KPE @ 2555 - Score: 13621
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3184473










:thumb:​
okay guys - I have to work on the format for inline images. At least the googlesheet import didn't get borked. :O


----------



## looniam

5 star rating drive by . . . :winksmile


----------



## kx11

so this bench is now broken ?? lolz


story here
https://videocardz.com/74912/professional-overclocker-demonstrates-how-to-cheat-in-3dmark-timespy


----------



## Jpmboy

that's actually not "new" news regarding unigine and Catzilla (the buggiest bench in the world). Without conducting an inquiry on every sub, we'll just go forward with "Valid Results" required for this bench. The Fire Strike bench threads (I do) allow HWBOT rules. No issues there.
The main issue with comparing reported clocks and scores is that FM Sysinfo does not (always) read clocks correctly, as was very clear from the Titan V. Moreover having tried that here once on a different benchmark we just pissed off a lot of users and ended up no better.
So, however FM plans to police their HOF is gonna create a bunch of issues. Could be fun to watch!
Best to just enjoy benchmarking and view it as us against the machine.


----------



## Jpmboy

looniam said:


> 5 star rating drive by . . . :winksmile


lol, hopefully we're not experiencing a drive-by site upgrade


----------



## looniam

hopefully not much longer - had a little one on one time w/one of the Vb team (lee) in that mobile/desktop thread. great guy, still an issue but pertinent info sent up the chain.

and things are going much much better in the feedback thread . . .

. . . after i left. 


i gotta get off my breadboarded rig, install W10 and see how that old GTX 570 fairs in TSE.

bottom of the charts for me! :thumb:


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti FTW3 Elite @ 2215 - 1661 Score: 11761


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix said:


> AvengedRobix - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti FTW3 Elite @ 2215 - 1661 Score: 11761


https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3198230


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> AvengedRobix - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti FTW3 Elite @ 2215 - 1661 Score: 11761





AvengedRobix said:


> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3198230


Accepted Updated


:thumb:​


----------



## truehighroller1

Update Entry: Extreme

truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2076 - 1600 Score: 5364

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3221525


----------



## Jpmboy

truehighroller1 said:


> Update Entry: Extreme
> 
> truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning Z OC @ 2076 - 1600 Score: 5364
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3221525









Accepted
:thumb:


I gotta work on library pictures!​


----------



## Jpmboy

test


----------



## nlitworld

Long time lurker, first time poster.
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3280625

nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.8, 1070 FTW pushed up to 2151, 32gb ram. Score 6,599. Not the best, but not the craziest overclock either.


----------



## nlitworld

Double post...


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ need a screenshot as described in Post #1 
(and yeah - nice run!)


----------



## nlitworld

I knew I was forgetting something. Need more coffee...


----------



## truehighroller1

Update Entry: Normal Time Spy

truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning OC @ 2076 - 1615 Score: 11576

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3306022

Update Entry: Extreme

truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning OC @ 2076 - 1615 Score: 5459

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3306053


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus - 6900K @ 4.5GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2164/1501 --- Score = 11269

GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25187923?


----------



## truehighroller1

Spoiler






GRABibus said:


> Update :
> 
> GRABibus - 6900K @ 4.5GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2164/1501 --- Score = 11269
> 
> GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25187923?







Just in-case you didn't, turn off your gsync.


----------



## Gunslinger.

Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - Titan V @ 2000- Score: 15004

Sadly no waterblocks available and my LN2 pot does not fit it either. 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3314665


----------



## GnarlyCharlie

I saw someplace that the Evo Supremacy block will work on the GPU die, nothing for the power/mem chips that way of course.


----------



## Gunslinger.

GnarlyCharlie said:


> I saw someplace that the Evo Supremacy block will work on the GPU die, nothing for the power/mem chips that way of course.


I've got one here, just need to pick up some fittings and a reservoir, hope to have it all in place by next weekend.


----------



## Jpmboy

nlitworld said:


> Long time lurker, first time poster.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3280625
> 
> nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.8, 1070 FTW pushed up to 2151, 32gb ram. Score 6,599. Not the best, but not the craziest overclock either.





nlitworld said:


> I knew I was forgetting something. Need more coffee...












truehighroller1 said:


> Update Entry: Normal Time Spy
> 
> truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning OC @ 2076 - 1615 Score: 11576
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3306022
> 
> Update Entry: Extreme
> 
> truehighroller1 - [email protected] 5GHz - 1080 Ti Lightning OC @ 2076 - 1615 Score: 5459
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3306053












GRABibus said:


> Update :
> 
> GRABibus - 6900K @ 4.5GHz - GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G @ 2164/1501 --- Score = 11269
> 
> GIGABYTE GTX 1080 Ti Gaming OC 11G flashed with ASUS XOC Bios.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25187923?












Gunslinger. said:


> Gunslinger - 7980XE @ 5.6GHz - Titan V @ 2000- Score: 15004
> 
> Sadly no waterblocks available and my LN2 pot does not fit it either.
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3314665












Gunslinger. said:


> I've got one here, just need to pick up some fittings and a reservoir, hope to have it all in place by next weekend.


the 2066 compatible cpu waterblocks are not quite right.. gonna need a little grinding. the mount is 72-73mm square, and an EK evo is a force fit (bent mount) at best. I did remove the mount plate and "mod" it to fit, but have yet to force fit the thing.


----------



## Jpmboy

GnarlyCharlie said:


> I saw someplace that the Evo Supremacy block will work on the GPU die, nothing for the power/mem chips that way of course.


yeah, it's an overlay picture by GN. Haven't seen one actually mounted yet. Using a micrometer/caliper the block mount is not quite the right square... dremel time!


----------



## nlitworld

Made a few changes and retested.

nlitworld - [email protected] - GTX1070FTW
Score - 6,913
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3322034


----------



## hotrod717

Not for the charts. This 1070ti is just impressing me.
hotrod717 - 8600k -52/50 - Zotck 1070ti Amp! Extreme -2214/2999 ---P 7823

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25216498?

Upload is failing??


----------



## AvengedRobix

TimeSpy Extreme

AvengedRobix - 8700KE @ 5.2GHz - 1080Ti FTW3 Elite XOC Bios @ 2228/1671- Score: 5362

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3319919


----------



## Bride

still under ocing, but pretty satisfied

Intel 8700k 5.2 GHz core 5.2 GHz cache
GTX 980 Ti 1468 MHz core 3505 MHz memory (1.225 V)

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3326410


----------



## Jpmboy

nlitworld said:


> Made a few changes and retested.
> 
> nlitworld - [email protected] - GTX1070FTW
> Score - 6,913
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3322034


Accepted Updated











hotrod717 said:


> *Not for the charts.* This 1070ti is just impressing me.
> hotrod717 - 8600k -52/50 - Zotck 1070ti Amp! Extreme -2214/2999 ---P 7823
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25216498?
> 
> Upload is failing??


why not chart it? PIcture upload is broke. need to upload to a 3rd party and copy the link into the "picture" tool in the editor. ( i use the techpowerup picture upload)


AvengedRobix said:


> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> AvengedRobix - 8700KE @ 5.2GHz - 1080Ti FTW3 Elite XOC Bios @ 2228/1671- Score: 5362
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3319919


Accepted Updated











Bride said:


> still under ocing, but pretty satisfied
> 
> Intel 8700k 5.2 GHz core 5.2 GHz cache
> GTX 980 Ti 1468 MHz core 3505 MHz memory (1.225 V)
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3326410


Rejected
Please See Post #1 for submission instructions


----------



## fearthisneo

Update Entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1700x @ 3.8GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 10124
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3335389

New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1700x @ 3.8GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 4639
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3335504


----------



## AvengedRobix

TimeSpy Extreme

AvengedRobix - 8700KE @ 5.4GHz - 1080Ti FTW3 Elite XOC Bios @ 2228/1677- Score: 5417
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3365466


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> Update Entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1700x @ 3.8GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 10124
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3335389
> 
> New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1700x @ 3.8GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 4639
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3335504


Accepted Updated









x2 :thumb:​


AvengedRobix said:


> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> AvengedRobix - 8700KE @ 5.4GHz - 1080Ti FTW3 Elite XOC Bios @ 2228/1677- Score: 5417
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3365466


Accepted Updated


----------



## fearthisneo

Update Entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 10483
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3390205

Update Entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 5093
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3390274


----------



## nlitworld

Ok, last time to update. Never thought I'd get this much enjoyment out of benchmarking my computer.

nlitworld
I7-6700K @ 4.8Ghz
EVGA 1070FTW @ 2,164 / 4,679
Timespy score - 6,954
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25435918


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> Update Entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 10483
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3390205
> 
> Update Entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 5093
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3390274


Accepted Updated










On these high core count CPUs, try disabling "hyperthreading"... just run native cores. (be prepared for more heat)​


nlitworld said:


> Ok, last time to update. Never thought I'd get this much enjoyment out of benchmarking my computer.
> 
> nlitworld
> I7-6700K @ 4.8Ghz
> EVGA 1070FTW @ 2,164 / 4,679
> Timespy score - 6,954
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/25435918


Accepted Updated


----------



## Bride

'New Entry'

Bride - 8700k @ 5.3GHz - GTX 980Ti @ 1519 / 4005 - 6910 - 11/03/2018

Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3428048

Bride - 8700k @ 5.3GHz - GTX 980Ti @ 1519 / 4005 - 3287 - 11/03/2018

Time Spy Extreme https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3428074


----------



## Jpmboy

Bride said:


> 'New Entry'
> 
> Bride - 8700k @ 5.3GHz - GTX 980Ti @ 1519 / 4005 - 6910 - 11/03/2018
> 
> Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3428048
> 
> Bride - 8700k @ 5.3GHz - GTX 980Ti @ 1519 / 4005 - 3287 - 11/03/2018
> 
> Time Spy Extreme https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3428074


Accepted Updated









X2​


----------



## Kriant

New Entry

Kriant - 1950X @ 3.975Ghz -GTX 1080TI SLI @ 2063 / 6156 - 4/8/2018

Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26017639

Kriant - 1950X @ 3.975 - GTX 1080TI SLI @ 2063 / 6156 - 4/8/2018

Time Spy Extreme - https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26017986


----------



## CptSpig

Update: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xp -- 6190

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3503995


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 8700K @ 5.4GHz | 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2101 / 12100 - Time Spy: 11036

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3577385


----------



## Jpmboy

Kriant said:


> New Entry
> 
> Kriant - 1950X @ 3.975Ghz -GTX 1080TI SLI @ 2063 / 6156 - 4/8/2018
> 
> Time Spy https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26017639
> 
> Kriant - 1950X @ 3.975 - GTX 1080TI SLI @ 2063 / 6156 - 4/8/2018
> 
> Time Spy Extreme - https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26017986


Accepted Updated











CptSpig said:


> Update: CptSpig -- [email protected] -- Titan Xp -- 6190
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3503995


Accepted Updated









*^^ Both of you guys should try disabling hyperthreading for this benchmark. Should increase the CPU score quite a bit.* :thumb:



MrFox said:


> MrFox - 8700K @ 5.4GHz | 1080 Ti SC2 @ 2101 / 12100 - Time Spy: 11036
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3577385


Accepted Updated


----------



## CptSpig

Jpmboy said:


> ​
> *^^ Both of you guys should try disabling hyperthreading for this benchmark. Should increase the CPU score quite a bit.* :thumb:


Will do...:thumb:


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Which other benchmarks does disabling hyper threading help ?


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Which other benchmarks does disabling hyper threading help ?


depends on the cpu and core count. FSE on 18 cores. with 36 available threads, few benchmarks can use that many. Oh, catzilla - if you can call that krap a benchmark.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
lol I call it smelly cat 
Both my rigs of course


----------



## Kriant

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated
> 
> 
> *^^ Both of you guys should try disabling hyperthreading for this benchmark. Should increase the CPU score quite a bit.* :thumb:



Will definitely try!


----------



## Clukos

Clukos - 2700X @ 4.35 GHz - GTX 1080 Ti @ 2126 / 1601 - Time Spy: 11183

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3771579


----------



## Jpmboy

Clukos said:


> Clukos - 2700X @ 4.35 GHz - GTX 1080 Ti @ 2126 / 1601 - Time Spy: 11183
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3771579


Accepted Updated


----------



## AT0MAC

TimeSpy 

AT0MAC - 8600K @ 5GHz | 1070 @ 2076/2250 - Score 6670










https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3855554

TimeSpy Extreme

AT0MAC - 8600K @ 5GHz | 1070 @ 2076/2250 - Score 3091










https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26876315?


----------



## Jpmboy

AT0MAC said:


> TimeSpy
> 
> AT0MAC - 8600K @ 5GHz | 1070 @ 2076/2250 - Score 6670
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/3855554
> 
> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> AT0MAC - 8600K @ 5GHz | 1070 @ 2076/2250 - Score 3091
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/26876315?



Accepted Updated (x2)










Nice 1070 you got there :thumb:


----------



## fearthisneo

New Entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 16241
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4131894

New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 9067
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4132081


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> New Entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 16241
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4131894
> 
> New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 9067
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4132081



Accepted Updated










Wrong screenshot for TSE


----------



## fearthisneo

Update: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 17417
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4261928

New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 9149
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4261953


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> Update: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 17417
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4261928
> 
> New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 1080 Ti SLI @ 2025 - 1500 Score: 9149
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4261953


Accepted Updated


----------



## alexzogh

New Entry: Time Spy
alexzogh - 1950X @ 3.94GHz - Titan X (Pascal) SLI @ 2050 - 1,270 Score: 17432
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/28626085


----------



## Jpmboy

alexzogh said:


> New Entry: Time Spy
> alexzogh - 1950X @ 3.94GHz - Titan X (Pascal) SLI @ 2050 - 1,270 Score: 17432
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/28626085


Accepted Updated


----------



## nlitworld

*Update*

Update: Time Spy
nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.7GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,170. I know I can crack the 11,250 mark with a few more tweaks.
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4427976


----------



## Jpmboy

nlitworld said:


> Update: Time Spy
> nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.7GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,170. I know I can crack the 11,250 mark with a few more tweaks.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4427976


Accepted Updated


----------



## Menthol

Menthol --- 8700K#[email protected] ---- 14955

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4495149


----------



## Jpmboy

Menthol said:


> Menthol --- 8700K#[email protected] ---- 14955
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4495149


Accepted Updated








looks good my friend! Hellofa graphics score. v nice!


----------



## richiec77

New Entry: Time Spy
richiec77 - 7980xe 5.2Ghz - Titan V 2167/1060 Score: 16595
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4522018

New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
richiec77 - 7980xe 5.2Ghz/5.0GHz AVX - Titan V 2160/1060 Score: 8805
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4521578


----------



## Jpmboy

richiec77 said:


> New Entry: Time Spy
> richiec77 - 7980xe 5.2Ghz - Titan V 2167/1060 Score: 16595
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4522018
> 
> New Entry: Time Spy Extreme
> richiec77 - 7980xe 5.2Ghz/5.0GHz AVX - Titan V 2160/1060 Score: 8805
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4521578



Accepted Updated x2 :thumb:


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX 1070Ti @ 2100/2249 --- 8465
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4578290


----------



## The Pook

*The Pook --- i7 6700 @ 4.4 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 1593/1401 --- 8863*

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29047056?


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Think this is correct

ThrashZone----5930k @ 4.6GHz----1080ti FTW3 @ 2050MHz/1621Mhz----10480
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29113773


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Time spy extreme
ThrashZone----5930k @ 4.6GHz----1080ti FTW3 @ 2063MHz/1625Mhz----4836
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29175359?


----------



## Jpmboy

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- GTX 1070Ti @ 2100/2249 --- 8465
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4578290


Accepted Updated











The Pook said:


> *The Pook --- i7 6700 @ 4.4 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 1593/1401 --- 8863*
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29047056?


Accepted Updated











ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Think this is correct
> 
> ThrashZone----5930k @ 4.6GHz----1080ti FTW3 @ 2050MHz/1621Mhz----10480
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29113773


Accepted Updated











ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Time spy extreme
> ThrashZone----5930k @ 4.6GHz----1080ti FTW3 @ 2063MHz/1625Mhz----4836
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29175359?


Accepted Updated


----------



## SamuelL421

SamuelL421 --- 990X @ 4.4 --- RTX 2080Ti @ 1995/1900--- 11065

Time Spy
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29212070?


----------



## kx11

just gave this new 2080ti a run with a slight OC and found it not liking OC very much , this was the highest i got out of it


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Time spy
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.5GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1652Mhz----11639
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29254256?

Time spy extreme
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.5GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1652Mhz----5556
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29253998?


----------



## CJMitsuki

Timespy
CjMitsuki - 2700x @ 4505mhz - 1080 ti @ 2100mhz/1626mhz---11117
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29265167









Timespy Extreme
2700x @ 4505mhz - 1080 ti @ 2062mhz/1626mhz---5004
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29263533


----------



## Slaavo

TimeSpy
Slaavo - i9 7900x @ 4.7GHz - 1080 Ti SLI
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4660244


----------



## CENS

Stumbled upon this thread, love it!

Time Spy
CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2291/1593--- 13106
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3376269
used 1.2v on the gpu


Time Spy Extreme
CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2215/1596--- 6219
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3330611
used 1.093v on the gpu


----------



## Jpmboy

SamuelL421 said:


> SamuelL421 --- 990X @ 4.4 --- RTX 2080Ti @ 1995/1900--- 11065
> 
> Time Spy
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29212070?


Accepted Updated











kx11 said:


> just gave this new 2080ti a run with a slight OC and found it not liking OC very much , this was the highest i got out of it


not a sub... right?


ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Time spy
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.5GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1652Mhz----11639
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29254256?
> 
> Time spy extreme
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.5GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1652Mhz----5556
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29253998?


Accepted Updated x2











CJMitsuki said:


> Timespy
> CjMitsuki - 2700x @ 4505mhz - 1080 ti @ 2100mhz/1626mhz---11117
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29265167
> View attachment 223170
> 
> 
> 
> Timespy Extreme
> 2700x @ 4505mhz - 1080 ti @ 2062mhz/1626mhz---5004
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29263533
> View attachment 223164


Accepted Updated x2











CSN7 said:


> Stumbled upon this thread, love it!
> 
> Time Spy
> CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2291/1593--- 13106
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3376269
> used 1.2v on the gpu
> 
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.1 --- GTX 1080 Ti @ 2215/1596--- 6219
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/3330611
> used 1.093v on the gpu


Accepted Updated x2


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,

Time spy extreme
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.6GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----5631
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29291438


Time spy
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.6GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----11747
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29291266


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Time spy
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.7GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----11783
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29294916


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> 
> Time spy extreme
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.6GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----5631
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29291438
> 
> 
> Time spy
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.6GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----11747
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29291266





ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Time spy
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.7GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1636Mhz----11783
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29294916



^^ hey bud. I just noticed that you have been submitting screenshots which lack the actual bench window with the run score for that sub. no need for the browzer in the SS since the link is required.
I'm sure there's still more left in that card... plz see post #1 for elements needed for a proper sub. (bench window, cpuz main+ram+motherboard tabs, gpuZ main tab - sensor tab is optional)


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Yep here's a new with the memory tweak 

Time spy
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.719GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1640Mhz----12020
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29428793


----------



## truehighroller1

Timespy
Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---15266
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736275

Timespy Extreme
Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---7153
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736076


----------



## Slaavo

Timespy

Slaavo - i9 7900x @ 4700mhz - 1080 ti sli @ 2050MHz/1501Mhz ---18530

Score

Screen


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep here's a new with the memory tweak
> 
> Time spy
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.719GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1640Mhz----12020
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29428793


Accepted Updated











truehighroller1 said:


> Timespy
> Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---15266
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736275
> 
> Timespy Extreme
> Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---7153
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736076


Accepted Updated x2











Slaavo said:


> Timespy
> 
> Slaavo - i9 7900x @ 4700mhz - 1080 ti sli @ 2050MHz/1501Mhz ---18530
> 
> Score
> 
> Screen


Accepted Updated








^^ you can simply drag and drop the screenshot into the upload box in the OCN editor. Easy.


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Yep here's a new with the memory tweak
> 
> Time spy
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4.719GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1640Mhz----12020
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29428793


Accepted Updated











truehighroller1 said:


> Timespy
> Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---15266
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736275
> 
> Timespy Extreme
> Truehighroller1 - 7900x @ 5Ghz - 2080 ti @ 2070mhz/2000mhz---7153
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4736076


Accepted Updated x2











Slaavo said:


> Timespy
> 
> Slaavo - i9 7900x @ 4700mhz - 1080 ti sli @ 2050MHz/1501Mhz ---18530
> 
> Score
> 
> Screen


Accepted Updated








^^ you can simply drag and drop the screenshot into the upload box in the OCN editor. Easy.


----------



## fearthisneo

New entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2025 - 1750 Score: 13962
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4757568

New entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2025 - 1750 Score: 6960
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4757920


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> New entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2025 - 1750 Score: 13962
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4757568
> 
> New entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2025 - 1750 Score: 6960
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4757920


Accepted Updated X2


----------



## nlitworld

Update: Time Spy
nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.822GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,313. 
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4803724


Link updated.



After delidding my CPU a few weeks back and replacing with Conductonaut on CPU and my GPU's as well, the temps are far more under control (max 79* CPU, 56* GPU). The CPU voltage is still higher than I want to see even if they're not completely out of hand.

Attached Thumbnails


----------



## fearthisneo

Update entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2175 - 2000 Score: 14692
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4819287

Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2175 - 2000 Score: 7432
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4819407


----------



## Jpmboy

nlitworld said:


> Update: Time Spy
> nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.822GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,313.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4803724
> 
> 
> After delidding my CPU a few weeks back and replacing with Conductonaut on CPU and my GPU's as well, the temps are far more under control (79* CPU, 56* GPU). The CPU voltage is still higher than I want to see even if they're not completely out of hand.
> 
> Attached Thumbnails


 nice run! ... wrong validation link. Do you have the correct link?


fearthisneo said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2175 - 2000 Score: 14692
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4819287
> 
> Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2175 - 2000 Score: 7432
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4819407


Accepted Updated


----------



## nlitworld

Jpmboy said:


> nice run! ... wrong validation link. Do you have the correct link?



Whoops. Fixed the link in original post.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
Time spy extreme
ThrashZone----7900x @ 4813GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1643Mhz----5672
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29764015


----------



## svntwoo

Here are what I could muster from my GIGABYTE RTX 2080 Ti WindForce OC... with a bios update to bring power limit to 141%. I don't know if I am limited on my EVGA DD4-3200 ram or if I just have a mediocre performing 8700k taking an absurd voltage (1.465v) to be stable for 5200+mhz. I am running a delidded 8700k with Corsair H110i Pro AIO and temps are not outrageous. 

Something seems to be lacking here... thoughts?


----------



## truehighroller1

Time spy extreme 
Truehighroller1----7900x @ 4813GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2115MHz/2000Mhz---- 7340 
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29789396?

Time spy 
Truehighroller1----7900x @ 4813GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2130MHz/2000Mhz---- 15721
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4851780

New water blocks gpu now finally, and a new cpu block and a new 480 radiator making it 2 480's now and 2 360's. 

Still getting bubbles out too.


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Time spy extreme
> ThrashZone----7900x @ 4813GHz----Titan Xp @ 2050MHz/1643Mhz----5672
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29764015


Accepted Updated












svntwoo said:


> Here are what I could muster from my GIGABYTE RTX 2080 Ti WindForce OC... with a bios update to bring power limit to 141%. I don't know if I am limited on my EVGA DD4-3200 ram or if I just have a mediocre performing 8700k taking an absurd voltage (1.465v) to be stable for 5200+mhz. I am running a delidded 8700k with Corsair H110i Pro AIO and temps are not outrageous.
> 
> Something seems to be lacking here... thoughts?


 well... datalines and validation links are lacking. 

(rejected)



truehighroller1 said:


> Time spy extreme
> Truehighroller1----7900x @ 4813GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2115MHz/2000Mhz---- 7340
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29789396?
> 
> Time spy
> Truehighroller1----7900x @ 4813GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2130MHz/2000Mhz---- 15721
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4851780
> 
> New water blocks gpu now finally, and a new cpu block and a new 480 radiator making it 2 480's now and 2 360's.
> 
> Still getting bubbles out too.


Accepted Updated *X2*


----------



## nlitworld

nlitworld said:


> Update: Time Spy
> nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.828GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,313.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4803724



I updated the link to the correct one.


----------



## nlitworld

Ok, officially I am done. I have hit a voltage wall, pushed through and lived to tell.

nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.878GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,377. 

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29898462


----------



## Jpmboy

nlitworld said:


> Ok, officially I am done. I have hit a voltage wall, pushed through and lived to tell.
> 
> nlitworld - 6700K @ 4.878GHz - 1070FTW SLI @ 2114 Score: 11,377.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29898462


Accepted Updated


----------



## nlitworld

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated



Thanks for the fast update, but I think you may have updated the wrong list. You posted mine in the single GPU, but I'm running 2x SLI. Not that it really matters too much as it's certainly "first world problems".


----------



## Jpmboy

^^ lol - fixed!


----------



## truehighroller1

Time spy "UPDATE"
Truehighroller1----7900x @ 5GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2070MHz/2025Mhz---- 15821
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29942874?

Time spy extreme "UPDATE"
Truehighroller1----7900x @ 5GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2070MHz/2025Mhz---- 7471
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4908400


----------



## DooRules

DooRules--- 7980x @ 4.946--- 2080ti @ 2115/1998---- 16667



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4914404


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti 2160/2138 --- 17290
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4945091

(i'll get these threads updated v soon  )


----------



## Jpmboy

truehighroller1 said:


> Time spy "UPDATE"
> Truehighroller1----7900x @ 5GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2070MHz/2025Mhz---- 15821
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/29942874?
> 
> Time spy extreme "UPDATE"
> Truehighroller1----7900x @ 5GHz----AsusDualOC 2080ti @ 2070MHz/2025Mhz---- 7471
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4908400


Accepted Updated x2











DooRules said:


> DooRules--- 7980x @ 4.946--- 2080ti @ 2115/1998---- 16667
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4914404


Accepted Updated











Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti 2160/2138 --- 17290
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4945091
> 
> (i'll get these threads updated v soon  )


Accepted Updated


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8543 TS Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4952545


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.962 --- 2080ti @ 2130/2012 --- 8573 TS Extreme

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4953150


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.926 --- 2080ti @ 2145/1995 --- 17175

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4951485


----------



## Jpmboy

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8543 TS Extreme


Accepted Updated











DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.962 --- 2080ti @ 2130/2012 --- 8573 TS Extreme
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4953150


Accepted Updated











DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.926 --- 2080ti @ 2145/1995 --- 17175
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/4951485


Accepted Updated










hey bud - good to to see you picked up on the setting for timespy 1440p.
Maybe you can help me... it really bugs me that systemInfo pushes the socket/PECI temperature to such an extreme level during the system scan - in fact it measures as nearly 2x the current draw of the CPU test module, no really - how the heck are you guys running 4.9 or 5.0+ on the 7980XE without extreme cooling? This single effect really stops me from running more than 4.8 in 3Dmark. Not the bench itself, but the freaking system scan!
... or am I the only user seeing this silly (and Si degrading) unnecessary amperage pull leading to sky rocketing temperatures?


----------



## DooRules

To be honest I have not seen that big spike. I will check it though when I run it again for sure. Tonight I was using cold air, water temps were 6' in and 6.5' out when I started. Water temps never got to 10'C. I left the pc in the cold room for a couple hours to bring the whole system down. Never saw package temps go above 55' but again I will look closely during the scan to see whats up.


----------



## ThrashZone

Hi,
I believe 3dmark uses that system scan jolt as a base line temp "and it is an extreme jolt" to measure where 3dmark will stop it's testing 
I've had many 3dmark crashes says stopped by user but that is total crap 3dmark stopped it because the temp may have gone 10c past the system scan jolt temp which pushes the cpu to 100% for a brief few.. seconds.

The spike does come in handy
Just opening 3dmark can give one a good idea of temps before the full test starts where one is blind of temp reading usually.
I know if I hit 90c on the system scan I need to adjust voltages on the bad cores 
Now I have 3 cores at 4.8 and *2 at 4.7 and 4 at 4.4 and 1 at 4.3 is about as good as I can get it.

Five of my cores are very disappointing pretty much why I wanted to decapitate my SL delid something is very freaking wrong lol 
One of my *cores is total garbage compared to the other and they have to be set at the same multiplier or I get bsod not same or equal too blah....


----------



## ThrashZone

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8543 TS Extreme


Hi,
Cough, cough you didn't post a link on the submission


----------



## Jpmboy

ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> I believe 3dmark uses that system scan jolt as a base line temp "and it is an extreme jolt" to measure where 3dmark will stop it's testing
> I've had many 3dmark crashes says stopped by user but that is total crap 3dmark stopped it because the temp may have gone 10c past the system scan jolt temp which pushes the cpu to 100% for a brief few.. seconds.
> 
> The spike does come in handy
> Just opening 3dmark can give one a good idea of temps before the full test starts where one is blind of temp reading usually.
> I know if I hit 90c on the system scan I need to adjust voltages on the bad cores
> Now I have 3 cores at 4.8 and *2 at 4.7 and 4 at 4.4 and 1 at 4.3 is about as good as I can get it.
> 
> Five of my cores are very disappointing pretty much why I wanted to decapitate my SL delid something is very freaking wrong lol
> One of my *cores is total garbage compared to the other and they have to be set at the same multiplier or I get bsod not same or equal too blah....


the "spike" on my 7980XE hits >70C on the PECI, the cpu test runs in the 40s at 4.8GHz. not even close. Maybe it's related to my avx offset settings (none when benching)? but either way, it is a pointless extreme stress on the silicon. 


ThrashZone said:


> Hi,
> Cough, cough you didn't post a link on the submission


but i did put it in the table on Acceptance. lol - fixed.


----------



## ThrashZone

Jpmboy said:


> but i did put it in the table on Acceptance. lol - fixed.


:thumb:


----------



## CptSpig

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8543 TS Extreme
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4952545



I knew you could not resist! How is this card compared to your TitanV?


----------



## Jpmboy

CptSpig said:


> I knew you could not resist! Hoe is this card compared to your TitanV?


better at some things... and not at others. IMO, the TV is still the strongest single card NV offers (has more cuda cores too). the 2080Ti is faster at some benchmarks but not by much.


----------



## CptSpig

Jpmboy said:


> better at some things... and not at others. IMO, the TV is still the strongest single card NV offers (has more cuda cores too). the 2080Ti is faster at some benchmarks but not by much.



Thanks, I think I will wait for the Titan Turing.


----------



## Jpmboy

CptSpig said:


> Thanks, I think I will wait for the Titan Turing.


^^ rumors are promising for a TT! :thumb:


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.913 --- 2080ti @ 2130/2012 --- 17407

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5019944


----------



## Jpmboy

DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 7980x @ 4.913 --- 2080ti @ 2130/2012 --- 17407
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5019944


Accepted Updated










! New First Place !​

well done bud. My 7980XE ain't that good. :thumb:


----------



## melodystyle2003

melodystyle2003 --- 4790k @ 4.9 --- 980ti @ 1532/4005 --- 6446 (6659 graphics score)
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30265131?


----------



## KedarWolf

I got a really great score on my new 9900k and my 1080 Ti, but when I made the screenshot I forgot to open GPU-Z, only have CPU-Z and Timing Configurator.

I'm going to try it again, here's hoping. :/


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf --- 9900k @ 5.2 GHZ --- 1080 Ti @ 2126/6277 --- 11810 (Graphics Score 11546)

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30290614


----------



## KedarWolf

KedarWolf --- 9900k @ 5.2 GHZ --- 1080 Ti @ 2126/6272 --- Time Spy Extreme 5414 (Graphics Score 5337)

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30291532


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 9900K @5.3GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2.1GHz -- 11 841*

*https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30316573*


----------



## DevilDinosaur

DevilDinosaur AMD/ASUS [email protected] + 1080Ti Timespy Extreme 4558
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5055346


----------



## DevilDinosaur

DevilDinosaur 2700x @ 4.35Ghz + 1080Ti Timespy 9943

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5055130


----------



## NoGuru

NoGuru 4149 Time Spy E https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30338210?


----------



## DevilDinosaur

DevilDinosaur Intel/MSI 6700k @ 4.5Ghz + 1080Ti
Time Spy 9204
Time Spy Extreme 4267


----------



## Vlada011

If someone have two serials for 3D Mark and don't need one I would like to validate my scores.... 




















I will improve little main scores when OC processors and install GPU under water.
But I always look graphic scores when compare. CPU Bottleneck is officially confirmed only when graphic score is 10-20% lower than on different processor.
Until GPU score become much weaker than on better processors you could delay platform upgrade.


----------



## Jpmboy

melodystyle2003 said:


> melodystyle2003 --- 4790k @ 4.9 --- 980ti @ 1532/4005 --- 6446 (6659 graphics score)
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30265131?


Accepted Updated










KedarWolf said:


> KedarWolf --- 9900k @ 5.2 GHZ --- 1080 Ti @ 2126/6277 --- 11810 (Graphics Score 11546)
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30290614


Accepted Updated










KedarWolf said:


> KedarWolf --- 9900k @ 5.2 GHZ --- 1080 Ti @ 2126/6272 --- Time Spy Extreme 5414 (Graphics Score 5337)
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30291532


Accepted Updated










MrTOOSHORT said:


> *MrTOOSHORT -- 9900K @5.3GHz -- TITAN X Pascal @2.1GHz -- 11 841*
> 
> *https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30316573*


Accepted Updated


----------



## Jpmboy

DevilDinosaur said:


> DevilDinosaur AMD/ASUS Timespy Extreme 4558
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5055346





DevilDinosaur said:


> DevilDinosaur Timespy 9943
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5055130





NoGuru said:


> NoGuru 4149 Time Spy E https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/30338210?





DevilDinosaur said:


> DevilDinosaur Intel/MSI
> Time Spy 9204
> Time Spy Extreme 4267





^^ the above subs need a dataline for entry. See page 1 of this thread for requirements.


----------



## Slaavo

Update my results:

Slaavo --- 7900X @ 4.7 GHZ --- 1080 Ti SLI @ 2088/1489MHz --- Time Spy Extreme 9103

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5094610

Slaavo --- 7900X @ 4.7 GHZ --- 1080 Ti SLI @ 2076/1489MHz --- Time Spy 19191

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5095079


----------



## DevilDinosaur

Jpmboy said:


> ^^ the above subs need a dataline for entry. See page 1 of this thread for requirements.


Seen page 1, no mention of dataline


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

DevilDinosaur said:


> Seen page 1, no mention of dataline



It's there:


----------



## DevilDinosaur

so you just need some text, ok i will edit


----------



## Lefty23

since Jpmboy asked me in another thread...
Using my 24/7 system OC & OS, and with room temps still 10-15C higher than I would like.

lefty23 --- [email protected] --- [email protected]/8000 -- 15463 TS 
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5124882

lefty23 --- [email protected] --- [email protected]/8000 -- 7124 TS Extreme
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4908430


----------



## GraphicsWhore

GraphicsWhore --- 7700k @ 5Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2145/8000 --- Time Spy 12762

Screenshot below: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5002644


----------



## Vlada011

Futuremark is really evil. I got serial number from one good guy on ASUS ROG Forum for 3DMark Advanced, but TimeSpyExtreme is still lock, they want more money. :{
They should unlock us TimeSpyExtreme.


----------



## Jpmboy

Slaavo said:


> Update my results:
> 
> Slaavo --- 7900X @ 4.7 GHZ --- 1080 Ti SLI @ 2088/1489MHz --- Time Spy Extreme 9103
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5094610
> 
> Slaavo --- 7900X @ 4.7 GHZ --- 1080 Ti SLI @ 2076/1489MHz --- Time Spy 19191
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5095079


Accepted Updated x2










MrTOOSHORT said:


> It's there:


thanks T. 


Lefty23 said:


> since Jpmboy asked me in another thread...
> Using my 24/7 system OC & OS, and with room temps still 10-15C higher than I would like.
> 
> lefty23 --- [email protected] --- [email protected]/8000 -- 15463 TS
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5124882
> 
> lefty23 --- [email protected] --- [email protected]/8000 -- 7124 TS Extreme
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4908430


Accepted Updated







V good card you got there! :thumb:



GraphicsWhore said:


> 7700k @ 5Ghz
> 2080Ti on water (EVGA on Galax BIOS), 2145/8000
> Screenshot below: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5002644
> 
> Max graphics was 16606 on a different run (with lower total score: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5002868) That was 2160/8000


In all fairness... see post#1 for requirements for a sub. Dataline


----------



## GraphicsWhore

Jpmboy said:


> In all fairness... see post#1 for requirements for a sub. Dataline


My bad. Edited.


----------



## Jpmboy

GraphicsWhore said:


> GraphicsWhore --- 7700k @ 5Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2145/8000 --- Time Spy 12762
> 
> Screenshot below: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5002644


Accepted Updated









And this is the card you have been struggling with in the 208Ti thread? Looks good to me. :thumb:


----------



## GraphicsWhore

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the card you have been struggling with in the 208Ti thread? Looks good to me. :thumb:


I think that's someone else. Mine has been a champ!

Also looks like I need to run a full TS Extreme and submit. I did a custom run for graphics score only and got 7809, which looks like it'd be good for 4th place, so let's see what I can muster overall...


----------



## fearthisneo

Update entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 14770
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5192530

Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 7451
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5192784


----------



## Jpmboy

fearthisneo said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 14770
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5192530
> 
> Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 7451
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5192784


Updated x2


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.027 --- 2080ti @ 2205/2000 --- 17488

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5294334


----------



## Jpmboy

DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.027 --- 2080ti @ 2205/2000 --- 17488
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5294334


Accepted Updated









Update ... *! First Place!*​


----------



## AvengedRobix

Update entry: Time Spy
AvengedRobix - 9900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 22800 - 2050 Score: 16920
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5154782


----------



## truehighroller1

Update entry: Time Spy
truehighroller1 - 7900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 2160MHz / 2000MHz Score: 15999
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5338156

Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
truehighroller1 - 7900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 2145MHz / 2000MHz Score: 7572
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5338197


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*MrTOOSHORT -- 9900k @5400MHz -- 2080ti @2145MHz -- 16650:

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31121922*


----------



## CENS

CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.309 --- 2080ti @ 2235/2033 --- 17752

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5295132


----------



## truehighroller1

Spoiler






CSN7 said:


> CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.309 --- 2080ti @ 2235/2033 --- 17752
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5295132






Are you using a shunt mod? Also are you using a water chiller? Just curious.


----------



## CENS

I think we shouldn't go to much off topic in this thread, but no chiller used, I put the PC outside with 1C ambient temp. No shunt mod, no different bios than the standard strix one. In fact I tried the FTW3 Bios, eventhough it showed more consistent clocks in the log performance was 2% lower and it heated more. So I kept the I believe 330w max that the standard bios allows. But at around 20C load temp this chip really opened up. Used less power and could clock higher. I only used a universal GPU-only block because there is no full-cover block available at this point in time yet to my knowledge.

You need a chip that only needs a low offset to clock high and heats up more than others. Then you know you have a good chip that improves a lot when cold. For example this chip reaches the same clocks per voltage point with just a +130 offset than my other card that uses +175. Therefor I first thought the chip is **** when I saw the low offset. But when I ran a test I noticed the high clocks with low volts and high heat. Similar to my golden 1080Ti Kingpin that did 2138 Mhz on Air with just 1.006v and reached 2300Mhz on cold water with 1.2v Unfortunately one can't change voltages on the 2080Ti Strix so you are stuck with the max of 1.093v. Voltage beyond that only helps when your cooling gets stronger aswell though, otherwise the benefits of voltage quickly offsets itself with higher temps.

So now you know what to look out for.


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> AvengedRobix - 9900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 22800 - 2050 Score: 16920
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5154782


Accepted Updated









May be the best clocking 2080ti (not sub zero?) I've seen yet. Best GFX score - by a lot!​


truehighroller1 said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> truehighroller1 - 7900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 2160MHz / 2000MHz Score: 15999
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5338156
> 
> Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
> truehighroller1 - 7900K @ 5.2GHz - 2080 ti @ 2145MHz / 2000MHz Score: 7572
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5338197


Accepted Updated x2










MrTOOSHORT said:


> *MrTOOSHORT -- 9900k @5400MHz -- 2080ti @2145MHz -- 16650:
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31121922*


Accepted Updated










CSN7 said:


> CSN7 --- 7960X @ 5.309 --- 2080ti @ 2235/2033 --- 17752
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5295132


Accepted Updated









*! New First Place !*​

what ever the rationale one can conjure up (  ) that is simply a great card!


----------



## AvengedRobix

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May be the best clocking 2080ti (not sub zero?) I've seen yet. Best GFX score - by a lot!​!


NoN sub-zero.. only water and opened windos XD


----------



## AvengedRobix

Update entry: Time Spy
AvengedRobix - 9900K @ 5.3GHz - 2080 ti @ 2265 - 2075 Score: 16943
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5424116


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> AvengedRobix - 9900K @ 5.3GHz - 2080 ti @ 2265 - 2075 Score: 16943
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5424116



Updated
:thumb:​


----------



## truehighroller1

AvengedRobix said:


> NoN sub-zero.. only water and opened windos XD


Shunted too right? What did you use for the shunting process if I may ask? ?


----------



## AvengedRobix

truehighroller1 said:


> AvengedRobix said:
> 
> 
> 
> NoN sub-zero.. only water and opened windos XD
> 
> 
> 
> Shunted too right? What did you use for the shunting process if I may ask? ?
Click to expand...

No shunt.. is a OcLab edition


----------



## 99belle99

*EDIT:* Got a better score in a later post.


----------



## gtz

Time Spy
gtz - 1920x @ 4.0Ghz - 2080 @ 2085/1885 - Score 11654
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31502705


----------



## HiqhWoltage

Time Spy

HiqhWoltage -- Ryzen 2600 @3.9Ghz--- 4GB Rx580 @1542/2168 --- Score 5075
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5510343


----------



## DooRules

TSE

DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.046 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/1950--- 9159

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5580960


----------



## DooRules

TS

DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.022 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/1950 --- 18088

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5581152


----------



## Jspinks020

I'll try after I delete some ****..but it's probably pretty average...firestrike was real average at 11,690.


----------



## DooRules

update... TS
DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.110 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/2050 --- 18280

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5612919


----------



## DooRules

update ... TSE
DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.074 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/2050 --- 9252

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5612777


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

TSE...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 9900K @5500MHz -- 2080TI @2145/8400MHz -- 7771

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5625842*


----------



## 99belle99

Timespy

99belle99 -------- Xeon X5660 @ 4.6GHz ---------- Vega 56 @ 955/1693

Score: 7059
Graphics score: 7457

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5640095


----------



## KillerBee33

DooRules said:


> update... TS
> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.110 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/2050 --- 18280
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5612919


LOL thats exactly double of my [email protected][email protected]


----------



## Jpmboy

gtz said:


> Time Spy
> gtz - 1920x @ 4.0Ghz - 2080 @ 2085/1885 - Score 11654
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31502705


Accepted Updated










HiqhWoltage said:


> Time Spy
> 
> HiqhWoltage -- Ryzen 2600 @3.9Ghz--- 4GB Rx580 @*1542* /2168 --- Score 5075
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5510343


Accepted Updated









Really should show the actual benchmark window.​


DooRules said:


> TSE
> 
> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.046 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/1950--- 9159
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5580960


Accepted Updated










DooRules said:


> TS
> 
> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.022 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/1950 --- 18088
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5581152


Accepted Updated










DooRules said:


> update... TS
> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.110 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/2050 --- 18280
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5612919


Accepted Updated










DooRules said:


> update ... TSE
> DooRules --- 7980X @ 5.074 --- RTX Titan @ 2130/2050 --- 9252
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5612777


Accepted Updated










MrTOOSHORT said:


> TSE...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 9900K @5500MHz -- 2080TI @2145/8400MHz -- 7771
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5625842*


Accepted Updated










99belle99 said:


> Timespy
> 
> 99belle99 -------- Xeon X5660 @ 4.6GHz ---------- Vega 56 @ 955/1693
> 
> Score: 7059
> Graphics score: 7457
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5640095


Accepted Updated











Hope everyone had a great holiday!!


----------



## CptSpig

CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 17007 TS 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5708365

CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8403 TS Extreme

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5708504


----------



## Hale59

Timespy

Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.3GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2063/1514

Score: 9977
Graphics score: 10672

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31895651


----------



## Gunslinger.

Time Spy 32899
Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- 2x RTX 2080Ti @ 2400/2050

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5723989

Time Spy Extreme
Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- 2x RTX 2080Ti @ 2385/2050

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5723307


----------



## CptSpig

Update:

CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 17049 TS 

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5784098

CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8433 TS Extreme

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5784893


----------



## Dwofzz

Time Spy 7119
Dwofzz - 7920x @ 4.6GHz - GTX 980Ti Classified @ 1547/2007
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32340015

Time Spy Extreme 3468
Dwofzz - 7920x @ 4.6GHz - GTX 980Ti Classified @ 1547/2007
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32339974


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

^^

Goto documents and 3dmark folder. There is your saved scores there.

Or open up 3dmark itself, goto "Results" and load your score.


----------



## Dwofzz

MrTOOSHORT said:


> ^^
> 
> Goto documents and 3dmark folder. There is your saved scores there.
> 
> Or open up 3dmark itself, goto "Results" and load your score.


Aah.. forgot about that, thx m8


----------



## Gunslinger.

Time Spy 19158
Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- RTX 2080Ti @ 2460/2100

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5814736

Time Spy Extreme 9450
Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- RTX 2080Ti @ 2490/2100

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5814197


----------



## Jpmboy

CptSpig said:


> CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 17007 TS
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5708365
> 
> CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8403 TS Extreme
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5708504


Accepted Updated x2










Hale59 said:


> Timespy
> 
> Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.3GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2063/1514
> 
> Score: 9977
> Graphics score: 10672
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/31895651


Accepted Updated










Gunslinger. said:


> Time Spy 32899
> Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- 2x RTX 2080Ti @ 2400/2050
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5723989
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- 2x RTX 2080Ti @ 2385/2050
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5723307


Accepted Updated x2









! New First Place !​Are those the Lightening Z?



CptSpig said:


> Update:
> 
> CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 17049 TS
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5784098
> 
> CptSpig --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti -- 8433 TS Extreme
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5784893


Accepted Updated x2










Dwofzz said:


> Time Spy 7119
> Dwofzz - 7920x @ 4.6GHz - GTX 980Ti Classified @ 1547/2007
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32340015
> 
> Time Spy Extreme 3468
> Dwofzz - 7920x @ 4.6GHz - GTX 980Ti Classified @ 1547/2007
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32339974


Accepted Updated










Gunslinger. said:


> Time Spy 19158
> Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- RTX 2080Ti @ 2460/2100
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5814736
> 
> Time Spy Extreme 9450
> Gunslinger -------- 9980XE @ 5.7GHz ---------- RTX 2080Ti @ 2490/2100
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/5814197


Accepted Updated x2









! New First Place !​


----------



## Jpmboy

Sorry for the slow update guys... football weekend in Philly.


----------



## CptSpig

Jpmboy said:


> Sorry for the slow update guys... football weekend in Philly.


No worries. Watched the game bummer for Eagles.


----------



## Hale59

Timespy

Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.3GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2050/1514 --- 10064

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32489739


----------



## Hale59

Timespy Extreme

Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.284GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2025/1514 --- 4553

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32387626


----------



## fearthisneo

Update entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 14897
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5841029


----------



## TrueNoob

*my 8086K*

8086k
64gb gskill 
(1) ASUS STRIX 2080RTX OC edition

Stock, no OC unless you count running XMP profile for RAM and factory OC on the GPU...

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32556258?


----------



## dVeLoPe

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5848432

Cant seem to break 10k currently good for rank #508 on the leaderboard for 1x 1080Ti and 1x 5820k

5820k @ x35-XMP/x31-CACHE * 120%/+113/+550/16x (GPU on stock bios/voltage havent kept tuning further)


----------



## The Pook

10601

9900K @ 5206mhz
16GB DDR4-3600 CL17
GTX 1080 Ti @ 1578/1501


----------



## Jpmboy

Hale59 said:


> Timespy
> 
> Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.3GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2050/1514 --- 10064
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32489739


Accepted Updated










Hale59 said:


> Timespy Extreme
> 
> Hale59 -------- 2600X @ 4.284GHz ---------- 1080Ti @ 2025/1514 --- 4553
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32387626


Accepted Updated










fearthisneo said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 14897
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5841029


Accepted Updated










TrueNoob said:


> 8086k
> 64gb gskill
> (1) ASUS STRIX 2080RTX OC edition
> 
> Stock, no OC unless you count running XMP profile for RAM and factory OC on the GPU...
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32556258?


Accepted Updated










dVeLoPe said:


> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5848432
> 
> Cant seem to break 10k currently good for rank #508 on the leaderboard for 1x 1080Ti and 1x 5820k
> 
> 5820k @ x35-XMP/x31-CACHE * 120%/+113/+550/16x (GPU on stock bios/voltage havent kept tuning further)


screenshot does not show the bench window, GPUZ etc. Rejected - see post #1 for a proper screenshot


The Pook said:


> 10601
> 
> 9900K @ 5206mhz
> 16GB DDR4-3600 CL17
> GTX 1080 Ti @ 1578/1501


Rejected - need a screenshot. See post #1


----------



## The Pook

Jpmboy said:


> Rejected - need a screenshot. See post #1



Uploaded attachment, I swear! But it didn't go through  

Here's the link to the HWBOT image: 










https://hwbot.org/submission/4044277_



> 10601
> 
> 9900K @ 5206mhz
> 16GB DDR4-3600 CL17
> GTX 1080 Ti @ 1578/1501


----------



## callonryan

*3dmark Timespy Extreme Submission*



Jpmboy said:


> *3D Mark Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme*
> 
> "_3DMark Time Spy is a new DirectX 12 benchmark test for Windows 10 gaming PCs. Time Spy is one of the first DirectX 12 apps to be built "the right way" from the ground up to fully realize the performance gains that the new API offers. With its pure DirectX 12 engine, which supports new API features like asynchronous compute, explicit multi-adapter, and multi-threading, Time Spy is the ideal test for benchmarking the latest graphics cards_."
> 
> "_3D Mark Time Spy Extreme is a new 4K DirectX 12 benchmark test, available in 3DMark Advanced and Professional Editions. You don't need a 4K monitor to run it, but you will need a GPU with at least 4 GB of dedicated memory.
> With its 4K Ultra HD rendering resolution, Time Spy Extreme is an ideal benchmark test for the latest high-end graphics cards. The CPU test has been redesigned to let processors with 8 or more cores perform to their full potential._"
> 
> 2017 3DMark Whitepaper: <a class="attachment " href="/attachments/50253" title="">3DMark_Technical_Guide.pdf 3893k .pdf file
> 
> *Requirements for entries in this thread:*
> 
> *Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable*
> 
> *
> [*] OCN user name ---- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score (this is the first line in a sub - please)
> [*] FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result (prtscrn, open paint, cntrl-V, cntrl-S [name it], post with the Picture or Paperclip tool)
> [*] Please include your OCN username in the screenshot if it is not visible in the Futuremark validation URL or browser window.
> [*] Validation URL (copy the link from the browser window that will pop up)
> [*] Beta drivers allowed
> [*] For AMD users, please use "Optimal Performance" settings (or your best settings) without disabling tessellation. (tess off will be rejected... for now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> [*] Please use the most recent version of 3D Mark and sysinfo. ("New" or "New-1"). If FM issues a version which significantly departs from historic scores, a VersionTab will be added.
> *
> 
> *Sample Screenshot: Red = Required, Green = Optional (but welcome data)*
> 
> 
> 
> NOW WITH _*Time Spy Extreme!*_
> 
> *The tables will be updated on a regular and frequent basis*


username:grrr

CPU: 7940x (5.2ghz), 2180ti MSI Trio

Thanks!


----------



## TrueNoob

*(1) ASUS STRIX 2080RTX OC edition*

8086k
64gb gskill 
(1) ASUS STRIX 2080RTX OC edition

Stock, no OC unless you count running XMP profile for RAM and factory OC on the GPU... [New Bench]

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32698761

Last GPU died after 2 days... I don't even game... haha. New GPU/Replacement


----------



## Jpmboy

The Pook said:


> Uploaded attachment, I swear! But it didn't go through
> 
> Here's the link to the HWBOT image:
> 
> https://hwbot.org/submission/4044277_


Accepted Updated










callonryan said:


> username:grrr
> 
> CPU: 7940x (5.2ghz), 2180ti MSI Trio
> 
> Thanks!


Rejected. erm... plz look at the required screenshot and instructions (red is required, green is optional).  Missing benchmark window. The browzer screen is insufficient (and unnecessary). :thumb:


TrueNoob said:


> 8086k
> 64gb gskill
> (1) ASUS STRIX 2080RTX OC edition
> 
> Stock, no OC unless you count running XMP profile for RAM and factory OC on the GPU... [New Bench]
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32698761
> 
> Last GPU died after 2 days... I don't even game... haha. New GPU/Replacement


Accepted Updated











*Guys - PLEASE READ POST NUMBER 1. NEED A DATALINE AS SHOWN IN THE OP*


----------



## Dwofzz

Update!
Time Spy 10883
Dwofzz - 7940x @ 4.6GHz - GTX 1080Ti KPE @ 2100/11610Mhz ( just testing  )
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32996233


----------



## Dwofzz

Update!
Time Spy 11102
Dwofzz - 7940x @ 4.7GHz - GTX 1080Ti KPE @ 2064/11610Mhz (other drivers)
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/33020454


----------



## Jpmboy

Dwofzz said:


> Update!
> Time Spy 11102
> Dwofzz - 7940x @ 4.7GHz - GTX 1080Ti KPE @ 2064/11610Mhz (other drivers)
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/33020454


Accepted Updated


----------



## Hale59

3DMark - Time Spy 4665

Hale59 - 2600X @ 4,211.01MHz - GTX 970 @ 1,586/2,030MHz

Side note: The Driver was downloaded from Guru3D before NVIDIA release it to the public? No idea it says Driver not approved.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32769316


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

TSE...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @5.1GHz -- 2080ti @2145MHz -- 8538:

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6208244*


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

*update TSE...

MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @5.2GHz -- 2080ti @2160MHz -- 8686:

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6239517


TS...

MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @5.2GHz -- 2080ti @2160MHz -- 17824:

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6239686*


----------



## Jpmboy

Hale59 said:


> 3DMark - Time Spy 4665
> 
> Hale59 - 2600X @ 4,211.01MHz - GTX 970 @ 1,586/2,030MHz
> 
> Side note: The Driver was downloaded from Guru3D before NVIDIA release it to the public? No idea it says Driver not approved.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32769316


Accepted Updated










MrTOOSHORT said:


> *update TSE...
> 
> MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @5.2GHz -- 2080ti @2160MHz -- 8686:
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6239517
> 
> 
> TS...
> 
> MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @5.2GHz -- 2080ti @2160MHz -- 17824:
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6239686*


Accepted Updated x2


----------



## Hale59

Hale59 said:


> 3DMark - Time Spy 4665
> 
> Hale59 - 2600X @ 4,211.01MHz - GTX 970 @ 1,586/2,030MHz
> 
> Side note: The Driver was downloaded from Guru3D before NVIDIA release it to the public? No idea it says Driver not approved.
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/32769316


 @Jpmboy, You mistakenly recorded this as a GTX 960, not GTX 970


----------



## The Pook

Time Spy Extreme: 

The Pook - 9900K @ 5101mhz, GTX 1080 Ti @ 1564/1526

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/33606628?

The OCing adventures of a very bad 1080 Ti


----------



## ftln

FTLN - [email protected] - 2080 ti Galax Bios - GPU SCORE 7811 - CPU SCORE 5368 - COMBINED 7311

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/35390145?


----------



## Jpmboy

Hale59 said:


> @*Jpmboy* , You mistakenly recorded this as a GTX 960, not GTX 970


fixed


The Pook said:


> Time Spy Extreme:
> 
> The Pook - 9900K @ 5101mhz, GTX 1080 Ti @ 1564/1526
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/33606628?
> 
> The OCing adventures of a very bad 1080 Ti


Accepted Updated

:specool:​sorry - don't know how I did not get a ping from this post over 2 months ago



ftln said:


> FTLN - [email protected] - 2080 ti Galax Bios - GPU SCORE 7811 - CPU SCORE 5368 - COMBINED 7311
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/35390145?


 great run, but see Post#1 for the required screenshot.
Rejected


----------



## Barefooter

Time Spy
Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 21040
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7037576











Time Spy Exteme
Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 11497
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7037474











I'll tag you too @Jpmboy just to be sure you see my submissions. I submitted new scores over on the Heaven thread as well.

Thanks for maintaining this thread too :thumb:


----------



## ThrashZone

ThrashZone---9940x @ 4.8---1xTitan Xp---2050---1643---5944
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/35827884


----------



## Barefooter

Ok here's a better score than the one a few posts back.

Time Spy
Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 22055

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7074785











Here's a slightly better score of 22067, didn't get the screen shot though 
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7074821


.


----------



## Jpmboy

Barefooter said:


> Time Spy
> Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 21040
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7037576
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time Spy Exteme
> Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 11497
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7037474
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll tag you too @*Jpmboy* just to be sure you see my submissions. I submitted new scores over on the Heaven thread as well.
> 
> Thanks for maintaining this thread too :thumb:


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


ThrashZone said:


> ThrashZone---9940x @ 4.8---1xTitan Xp---2050---1643---5944
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/35827884


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


Barefooter said:


> Ok here's a better score than the one a few posts back.
> 
> Time Spy
> Barefooter --- 7900X @ 4.8 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +112 +1040 --- 22055
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7074785
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a slightly better score of 22067, didn't get the screen shot though
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7074821
> .


 Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## Barefooter

Time Spy
Barefooter --- 7900X @ 5.0 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +130 +1040 --- 23217

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7215065

Jp you have me on the Time Spy list twice already. You can take both of those down and put this one in :thumb:










Time Spy Extreme
Barefooter --- 7900X @ 5.0 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +130 +1040 --- 12283

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7215019











.


----------



## MrFox

MrFox - 7960X @ 5.3GHz - Single 2080 TI FTW3 @ 2235 Core / 2050 Memory - Score: 17452

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7228717


----------



## Jpmboy

Barefooter said:


> Time Spy
> Barefooter --- 7900X @ 5.0 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +130 +1040 --- 23217
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7215065
> 
> Jp you have me on the Time Spy list twice already. You can take both of those down and put this one in :thumb:
> 
> 
> 
> Time Spy Extreme
> Barefooter --- 7900X @ 5.0 GHz --- 2 x EVGA 2080 Ti XC +130 +1040 --- 12283
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7215019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Accepted Updated

:specool: x2​


MrFox said:


> MrFox - 7960X @ 5.3GHz - Single 2080 TI FTW3 @ 2235 Core / 2050 Memory - Score: 17452
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7228717


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## MrFox

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated
> 
> :specool: x2​
> Accepted Updated
> 
> :specool:​


Thanks, bro. It seems the leaderboard did not save the updates you entered.


----------



## Jpmboy

MrFox said:


> Thanks, bro. It seems the leaderboard did not save the updates you entered.


 the 17452 score? It's in the Time Spy table in the OP as far as I see. Am I missing something?


(If I ever put my 2080Tis on the 7980XE rig I gotta redo all my subs. Newer cards since that early sub... )


----------



## MrFox

Jpmboy said:


> the 17452 score? It's in the Time Spy table in the OP as far as I see. Am I missing something?
> 
> 
> (If I ever put my 2080Tis on the 7980XE rig I gotta redo all my subs. Newer cards since that early sub... )


How weird, yes it is there now. It wasn't when I looked earlier. Maybe the page was cached by my browser or something. But, thank you for checking. Have a good week.


----------



## Jpmboy

MrFox said:


> How weird, yes it is there now. It wasn't when I looked earlier. Maybe the page was cached by my browser or something. But, thank you for checking. Have a good week.


NP. The last thin g I'm gonna do is monkey with the OP... we'll loose the iframe window and have no display of the tables. :no-smil


----------



## ntuason

Time Spy 11891:

ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080 @ 1575MHz/1950Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36565800?

I want that mirror thing she has!


----------



## Jpmboy

ntuason said:


> Time Spy 11891:
> 
> ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080 @ 1575MHz/1950Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36565800?
> 
> I want that mirror thing she has!


Nice score, but see the rules in POst #1. You need to have the actual benchmark window, with the score in the screen shot. A web browser (only) score is not acceptable. Sorry.


----------



## ntuason

Jpmboy said:


> Nice score, but see the rules in POst #1. You need to have the actual benchmark window, with the score in the screen shot. A web browser (only) score is not acceptable. Sorry.


Sorry, I'll submit a my results again, I hope offline is okay.

Time Spy 14687:

ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080 Ti @ 1450MHz/1925Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36623462


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Update Time Spy...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @ 5GHz -- KPE [email protected] 2175-2205MHz -- 18 226

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7384223*


----------



## Jpmboy

ntuason said:


> Sorry, I'll submit a my results again, I hope offline is okay.
> 
> Time Spy 14687:
> 
> ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080 Ti @ 1450MHz/1925Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36623462


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


MrTOOSHORT said:


> Update Time Spy...
> 
> *MrTOOSHORT -- 9980xe @ 5GHz -- KPE [email protected] 2175-2205MHz -- 18 226
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7384223*


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## ntuason

Update!
Time Spy 15135
ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080Ti X Trio @ 1465/1940Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36721103


----------



## truehighroller1

Update!
Time Spy 16598
truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2100/2082Mhz

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36802134?

Update!
Time Spy Extreme 7784
truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2100/2082Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36802418?


----------



## eddy5667

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7450723


----------



## fearthisneo

Update entry: Time Spy
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 15043
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7462712

Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 7525
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7471167


----------



## Jpmboy

ntuason said:


> Update!
> Time Spy 15135
> ntuason - 9900k @ 5GHz - RTX 2080Ti X Trio @ 1465/1940Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36721103


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


truehighroller1 said:


> Update!
> Time Spy 16598
> truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2100/2082Mhz
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36802134?
> 
> Update!
> Time Spy Extreme 7784
> truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2100/2082Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/36802418?


Accepted Updated x2

:specool:​


eddy5667 said:


> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7450723


rejected, Need a Dataline. See Post #1 for requirements.


fearthisneo said:


> Update entry: Time Spy
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 15043
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7462712
> 
> Update entry: Time Spy Extreme
> fearthisneo - 1950X @ 4GHz - 2080 ti @ 2130 - 2000 Score: 7525
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7471167


Accepted Updated x2

:specool:​


----------



## truehighroller1

Update!
Time Spy 16659
truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2115/2106Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37175375?

Update!
Time Spy Extreme 7842
truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2115/2106Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37176282?


----------



## Jpmboy

truehighroller1 said:


> Update!
> Time Spy 16659
> truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2115/2106Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37175375?
> 
> Update!
> Time Spy Extreme 7842
> truehighroller1 - 7900X @ 5GHz - Asus Dual OC 2080Ti @ 2115/2106Mhz
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37176282?


Accepted Updated *X2*

:specool:​Nice.


----------



## truehighroller1

@Jpmboy thank you sir! Winter comes I'll crank it up some more.

AvengedRobix result above mine under extreme results, doesn't exist in results on 3dmarks website.


----------



## Jpmboy

truehighroller1 said:


> @*Jpmboy* thank you sir! Winter comes I'll crank it up some more.
> 
> AvengedRobix result above mine under extreme results, doesn't exist in results on 3dmarks website.


yeah... sometimes either the user deletes the result from their account, or the account and the result can be lost. Since yesterday a number of links are no good. Give it a few days, UL is updating its database (I've heard).


----------



## Arni90

A severe lack of Ryzen here:

Time Spy 16 005
Arni90 - 3900X @ 4.3 GHz - Gigabyte 2080 Ti @ 2115 MHz / 2050 MHz 
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37621910

Time Spy Extreme 7 641
Arni90 - 3900X @ 4.3 GHz - Gigabyte 2080 Ti @ 2115 MHz / 2050 MHz 
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37622218


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix --- 
TimeSpy Extreme: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2280Mhz / 2035Mhz --- 7978
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6976008

TimeSpy: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2280Mhz / 2035Mhz --- 17287
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6975925


----------



## AvengedRobix

truehighroller1 said:


> @Jpmboy thank you sir! Winter comes I'll crank it up some more.
> 
> AvengedRobix result above mine under extreme results, doesn't exist in results on 3dmarks website.


i've deleted old result to upload new best =)


----------



## truehighroller1

AvengedRobix said:


> i've deleted old result to upload new best =)


That's odd I still didn't see it when I looked again like a week later.


----------



## AvengedRobix

truehighroller1 said:


> That's odd I still didn't see it when I looked again like a week later.


This week DB of 3Dmark have some problems


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> AvengedRobix ---
> TimeSpy Extreme: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2280Mhz / 2035Mhz --- 7978
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6976008
> 
> TimeSpy: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2280Mhz / 2035Mhz --- 17287
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6975925


Accepted Updated X2

:specool:​Nice clocks on that 2080Ti. Modified?
(sorry for the late reply... busy summer here)


----------



## AvengedRobix

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated X2
> 
> :specool:​Nice clocks on that 2080Ti. Modified?
> (sorry for the late reply... busy summer here)


Summer is summer... Hot, sea and girl XD.. 2080ti is a Hof OCLab =)


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> Summer is summer... Hot, sea and girl XD.. 2080ti is a Hof OCLab =)


a rare card! :thumb:


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix --- 
TimeSpy Extreme: 3900X @ 4.6 Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2265Mhz / 2038Mhz --- 8319
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8124089

TimeSpy: 3900X @ 4.6 Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2265Mhz / 2038Mhz --- 17379
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8134737


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 ---- Xeon X5660 @ 4.7GHz ---- RX Vega 56 @ 1700/960 ---- 7158

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8286237


----------



## bl4ckdot

TimeSpy: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2160Mhz / 2088Mhz --- 16 354
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8225565


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus
TimeSpy Extreme: 5930K @ 4.6 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2100Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6505



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/38980853?

MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with GALAX 380W Bios.


----------



## GRABibus

deleted


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus
TimeSpy Extreme: 5930K @ 4.8 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2130Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6690

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39043530?

MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS XOC Bios 1000W 8-pins.


----------



## ntuason

ntuason --- 
TimeSpy Extreme: 9900k @ 5.0 Ghz --- 2080 Ti @ 2070Mhz / 2000Mhz --- 7216

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8511378


----------



## Jpmboy

AvengedRobix said:


> AvengedRobix ---
> TimeSpy Extreme: 3900X @ 4.6 Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2265Mhz / 2038Mhz --- 8319
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8124089
> 
> TimeSpy: 3900X @ 4.6 Ghz --- 2080Ti X @ 2265Mhz / 2038Mhz --- 17379
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8134737


Accepted Updated

:specool: *X2*​


99belle99 said:


> 99belle99 ---- Xeon X5660 @ 4.7GHz ---- RX Vega 56 @ 1700/960 ---- 7158
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8286237


Accepted Updated

:specool:​



GRABibus said:


> Update :
> 
> GRABibus
> TimeSpy Extreme: 5930K @ 4.8 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2130Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6690
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39043530?
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS XOC Bios 1000W 8-pins.


Accepted Updated

:specool:
Like that ASUS 1000W bios ​


ntuason said:


> ntuason ---
> TimeSpy Extreme: 9900k @ 5.0 Ghz --- 2080 Ti @ 2070Mhz / 2000Mhz --- 7216
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8511378


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## bl4ckdot

@Jpmboy did you forget mine or is the score too low lol


----------



## Jpmboy

bl4ckdot said:


> @*Jpmboy* did you forget mine or is the score too low lol


 just missed a multi-click when posting. It was in the spreadsheet. 



Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus
TimeSpy Extreme: 5930K @ 4.9 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2145Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6827

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39175801?

MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS Bios 1000W.


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus
TimeSpy : 5930K @ 4.9 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2130Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 14754

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39171586?

MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS Bios 1000W.


----------



## h2on0

Timespy: [email protected] [email protected]/1814--11037

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39618955#


----------



## ESRCJ

I never posted these one here, so I figured why not.

----Time Spy----

ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @5.1GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2083MHz ---- 17,721

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6923768

----Time Spy Extreme----

ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @4.9GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2100MHz ---- 8539

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5517723


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Nice!:thumb:


----------



## ESRCJ

Thanks!


----------



## GRABibus

ESRCJ said:


> I never posted these one here, so I figured why not.
> 
> ----Time Spy----
> 
> ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @5.1GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2083MHz ---- 17,721
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6923768
> 
> ----Time Spy Extreme----
> 
> ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @4.9GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2100MHz ---- 8539
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5517723


With 2175MHz on GPU, you can get better graphics scores


----------



## Jpmboy

GRABibus said:


> Update :
> 
> GRABibus
> TimeSpy Extreme: 5930K @ 4.9 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2145Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 6827
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39175801?
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS Bios 1000W.


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


GRABibus said:


> GRABibus
> TimeSpy : 5930K @ 4.9 Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2130Mhz / 2100Mhz --- 14754
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39171586?
> 
> MSI Sea Hawk 2080Ti X flashed with ASUS Bios 1000W.


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


h2on0 said:


> Timespy: [email protected] [email protected]/1814--11037
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/39618955#


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


ESRCJ said:


> I never posted these one here, so I figured why not.
> 
> ----Time Spy----
> 
> ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @5.1GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2083MHz ---- 17,721
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6923768
> 
> ----Time Spy Extreme----
> 
> ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @4.9GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2175MHz/2100MHz ---- 8539
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/5517723


Accepted Updated

:specool: *X2*
Nicely done!​


----------



## treetops422

You can now sort 3DMark by GPU score. I rank 34 in the world for the Radeon 5700 non XT. 25th In FireStrike Huh zah! Beta search!

https://www.3dmark.com/newsearch#ad...reType=graphicsScore&showInvalidResults=false


----------



## 99belle99

treetops422 said:


> You can now sort 3DMark by GPU score. I rank 34 in the world for the Radeon 5700 non XT. 25th In FireStrike Huh zah! Beta search!
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/newsearch#ad...reType=graphicsScore&showInvalidResults=false


I have a 5700 XT and should be higher in the list than I am due to what I can only assume is a glicth or something as no way anybody can get from 11,000-17,000 graphics score with a 5700 XT. Well they might get 11,00-12,000 on LN2 but never 17,000.


----------



## bl4ckdot

Update : 
TimeSpy: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2175Mhz / 2088Mhz --- 16 592
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8934989


----------



## Baasha

Installed latest BIOS so redid my CPU OC and here is my score:

*TimeSpy Extreme: 6950X @ 4.30Ghz -- Titan RTX SLI @ 2050Mhz / 8400Mhz - 12,011*

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40309777












*TimeSpy: 6950X @ 4.30Ghz -- Titan RTX SLI @ 2050Mhz / 8400Mhz - 21,701*

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40310088


----------



## Alastair

I wish I could just get timespy to run do I can submit a score. Any score. But it just insta black screens after the loading screen. I'm starting to think TS just doesn't play nicely with AMD drivers.


----------



## 99belle99

Alastair said:


> I wish I could just get timespy to run do I can submit a score. Any score. But it just insta black screens after the loading screen. I'm starting to think TS just doesn't play nicely with AMD drivers.


We need more info. I have being using AMD GPU's for a few years now and could always run Timespy since it released. I ran it on a R9 290 a R9 Fury X a Rx Vega 56 and currently a Rx 5700 XT and I also have a Ryzen system now also and can run Timespy so I don't know what your problem is more likely user error.


----------



## Alastair

99belle99 said:


> We need more info. I have being using AMD GPU's for a few years now and could always run Timespy since it released. I ran it on a R9 290 a R9 Fury X a Rx Vega 56 and currently a Rx 5700 XT and I also have a Ryzen system now also and can run Timespy so I don't know what your problem is more likely user error.


Currently Vega 64 stock clocks. Barrow full cover block. Tried 19.9 2 19.5.2 and 19.10.1 drivers. Everything else is pretty much as is in the sig. Just the gpus differ. Everyone I try run 3dmark it crashes. Black screen hardlocked. I need to power off the machine to get it running again. I tried DDDUing the drivers. Rolling back. Reinstalling windows. Reinstalling 3dmark. Trying steam and non steam versions. Cpu will pass stress tests and GPU will happily run in superposition. Or Heaven. At this pont I'm just like bugger it 3DMark is trash it's just a bench whatever.

What makes me think it's a driver issue is that when I log back into Windows after resetting the machine I get the ever faithful "display driver encountered an error and was reset" message.


----------



## 99belle99

I don't know as I had a Vega 56 and afaik the 64 and 56 have the same driver. I could always run Timespy so there is something else wrong and other people with 64's can run Timespy. It could be a faulty card but you said it runs perfect other wise so it could be another driver clashing with the 64's driver in your system.


----------



## Jpmboy

bl4ckdot said:


> Update :
> TimeSpy: 9900K @ 5.2Ghz --- 2080Ti @ 2175Mhz / 2088Mhz --- 16 592
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8934989


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


Baasha said:


> Installed latest BIOS so redid my CPU OC and here is my score:
> 
> *TimeSpy Extreme: 6950X @ 4.30Ghz -- Titan RTX SLI @ 2050Mhz / 8400Mhz - 12,011*
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40309777
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *TimeSpy: 6950X @ 4.30Ghz -- Titan RTX SLI @ 2050Mhz / 8400Mhz - 21,701*
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40310088


Accepted Updated

:specool: x2
Nice buddy!​


Alastair said:


> I wish I could just get timespy to run do I can submit a score. Any score. But it just insta black screens after the loading screen. I'm starting to think TS just doesn't play nicely with AMD drivers.


try downloading display driver uninstaller, clean the gpu driver(s) stacked in there. shut down and unplug the network cable (or disable wifi). Boot and load the most recent driver. I just ran timespy on my 6950X/Radeon VII rig and it runs no problem. Driver 19.8.1


----------



## NoodleGTS

How does my score look guys? 9,973

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/40365535


----------



## Alastair

Jpmboy said:


> try downloading display driver uninstaller, clean the gpu driver(s) stacked in there. shut down and unplug the network cable (or disable wifi). Boot and load the most recent driver. I just ran timespy on my 6950X/Radeon VII rig and it runs no problem. Driver 19.8.1


 It turned out to be a PSU issue. And now I have a PSU going in for RMA yay me.


I have two entries. 



1st is this: 

TimeSpy 6541

FX-8370 @ 5050MHz / RX Vega 64 completely stock 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8996782


I was particularly impressed with this run as I broke through 4000 on the cpu score. In fact I nearly hit 4200 on cpu which I thought was pretty impressive for FX. 



Second is a slightly OC'ed run on the V64. 

TimeSpy 6904 

FX-8370 @ 5050MHz / RX Vega @ 1675MHz +50% power limit. 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9013199 



still need to load the Liquid Bios onto my V64 as I have a full cover block on it. But good things come to those who wait.


----------



## Jpmboy

Alastair said:


> It turned out to be a PSU issue. And now I have a PSU going in for RMA yay me.
> I have two entries.
> 1st is this:
> TimeSpy 6541
> FX-8370 @ 5050MHz / RX Vega 64 completely stock
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8996782
> I was particularly impressed with this run as I broke through 4000 on the cpu score. In fact I nearly hit 4200 on cpu which I thought was pretty impressive for FX.
> 
> 
> 
> Second is a slightly OC'ed run on the V64.
> *TimeSpy 6904 *
> FX-8370 @ 5050MHz / RX Vega @ 1675MHz +50% power limit.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9013199
> still need to load the Liquid Bios onto my V64 as I have a full cover block on it. But good things come to those who wait.


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


----------



## ESRCJ

I pushed the CPU a little further. Still using the Galax 380W BIOS, but this time with Galax Xtreme Tuner. I usually get better results with that versus MSI AB, despite having zero VF curve control with it and thus being limited to 1.063V.

----Time Spy Extreme----

ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @5.1GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2145MHz/2088MHz ---- 8637

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9606284


----------



## Uns33n

AMD gets no love around here. 

Playing around with new card, here are some runs.

3800X @ 4.3Ghz 

TimeSpy Extreme *4614*

5700XT 2160Mhz/3700Mhz
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/42282392

TimeSpy *10178*

5700XT 2152 MHz/3700Mhz 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9849408


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 ----- R7 3700X @ 4.398GHz ----- 5700 XT @ 2163MHz / 1830MHz ----- 10652


https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9850681


----------



## Uns33n

99belle99 said:


> 99belle99 ----- R7 3700X @ 4.398GHz ----- 5700 XT @ 2163MHz / 1830MHz ----- 10652
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9850681


Ran the benchmark @ 4.4Ghz, not sure why you're scoring much higher on CPU test. Im guessing memory speed?
I am still on stock cooler, about to pick up Dark Rock pro 4 today though.

TimeSpy *10287*

3800X 4.4Ghz / 5700XT @ 2153 | 1850Mhz 
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9854372


----------



## neurotix

Cant get this bench to run, keep getting 'An Error Occurred ' usually after graphics test 1.

I want to sub on hwbot, need this running now lol... any advice? System is stable in literally everything else, including all 3dmarks prior.

Thanks


----------



## 99belle99

neurotix said:


> Cant get this bench to run, keep getting 'An Error Occurred ' usually after graphics test 1.
> 
> I want to sub on hwbot, need this running now lol... any advice? System is stable in literally everything else, including all 3dmarks prior.
> 
> Thanks


Run it stock just to see. CPU + GPU stock that is.


----------



## Jpmboy

ESRCJ said:


> I pushed the CPU a little further. Still using the Galax 380W BIOS, but this time with Galax Xtreme Tuner. I usually get better results with that versus MSI AB, despite having zero VF curve control with it and thus being limited to 1.063V.
> 
> ----Time Spy Extreme----
> 
> ESRCJ ---- 7980XE @5.1GHz ---- 2080 Ti @2145MHz/2088MHz ---- 8637
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9606284


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


99belle99 said:


> 99belle99 ----- R7 3700X @ 4.398GHz ----- 5700 XT @ 2163MHz / 1830MHz ----- 10652
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/9850681


Accepted Updated

:specool:​


neurotix said:


> Cant get this bench to run, keep getting 'An Error Occurred ' usually after graphics test 1.
> I want to sub on hwbot, need this running now lol... any advice? System is stable in literally everything else, including all 3dmarks prior.
> Thanks


Need more info about the setup. If you just installed a new GPU on top of a driver (especially a turing gpu) clean the driver with DDU and reinstall.


----------



## neurotix

Jpmboy said:


> Accepted Updated
> 
> :specool:​
> Accepted Updated
> 
> :specool:​
> Need more info about the setup. If you just installed a new GPU on top of a driver (especially a turing gpu) clean the driver with DDU and reinstall.



Ok I'll try DDU later.

I'm using the stuff in my sig rig (Big Red), at pretty much all the specs/clocks listed. On a fairly recent driver, (445.xx or something), never installed any other drivers in Win10 1903. Maybe it's my 3800 c14 1T RAM or the IFclk @ 1900mhz synchronous? SLI? It doesn't matter too much anymore anyway, as I can't sub on hwbot and dont have a 3dmark key for validation...


----------



## 99belle99

neurotix said:


> Ok I'll try DDU later.
> 
> I'm using the stuff in my sig rig (Big Red), at pretty much all the specs/clocks listed. On a fairly recent driver, (445.xx or something), never installed any other drivers in Win10 1903. Maybe it's my 3800 c14 1T RAM or the IFclk @ 1900mhz synchronous? SLI? It doesn't matter too much anymore anyway, as I can't sub on hwbot and dont have a 3dmark key for validation...


I figured you were running the clocks in sig rig which is why I said try stock and see.


----------



## Col Frost

My best score yet

11320

Col Frost
i9900KS @ 5.4GHz
Nvidia FE 2070 Super
Core Clock 2085 MHz
Memory Bus Clock 1863 MHz

P.S. Not sure if i've submitted this all in the required format


----------



## 99belle99

Col Frost said:


> P.S. Not sure if i've submitted this all in the required format


No you didn't. Read the first post and look at different posts through out the thread and see how it's done.


----------



## Col Frost

Col Frost
i9900KS @ 5.4---2070 Super [email protected] 1745MHz/1910MHz
Driver 441.87
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10141344


----------



## Jpmboy

Col Frost said:


> Col Frost
> i9900KS @ 5.4---2070 Super [email protected] 1745MHz/1910MHz
> Driver 441.87
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10141344


lacking a dataline as asked for in the OP, but I think you forgot in all the excitement. 
One time, first time exception.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Anyone gets the issue were u cant connect to TimeSpy. I try to validate to score but keeps failing. I have the Steam Version of the application.


----------



## Col Frost

Jpmboy said:


> lacking a dataline as asked for in the OP, but I think you forgot in all the excitement.
> One time, first time exception.


I want to get this right as I just got a better score. What do you mean by a dataline? Sorry for my ignorance


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 said:


> 99belle99 ----- R7 3700X @ 4.398GHz ----- 5700 XT @ 2163MHz / 1830MHz ----- 10652





Col Frost said:


> I want to get this right as I just got a better score. What do you mean by a dataline? Sorry for my ignorance


See mine above.


----------



## J!NX

J!NX ---- AMD Ryzen [email protected] --- 2080 [email protected] / 1925Mhz --- 7226

URL: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43150788


----------



## J!NX

J!NX ---- AMD Ryzen [email protected] --- 2080 [email protected] / 1925Mhz --- 7226

URL: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10252641


----------



## Alecs010

New score Timespy ---25684 

3900x @ 4425mhz and 2x msi rtx 2080ti seahawk ek


----------



## BeeDeeEff

BeeDeeEff ---- Ryzen 9 [email protected] --- 1 x Radeon VII --- 11414

Gpu set to: 2208mhz gpu core / 1215mv + 1298mhz mem 
GPU achieved: 2165mhz core / 1298mhz ram during benchmark

Timespy: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43336806?

.


----------



## Uns33n

Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2238MHz ----- 12069

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10487219


----------



## Jpmboy

ZealotKi11er said:


> Anyone gets the issue were u cant connect to TimeSpy. I try to validate to score but keeps failing. I have the Steam Version of the application.


Not seen that issue. It will fail validation if you run the bench before system info interrogation completes.


J!NX said:


> J!NX ---- AMD Ryzen [email protected] --- 2080 [email protected] / 1925Mhz --- 7226
> 
> URL: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43150788


Accepted Updated










J!NX said:


> J!NX ---- AMD Ryzen [email protected] --- 2080 [email protected] / 1925Mhz --- 7226
> 
> URL: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10252641


Accepted Updated










Alecs010 said:


> New score Timespy ---25684
> 
> 3900x @ 4425mhz and 2x msi rtx 2080ti seahawk ek


Rejected
need a validation link


BeeDeeEff said:


> BeeDeeEff ---- Ryzen 9 [email protected] --- 1 x Radeon VII --- 11414
> 
> Gpu set to: 2208mhz gpu core / 1215mv + 1298mhz mem
> GPU achieved: 2165mhz core / 1298mhz ram during benchmark
> 
> Timespy: https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43336806?
> 
> .


Accepted Updated










Uns33n said:


> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2238MHz ----- 12069
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10487219


Rejected
Need to have the actual benchmark in the screenshot. The UL database URL page in a browser is not acceptable alone in a screenshot. Sorry.


----------



## Uns33n

> Rejected
> Need to have the actual benchmark in the screenshot. The UL database URL page in a browser is not acceptable alone in a screenshot. Sorry.


Do you mean the actual 3dmark software it self?


----------



## Jpmboy

Uns33n said:


> Do you mean the actual 3dmark software it self?


Yes, as shown in the OP (Post#1) 
red = mandatory
Green = optional


----------



## Uns33n

Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 12047

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10580189


----------



## Uns33n

TimeSpy Extreme

Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 5658


----------



## satinghostrider

satinghostrider ---- Intel i9 9900KS @ 5.2GHz(C) / 4.7GHz(R) --- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ 2,100MHz(C) / 8,000MHz(M) --- 16032

Timespy: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10573180


----------



## Jpmboy

Uns33n said:


> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 12047
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10580189


Accepted Updated










Uns33n said:


> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 5658


No Validation Link


satinghostrider said:


> satinghostrider ---- Intel i9 9900KS @ 5.2GHz(C) / 4.7GHz(R) --- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ 2,100MHz(C) / 8,000MHz(M) --- 16032
> 
> Timespy: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10573180


The validation link shows that the result was deleted.


----------



## Uns33n

Jpmboy said:


> No Validation Link
> 
> The validation link shows that the result was deleted.


TimeSpy Extreme

Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 5658
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43854501


----------



## Steven Stacy

TimeSpy
Steven Stacy ----- 9700k*5140Mhz ---- Geforce RTX 2080 --- 12087

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10704711


----------



## K01D57331

*K01D57331 - TimeSpy*

URL

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10753986


----------



## truehighroller1

The result

AvengedRobix	3900X	RTX 2080Ti	8319	8447	https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8124089

is not valid still, can that one be removed please?


----------



## satinghostrider

Jpmboy said:


> Uns33n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 12047
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10580189
> 
> 
> 
> Accepted Updated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uns33n said:
> 
> 
> 
> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 5658
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Validation Link
> 
> 
> satinghostrider said:
> 
> 
> 
> satinghostrider ---- Intel i9 9900KS @ 5.2GHz(C) / 4.7GHz(R) --- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ 2,100MHz(C) / 8,000MHz(M) --- 16032
> 
> Timespy: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10573180
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The validation link shows that the result was deleted.
Click to expand...

 @Jpmboy

So weird it shows it as deleted. 

Updated:

Intel i9 9900KS @ 5.2GHz(C) / 4.7GHz(R) --- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ 2,100MHz(C) / 8,000MHz(M) --- 16032

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10693839


----------



## leghmoh

here is my contribution.

leghmoh ----- Intel I9 10940X @ 4.6Ghz ----- EVGA 2080 tI Black Edition @ 2055MHz / 2000MHz ----- 13229

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/11158715


----------



## Jpmboy

Uns33n said:


> TimeSpy Extreme
> 
> Uns33n ----- 3800x @ 4.45Ghz ----- 2080 Super @ 2085MHz / 2262MHz ----- 5658
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/43854501


Accepted Updated










Steven Stacy said:


> TimeSpy
> Steven Stacy ----- 9700k*5140Mhz ---- Geforce RTX 2080 --- 12087
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10704711


Accepted Updated










K01D57331 said:


> URL
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10753986


See Post number 1 for requirements to sub to this bench thread


truehighroller1 said:


> The result
> 
> AvengedRobix	3900X	RTX 2080Ti	8319	8447	https://www.3dmark.com/spy/8124089
> 
> is not valid still, can that one be removed please?


yes


satinghostrider said:


> @Jpmboy
> 
> So weird it shows it as deleted.
> 
> Updated:
> 
> Intel i9 9900KS @ 5.2GHz(C) / 4.7GHz(R) --- MSI GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X TRIO @ 2,100MHz(C) / 8,000MHz(M) --- 16032
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/10693839


Fixed. 



leghmoh said:


> here is my contribution.
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/11158715


See Post number 1 for requirements to sub to this bench thread


----------



## Alastair

Best run on my Vega. 

1225mv underload , 1780MHz (1730-1750 sustained) 1190HBM
3800x at stock


----------



## Jpmboy

Alastair said:


> Best run on my Vega.
> 
> 1225mv underload , 1780MHz (1730-1750 sustained) 1190HBM
> 3800x at stock


Please see Post #1 for benchmark requirements. (if you want it entered into the table)


----------



## leghmoh

Here we go,

leghmoh ----- Intel I9 10940X @ 4.6Ghz ----- EVGA 2080 tI Black Edition @ 2055MHz / 2000MHz ----- 13229

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/11158715


----------



## Alastair

Jpmboy said:


> Please see Post #1 for benchmark requirements. (if you want it entered into the table)


 Made a better one. Good enough for 3rd place on HWBot for global V64 rankings
https://hwbot.org/submission/439221...radeon_rx_vega_64_8917_marks?recalculate=true
1242mv V-core 1800MHz (1740-1780MHz sustained) 1190MHz HBM.


----------



## GRABibus

Deleted


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus-- i7 5930K @ 4.9Ghz ----- MSI 2080Ti SEA HAWK X @ 2175MHz / 2075MHz ----- 6848

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/46206208?

2080Ti flashed with GALAX HOF XOC 2000W bios


----------



## Steven Stacy

Steve Stacy --- Ryzen 3950x @ 4.425Ghz ---RTX 2080 2082/2130 MHZ MEM 8229MHZ 
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/46848385?

Hopefully I got the needed info on here.


----------



## Steven Stacy

Steve Stacy --- Ryzen 3950x @ 4.425Ghz ---RTX 2080 2082/2130 MHZ MEM 8229MHZ 

TimeSpy Extreme score 6310
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/46848562?


----------



## rares495

rares495 -- Ryzen 3800XT @ 4600MHz -- Gigabyte RTX 2080 Super WF3 OC @ 2070 / 2119 -- 12301

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/50266197?


----------



## Jpmboy

Guys - I gotta see if this new format will cooperate with a "Top 30" in post #1.
I may only be able to post a link to the Google sheet (once the Ampere results begin to show up)


----------



## 99belle99

Jpmboy said:


> Guys - I gotta see if this new format will cooperate with a "Top 30" in post #1.
> I may only be able to post a link to the Google sheet (once the Ampere results begin to show up)


Any update on this. Just came to this thread to browse the scores and cannot see anything in first post.


----------



## JackCY

Just browse the database at ULmark, the top 30 is SLI 3090 anyway.


----------



## dagget3450

I dont know if this site is dead, or no one has any RTX 3xxx yet on here lol.


----------



## Jpmboy

99belle99 said:


> Any update on this. Just came to this thread to browse the scores and cannot see anything in first post.





dagget3450 said:


> I dont know if this site is dead, or no one has any RTX 3xxx yet on here lol.


yeah guys, just back from a week of salmon fishing. I have to figure out how to incorporate a link or live "window" to the googlesheet that holds all the data. Once I do that I will update the Top 30 for this, and the 5 other bench threads I got. 😨 The new platform would not port the scripts from the last version of OCN. Worst case, there will be a link and no live window of the data. Besides, benching 3090s in anything but FS Extreme or Ultra (or Port Royal). or even Heaven @4K is meaningless. At less than 1440P you're running a CPU benchmark. I do not have 3090s yet... bought an Arctic Fox 25W trailer and an F250 for fly fishing! 🙂


----------



## Chuckclc

see below


----------



## Chuckclc

dagget3450 said:


> I dont know if this site is dead, or no one has any RTX 3xxx yet on here lol.


I mean. I got this. But was with an R5 3600 and slow RAM (3200mhz) on a 650w PSU. So not pushing too hard.



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/14584931



Port Royal for what it is worth.



https://www.3dmark.com/pr/374726


----------



## Jpmboy

The OP has been updated.


----------



## Avacado

I tried 3D Mark once, but the only marks I ended up with were these.


----------



## Jpmboy

oh geeze, gonna take a while to get that out of my head.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Mad Pistol -- Ryzen 7 3700x @ stock --- RTX 3080 FE @ Stock --- 15562



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/52530212














No clue where it stacks up, but here it is.


----------



## Alastair

Jpmboy said:


> Please see Post #1 for benchmark requirements. (if you want it entered into the table)


I literally followed all the instructions but whatever.


----------



## Jpmboy

Alastair said:


> I literally followed all the instructions but whatever.


ya just need a data line so I can enter the data.
I'll update the table in the next day or so. Not been many (one?) new GPUs subbed.


----------



## 99belle99

Jpmboy said:


> ya just need a data line so I can enter the data.
> I'll update the table in the next day or so. Not been many (one?) new GPUs subbed.


You also only have Timespy Extreme spread sheet in the first post. Unless I'm doing something wrong but I do not see Timespy results there.


----------



## Jpmboy

Mad Pistol said:


> Mad Pistol -- Ryzen 7 3700x @ stock --- RTX 3080 FE @ Stock --- 15562
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/52530212
> 
> 
> No clue where it stacks up, but here it is.


Accepted Updated
 



99belle99 said:


> You also only have Timespy Extreme spread sheet in the first post. Unless I'm doing something wrong but I do not see Timespy results there.


Thanks. Fixed!


----------



## rares495

rares495 -- Intel Core i5-10600K @ 5GHZ -- Gigabyte RTX 3090 Turbo (blower) @ +45/250 -- 16550

No idea why it says driver not approved. I got the latest one from Nvidia and haven't touched it at all. Weird.


----------



## rares495

Re-ran it on a stock 5600X with the previous driver and now it's a valid result hmmmm.



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/52833399?


----------



## dyezak

18482: 5950x PBO enabled and a 3080 FTW3 Ultra XOC Bios and slight OC applied. Fully stable at any temps I have ran for full burn in. 

I could probably crack 19000 pretty easy with an all core OC and a heavier OC on the 3080. 



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/15426479


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Here is my first run with 6800 XT.

Zealotki11er -- Ryzen 9 5900x @ stock --- RX 6800 XT @ Stock --- 16853



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/15552623


----------



## kx11

The new benchmark tells you more about gaming performance



https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/53616444


----------



## gtz

Here are my scores with my new 6800XT.

GTZ -- Ryzen 7 5800X @ stock --- RX 6800 XT OC'd Core 2550/2650 1.05v 2100 Mem --- 18026 Overall - 19525 Graphics









I scored 18 026 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Jpmboy

ZealotKi11er said:


> Here is my first run with 6800 XT.
> 
> Zealotki11er -- Ryzen 9 5900x @ stock --- RX 6800 XT @ Stock --- 16853
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/15552623


*Accepted Updated*


kx11 said:


> The new benchmark tells you more about gaming performance
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/53616444


Dataline??


gtz said:


> GTZ


*Accepted Updated*


----------



## Jpmboy

Hey guys, with the new GPUs having dropped, just a friendly reminder of what is required for an entry into the Top 30 tables (here, Heaven, Mk11 etc):
*Dataline, screenshot (mandatory elements), Validation link*

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- 2080Ti SLI at 2085/1895 --- 14312










NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME OMEGA (3dmark.com) 
or for the link:
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/54629596


----------



## Jpmboy

Not an entry...


----------



## gtz

Jpmboy said:


> Not an entry...
> View attachment 2468834


Should be, what are your sustained clocks in the 3090 to reach that score?


----------



## Jpmboy

kx11 said:


> The new benchmark tells you more about gaming performance
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/53616444
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2466710


I'm not really understanding what they are calculating with this estimated game performance... gotta see if they published a white paper discussing the calc weighting. I'm scoring lower than the 3900XT 12 core but, what... RDR2 is a low core use game?









I scored 9 112 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i7-8086K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Jpmboy said:


> I'm not really understanding what they are calculating with this estimated game performance... gotta see if they published a white paper discussing the calc weighting. I'm scoring lower than the 3900XT 12 core but, what... RDR2 is a low core use game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 9 112 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7-8086K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468838


Wow why is your CPU score so low... my LAPTOP 4900HS scores 9200+....


----------



## Jpmboy

Cakewalk_S said:


> Wow why is your CPU score so low... my LAPTOP 4900HS scores 9200+....


show the run, or it didn't happen.


----------



## Avacado

Cakewalk_S said:


> Wow why is your CPU score so low... my LAPTOP 4900HS scores 9200+....


Mind you he was running timespy "EXTREME". I doubt your TSE score would be better.


----------



## Jpmboy

gtz said:


> Should be, what are your sustained clocks in the 3090 to reach that score?


Yeah, I didn't have GPUZ running in the background. The card is still air cooled (stock) since OPtimus has yet to deliver on a block! With TS and TSE (and most other benchmarks) locking the card in the P0 state helps a lot, but you can see in the GPU Frequency trace in the 3DMK window the core clocks do a couple of T-induced clock bin drops. Once I get a block I'll move the card to a 10980XE rig. Mean time, this FTW3 ultra has been folding 24/7... I'll run another tonight. proper-like. 😉 

Additionally, if you have the right NV Inspector, disabling the Cuda P2 state limit can help with any in-game physx that may "tickle" the Cuda instruction set. Not many do tho.


----------



## Jpmboy

Avacado said:


> Mind you he was running timespy "EXTREME". I doubt your TSE score would be better.


Yeah, that's likely the reason... 🤙


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Jpmboy said:


> show the run, or it didn't happen.



A few entries:
Highest on the GPU ---> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16076653
Highest CPU ---> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16009825

Not sure what happened but my CPU scores are lower all of a sudden...wonder if its because of the additional power on my GPU....


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Avacado said:


> Mind you he was running timespy "EXTREME". I doubt your TSE score would be better.


I failed to see it was the extreme...
Not far off: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16012707


----------



## Avacado

Cakewalk_S said:


> A few entries:
> Highest on the GPU ---> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16076653
> Highest CPU ---> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16009825
> 
> Not sure what happened but my CPU scores are lower all of a sudden...wonder if its because of the additional power on my GPU....


Now lets see the Time Spy Extreme run.


----------



## Avacado

Cakewalk_S said:


> I failed to see it was the extreme...
> Not far off: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16012707


Not far off? 6000 points difference is not far off? C'mon broteinshake. Rly?


----------



## MakubeX

Trying out my new 5950X and playing around with the PBO Curve Optimizer. So far, so good.









I scored 13 372 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Avacado

MakubeX said:


> Trying out my new 5950X and playing around with the PBO Curve Optimizer. So far, so good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 13 372 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2468916


Yea, that is nice, right around what I do with a 9900k and 2x2080Ti's. Maybe 1k less.


----------



## Jpmboy

Cakewalk_S said:


> I failed to see it was the extreme...
> Not far off: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16012707


8c16T vs 6c/12T core CPU for the CPU score is the difference. Core count matters for 3DMk CPU scores.


----------



## Jpmboy

MakubeX said:


> Trying out my new 5950X and playing around with the PBO Curve Optimizer. So far, so good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 13 372 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Yup.. the 5950X has been just crushing 3DMk physics. I've been looking to upgrade my 4.2GHz 2700X. 😉

3DMark Fire Strike Physics Score Hall Of Fame


----------



## Cakewalk_S

Jpmboy said:


> 8c16T vs 6c/12T core CPU for the CPU score is the difference. Core count matters for 3DMk CPU scores.


Still not bad for a laptop chip.....IMHO.


----------



## Jpmboy

Cakewalk_S said:


> Still not bad for a laptop chip.....IMHO.


Lol - no one here commented about the performance of that CPU. Right? 😜

Post up a run and get on the board...


----------



## Jpmboy

jpmboy --- [email protected] --- [email protected] (air) --- 18725


















I scored 18 725 in Time Spy


Intel Core i7-8086K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





not an entry:


----------



## DooRules

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- [email protected] (air) --- 18725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 18 725 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7-8086K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not an entry:
> View attachment 2468961



Couldn't figure out why you were so low till I looked at cpu score...also not an entry 









I scored 22 114 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Just started playing around with my KP


----------



## Forsaken1

6900 XT.







Not a entry.
Card just arrived.3rd run.Cpu and ram default.Working on GPU OC.


----------



## Jpmboy

Forsaken1 said:


> 6900 XT.Not a entry.
> Card just arrived.3rd run.Cpu and ram default.Working on GPU OC.


I'm waiting on my 6900XT! Good looking card. Maybe AMD can reclaim it's glory from the 7980 days?


----------



## Jpmboy

DooRules said:


> Couldn't figure out why you were so low till I looked at cpu score...also not an entry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 114 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just started playing around with my KP


still waiting on a waterblock for this 3090...


----------



## MakubeX

Forsaken1 said:


> 6900 XT.
> View attachment 2469137
> Not a entry.
> Card just arrived.3rd run.Cpu and ram default.Working on GPU OC.


That's a nice graphics score on those 6900 XT!


----------



## gtz

MakubeX said:


> That's a nice graphics score on those 6900 XT!


Hopefully he can gain another 1000 or so.



Forsaken1 said:


> 6900 XT.Not a entry.
> 
> Card just arrived.3rd run.Cpu and ram default.Working on GPU OC.


Can't wait to see a tuned 6900XT, want to see how it compares to a 6800XT. My max timespy graphics score is 19500.


----------



## Forsaken1

Waiting on block to show.Result at 70F ambient air.Reference card capped at 293 watts.Need a 3rd party tool.MPT?


----------



## Forsaken1

Jpmboy said:


> I'm waiting on my 6900XT! Good looking card. Maybe AMD can reclaim it's glory from the 7980 days?


Sub ambient most likely so.Good luck with your cards.

Rather have the glory days of ATI 9800 XT LOL.

Up to 18644 total score.Searching for a 3rd party tool to raise power limits.Any leads?


----------



## Cakewalk_S

I think I'm going to definitely push another 10w or so out of my RTX 2060 Max-Q on my G14 laptop...shunt mod of 0.015OHM gave me a TDP from 65w to ~87w...going upto a 0.010OHM shunt should give me around 97W which would probably be the thermal/power limit of the motherboard....Should technically get scores over 7k with that type of power...hopefully...


----------



## MakubeX

My entry so far with a lowly reference RTX 3080 overclocked. I might be able to crack 18600 on a lucky run if I retry it a couple of times but I should be able to do it consistently once Gigabyte fixes their X570 bios.


MakubeX -- [email protected],651 MHz --- [email protected],190 MHz --- 18592









I scored 18 592 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Jpmboy

MakubeX said:


> My entry so far with a lowly reference RTX 3080 overclocked. I might be able to crack 18600 on a lucky run if I retry it a couple of times but I should be able to do it consistently once Gigabyte fixes their X570 bios.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 18 592 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


PLEASE see post #1 for Top30 entry requirements...


----------



## Jpmboy

double post.


----------



## MakubeX

Jpmboy said:


> PLEASE see post #1 for Top30 entry requirements...


Sorry about that, fixed.


----------



## Jpmboy

MakubeX said:


> Sorry about that, fixed.


Oh man... thanks for the dataline and I really want to put that 6900XT on the chart... that 5950X is the new top dog for sure.
I posted another reminder of the sub requirements *here*.
The screenshot needs to have cpuz and gpuz tabs shown in post 1 and the link above.
Sorry bud.


----------



## sultanofswing

Not here to post my best but just thought I would share some info. I have been battling with a reduction of 800+ points in my Graphics score in Timespy, and found some interesting stuff.
I did 5 windows re-installs,5 Nvidia driver installs and swapped motherboards to no avail.
Well I normally use the Non Steam version of 3dmark, So I decided to try the steam version and my graphics score went back to the way it used to be in the non steam version.
First is non steam version(standalone) with the GPU at 2160mhz



https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16028291



Second is the steam version with the GPU at 2130mhz









I scored 15 907 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-10940X X-series Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





So for me something with the non steam version is broken and not sure what. This is only effecting my graphics score.


----------



## MakubeX

Jpmboy said:


> Oh man... thanks for the dataline and I really want to put that 6900XT on the chart... that 5950X is the new top dog for sure.
> I posted another reminder of the sub requirements *here*.
> The screenshot needs to have cpuz and gpuz tabs shown in post 1 and the link above.
> Sorry bud.
> View attachment 2469297


Gotcha. That's cool, I'll make another submission later then.


----------



## Jpmboy

sultanofswing said:


> Not here to post my best but just thought I would share some info. I have been battling with a reduction of 800+ points in my Graphics score in Timespy, and found some interesting stuff.
> I did 5 windows re-installs,5 Nvidia driver installs and swapped motherboards to no avail.
> Well I normally use the Non Steam version of 3dmark, So I decided to try the steam version and my graphics score went back to the way it used to be in the non steam version.
> First is non steam version(standalone) with the GPU at 2160mhz
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16028291
> 
> 
> 
> Second is the steam version with the GPU at 2130mhz
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16028291
> 
> 
> 
> So for me something with the non steam version is broken and not sure what. This is only effecting my graphics score.


Now that's gonna require some looking into. Strange!


----------



## sultanofswing

Jpmboy said:


> Now that's gonna require some looking into. Strange!


Yea I am totally confused now because now the steam 3dmark version is giving me low GPU scores now. On the above test I literally ran them back to back and my score went back to normal.
Now I cannot reproduce it and both versions are giving me the low score.


----------



## Forsaken1

Remove steam version.Down load stand alone 3dmark. Link accounts.

5950x on 6900 xt will be interesting.Thanks to the person who sent a pm with way to increase card limits.👍

Time spy loves more CORES!!!!!!


----------



## MakubeX

@Jpmboy New entry with, hopefully, all the requirements

MakubeX -- [email protected],701 MHz --- [email protected],190 MHz --- 18628
http://www.3dmark.com/spy/16313278


----------



## DooRules

Got what I needed to open up the KP tonight. Just did a run to see how the new bios works. Did a quick TSE run at room temps to verify all good with the new bios.








I scored 12 169 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Jpmboy

Jpmboy said:


> jpmboy --- [email protected] --- [email protected] (air) --- 18725
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 18 725 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7-8086K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


*Accepted Updated*


MakubeX said:


> @Jpmboy New entry with, hopefully, all the requirements
> 
> MakubeX -- [email protected],701 MHz --- [email protected],190 MHz --- 18628
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/16313278




*Accepted Updated*


----------



## Forsaken1

8 cores doing work.6900 XT on air.


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 10980XE @ 5.085 KP 3090 @ (+160) 2145 / (+1600)11352








I scored 12 505 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## DooRules

DooRules --- 10980XE @ 5.016 KP 3090 @ 2145/ 11252 








I scored 22 647 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## sultanofswing

Well I learned something new tonight I didn't know and not sure if it is common knowledge. I have been battling my Timespy Graphics score being almost 1k points low from my previous time I benchmarked my system.
Back then I had a 1440p 165hz monitor. About 3 months ago I upgraded to a 48" LG CX 4K OLED.
Up until tonight everytime I ran timespy I left the display set to 4k.
Kept getting a lower than normal score.
Well I just ran 4 tests back to back swapping between 4k and 1440p and when I put my Display at 1440p my Scores jump up almost 1k points putting me right where I used to be.
Like I said this may be common knowledge but I just learned it.
Graphics score with Display set at 4k=16,142
Graphics score with Display set to 1440p=17,026


----------



## DooRules

@sultanofswing 

I have the same CX 48" OLED, my scores show no difference with a change of resolution like you mention


----------



## Jpmboy

Forsaken1 said:


> 8 cores doing work.6900 XT on air.
> 
> View attachment 2469636


^^ not an entry - right?



DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 10980XE @ 5.085 KP 3090 @ (+160) 2145 / (+1600)11352
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 12 505 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Accepted Updated
Hey bud, screenshot requires the actual bench window and ideally a full screen screenshot (eg, "prtsc" and paste into paint, or use any one of the benchmark screenshot mini-apps. One time gratuity (for this and the sub below.

Is that using the stock AIO on the KP?



DooRules said:


> DooRules --- 10980XE @ 5.016 KP 3090 @ 2145/ 11252
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 647 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32440 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Accepted Updated


----------



## sultanofswing

DooRules said:


> @sultanofswing
> 
> I have the same CX 48" OLED, my scores show no difference with a change of resolution like you mention


Not sure then I ran 4 tests back to back to back to back.
4k was ran twice and 1440p was ran twice and both 4k results were low both 1440p results were normal.


----------



## Forsaken1

Correct Jpmboy.
Did your card/s show up?Looking forward to a seasoned vets run on 5950x & 6900 XT.

6900 XT is monster at 1080.Nothing even close.


----------



## DooRules

@Jpmboy 
Thanks, will put a bit more effort into new subs 

That is with the stock aio, just using cold air assist, along with the 1000w bios. Pulled 587w on gpu for TSE run. Pretty sure I can get a bin or two more from the core with colder air and with that the classified tool for voltages.


----------



## Jpmboy

DooRules said:


> @Jpmboy
> Thanks, will put a bit more effort into new subs
> 
> That is with the stock aio, just using cold air assist, along with the 1000w bios. Pulled 587w on gpu for TSE run. Pretty sure I can get a bin or two more from the core with colder air and with that the classified tool for voltages.


EVbot port? And a ROM? ah, but Tin has left EVGA...


----------



## Jpmboy

Forsaken1 said:


> Correct Jpmboy.
> Did your card/s show up?Looking forward to a seasoned vets run on 5950x & 6900 XT.
> 
> 6900 XT is monster at 1080.Nothing even close.


No. My order is with B&H Photo. No stock yet. 😕


----------



## Forsaken1

Red wave is about to take over score boards?
6900 XT AIB out with 480watt limit.Reference limit sub 300 ish watt.
Placed in cart. Unable to check out.









PowerColor Red Devil Radeon RX 6900 XT Announced With Insane 480W Power Limit – Pokde.Net


PowerColor has announced the Red Devil Radeon RX 6900 XT with a triple-fan, triple-slot cooler and a whopping 480W power limit.




pokde.net


----------



## RoadRashed

Does this seem kind of low? Looking at the top 30 spreadsheet....it sure seems like it. Haven't overclocked anything, still running everything at default. Just recently finished this build. Haven't had a new PC in over 8 years, so I am back to having no clue what I'm doing at this point.  :


https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55395213?












https://www.3dmark.com/pcm10b/1034202


----------



## RoadRashed

MakubeX said:


> My entry so far with a lowly reference RTX 3080 overclocked. I might be able to crack 18600 on a lucky run if I retry it a couple of times but I should be able to do it consistently once Gigabyte fixes their X570 bios.


I'm using a EVGA FTW3 Ultra 3080 in my 5950x build. Your score is 16% better than mine. Show me the way...


----------



## MakubeX

RoadRashed said:


> I'm using a EVGA FTW3 Ultra 3080 in my 5950x build. Your score is 16% better than mine. Show me the way...


Lol, well, you said you haven't overclocked anything. That's your problem right there. 😄 

Get clockin'!


----------



## 99belle99

RoadRashed said:


> Does this seem kind of low? Looking at the top 30 spreadsheet....it sure seems like it. Haven't overclocked anything, still running everything at default. Just recently finished this build. Haven't had a new PC in over 8 years, so I am back to having no clue what I'm doing at this point.  :
> 
> 
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55395213?
> 
> 
> View attachment 2470791


That's a very bad CPU score. Compared to mine: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/14627448


----------



## truehighroller1

@Jpmboy

truehighroller1-- 7900x @4,802 --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,130 / 11051
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55529311?











@Jpmboy

truehighroller1-- 7900x @4,834 --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,130 / 11051
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55530553?


----------



## jomama22

@DooRules 

Can you explain your astronomical gt1 run for TSE?

You're fps are above the #2 place holders (in the HOF) fps under ln2:









I scored 13 119 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Just below the #3 spot, also on ln2 and at 24xx core frequency:









I scored 12 752 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Yet your gt2 score is 3-6 fps behind theirs?

Is there some secret sauce we are all missing for GT1? Or? Your average clock freq is 211x with a 2145 max clock.

Cpu doesn't explain it since you're also far below slinky (#4 HOF) in cpu with the same processor yet you beat him by a full 1 fps in gt1 as well (with him under ln2).

So, care to explain?


----------



## truehighroller1

jomama22 said:


> @DooRules
> 
> Can you explain your astronomical gt1 run for TSE?
> 
> You're fps are above the #2 place holders (in the HOF) fps under ln2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 13 119 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just below the #3 spot, also on ln2 and at 24xx core frequency:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 12 752 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your gt2 score is 3-6 fps behind theirs?
> 
> Is there some secret sauce we are all missing for GT1? Or? Your average clock freq is 211x with a 2145 max clock.
> 
> Cpu doesn't explain it since you're also far below slinky (#4 HOF) in cpu with the same processor yet you beat him by a full 1 fps in gt1 as well (with him under ln2).
> 
> So, care to explain?



I think there is and he will never tell us. I just want my scores posted lol.


----------



## newls1

this is my 10900K and 6900XT run... Guess im falling inline with an "OK" result..


----------



## Jpmboy

jomama22 said:


> @DooRules
> 
> Can you explain your astronomical gt1 run for TSE?
> 
> You're fps are above the #2 place holders (in the HOF) fps under ln2:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 13 119 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just below the #3 spot, also on ln2 and at 24xx core frequency:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 12 752 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10980XE Extreme Edition Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet your gt2 score is 3-6 fps behind theirs?
> 
> Is there some secret sauce we are all missing for GT1? Or? Your average clock freq is 211x with a 2145 max clock.
> 
> Cpu doesn't explain it *since you're also far below slinky* (#4 HOF) in cpu with the same processor yet you beat him by a full 1 fps in gt1 as well (with him under ln2).
> 
> So, care to explain?


really? you are using slinky as a "standard"? Do you actually know this clown? Files more complaints against folks at HWBOT than anyone. His motto is "if you can't beat the sub, report the sub".


----------



## Jpmboy

truehighroller1 said:


> @Jpmboy
> 
> truehighroller1-- 7900x @4,802 --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,130 / 11051
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55529311?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Jpmboy
> 
> truehighroller1-- 7900x @4,834 --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,130 / 11051
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/55530553?


*Accepted Updated x2 !!*


----------



## domdtxdissar

Det0x/domdtxdissar -- 5950x curve optimizer -30 all cores, custom watercooling -- MSI 3090 Suprim X @ stock bios/powerlimit and cooling 

*TIME SPY = 21573 *@ https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16909572


Graphics Score = 22200
CPU Score = 18598

*TIME SPY EXTREME = 11389* @ https://www.3dmark.com/spy/16386386

Graphics Score = 11424
CPU Score = 11197


----------



## jomama22

Jpmboy said:


> really? you are using slinky as a "standard"? Do you actually know this clown? Files more complaints against folks at HWBOT than anyone. His motto is "if you can't beat the sub, report the sub".


Not really about slinky, the other scores were more important anyway, was just using it as an example since he used the same processor to try and eliminate those type of variables.

NBD, just pointing out an anomaly is all. Strange to see massive gt1 score than lame duck gt2 score.


----------



## Jpmboy

jomama22 said:


> Not really about slinky, the other scores were more important anyway, was just using it as an example since he used the same processor to try and eliminate those type of variables.
> 
> NBD, just pointing out an anomaly is all. Strange to see massive gt1 score than lame duck gt2 score.


For some time you could get away with a bunch of "exploits" in time spy, including some simple ones in NVinspector. UL upgraded the "surveillance" during the run, not just at the start so Validation has improved significantly. GT1 (if I recall correctly) benefits from vRAM tuning. I say tuning specifically because GPU vRAM has error protocols that let higher frequencies run but check erors are repeat until checksums match... becoming less efficient. IO would not be surprised by the availability of a KingPin bios with the ram timings adjusted so efficiency scales better with frequency, at least the KP's of the past had them. 😉


----------



## GRABibus

Hi,
try to make some benchmarks with my 3090RTX Evga Ftw3 Ultra by overclocking it, but it throtlles as soon as Time Spy extreme starts to run (MSI AB shows between 420W and 450W in first GX test), which is power limit of the card.
I am at stock cooling.

Is it normal ?


----------



## KickAssCop

Not sure if good or bad but here is my result.

*Dataline: KickAsscop -- [email protected] -20 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18017



http://www.3dmark.com/spy/17750708


*


----------



## Jpmboy

KickAssCop said:


> Not sure if good or bad but here is my result.
> 
> *Dataline: KickAsscop -- [email protected] -20 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18017
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.3dmark.com/spy/17750708
> 
> 
> *


No screenshot as shown in Post#1 ??


----------



## KickAssCop

All information is available in the link about the bench run. Seems like a redundant activity.

Here is the useless screenshot.

*Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -20 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18017*


----------



## Jpmboy

KickAssCop said:


> All information is available in the link about the bench run. Seems like a redundant activity.
> 
> Here is the useless screenshot.
> 
> *Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -20 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18017*


Ya know, I'd really like to add your result to the Top30, and that certainly is a useless screenshot since it does not show the actual benchmark window. The webpage is not what the instructions in post #1 ask for in the Requirements for an Entry.


----------



## KickAssCop

What is the difference between webpage and actual window?


----------



## Jpmboy

The webpage or validation link shows the recorded run at UL, not the real-time benchmark result on the machine it was run on. Same rules at HWBOT regarding screenshots of benchmarks. I know it's a PIA, but that's been the requirements all along... in this thread, Fire Strike, Port Royal, 3D Mark11, Superposition and especially benchmarks where there is no Vendor-hosted leaderboard or HOF.
You got a good score, shouldn't be too difficult to repeat it or actually do better. Lol, you've obviously never had a sub rejected at the BOT for having something simple like the wrong tab(s) in CPUZ showing in a screenshot.


----------



## KickAssCop

Well here you go. I don't know how many CPUZ/GPUZ tabs that need to be opened but I clearly don't have enough space for that.

*Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -30 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18040*









I scored 18 040 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Jpmboy

nice. I'll get it added later this evening.


----------



## KickAssCop

Cool. Here is an extreme run.

*Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -15 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 9155

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 video card benchmark result - AMD Ryzen 9 5900X,Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MAG X570 TOMAHAWK WIFI (MS-7C84) (3dmark.com) *


----------



## sultanofswing

sultanofswing--- 10940x @ 4.9Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 @ 1395Mhz / 2085Mhz --- 20750








I scored 20 750 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-10940X X-series Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com




With a Severely power limited FTW3.


----------



## munternet

@Jpmboy
munternet--- 10900k @ 5.2Ghz --- Asus RTX 3080 TUF @ 2055Mhz / 1188Mhz --- 17945
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/57417357


----------



## Jpmboy

KickAssCop said:


> Well here you go. I don't know how many CPUZ/GPUZ tabs that need to be opened but I clearly don't have enough space for that.
> 
> *Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -30 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 18040*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 18 040 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


*Accepted Updated*


KickAssCop said:


> Cool. Here is an extreme run.
> 
> *Dataline: KickAssCop -- [email protected] -15 CO and DDR4 3733 Tuned --- RTX3080 [email protected]/10775 --- 9155
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 video card benchmark result - AMD Ryzen 9 5900X,Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. MAG X570 TOMAHAWK WIFI (MS-7C84) (3dmark.com) *


*Accepted Updated*


sultanofswing said:


> sultanofswing--- 10940x @ 4.9Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 FTW3 @ 1395Mhz / 2085Mhz --- 20750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 20 750 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-10940X X-series Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a Severely power limited FTW3.


Missing GPUZ. First time sub gratuity
*Accepted Updated*


munternet said:


> @Jpmboy
> munternet--- 10900k @ 5.2Ghz --- Asus RTX 3080 TUF @ 2055Mhz / 1188Mhz --- 17945
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/57417357
> View attachment 2476074


Sorry - see the discussion directly above. The screenshot MUST have the actual benchmark window for the run, not the webpage of the validation link. Things like HWinfo and afterburner are not needed, GPUZ, CPUZ - YES.
Rejected.


----------



## Jpmboy

*Okay, 

Guys - a VALID screenshot must include:

1. the actual benchmark window
2. CPUZ main and memory tab
3. GPUZ Main and Sensor tab (ideally with "max" selected for core frequency if you do not lock the card in P0)
4. The screenshot should be a full screen, including the date in the task bar

Please read the OP before making a sub to any benchmark thread where there is a database maintained by an OCN member. Saves grief for all.
Like shown in the example below and in the OP. *
it's a thumbnail, click to open


----------



## Jpmboy

Here's the recent WR sub for superposition at the BOT from my ole friend Dave: mllrkllr88`s Unigine Superposition - 1080P Xtreme score: 17787 Points with a GeForce RTX 3090 (hwbot.org) 
That's the necessary "proof of bench" required.


----------



## munternet

@Jpmboy
Is this better 

Edit: Are numbers 8 and 9 in the correct order in the "3D Mark Time Spy" list?

munternet--- 10900k @ 5.2Ghz --- Asus RTX 3080 TUF @ 2145Mhz / 1287.7Mhz --- 18114
https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/57466683


----------



## munternet

@Jpmboy did notice my above message


----------



## 99belle99

munternet said:


> @Jpmboy did notice my above message


He checks by every couple of days. He will check it eventually.


----------



## munternet

99belle99 said:


> He checks by every couple of days. He will check it eventually.


It was 6 days ago and he's been on plenty


----------



## johnksss

johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 22632 








I scored 22 632 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com













johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 11809 








I scored 11 809 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Snoopy69

Snoopy69 --- 5950X @ 5.1Ghz --- ASUS ROG Strix OC @ avg 2246 Mhz / 1400Mhz --- 22.971








I scored 22 971 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus --- 5900X @ 4.7Ghz --- ASUS ROG STRIX OC RTX 3090 @ 2032 Mhz Average / 1344Mhz --- 20706









I scored 20 706 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## GRABibus

Snoopy69 said:


> Snoopy69 --- 5950X @ 5.1Ghz --- ASUS ROG Strix OC @ avg 2246 Mhz / 1400Mhz --- 22.971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 971 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2479140


nice 😊


----------



## weleh

I scored 19 009 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com







http://imgur.com/a/v9vyGWL


----------



## truehighroller1

@Jpmboy


TS - 21758
truehighroller1-- 10940X @5.1GHz --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,190 / 11252
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-10940X X-series Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME (3dmark.com)











TSE - 11556
truehighroller1-- 10940X @5.1GHz --- MSI 3090 Suprim X @2,190 / 11252
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-10940X X-series Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG RAMPAGE VI EXTREME (3dmark.com)


----------



## drnilly007

Trying to get timespy to run it just errors out. Any fix for this?


----------



## Nizzen

drnilly007 said:


> Trying to get timespy to run it just errors out. Any fix for this?


Format c:\


----------



## Jpmboy

munternet said:


> @Jpmboy
> Is this better
> 
> Edit: Are numbers 8 and 9 in the correct order in the "3D Mark Time Spy" list?
> 
> munternet--- 10900k @ 5.2Ghz --- Asus RTX 3080 TUF @ 2145Mhz / 1287.7Mhz --- 18114
> https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/57466683


Accepted Updated
(fixed "8 and 9" - thanks!)



johnksss said:


> johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 22632
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 632 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 11809
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 11 809 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Accepted Updated x2!!



Snoopy69 said:


> Snoopy69 --- 5950X @ 5.1Ghz --- ASUS ROG Strix OC @ avg 2246 Mhz / 1400Mhz --- 22.971
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 971 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Asterik*** 
*Could be a ! New First Place !
You need a screenshot of the run!!*

Entered into the Top 30 PROVISIONALLY. Will be removed unless a screenshot is provided. SEE POST #1 for what is required.



GRABibus said:


> GRABibus --- 5900X @ 4.7Ghz --- ASUS ROG STRIX OC RTX 3090 @ 2032 Mhz Average / 1344Mhz --- 20706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 20 706 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Accepted Updated



weleh said:


> I scored 19 009 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/v9vyGWL


Rejected - see POst #1 for instructions for a Top 30 entry.


truehighroller1 said:


> truehighroller1


Accepted Updated x2
(only your highest score is kept with the same GPU model. Different CPUs don't get a second entry - but I think you knew this.  )


----------



## Jpmboy

Sorry for the delay in updating the Top 30. Life does that sometimes.

And guys, I really hate having to reject subs because the entry lacks a valid screenshot of the run... @Snoopy69


----------



## GRABibus

Delete


----------



## looniam

straight out of the box . . . just a baseline, no need to list it being too lazy to type who and what . . 😴








I scored 7 722 in Time Spy


Intel Core i7-3770K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com













for giggles:








Result







www.3dmark.com


----------



## newls1

this puts me between 8th and 9th fastest single card 6900 xt on 3dmark.... I guess cause 3dmark says my driver is not validated (brand new amd driver released today) It wont post to the leaderboard i guess.... Anyways here is a screen shot


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 ----- 3700X @ 4.4GHz ------ 6900 XT @ 2600MHz core and 2100MHz Memory ------ 18765









I scored 18 765 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 ----- 3700X @ 4.4GHz ------ 6900 XT @ 2640MHz core and 2140MHz Memory ------ 18852









I scored 18 852 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus ----- 5900X @ 5.1GHz ------ RTX 3090 @ 2049MHz (Average) / 1344MHz ------ 21057









I scored 21 057 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com















ASUS ROG Strix Gaming OC flashed with ASUS XOC 1000W Bios.
Stock air cooler.
22°C ambient temperature.
Open PC side panel.
All fans at 100%.


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus ----- 5900X @ 5.15GHz ------ RTX 3090 @ 2063MHz (Average) / 1344MHz ------ 21201 









I scored 21 201 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com














ASUS ROG Strix Gaming OC flashed with ASUS XOC 1000W Bios.
Stock air cooler.
16°C ambient temperature.
Open PC side panel.
All fans at 100%.


----------



## gtz

I was finally able to match (or at least get close to it) my CPU score with my GPU score.

GTZ -- 9980XE @ 4.8Ghz -- 6800XT @ 2650Mhz -- Time Spy Score 19,559

AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-9980XE Processor,ASRock X299 Taichi CLX (3dmark.com)


----------



## 99belle99

99belle99 said:


> 99belle99 ----- 3700X @ 4.4GHz ------ 6900 XT @ 2640MHz core and 2140MHz Memory ------ 18852
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 18 852 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 3700X, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2483978


I posted this over a month ago and the OP has not being updated.


----------



## gilor8080

So i got me new gpu 3080 ti of zotac
my last gpu was 2080 ti gigabyte 2080 ti gaming oc I replaced the cooling to G12+X53.
this the result after OC:








I scored 16 114 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-10900F Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com




my new 3080 ti stock: I scored 17 779 in Time Spy
after oc:I scored 18 369 in Time Spy










my oc for 3080 ti zotac


----------



## satinghostrider

Had some time today to push my setup a wee bit more on the GPU side.

*11900K stock with ABT ON.
*3090 MSI Gaming X Trio (450W SuprimX Bios)









Result not found







www.3dmark.com





Had some time today to push my setup a wee bit more on the GPU side. Managed 20,740 score and I think this is it unless I load a higher TDP bios but I think it is a waste of time just for a couple more points.


----------



## jfrob75

My best Timespy score with my GB Aorus 6900XT Extreme WB


----------



## GRABibus

Is this thread dead ?


----------



## 99belle99

GRABibus said:


> Is this thread dead ?


Must be I posted a score a couple of months ago and was never updated since.


----------



## 1TM1

First time running TimeSpy (because 6GB). 
Is this score ok for a PC I use to play AAA titles in 8K since 2017, getting 51-55FPS (56 with overclock)?
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/64014825


----------



## Dude970

johnksss said:


> johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 22632
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 632 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> johnksss --- 5950X @ 4.873Ghz --- EVGA RTX 3090 K|ngP|n @ 2206 Mhz / 1394Mhz --- 11809
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 11 809 in Time Spy Extreme
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


I noticed you have no data available in the result screen. I get that too and was curious why, I dont see a setting anywhere to enable or disable. Anyone have an idea why?

Thanks


----------



## jfrob75

New driver results in significant improvement in Time Spy graphics score of 23996.

I scored 22 464 in Time Spy

Best Tiem Spy graphics score to date.

I scored 22 563 in Time Spy


----------



## GRABibus

jfrob75 said:


> New driver results in significant improvement in Time Spy graphics score of 23996.
> 
> I scored 22 464 in Time Spy
> 
> Best Tiem Spy graphics score to date.
> 
> I scored 22 563 in Time Spy


did you try to disable SMT to see if your CPU score increases ?
You should be in 17k+ range.


----------



## GRABibus

Update :

GRABibus ----- 5900X @ 4.7GHz ------ RTX 3090 @ 2116MHz (Average) / 1357MHz ------ 21230









I scored 21 230 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com














ASUS RTX 3090 ROG STRIX GAMING OC on stock air cooler
Bios Kingpin 1000W XOC


----------



## GRABibus

satinghostrider said:


> Had some time today to push my setup a wee bit more on the GPU side.
> 
> *11900K stock with ABT ON.
> *3090 MSI Gaming X Trio (450W SuprimX Bios)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Result not found
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a waste of time just for a couple more points.


it is not useless at all.
You have a nice Graphics score improvment.


----------



## tootall123

I scored 24 249 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## kx11

Time Spy extreme

3090 Strix OC under water










I scored 10 393 in Time Spy Extreme


AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Jpmboy

*I'm no longer updating this and several other GPU bench threads. If anyone is interested in carrying the torch send me a PM I can give you the Google sheets and we can get the OP reassigned.
jpmboy.*


----------



## GRABibus

Jpmboy said:


> *I'm no longer updating this and several other GPU bench threads. If anyone is interested in carrying the torch send me a PM I can give you the Google sheets and we can get the OP reassigned.
> jpmboy.*


😩


----------



## Barefooter

Jpmboy said:


> *I'm no longer updating this and several other GPU bench threads. If anyone is interested in carrying the torch send me a PM I can give you the Google sheets and we can get the OP reassigned.
> jpmboy.*


Thank you for keeping it updated all these years!


----------



## Jpmboy

It's not difficult to maintain any one of the Bench Threads.. hopefully the lot can be divvied up so it is not a burden to any one member... but frankly, even doing all is not that big a deal. I kinda viewed these more a a database of generational performance improvements in addition to competitive fun!









Fire Strike Ultra Top 30


Fire Strike Ultra is the latest high-end gaming PC benchmark from Futuremark You can download it here Fire Strike Ultra Hall of Fame Requirements for entries in this thread: OCN user name --- [email protected] --- GPU(s) --- overall score FULL screenshot including: The 3DMark window including...




www.overclock.net












Fire Strike Extreme Top 30


Firestrike Extreme is the latest high-end gaming PC benchmark from Futuremark You can download it here "3DMark Fire Strike Extreme is an enhanced version of Fire Strike designed for high-end multi-GPU systems (SLI / Crossfire) and future hardware generations. In addition to raising the...




www.overclock.net












3D Mark 11 Extreme Top 30


3D Mark 11 Extreme is a high-end gaming PC benchmark from Futuremark "3DMark 11 is a DirectX 11 video card benchmark test for Windows that is designed to measure your PC's gaming performance. 3DMark 11 makes extensive use of DirectX 11 features including tessellation, compute shaders and...




www.overclock.net












Top 30 3d Mark 13 Fire Strike Scores in Crossfire / SLI


Post your Top 3DMark 13 Fire Strike Score. Entry Format: Member Name --- Processor --- GPU Name --- XXXXX Score Screenshot Verification URL * Use Default settings * Top 30 charts are based on the number of GPU's in SLI / Crossfire and not the number of video cards in the computer. * All...




www.overclock.net












[OFFICIAL] Top 30 Heaven Benchmark 4.0 Scores


Post Heaven Benchmark 4.0 scores here. To keep everyone using the same settings, Please use the following settings with a DX11 capable card: 4.0 Settings All scores must have data line in order to be considered for the Top 30: Member Name --- Processor / Speed ---- GPU Name and # ---- FPS...




www.overclock.net












3DMark Time Spy Benchmark Top 30


3D Mark Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme Time Spy Extreme Link to Top30 TSE Spreadsheet Time Spy Link to Top 30 TS Spreadsheet Only Futuremark "Valid" Results are Acceptable FULL SCREEN Screenshot as shown below including the 3DMark window with the result Requirements for entries in this...




www.overclock.net





There's a few additional...


----------



## Tehone

Hello here is my timespy score


----------



## sniperpowa

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-10900K Processor,EVGA Corp. Z490 DARK KINGPIN (3dmark.com)


----------



## newls1

Just setup my new 12900k PC, can someone tell please tell me if this timespy score is on par for a 3090 and 12900k setup?


----------



## 99belle99

newls1 said:


> Just setup my new 12900k PC, can someone tell please tell me if this timespy score is on par for a 3090 and 12900k setup?
> 
> View attachment 2537182


GPU score seems low. I can score higher with a 6900 XT reference card with stock cooler.


----------



## Nizzen

newls1 said:


> Just setup my new 12900k PC, can someone tell please tell me if this timespy score is on par for a 3090 and 12900k setup?
> 
> View attachment 2537182


Ran 12900k @ 5400 all core. stock ring and 4300 on the E cores. 6000c32 1t memory
3090 almost stock. +100 on gpu,auto fan. +700 memory. Silent gaming mode 

Graphics Score 21 850
CPU Score 23 102









I scored 22 029 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## truehighroller1

Nizzen said:


> Ran 12900k @ 5400 all core. stock ring and 4300 on the E cores. 6000c32 1t memory
> 3090 almost stock. +100 on gpu,auto fan. +700 memory. Silent gaming mode
> 
> Graphics Score 21 850
> CPU Score 23 102
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 029 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com



That was a beasty cpu score.


----------



## newls1

was #76 this afternoon on the leaderboards with this score:


----------



## truehighroller1

newls1 said:


> was #76 this afternoon on the leaderboards with this score:
> 
> View attachment 2539794


Link it. I want to compare it to mine. His ddr5 is helping him I think CPU score wise, a lot.

Mine's from a minute ago trying to match his settings.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)

I see that doorules is trying to get up there again now to he has me beat gpu wise not cpu wise.

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG MAXIMUS Z690 HERO (3dmark.com)


----------



## geriatricpollywog

truehighroller1 said:


> Link it. I want to compare it to mine. His ddr5 is helping him I think CPU score wise, a lot.


I can confirm DDR4 is still competitive in 3DMark

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com) 

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


----------



## truehighroller1

geriatricpollywog said:


> I can confirm DDR4 is still competitive in 3DMark
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


That's what I'm talking about right there. You're pushing the memory and that helps. You're giving it the bandwidth it needs. I'll be getting my ddr 4 4400 cas 17 tomorrow. I'm going to do what you did here and
push it as far as I can.


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Ran 12900k @ 5400 all core. stock ring and 4300 on the E cores. 6000c32 1t memory
> 3090 almost stock. +100 on gpu,auto fan. +700 memory. Silent gaming mode
> 
> Graphics Score 21 850
> CPU Score 23 102
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 029 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Why silent mode for the GPU ?


----------



## domdtxdissar

I scored 22 666 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Avacado

Nizzen said:


> Ran 12900k @ 5400 all core. stock ring and 4300 on the E cores. 6000c32 1t memory
> 3090 almost stock. +100 on gpu,auto fan. +700 memory. Silent gaming mode
> 
> Graphics Score 21 850
> CPU Score 23 102
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 22 029 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com


Thats sick. 4300 E-Core is insane. I can't get mine above 4100.


----------



## Nizzen

GRABibus said:


> Why silent mode for the GPU ?


Have another gpu for benchmarking


----------



## GRABibus

Nizzen said:


> Have another gpu for benchmarking


Then put the benchmark GPU with the 12900k 😊


----------



## AvengedRobix

AvengedRobix --- 12900K @ 5.4Ghz --- 3090 Pny @ 2.148 Mhz average / 1.338 Mhz --- 22775









My last run NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 AORUS MASTER (3dmark.com)


----------



## truehighroller1

truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2190Mhz / 1425Mhz --- 22734










NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


----------



## AvengedRobix

Little Update
AvengedRobix --- 12900K @ 5.5Ghz --- 3090 Pny @ 2.139 Mhz average / 1.357 Mhz --- 22878
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 AORUS MASTER (3dmark.com)


----------



## zzztopzzz

AvengedRobix said:


> Little Update
> AvengedRobix --- 12900K @ 5.5Ghz --- 3090 Pny @ 2.139 Mhz average / 1.357 Mhz --- 22878
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 AORUS MASTER (3dmark.com)
> View attachment 2540698


Link is no good.


----------



## 99belle99

zzztopzzz said:


> Link is no good.


Link works for me.


----------



## GRABibus

Delete


----------



## GRABibus

zzztopzzz said:


> Link is no good.


Works for me.


----------



## 99belle99

Here is mine 3700X @4.4GHz and a 6900 XT

I scored 20 243 in Time Spy


----------



## truehighroller1

Sorry for multiple post but, updating highest score TS.

truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2190Mhz / 1425Mhz --- 22787










NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


----------



## GRABibus

truehighroller1 said:


> Sorry for multiple post but, updating highest score TS.
> 
> truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2190Mhz / 1425Mhz --- 22787
> 
> View attachment 2540725
> 
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


it is no problem to update with multiple posts, and also, nobody updates the score sheets anymore.


----------



## AvengedRobix

zzztopzzz said:


> Link is no good.


yes is good.. the only not good is the link in my signature because is old


----------



## truehighroller1

Newest High for me. Again, sorry for multiple post. Why's no one updating the sheet?

truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2190Mhz / 1425Mhz --- 22827










NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


----------



## GRABibus

truehighroller1 said:


> Newest High for me. Again, sorry for multiple post. Why's no one updating the sheet?
> 
> truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2190Mhz / 1425Mhz --- 22827
> 
> View attachment 2540883
> 
> 
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)











3DMark Time Spy Benchmark Top 30


Update : GRABibus ----- 5900X @ 5.1GHz ------ RTX 3090 @ 2049MHz (Average) / 1344MHz ------ 21057 https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/60537207? ASUS ROG Strix Gaming OC flashed with ASUS XOC 1000W Bios. Stock air cooler. 22°C ambient temperature. Open PC side panel. All fans at 100%.




www.overclock.net


----------



## IIISLIDEIII

I scored 24 264 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## GRABibus

GRABibus --- [email protected],125GHz (PBO) --- 3090 Kingpin Hybrid @ 2175Mhz / 1407Mhz --- 21737
Kingpin hybrid => Stock cooler.



















I scored 21 737 in Time Spy


AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## truehighroller1

Timespy: truehighroller1 --- 12900K @ 5.6Ghz --- 3090 MSI @ 2220Mhz / 1432Mhz --- 23397












NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG STRIX Z690-A GAMING WIFI D4 (3dmark.com)


----------



## CptSpig

CptSpig --- 12900K @ 5.5Ghz --- 3080 Ti Nvidia FE @ 2220Mhz / 1349Mhz --- 22173
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Stock bios W/ EK-quantum vector fe rtx 3080 d-rgb - black special edition water block









I scored 22 173 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-12900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## MrTOOSHORT

Just posting a result with new cpu...

*MrTOOSHORT -- 12900k @5200MHz -- 2080ti @2160MHz -- 18009:*












*NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ROG MAXIMUS Z690 APEX (3dmark.com)*


----------



## gtz

Here is my highest run on my 12900KF. 

My gpu is around 800ish points lower with the exact same settings than my X299 system, will try swapping drivers. But CPU is 3000ish points more than my 10980XE.










AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900KF Processor,Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. Z690 AORUS MASTER (3dmark.com)


----------



## kx11

I scored 11 101 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-12900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Neur0Mortis

Finally got to 23k all around. I scored 23 038 in Time Spy 










CPU: 12900K @ 53P/41E/44U
RAM: TridentZ 6400CL32 tuned to 53.7ns per AIDA
GPU: EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra; Kingpin 520W Bios
Cooling: Dual loop - 1x Alphacool XT45 360mm, 1x Alphacool XT60 360mm, Optimus Foundation v2 CPU block, Optimus GPU block


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Neur0Mortis said:


> Finally got to 23k all around. I scored 23 038 in Time Spy
> View attachment 2551406
> 
> 
> 
> CPU: 12900K @ 53P/41E/44U
> RAM: TridentZ 6400CL32 tuned to 53.7ns per AIDA
> GPU: EVGA 3090 FTW3 Ultra; Kingpin 520W Bios
> Cooling: Dual loop - 1x Alphacool XT45 360mm, 1x Alphacool XT60 360mm, Optimus Foundation v2 CPU block, Optimus GPU block


Nice result! Are you running XMP timings?


----------



## Neur0Mortis

geriatricpollywog said:


> Nice result! Are you running XMP timings?


More or less. I've never mastered RAM tweaking/OCing and have always had decent RAM but never top end or B-die. Did XMP1 and then messed with the Maximus tweak to get stable. Bumped the voltage up to 1.435 as well, since XMP1+max tweak caused a couple hiccups. Everything's solid now. I'm sure I could get it better, but still learning about the new chip, board, and mem. Default OOB with just setting XMP resulted in 68ns in Aida. Playing with the max tweak & voltage dropped it down to 53.7. Not the ~45 I had with my DDR4 & 10900k, but still not bad.


----------



## kx11

This is my best stability results ever, 98.6% I scored 1 in Time Spy Stress Test


----------



## gecko991

12900KF on water.


----------



## Catsonar

Reference 6900XT I scored 23 459 in Time Spy


----------



## stahlhart

I remember this thread...


----------



## Catsonar

stahlhart said:


> View attachment 2555052
> 
> 
> I remember this thread...


I members too!


----------



## sniperpowa

My best so far I got the 12900ks to do 24,600 on ambient haven't ran with the 6900xt at that setting hoping to clear 25k before going back on ln2 AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT video card benchmark result - Intel Core i9-12900KS Processor,EVGA Corp. Z690 DARK KINGPIN (3dmark.com)


----------



## newls1

here is my first run with a 3090Ti and my 12900KS. The GPU is NOT nearly done with its OC yet...

(*EDIT.......... )

I must be reading this leaderboard wrong..... Am I really in 3rd and 4th place with my latest scores??


----------



## 99belle99

newls1 said:


> here is my first run with a 3090Ti and my 12900KS. The GPU is NOT nearly done with its OC yet...
> 
> (*EDIT.......... )
> 
> I must be reading this leaderboard wrong..... Am I really in 3rd and 4th place with my latest scores??


For that GPU yes, but there are 6900 XT's beating you by a really decent margin. And that is by overall score which your KS chip at 5.5GHz helps. You are 26th by graphics score with that GPU and as I said there are 6900 XT's hitting much higher graphic scores.


----------



## newls1

ive had 3 6900xt.... great gpu, but I really prefer nvidia.. Once this fat bi*ch get a fcwb, ill be adding more clock


----------



## MyUsername

I might be able to squeeze more out of it if it was cooler, CPU can do 18800 and GPU can do 22500ish. Good enough.


----------



## newls1

somehow im in number 1 spot for 12900KS/3090Ti combo if im reading this right


----------



## sniperpowa




----------



## newls1

My 12900KS @ 5.5GHz and 3090Ti (still on damn air) so basic OC here ... Also I came in 9th place, is this good, and 9th place in what?


----------



## 99belle99

newls1 said:


> My 12900KS @ 5.5GHz and 3090Ti (still on damn air) so basic OC here ... Also I came in 9th place, is this good, and 9th place in what?


9th place because you have a good CPU. Graphics score not that impressive. I can hit that graphics score with a reference 6900 XT on the stock cooler.


----------



## newls1

99belle99 said:


> 9th place because you have a good CPU. Graphics score not that impressive. I can hit that graphics score with a reference 6900 XT on the stock cooler.


ive had 3 past 6900XT's and they are great benchers for sure. Using MPT got me graphics scores in the high 22xxx range easily so unless drivers had progressed that much for them,i couldnt squeeze 23xxx out of them and of course they were on FCWB's. As soon a EK releases our waterblocks for this GPU, these are my scores and what im comfortable with letting this GPU boost to with the given temps. Once this GPU gets its waterblock, im hoping to be benching T/S @ 2200+MHz up from 2160ish that it is hitting now. My prior 3090 (non Ti) would only hit 2030ish in T/S so this GPU is a far upgrade.


----------



## MyUsername

I finally broke 22K, giving it full beans.


----------



## HITTI

This is dumb, time spy says free on steam but wont install.


----------



## 99belle99

HITTI said:


> This is dumb, time spy says free on steam but wont install.


I could be wrong but I think you have to pay for Timespy well you did years ago when it was new. They usually change that to be free once it starts to get old like Firestrike.


----------



## HITTI

99belle99 said:


> I could be wrong but I think you have to pay for Timespy well you did years ago when it was new. They usually change that to be free once it starts to get old like Firestrike.


This is the free version but u have to have base software installed. who knows.


----------



## stahlhart




----------



## HITTI

stahlhart said:


> View attachment 2574082


thats the point i was making "its free" but u have to pay for it.


----------



## 99belle99

HITTI said:


> thats the point i was making "its free" but u have to pay for it.


Install Firestrike first and it will install the base version and then add Timespy later.


----------



## HITTI

...


----------



## HITTI

99belle99 said:


> Install Firestrike first and it will install the base version and then add Timespy later.


----------



## stahlhart

HITTI said:


> thats the point i was making "its free" but u have to pay for it.


3DMark benchmark for Windows, Android and iOS (ul.com)

Basic Edition.


----------



## HITTI

Yup I found it at guru3d. Nice. I hate steam.
the highest got so far is 11975. im raising overclocks see hiw high it will go in score and clocks 3060ti fe


----------



## tubs2x4

HITTI said:


> Yup I found it at guru3d. Nice. I hate steam.
> the highest got so far is 11975. im raising overclocks see hiw high it will go in score and clocks 3060ti fe


What did it do all stock or didn’t you test it?


----------



## HITTI

tubs2x4 said:


> What did it do all stock or didn’t you test it?


once i reach my max i think at it, i'll reset to defaults and test and post both.


----------



## HITTI

Nvidia 3060ti fe

*Hitti -- [email protected] --- [email protected]:2,115 MHz /Mem 1,979 MHz /Boost 1820MHz --- SCORE:12053









I scored 12 053 in Time Spy


Intel Core i5-10600K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com














*
Default clocks









I scored 11 287 in Time Spy


Intel Core i5-10600K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## HITTI

Nvidia 3060ti fe

Better score than last night, same settings, just a reboot, closed everything not needed and reran.

*Hitti -- [email protected] --- [email protected]:2,115 MHz /Mem 1,979 MHz /Boost 1820MHz --- SCORE:12117









I scored 12 117 in Time Spy


Intel Core i5-10600K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com












*


----------



## tubs2x4

HITTI said:


> Nvidia 3060ti fe
> 
> Better score than last night, same settings, just a reboot, closed everything not needed and reran.
> 
> *Hitti -- [email protected] --- [email protected]:2,115 MHz /Mem 1,979 MHz /Boost 1820MHz --- SCORE:12117
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scored 12 117 in Time Spy
> 
> 
> Intel Core i5-10600K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Ti x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.3dmark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2574199
> *


What does the temp max out at on that fe card?


----------



## HITTI

tubs2x4 said:


> What does the temp max out at on that fe card?


highest i seen is 58c gor a sec but 57c.

I'm wondering if I can up the voltage on this through MSI afterburner.aftetburner shiws i can change voltage, then go higher but dunno how much voltage.


----------



## ToyMach000

I scored 11 760 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-9900K Processor, Intel Arc A750 x 1, 65536 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com





Intel Arc A750


----------



## ericc64

2.place  13900K + 6900XT @ 3020/2400.

*27666









I scored 27 666 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-13900K Processor, AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com











*


----------



## newls1

My best results yet! Thank you fast ram and GPU Waterblock








I scored 38 335 in Time Spy


Intel Core i9-13900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Derek1

Derek1----I9 9900K @ 5.0-----EVGA 2080 Ti KPE @ 2070 Core/2075 Mem









I scored 11 851 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-9900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 2, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com


----------



## Derek1

Derek1----I9 9900K @ 5.2-----EVGA 2080 Ti KPE 2130 Core/2075 Mem









I scored 12 130 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-9900K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti x 2, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}




www.3dmark.com






























Close and yet so far. LOL


----------



## newls1

Flashed My Gigabyte Gaming OC to the 666 HOF 4090 BIOS results


----------



## kx11

I scored 18 515 in Time Spy Extreme


Intel Core i9-13900KF Processor, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 x 1, 32768 MB, 64-bit Windows 11}




www.3dmark.com


----------

