# Metro 2033 Benchmark Thread (Using Official Tool)



## cq842000

Sorry, mine wont run either. Also when it does work, do I need to enable advanced Physx? I'm running ATi so I was just curious.


----------



## NCspecV81

Well i was going to post my stock air run on my gtx465ge flashed to 470 but it appears you already beat me to it! o.0 I would really like to see what someone with an i7 920/950/980x gets with a stock 480 or stock 470. I wanna compare it to a 1090T setup I run too.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cq842000* 
Sorry, mine wont run either. Also when it does work, do I need to enable advanced Physx? I'm running ATi so I was just curious.

not your fault. 4A games forgot to test the patch/DLC and now it has broken the game for most people. We just have to wait for a new patch to fix this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NCspecV81* 
Well i was going to post my stock air run on my gtx465ge flashed to 470 but it appears you already beat me to it! o.0 I would really like to see what someone with an i7 920/950/980x gets with a stock 480 or stock 470. I wanna compare it to a 1090T setup I run too.


sorry


----------



## westside

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NCspecV81* 
Well i was going to post my stock air run on my gtx465ge flashed to 470 but it appears you already beat me to it! o.0 I would really like to see what someone with an i7 920/950/980x gets with a stock 480 or stock 470. I wanna compare it to a 1090T setup I run too.

Hi









I run the benchmark with my i7 920 @ 3.8 ghz and my 480 @ stock.
I have almost the same average (20fps)

Damn your 470 o/c is ****ing huge







unbelievable on stock air.


----------



## brettjv

If you want this to be the 'official' thread you should offer to maintain a leaderboard, and specify the 'universal' settings.

There's nothing more annoying than a bench thread with everyone randomly choosing whatever settings float their boat. It's totally useless.

Allow me to hereby put forth, advise, promulgate, and otherwise recommend the use of the following settings:

DX 11
1680x1050
Very High
AAA
16xAF
(no DOF or PhysX)

So, does the Demo version of the game also include the benching tool?


----------



## grunion

It does a device check









Attachment 171005


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
If you want this to be the 'official' thread you should offer to maintain a leaderboard, and specify the 'universal' settings.

There's nothing more annoying than a bench thread with everyone randomly choosing whatever settings float their boat. It's totally useless.

Allow me to hereby put forth, advise, promulgate, and otherwise recommend the use of the following settings:

DX 11
1680x1050
Very High
AAA
16xAF
(no DOF or PhysX)

So, does the Demo version of the game also include the benching tool?











thanks. will add the settings!

also, I don't think so since the tool came with the latest DLC patch for the full game.


----------



## brettjv

Anybody have any objections to my suggestion of standard settings above?

Kora, if you like them (and I think they make a lot of sense) maybe you could specify them in the OP?

In any case, I'll throw one up using those settings.

brettjv ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX465 (850/1780) ---- 77.92 fps


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
Anybody have any objections to my suggestion of standard settings above?

Kora, if you like them (and I think they make a lot of sense) maybe you could specify them in the OP?

In any case, I'll throw one up using those settings.

brettjv ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX465 (850/1780) ---- 77.92 fps


yup, added them. Thanks alot!

so far, your the only one!


----------



## ntuason

Damn sucks I dont have DX11...


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
yup, added them. Thanks alot!

so far, your the only one!









Oh well ...

You might wanna also think about specifying that people put in a line like this:

brettjv ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX465 (850/1780) ---- 77.92 fps

that way you can just cut/paste them from the thread into the OP and have a quick and easy 'leader board'.

Should probably just accept the score of the 2nd run as the 'official' score, since it'll always be the higher of the two


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
Oh well ...

You might wanna also think about specifying that people put in a line like this:

brettjv ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX465 (850/1780) ---- 77.92 fps

that way you can just cut/paste them from the thread into the OP and have a quick and easy 'leader board'.

Should probably just accept the score of the 2nd run as the 'official' score, since it'll always be the higher of the two










your on the ball today!

+rep


----------



## brettjv

Dude, been waiting for a Metro2033 benchmark tool for a LOOOONG time.

Surprised no-one else is jazzed about this and joining in ...

Also figured someone would want to de-throne me immediately. My rig isn't anything all that special. You should post everyone's score in the OP who participates according to the rules though ... kinda the way things are done on this forum, just so ya know


----------



## mothug

Quote:


Originally Posted by *DorkSterr* 
Damn sucks I dont have DX11...


DX11 comes in with windows 7...... so if your running windows 7 (shows you are on your sig) than you do have DX11


----------



## criminal

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mothug* 
DX11 comes in with windows 7...... so if your running windows 7 (shows you are on your sig) than you do have DX11

He does not have a DX11 gpu.

Oh, and here is my run.

criminal---- i7 875k @ 4.0GHz ---- GTX470 (790/1875) --- 42.55 fps-


----------



## kora04

I can't wait for next thursday to get my e8500 to test my 460 and overlock it!


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
I can't wait for next thursday to get my e8500 to test my 460 and overlock it!

U should do a before and after, dude.

Honestly Metro doesn't hit the CPU that hard ... esp. at these settings with a single GPU setup ...


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
U should do a before and after, dude.

Honestly Metro doesn't hit the CPU that hard ... esp. at these settings with a single GPU setup ...

its not the cpu and the game, its just the slow cpu that cant feed my 460, also, game crashes and wont run now, waiting on a new patch to fix it.


----------



## PyroTechNiK

Here is mine.


----------



## luke997

luke997 ---- i7 980X @ 4.8GHz ---- Tri-SLI GTX480 (910/1820) ---- 101.00 fps


----------



## routek

Sweet. I should be getting the game soon and didn't know about the benchmark tool. I applied for a free steam code a few days ago with EVGA.


----------



## NCspecV81

testing out a single 465GE on stock air right now.. Think I hit a limit on this benchmark with this cooling.


----------



## man from atlantis

anyway to run with non steam versions?


----------



## NCspecV81

Quote:


Originally Posted by *man from atlantis* 
anyway to run with non steam versions?

*edit* =o)


----------



## Polska

Well after the update Metro just keeps crashing on startup..... great update for me...


----------



## linkin93

Would it be possible to drop the resolution to 1280x1024 because some of us don't have widescreen monitors yet. This means we can still participate.

OR have scores being ranked into certain resolutions?

Such as 1280x1024 being low, 1680x1050 being medium and 1920x1080/1920x1200 being high?


----------



## NCspecV81

1280x1024 is too low.


----------



## linkin93

Why? It's all I have.

Stop being resolution-ist


----------



## NCspecV81

IMHO I think MSAA4x and DOF needs to be enabled.


----------



## Rangerscott

Well apparently steam released an update for Metro and now I'm one of the many plagued with it not wanting to run. Yea steam!


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NCspecV81* 
IMHO I think MSAA4x and DOF needs to be enabled.

AA will slaughter the FPS and its optimized like crap.


----------



## NCspecV81

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
AA will slaughter the FPS and its optimized like crap.

You can't play a benchmark.


----------



## emreonal69

Gigabyte GTX460 1GB OC (900/2150)@1,087v


----------



## rollinsoundzboy

Quote:


Originally Posted by *emreonal69* 
Gigabyte GTX460 1GB OC (900/2150)@1,087v










wow! average 23 fps unplayable with that card and overclocked.


----------



## emreonal69

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rollinsoundzboy* 
wow! average 23 fps unplayable with that card and overclocked.









unfortunately, this game has very bad optimization.So results are rather poor.


----------



## CallsignVega

CallsignVega ---- i7 920 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX480 (820/1640/2040) ---- 87.08 fps

Nice to know I'm only about 14% slower than a OC'd 980X+tri-480 system







Although my minimum FPS is a bit higher than Luke997's system for some reason? BTW my GPU's weren't maxed out for a large portion of that benchmark, so there is a lot of CPU limiting going on.


----------



## meetajhu

unoptimized bs. Same goes to stalker. Russian games are pathetic. Wait for Id's Rage it will teach every game dev how to develop a game at the same time look at its best.


----------



## fat_italian_stallion

here's mine running completely stock clocks on my sig rig. Everything maxed out including msaa and still decent fps. very happy ;-) will run an oc'd run tomo


----------



## CallsignVega

^ - used the wrong settings.


----------



## NCspecV81

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fat_italian_stallion*


here's mine running completely stock clocks on my sig rig. Everything maxed out including msaa and still decent fps. very happy ;-) will run an oc'd run tomo



that's only like 10fps higher than my single 470 score o.0


----------



## LiLChris

Can't run it with physx dedicated to my 9800gtx+ the screen turns black 5secs into the benchmark and keeps running. Even finishes and gives me a graph with FPS though its a black screen the whole time.

Ran it with physx on the 480 and it works fine.


----------



## ocaddikt

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rangerscott*


Well apparently steam released an update for Metro and now I'm one of the many plagued with it not wanting to run. Yea steam!


I have the same problem, cant play the game and the benchmark just stops responding. Anyone know how to fix this?

Edit: sorry I re read the first page, but if anyone figures out how to fix it before the update that would be great


----------



## dracotonisamond

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ocaddikt*


I have the same problem, cant play the game and the benchmark just stops responding. Anyone know how to fix this?


me too. the benchmark and the game crashes like a drunken old lady at 4am driving a motorhome.


----------



## fat_italian_stallion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NCspecV81*


that's only like 10fps higher than my single 470 score o.0


that's on all max settings, no way a 470 can do that


----------



## LethalRise750

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fat_italian_stallion*


that's on all max settings, no way a 470 can do that


I'm sure it can at 1GHz Core.


----------



## fat_italian_stallion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LethalRise750*


I'm sure it can at 1GHz Core.


over a single 480, not 3. Then again, they were only at 60% usage bc no cpu oc on that run. I would agree with a better score for 3 470s with an ocd cpu


----------



## NCspecV81

okay I fibbed slightly.. more like 12.5fps but I was on a stock phenom II and on stock cooling for the 470.


----------



## Slightly skewed

I'm not seeing any ATI participation here. Or maybe they just can't get it to run at all, like me. What's with these stupid benchmarks and the hoops.


----------



## fat_italian_stallion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *NCspecV81*


okay I fibbed slightly.. more like 12.5fps but I was on a stock phenom II and on stock cooling for the 470.











if that's the case then awesome. you always have sweet oc's and seem to always get the golden cards lol. i wish ppl would actually post the top of the benchmark where it says what settings were being run, not what was "chosen" beforehand


----------



## NCspecV81

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed*


I'm not seeing any ATI participation here. Or maybe they just can't get it to run at all, like me. What's with these stupid benchmarks and the hoops.


I think I am starting to see a trend. I know that someone I know can't run it now and he has an ATI card. But I also know someone who got it to run and he was on a 5870. Seems like a sketchy update.


----------



## dlee7283

anywhere just to download the benchmark tool itself?


----------



## kora04

possible fix update in op.

heres link for it.
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/81...033-crash.html


----------



## kora04

fix worked for me!!!

game starts!


----------



## ocaddikt

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
possible fix update in op.

heres link for it.
http://www.overclock.net/pc-games/81...033-crash.html

Worked for me! thanks!

Ocaddikt ---- 1055t x6 @4Ghz ---- GTX470 (730/1460) ---- 40.96 fps


----------



## Psykopathic

Benchmark with your settings


----------



## NCspecV81

what speeds? And why is your average lower than the average you had on run 0? I mean 1 run is fine, but shouldn't the averages be identical??????? o.0


----------



## Aytac

how many run i need for say stable oc :d i dont wanna run furmark


----------



## man from atlantis

Physx forced to Cpu 4ghz and 3ghz
also 
9800GT used for dedicated PhysX card..

12*10, Dx11, AAA, Very high


















12*10, Dx11, AAA, PhysX Off, Very high
GTX460 @930/1860/4600MHz


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Bal3Wolf ---- Q9550 @ 4.2GHz ---- Asus Hd 5870 944/1233 ---- 40.00 fps


----------



## Slightly skewed

Oh, I'm probably doing something wrong. Here are my results anyways.

Slightly skewed ---- i7 920 @ 3.7GHz ---- CF5870 1000/1320 ---- 55.25FPS










*And one from the blooper reel.*


----------



## un1b4ll

gotta try this when I get home!


----------



## Aytac

lowered my clocks now stable i think









zotac gtx 470 amp 840/1680/2050 1.087v on air
20x run 71c max


----------



## elementskater706

Wow. Nvidia detroys ATI in this game.....


----------



## kora04

OP updated with a few tweaks.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *elementskater706*


Wow. Nvidia detroys ATI in this game.....


please list your bench hardware, clocks, etc. because you can get in the top 5!


----------



## elementskater706

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


OP updated with a few tweaks.

please list your bench hardware, clocks, etc. because you can get in the top 5!


elementskater706 ---- i7 920 @ 4.1GHz ---- CFX 5870's (850/1200) ---- 55.50 FPS


----------



## Ghostleader

Ghostleader ---- i7 875k @ 4,6GHz ---- CF5870 (900/1250) ---- 60.26 FPS


----------



## elementskater706

From the looks of it, the game must be heavily influenced by cpu speed.


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *elementskater706*


From the looks of it, the game must be heavily influenced by cpu speed.


I would also say that there might be a bottleneck with having that many video cards and the cpu not being fast enough to keep them all fed.


----------



## mdbsat

[email protected](unlocked 470)700/1700---Fps 71.41


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mdbsat* 
[email protected](unlocked 470)700/1700---Avg of both runs 69.5









you're going in with run1

so 70fps.


----------



## DrBrownfinger

demanding game and bench is all i can say.

drbrownfinger--phenomII [email protected] 5770'[email protected]/1351--score 42.50


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *elementskater706* 
From the looks of it, the game must be heavily influenced by cpu speed.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
I would also say that there might be a bottleneck with having that many video cards and the cpu not being fast enough to keep them all fed.


Just for reference I didn't notice any FPS increase going from 3.7GHz to 4.2GHz. My GPU usage is a bit odd though. Any input here people? Yes, I know, my voltage is leet.


----------



## kora04

OP updated with new scores.

@ Slightly skewed, why funky GPU usage graph?


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
OP updated with new scores.

@ Slightly skewed, why funky GPU usage graph?


This is what I would like to know. It's over 4 runs on the benchmark and seem to be somewhat inline with the FPS graphs in the benchmark screen results others have been posting.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
This is what I would like to know. It's over 4 runs on the benchmark and seem to be somewhat inline with the FPS graphs in the benchmark screen results others have been posting.

Want to hear something that'll cheer you up?

I get 15 FPS on DX 11, 10, and 9 @ 1440x900!

3 more days for my e8500!

have you tried checking CPU usage while in the benchmark?

use this and make feel like I didn't waste 20 mins of my life lol
http://www.overclock.net/graphics-ca...l#post10583925


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
OP updated with a few tweaks.

please list your bench hardware, clocks, etc. because you can get in the top 5!


Kora, IMHO, rather than just a top 5, you should post everyone's score in the OP who conforms with the stated procedure and makes a 'score line' that you can copy/paste into it. Just organize them by FPS descending.

The most useful thing about a thread like this is as a resource for people wanting to see if their system is performing like it should ... if such a person has to dredge through pages and pages to find a system like their's (since most people's are not 'top 5' caliber), then they won't do it.


----------



## sugarmankie

mines 870/2060 mem gtx 470 stock cooler.........1055t @ 3.8 undervolted.


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
Just for reference I didn't notice any FPS increase going from 3.7GHz to 4.2GHz. My GPU usage is a bit odd though. Any input here people? Yes, I know, my voltage is leet.










Actually SS, if you look at my usage graphs here:

http://www.overclock.net/10591500-post9.html

They exhibit a similar phenomenon. It's like the cards have to 'warm up' in the beginning of the benchmark each time ... kinda strange.

And yeah ... at these settings, on this game ... 3.7 vs 4.2GHz on your rig ... that's not likely to make a difference in performance. Now, if you had tri-SLI 480's and an e7200 at 3.0GHz ... that'd be a different story


----------



## CallsignVega

There is no warming up of graphics cards. The dips you see in GPU utilization are high CPU stress parts of the benchmark where the CPU doesn't send enough information to the GPU(s) to max out. Happens all the time with my i7 @ 4.2Ghz with GX480-SLI.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
Want to hear something that'll cheer you up?

I get 15 FPS on DX 11, 10, and 9 @ 1440x900!

3 more days for my e8500!

have you tried checking CPU usage while in the benchmark?

use this and make feel like I didn't waste 20 mins of my life lol
http://www.overclock.net/graphics-ca...l#post10583925

20 minutes! Thanks! I did look into those threads again and re-downloaded PE. Much appreciated.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
Actually SS, if you look at my usage graphs here:

http://www.overclock.net/10591500-post9.html

They exhibit a similar phenomenon. *It's like the cards have to 'warm up' in the beginning of the benchmark each time ... kinda strange.*

And yeah ... at these settings, on this game ... 3.7 vs 4.2GHz on your rig ... that's not likely to make a difference in performance. Now, if you had tri-SLI 480's and an e7200 at 3.0GHz ... that'd be a different story
 








Well that's exactly what I said to myself when I first noticed it.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CallsignVega* 
There is no warming up of graphics cards. The dips you see in GPU utilization are high CPU stress parts of the benchmark where the CPU doesn't send enough information to the GPU(s) to max out. Happens all the time with my i7 @ 4.2Ghz with GX480-SLI.

Does anyone have a CPU usage graph to confirm this theory?


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CallsignVega* 
There is no warming up of graphics cards. The dips you see in GPU utilization are high CPU stress parts of the benchmark where the CPU doesn't send enough information to the GPU(s) to max out. Happens all the time with my i7 @ 4.2Ghz with GX480-SLI.

I know they aren't LITERALLY having to warm up, that's why I said it's 'like' that.

And as I'm constantly telling people around here, GPU Usage that's lower than full *may* be due to the CPU, but they do not *have* to be. Not by a long-shot. This phenomenon can be caused by many things.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed* 
Does anyone have a CPU usage graph to confirm this theory?

And ya also cannot positively confirm or deny a CPU bottleneck by looking at the CPU usage graphs in the Task Manager


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

It would really be awesome to have a DirectX10 list as well. I don't plan on upgrading for a few months yet to a DX11 card and there are quite a few of us that would love to participate I'm sure. At least think about it?


----------



## brettjv

Here's a couple screenies showing CPU usage along with AB graphs.

The problem with looking at the CPU graphs to determine a bottleneck is that the individual core-usage graphs are basically inaccurate. Although as you can see, the game appears to happily use 6 of the cores to a fairly significant degree, that unfortunately does not have to be true at all, because Windows is interjecting it's own thread management into the equation.

Note that when you switch over to the cumulative usage graphs, you can see that the total usage taps out at exactly 50% for at couple of very brief points.

This evidence unfortunately leaves one with two possible conclusions:

1) That this game is actually able to utilize up to half of my eight 'cores' (counting hyperthreading), hence the maxing out right at 50% of total CPU usage in the cumulative graph. Because the moment(s) at which this happens are so brief and infrequent, it implies that there should basically be next to no cpu-bottlenecking in this test on my rig, at the frequencies I'm running, at the settings I'm running this test at, OR,

2) This game actually could make use of > than 50% of my 'cores' if the load was high enough. In which case, the individual cpu core usage graphs actually are accurate, in which case in theory my total usage COULD go over 50%, it's just so happens to be maxing out at 50% on this test because of a GPU bottleneck at these settings. In which case, there's definitely not CPU-bottlenecking happening here on my rig.

My prior experience *suggests* to me that #1 is closer to the 'truth' of this situation. So I'm going to run another test here at a much lower resolution, and see if we can't push CPU usage up over 50% by dramatically increasing the framerate. Results to follow shortly.

Edit, okay, I've added two more shots to show usage at 1024x768 and 4xAF (trying to make the test easy on the GPU w/o changing relative CPU load).

Notice that our FPS is up considerably, but our GPU usage also fluctuates considerably more. Notice also that the individual CPU usage graph (shot 3) shows there's solid action on 6 cores, yet the overall usage graph (shot 4) very much stay's 'huddled' at 50%. Note also that the 'grouping' around 50% is much stronger than it was at the higher settings.

Also of interest is the fact that there are few brief moments where the usage does go over 50%, but it's hard to know whether this suggests that Metro is actually capable of using >4 of my cores (i.e. using the hyperthreading).

My guess is that it is NOT, that the bumps above 50% usage are actual just Windows doing something.

Thus, overall the evidence suggests to me that on *my* rig, there is only a *very tiny* bit of CPU bottlenecking happening at the settings chosen on this test.

However, it's entirely possible that someone who's rig isn't balanced in the way mine is (i.e. if they had a less powerful CPU + equal or more powerful gfx setup), that they *might* run into a CPU bottleneck that's actually somewhat significant on this test, at the chosen settings.

Oh, and the evidence very much also strongly suggests that this game can fully utilize up to four cores of one's CPU, but can't use the additional 'cores' added by hyperthreading. Thus, dual cores may well be at a disadvantage in this benchmark.

Thanks for reading, hope at least someone 'learned something' from these tests


----------



## routek

routek ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX460 768MB (880/1760/2200) ---- 60.39 FPS










Stock clock results on the little 460s


----------



## Ghostleader

Quote:



Originally Posted by *elementskater706*


From the looks of it, the game must be heavily influenced by cpu speed.


DonÂ´t think so, I did a quick test with the following setup

CPU speed 4,0, ram 2000C8, 5870 900/1250 Crossfire CCC 10.8, CAP 10.8a, Metro setup as OP, 2 runs, show second run below.

*Avg 58,02, HT on (4 cores/8 threads)
Avg 59,92, HT off (4 cores/4 threads)
Avg 57,36, HT on (2 cores/4 threads)
Avg 56,84, HT off (2 cores/2 threads)*

Compare that with cpu speed 4,6 and HT off (4 cores/4 threads), everything else the same

*Avg 60,26, HT off (4 cores/4 threads)*

Not much of a different, what did a gain going from 4,0 to 4,6, 0,34fps







, heavily influenced by cpu speed, na, donÂ´t think so but it did get my above 60fps







.

Another interesting thing is that I didnÂ´t got a load on any of my 5870 higher then 90%, have to wait and see if AMD can improve on that.

*@brettjv*

Very interesting reading, awesome dedication, much appreciated.

I did run a my i7 875k with only two cores (2 cores/2 threads) and Metro 2033 did put some pressure on it, the load most be ~80 - 90% average and tops out at 100% occasionally but I did only loose ~5 - 6% (~3fps) compare to four cores (4 cores/4 threads) at the same speed.

I did notice a more noticeable stuttering with 2 cores then with 4 cores specially after the second part when one have passed the "armored train".


----------



## nascasho

Wow, this would make sense why AMD users have nice clean graphs and mine along with other i7 users with HT on have the little jerky lines all over the place.

Rep+ for testing that out. Thanks.


----------



## brettjv

How 'influenced by CPU speed' this game (or any game for that matter) is determined by:
1) The inherent CPU-dependency of the particular game, and
2) The balance between your GPU power vs. your CPU power, and
3) The graphical difficulty of the test (resolution, settings, etc), which determines the FPS at which the test should run, which in turn determines how much work the CPU has to do in order to keep up.

In general, this test is pretty difficult, graphically, to run, and the expected FPS is not likely to be especially high. It should exhibit CPU bottlenecking only in cases where the GPU power is inordinately high compared to CPU power.


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *brettjv*


Kora, IMHO, rather than just a top 5, you should post everyone's score in the OP who conforms with the stated procedure and makes a 'score line' that you can copy/paste into it. Just organize them by FPS descending.

The most useful thing about a thread like this is as a resource for people wanting to see if their system is performing like it should ... if such a person has to dredge through pages and pages to find a system like their's (since most people's are not 'top 5' caliber), then they won't do it.



I hate how you're always right!


----------



## brettjv

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


I hate how you're always right!











Considering I started programming on the TRS-80 back in 1979 ... I'd hope I know a lot about computers by now


----------



## kora04

OP updated with new scores.


----------



## routek

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kora04* 
OP updated with new scores.

Can you add mine please?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *routek* 
routek ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---- SLI GTX460 768MB (880/1760/2200) ---- 60.39 FPS










Stock clock results on the little 460s


----------



## kora04

Quote:


Originally Posted by *routek* 
Can you add mine please?

You got it!

I added it the 1st time but ran into a problem and had to reedit the OP twice so thats why it wasn't there!.


----------



## NitrousX

This game sure hates my 5870...


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NitrousX* 
This game sure hates my 5870...

Or vice-versa ...

I believe it's primarily the AA in this game that makes it tough on Cypress. On 'High' settings, which is w/o AA by default, ATI is way more competitive.


----------



## brettjv

I wish I understood what the black lines on the graph are supposed to represent. It seems the benchmark uses these lines to determine min and max, so I'm assuming they are supposed to 'mean something' ... but I really dunno what ... anybody know?


----------



## knoxy_14

is there only the frontline level for a bench?


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
I know they aren't LITERALLY having to warm up, that's why I said it's 'like' that.

And as I'm constantly telling people around here, GPU Usage that's lower than full *may* be due to the CPU, but they do not *have* to be. Not by a long-shot. This phenomenon can be caused by many things.

And ya also cannot positively confirm or deny a CPU bottleneck by looking at the CPU usage graphs in the Task Manager









A GPU will _always_ try and go to 100% and pump out max FPS unless something external is influencing it. Some examples would be:

CPU limit not sending enough data to the GPU's
V-Sync
GPU throttling due to heat
Game built in FPS limiter

(under CPU limitation you can fit HD and memory access, bus speed limits, etc)

Since my 480-SLI system with i7 @ 4.2 Ghz has troughs in it's GPU usage during the benchmark and I don't exhibit the last three examples, at that point I am CPU limited.

A perfect example is if run the Benchmark at 1680x1050, my GPU utilization trough's significantly in spots, sometimes as low as 50%. CPU limit here. At 2560x1600 with 4x AA, the GPU's stay virtually maxed the whole time. GPU limit there.


----------



## NitrousX

Quote:


Originally Posted by *knoxy_14* 
is there only the frontline level for a bench?

Yeppers.


----------



## Defoler

Defoler ---- i7-980x @ 4.5 ---- Tril-Sli 470s (818/1800/1636) ---- 95.77 FPS


----------



## brettjv

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CallsignVega* 
A GPU will _always_ try and go to 100% and pump out max FPS unless something external is influencing it. Some examples would be:

CPU limit not sending enough data to the GPU's
V-Sync
GPU throttling due to heat
Game built in FPS limiter

(under CPU limitation you can fit HD and memory access, bus speed limits, etc)

Since my 480-SLI system with i7 @ 4.2 Ghz has troughs in it's GPU usage during the benchmark and I don't exhibit the last three examples, at that point I am CPU limited.

A perfect example is if run the Benchmark at 1680x1050, my GPU utilization trough's significantly in spots, sometimes as low as 50%. CPU limit here. At 2560x1600 with 4x AA, the GPU's stay virtually maxed the whole time. GPU limit there.

I can't believe that you feel it's necessary to tell ME these things, based on my posts on this thread alone ... but be that as it may ... I agree with what you've said ... but only about 90% of it.

Where I disagree is that your 'list of potential causes' is incomplete, and therefore reaching the *positive* conclusion that you've ruled out all else aside from CPU bottlenecking is, shall we say, fallacious.

Predominately what you've failed to account for is the potential for bottlenecks IN THE CARD ITSELF. When you look at your 'gpu usage', it is a measurement taken from one specific part of the GPU core. This means that any component of the card that is external to that measurement point also constitutes an area of potential bottleneck. This list includes, but is not limited to:

1) Lack of raster back-end power, or
2) Lack of physical vram, or
3) Lack of memory bandwidth, or
4) Lack of texture fillrate, or
5) Lack of pixel fillrate, or
6) Lack of geometry power

Here are some another potential causes for the general problem of low gpu usage:

There can be inefficiencies in the GPU's system of thread dispatching that cause various execution units in the GPU core to sit IDLE when they could be WORKING. As an aside, this matter is of particular concern with the GTX460, due to the way it relies on a superscalar architecture (the ability to predict which threads are parallel-safe, like a CPU does) to keep enough threads in flight to occupy the execution units.

There is also the possibility that the way a game engine is programmed, either by design (such as with Fallout 3, where game areas load dynamically as you move around), and/or due to unintended inefficiencies, either or both of which could cause GPU usage to be less than 99% at some, or even most times, on cards that are not well-balanced architecturally with the demands of the engine.

To illustrate, you know how for years we've observed that such and such a game or engine 'favors nvidia'? I'd be willing to bet that if you study the gpu usage in the titles where this is legitimately true, you'd discover that nVidia cards generally exhibit consistently higher GPU usage on these games/engines than ATI cards do ... and that this phenomenon would be mostly independent from the CPU used.

And lastly ... the way the drivers are programmed can of course impact GPU usage. For an easy example, consider a new game that comes out and does not exhibit especially good SLI scaling. Chances are very good that on such a game, along with the lacking SLI scaling, you'd discover that the GPU usage also isn't consistently high. However, months later, a new driver comes out, and SLI scaling has suddenly improved and gpu usage goes up ... yet it happens w/o your ever increasing your CPU speed!

So, like I say, the logic that because you've ruled out the 3 other things on your list, it leaves you with nothing but a CPU bottleneck as a possibility, is flawed ... because your list of 4 possible causes ... is too short. And I should also point out that cpu-bottlenecking is not mutually exclusive with any of the other causes I've listed above.

Lastly, I'm not saying you are necessarily WRONG in your assessment that lower GPU usage on this bench is being caused by CPU-bottlenecking (on the contrary, I agree it's *likely* to be correct), I'm just saying that the way you arrived at your *positive* conclusion was logically flawed


----------



## CallsignVega

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
I can't believe that you feel it's necessary to tell ME these things, based on my posts on this thread alone ... but be that as it may ... I agree with what you've said ... but only about 90% of it.

Where I disagree is that your 'list of potential causes' is incomplete, and therefore reaching the *positive* conclusion that you've ruled out all else aside from CPU bottlenecking is, shall we say, fallacious.

Predominately what you've failed to account for is the potential for bottlenecks IN THE CARD ITSELF. When you look at your 'gpu usage', it is a measurement taken from one specific part of the GPU core. This means that any component of the card that is external to that measurement point also constitutes an area of potential bottleneck. This list includes, but is not limited to:

1) Lack of raster back-end power, or
2) Lack of physical vram, or
3) Lack of memory bandwidth, or
4) Lack of texture fillrate, or
5) Lack of pixel fillrate, or
6) Lack of geometry power

Here are some another potential causes for the general problem of low gpu usage:

There can be inefficiencies in the GPU's system of thread dispatching that cause various execution units in the GPU core to sit IDLE when they could be WORKING. As an aside, this matter is of particular concern with the GTX460, due to the way it relies on a superscalar architecture (the ability to predict which threads are parallel-safe, like a CPU does) to keep enough threads in flight to occupy the execution units.

There is also the possibility that the way a game engine is programmed, either by design (such as with Fallout 3, where game areas load dynamically as you move around), and/or due to unintended inefficiencies, either or both of which could cause GPU usage to be less than 99% at some, or even most times, on cards that are not well-balanced architecturally with the demands of the engine.

To illustrate, you know how for years we've observed that such and such a game or engine 'favors nvidia'? I'd be willing to bet that if you study the gpu usage in the titles where this is legitimately true, you'd discover that nVidia cards generally exhibit consistently higher GPU usage on these games/engines than ATI cards do ... and that this phenomenon would be mostly independent from the CPU used.

And lastly ... the way the drivers are programmed can of course impact GPU usage. For an easy example, consider a new game that comes out and does not exhibit especially good SLI scaling. Chances are very good that on such a game, along with the lacking SLI scaling, you'd discover that the GPU usage also isn't consistently high. However, months later, a new driver comes out, and SLI scaling has suddenly improved and gpu usage goes up ... yet it happens w/o your ever increasing your CPU speed!

So, like I say, the logic that because you've ruled out the 3 other things on your list, it leaves you with nothing but a CPU bottleneck as a possibility, is flawed ... because your list of 4 possible causes ... is too short. And I should also point out that cpu-bottlenecking is not mutually exclusive with any of the other causes I've listed above.

Lastly, I'm not saying you are necessarily WRONG in your assessment that lower GPU usage on this bench is being caused by CPU-bottlenecking (on the contrary, I agree it's *likely* to be correct), I'm just saying that the way you arrived at your *positive* conclusion was logically flawed









I was speaking in general terms in a big picture sense as my post was very brief. I do understand that there can be inefficiency within the card itself, or driver bug's/issues or SLI not taken fully advantage of.

I was going to add in SLI useage/overhead but I left it out as this thread isn't just about SLI. A lot of these internal problems that you mention have been issues in the past, but the technology has matured that it isn't as much of a factor anymore. But that doesn't mean the issues you state have completely disappeared.

I can take any game on my computer from Metro2033 to Starcraft 2 to Eve Online to Bad Company 2, turn the resolution to max with AA and my two SLI-480's will always max at 100%. If I turn all of them to super low resolution with no AA, GPU usage will drop significantly and every single one of them will be CPU limited. I can then lower my CPU overclock and see a commensurate drop in FPS.

While true that internal video card limitations, driver, SLI usage/overhead can cause FPS cap's while CPU isn't maxed, it is much less of a problem with todays mature card's and systems. I just brought this topic up because clearly with my test of the Metro2033 benchmark I was CPU limited at this test resolution. I think we can both agree on that.


----------



## brettjv

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*


I can take any game on my computer from Metro2033 to Starcraft 2 to Eve Online to Bad Company 2, turn the resolution to max with AA and my two SLI-480's will always max at 100%. If I turn all of them to super low resolution with no AA, GPU usage will drop significantly and every single one of them will be CPU limited.* I can then lower my CPU overclock and see a commensurate drop in FPS.*


See, once you do that last part ... then I'm much more onboard with the positive conclusion of CPU-bottleneck ... in fact, even if you *only* did that last part, I'm onboard ... because I think that's the more 'proof-positive' test









However, I've done the same test procedure as you describe on a few problematic games. I've seen the GPU usage go up with increasing resolution, and yet at the same time, confirmed that the last test actually fails (changing CPU clocks doesn't change the FPS in a commensurate manner).

A couple of tests that come to mind that fit this criteria are the Just Cause 2 'Dark Tower' benchmark, and by using FRAPS to log framerates, I can see this if I putter about in the lobby of the Skadovsk or Yanov Station in Stalker Call of Pripyat.

In both these test cases, GPU usage is nowhere near 99%, and raising the resolution does raise my GPU usage slightly, BUT raising my cpu clock speed (it's better to raise and look for a gain than it is to lower and look for a loss, imho) doesn't raise my GPU usage or my fps to any significant degree.

Therefore I know that cpu-bottleneck is not the *only* possible explanation for the phenomena you described in your initial post, and hence why I feel that the "cpu clock-speed to fps corellation test" is also very much required









Quote:



Originally Posted by *CallsignVega*


I just brought this topic up because clearly with my test of the Metro2033 benchmark I was CPU limited at this test resolution. I think we can both agree on that.


Yeah, I've had SLI 480's, and I saw evidence of cpu-bottlenecks on a pretty regular basis. I can also confirm through my own tests (which you can see upthread) that I also am teetering exactly on the brink of introducing CPU BN's on this test at these settings myself, so it would logically follow that if you're running the same platform/proc/clocks combo as me, with your (I'm guessing OC'd) 480's, you are into that realm, at least on a measurable % of frames, in this benchmark.

I still think it's a good balance of settings though for the average system around OCN.


----------



## roberts91

I don't have nothing special for a computer but I decided to do it anyways and was surprised at the results. Anyways

Roberts91 ---- i7 920 @ 4.0Ghz ---- Crossfire 5850(775Mhz/1125Mhz) ---- 51.00 FPS


----------



## Frosty88

Kind of disappointing...

Frosty88 ---- AMD Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.8 GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 (Unlocked) (850/1700/1850) ---- 64.20 FPS


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Frosty88*


Kind of disappointing...

Frosty88 ---- AMD Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.8 GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 (Unlocked) (850/1850/1700) ---- 64.20 FPS











I guess the i7 really does help out here. You have a much larger OC on your cards than I do but our CPUs are clocked the same.

Either way playing this game at 60+fps is not bad at all. I justy saw the name of your computer Frosty. I could not help but laugh


----------



## kora04

Updated with new res and scores.
1280x1024 is for us with no 1680x1050 monitors.

new res will be leaderboard-less.


----------



## kora04

My whopping score with new res!


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:


Originally Posted by *brettjv* 
l33T snip/.

I really do appreciate your long winded seminars. I always walk away just a little bit more infomred.

But I do have one question. Comparing all of the thread usages in WTM vs a single, reduced WTM CPU usage graph.. How is that compiled? Is the highest usage per thread at a given time plotted on the single graph?


----------



## Johnny Rook

Here are my rig's results:

*Johnny Rook---- Core i7-920 @ 4.41Ghz ---- ATI HD5970 2GB (1000Mhz/1300Mhz) ---- 65.58 FPS*










As many of you, I've been benching this tool intensively in the last days.

One thing I've realized is that in the ATI setups like mine, and as far as the CPU influence role in bench scores is concerned, the CPU doesn't have as much importance in ATI setups as it has in the nVIDIA setups. For example, here, the bench score difference between having my i7-920 @ 4200Mhz and @ 4515Mhz is of 2 FPS only! This is barely measurable.
I wonder how many of you are experiencing same effect...

IMHO, it confirms that nVIDIA cards are more CPU dependent than ATI cards are.

Just my 2 cents.

*Johnny*


----------



## steelbom

^ I've got a feeling I might have some trouble maxing Metro 2033 with a 5870 @ 2560x1440, LOL. Although, I'd turn off AA all together so maybe not.


----------



## DimmyK

DimmyK ---- I7-930 @ 3.8 GHz ---- EVGA GTX 460 SLI (850/1700/4000) ---- 60.62 FPS


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Johnny Rook*


Here are my rig's results:

*Johnny*


 We'll I'm just left wondering how the 5970 is performing better then CF5870's?

A single 5870 is averageing 40FPS, while CF5870's are between 55-60FPS, and then you show up with 65FPS. Scaling seems to be terrible for ATI here, maybe that's why?


----------



## Frosty88

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mdbsat*


I guess the i7 really does help out here. You have a much larger OC on your cards than I do but our CPUs are clocked the same.

Either way playing this game at 60+fps is not bad at all. I justy saw the name of your computer Frosty. I could not help but laugh










It's just annoying to spend so much on GPUs that are limited to performance of a single GPU (at times). Either way, I have a i7 920 coming this week. Hopefully I'll see a big improvement.









I'm glad you like my sig-rig name. I mean, it's true, isn't it?


----------



## Johnny Rook

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Slightly skewed*


We'll I'm just left wondering how the 5970 is performing better then CF5870's?

A single 5870 is averageing 40FPS, while CF5870's are between 55-60FPS, and then you show up with 65FPS. Scaling seems to be terrible for ATI here, maybe that's why?


Well, I don't know if it is the scaling... HD5970 is 2x 5870's GPUs Crossfired in a single PCB but clocked with 5850's frequencies for power-saving at stock speeds. 
And both HD5970's GPUs scales up to 90% in Metro 2033 bench, a few 6 seconds though. For most benching time it reports 70-80% in both GPUs. Far from the perfect 99% like in other games, I give you that!

Maybe are the drivers? I'm using latest 10.8b Catalyst Profiles too.

*Johnny*


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frosty88* 
It's just annoying to spend so much on GPUs that are limited to performance of a single GPU (at times). Either way, I have a i7 920 coming this week. Hopefully I'll see a big improvement.









I'm glad you like my sig-rig name. I mean, it's true, isn't it?









It could NOT be anymore true









You will LOVE the i7


----------



## Johnny Rook

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mdbsat* 
It could NOT be anymore true









You will LOVE the i7









Yeah! The Core i7 will be a major upgrade to Frosty88's nVIDIA setup. More than it would be if it was an ATI rig, I must add.
Frosty will be delighted with his new acquisition, for sure.

*EDIT*
Hope his new board is good to deal with the i7 overclocking power!

*Johnny*


----------



## Frosty88

OP, I made a mistake in my original post. I accidentally listed the clocks as core/mem/shader, instead of core/shader/mem. You can just copy and paste what I have below. Thanks!

Frosty88 ---- AMD Phenom II x4 955 @ 3.8 GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 (Unlocked) (850/1700/1850) ---- 64.20 FPS

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Johnny Rook* 
Yeah! The Core i7 will be a major upgrade to Frosty88's nVIDIA setup. More than it would be if it was an ATI rig, I must add.
Frosty will be delighted with his new acquisition, for sure.

*EDIT*
Hope his new board is good to deal with the i7 overclocking power!

*Johnny*

I really hope I see an improvement and it's not something else in my system. I purchased an Asrock X58 Extreme 3 today so hopefully I'll get my CPU to ~4.2 GHz and let my GTX 465's stretch their legs.


----------



## kora04

Updated!


----------



## Johnny Rook

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Frosty88*


I really hope I see an improvement and it's not something else in my system. I purchased an Asrock X58 Extreme 3 today so hopefully I'll get my CPU to ~4.2 GHz and let my GTX 465's stretch their legs.










I remember from the good old nForce 2 chipset times, Asrock being one of the best board designers in the market. Then, with x64 architecture, they kinda disappeared from the scene; not that they were bad but, because other brands arrived to take over the spot-lights. Now, they are coming back to life, so to speak and I have read pretty good reviews on their X58 Extreme 3. The BIOS seams to be quite complete as far as overclockers are concerned, namely in the OC Tweaker page. Also, I remember to see an i7 920 C0 @4000Mhz w/ vcore 1,488V on the Extreme 3, which was the same the Gigabyte EX58-UD5 I had before, managed to do with the C0 @ 4Ghz. I just couldn't find a picture of the board without the CPU Phases heatsink to count how much they were but, at front, it has 8 phases and I assume underneath the heatsink it has a few more, maybe another 8 Phases? Well, if it has the 16 Phases, that's is pretty decent for overclocking!

Good luck to your OC adventures!









*Johnny*


----------



## kora04

I've been noticing this "warm up" thing that brett was talking about with my 460 in crysis benchmark. 1st run would get me 50-80% GPU usage and 30 avg fps, 2nd run and after would get me 90-99% gpu usage and 35 avg fps.

very strange. (with both 258.96 and 260.61 beta)


----------



## CallsignVega

The 2nd run already has everything loaded into memory, hence the faster speed.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Hence why a 5 run average is reccommended. i've notice this too on many benchmarks. And even in game. After a while the game runs smoother.


----------



## Ghostleader

HereÂ´s a new score for me, I couldnÂ´t get over 70fps no matter what







but it should take me to the top of the red ones









*Ghostleader ---- i7 875k @ 4.2GHz ---- CFX HD 5870 (1075/1250) ---- 69.20 FPS*


----------



## kora04

the date is up!


----------



## Johnny Rook

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ghostleader*


HereÂ´s a new score for me, I couldnÂ´t get over 70fps no matter what







but it should take me to the top of the red ones :


It's a shame you missed 70FPS by a few decimals only. Nicely done, though. Best "ATI" score, so far.









Can't you give a bit more speed to the HD5870s? Maybe @ 1100Mhz you can get the 70FPS you seek so bad...

*Johnny*


----------



## Ghostleader

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Johnny Rook* 
It's a shame you missed 70FPS by a few decimals only. Nicely done, though. Best "ATI" score, so far.









Can't you give a bit more speed to the HD5870s? Maybe @ 1100Mhz you can get the 70FPS you seek so bad...

*Johnny*

Thanks







, yes itÂ´s a shame that I canÂ´t break 70, I have tried do clock them higher but they canÂ´t pass then, IÂ´ve to wait for a better driver that work better with Metro.

It can take a while, if you remember how long time it took for them to get a good driver for Crysis.


----------



## Frosty88

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ghostleader* 
Thanks







, yes itÂ´s a shame that I canÂ´t break 70, I have tried do clock them higher but they canÂ´t pass then, IÂ´ve to wait for a better driver that work better with Metro.

It can take a while, if you remember how long time it took for them to get a good driver for Crysis.


Did you try 1075/1300? I'd be surprised if you can't make it through a run with those clocks. My 5850 could do that.


----------



## Frosty88

Finally got the new system up and running. Here are my results (clearly my Phenom was holding me back):

*Frosty88 ---- i7 920 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 Unlocked (861/1722/1876) ---- 83.07 FPS*


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frosty88* 
Finally got the new system up and running. Here are my results (clearly my Phenom was holding me back):

*Frosty88 ---- i7 920 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 Unlocked (861/1722/1876) ---- 83.07 FPS*










Awesome


----------



## kroniqles

kroniqles ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHz ---GTX 480 SC (950/2100/1900) ---- 56.50FPS


----------



## Mygaffer

This is probably old news, but if uninstall Physx and install the latest version the crash on launch goes away...


----------



## thx1138

Sorry if this has been covered already but is there anyway this benchmark is open to the public who have not purchased the game kind of like how crysis benchmark was. I tried searching google and ended up with a bunch of shady sites. I'd really like to try out the benchmark to see how good the graphics are since everyone says it's way better than crysis. Thanks.


----------



## Slightly skewed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ghostleader*


HereÂ´s a new score for me, I couldnÂ´t get over 70fps no matter what







but it should take me to the top of the red ones










*Ghostleader ---- i7 875k @ 4.2GHz ---- CFX HD 5870 (1075/1250) ---- 69.20 FPS*



















How did you manage this? What CAT are you using?


----------



## Draygonn

Draygonn ---- i7 950 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX480 (885/1900) ---- 89.96 fps


----------



## kora04

been a while.

updated!


----------



## Raedwulf

Average FPS - 55

1680x1050 in very high, AAA, 16xAF, no DOF 2 runs just as I was told.

i7 950 @ 3.68ghz
SLI gtx 465 @ 700/1400/1660


----------



## TheBear

TheBear - Phenom II 955 @ 3.6Ghz - HD 6870 @ 1000/1175Mhz - 42.86FPS


----------



## microterf

Microterf ---- 980X @ 4.1GHZ ---- 3 GTX 580s (All stock) ---- 89.1 FPS


----------



## logan666

whats the go with ur fps mate?? old mate up a few posts got the same as u with 2 480s u have 3 580s ???


----------



## microterf

Quote:


Originally Posted by *logan666* 
whats the go with ur fps mate?? old mate up a few posts got the same as u with 2 480s u have 3 580s ???

I'm assuming that's gotta be just because of the OCing of the 480s, I haven't overclocked mine at all. yet...


----------



## alienguts

hmm...

first time I got like 35 - then I realized CrossFireX was disabled....

much happier with this result. I think its pretty good considering my system cost.

edit:managed to improve score with drivers


----------



## travva

add me to the list! sorry for bumping thread but i just bought this game and ran the benches to see how it did.

travva ---- i7 930 @ 4.0GHZ ---- GTX 580's in SLI (850/2004/1700) ---- 96.00 FPS


----------



## kora04

Can you add your system?

I can't add something that's not there.


----------



## travva

ninja'd


----------



## kora04

Gotcha in there.


----------



## octiny

UPDATED!

Single 5850 @ 990/1300









OCTINY ---- 1055T @ 4.1GHZ ---- 5850 (990/1300) ---- 49.18 FPS


----------



## CjGemini

Im kinda disappointed in my score









CjGemini ---- [email protected] ---- GTX580's SLi (850/2004/1700) ---- 76.97FPS


----------



## CjGemini

oopppss Forgot to turn on HyperThreading

NEW SCORE

CjGemini ---- [email protected] ---- GTX580's SLi (850/2004/1700) ---- 87.20FPS


----------



## born2bwild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienguts;11332274*
> hmm...
> 
> first time I got like 35 - then I realized CrossFireX was disabled....
> 
> much happier with this result. I think its pretty good considering my system cost.
> 
> edit:managed to improve score with drivers


Hmn.... I got the 6870 crossfire and I'm getting much lower FPS.
What are your core and memory clock speeds?
And what catalyst and drivers are you using?


----------



## DigitalRaypist

is this good enough for second place?
i7 980x @ 4.1ghz
gtx 480 tri sli @ 890mhz @ 2000mhz @ 1.113 volts


----------



## DigitalRaypist

ok cranked up my cpu some more to a nice new stable 4.6ghz same clcoks on the gfx cards landed 98.85 on the second run. im happy with this back to playing the game.


----------



## Defoler

Defoler ---- [email protected] ---- Tri-Sli 580 (900/2004/1800) ---- 111.87 FPS


----------



## B!0HaZard

B!0HaZard --- E8200 @ 3.8 GHz --- HD 5850 1000/1225 --- 39.12 FPS

http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/6492/54639495.png

First dual to join the leaderboards!
Surprised that I'm doing this good vs. the quads even though I knew it was a GPU heavy game.

BTW does anyone know how to fix the graphs? I'd love to know where my FPS dips.
And please note that OCTINY has updated his score, he's got an awesome framerate.

UPDATE:

B!0HaZard ---- E8200 @ 3.8 GHz ---- HD 5850 1000/1225 ---- 41.31 FPS

Driver update gave me a nice 2 FPS boost


----------



## mlambert890

mlambert890 - i7 980x @ 3.9Ghz - GTX580 Tri-SLI 825/2050 - 74.50fps

Not sure why this score is so bad... going to have to poke around a bit.


----------



## mlambert890

Played with some settings... a bit better... second run came in at 82.21. Still crappy though.


----------



## mlambert890

Pushed it to 850 (overvolting) and got above 83. Got a nice G510/G13 setup now (I should have jumped on those ages ago) so I am sitting watching the stats on the CPU and GPUs... Ridiculous that the GPUs never really work that hard, they max in the bench at 70% or so, and the CPU is totally asleep (like 30% util). CPU clock stays pegged at 3.9Ghz, GPUs stay at 850Mhz and never drop. Fans on the GPU stay at around 75%. Temps on the CPU stay at like 40C and on the GPUs go to about 69C.

How the scores arent coming out higher is beyond me. I think this driver rev for the 580s is crap.


----------



## mekaw

Mekaw ---- Phenom II x4 955 @ 4.0 GHz ---- SLI GTX 460 Hawk (910/1820/2000) ---- 59.70 FPS


----------



## mlambert890

As I suspected... drivers currently suck. switched to the modded quadro driver and without doing anything else broke 90... attached...


----------



## Defoler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mlambert890;11813911*
> As I suspected... drivers currently suck. switched to the modded quadro driver and without doing anything else broke 90... attached...


Yeah the official drivers aren't very good.
The 265.90 is great, but is a bit unstable at high OCing under certain benchmarks.

Should wait for next week. I hope the new drivers come.


----------



## sarien

I will post my benchmarks on Sunday...looking forward to do it.


----------



## tconroy135

Isn't the resolution a little low for this test, I mean people with tri-sli are gettin screwed, when they should be set apart from others.

Also yeah, I'm waiting for my 980x and new Nvidia drivers before I run this haha!


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tconroy135;11815819*
> Isn't the resolution a little low for this test, I mean people with tri-sli are gettin screwed, when they should be set apart from others.


Far from all people (even on OCN) have monitors that support 1920x1080. This is IMO the best choice.


----------



## tconroy135

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;11815841*
> Far from all people (even on OCN) have monitors that support 1920x1080. This is IMO the best choice.


Yeah, I actually thought this was in the Nvidia section when I posted, I guess a lot of people are just using the 580 and got me confused.


----------



## tbs03

nice.


----------



## =Tac=

1090t @ 3.8ghz 2.75 nb and 580 at 910/1830/2250.


----------



## Defoler

By the way, you can remove me from 5th place


----------



## mekaw

oops switched shader and memory

fixed
core/memory/shader
Mekaw ---- Phenom II x4 955 @ 4.0 GHz ---- SLI GTX 460 Hawk (910/2000/1820) ---- 59.70 FPS


----------



## bfgDennis

Here is my result my cards are completely stock



http://imageshack.us


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Defoler*


By the way, you can remove me from 5th place










LOL!

You're completely destroying the competition with both a 1st and a 5th place


----------



## [email protected]

I bet most of the benchmarkers use no AA to get better fps.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *[email protected]*


I bet most of the benchmarkers use no AA to get better fps.


Wait, wut? You have to use DX11 and AAA according to the leaderboard rules. And you can't even disable AAA in DX11.


----------



## Defoler

Quote:



Originally Posted by *[email protected]*


I bet most of the benchmarkers use no AA to get better fps.


You do realized that the screen shot shows what options you selected, including AAA or no AA?
Its pretty easy to spot.


----------



## mlambert890

New overclocks, new drivers, new high! Woot! getting closer to expected perf levels...


----------



## Darkcyde

Sig rig

CCC 10.12

GPUs @ stock speeds


----------



## NitrousX

Here is my updated score with crossfire'd 5870's.


----------



## Eddie666

here my result, with 1055t @ default and gtx 580 @ default too:


----------



## kora04

Updated. Phew...

Took sometime.

About the resolution. 1680x1050 seemed like the best resolution because it's right in the middle.

Plus, a little too late now.


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Min. is terrible.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~sizzzle~;11898870*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Min. is terrible.


Time for a driver update, don't ya think?


----------



## ~sizzzle~

Well ok, I just updated. Up a little but not much. I've actually been a little scared to update and took a "it isn't broke so don't fix it" approach with keeping 10.3. No problems so far. Ran 3 benches before and after (metro,crysis,vantage) and they are all up a tiny bit. No crashes yet.


















Min. is still terrible.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Min is supposed to be terrible. Just check the GTX 580 guys' scores.

But I'll definitely recommend keeping 10.12. Has been as good as 10.4 for me and those 2 FPS in Metro are a 5% FPS increase. That's IMO a good increase considering that it's just a driver update.


----------



## blackbalt89

Add me to the list too plox. If you can.










I need to overclock this bish more.

Currently running a EVGA GTX 570 non sc version overclocked to the SC clocks.


----------



## captain_clayman

my computer says "program stopped working" every time i try and run the benchmark.


----------



## Johnny Guitar




----------



## grunion

^^ That can't be 580 sli.


----------



## kora04

Not be the killjoy here, but can you guys use this
*
USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS*

It's a pain to enter all of these scores manually...


----------



## mdbsat

Well I thought I would run this again with my CPU and GPU OC'd a touch more for kicks. I got a nice little bump. Thanks for keeping the thread going kora:thumb:

[email protected](unlocked) 800/1600/1700---76.04fps.


----------



## kora04

Thanks and updated since I'm bored.


----------



## Faster/Denis

Faster/Denis ---- [email protected] ---- GTX 580 3-way SLI (950/2150/1900) ---- 119.47 FPS


----------



## m1tch

M1tch ---- X4 465 BE @ 3.4GHz (stock) ---- 450 GTS (stock) ---- 49.55 fps


----------



## kora04

m1tch, we have a bit of conflict there...


----------



## m1tch

What have I done wrong now? lol Sorry, im new to benchmarking etc


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *m1tch;11950926*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have I done wrong now? lol Sorry, im new to benchmarking etc


I can't see what the FPS is, because the shot is too small to see.

And a 450 can't get 49 FPS at those settings.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


I can't see what the FPS is, because the shot is too small to see.

And a 450 can't get 49 FPS at those settings.


His average is 19.22 FPS. You really can't see that? I mean, it's a low res, but it's still easy to read. He wrote his max framerate instead of the average :/

I resized his pic, might be easier for you to read:









BTW worst result so far


----------



## m1tch

Ah lol that puts me in my place


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


His average is 19.22 FPS. You really can't see that? I mean, it's a low res, but it's still easy to read. He wrote his max framerate instead of the average :/



Jeez, alright Mr. Seriouspants....


----------



## born2bwild

Born2bwild ---- i7 950 @ 4.2GHz ---- CFX Radeon 6870's @ 950/1150 ---- 66.22 fps










I finally solved my low FPS problem.... for some reason crossfire was not working for the game and so I only got ~35 FPS.


----------



## Yoko Littner

Here is my 6870 crossfireX result's.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Johnny Guitar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;11913503*
> ^^ That can't be 580 sli.


stock speeds too


----------



## kora04

Yoko, can you show the 2nd run and do score form?


----------



## Yoko Littner

score form?


----------



## Johnny Guitar

why am I not in the first post BTW?


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11955863*
> score form?


I don't know what to call it. lol.

this thing

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Johnny Guitar;11955872*
> why am I not in the first post BTW?


I might have missed it. Let me look for it.


----------



## kora04

Ohh, this is why.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;11920972*
> Not be the killjoy here, but can you guys use this
> *
> USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS*
> 
> It's a pain to enter all of these scores manually...


----------



## Yoko Littner

try this,



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackbalt89;11906793*
> Add me to the list too plox. If you can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to overclock this bish more.
> 
> Currently running a EVGA GTX 570 non sc version overclocked to the SC clocks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;11920972*
> Not be the killjoy here, but can you guys use this
> *
> USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS*
> 
> It's a pain to enter all of these scores manually...


Since I may have not done this properly and been forgotten here is my amended post.

*Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 3207mhz ---- EVGA GTX 570 (797/1594/1950) ---- 48.50 FPS*

Good enough to get on board now?


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yoko Littner;11955992*
> try this,
> 
> 
> 
> Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## Johnny Guitar

*Johnny Guitar ---- Intel 980x @ 3.33Ghz ---- SLi GTX 580 (772/1544/2004) ---- 59.08 FPS*

stock speeds lol


----------



## Johnny Guitar

I think something messed up my SLi

EDIT: taking off surround and retrying


----------



## Johnny Guitar

success took surround off and got that









Johnny Guitar ---- Intel 980x @ 3.33Ghz ---- SLi GTX 580 (772/1544/2004) ---- 86.92 FPS


----------



## Faster/Denis

I made this video in 1920x1080 to show the difference in performance for 1680x1050.....









[ame="[URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKpPwnlZHc&hd=1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKpPwnlZHc&hd=1"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVKpPwnlZHc&hd=1[/ame[/URL]]


----------



## born2bwild

Pushed my PC a bit further, so here is the improved FPS;

Born2bwild ---- i7 950 @ 4.2GHz ---- 2 Radeon 6870s CF @ 990/1110 ---- 68.31 fps


----------



## tsm106

Edited to change the theme from high contrast to something easier to read.

*tsm106 ---- i7 920 @ 4.0Ghz ---- CFX 6950 (950/1450/1536) ---- 80.02 FPS*


----------



## kora04

I'm going to wait on updating this thread until OCN servers go back to acting up right.

Won't load up the Advance Edit page.


----------



## blackbalt89

Updated Results: New CPU and GPU overclocks.

*Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4025mhz ---- EVGA GTX 570 (850/1700/2000) ---- 51.50 FPS
*


----------



## mlambert890

mlambert890 ---- i7 980x @ 4.1Ghz ---- GTX580 Tri-SLI 900/2100 ---- 98.16 FPS


----------



## tsm106

Darn it!

I got 80 fps w/ [email protected] CFX 6950 unlocked. I clocked the 920 to 4.5Ghz expecting the fps to go up but it hardly went up. 69xx cards really suck with low res graphics!


----------



## mlambert890

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;11973545*
> Darn it!
> 
> I got 80 fps w/ [email protected] CFX 6950 unlocked. I clocked the 920 to 4.5Ghz expecting the fps to go up but it hardly went up. 69xx cards really suck with low res graphics!


very surprising! with the 4x0 and 5x0 SLI rigs the data is looking very much like that at this low resolution, performance is mainly being determined by CPU ability to stage the frames (looking at the leaderboards you can see results scaling almost linearly with CPU speed regardless of whether it is 480SLI, or 580tri-sli)

I wonder whats going on with the 6000 series here. Maybe a driver issue? Might not be a bad idea to start crowd source analyzing this data we're collecting. There are some interesting trends.


----------



## tsm106

It's a trend alright, not one that's very thrilling sadly. At low res, the 570 eats up the 69xx cards over and over again.

I can't setup my eyefinity yet, have to do some home repair before the wife will let me get it going lolz! Women!!! Well once I get it setup I can test the scaling. My suspicion and with the present data, the 69xx cards start to close the gap on the upper end.


----------



## Johnny Guitar

add us







?


----------



## ~sizzzle~

~sizzzle~ ---- Intel i7 930 @ 3.8Ghz ---- SLI GTX460 (900/2000/1800) ---- 64.80 FPS


----------



## kora04

Updated and fixed repeating names!


----------



## Machiyariko

Machiyariko -- Intel 920 @ 4.2 -- HD 6950^70 unlocked 900/1400/1536 -- 50.85 FPS


----------



## Deegan

Deegan ---- i7 875k @ 4.0 ---- gtx 460 (900/2000/1800) ---- 38.00 FPS


----------



## mdbsat

Another run with a slightly higher CPU OC and HT off this time.
*EDIT:* UPdated pic. Went up a few fps with a touch more mem.

mdbsat---i7 [email protected] Ht off----465 SLI (unlocked) 815/1630/1715---79.47 fps


----------



## Defoler

Defoler -- I7 980 @ 4.59Ghz ---- Quad-SLI GTX 580 @ 940 / 1075 ---- 114.01


----------



## shilent

Why is my score so low compared to everyone else? I'm only getting an average of 38 FPS running a Q9550 @ 3.6GHz and 2x6850's @ stock clocks.

I'm getting the same score as a single GTX 460, what's going on here?

Edit: I had DOF on, with it off now I'm getting 46 FPS. Still seem low.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

Question....my metro 2003 benchmark does not work

it crash on launch

is the Steam version BTW


----------



## ranerX3

I dont have a original metro can I do that too ? I dont fined the folder...


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ranerX3;12017620*
> I dont have a original metro can I do that too ? I dont fined the folder...


What do you mean, you don't have an original Metro copy? You have the Steam version?
Go here:
64-bit
C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\metro 2033

32-bit
C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\metro 2033


----------



## ranerX3

I just download it from the internet didnt bought it...


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ranerX3;12017701*
> I just download it from the internet didnt bought it...


You torrented it? Then I'm not sure you can use the benchmark. The benchmark came in an update, so you would need that update to bench and since your game isn't being updated by Steam, you won't be getting that update. Try looking around for a patch for the game.


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ranerX3;12017701*
> I just download it from the internet didnt bought it...


----------



## Yoko Littner

^^ fail. so he torrented it?


----------



## robbo2

Not much of a clock on the cards.


----------



## ryanrenolds08

Is there some sort of bug I havent read about with this benchmark? My overall avg was only 32fps. There is no way that is right.... ??


----------



## robbo2

Machiyariko -- Intel 920 @ 4.2 -- HD 6950^70 unlocked 900/1400/1536 -- 50.85 FPS
Thats the only comparison I could find on the list. Maybe shoot him a PM and ask him what drivers he was using?


----------



## Machiyariko

I am using the drivers that came with the card. I'm sure 11-1 will be out soon/now. Maybe I'll upgrade and re-run the test.


----------



## Razi3l

Here is mine so far. I'm wondering whether I want to push voltages higher and aim for more MHz or not.

Razi3l ---- i3 540 @ 4.2Ghz HT on ---- 6950 unlocked (1010/1425/1010) ---- 49.00 FPS
http://postimage.org/image/v1wrkngk/full/


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Razi3l;12257315*
> Here is mine so far. I'm wondering whether I want to push voltages higher and aim for more MHz or not


Your image isn't showing on the boards.

The link works though
http://postimage.org/image/v1wrkngk/

Please also use proper formating of your post:
USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12257344*
> Your image isn't showing on the boards.
> 
> The link works
> http://postimage.org/image/v1wrkngk/
> 
> Please also use proper formating of your post:
> USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


Alrighty, fixed.


----------



## B!0HaZard

If you don't use proper formatting, Kora won't add you to the leaderboard, so it's for your own sake (assuming you want to be on the leaderboard).

Do you run those GPU speeds 24/7? What temps do you get?


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12257393*
> If you don't use proper formatting, Kora won't add you to the leaderboard, so it's for your own sake (assuming you want to be on the leaderboard).
> 
> Do you run those GPU speeds 24/7? What temps do you get?


Na just benching and such. I just set the fan to 100%, highest temp was 58c in Metro but it gets to about 62 in 3D Mark or Heaven altough today is colder. For everything else I just run stock because I dislike the noise


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Razi3l;12257405*
> Na just benching and such. I just set the fan to 100%, highest temp was 58c in Metro but it gets to about 62 in 3D Mark or Heaven altough today is colder. For everything else I just run stock because I dislike the noise


Can't you just make a custom fan curve? My card idles at 16% fan speed and hits something like 80% in the games that stress it a lot (none as I'm CPU limited in most







).


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12257424*
> Can't you just make a custom fan curve? My card idles at 16% fan speed and hits something like 80% in the games that stress it a lot (none as I'm CPU limited in most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


Yea I could but i dont like the noise. May just get an AC AXP or something, though I dont need to as it runs everything fine and.. fan noise is really low in games (never hear it) and temps <85.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Razi3l;12257435*
> Yea I could but i dont like the noise. May just get an AC AXP or something, though I dont need to as it runs everything fine and.. fan noise is really low in games (never hear it) and temps <85.


Oh, you don't like the noise while gaming? I just turn up my speakers or headset


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12257451*
> Oh, you don't like the noise while gaming? I just turn up my speakers or headset


Yea If i turn it up its fine


----------



## kora04

I'll get it updated when I get home. Stuck at school and the pics are blocked.


----------



## Razi3l

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


I'll get it updated when I get home. Stuck at school and the pics are blocked.


You don't _have_ to. Just posting so others can compare etc


----------



## kora04

Well, I can't lol.

Can't see the pic.


----------



## B!0HaZard

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/6708/m2033.png


----------



## itcrashed

Not top 10 but I thought I'd post for good measure...

itcrashed ---- i7-950 @ 4.21 ---- 3x 5870 EF6 (900/1300) Trifire ---- 73.39 FPS


----------



## mxthunder

mxthunder ---- PII 965 @ 4.0 ---- GTX580 @ 910/1800/2050 ---- 58.00 FPS


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itcrashed;12316566*
> Not top 10 but I thought I'd post for good measure...
> 
> itcrashed ---- i7-950 @ 4.21 ---- 3x 5870 EF6 (900/1300) Trifire ---- 73.39 FPS


Oh wow that tri scaling is not good, I get more than that with 2 cards.

View attachment 194716


----------



## itcrashed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;12317682*
> Oh wow that tri scaling is not good, I get more than that with 2 cards.
> 
> View attachment 194716


Yeah, I was so jazzed when I bought the third card...until I started running all the benchmarks... Don't ge me wrong, its a total beast of a setup, but I was expecting a bit more.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itcrashed;12318325*
> Yeah, I was so jazzed when I bought the third card...until I started running all the benchmarks... Don't ge me wrong, its a total beast of a setup, but I was expecting a bit more.


Metro is really harsh on AMD setups especially anything over 2 cards.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *itcrashed;12318325*
> Yeah, I was so jazzed when I bought the third card...until I started running all the benchmarks... Don't ge me wrong, its a total beast of a setup, but I was expecting a bit more.


Does the scaling improve at higher resolutions, can you run it at 1080?
What kind of gpu usage do you see with 3 cards?
Have you tried running with less of an oc on the memory?
My scores tank if I run the mem at an unstable speed.
My XFX will do 1300+, but my Sapph tops out at 1250.


----------



## EndWar

Here's mine.
EndWar---- i7 950 @ 4.4ghz ---- AMD 6950 Crossfire (1010/1450/1536) ---- 83.76 FPS

Hopefully this is proper then. Thanx tsm106, dunno where the graph is, never showed up in the metro benchmarks i've done. You can simply up your clock and beat me by the way..


----------



## itcrashed

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


Does the scaling improve at higher resolutions, can you run it at 1080?
What kind of gpu usage do you see with 3 cards?
Have you tried running with less of an oc on the memory?
My scores tank if I run the mem at an unstable speed.
My XFX will do 1300+, but my Sapph tops out at 1250.


I'll try all of this and report back. About 2 seconds of thought was put into my CPU OC and GPU OC for this benchmark. Mem might be unstable as you stated because I am using all of my slots - 6x2GB. I bet I will have better results removing 3 of the sticks. It definitely could use a bit of tweaking, testing and proper monitoring, all of which has yet to be done.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *EndWar*


Will that work, or do i need anything else?


Edit your post in this format. Nice score btw and dammit you pushed me down the order! Where's the graph in yer screen?

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


----------



## EndWar

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Edit your post in this format. Nice score btw and dammit you pushed me down the order! Where's the graph in yer screen?

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


All proper now.







Thanx for the info


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *itcrashed*


I'll try all of this and report back. About 2 seconds of thought was put into my CPU OC and GPU OC for this benchmark. Mem might be unstable as you stated because I am using all of my slots - 6x2GB. I bet I will have better results removing 3 of the sticks. It definitely could use a bit of tweaking, testing and proper monitoring, all of which has yet to be done.


Actually I referring to the gfx memory, not system memory.

Quote:



The overclocks of our card are 890 MHz core (5% overclock) and 1275 MHz Memory (6% overclock). While they are not spectacular, they are decent and promising. Remember, we left the fan running at its default speed. Also we did not tweak any voltages, even though software adjustment is possible on these cards - there is just no software yet to do that.

Overclocking the memory on these cards is quite different from any other card so far. Normally you'd expect rendering errors or crashes, but not with these cards. Thanks to the new error correction algorithm in the memory controller, every memory error is just retransmitted until everything is fine. So once you exceed the "stable" clock frequency, memory errors will appear more often, get retransmitted, but the rendered output will still look perfectly fine. The only difference is that performance drops, the further you increase the clocks, the lower the performance gets. As a result a normal "artifact scanning" approach to memory overclocking on the HD 5800 Series will not work. You have to manually increase the clocks and observe the framerate until you find the point where performance drops.


----------



## Wubble

Here we go, hopefully I'll have playable results when I get my GTX 580

Wubble ---- Intel Core i7 9300 @ 4.0 ---- 6870 @ 1030/1140 ---- 36.35 fps


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Wubble*


Here we go, hopefully I'll have playable results when I get my GTX 580

Wubble ---- Intel Core i7 *9300* @ 4.0 ---- 6870 @ 1030/1140 ---- 36.35 fps


Oh really?!

But I'm a bit surprised 'bout your results. What drivers are you using? Your FPS seems low for that card.


----------



## Darkcyde

Update:
Darkcyde---Phenom II x6 [email protected] HD5870 [email protected]/1250---71.72fps


----------



## born2bwild

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12381832*
> Oh really?!
> 
> But I'm a bit surprised 'bout your results. What drivers are you using? Your FPS seems low for that card.


Nope, I get exactly that FPS when I disable crossfire. His score is perfectly normal; you must be thinking of the 6970.


----------



## M0E

Crossfire 6870 1000/1125
CPU i7 950 4.02Ghz


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *born2bwild;12428335*
> Nope, I get exactly that FPS when I disable crossfire. His score is perfectly normal; you must be thinking of the 6970.


No, actually I was thinking that the HD 6870 is faster than the HD 5850 (as seen here and other reviews), and despite that all HD 5850's in this thread have better scores than his.

Maybe it's just because the HD 5850's OC better.


----------



## mdbsat

mdbsat---i7 [email protected] Ht off----465 SLI (unlocked) 815/1630/1700---79.47









Thanks for keeping this thread going Kora:thumb:


----------



## Sparks

Sparks ---- i7 860 @ 4.2GHz Hyper threading On ---- GTX570 (900/1800/2325) ---- 58.57fps








Oddly i got a higher fps in the first run (run 0) not sure why as i consistently before got a lower result during the first run. Love this thread kora <3


----------



## M0E

I already posted my normal scores. Thought Id post up some eyefinity runs. Settings lowered to Medium.

Single 6870
950/1125










Crossfire at same settings and clocks


----------



## digitaldurandal

A bit sad with my results here. Is this game extremely cpu limited?

53 average fps. Also what does the red and black on the graph mean is it min and max?


----------



## Crucial09

anyway to download the benchmark only?


----------



## Sparks

Quote:



Originally Posted by *digitaldurandal*


A bit sad with my results here. Is this game extremely cpu limited?

53 average fps. Also what does the red and black on the graph mean is it min and max?


Hmm yes, for an SLI setup with two gtx 570's your results are very low... your cpu is fine but have you set up your SLI properly? your results would be quite normal for a single gtx 570.


----------



## mdbsat

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crucial09*


anyway to download the benchmark only?


No.


----------



## Crucial09

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mdbsat*


No.










Thats lame.


----------



## h2on0

h2on0 ---- i7 920 @4.2 ---- cfx hd 5870 900/1300 ---- 70.17 fps


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crucial09*


Thats lame.


It's a great game IMO, and Steam puts it for sale at -75% at times


----------



## Crucial09

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ACHILEE5*


It's a great game IMO, and Steam puts it for sale at -75% at times










I don't use steam. From what I have seen by other people it causes nothing but unwanted startup programs and virus's and slows down the computer.

I run the games only out of steam. Steam is worthless.


----------



## kora04

Updated!

M0E use the format please.


----------



## Ipwnnubletz

Ipwnnubletz ---- i5 750 @ 3.6 GHz ---- GTX 560 Ti (950/1050/1900) ---- 43.64 FPS


----------



## ACHILEE5

ACHILEE5----Q9650 @ 3.8GHz----GTX480 (840/1680/1900)----48.00fps


----------



## Sparks

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crucial09;12574549*
> I don't use steam. From what I have seen by other people it causes nothing but unwanted startup programs and virus's and slows down the computer.
> 
> I run the games only out of steam. Steam is worthless.


Yes I couldn't agree more, steam is like a pest IMO. but there are hacked releases which no longer require steam to run them. Also you may as well get the full game even if you just use the benchmark.


----------



## h2on0

I've been using steam ever since I got a free coppy of hl2 with a 9600xt a few years ago. I actually like it. The problem I have with steam is their sales for holidays. Impulse buying is a *****. I have games that I have never played or even downloaded yet.


----------



## M0E

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;12575288*
> Updated!
> 
> M0E use the format please.


And what would that be?


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M0E;12579055*
> And what would that be?


USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crucial09;12574549*
> I don't use steam. From what I have seen by other people it causes nothing but unwanted startup programs and virus's and slows down the computer.
> 
> I run the games only out of steam. Steam is worthless.


Well, Metro is a Steam game, so you can't use it without Steam.

Steam does not cause unwanted start programs or viruses. A modern PC with a quad should not be slowed down by Steam. A slow dual might though, but only when you're playing a Steam game. Steam does not hurt performance when you're not using it.


----------



## Blue Destroyer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12579892*
> Well, Metro is a Steam game, so you can't use it without Steam.
> 
> Steam does not cause unwanted start programs or viruses. A modern PC with a quad should not be slowed down by Steam. A slow dual might though, but only when you're playing a Steam game. Steam does not hurt performance when you're not using it.


QFT steam does not cause viruses. Clicking on links like an idiot causes viruses.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blue Destroyer;12579915*
> QFT steam does not cause viruses. Clicking on links like an idiot causes viruses.


No, I do that whenever I'm surfing the pronz. No viruses. The only thing that causes viruses are stupid users who willingly let any program have access to the PC. Any good AV (MSE, AVG, AntiVir) will prevent viruses from getting in.


----------



## Blue Destroyer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12579946*
> No, I do that whenever I'm surfing the pronz. No viruses. The only thing that causes viruses are stupid users who willingly let any program have access to the PC. Any good AV (MSE, AVG, AntiVir) will prevent viruses from getting in.


sorry i was refering to those links people get over steam. click here i got 10 free steam games, and bam they have a virus. People are so quick to blame steam when its there dumbassness that clicks on stupid links and then let it install some program. i used AVG for years and never had a problem with it. then i installed MSE and was amazed at how bloated AVG had become.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blue Destroyer;12579961*
> sorry i was refering to those links people get over steam. click here i got 10 free steam games, and bam they have a virus. People are so quick to blame steam when its there dumbassness that clicks on stupid links and then let it install some program. i used AVG for years and never had a problem with it. then i installed MSE and was amazed at how bloated AVG had become.


I actually logged in on the free Steam game page. Yeah, I felt like an idiot. Didn't do anything though. I changed my PW when I realized what I'd done.


----------



## Blue Destroyer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12579974*
> I actually logged in on the free Steam game page. Yeah, I felt like an idiot. Didn't do anything though. I changed my PW when I realized what I'd done.


see, your a smart guy, everyone else blames steam for that lol.


----------



## Crucial09

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


Well, Metro is a Steam game, so you can't use it without Steam.

Steam does not cause unwanted start programs or viruses. A modern PC with a quad should not be slowed down by Steam. A slow dual might though, but only when you're playing a Steam game. Steam does not hurt performance when you're not using it.


Nah. I'll pass from personal experience with other people computers.
It ruins them
Steam is unnecessary. Why people use it idk. You can play games without it. Have a folder on your desktop with your games icons in it. Problem solved. So crapware running on startup or anything needed.

I'm sure there is a version of metro2033 that isn't in steam.

And everyone gets their steam accounts hacked. Thats pretty crappy. I can avoid it and just install games directly on my computer with no program needed to run it.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crucial09*


Nah. I'll pass from personal experience with other people computers.
It ruins them
Steam is unnecessary. Why people use it idk. You can play games without it. Have a folder on your desktop with your games icons in it. Problem solved. So crapware running on startup or anything needed.

I'm sure there is a version of metro2033 that isn't in steam.

And everyone gets their steam accounts hacked. Thats pretty crappy. I can avoid it and just install games directly on my computer with no program needed to run it.


Do as you want, but you're missing out for no reason.


----------



## Crucial09

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


Do as you want, but you're missing out for no reason.


simple is better. 
extra programs for no reason is not.


----------



## Sparks

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crucial09*


I'm sure there is a version of metro2033 that isn't in steam.


Yes there is... as far as i know the steamless (steam independent) version isnt compatible with the benchmark, as the benchmark came thru an update only available thru steam.


----------



## SpartanVXL

ok here we go

SpartanVXL ---- P2 x4 955 @ 3.415 ---- MSI NGTX460 Hawk SLI (780/1800/1560) ---- 51.97 FPS

Something fumbled here? cause i'm in with the 4GHz people with this


----------



## Live_free

Live_Free ---- i7 950 @ 4.2GHz ---- GTX 580 (900/1800) ---- 59.03 FPS

All info in here for confirmation.


----------



## Wubble

Wubble ---- Intel Core i7 930 @ 4.09 GHz ---- GTX 580 (935/1870/2050) ---- 57.37 FPS

I am back for more this time with my GTX 580 please remove my 6870 score when you update this Thank you


----------



## kora04

Updated.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpartanVXL;12616550*
> ok here we go
> 
> SpartanVXL ---- P2 x4 955 @ 3.415 ---- MSI NGTX460 Hawk SLI (780/1800/1560) ---- 51.97 FPS
> 
> Something fumbled here? cause i'm in with the 4GHz people with this


Sounds about right.

Look here.
Quote:


> Mekaw ---- PII x4 955 @ 4.0 GHz ---- SLI GTX 460 Hawk (910/2000/1820) ---- 59.70 FPS


Your cards are slower, but FPS seems to fit the clocks.
You only need CPUs fast enough to feed the GPUs, not do actual work like GTA4, or BFBC2.


----------



## man from atlantis

Man From Atlantis -- Intel Q9650 @4.00GHz -- Gigabyte GTX 460 1GB OC @950/1900/4600MHz -- 42.04 FPS


----------



## rquinn19

New card, still trying to "get it right", happy so far.
50.50 fps


----------



## Maranello

Maranello ---- PII X4 970 @ 4GHz ---- XFX 6870 Dual Fan (970/1170) ---- 39.62 fps

EDIT: 40.64 @ 1000/1250 run was added here:
http://www.overclock.net/benchmarking-software-discussion/817064-metro-2033-benchmark-thread-using-official-32.html#post12717487


----------



## compudaze

Please add me, thanks.

compudaze ---- i5 2500K @ 5.1GHz ---- CFX AMD HD 6950 Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 95.14 FPS


----------



## grunion

^^ Can you do a 1080 run please?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;12704554*
> ^^ Can you do a 1080 run please?


Not much different.


----------



## B!0HaZard

B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 3.8 GHz ---- HD 5850 1000/1225 ---- 45.29 FPS



That's a 4 FPS increase from my E8200.


----------



## onthemour

Onthemour---- i5 at 3.6ghz ----ASUS 6970 960/1540 STOCK VOLTS ---- 61.29 FPS


----------



## born2bwild

Update; new processor, higher GPU/CPU overclock and 11.4 (preview) Catalyst drivers:

Born2bwild ---- i7 970 @ 4.375 GHz ---- 2 Radeon 6870s in CF @ 990/1200 ---- 71.05 fps


----------



## Nexus6

Here is my single 5970 benchmark:

Nexus6 ---- i7 980x @ 4.355 GHz ---- Radeon 5970 in @ 735/1010 ---- 47.39 fps










When I enable crossfireX, benchmark goes completely black and that's it. So, no quadfire benchmark.


----------



## Maranello

Just a note... this was run with the 11.4 preview. This is the max Afterburner can go. Trixx doesn't allow volt adjustments.

Maranello ---- PII X4 970 @ 4GHz ---- XFX 6870 D. F. (1000/1250) ---- 40.64 fps


----------



## kora04

Updated.

If you guys want a leader board for 1080p and 1280x1024 then I'll start one.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;12724384*
> Updated.
> 
> If you guys want a leader board for 1080p and 1280x1024 then I'll start one.


Sure, you can start with mine =)

http://www.overclock.net/12704937-post308.html


----------



## kora04

Ok, updated it with 2 leaderboards with extra rules now.

CPU-Z and GPU-Z are required (or equivalent), and 1 score only to be posted in all.


----------



## Sychodrama

,ln.


----------



## Sychodrama

Q9450, gtx570
Attachment 200394


----------



## B!0HaZard

Proper formatting, please. See OP.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12753764*
> Proper formatting, please. See OP.


This.

And new rules.


----------



## JedixJarf

JedixJarf ---- i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz ---- Xfire MSI 6950's unlocked (950/1450) ---- 81.36 fps


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *JedixJarf*


JedixJarf ---- i5 2500k @ 4.3 Ghz ---- Xfire MSI 6950's unlocked (950/1450) ---- 81.36 fps


Nice. Have you been able to run it at 5ghz yet? That should push your score into the 90s.


----------



## JedixJarf

I will when I get home on friday, I just happened to be running a mild oc while testing a couple things.

Swyped from my DROID X


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;12813185*
> Nice. Have you been able to run it at 5ghz yet? That should push your score into the 90s.


No, he's GPU bottlenecked. I'd be surprised more than 2 FPS out of an additional OC.

EDIT: I take that back. Looking at my CPU usage in Metro, it might be possible if Metro only uses 2 cores. I don't think it supports quads, so give it a shot. If it's limited to 2 cores, then I'm actually almost seeing a CPU bottleneck.

Also:

1680x1050
B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 47.99 FPS


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12814127*
> No, he's GPU bottlenecked. I'd be surprised more than 2 FPS out of an additional OC.
> 
> EDIT: I take that back. Looking at my CPU usage in Metro, it might be possible if Metro only uses 2 cores. I don't think it supports quads, so give it a shot. If it's limited to 2 cores, then I'm actually almost seeing a CPU bottleneck.
> 
> Also:
> 
> B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 47.99 FPS
> 
> Apologize for not having GPU-Z.


Compare Compudaze's 5ghz SB score of 92fps, albeit his is clocked at 1000 core it is still very representative of what to expect with our setups. It's been removed from the leader board for some reason?

You're setup doesn't apply obviously since you're not cfx nor even using 6950s. Also, the very premise of using this low res, defines cpu bottleneck.


----------



## B!0HaZard

My score was separate to the first part, I'm just submitting results mate, not comparing mine with JedixJarf's. And I said that I take it back, I see that there might be a CPU bottleneck.

I'll do it once more:

*I don't want these scores on the leaderboard! They're merely for fun/sport/comparison. I can only have a score on 1 leaderboard, right? Also, Kora, you forgot to remove my old E8200 result.*

1920x1080:
B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 42.48 FPS



1280x1024:
B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 58.44 FPS


----------



## compudaze

Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to break up the leader boards. Can you change my score back to http://www.overclock.net/12702058-post306.html on the 1680x1050 leader board?


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12814462*
> My score was separate to the first part, I'm just submitting results mate, not comparing mine with JedixJarf's. And I said that I take it back, I see that there might be a CPU bottleneck.
> 
> I'll do it once more:
> 
> *I don't want these scores on the leaderboard! They're merely for fun/sport/comparison. I can only have a score on 1 leaderboard, right? Also, Kora, you forgot to remove my old E8200 result.*
> 
> 1920x1080:
> B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 42.48 FPS
> 
> 
> 
> 1280x1024:
> B!0HaZard ---- i5 2500k @ 5.0 GHz ---- HD 5850 (1000/1225) ---- 58.44 FPS


Your test don't show CPU bottleneck








They show GPU bottleneck to me


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;12823821*
> Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to break up the leader boards. Can you change my score back to http://www.overclock.net/12702058-post306.html on the 1680x1050 leader board?


Damn you Compudaze!







It's making it real hard to not want to go to SB, while waiting on BD and Ivy.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ACHILEE5;12824962*
> Your test don't show CPU bottleneck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They show GPU bottleneck to me


Yeah, I'm talking about JedixJarf, he might be seeing a CPU bottleneck.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;12826044*
> Damn you Compudaze!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's making it real hard to not want to go to SB, while waiting on BD and Ivy.


Just wait for my 5.3-5.5Ghz 3D benchmarks. Already hit 5.63GHz for 2D.


----------



## JedixJarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12826443*
> Yeah, I'm talking about JedixJarf, he might be seeing a CPU bottleneck.


I highly doubt that, will test on friday though.

Swyped from my DROID X


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12814127*
> EDIT: I take that back. Looking at my CPU usage in Metro, it might be possible if Metro only uses 2 cores. I don't think it supports quads, so give it a shot. If it's limited to 2 cores, then I'm actually almost seeing a CPU bottleneck.
> ]


I tested! And it seems to use all my CPU cores


----------



## B!0HaZard

Well, It's using 4 cores @ 50% = 2 cores @ 100%. That really isn't hard proof, many games that only do 2 cores spread the load evenly on 4 cores, but can't break 2 cores @ 100% / 4 cores @ 50% / 8 cores @ 25%. I'm wondering if it's actually using the CPU power or if it's reserving some though.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12828486*
> Well, It's using 4 cores @ 50% = 2 cores @ 100%. That really isn't hard proof, many games that only do 2 cores spread the load evenly on 4 cores, but can't break 2 cores @ 100% / 4 cores @ 50% / 8 cores @ 25%. I'm wondering if it's actually using the CPU power or if it's reserving some though.


You don't have the gear to show it but I do. Slap a 3rd card in and run the bench and wow, there's ZERO gain. There's not enough CPU to support a 3rd card at this low res in my setup. Zero, none nadda. I've written about this pages back.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Just did the test, 1024x768, DX9, low, AF x4
First I let it use all cores. They were all stressed to 85% on average. Then 3 cores. The 3 cores were averaging at 95% and my FPS went down. Definitely using 4 cores when the GPU isn't bottlenecking.

Yes, I have the gear to test. Honestly don't know what your problem is.


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12828486*
> Well, It's using 4 cores @ 50% = 2 cores @ 100%. That really isn't hard proof, many games that only do 2 cores spread the load evenly on 4 cores, but can't break 2 cores @ 100% / 4 cores @ 50% / 8 cores @ 25%. I'm wondering if it's actually using the CPU power or if it's reserving some though.


I'll have to have that in my sig


----------



## B!0HaZard

*Wondering if I should be offended*


----------



## tsm106

lol


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12828929*
> *Wondering is I should be offended*


Not offended








But 4 cores at 50% don't = 2 at 100%

If it was maxing out my CPU, then it would be 4 cores at 100%
But it's not! It's using 4 cores at 50% because that's all it needs to keep up with my GTX480







And the fact must be, it uses 4 cores like I said!

Oh, and I'll get rid of the sig


----------



## B!0HaZard

4 cores @ 50% = 2 cores @ 100% if the game is coded for 2 cores, yes. My post is in no way wrong.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GigaByte;6748080*
> Varies by game, your tricore will show all cores having activity when playing a single or dual threaded game because the load is split along each core. Example..
> 
> Core 0 - 33%
> Core 1 - 33%
> Core 2 - 33%
> 
> But its not constant, sometimes one core's load drops while the remaining cores' load rises such as
> 
> Core 0 - 30%
> Core 1 - 61%
> Core 2 - 9%
> 
> EDIT: A single threaded game that is maxed out at the CPU code will show your tricore at 33% overall load if nothing else is using the CPU, a dual threaded game maxed out will show 66%. Since most games never keep all cores at max load even if multithreaded if a game keeps you load at lets say 42% then its dual threaded.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv;6763804*
> Most games at this time are coded to use one or two cores. Windows, however, will often spread that load over more cores, so 'activity' on >1 core doesn't mean that the game is actually coded for >1 core. You'll know you have a game that's coded for single core if, when you add up the % load on each of your processors while gaming, it never equals greater then 100%.
> 
> Because all Windows is really using is half the power of each of your two cores (in the case of a dualie) you will not see much gaming benefit to having more cores than the game you're playing is coded to use.


A 50% load on 4 cores *can* (and this is key) indicate a game coded for 2 cores. Your picture showed 50% load on 4 cores, but that does not prove that the game can use 4 cores. Therefore, I thought it might be limited to 2 cores, because your result could be an indication of that. If, however, you get 70% load on 4 cores, you've obviously used more power than 2 cores would've been able to supply and this means the game is coded for more than 2 cores. My own tests (which I posted about before) gave me a 80%+ load on all cores, indicating that it wasn't limited to 2 cores, proving you right.

This concept isn't hard to understand and since you're a long time user here and you were discussing it, I assumed you knew.


----------



## tsm106

The only chip capable of splitting threads is BD, correct me if I'm wrong. That's the whole allure of BD. Throwing 4 cores out of 8 on one thread thereby improving speed by an order of magnitude.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;12829089*
> The only chip capable of splitting threads is BD, correct me if I'm wrong. That's the whole allure of BD. Throwing 4 cores out of 8 on one thread thereby improving speed by an order of magnitude.


I don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying, unless you mean that the people I've quoted are wrong about Windows splitting the load. Those posts were posted before BD was announced... What I'm saying about 4 vs 2 cores is common knowledge on this site, I don't see how you can still be doubting me.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12829140*
> I don't see how that's relevant to what I'm saying, unless you mean that the people I've quoted are wrong about Windows splitting the load. Those posts were posted before BD was announced... What I'm saying about 4 vs 2 cores is common knowledge on this site, I don't see how you can still be doubting me.


They're saying it can split threads, when it can't. It's load balancing out of order afaik. Each core, i7, X6 is a whole chip unto itself, etc etc.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;12829162*
> They're saying it can split threads, when it can't. Windows is load balancing out of order afaik.


Windows can split the workload, yes.


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12829049*
> This concept isn't hard to understand and since you're a long time user here and you were discussing it, I assumed you knew.


Just goes to show I don't know everything









You best have a rep+


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;12829172*
> Windows can split the workload, yes.


And windows can't break a thread into 2. Thus if you see 4 cores active that must mean...?


----------



## ACHILEE5

Just ran the test at very low GFX settings and saw up to 80% CPU usage


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ACHILEE5;12829197*
> Just goes to show I don't know everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You best have a rep+


That is a surprising response. Good to see someone who appreciates being corrected/taught new stuff.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;12829234*
> And windows can't break a thread into 2. Thus if you see 4 cores active that must mean...?


No, it must not. Just read the quotes, I'm 98% sure they're not wrong. I think it was introduced with Windows Vista though, I've heard XP is terrible with multiple cores. If that's true then that could lead to confusion. I'll try to dig up an old game and see what happens. I can't imagine that Brett would be so sure about something and be wrong.


----------



## Roxborough

Hey guys, how do you think SLI 570's would fair? The ASUS DirectCU II ones?

I'll be getting an i7 2600k too! 8gb Vengeance RAM, so hopefully, I'll be up there, I HAVE to try this out, as I find this game to be more graphically demanding than Crysis!


----------



## B!0HaZard

Somewhere in this area:
CallsignVega ---- i7 920 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX480 (820/1640/2040) ---- 87.08 FPS
Johnny Guitar ---- i7 980x @ 3.33Ghz ---- GTX 580 SLI (772/1544/2004) ---- 86.92 FPS
Frosty88 ---- i7 920 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 Unlocked (861/1722/1876) ---- 83.07 FPS

Dunno, what stock speeds for NVIDIA cards are, so I don't know how big these overclocks are, but from what I've seen, most high-end SLI setups see an FPS around 90 FPS.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Ok, sorry to double post, but I figured no one would notice unless they got a notification about a new post in this thread:
http://www.overclock.net/amd-cpus/877244-6-core-supported-games.html
This thread is very long, but everything about multi-core usage is there. It's mind bending when they're discussing differences between threads and cores IMO (I feel like I know nothing after reading it), but definitely worth a read.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Hmm i wonder if anyone else seen my wierd issue at 1080p my avg was 68fps with a 5970 and 5870 in trifire but at 1650 it droped down to 38.


----------



## munaim1

just been playing around with afterburner.

munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 31.61 FPS

1920x1080









munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 35.04 FPS

1680x1050









seems pretty low even for a single card. What do you think?


----------



## ACHILEE5

ACHILEE5----2600k @ 4.9GHz----GTX480 (840/1680/1900)----53.27fps


----------



## compudaze

New submission at 1680x1050 on a new CPU. Please delete my old 1920x1080 submission.

compudaze ---- Core i7 2600K @ 5.4GHz ---- AMD Radeon HD 6950 CrossfireX Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 97.10 FPS


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *munaim1;12894254*
> just been playing around with afterburner.
> 
> munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 31.61 FPS
> 
> munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 35.04 FPS
> 
> seems pretty low even for a single card. What do you think?


Nope, sounds about right for your card.


----------



## Darkcyde

1920x1080 run










Darkcyde ---- [email protected] ---- CFX [email protected]/1250 ---- 64.74 FPS


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;12895588*
> New submission at 1680x1050 on a new CPU. Please delete my old 1920x1080 submission.
> 
> compudaze ---- Core i7 2600K @ 5.4GHz ---- AMD Radeon HD 6950 CrossfireX Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 97.10 FPS


Christ, compared to i7 with same cards... this just defines cpu bound yer score vs i7 same card same res.

And hell, yer smacking up against the tri sli 480s and 580s ppl running 980x's lolol.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Reading OP.


----------



## sylarnbg

sylarnbg | Core i7 930 @ 4000MHz | 6 GB DDR3-1523 MHz CL 7-7-7-20 | GTX 480 SLI @ 825/ 2000


----------



## kora04

Sorry for being lazy...

Updated and fixed the mistakes.

If I forgot someone tell me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *munaim1;12894254*
> just been playing around with afterburner.
> 
> munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 31.61 FPS
> 
> 1920x1080
> 
> munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 1GB (960/4100/1920) ---- 35.04 FPS
> 
> 1680x1050
> 
> seems pretty low even for a single card. What do you think?


Which one do you want to be in the OP?


----------



## PmanUk

Just a little one for you,

slight oc on the cards (only 60mhz)

Core 840
shader 1680
mem 2002 (stock)

i7 2600k @ 4500mhz


----------



## PmanUk

mod pls delete


----------



## sylarnbg

sylarnbg | Core i7 930 @ 4000MHz | 6 GB DDR3-1523 MHz CL 7-7-7-20 | GTX 480 SLI @ 825/1650/2000

1920x1080


----------



## BallaTheFeared

BallaTheFeared | Core i5-2500k @ 4.8GHz | GTX 470 SLI 875/1750/2100 | 9800GT PhsyX 822/1878/900 | 76.09 FPS | 1080p










Having PhsyX on isn't a problem is it? I can run it again if so, but I don't think it would boost my frames


----------



## tsm106

Turn it off Balla, cuz it doesn't follow thread rules then.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Roger, same clocks then no PhsyX.

I also increased my voltage one tick which cause it to hit 75C on the card thats on air, but it resulted in better gpu usage.

BallaTheFeared | Core i5-2500k @ 4.8GHz | GTX 470 SLI 875/1750/2100 | 83.31 FPS | 1080p










Edit: I just realized my score is quite "good" considering my cards and my screen shot this time lacked the "settings" which probably seemed pretty sketchy.

Luckily I think they're saved to your computer and also it was in my Chrome history so I was able to take another screen of it with my name in it as well


----------



## tsm106

That score looks about right. Metro luvs nvidia.


----------



## grishkathefool

grishkathefool ---- i5 2500 @ 3.4GHz ---- MSI Twin Frozr 560 Ti GTX (880/2100/1760) ---- 37.49 FPS


----------



## kora04

updated.


----------



## munaim1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *munaim1*


just been playing around with afterburner.

Munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- gtx 460 1gb (960/4100/1920) ---- 31.61 fps

1920x1080









munaim1 ---- 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- gtx 460 1gb (960/4100/1920) ---- 35.04 fps

1680x1050










Eligible to be added?


----------



## IXcrispyXI

IXcrispyXI i5 [email protected] 3.3ghz GTX 560TI 900/2004/1800 fps:37.85


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IXcrispyXI*


[IG]http://i52.tinypic.com/15fg8r6.png[/IMG]
IXcrispyXI



Can you use the format please found in the top of the OP?

*
Quote:



USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS


*

Quote:



Originally Posted by *munaim1*


Eligible to be added?



You are, but which one would you like to go up? The 1680 or 1920 since you can only have 1 score up there.


----------



## IXcrispyXI

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


Can you use the format please found in the top of the OP?

You are, but which one would you like to go up? The 1680 or 1920 since you can only have 1 score up there.


updated


----------



## PmanUk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;13045049*
> Can you use the format please found in the top of the OP?
> 
> You are, but which one would you like to go up? The 1680 or 1920 since you can only have 1 score up there.


Hey Mate,

You have missed mine









One page back for 192x1080

Regards

Pman


----------



## Sircles

i need to do this and see what i get


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *PmanUk*


Hey Mate,

You have missed mine









One page back for 192x1080

Regards

Pman



I didn't miss it, it just said "a little one for you" so I though it wasn't to be recorded.








Also, your post is a little wrong. You need a CPU-Z screenshot, and GPU-Z but GPU-Shark would do just fine for replacing GPU-Z, plus not using the correct format listed in the OP and a few posts above.


----------



## logan666

heres my 460s


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logan666;13056771*
> heres my 460s


If you want it added to the list read the OP.


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;13045049*
> You are, but which one would you like to go up? The 1680 or 1920 since you can only have 1 score up there.


ummm. 1920 is fine as thats what I game at.

Will soon be getting another 460 for first time sli. We'll see how it performs then.

Thanks


----------



## PrimeBurn

PrimeBurn ---- Phenom II x4 970 @ 4.08GHz ---- GTX 560 Ti 2GB 2xSLI (950/2108/1900) ---- 64.57 FPS


----------



## grishkathefool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrimeBurn;13067458*
> PrimeBurn ---- Phenom II x4 970 @ 4.08GHz ---- GTX 560 Ti 2GB 2xSLI (950/2108/1900) ---- 64.57 FPS


What voltage are you using for that OC on your 560s?


----------



## PrimeBurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grishkathefool;13076293*
> what voltage are you using for that oc on your 560s?


1.037


----------



## grishkathefool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrimeBurn;13076390*
> 1.037


Thanks, that is right in line with what I used for 950 too.


----------



## munaim1

Munaim1 ---- i5 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 (960/1920/4100) ---- 31.61 fps

lol I think I got it the other way round. I'm pretty sure I wont last in 5 place. But hopefully a second card should help boost the fps even further.


----------



## grishkathefool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grishkathefool;13040738*
> grishkathefool ---- i5 2500 @ 3.4GHz ---- MSI Twin Frozr 560 Ti GTX (880/2100/1760) ---- 37.49 FPS / 1080p


This a repost.


----------



## blackbalt89

Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (772/1544/2004) ---- 54.50 FPS


----------



## grishkathefool

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grishkathefool;13040738*
> grishkathefool ---- i5 2500 @ 3.4GHz ---- MSI Twin Frozr 560 Ti GTX (880/2100/1760) ---- 37.49 FPS


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grishkathefool;13088813*
> This a repost.


Quote:


> Fifth Place:
> Munaim1 ---- i5 2500k @ 5.1ghz---- GTX 460 (960/4100/1920) ---- 31.61 fps


my puny non-OCd 2500 gets snubbed on this Bench Thread too.

That's cool, Munaim1 deserves the spot after helping me out elsewhere


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grishkathefool;13103466*
> my puny non-OCd 2500 gets snubbed on this Bench Thread too.
> 
> That's cool, Munaim1 deserves the spot after helping me out elsewhere


thank you


----------



## kora04

Got everything updated.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackbalt89;13102792*
> Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (772/1544/2004) ---- 54.50 FPS


What res is that?

Looks like 1920, right?


----------



## steadly2004

steadly2004---- i7-930 @ 3.9ghz --- GTX570 SLI (890/1780/2000) 80.69 FPS
1080p


----------



## grishkathefool

Quote:



Fifth Place:
PrimeBurn ---- x4 970 @ 4.08GHz ----SLI GTX 560 Ti 2GB (950/2108/1900) ---- 64.57 FPS


lol Munaim1, we got ownedz


----------



## munaim1

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grishkathefool*


lol Munaim1, we got ownedz


I know







I should hopefully be getting another 460 soon, will watercool that badboy and run SLI for the first time. With both at 950core and cpu @ 5.1ghz It might just surpass that 64fps mark for 5th spot









EDIT: Actually might sell my 460 for a couple 560ti, dont know yet


----------



## compudaze

REPOST: Now that 1080P is catching on, would you update mine to that and please delete my old 1680x1050 submission. Sorry to be a bother. No more switching unless I get a better score, i swear









compudaze ---- Core i7 2500K @ 5.1GHz ---- AMD Radeon HD 6950 CrossfireX Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 1080P @ 88.46 FPS


----------



## PrimeBurn

PrimeBurn ---- x4 970 @ 4.08GHz ----SLI GTX 560 Ti 2GB (950/2150/1900) ---- 66.07 FPS

I'll make a shameless and pathetic attempt to cling to a spot just a little longer...

Arrgh - too late.


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


REPOST: Now that 1080P is catching on, would you update mine to that and please delete my old 1680x1050 submission. Sorry to be a bother. No more switching unless I get a better score, i swear









compudaze ---- Core i7 2500K @ 5.1GHz ---- AMD Radeon HD 6950 CrossfireX Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 1080P @ 88.46 FPS











That's an awesome score and good overclock. I wonder if I'd be closer if I could get my CPU higher, I imagine an extra gigahertz doesn't hurt the FPS







I tried for 900core, but I couldn't do it at 1.1v and I didn't want to try any higher.


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


REPOST: Now that 1080P is catching on, would you update mine to that and please delete my old 1680x1050 submission. Sorry to be a bother. No more switching unless I get a better score, i swear









compudaze ---- Core i7 2500K @ 5.1GHz ---- AMD Radeon HD 6950 CrossfireX Unlocked (1000/1450) ---- 1080P @ 88.46 FPS











I hate to be a bother, but I'm curious as to how much CPU speed effects your FPS. Can you do a run a 3.9ghz or so and see how bad the FPS drop from you score of 88.46FPS? I'd just bump mine up, but I don't get stable clocks above where I'm at.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


I hate to be a bother, but I'm curious as to how much CPU speed effects your FPS. Can you do a run a 3.9ghz or so and see how bad the FPS drop from you score of 88.46FPS? I'd just bump mine up, but I don't get stable clocks above where I'm at.


I tested 3.1ghz vs 4.8ghz once. 58 FPS vs 59 FPS, but this was with 4xAA. I think it was about 10-15 FPS difference using AAA instead.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


Got everything updated.

What res is that?

Looks like 1920, right?












Forgot to write what res it was. 1680 x 1050.

I've got a new one though with my new 580 OC. So you can throw that one out. For only a 80MHz increase I got 3.5fps. Not too shabby.

Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- 58.00 FPS


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*











Forgot to write what res it was. 1680 x 1050.

I've got a new one though with my new 580 OC. So you can throw that one out. For only a 80MHz increase I got 3.5fps. Not too shabby.

Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- 58.00 FPS











Why does GPU-Z say the clock is the same as the default clock? Why does afterburner not have the Apply button pressed?


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Why does GPU-Z say the clock is the same as the default clock? Why does afterburner not have the Apply button pressed?


HAHA, good call, lol


----------



## tsm106

Shenanigans!


----------



## Levesque

Levesque - i7 2600K at 4.8 - 6990+6970 975/1375 - 93.5 fps (1920x1080)










Levesque - i7 2600K at 5.1 - 6990+6970 975/1375 - 94.5 fps (1920x1080)










I've run the test 10 times, and I can get the graph to show, lol.


----------



## Levesque

Levesque - i7 2600K at 5.1 - 6990+6970 975/1375 - 99.5 fps (1680X1050)

Not bad for 500$ less then 580 Tri-SLI.


----------



## Levesque

And just for fun. I would like to see a 580 1.5Gb SLI set-up with the same settings.

*2560X1600*, DX11, Very High, *MSAA 4X*, AF 16X, Tesselation.

i7 2600K at 4.8 6990+6970, *55 fps*


----------



## CallsignVega

1920x1080
CallsignVega ---- i7 990x @ 4.83 Ghz ---- Quad-SLI 3GB GTX580 (1020/2200/2040) ---- 126.32 FPS










1680x1050
CallsignVega ---- i7 990x @ 4.83 Ghz ---- Quad-SLI 3GB GTX580 (1020/2200/2040) ---- 129.24 FPS










GPUs were only at around 60-70% usage at these resolutions.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Why does GPU-Z say the clock is the same as the default clock? Why does afterburner not have the Apply button pressed?


Because I don't idle in overclocked profiles. Do you all go running your high OC's while not gaming? When I'm lurking the internet I don't need an 850MHz OC...


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Because I don't idle in overclocked profiles. Do you all go running your high OC's while not gaming? When I'm lurking the internet I don't need an 850MHz OC...


My GPU's auto downvolt/downclock to 0.9V and 250MHz when not in 3D mode.

Buy anyway... so you loaded your oc profile, ran the game benchmark at your stated speeds, hurried up and loaded your internet/idle/non-3d clock speed profile, then re-loaded your 3d profile w/o applying it & _then_ took your screenshot? Sorry, I'm just trying to understand.

EDIT: Do you have afterburner doing automatic 2d/3d profiles for you? Is that why perhaps?


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Why does GPU-Z say the clock is the same as the default clock? Why does afterburner not have the Apply button pressed?



Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


HAHA, good call, lol



Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Shenanigans!


Jokes on you guys.

Just because I click off my OC when I'm done playing/benching doesn't mean it's a fake. Look at this. Same OC, same exact FPS. It's a miracle.

Just so you guys know profile 1 is stock, 3 is 850, and 5 is 900 (which needs more stability testing).










Enjoy your evenings.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


My GPU's auto downvolt/downclock to 0.9V and 250MHz when not in 3D mode.

Buy anyway... so you loaded your oc profile, ran the game benchmark at your stated speeds, hurried up and loaded your internet/idle/non-3d clock speed profile, then re-loaded your 3d profile w/o applying it & _then_ took your screenshot? Sorry, I'm just trying to understand.

*EDIT: Do you have afterburner doing automatic 2d/3d profiles for you? Is that why perhaps?*


Honestly what difference does it make how I run my computer?

It does downclock but there are situations where I just don't need the OC. Like if I decide to play CSS or Half Life. It's easier to leave it off to play the majority of my games which don't require massive GPU power than to have to worry about 65C load temps playing a game from 2004.

Make more sense now?

EDIT: What do you even mean by Afterburner doing automatic profiles? You mean allowing AB to switch between my 3 predetermined profiles based on load? Even if I did have it set that way, which I don't, what difference would it make?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Jokes on you guys.

Just because I click off my OC when I'm done playing/benching doesn't mean it's a fake. Look at this. Same OC, same exact FPS. It's a miracle.

Just so you guys know profile 1 is stock, 3 is 850, and 5 is 900 (which needs more stability testing).

http://i55.tinypic.com/5vvmtw.jpg

Enjoy your evenings.


Didn't know there was a joke involved. I simply asked about a discrepancy in your screenshots in what I though was a very polite manner. I never once said or thought your results/clocks were fake. Just trying to get to the bottom of the discrepancy.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Honestly what difference does it make how I run my computer


It doesn't to me. But if you're going to bother to post benchmark screenshots here, you may as well do it right so people don't call shenanigans. If you posted something like that on hwbot, it would get pulled. Not that hwbot does metro benches, but you get the idea.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


It does downclock but there are situations where I just don't need the OC. Like if I decide to play CSS or Half Life. It's easier to leave it off to play the majority of my games which don't require massive GPU power than to have to worry about 65C load temps playing a game from 2004.

Make more sense now?


I guess so. I never had to worry about it since my cards have built-in downvolt/downclock. It's hard to believe the GTX 580 doesn't do this as well.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


EDIT: What do you even mean by Afterburner doing automatic profiles? You mean allowing AB to switch between my 3 predetermined profiles based on load? Even if I did have it set that way, which I don't, what difference would it make?


In AB you can save up to 5 profiles. In the settings, under the profiles tab, there's a place for automatic profiles management. Here you can tell it which of your profiles to use for 2d and 3d modes. It's meant for cards who don't downclock when idle/2d.

Enjoy your evening as well!


----------



## merc.man87

My gpu's are stock. Thinking about picking up another 6970 for some quad fire action. I can push them to about 1015 on the core each, after that, temps really come in to play with stock cooling. Oh yea, this is my first post!


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


I guess so. I never had to worry about it since my cards have built-in downvolt/downclock. It's hard to believe the GTX 580 doesn't do this it's self.

In AB you can save up to 5 profiles. In the settings, under the profiles tab, there's a place for automatic profiles management. Here you can tell it which profile to use for 2d and 3d modes. It's meant for cards who don't downclock when idle/2d.


Yes, I'm aware of this feature. And oddly enough the 580 does do it itself. But that still comes back to having to run high clocks for a game like Half Life 2.

As far as I know Afterburner still doesn't have a way to determine what clocks to run an old game at and won't switch between profiles by itself based on 3D load.

So I simply apply stock clocks when I'm done running a newer game or benchmark. It's as simple as that. There's no Metro 2033 conspiracy going on here and as you can see the new SS that I posted has the same exact FPS as the one from last night. This time you can see on the left side of the AB graph where it says max clock was 850 and max temps were 62C.

I don't ask you why you do what you do, so why does it matter why I do what I do?

Let's leave it at that and get to more benching.


----------



## InerTia*

Well as far as I go, I am running a:

AMD Athlon II 4.0GHz 1090t

CrossfireX 5770 
900MHz core

Hold around 60FPS Maxed. I dont have the benchmark for some reason








1300MHz Mem


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Yes, I'm aware of this feature. And oddly enough the 580 does do it itself. But that still comes back to having to run high clocks for a game like Half Life 2.

As far as I know Afterburner still doesn't have a way to determine what clocks to run an old game at and won't switch between profiles by itself based on 3D load.

So I simply apply stock clocks when I'm done running a newer game or benchmark. It's as simple as that. There's no Metro 2033 conspiracy going on here and as you can see the new SS that I posted has the same exact FPS as the one from last night. This time you can see on the left side of the AB graph where it says max clock was 850 and max temps were 62C.

I don't ask you why you do what you do, so why does it matter why I do what I do?

Let's leave it at that and get to more benching.



















Sorry, I posted before I was finished. I've since added more to my post if you wish to read it.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Sorry, I posted before I was finished. I've since added more to my post if you wish to read it.


I see it. And now that I understand your post a bit more I retract said statement.

The other two posters were more or less joking I guess, simply jumping on your band wagon without really elaborating on the issue.

But regardless, the picture you quoted in your post is what was taken tonight and shows an applied AB profile along with as much of the AB graph as I could fit without covering the graph too much.


----------



## Draygonn

I don't tun my benching profiles 24/7 so I know how easy it is to switch back before taking the SS if you're not thinking about it.


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Sub'd, will add my benchmarks soon.


----------



## MisterMister

My rig specs are up to date in my profile/signature. LOL this thread sucked me back into the forums here.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

_CH_Skyline_ ---- Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.1Ghz ---- GTX580 Tri-SLi (800/1002/1600) ---- 91.28 FPS @ 1920x1080










Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;13142998*
> And just for fun. I would like to see a 580 1.5Gb SLI set-up with the same settings.
> 
> *2560X1600*, DX11, Very High, *MSAA 4X*, AF 16X, Tesselation.
> 
> i7 2600K at 4.8 6990+6970, *55 fps*


I didn't notice the 4xAA until after I ran it, but since I can't run 2560x1600, here's 5960x1200, 42.5 fps.


----------



## Alex24buc

alex24buc - I7 980X @ 4.13Ghz - GTX480 Tri SLi (default clocks) - 82 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## UrbanSmooth

I will not be adding an entry as I killed my build overclocking my GPUs. Read more about it in my build log.*


----------



## kora04

Updated, as for merc.man87 & MisterMister, you guys need to use the small form in the OP to enter.


----------



## MisterMister

I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "small form". Is there some abbreviated format that I should be aware of?


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MisterMister;13220879*
> I'm not quite understanding what you mean by "small form". Is there some abbreviated format that I should be aware of?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;10590940*
> _*Provide a screenshot of CPU-Z and GPU-Z and the 2 runs as proof. THE SECOND RUN! will count! (Run1).
> 1 Score ONLY*_
> 
> _*USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS*_


There. The green text.


----------



## MisterMister

I got that, couldn't edit fast enough. Thanks though!










*MisterMister ---- intel i7 930 @ 4.0Ghz ---- Nvidia GTX-480 (2x SLi) @ 850/1000/1700 ---- 77.91 FPS*


----------



## blackbalt89

What was posted on the board is not correct.

Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- *57.99 FPS* 58.11 FPS (if you knocked me down a peg because we had another person with exactly 58.00)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackbalt89;13131880*
> Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- 58.00 FPS


Even if you do the math which I'm horrible at adding the two averages then dividing will net you 58.11, not 57.99.


----------



## steven937595

Love playing the game, and the cpu OC finally makes the very high setting play well in the outdoor sections.

1920x1080
i7 [email protected] - CFX HD 5870 (850/1200) - 62.89fps
first run was higher








Attachment 207108


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Any patches to this game that help with performance?


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steven937595;13243647*
> Love playing the game, and the cpu OC finally makes the very high setting play well in the outdoor sections.
> 
> 1920x1080
> i7 [email protected] - CFX HD 5870 (850/1200) - 62.89fps
> first run was higher:headscrat
> View attachment 207108


At first I was like, "damn", that's a high score for a 5870, then I was like.... oooohhh crossfire. Lol

I got another 2FPS by upping to 900 core and running CPU at 3.8 instead of 3.6

steadly2004- i7 930 @ 3.8 SLI GTX570 (900/1800- mem 2100) - 82.03 FPS


----------



## B!0HaZard

What's up with the horrible CF and SLI scaling in this game? FPS in the 50's/60's with CF HD 5870, but FPS in the 40's with single HD 5850/5870.


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Tessellation fail?


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth*


Tessellation fail?


Not at all


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Then all is well in the world.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Here's my latest score:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Majin SSJ Eric - Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz - EVGA GTX 560Ti (985/2250/1970) - 38.98 FPS


----------



## Faster/Denis

Faster - i7 990x ES @5Ghz - 4x GTX580 (1020/1125) - 131.24 FPS


----------



## venomblade

venomblade----Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8ghz----GTX 560ti(950/1900/2150)----38.93fps


----------



## logan666

does mine seem ok ???


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *logan666*


does mine seem ok ???


I would think 480 sli would get closer to my score.


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *logan666*


does mine seem ok ???


Take it down to AAA instead of 4xmsaa.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


I would think 480 sli would get closer to my score.


Your settings are not showing.


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13274055*
> Your settings are not showing.


****, where did they go? Do I have to click a box to show them?


----------



## noahhova

Majin SSJ Eric - Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz - EVGA GTX 560Ti (985/2250/1970) - 38.98 FPS

venomblade----Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8ghz----GTX 560ti(950/1900/2150)----38.93fps

These 2 scores show exactly how reliant this game is on GPU. That SB is light years (exaggeration) better then the AMD, yet with roughly the exact same card they get the same score.


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13274055*
> 
> Your settings are not showing.


fixed, new screenshot with settings showing


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noahhova;13276776*
> Majin SSJ Eric - Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz - EVGA GTX 560Ti (985/2250/1970) - 38.98 FPS
> 
> venomblade----Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8ghz----GTX 560ti(950/1900/2150)----38.93fps
> 
> These 2 scores show exactly how reliant this game is on GPU. That SB is light years (exaggeration) better then the AMD, yet with roughly the exact same card they get the same score.


Different drivers. Hell, if you check the scores of single HD 5850/5870 users, you'll see that I'm actually leading despite only having an HD 5850. Mostly because of drivers.

I've done some testing myself and Metro 2033 actually does like strong CPUs unless you're pushing max settings (PhysX can of course make it one of the most CPU demanding games ever):










It's still a really GPU heavy game, though.


----------



## noahhova

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard;13277443*
> Different drivers. Hell, if you check the scores of single HD 5850/5870 users, you'll see that I'm actually leading despite only having an HD 5850. Mostly because of drivers.
> 
> I've done some testing myself and Metro 2033 actually does like strong CPUs unless you're pushing max settings (PhysX can of course make it one of the most CPU demanding games ever):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a really GPU heavy game, though.


So barely any difference at 1080p and there is a HUGE gap between those CPU's, pretty much proves my point.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *noahhova;13277481*
> So barely any difference at 1080p and there is a HUGE gap between those CPU's, pretty much proves my point.


I agree, but it does need some. My post wasn't a correction, more of an addition to what you said.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

My second GTX 560Ti is in the FedEx truck on the way to me as I type this. By tonight I should have some new runs to post....


----------



## venomblade

Quote:



Originally Posted by *noahhova*


Majin SSJ Eric - Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz - EVGA GTX 560Ti (985/2250/1970) - 38.98 FPS

venomblade----Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.8ghz----GTX 560ti(950/1900/2150)----38.93fps

These 2 scores show exactly how reliant this game is on GPU. That SB is light years (exaggeration) better then the AMD, yet with roughly the exact same card they get the same score.


For some reason my screenshot of my benchmark was deleted already, adn even though we have similar fps what i just noticed was he had physX on and i didn't bother to turn it on...so will re run the benchmark with physX on and post results again, prob will be much lower. Also Majin's max fps is much higher than mine was, mine was like 80 or 85 and his is in the 100s.

edit: here we go, lil lower this time 37.02fps


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Ok, so I finally got my second GTX 560Ti installed and just ran the benchmark again:

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- 2x GTX 560Ti (900/2106/1800) ---- 60.97 FPS*

Attachment 207648

22 FPS (56%) improvement and thats just at stock speeds. I'm sure the scaling will be even better if I use the same OC as I did with just the single card. Guess we'll just have to find out if that will work....


----------



## blackbalt89

*1680 x 1050*

*Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- 59.00 FPS*










*1920 x 1080*

*Blackbalt89 ---- i7-950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 (850/1700/2100) ---- 51.00 FPS*










Update me please!


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Ok, so I finally got my second GTX 560Ti installed and just ran the benchmark again:

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- 2x GTX 560Ti (900/2106/1800) ---- 60.97 FPS*

Attachment 207648

22 FPS (56%) improvement and thats just at stock speeds. I'm sure the scaling will be even better if I use the same OC as I did with just the single card. Guess we'll just have to find out if that will work....










Lol @ your max FPS compared to min FPS.

Why did you have HUGE spikes near the end?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

^^^I don't know. Thats a good question...


----------



## jam3s

*1680x1050:*

*Jam3s ---- Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 470 SLI (800/1600/837) ---- Average Framerate: 44.64 FPS
*


*
1920x1200* (I can't do 1080)

*Jam3s ---- Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 470 SLI (800/1600/837) ---- Average Framerate: 42.19 FPS*



Update me please!

Also how are my scores?


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jam3s;13285935*
> *1680x1050:*
> 
> *Jam3s ---- Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 470 SLI (800/1600/837) ---- Average Framerate: 44.64 FPS
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 1920x1200* (I can't do 1080)
> 
> *Jam3s ---- Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 470 SLI (800/1600/837) ---- Average Framerate: 42.19 FPS*
> 
> 
> 
> Update me please!
> 
> Also how are my scores?


I honestly think something is robbing you of some serious horsepower. If you look at the list on the first page here you will see:
Quote:


> Aytaç ---- Q6600 @ 3.6GHz ---- GTX 470 (901/1802/1027) ---- 44.58 FPS


Quote:


> sugarmankie ---- 1055t @ 3.8GHz ---- GTX 470 (870/2060) ---- 46.97 FPS


And this one is a stretch but he has unlocked 465's.
Quote:


> brettjv ---- i7 930 @ 4.2GHz ---- SLI GTX 465 Unlock (850/1780/470) ---- 77.92 FPS


----------



## jam3s

Sheet. Can't wait to get rid of my rig and go SB


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jam3s;13286608*
> Sheet. Can't wait to get rid of my rig and go SB


It can't be your PC.

The first one I posted was of someone with the same exact CPU at the same OC with a single 470 scoring almost what you got.

Did you have something running?

What's your RAM rated for? SLi enabled?









There's some reason as to why you're essentially being robbed of a GPU! We must get to the bottom of it!


----------



## jam3s

Yeah I get mixed results in 06, and heaven that show performance of a single card whereas vantage crysis 1/2 and 3dmark 11 are relatively acceptable scores

Weird


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jam3s;13286701*
> Yeah I get mixed results in 06, and heaven that show performance of a single card whereas vantage crysis 1/2 and 3dmark 11 are relatively acceptable scores
> 
> Weird












More of a reason to upgrade!







:band:


----------



## venomblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venomblade;13281852*


are my scores on the norm? I'm surprised to be scoring that much lower than a single 470, but some1 else had a 560ti and a 2600k and only got 1 more fps than me on avg, but much higher max fps


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

That was me but I just added a second GTX 560Ti and here is my latest score:

View attachment 207674


*Majin SSJ Eric ---- i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- 2x GTX 560Ti (950/2150/1800) ---- 64.93 FPS*


----------



## PmanUk

Ok guys

Here we go









Pmanuk ---- 2600k @ 5.2ghz ---- 2 x 580's 935/2250/1870 ---- 96.56 FPS

Screenie attached









Pman


----------



## logan666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric;13288012*
> That was me but I just added a second GTX 560Ti and here is my latest score:
> 
> View attachment 207674
> 
> 
> *Majin SSJ Eric ---- i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- 2x GTX 560Ti (950/2150/1800) ---- 64.93 FPS*


lol u smoke my 480s that i just got *** i shoulda got 560s


----------



## BallaTheFeared

No you should get a sandy bridge


----------



## logan666

theres that much of a cpu bottleneck with this game??? wot sort of fps would i see if upgraded to sandybridge


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Not sure what you're getting now or what I'd get with PhysX running without a dedicated card... But without PhysX you should be pushing 80+ fps on air with the 1080p test settings.


----------



## compudaze

For comparison purposes, you Nvidia guys should be disabling physics. Read OP for settings to use.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


For comparison purposes, you Nvidia guys should be disabling physics. Read OP for settings to use.


Ah, missed that part. Here's my run with physics disabled. Thanks!

Attachment 207737

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- 2x GTX 560Ti (950/2150/1800) ---- 68.53 FPS *


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Woah, 470s are that much faster than 560s?

Impressive.


----------



## PmanUk

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


For comparison purposes, you Nvidia guys should be disabling physics. Read OP for settings to use.


I did


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Woah, 470s are that much faster than 560s?

Impressive.


In this benchmark it certainly appears so....


----------



## logan666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13291230*
> Not sure what you're getting now or what I'd get with PhysX running without a dedicated card... But without PhysX you should be pushing 80+ fps on air with the 1080p test settings.


all maxed im gettting like 53 fps avg???


----------



## venomblade

Quote:



Originally Posted by *logan666*


all maxed im gettting like 53 fps avg???


You using AAA or MSAA 4x? Majin's scores are based on AAA.


----------



## logan666

lol dont worry stupid me had vsyc on under metro 2033 in ncp but i had it off under globle lol i get 73 avg


----------



## logan666

heres it is all maxed


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Turn on DoF as well for sub 60 fps gaming


----------



## CRosko42

Woohoo hit top 5 at 1920x1080...

CRosko42 ---- Intel i5 2500k @ 4.7GHz ---- Nvidia GTX570 SLI (915/2000/1830) ---- 84.22 FPS


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Lol @ your max FPS compared to min FPS.

Why did you have HUGE spikes near the end?



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


^^^I don't know. Thats a good question...


You've got physx enabled. Turn it off and re-run. Seems lotsa folks are leaving physx on.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol









I'm out!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Woah, 470s are that much faster than 560s?

Impressive.


Actually, I think you've got some "special" cards or something considering that your score is significantly higher than several sli 480's and the same as sli 570's...


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Its possible I'll have to run it again once my board comes back.

Try these setting once:


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Its possible I'll have to run it again once my board comes back.

Try these setting once:











You need to disable DOF and change 4msaa to AAA


----------



## kora04

Updated, finally.

Ok, anyway, glad this thread is taking off, but a quick reminder about the rules guys. 1 score only, so for blackbalt89 I took your 1920 score and as jam3s I took the 1680 score.

If anyone finds any mistakes, tell me about them and I'll get it fixed asap.


----------



## Levesque

Levesque - i7 2600K at 5.3 - 6990+6970+6970 - *101* fps


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Its possible I'll have to run it again once my board comes back.

Try these setting once:











I ran the bench again at your settings and still come up about 10 FPS short.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I don't get it either because 560's in SLI should be faster than 470's according to the benches I've seen....

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/311?vs=330


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Thats with an over 200MHz core advantage though, plus I had quite a large memory overclock which should be good for 3-4 fps as well. And my cpu was clocked higher, what does your ram run at? Mine was running 9-10-9 @ 2150.

I will test again once I get my board back on Tuesday (assuming the cpu didn't die like the HHD & board).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

My memory is 8-8-8-24 @1600, cpu at 4500mhz, and video cards at 950mhz. I guess I need to increase my OC's....


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Yeah I mean if you add them all up, each thing adds just a few fps but as a whole it equates in to being slightly faster than your cards.

Ram 1-2 fps
CPU 1-2 fps
GPU only a 75 MHz core difference 3-4 fps
GPU Memory 4200Mhz effective, which is a 800Mhz overclock vs stock. 2-3 fps

Add them all up and 470s can be beasts, but they're also hot, and loud. If I wasn't going to WC my gpus I would go for 560s over 470s


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Cool. Thanks for the info!


----------



## venomblade

Does anybody have results with a single stock 570? I read that my OC should be near a 570, maybe 3-4 fps below and ofcourse results may vary with your cpu but i just wanted to know if i was anywhere near it.

edit: 38.93fps was my score btw, at 1080p


----------



## Bal3Wolf

blah fixing


----------



## grunion

^^ Res, settings?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

lol looks like i coverd it up opps let me rerun it.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- *RESOLUTION* ---- XX.XX FPS


Could we add the res to data line? That way I don't have to actually look at the screenshot to compare FPS. =)


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Bal3Wolf ---- I7 930 @ 4.2Ghz ---- [email protected] 1000/1250 [email protected] 900/1250 trfire ---- 68.71 FPS


----------



## jdcrispe95

Between 30-5fps

lol my card is terrible


----------



## TheStealthyOne

TheStealthyOne - Phenom II X4 955 @ 3.7 Ghz - ASUS 6870 DirectCu @ 1000/1165 - Averaged 40.00 FPS @ 1680X1050


----------



## robchaos

Robchaos ---- Phenom II x4 955BE @ 3.2Ghz ---- His Radeon HD5830 Turbo (840Mhz/1100Mhz/1120) ---- 34.83 Average FPS @ 1280 x 1024


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robchaos;13347570*
> Robchaos ---- Phenom II x4 955BE @ 3.2Ghz ---- His Radeon HD5830 Turbo (840Mhz/1100Mhz/1120) ---- 34.83 Average FPS @ 1280 x 1024


screenshot?


----------



## robchaos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13347625*
> screenshot?


Haha sorry brain fart


----------



## robchaos

Robchaos ---- Phenom II x4 955BE @ 3.2Ghz ---- His Radeon HD5830 Turbo (840Mhz/1100Mhz/1120) ---- 36.01 Average FPS @ 1280 x 1024

One more. Just updated my drivers to 11.4 for a gain of over 1 fps avg.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13347203*
> Could we add the res to data line? That way I don't have to actually look at the screenshot to compare FPS. =)


Sure, but put it in the beginning. [email protected]

I'll update the OP with this rule change, and get the scores update when I get the chance to, really busy these 2 couple of weeks.


----------



## Stanbony

104.90 AVG FPS Stanbony i7 970 cpu 3.8 3xGTX580 930/2104/1860 1920x1080 Provide a screenshot of CPU-Z and GPU-
Z and the 2 runs as proof. THE SECOND RUN! will count! (Run1).
1 Score ONLY

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION

Using:

Resolutions:
1920x1080
1680x1050
1280x1024

Game settings:
DX 11
Very High
AAA
16xAF
(no DOF or PhysX)

Scene:
Frontline

Runs:
2 runs
_____________________

Where does it ask for avg?


----------



## Uncivilised

hmm i dnt get it my sig rig gets 27fps at 1080p standard settings for this benchy.. 
Driver problem?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Uncivilised*


hmm i dnt get it my sig rig gets 27fps at 1080p standard settings for this benchy.. 
Driver problem?


No your cpu is holding you back for 1 sence its only 4 cores at 3.6ghz and with no physx card it has to do that work to. And metro2033 is a very demanding game i only get 68fps with 3 5870s.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Stanbony*




















104.90 AVG FPS Stanbony i7 970 cpu 3.8 3xGTX580 930/2104/1860 1920x1080


104.9 is the result of your 2nd run only, and 101.88 for your first run. We don't see the average fps of both runs in your screen shot.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Levesque*


104.9 is the result of your 2nd run only, and 101.88 for your first run. We don't see the average fps of both runs in your screen shot.


we dont need to run 1 is the one counts not the avg of both runs.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Uncivilised*


hmm i dnt get it my sig rig gets 27fps at 1080p standard settings for this benchy.. 
Driver problem?


Depends on whether you set your settings correctly or not. If you did set them correctly then yes, it's a driver problem. If you run the thing without PhysX then your CPU is easily enough.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Bal3Wolf*


No your cpu is holding you back for 1 sence its only 4 cores at 3.6ghz and with no physx card it has to do that work to. And metro2033 is a very demanding game i only get 68fps with 3 5870s.


If he ran it at the correct settings, he isn't using PhysX. And multi-GPU scaling is crap in this game. I get 40 FPS with a single HD 5850. If CF and SLI worked properly, you'd be doing 100 FPS.


----------



## blackbalt89

I need to get another 580 for 1080p res.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


No, the AVERAGE of both runs which it states at the bottom of the webpage under the graphs is what is used.

In the rules he's stating that Run 1 (which is the second run) still counts on top of Run 0.


No, it's only run 1 that counts.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


No, it's only run 1 that counts.


Saw that and edited.


----------



## B!0HaZard

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Saw that and edited.


Lol.

You should go for a PSU first.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *B!0HaZard*


Lol.

You should go for a PSU first.


Yeah I know, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.









I just noticed now that he only wanted the Run 1 score. So my scores have been lower since I have been using the AVG score.


----------



## Stanbony

Provide a screenshot of CPU-Z and GPU-Z and the 2 runs as proof. THE SECOND RUN! will count! (Run1). 
1 Score ONLY

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION

wheres it ask for avg?


----------



## BallaTheFeared

He already said he made a mistake, kinda like you made a mistake making that post.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Not good enough to rank top #5, but I figured I'd share it anyways.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Not good enough to rank top #5, but I figured I'd share it anyways.











Stay away from #5!!!

I should have my 2nd GTX 580 to push me up a little more here soon.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I won't catch you, unless a driver release improves performance it would take probably 930 core to top your score


----------



## steadly2004

How the hell are 470's beating 570's? I wonder if a 1.4ghz core increase will net 4-10FPS?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steadly2004;13398075*
> How the hell are 470's beating 570's? I wonder if a 1.4ghz core increase will net 4-10FPS?


I did some testing on a 2600K a while back. 4.8GHz w/HT got 8-10 more FPS than 3.1GHz w/o HT. After I enabled 4xAA, both speeds got the same FPS. This test was on 6950 CFX.


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13398320*
> I did some testing on a 2600K a while back. 4.8GHz w/HT got 8-10 more FPS than 3.1GHz w/o HT. After I enabled 4xAA, both speeds got the same FPS. This test was on 6950 CFX.


Cool, that's got to be the answer.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steadly2004;13398075*
> How the hell are 470's beating 570's? I wonder if a 1.4ghz core increase will net 4-10FPS?


Balla's just got some crazy-ass 470's...


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Yes I do


----------



## jackeyjoe

I need to give this a run... by the look of it I'll be the only person with a dual


----------



## renaldy

*HERE IS MY COUNT ME IN->AND I CLAIM #2 SPOT in 1920x 1080 resolution.*


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol hes so excited.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

I'll be back for another run when my i5-2500k and Maximus IV Extreme arrive next week...


----------



## renaldy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


I'll be back for another run when my i5-2500k and Maximus IV Extreme arrive next week...










How come you only have 91fps running 3-way 580 SLI.

and I made 100fps with two-way 580 sli 
is hard to explain this, something wrong there i know your core clock is lower but 3-cards...


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol...


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


I'll be back for another run when my i5-2500k and Maximus IV Extreme arrive next week...











Quote:



Originally Posted by *renaldy*


How come you only have 91fps running 3-way 580 SLI.

and I made 100fps with two-way 580 sli 
is hard to explain this something wrong there i know your core clock is lower but 3-cards...


Because his proc is phenomenally slow for TRI SLI.
Expect to be pummeled when he switches to SB.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


Because his proc is phenomenally slow for TRI SLI.
Expect to be pummeled when he switches to SB.


Yep, you said it... *Phenom*ina*II*y slow.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


Yep, you said it... *Phenom*ina*II*y slow.










Very much so. I had to downclock my 2600K to 2.6-2.8GHz (can't remember exactly) and disable HT to match my friends Phenom II X4 @ 4GHz.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Very much so. I had to downclock my 2600K to 2.6-2.8GHz (can't remember exactly) and disable HT to match my friends Phenom II X4 @ 4GHz.


LMAO, that is just disgusting. I wouldn't even give it the satisfaction of being called a bottleneck, it's flat out crippling.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Shhhhh, they will riot if they hear this.


----------



## jam3s

*Jam3s ---- core i7 2600k @ 4.8GHz ---- SLI GTX 470's (800/837/1600) ---- 59.72 FPS @ 1920x1200*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

EDIT: the reason I did 1920x1200 is because I can't do 1920x1080 without my HDMI cable.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- SLI GTX 560Ti (950/1900/2200) ---- 68.46 FPS @ 1920x1080*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## wermad

I got some weird results:


----------



## badatgames18

^ does that look right? not sure.. i get around 66-69

going from 120+ to 70+ fps weird indeed


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


I got some weird results:


Something is definitely going on there...







If I were you, I'd be running either the beta 270.51's or the WHQL 270.61's, both are pretty killer. Haha, don't judge them by my score though, I'll be rectifying that issue next week.


----------



## TheBear

*1680x1050*

*TheBear ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- Powercolor HD 6950 1GB [unlocked] @ 970/1375 ---- 56.28 FPS*



*1920x1080*

*TheBear ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- Powercolor HD 6950 1GB [unlocked] @ 970/1375 ---- 49.71 FPS*


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheBear;13416641*
> *1680x1050*
> 
> *TheBear ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- Powercolor HD 6950 1GB [unlocked] @ 970/1375 ---- 56.28 FPS*
> 
> 
> 
> *1920x1080*
> 
> *TheBear ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4.5GHz ---- Powercolor HD 6950 1GB [unlocked] @ 970/1375 ---- 49.71 FPS*


how is your single 6950 beating or tieing my 2x560s?


















my 2600k was at 4.86 during this bench

my settings were slightly different... maybe turning on physx and 4x aa slowed it down a bit


----------



## wermad

Ok, looks like it was a background program causing some weird things. got clean and uninterrupted runs:

*wermad---i7 950 @ 4.2---3x Zotac GTX 470 (850/2000/1700)---84.78*


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13418966*
> Ok, looks like it was a background program causing some weird things. got clean and uninterrupted runs:


What background program was the culprit? Glad you sorted it out.


----------



## wermad

pc probe


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *badatgames18*


how is your single 6950 beating or tieing my 2x560s?


















my 2600k was at 4.86 during this bench

my settings were slightly different... maybe turning on physx and 4x aa slowed it down a bit


You answered your own question. Physx and 4xaa....


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Stay away from #5!!!

I should have my 2nd GTX 580 to push me up a little more here soon.












New bios version, better check yourself before you wreak yourself









Just gotta find .5 more fps somewhere


----------



## wermad

^^^Don't kill another SB


----------



## munaim1

Installed my second 460 yesterday and not really had a chance to see it's full potential due waiting on a few things to arrive first (run out of tubing for watercooling it). In SLI so far I managed just over 60fps (1080p) with the GPU at 900core 2100memory, which is considerably more than a 580 running at 850c/2100m and that makes me happy









I'll post back with my results when I get my 2nd card under water









EDIT: Just realised it is similar performance to cfx 5870 which is not bad if I say so myself


----------



## compudaze

getting 58fps at 1080 with one gtx 580 at my 24/7 clocks (4800 cpu, 930/1150 gpu). can't wait to see what happens if that 2nd gtx 580 ever shows up.


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13426163*
> getting 58fps at 1080 with one gtx 580 at my 24/7 clocks (4800 cpu, 930/1150 gpu). can't wait to see what happens if that 2nd gtx 580 ever shows up.


damn you got rid of those ati cards fast didn't you







SLI 580 is going to be beastly. Con gratz on the new cards bro


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13425525*
> ^^^Don't kill another SB


lol... *another*









Not pushing the chip too hard, 1.4v for 4.8, dram is at 1.64v, but I'm keeping it within .5 of the system agent one... Hopefully that helps


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *munaim1;13426174*
> damn you got rid of those ati cards fast didn't you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SLI 580 is going to be beastly. Con gratz on the new cards bro


All part of _the pursuit of performance_.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Weren't happy with their performance?


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13426231*
> All part of _the pursuit of performance_.


Amen









EDIT: With my single card I was only able to produce 31fps, now im getting just over 60fps at 900core. Like I mentioned before I still have to put the second one under water before I push it any further.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13426239*
> Weren't happy with their performance?


They performed extremely well. More than I needed. But they left me wanting more.


----------



## badatgames18

just ran it with the settings in the op..

here is what i got
View attachment 209530


I can't believe turning on physx and 4xaa makes such a big difference... here it is with physX and 4xaa


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

You just bumped me for fastest 560's! Jerk!


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric;13428380*
> You just bumped me for fastest 560's! Jerk!


lol technically you still have the fastest 560s... i totally forgot to open cpuz/gpuz


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


They performed extremely well. More than I needed. But they left me wanting more.


Funny how that works isn't it?

I've been thinking about selling my pro board and getting a revolution then going tri sli.

Do I need tri sli?

Noooooooooooooooo.

Would tri sli be fun?

Yesssssssssssssssss.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Funny how that works isn't it?

I've been thinking about selling my pro board and getting a revolution then going tri sli.

Do I need tri sli?

Noooooooooooooooo.

Would tri sli be fun?

Yesssssssssssssssss.


Do eet!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Its like asking your drug dealing for help quitting.


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Its like asking your drug dealing for help quitting.


Dealer?*


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Possibly, I changed it a few times









For some reason I couldn't type an analogy that really fit the situation.

Its like asking a crack head if you should quit smoking crack?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Funny how that works isn't it?

I've been thinking about selling my pro board and getting a revolution then going tri sli.

Do I need tri sli?

Noooooooooooooooo.

Would tri sli be fun?

Yesssssssssssssssss.


I would have gotten the rev if MC would have had it in stock at the time. I'm hoping Z68 will be in stores within ~30 days so I can exchange my P8P67 Pro for some Z68 goodness.


----------



## jam3s

z68 is pointless


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jam3s*


z68 is pointless


Interesting considering all mfg's are virtually abandoning P67 and focusing on Z68. If it Z68 comes out this month like it's supposed to, I'll be able to exchange my board with mostly likely no added cost.

Just because you have no use for it doesn't make it pointless.


----------



## jam3s

There is not one thing that z68 offers that would make it advantageous and worth switching to...


----------



## compudaze

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jam3s;13435968*
> There is not one thing that z68 offers that would make it advantageous and worth switching to...


Again, this is relative to you. I'm not sure how you think you can speak for everyone when you have no idea on every else's intentions.

But this is OT so I'm done with it here.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I agree that Z68 is not a viable upgrade option from P67 (unless you want the use of the HD3000 integrated graphics in the 2500k/2600k).


----------



## BallaTheFeared

The ability to use quick sync and still overclock is something a lot of people would enjoy I'm sure.

Not worth switching for me, but I won't attempt to speak for others who may find it of value.


----------



## WingmanSR

Here are mine, though I have a serious concern with the results, as they illustrate exactly why playing Metro 2033 is extremely painful and frustrating for me







. It appears many of you have similar results though I didn't see anyone mention it:

WingmanSR - i5 2500k @4.5gHz - gtx 570 (900/1900) - 40.33 @ 1920x1080

Average








Overview








Now this deeply troubles me...









The green line I added highlights exactly what my concern is; why the massive, sudden and frequent drops in FPS? What in the world is causing this? This happens during normal gameplay and it is very distracting, and absolutely demolishes my will to continue playing, which is quite sad as without this the game would be stellar.

This also happens at the lowest resolution, on 'low' graphics settings and with all features disabled; OCed or stock, doesn't matter.

Setting CPU priority to 'realtime' eliminates this, however, it results in audio problems and the occasional CTD. Raising PCI latency from 32 to 128 improves it to a playable and enjoyable level, but is not stable beyond an hour or so.

edit--Hmmm, it's not displaying images for me, what am I doing wrong:

"Average
[.IMG]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/718/summerys.png/[/IMG]
Overview
[.IMG]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/unledtew.png/[/IMG]
Now this deeply troubles me...
[.IMG]http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/576/whiskeytangofoxtrot.png/[/IMG]"


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WingmanSR;13437691*
> "Average
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overview
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this deeply troubles me...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "


Pewpew.


----------



## grunion

Turn off advanced physx.


----------



## WingmanSR

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Defoler*


Defoler ---- [email protected] ---- Tri-Sli 580 (900/2004/1800) ---- 111.87 FPS











does anyone have an idea about what is causing the large, abrupt and frequent 'FPS chasms' seen in many benchmark graphs, such as those in the graph posted by the gentleman I quoted?

I will fiddle with the .cfg and my current OC/BIOS settings and see if I can run a bench that reduces this effect. My current hunch is that it has something to do with audio processing or HDD access in game.

Disabling adv. PhysX did not eliminate this.

EDIT -- Is there anyone with the game loaded to SSD that has posted a benchmark or that could possibly run and post one?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *WingmanSR*


does anyone have an idea about what is causing the large, abrupt and frequent 'FPS chasms' seen in many benchmark graphs, such as those in the graph posted by the gentleman I quoted?

I will fiddle with the .cfg and my current OC/BIOS settings and see if I can run a bench that reduces this effect. My current hunch is that it has something to do with audio processing or HDD access in game.

Disabling adv. PhysX did not eliminate this.

EDIT -- Is there anyone with the game loaded to SSD that has posted a benchmark or that could possibly run and post one?


All graphs I've seen are like that. Single cards as well. Mine is like that on a single GTX 580 loading from SSD.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Metro 2033 is just a hardware intensive game. No video card(s) on the market today is going to even out those peaks and valleys fully....


----------



## WingmanSR

it certainly is hardware intensive, but what puzzles me is running at the lowest possible resolution, on low settings, with physx disabled(regardless of which DX api is being used) I will get a fairly steady ~120-150FPS, with frequent drops down to 4-5FPS that last 50-200 milliseconds. the result is stuttering, choppy gameplay and benches that look like tiny slices have been removed. ?:-/

Metro 2033 is almost entirely GPU dependent, toms hardware showed very little difference(within the margin of error) between different CPUs. downclocking to 3.0ghz fron 4.5 cost me a measly 5fps.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

5 fps average isn't measly when it could be the difference between 40 and 20, if only for a few seconds.

I don't share your issue, at any setting.


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *WingmanSR*


does anyone have an idea about what is causing the large, abrupt and frequent 'FPS chasms' seen in many benchmark graphs, such as those in the graph posted by the gentleman I quoted?

I will fiddle with the .cfg and my current OC/BIOS settings and see if I can run a bench that reduces this effect. My current hunch is that it has something to do with audio processing or HDD access in game.

Disabling adv. PhysX did not eliminate this.

EDIT -- Is there anyone with the game loaded to SSD that has posted a benchmark or that could possibly run and post one?


This was done with an SSD









ACHILEE5----2600k @ 4.9GHz----GTX480 (840/1680/1900)----53.27fps








http://www.overclock.net/12894418-post355.html

"audio processing"








My Sound Card's an X-Fi Extreme Gamer


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ACHILEE5*


This was done with an SSD









ACHILEE5----2600k @ 4.9GHz----GTX480 (840/1680/1900)----53.27fps








http://www.overclock.net/12894418-post355.html

"audio processing"








My Sound Card's an X-Fi Extreme Gamer










Looks like having the game on the SSD makes all the difference. I need to get a larger SSD for just my gaming files. Can't afford one large enough for windows and games.


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Here's a rule of thumb: SSDs rule.


----------



## kora04

Updated. except one...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *renaldy;13400278*
> *HERE IS MY COUNT ME IN->AND I CLAIM #2 SPOT in 1920x 1080 resolution.*
> [/URL]


USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lolz


----------



## renaldy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


getting 58fps at 1080 with one gtx 580 at my 24/7 clocks (4800 cpu, 930/1150 gpu). can't wait to see what happens if that 2nd gtx 580 ever shows up.


*WITH 2-GTX 580 SLI THIS WILL BE YOUR RESULT JUST LIKE MY 100fps.......*


----------



## renaldy

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kora04*


Updated. except one...

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION


*name:RENALDY*
*INTEL I7 [email protected]*
*EVGA NVIDIA GTX 580 SLI*
*core clock---940mhz
shader------1880mhz
memory-----2250mhz*
------------------------> *101.89fps
-----------------------> 1920x1080*

*everything is here*


----------



## B!0HaZard

Doesn't matter if it's in the screenshot, you have to format your post like this:

USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION


----------



## steadly2004

Hmm, So I disabled the pagefile hoping it would access the HDD less often and re-ran the benchmark at same settings, got another 1.5fps out of it. I really want to get another SSD to throw my games on and see just how much it'll affect the FPS, as I can see where it's loading areas during the benchmark. It hangs for a split second every so often. Either that or it's in my head, lol. I still want the SSD.

Steadly2004 i7-930 @ 3.8 and SLI GTX570 (900/2100/1800)


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


Hmm, So I disabled the pagefile hoping it would access the HDD less often and re-ran the benchmark at same settings, got another 1.5fps out of it. I really want to get another SSD to throw my games on and see just how much it'll affect the FPS, as I can see where it's loading areas during the benchmark. It hangs for a split second every so often. Either that or it's in my head, lol. I still want the SSD.

Steadly2004 i7-930 @ 3.8 and SLI GTX570 (900/2100/1800)


Why don't you just move the one game to the SSD with SteamMover









Link in sig, SSD owners must have app


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ACHILEE5;13454468*
> Why don't you just move the one game to the SSD with SteamMover
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link in sig, SSD owners must have app


Yea, my SSD is full as my boot drive with windows, my steam folder is like ~65gigs and my SSD is at 21gb avail out of 55gb

So, I need another SSD, or a larger one.....

*edit reading your must have app now*

Cool, gained like 0.6 FPS using the SSD, lol


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 104 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Grats


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Thanks. Something is unstable though, might need more voltage on the 580's... It's not BSOD'ing it's freezing and the displays turn off.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13458248*
> _CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 104 FPS @ 1920x1080


So much for that pummeling.
Looks like no scaling at all 2-->3 at 1080p.
What do you get with 2x SLI?


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


Thanks. Something is unstable though, might need more voltage on the 580's... It's not BSOD'ing it's freezing and the displays turn off.


what voltage for 900 core?

I had that happen during my crysis tests. usually meant clocks were too high or voltage was too low.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *compudaze;13460375*
> what voltage for 900 core?
> 
> I had that happen during my crysis tests. usually meant clocks were too high or voltage was too low.


I was attempting 1.050, but I've moved it up to 1.075 and dropped back to 885Mhz core for now. I'm trying to be cautious.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol why?

Its not like you have 570s


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

This is true, but they're only a month old and I don't normally spend $2100 on a mobo, cpu and vid cards.







This stuff is going to have to last at least 6-8 months.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol 5-8 months









Mine has to last 2-3 years.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Yeah, I had a feeling that I'd get flack for that, lol.


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


I was attempting 1.050, but I've moved it up to 1.075 and dropped back to 885Mhz core for now. I'm trying to be cautious.


I had to use 1.11v (measured) for 930 core. No matter what I did, I couldn't get anymore.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

$2100 last 6-8 months!!! LOL!! Rich boy!!


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


$2100 last 6-8 months!!! LOL!! Rich boy!!


Not really, just have a decent job and I never go out and spend my money on anything but my pc.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Just messin' man!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Got tired of coming just shy of the 70fps barrier so I did a cpu OC to 4700MHz to see if that made a difference. It did!

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4700MHz ---- GTX 560Ti SLI (950/2200/1900) ---- 72.02 FPS @ 1920x1080*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Grats!

CPU is starting to get toasty


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Got tired of coming just shy of the 70fps barrier so I did a cpu OC to 4700MHz to see if that made a difference. It did!

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- Core i7 2600k @ 4700MHz ---- GTX 560Ti SLI (950/2200/1900) ---- 72.02 FPS @ 1920x1080*



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


Why stop there? 5.4Ghz or bust.... Shoot for the moon!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Lol, I'm definitely not keeping this OC 24/7. My Hyper 212 keeps my cpu happier at 4.5GHz. I had to bump vcore from 1.275v to 1.35v to keep 4.7GHz stable and the temps get a little uncomfortable for my tastes. I'll go back to 4.5GHz and sub-75C temps after running a few more benchies....


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


So much for that pummeling.
Looks like no scaling at all 2-->3 at 1080p.
What do you get with 2x SLI?


Here's 2way-SLi:










Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 104 FPS @ 1920x1080











I gained 17fps. I hope you aren't comparing me to Vega because he's got Quad-SLi @ 1Ghz core.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

17 fps is some pretty bad scaling though, what kind of scaling do you get in surround?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


17 fps is some pretty bad scaling though, what kind of scaling do you get in surround?


Bezel-corrected 5960x1200


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


Bezel-corrected 5960x1200

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/4...11surround.png


Is that with 2 or 3 cards? Could you compare 2vs3?

Thanks!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Is that tri or dual?

Can you run other other option listed?









Edit: lolz... Great minds think alike?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *compudaze*


Is that with 2 or 3 cards? Could you compare 2vs3?

Thanks!



Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Is that tri or dual?

Can you run other other option listed?









Edit: lolz... Great minds think alike?


I can do it tomorrow. I've gotta reconnect the cards for that and I'm tired, ha. That run was with 3 cards though. Maybe my system just needs tweaked well, I don't know anything about Intel as this is my first. I've always had AMD and everything is labelled differently. Maybe faster ram? Balla, maybe you could pm me some tips?


----------



## badatgames18

*Add me







*

badatgames18 --- 2600k ----4.988ghz ----gtx 560 ti sli (1017/2034/2327) 69.28 fps @1920x1080

Attachment 210079
yea one guy had a 5fps jump on his second run dang!

*Take 2*

badatgames18 --- 2600k ----4.988ghz ----gtx 560 ti sli (1017/2034/2327) 72.66fps @1920x1080
Attachment 210081

i turned off some background programs and i got slightly better scores


----------



## compudaze

Quote:



Originally Posted by *badatgames18*


*Add me







*

badatgames18 --- 2600k ----4.988ghz ----gtx 560 ti sli (1017/2034/2327) 69.28 fps @1080p

Attachment 210079

i will also do one for my 590 as soon as i get it back from rma


Hmm, how did the guy from a page or two back get more FPS from a lower clocked CPU and lower clocked GPU's? Weird.


----------



## Canis-X

Canis-X ---- Phenom II X6 1090T @ 4.5Ghz ---- Quad-CFX HD 5970 (1000/1250) ---- 81.70 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## BallaTheFeared

You can see those gpus really want to go, but they can't, the master won't let them


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

He needs SB...


----------



## Canis-X

Hehehehe....I need BD!! It'll come out next month, then I'll be happy


----------



## hajabooja

hajabooja ---- i7 2600K @ 4.5ghz ---- 2x Radeon 6950 2Gb 1536 shaders @ 880/1375 ---- 78.91 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## Stanbony

Man this place is lame, I post the second highest run with the exact information requested and dont get posted? Think ill join a real forum later!


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Instead of QQ about not getting updated in a dying thread, you could just be patient. Sometimes it takes a week _or more_ until the OP will get updated.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13555111*
> Instead of QQ about not getting updated in a dying thread, you could just be patient. Sometimes it takes a week _or more_ until the OP will get updated.


Happened 1 time.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stanbony;13555048*
> Man this place is lame, I post the second highest run with the exact information requested and dont get posted? Think ill join a real forum later!


http://www.overclock.net/search.php?searchid=4323306

You still didn't fill the info in.

Thread rules, nothing personal.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kora04;13557082*
> Happened 1 time.


You're right, I was thinking of another bench thread. You've done a pretty good job with this one. My mistake.


----------



## UrbanSmooth

Aww, Stanboy, give the OP a chance, man. He's a busy dude.


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth;13558089*
> Aww, Stanboy, give the OP a chance, man. He's a busy dude.


Riiiiiiiiiiighhhtttt....


----------



## razr m3

razr m3 ---- Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.01GHz ---- HD 6950 (970/1450) ---- 49.73 FPS @ 1680x1050


----------



## tsm106

Updated my rig to TriFire and SB 2600K, went for a suicide run. My chip requires to many volts, she sure is freaking fast.

tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.2GHz ---- TRIFIRE HD6950 (950/1450) ---- 108.31 FPS @ 1680x1050


----------



## groos

groos ---- i7 2600k @ 4.8GHz ---- Crossfire 5850 (Sapphire 980/1200 & Gigabyte at 875/1175) ---- 64.95 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## Darkcyde

New scores










Darkcyde --- 1100T @ 4.0GHz --- Xfire [email protected]/1250 --- 65.67 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## groos

groos ---- i7 2600k @ 4.8GHz ---- Crossfire 5850 (Sapphire 980/1200 & Gigabyte at 900/1200) ---- 69.61 FPS @ 1920x1080



i see your 65.67 FPS darkcyde and raise you 69.61 FPS.


----------



## systemlayers

Damn you people with SLI and crossfire... making me want to SLI my new 580..


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *systemlayers;13640193*
> Damn you people with SLI and crossfire... making me want to SLI my new 580..


Do it! Doooooo iiiiiiiiiittttttt!


----------



## systemlayers

Well only thing is my 580 is 1.5gb and i play 2560x1600 (not metro i'm fine with 1080p on that) and I think it might just be a waste of $500.


----------



## Darkcyde

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *groos;13640170*
> groos ---- i7 2600k @ 4.8GHz ---- Crossfire 5850 (Sapphire 980/1200 & Gigabyte at 900/1200) ---- 69.61 FPS @ 1920x1080
> 
> 
> 
> i see your 65.67 FPS darkcyde and raise you 69.61 FPS.


You should be getting way more than me with that CPU:headscrat. Try running both cards at the same speed.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Looks pretty good to me, its a 5 series card, they don't play as well with tess.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Updated my rig to TriFire and SB 2600K, went for a suicide run. My chip requires to many volts, she sure is freaking fast.

tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.2GHz ---- TRIFIRE HD6950 (950/1450) ---- 108.31 FPS @ 1680x1050


Nice! what do you get @ 1920x1080?

I got some new graphics power coming in, Bella got ya in my cross-hair!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Pfft you already had more than me


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

I should have my new cards on Wednesday, we'll see if it makes any difference.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


I should have my new cards on Wednesday, we'll see if it makes any difference.


Jelly of your 3gb triple sli 580s


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


Nice! what do you get @ 1920x1080?

I got some new graphics power coming in, Bella got ya in my cross-hair!










98.something fps. I need tp reinstall windoze, too many crashes from overclocking has borked my current os install. After which I'll run some quad benches.


----------



## groos

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Darkcyde*


You should be getting way more than me with that CPU







. Try running both cards at the same speed.


i wish i could, my gigabyte is maxed out a 900/1200 its not a reference pcb.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


98.something fps. I need tp reinstall windoze, too many crashes from overclocking has borked my current os install. After which I'll run some quad benches.


quad-fire? nice! you running the stock coolers?


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


quad-fire? nice! you running the stock coolers?


Air, no way that's suicide or masochistic more like. It's setup with 4 ek blocks.


----------



## wermad

Take that Balla!!!! Still running my three GTX 470s!!!









wermad ---- i7 950 @ 4418 ----Triple SLI GTX 470 (860/2000) ---- avg 88.97


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Great run, Chris!









I'm guessing you're doing a geronimo before you compare your new cards?

Lets see what those AMD cards can do


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13668780*
> Great run, Chris!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing you're doing a geronimo before you compare your new cards?
> 
> Lets see what those AMD cards can do


One last hurra before they go









edit: note to self, disable surround/eyefinity or I'll get crappy fps


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I need to do a geronimo run with my 560's before I install my 580's...


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


One last hurra before they go









edit: *note to self, disable surround/eyefinity or I'll get crappy fps







*


Eyefinity enabled doesn't make a difference in my benches. Hell, most of the catalyst settings don't make marked differences either though, just raw ghz and mhz!


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Eyefinity enabled doesn't make a difference in my benches. Hell, most of the catalyst settings don't make marked differences either though, just raw ghz and mhz!


If I leave Nvidia Surround, I'll get ~ 40 fps. The Nvidia cp gives you the option to run max sli performance or switch to surround. can't have both unfortunately. Glad to know its not the case with Eyefinity, tnx


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Just don't cheat with CCC


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13674285*
> Just don't cheat with CCC


No doubt, pretty much made 3D11 useless IMO, for ATI users anyway.

Though the tess hit in M2033 is slim to almost none.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Its there, they just have limited tess. Like parts of clothing, its not by any means a Heaven level of tess thats for sure


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13679212*
> Its there, they just have limited tess. Like parts of clothing, its not by any means a Heaven level of tess thats for sure


It makes minuscule difference though, however more or less there is. Tess at off vs AMD optimized or 64x is like 1 maybe 2 fps difference. That kinda makes me go







. I guess they don't like tess in mother Russia.


----------



## Sychodrama

Sychodrama--> Vanilla Ice i7 [email protected] EVGA GTX 570(797/975/1594)-85.54fps 1680x1050res
Just used ASRocks UEFI OC tweak. AM going to venture into my own OC but been busy.


----------



## Darkcyde

update










Darkcyde --- 1100T @ 4.0GHz --- Xfire [email protected]/1250 --- 71.13 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## wermad

kora, my cpu was @ 4.4 on my last run, not 4.14, tnx









Just got my Caymen cards in today, lets see what they can do


----------



## DigitalRaypist

980x @ 4.6 asus 480gtx tripple sli @ 875-1950-1750
all WC
101.4 fps @ 1920x1080


----------



## Machiyariko

Machiyariko --- I7 [email protected] 4.52GHz --- Xfire [email protected]/1400 --- 75.15 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## shamsmu

1680x1050 47.6fps



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

1920x1080 42.3fps



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DigitalRaypist;13727378*
> 980x @ 4.6 asus 480gtx tripple sli @ 875-1950-1750
> all WC
> 101.4 fps @ 1920x1080


I wish I had the ability to tri-sli my 570's an compare same clocks, and see if it's the same.


----------



## ty12004

Ty12004 ---- I5 2500k @ 4.5ghz ---- Zotac GTX 570 (940/2000/1880) ----

50.39 FPS @ 1920x1080

57.59 FPS @ 1680x1050

Proof is attached

Anyways, not bad considering I am only using a single 570.


----------



## kora04

Quote:



Originally Posted by *shamsmu*


1680x1050 47.6fps
1920x1080 42.3fps


Just fill out the info and I'll put you right there.









Also, updated.


----------



## Dekken

Dekken ---- i5 2500K @ 4.8GHz ---- 6950(6970) (880/1375/1536) CF ---- 72.00 FPS @ 1920x1080
Does this look right?


----------



## ty12004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dekken;13834307*
> Dekken ---- i5 2500K @ 4.8GHz ---- 6950(6970) (880/1375/1536) CF ---- 72.00 FPS @ 1920x1080
> Does this look right?


For a crossfire? Sounds about right to me.

Also, Kora you put my 1920x1080 score in the 1680 and ignored my 1680x1050 score altogether. Sorry if I didn't follow the appropriate posting rule for this thread.


----------



## Hawk777th

How do you get this official tool?


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawk777th;13868340*
> How do you get this official tool?


Gotta have the game, then it's in the metro folder


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hawk777th;13868340*
> How do you get this official tool?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *steadly2004;13869360*
> Gotta have the game, then it's in the metro folder


The steam version iirc.


----------



## wermad

First run for my Caymans unlocked (no oc yet) and SB clocked @ 4.8

wermad ---- i5 2500k @ 4.8 ---- 3x Sapphire 6950s (unlocked to 6970) 880/1375 ---- 85.17 fps


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13888578*
> First run for my Caymans unlocked (no oc yet) and SB clocked @ 4.8
> 
> wermad ---- i5 2500k @ 4.8 ---- 3x Sapphire 6950s (unlocked to 6970) 880/1375 ---- 85.17 fps


hmmm... i would have thought 3x6950s would've done better. My 570s can get within 1 fps of yours with my current benching overclock... i suppose if i oc'd my 2600k at 5.3 i think i can get a slightly higher score.

I think it might be the drivers? idk... doesn't trifire scale better than trisli?


----------



## grunion

Tri anything in this bench barely scales.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badatgames18;13889214*
> hmmm... i would have thought 3x6950s would've done better. My 570s can get within 1 fps of yours with my current benching overclock... i suppose if i oc'd my 2600k at 5.3 i think i can get a slightly higher score.
> 
> I think it might be the drivers? idk... doesn't trifire scale better than trisli?


Once Wermad pushes the SB to 5.2ghz -ish and his cards to 940/1440 and he'll hit 100ish fps.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13889394*
> Tri anything in this bench barely scales.


Pretty much this.


----------



## Hawk777th

Ya I have the game, I will give it a run.


----------



## wermad

its on par w/ my old i7 950 @ 4.2 and max oc of 850 for old triple sli 470s. I did notice the gpus aren't loading as much as the fermis were


----------



## Hawk777th

I7 2600K 4.5GHZ MSI 580 Lightning.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Provide a screenshot of CPU-Z and GPU-Z and the 2 runs as proof. THE SECOND RUN! will count! (Run1).
> 1 Score ONLY
> 
> USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION


Follow this format per Kora04 (op)


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13889711*
> its on par w/ my old i7 950 @ 4.2 and max oc of 850 for old triple sli 470s. I did notice the gpus aren't loading as much as the fermis were


My trifire runs at 5.2ghz and 950/1450 netted 100-101fps. I need more cpu, don't have enough to push quads lol. However, at eyefinity resolutions, quads starts to payoff.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13889845*
> My trifire runs at 5.2ghz and 950/1450 netted 100-101fps. I need more cpu, don't have enough to push quads lol. However, at eyefinity resolutions, quads starts to payoff.


very interesting. I had to unplug the two other monitors as the benchmark did not give me the option for 1920x1080. My cards were fluctuating between 50-70% usage while I remember my fermis where always @ 98-99%. I'm running 11.5, could it be the newer drivers?


----------



## tsm106

Sounds like you have a driver issue. My cards were pegged, all the time. I'm using 11.5 and CAP 5. You do have 15fps on the table somehow, and that's a grip of fps.


----------



## wermad

I'm running 11.5 and the latest cap, but I can't break 84-85 on stock 6970 clocks. here's my gpu usage in afterburner. Something is wrong here, gpu are bouncing up all over the place. Gonna try rolling back to 11.4 to see if that helps


----------



## grunion

That's exactly what my m2033 usage looks like.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


That's exactly what my m2033 usage looks like.


----------



## ACHILEE5

I get this


----------



## tsm106

Edit, I gotta I change my view point on the gpu usage. I just ran a bench, it's been a while. AB is showing a graph that matches wermad's. I don't play Metro anymore so I was going by memory.


----------



## djsi38t

Right,the pattern looks right,the gpu's just aren't maintaining full usage and dipping down a bit where others stay maxed.


----------



## wermad

bsod when i try to oc the cards in afterburner, switched to stock bios, same thing even with minor oc. going to roll back drivers tonight and test again.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Hope you get it sorted out.

i5 @ 4.8GHz










i5 @ 4.8GHz, gtx 470 @ 900 core, Advanced Physics on as well as DOF


----------



## tsm106

Putting the two graphs togther, the seesaw ones are the Caymens and the pegged flatline are the Fermi.


----------



## wermad

Im running the sapphire 6970 bios but that doesn't explain why it bsod on the stock bios. Could be one of the cards, the 3rd has been running a tad hotter than the other two since day one. I forgot to get the bsod error code


----------



## badatgames18

can anyone help me







i'm only getting 70-71 fps on metro with my 570s at 900/1800/2105

people with the same clocks here were getting 80+

i am so sad







i can't figure it out arrrrgghggggge

also having gpu usage problems.. first card never goes above 86% while second goes to 99%

EDIT: i just got your tip balla... am going to try it out,

how did you get your cards to both go up to 99%?


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I thought I remember reading directly flashing 6950s to 6970s can cause major problems and even brick the cards because the 6970s actually have better memory. Perhaps you should flash the shader unlock only.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


I thought I remember reading directly flashing 6950s to 6970s can cause major problems and even brick the cards because the 6970s actually have better memory. Perhaps you should flash the shader unlock only.


What you read were fear mongers knee jerking over stuff they don't understand.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


I thought I remember reading directly flashing 6950s to 6970s can cause major problems and even brick the cards because the 6970s actually have better memory. Perhaps you should flash the shader unlock only.


i switched them to the stock bios and it does the same thing. Some 69xx cards have dual bios and a switch that allows you change between them. I have been playing the game @ 3240x1920 on high and dx11 with no issues on the flashed bios though using stock clocks. Gonna do a driver roll back tonight and see what happens







. I'll also try to flash it back to the oem bios.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

If it matters I believe cat 11.4 had better results by like a fps than 11.5 in Metro.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


i switched them to the stock bios and it does the same thing. Some 69xx cards have dual bios and a switch that allows you change between them. I have been playing the game @ 3240x1920 on high and dx11 with no issues on the flashed bios though using stock clocks. Gonna do a driver roll back tonight and see what happens







. I'll also try to flash it back to the oem bios.


Try to find the limit of each card otherwise you'll never know what is giving you the troubles... needle in haystack dealio.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Try to find the limit of each card otherwise you'll never know what is giving you the troubles... needle in haystack dealio.


I wish the ws revo had pcie power off switches like my old R3E, easy to ts one or two cards at a time, especially with water


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


I wish the ws revo had pcie power off switches like my old R3E, easy to ts one or two cards at a time, especially with water

















It's easy man. Just disable eyefinity & cfx, and plug the dvi cable into each card and run tests.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


It's easy man. Just disable eyefinity & cfx, and plug the dvi cable into each card and run tests.


Thanks tsm, will try tonight


----------



## BradleyW

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


If it matters I believe cat 11.4 had better results by like a fps than 11.5 in Metro.


11.6 should clear this up.


----------



## Khalam

thats me with 107.24 fps


----------



## grunion

^^ Nice

Terrible scaling, but nice.

Checked my gpu usage again, benchmark vs game play.

Attachment 215819

Opening level all the way through, same settings as required for this thread.

Attachment 215820


----------



## BallaTheFeared

1.6v, wow









@grunion

Same settings IG as bench, or did you set them higher for actual gameplay?


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


1.6v, wow









@grunion

Same settings IG as bench, or did you set them higher for actual gameplay?


Yes, the same.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Silly drivers









Here is the latest quadro drivers with the modded inf...










Seems silly, but I lost about 6 or more fps, unless I'm forgetting something, maybe I was at 5.2Ghz before...


----------



## badatgames18

just an update... i flashed both my bios so they matched, i also downgraded drivers to 270.61 and got my 81+ fps.

Seems like the new driver 275.33 decreases performance for the 570s on the metro bench... also am getting 99% for both cards now... idk what the problem was... having non-matching bioses maybe? or just the crappy driver


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Yeah it decreased my performance as well. In fact it caused problems with a few games I play like Dragon Age II, and the only benefit I got from it was higher 3DMark11 scores.


----------



## badatgames18

balla did you try 270.61?

seems to give me the best performance... for metro atleast, will try on some other games


----------



## BallaTheFeared

This run was on 270.61 I believe:


----------



## badatgames18

yep^ so you saw an increase in fps too... why would nvidia release drivers that decreases the performance of a card?

i don't get it... shouldn't they be doing the opposite


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badatgames18;13914106*
> yep^ so you saw an increase in fps too... why would nvidia release drivers that decreases the performance of a card?
> 
> i don't get it... shouldn't they be doing the opposite


Are you new to NV?

NV drivers have been hit and miss since the "Big Bang 2".


----------



## wermad

well, figured out the bsod; freak'en amd od had one card clock higher. Disabled od, no more bsod. Switched to 6970 bios and dropped the cpu to 4.5 only improved by 1 fps







. Same pattern of usage for all three. Ran 3dmarks and all gpu did peg 99%. Tried 11.6 no dice, rolling back to 11.4.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

You better ask somebody!!!!










lol, I wouldn't worry about it too much Wermad, bench it at your surround res so you feel better about getting rid of those puny 470s


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13914195*
> You better ask somebody!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I wouldn't worry about it too much Wermad, bench it at your surround res so you feel better about getting rid of those puny 470s


lol, I'll keep looking into it myself. I know tsm has the same setup as me except he's running quad. If I have no answers, I shall post in the amd/ati section.

(sigh) I do miss the nvidia simplicity of setup/drivers/oc


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13914220*
> lol, I'll keep looking into it myself. I know tsm has the same setup as me except he's running quad. If I have no answers, I shall post in the amd/ati section.
> 
> (sigh) I do miss the nvidia simplicity of setup/drivers/oc


Have you checked in game usage yet?


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13914220*
> lol, I'll keep looking into it myself. I know tsm has the same setup as me except he's running quad. If I have no answers, I shall post in the amd/ati section.
> 
> (sigh) I do miss the nvidia simplicity of setup/drivers/oc


Tri vs Quad, zero scaling at 1080p. At eyefinity, hell yea it scales. I run my benches at tri just so it hurts less lol. You should be neck and neck with Lev's setup. In tri at 1080 I got 99fps last time I ran it.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13914231*
> Have you checked in game usage yet?


I'll check that. I had smooth gameplay in eyefinity (3240x1920/high, dx11).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13914274*
> Tri vs Quad, zero scaling at 1080p. At eyefinity, hell yea it scales. I run my benches at tri just so it hurts less lol. You should be neck and neck with Lev's setup. In tri at 1080 I got 99fps last time I ran it.


I can't break 86fps. Can you run 4.8 & tri-fire on stock 6970 clocks? Thanks


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 106.73 FPS


----------



## wermad

jelly ^^^


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13914340*
> I'll check that. I had smooth gameplay in eyefinity (3240x1920/high, dx11).
> 
> I can't break 86fps. Can you run 4.8 & tri-fire on stock 6970 clocks? Thanks


Ok.


----------



## rquinn19

[email protected](880/1375)----47.72fps @ 1920x1080



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13914345*
> _CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 106.73 FPS












Yeah he did that









Sky that is the worst ram speed I've ever seen with sandy, lol. (666)


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13914159*
> Are you new to NV?
> 
> NV drivers have been hit and miss since the "Big Bang 2".


lol kinda... i switched from being an amd exclusive guy beginning of this year... amd drivers were usually better as they got revised (of course they start out being rubbish)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13914345*
> _CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (900/2004/1800) ---- 106.73 FPS


I WANT Your 580s!!


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13914340*
> I can't break 86fps. Can you run 4.8 & tri-fire on stock 6970 clocks? Thanks


Ok, 4.8ghz 880/1375 trifire amd optimized tess:


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13914948*
> Yeah he did that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky that is the worst ram speed I've ever seen with sandy, lol. (666)


Hahaha! I'm trying to keep my ram voltage around 1.5 (1.525 currently) because I keep reading that the IMC won't do well with much more than that, so I opted for tighter timings. Am I wrong?


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13914980*
> Ok, 4.8ghz 880/1375 trifire amd optimized tess


AMD tess cheat mode enabled!

I dunno Sky, I've been running mine at 1.66v for about 4 months or so with no issues. I also raised the QPI voltage so it stayed within .5v of the dram though I have no idea if that helps.


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13915020*
> Hahaha! I'm trying to keep my ram voltage around 1.5 (1.525 currently) because I keep reading that the IMC won't do well with much more than that, so I opted for tighter timings. Am I wrong?


i'd like to say yes imo...

sb from all the benches i've done prefers higher ram speeds vs tighter timings.. check out sisandra or maxxmem. Bandwidth> latency in almost all cases.

And i've been running my ram at 1.64-1.66v since release date..

nothing wrong so far


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13915066*
> AMD tess cheat mode enabled!
> 
> I dunno Sky, I've been running mine at 1.66v for about 4 months or so with no issues. I also raised the QPI voltage so it stayed within .5v of the dram though I have no idea if that helps.


AMD optimized is the default but anyways...

What's QPI in SB speak? You mean vccio? I was able to keep everything default, ram, vccio, and I actually underclocked pll to 1.75v for running at 5ghz +, even running 5.3ghz.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Ok, upped it to 1.575v and 1600Mhz, 8-8-8-20. I'll run it again.


----------



## zylonite

2 x 6970 seem to rip this benchmark:

Average Results

•Average Framerate: 52.67
*•Max. Framerate: 169.29
*•Min. Framerate: 4.86


----------



## wermad

non-amd optimized is only 1-.05fps difference. No change guys, still ~ 85fps. I even tried 3dmarks 11 oc to 950 and I cant get past 12.2k, where as my old setup w/ three gtx 470s and an i7 950 was able to crank out 13.4k. Something is up w/ my system. Maybe gonna go w/ another reformat.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13915274*
> non-amd optimized is only 1-.05fps difference. No change guys, still ~ 85fps. I even tried 3dmarks 11 oc to 950 and I cant get past 12.2k, where as my old setup w/ three gtx 470s and an i7 950 was able to crank out 13.4k. Something is up w/ my system. Maybe gonna go w/ another reformat.


What driver/CAP are you on? If you reformat don't run sp1.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13915288*
> What driver/CAP are you on? If you reformat don't run sp1.


I tried 11.5 w/ cap 5, 11.6 w/ cap 6, now running 11.4 and cap 4. I think I am running sp1 since I had some drive issues (old mb related). I going to reformat tonight and report back tomorrow. I needs sum lucks


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

I just took back 2nd place _and_ beat two 6990's with this run...

_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (960/2004/1920) ---- 107.68 FPS


----------



## badatgames18

well here are my 570s on the newest driver, i tried rerunning them again(275.33) which is still 5-6fps less than driver 270.61

also downclocked my 2600k a little

badatgames18--- i7 2600k @ 4.7ghz --- gtx 570 SLI (861/2104/1722)--- [email protected] 1080p








View attachment 215849


i accidentily deleted my results with 270.61.. i will update as soon as i switch drivers again

EDIT: OMG I JUST PASSED MY OLD 560s!


----------



## logan666

heres my run sli 480 @ 850


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *logan666;13915513*
> heres my run sli 480 @ 850


fyi: you gotta follow the format if you want to get listed

nice cards!

"USER NAME ---- CPU NAME @ CPU SPEED ---- GFX CARD (core/memory/shader) ---- XX.XX FPS @ RESOLUTION"

also

"Provide a screenshot of CPU-Z and GPU-Z and the 2 runs as proof. THE SECOND RUN! will count! (Run1).
1 Score ONLY
"


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zylonite;13915179*
> 2 x 6970 seem to rip this benchmark:
> 
> Average Results
> 
> •Average Framerate: 52.67
> *•Max. Framerate: 169.29
> *•Min. Framerate: 4.86


lulz


----------



## tsm106

^^That looks like single card results.


----------



## Khalam

_CH_Skyline_ now why would you do that?







now im gone have to spend another evening benching instead of sleeping


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13915832*
> _CH_Skyline_ now why would you do that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now im gone have to spend another evening benching instead of sleeping


All part of the game my friend!







I'm not sure how much more I can squeeze out of these on this benchmark... I think it's coming down to which drivers help the most.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13915020*
> Hahaha! I'm trying to keep my ram voltage around 1.5 (1.525 currently) because I keep reading that the IMC won't do well with much more than that, so I opted for tighter timings. Am I wrong?


I've been telling you for a month to speed up your ram, it's a big difference at 2133.
I run 24/7 at 1866.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13915066*
> AMD tess cheat mode enabled!
> 
> I dunno Sky, I've been running mine at 1.66v for about 4 months or so with no issues. I also raised the QPI voltage so it stayed within .5v of the dram though I have no idea if that helps.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13915114*
> AMD optimized is the default but anyways...
> 
> What's QPI in SB speak? You mean vccio? I was able to keep everything default, ram, vccio, and I actually underclocked pll to 1.75v for running at 5ghz +, even running 5.3ghz.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13915133*
> Ok, upped it to 1.575v and 1600Mhz, 8-8-8-20. I'll run it again.


The CCC default "AMD Optimized" is misleading..
I've tested thoroughly and there is no discernible improvement, nothing outside of the normal margin of error.


----------



## wermad

Complete reformat, same thing







~83 fps.

edit: found the problem, one card is bad









The two good cards pulled ~78fps on the 6970 bios and they were hitting 99-98%. I had a feeling one of the cards was not right from the beginning, it was always hotter than the other two. RMA time, I is a sad panda


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


I've been telling you for a month to speed up your ram, it's a big difference at 2133.
I run 24/7 at 1866.


Yes, you mentioned it a while ago. I can't run that high on these though. I'll have to pick up some new sticks.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


Complete reformat, same thing







~83 fps.

edit: found the problem, one card is bad









The two good cards pulled ~78fps on the 6970 bios and they were hitting 99-98%. I had a feeling one of the cards was not right from the beginning, it was always hotter than the other two. RMA time, I is a sad panda

















It is unfortunate, but at least you've managed to find the problem. Get that card replaced and all should be sorted.


----------



## logan666

logan666 i5 760 @4 ghz sli 480 @ 850/1700/1900 76.66 fps 1080p


----------



## Khalam

Your move _CH_Skyline_


----------



## grunion

^^ OH

Show the gpu usage during the runs, see if it's similar to mine and wermad's.


----------



## Khalam

damn ive read your post to late, downclocked the pc already







ill give it another go 2m, I vant 109fps


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Your move!!!










Oh wait


----------



## grunion

6 better than me.
What happened to your 80+ score?


----------



## BallaTheFeared

*shrug*

Could have been a fluke, or the product of a higher cpu overclock.

I actually have no idea where it gets its fps for the scoring, I never once saw my fps go to 408, nor was it ever as low as 22.

79.98fps, lay off me! ;D


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Khalam*


Your move _CH_Skyline_










Nice run, I can't seem to push farther. I'm happy to at least be within 1fps of your 4 gpus with my 3.







These 3GB cards oc farther than my 1.5GB cards did, so I'm happy there as well.


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


*shrug*

Could have been a fluke, or the product of a higher cpu overclock.

I actually have no idea where it gets its fps for the scoring, I never once saw my fps go to 408, nor was it ever as low as 22.

79.98fps, lay off me! ;D


Have you tried running fraps benchmarking min/max/avg during the runs?


----------



## bshan67

mine


----------



## Darkcyde

New drivers = new scores










Darkcyde --- Ph II x6 [email protected] --- CFX [email protected]/1250 --- 75.09 [email protected]


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


Have you tried running fraps benchmarking min/max/avg during the runs?


----------



## grunion

Exactly, not even close.

Mine with fraps running, again not even close.
And BTW I forced the Bioshock profile and got my best score yet.

Frames, Time (ms), Min, Max, Avg
4675, 58563, 27, 185, 79.829


----------



## bshan67

Sorry, forgot to put both runs in the screen shot before. Heres another


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13922002*
> Your move _CH_Skyline_


Just barely, but I got ya!







I can only imagine my score if I oc'd my cpu as far as yours...

_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (970/2125/1940) ---- 108.49 FPS


----------



## tsm106

You guys are making a lot of extra work for Kora, lol.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol

@grunion

I tried the bioshock bit and it cause my fps to shoot up to 95 avg, but that was because half the area wasn't rendered...


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13924589*
> lol
> 
> @grunion
> 
> I tried the bioshock bit and it cause my fps to shoot up to 95 avg, but that was because half the area wasn't rendered...


Haha

Mine rendered perfectly.
I did try scissor mode and everything went pastel.


----------



## Khalam

omg your right bro, totally skipped the part about your cpu great going how much are those 3gb 580 btw? Just so your not on top have a look at this thats really my limit there though.... usage goes down to around 92% cpu isnt fast enough still 108.84


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13925689*
> omg your right bro, totally skipped the part about your cpu great going how much are those 3gb 580 btw? Just so your not on top have a look at this thats really my limit there though.... usage goes down to around 92% cpu isnt fast enough still 108.84


The cards run $589.99 on the from EVGA.

D'oh! Now I've gotta pull .35+ fps out of somewhere....


----------



## Khalam

hehe hmm just to put it out there... if you push me far enough.... ill put 1.7V through the chip and run a suicide bench at 5.5 and 1070/1500.... id rather not if I dont have to


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lolz

Do Et!

Everything is covered by warranty, now is the time to man up!


----------



## badatgames18

do you guys even sleep? or do you just bench all night lol









it's 4:47am US Central time

as soon as i get enough cash to buy better cards... chskyline and khalam watch out


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13925803*
> hehe hmm just to put it out there... if you push me far enough.... ill put 1.7V through the chip and run a suicide bench at 5.5 and 1070/1500.... id rather not if I dont have to


Wow, that's quite a voltage jump for 200Mhz... it's your chip though...







Let's see what those cards can do!!!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13925872*
> lolz
> 
> Do Et!
> 
> Everything is covered by warranty, now is the time to man up!


Haha, yes I have to agree, would be nice to truly be beaten by 4 gpus other than Vega, even if it'll take a suicide run to 'do et'.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badatgames18;13925878*
> do you guys even sleep? or do you just bench all night lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's 4:47am US Central time
> 
> as soon as i get enough cash to buy better cards... chskyline and khalam watch out


I don't sleep much, no.


----------



## Khalam

same here sleep an average of 3-4h a day, rest I spend benching and raising my son i go through 2-3 2600ks a week looking for a good chip so I dont really mind








I checked gpu usage and at 990 on the core I only get 92% with 5.3 on the cpu, ill check how it goes up today when I put 5.4 and 5.5 through it btw you know your 3 cards cost more then my 2


----------



## Khalam

btw ill only do it if you can do 109fps minimum

or if i get a better chip 2m


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

I'll keep pushing for 109, and yes, I spent more money on these but I wanted the vram and felt it was worth it for my Surround resolution.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Plus you still have the option for another card down the road.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;13926023*
> Plus you still have the option for another card down the road.


SR-2 w/ quad 580s 3gb time


----------



## Khalam

get me sr-2 and ill show you what these puppies can do


----------



## tsm106

Went for a suicide quadfire run. I only volted the quads to 1.2v... I bet there's more headroom with more volts, but eh not sure I wanna volt quads that much higher.

tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.3GHz ---- QUADFIRE HD6950 (970/1480) ---- 115.40 FPS @ 1680x1050


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13929263*
> Went for a suicide quadfire run. I only volted the quads to 1.2v... I bet there's more headroom with more volts, but eh not sure I wanna volt quads that much higher.
> 
> tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.3GHz ---- QUADFIRE HD6950 (970/1480) ---- 108.31 FPS @ 1680x1050












now do 1920x1080


----------



## tsm106

^^Doh, I put the wrong score in my post lol, updated.

My 1080P screen is actually my tv in the living room, and it's a pain in the arse to drag my 100lb rig over to bench 1080P. I'm looking for a cheap screen to bench with, er I mean use for a spare.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Is it worth me clocking my CPU to 5Ghz+ for a run? I didn't think CPU speed mattered as much with this bench.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13929633*
> Is it worth me clocking my CPU to 5Ghz+ for a run? I didn't think CPU speed mattered as much with this bench.


Our setups are cpu limited at this puny resolution.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Worth bumping your ram up over 2100 if it will run it as well


----------



## Khalam

_CH_Skyline_ can you run 3840x1080?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Worth bumping your ram up over 2100 if it will run it as well










I don't think I can take it higher than 1600Mhz, it's 1333Mhz with a 1600Mhz XMP profile.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Khalam*


_CH_Skyline_ can you run 3840x1080?


Sure, I'll run it in a bit, not at my desktop right now.

*EDIT:* I don't have that resolution available. The closest I can get is 3840x1024, I'll run it in the case that you typo'd.

*Double EDIT:* Here you go, as requested. 80.28fps average










*Triple EDIT:* 
Quote:



Originally Posted by *Khalam*


btw ill only do it if you can do 109fps minimum









or if i get a better chip 2m










Go ahead and take your suicide run. I've managed an even better run with my RAM @ 1866Mhz (Balla and Grunion s/b proud, lol)...

_CH_Skyline_ ---- i5-2500k @ 4.9Ghz ---- 3GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (970/2100/1940) ---- 109.49 FPS


----------



## grunion

Run Vantage again with your new mem speed, you should see a nice score boost.

I did anyway, almost 1k.


----------



## Khalam

Great Run CH hmmm if it goes for my night benching.... whats big, black and red and starts throwing hissy fits at you when you push it to 1100mhz on the cores?..... yep you guessed it, a 6990 on fire you know how if you push your card to its limit it throws a little artifact or two at you in benches? well turn it off straight away!!! I decided to go the hardcore way come on babe you can do it, just one more push.... BURN!!!!! two dead 6990s..... They died like warriors though.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

hahah wow, awesome dude.

Props to you for pushing them beyond the limit, good luck with your RMA. I hope you're back here trying for more when the replacements come









Pics of the carnage is always welcome around here as well


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13935740*
> Great Run CH hmmm if it goes for my night benching.... whats big, black and red and starts throwing hissy fits at you when you push it to 1100mhz on the cores?..... yep you guessed it, a 6990 on fire you know how if you push your card to its limit it throws a little artifact or two at you in benches? well turn it off straight away!!! I decided to go the hardcore way come on babe you can do it, just one more push.... BURN!!!!! two dead 6990s..... They died like warriors though.


----------



## ttoadd.nz

tis a sad day....


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Oh wow, that's the last thing I ever expected!!! I was sure you were gonna answer with a 110fps run.

I hope all goes well... and quick!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Winner, by TKO

> SssssskkkyyyLINE!!










Seriously though, GL with the RMA.. I hope you have a backup card or two for the next few weeks


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

He's still got one 6990 so far as we know. Just can't believe that! Considering that every component in his rig was faster, I should be beaten. Perhaps when his RMA comes back though...


----------



## Khalam

they both died.... dont worry though im gone get new ones 2m or wend (my mate owns the place where I get all my stuff hihihi ive got an 8800 512 gts that I need to bench for some points on hwbot and a 240gt plus there is a 4870 and 8800 ultra in the post on there way to me already the 6990s are alive but will throw artefacts left, right and center on stock now


----------



## tsm106

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."
Quote:


>


----------



## Khalam

lads can anyone put an add for me in the sale/wanted category? im to new I want to buy a 2600k that will do 5.6ghz+ im willing to pay 350-400 pounds for a good chip


----------



## tsm106

PPL don't sell chips like that man. The last guy I knew who was binning was sno.lcn.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Khalam;13936285*
> they both died.... dont worry though im gone get new ones 2m or wend (my mate owns the place where I get all my stuff hihihi ive got an 8800 512 gts that I need to bench for some points on hwbot and a 240gt plus there is a 4870 and 8800 ultra in the post on there way to me already the 6990s are alive but will throw artefacts left, right and center on stock now


Doesn't seem possible.

What are the symptoms?


----------



## tsm106

Oh the cards are not dead then?


----------



## Khalam

............. ok now they are dead.... so the artifacts did mean something there is nothing burned on them etc. but I get the red vga led with either of them now. Thank God its not the pcie slots in the mb, checked already with my 8800 keep your fingers crossed, maybe ill get better ocers 2m


----------



## drizek

drizek ---- X3 720 @ 3.4ghz ---- GTX 460 (861/1722/4260) ---- 29.81 [email protected]

I'll use that as a reference to see how much it improves with a second 460. Minimum framerate was 8.18, which is pretty terrible. Even with two cards that will still be around 15fps.


----------



## munaim1

munaim1 -- i7 2500k @ 5.1GHz -- SLI GTX 460 (950/1900/2100) -- 62.56 FPS @ 1920x1080










munaim1 -- i7 2500k @ 5.1GHz -- SLI GTX 460 (950/1900/2100) -- 69.68 FPS @ 1680x1050










Not bad for a couple 460's if I say so myself heh!


----------



## Sajin1337

Sajin1337 ---- i7-980x @ 4.3Ghz ---- 1.5GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (895/2300/1790) ---- 118.54 FPS


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sajin1337;13984398*
> Sajin1337 ---- i7-980x @ 4.3Ghz ---- 1.5GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (895/2300/1790) ---- 118.54 FPS


I wonder what made the difference? The 980x (w/ HT) or the ram speed... or both? My 2500k is clocked 600Mhz faster and my GPUs are 75Mhz faster, but I'm 9fps average slower. Perhaps all three cards are @ x16 2.0 speeds as well.

What mobo are you using? 4Ghz NB is pretty nice too, I don't have a reading in CPU-Z for mine.


----------



## grunion

Those minimums are impressive!


----------



## Sajin1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;13984713*
> I wonder what made the difference? The 980x (w/ HT) or the ram speed... or both? My 2500k is clocked 600Mhz faster and my GPUs are 75Mhz faster, but I'm 9fps average slower. Perhaps all three cards are @ x16 2.0 speeds as well.
> 
> What mobo are you using? 4Ghz NB is pretty nice too, I don't have a reading in CPU-Z for mine.


I am using the EVGA X58 4-Way SLI Classified. The GPUs are running @ x16 2.0 speeds.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13984732*
> Those minimums are impressive!


Thank You.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sajin1337;13985827*
> I am using the EVGA X58 4-Way SLI Classified. The GPUs are running @ x16 2.0 speeds.
> 
> Thank You.


Awesome









How about a bit more out of that gulftown to break 120fps?


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sajin1337;13984398*
> Sajin1337 ---- i7-980x @ 4.3Ghz ---- 1.5GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (895/2300/1790) ---- 118.54 FPS


how he do dat? ch has the same setup amight? (wow a 980x seems to pull more mustard here)

nice job!


----------



## Sajin1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13985850*
> Awesome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about a bit more out of that gulftown to break 120fps?


I may try it out tomorrow. I am currently at a friends house helping him build his pc.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badatgames18;13985867*
> how he do dat? ch has the same setup amight? (wow a 980x seems to pull more mustard here)
> 
> nice job!


I'm gonna say mem speed/timings.
I got a pretty decent boost at 2133.


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13985917*
> I'm gonna say mem speed/timings.
> I got a pretty decent boost at 2133.


memory can make a 9fps difference?









im going to order me some then... 8gb of 2133 ram isn't cheap







especially if i want decent timmings


----------



## kora04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13924392*
> You guys are making a lot of extra work for Kora, lol.












Not sure if it relates...anyway...

Updated with what is updatable.

Also, nice job pushing those cards, Skyline!









Sajin...DAYUM!

Waiting on an SR2 user to do us the honor. I'll even put a special place for the SR2 rig!


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *badatgames18;13985953*
> memory can make a 9fps difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> im going to order me some then... 8gb of 2133 ram isn't cheap
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> especially if i want decent timmings


Quite possible, mine was ~5fps increase.

Get a 1600 cas 6 or 7 kit that'll do 2133.
I have these, do 2133 at 1.625.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13986135*
> Quite possible, mine was ~5fps increase.
> 
> Get a 1600 cas 6 or 7 kit that'll do 2133.
> I have these, do 2133 at 1.625.


But he's giving up a lot of cpu mhz and gpu speed not to mention a whole card to Vega and somehow gets within 8fps?


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;13986220*
> But he's giving up a lot of cpu mhz and gpu speed not to mention a whole card to Vega and somehow gets within 8fps?


Different drivers?
Also something to note, 3gb vs 1.5gb versions, something to think about.


----------



## Uncivilised

my metro copy is bugged or smething, i just dont get the fps everyone else is getting and i cant find an explanation for it. Ive tried with 2 graphics cards (5870 and 470) and even a new OS and both of them get under 30 fps 
I dont know how people are getting in the 50's with it, anyone care to advise?


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Uncivilised;13986307*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my metro copy is bugged or smething, i just dont get the fps everyone else is getting and i cant find an explanation for it. Ive tried with 2 graphics cards (5870 and 470) and even a new OS and both of them get under 30 fps
> I dont know how people are getting in the 50's with it, anyone care to advise?


Is DOF disabled?


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sajin1337;13985902*
> I may try it out tomorrow. I am currently at a friends house helping him build his pc.


Hey Friend could you re run the benchmark on the 275.36 driver?


----------



## Uncivilised

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13986311*
> Is DOF disabled?


yea i have and also i get lots of stuttering in the benchmark, any else getting this or is it just me?


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Uncivilised;13986931*
> yea i have and also i get lots of stuttering in the benchmark, any else getting this or is it just me?


Try a bit more voltage on your gtx470?

These were my profiles in msi afterburner (three gtx 470s on water):

850-860 - 1.087v
800 - 1.050v
750 - 1.025v
700 - 1.005v
607 - 0.976v


----------



## drizek

drizek ---- X3 720 @ 3.7ghz ---- SLI GTX 460 (861/1722/4260) ---- 49.2 [email protected] 1920x1080.

Min 9.95, max of 190.88.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *drizek;13987037*
> drizek ---- X3 720 @ 3.7ghz ---- SLI GTX 460 (861/1722/4260) ---- 49.2 [email protected] 1920x1080.
> 
> Min 9.95, max of 190.88.


don't forget the screenshot of the results, cpuz, and gpuz/afterburner.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;13986247*
> Different drivers?
> Also something to note, 3gb vs 1.5gb versions, something to think about.


From 270.51 (900Mhz core and system ram @ 1333Mhz) to 275.36 (970Mhz core and system ram @ 1866Mhz) I could only manage a 5fps improvement from 104 to 109.49fps.

Also, my 3GB cards allowed a much higher overclock, at least in this bench.

EDIT: So I suppose what I understand of Sajin1337's score is that a modest oc on a 980x and 2000Mhz CAS7 memory and all three cards (lower clocked) @ x16 can net a 9fps boost over my sig rig. Interesting, definitely, but I don't understand how he's only 6fps short of Vega's 4.8-5Ghz 980x and Quad-SLi 1050Mhz GTX580's.

I'm not saying Sajin1337's score isn't real (I sincerely hope it is, it's awesome), I just am trying to understand the logic.


----------



## Uncivilised

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;13986994*
> Try a bit more voltage on your gtx470?
> 
> These were my profiles in msi afterburner (three gtx 470s on water):
> 
> 850-860 - 1.087v
> 800 - 1.050v
> 750 - 1.025v
> 700 - 1.005v
> 607 - 0.976v


its not a voltage problem cause it happened on my 5870 as well, infact it was worse on that


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Uncivilised;13988242*
> its not a voltage problem cause it happened on my 5870 as well, infact it was worse on that


Have you run driver sweeper? Also uninstall and reinstall Metro.


----------



## Sajin1337

Sajin1337 ---- i7-980x @ 4.5Ghz ---- 1.5GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (930/2300/1860) ---- 121.21 FPS



4.5GHz vs 4.3GHz no improvement, 275.33 vs 275.36 drivers no improvement. The extra 3fps came from upping the cores on the GPUs to 930, I cannot push past 930 without more voltage.

If I wanted to take the #1 spot I would have to order a 4th GTX 580. I'll save my $500 for future upgrades.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sajin1337;13993836*
> Sajin1337 ---- i7-980x @ 4.5Ghz ---- 1.5GB GTX580 Tri-SLi (930/2300/1860) ---- 121.21 FPS
> 
> 
> 
> 4.5GHz vs 4.3GHz no improvement, 275.33 vs 275.36 drivers no improvement. The extra 3fps came from upping the cores on the GPUs to 930, I cannot push past 930 without more voltage.
> 
> If I wanted to take the #1 spot I would have to order a 4th GTX 580. I'll save my $500 for future upgrades.


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Amazing score. Wow.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Try tweaking your dirvers CH, change LoD bias to +4 or something









CallsignVega ---- i7 990x @ 4.83 Ghz ---- Quad-SLI 3GB GTX580 (1020/2200/2040) ---- 126.32 FPS

This has the feeling of the 6970 CF guy in my Dirt3 thread that was getting 90 more fps than people with 580 sli.


----------



## wermad

Crysis benchie will yield more fps if the game is actually set lower than 1920x1080 and veryhigh. We had a thread about a member who was getting more fps on sli 470s than my tri-sli 470. Though I don't think the same could happen to this, or could it???


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Try tweaking your dirvers CH, change LoD bias to +4 or something









CallsignVega ---- i7 990x @ 4.83 Ghz ---- Quad-SLI 3GB GTX580 (1020/2200/2040) ---- 126.32 FPS

This has the feeling of the 6970 CF guy in my Dirt3 thread that was getting 90 more fps than people with 580 sli.


Negative LoD Bias only gives the option to Allow or Clamp. Where can I adjust a numerical value?


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I dunno if it works in DX11....

http://www.overclock.net/nvidia-driv...ctor-tool.html

But you should have it anyways for SLI profiles and such.

It works for sure in DX9 games though. I use it to increase LoD for games like Crysis 2 (as well as add AA/AF/SS) without getting the flickering issue that is present with multi gpu configs.

And no I never use LoD tweeks (wermad) for these types of threads









Picture:


----------



## drizek

drizek ---- X3 720 @ 3.7ghz ---- SLI GTX 460 (861/1722/4260) ---- 49.2 [email protected] 1920x1080.


----------



## Uncivilised

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


Have you run driver sweeper? Also uninstall and reinstall Metro.


I am on a fresh OS so i dnt thnk thats the case. Im not exactly too keen to install because i dnt have a dvd drive lol and my data is already at its cap.. :L


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I'm still working on my SLI 580 Lightning overclock, but this is what I have for Metro so far. I was hoping for 100fps but its looking like my cards aren't the best overclockers.







Hopefully I'll be able to find some gains elsewhere...



*Majin SSJ Eric ---- Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.7GHz ---- 2x MSI GTX 580 Lightning (930/2100/1860) ---- 94.70 FPS @ 1920x1080*


----------



## blackbalt89

Please disregard this post. Newer score with SLI below.

Thank you.


----------



## Elmateo487

*ElMateo487 ---- Intel Core i5 2500k @ 4.7GHz ---- Crossfire Powercolor 6950s (990/1400) ---- 82.46 FPS @ 1920x1080*

I would include a CPU-Z screenshot, but unfortunately it does not support z68 boards yet, and all of the numbers are wrong.


----------



## DigitalRaypist

well looks liek i have to do another run see what i can max these 480`s out at.. 
im sure i can get more.. i just wanted to play the game lol was only testing the new drivers.. now ill have to find my max.. Im sure i can get mroe then 101


----------



## blackbalt89

*Blackbalt89 ---- Intel Core i7 950 @ 4.025GHz ---- EVGA GTX 580 SLI (900/1800/2100) ---- 90.03 FPS @ 1920x1080
*


----------



## badatgames18

I need new cards naoooooo... this is the best i can do so far









*badatgames18---Intel Core i7 [email protected] 4.79ghz--- EVGA GTX 570 SLI (915/2104/1830) --- 81.58 fps @ 1920x1080*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I managed to bump my score by almost 1fps but still in same place.. :/

*Majin SSJ Eric ---Intel Core i7 [email protected] 4.8ghz --- EVGA GTX 580 SLI (940/2100/1880) --- 95.45 fps @ 1920x1080*



Interestingly, this is about the same fps I get in the Crysis 2 bench with full DX11 features. I guess Crysis 2 is now worthy of being compared to Metro 2033 graphics-wise....


----------



## Romin

this is mine GPU OCed!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_*


You should run it again with Advanced PhysX *disabled*.










Edited!!


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Romin*


this is mine GPU OCed!


You should run it again with Advanced PhysX *disabled*.


----------



## Ishinomori

Hey all,

I'm keen to join the statistics, but I'm getting poor GPU utilization in the metro bench, I'm currently running 3 monitors and when I run the bench at 1930x1080 it looks really squashed in the middle screen, could this be the cause to my low utilization?

I'm running SLI Gainward 560Ti's with 275.33 whql drivers.

Anyone know of a way to fix my utilization?

Cheers,

Ishi


----------



## badatgames18

*badatgames18---Intel Core i7 [email protected] 5Ghz---GTX 570 SLI (915/2104/1830)---82.05 fps @ 1920x1080*



EDIT: increasing my cpu clock speed by ~2.1ghz didn't do jack squat!!!


----------



## makesithappen

All stock, a few things running taking up resources so probably lost a few frames
fans on silent









cranked up gpu fans for about 20sec to max after the run


----------



## Romin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *makesithappen;14232870*
> All stock, a few things running taking up resources so probably lost a few frames
> fans on silent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cranked up gpu fans for about 20sec to max after the run


what?! with stock 560 you got more frames than a OCed 570?!
http://www.overclock.net/14185025-post839.html


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ishinomori;14194306*
> Hey all,
> 
> I'm keen to join the statistics, but I'm getting poor GPU utilization in the metro bench, I'm currently running 3 monitors and when I run the bench at 1930x1080 it looks really squashed in the middle screen, could this be the cause to my low utilization?
> 
> I'm running SLI Gainward 560Ti's with 275.33 whql drivers.
> 
> Anyone know of a way to fix my utilization?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ishi


Maybe it's running that large resolution on one screen, just squashed down? Did you disable surround and make sure the resolution on the bench was set to a resolution to match your monitor.


----------



## Wesley914

Wesley914 ---- Amd X6 [email protected] ---- 6870 CF (990/1150) ---- 63.64 FPS @ 1920x1080



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Should mine be higher?


----------



## makesithappen

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


Maybe it's running that large resolution on one screen, just squashed down? Did you disable surround and make sure the resolution on the bench was set to a resolution to match your monitor.


You think that's strange?

Playing Need for Speed Shift Unleashed 2 i get anywhere from 50-70 on max and on empty tracks but other cars present about 70-125 fps on max settings
I have no idea what's going on here... not complaining though

Friend of mine is using Msi 6990 4gb and gets locked 55 fps... beats me

I had a look few weeks ago you know where your pci slot on the board is and peaked under little sticker says HAWK not too sure if factory made a mistake or just used hawk boards.

I would love to know more though, if everyone with same card has it too?


----------



## badatgames18

new high score









*badatgames18---Intel Core i7 [email protected] 4.9Ghz---GTX 570 SLI (915/2104/1830)---83.65 fps @ 1920x1080*

higher speed ram= 1+fps increase woot woot


----------



## jarablue

I have a i7 920 @ 4000 mhz, 12gigs memory 9 9 9, 570's SLI @ 797core - 1594shader - 1950memory.

These are my results -

Total Frames: 4364, Total Time: 59.80525 sec
Average Framerate: 73.07
Max. Framerate: 242.66 (Frame: 3939)
Min. Framerate: 11.55 (Frame: 581)

Is this good for my system?

Thanks!


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jarablue*


I have a i7 920 @ 4000 mhz, 12gigs memory 9 9 9, 570's SLI @ 797core - 1594shader - 1950memory.

These are my results -

Total Frames: 4364, Total Time: 59.80525 sec
Average Framerate: 73.07
Max. Framerate: 242.66 (Frame: 3939)
Min. Framerate: 11.55 (Frame: 581)

Is this good for my system?

Thanks!










 I got up to 83fps average, best run. You can squeak a bit more if you want, with more GPU and memory speeds. I usually get around 81 or so with like 890 core.


----------



## grifers

HI!. Im new here







, im spanish. Sorry my bad English.

This my results with my RIG:

1080 Full (AA4X And DOF):










1080 (like here):










My 6990 set to 850 Mhz Core (poor OC), and 1250 Mhz stock Memory.

Bye


----------



## steadly2004

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grifers*


HI!. Im new here







, im spanish. Sorry my bad English.

This my results with my RIG:

1080 Full (AA4X And DOF):










1080 (like here):










My 6990 set to 850 Mhz Core (poor OC), and 1250 Mhz stock Memory.

Bye










That's a good score for 6990, I like it.


----------



## grifers

Quote:



Originally Posted by *steadly2004*


That's a good score for 6990, I like it.


Yep, not bad







. My room is too hot (summer here), I have 28Âº degrees in my room, not good moment to Oc my GPU. I set bios defaul (1.122). This winter/autumn proob to OC my GPU to 980 Core and 1500 (with a BIOS 2, obviously XD). That was my OC months ago XD.

Sorry my english.

Bye!


----------



## tsm106

I've been benching my 580 sli setup. Damn these 580s are fast and they take to overclocking like kittens on catnip lol. Thus far at 1050: 2500k 5.2ghz, core930/shader1860/mem2260 = 101.57. I'm going to re-run at 1080 and post that up.

Without trying to be Capt. Obvious, sli 580s are stupid fast.


----------



## DimmyK

Time to update my score, it's been a while... 1920 run

*DimmyK ---- i7 930 @ 4.0Ghz ---- MSI GTX580 Lighting SLI (930/1860/2100) ---- 92.99 FPS*


----------



## Alex24buc

Also an update to my score:

*alex24buc-I7 [email protected] 4,27Ghz-GTX 480 3 WAY SLI (822/1644/1950)---92.02 fps*
I wish I could reach 100 fps but i would probably need a watercooling solution


----------



## robi123

robi123---- i7 950 @ 4.5Ghz ---- 2x ASUS GTX 480 SLI (912/1824/2250) ---- 95.63 FPS


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robi123;14489608*
> robi123---- i7 950 @ 4.5Ghz ---- 2x ASUS GTX 480 SLI (912/1824/2250) ---- 95.63 FPS


Very nice rig, those fps are pretty amazing for those 480s. Can you do a 1080p run? Couldn't help but notice what monitor are you running?

Nice one!!


----------



## robi123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *munaim1;14489733*
> Very nice rig, those fps are pretty amazing for those 480s. Can you do a 1080p run? Couldn't help but notice what monitor are you running?
> 
> Nice one!!


Samsung 1080p and another Samsung 1680 x 1050, but the 1080p monitor currently out of use. I am looking to invest in the surround screen. What do you recommend?


----------



## munaim1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *robi123;14489840*
> Samsung 1080p and another Samsung 1680 x 1050, but the 1080p monitor currently out of use. I am looking to invest in the surround screen. What do you recommend?


Cool, surround would be awesome, im not so familiar with the latest or bang for buck monitors so best place to ask is there: http://www.overclock.net/monitors-displays/

Good luck with that and lest us know how you get on


----------



## DimmyK

1680 run:

*DimmyK ---- i7 930 @ 4.0Ghz ---- MSI GTX580 Lighting SLI (930/1860/2100) ---- 100.78 FPS*


----------



## kcuestag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grifers;14475706*
> Yep, not bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . My room is too hot (summer here), I have 28º degrees in my room, not good moment to Oc my GPU. I set bios defaul (1.122). This winter/autumn proob to OC my GPU to 980 Core and 1500 (with a BIOS 2, obviously XD). That was my OC months ago XD.
> 
> Sorry my english.
> 
> Bye!


Welcome to the Forums grifers! I'm glad to see you around this community!









That's a nice score for an HD6990, I should give it a try on my HD6970's.


----------



## Chris13002

*Chris13002---- i7 970 @ 4Ghz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 580 SLI (772/1544/2004) ---- 79.45 FPS*

I need to overclock my GPU's once i get cooler ambients or go full custom water loop... which probably won't happen soon since I just picked up my H100 and finally overclocked my CPU...
Nice to see all these AMD 6990's, GTX 570's and 480's beating me!!!


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chris13002*


*Chris13002---- i7 970 @ 4Ghz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 580 SLI (772/1544/2004) ---- 79.45 FPS*

I need to overclock my GPU's once i get cooler ambients or go full custom water loop... which probably won't happen soon since I just picked up my H100 and finally overclocked my CPU...
Nice to see all these AMD 6990's, GTX 570's and 480's beating me!!!


How high is your ambient?

Mines 25c but I managed to pull off 900 core on my 580s using 85% fans.

You should be able to get them to bench around 900 on air on semi high ambient like mine. Mine are sandwiched too.









You'll easily see more than 10fps increase.


----------



## Chris13002

Quote:



Originally Posted by *blackbalt89*


How high is your ambient?

Mines 25c but I managed to pull off 900 core on my 580s using 85% fans.

You should be able to get them to bench around 900 on air on semi high ambient like mine. Mine are sandwiched too.









You'll easily see more than 10fps increase.


Very small room, so with the computer and big LCD, it heats up easily to 85F or 29.4C... Plus my cards are literally sandwiched together...
On gaming loads, it reaches 88C and 83C top and bottom... Fans never spin full speed...as I like it quiet...
Also I never made a custom fan profile...


----------



## Chris13002

*Chris13002---- i7 970 @ 4Ghz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 580 SLI (800/1600/2004) ---- 81.43 FPS*
Bumped it up a little... Same temps even though this test is a bit short, doesn't seem to stress the cards too long... 88C top and 82C bottom...


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Chris13002*


Very small room, so with the computer and big LCD, it heats up easily to 85F or 29.4C... Plus my cards are literally sandwiched together...
On gaming loads, it reaches 88C and 83C top and bottom... Fans never spin full speed...as I like it quiet...
Also I never made a custom fan profile...


Mine are sandwiched as well but I found that zip tying a 120mm fan to the drive cages in my case netted a 3c cooler top card compared to sandwiched 580s with no airflow. And now at stock the temp difference between the two is 11c with the top card hovering around 80c in The Witcher 2 while the bottom sits at 69.

But this is with a fan profile of 1c/1%.

I can't see what case you have cause I'm on Tapatalk otherwise I would give you more specific help.


----------



## slyrunner

Here are my scores so far! 1920x1080


----------



## ACHILEE5

Quote:



Originally Posted by *slyrunner*


Here are my scores so far! 1920x1080


We can't see your settings


----------



## Chris13002

*Chris13002---- i7 970 @ 4.4Ghz ---- 2x EVGA GTX 580 SLI (900/1800/2100) ---- 93.45 FPS*


----------



## Coco10

i have the game but iam non steam how can i get the tool > ?


----------



## wermad

I'm so glad I switched back to nvidia! No fiddling around and using different tools to get some results like my old amd Cayman setup. First run of metro for my new fermis and I couldn't believe my score! Best I could manage with the trouble some tri-fire 6950/70s was 76fps. What a difference:

wermad ---- i7 2600K @ 4.9 ---- 3x Zotac GTX 580 3gb 950/2400/1900 ---- avg fps 107.16 @ 1920x1080:


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14806180*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm so glad I switched back to nvidia! No fiddling around and using different tools to get some results like my old amd Cayman setup. First run of metro for my new fermis and I couldn't believe my score! Best I could manage with the trouble some tri-fire 6950/70s was 76fps. What a difference:
> 
> wermad ---- i7 2600K @ 4.9 ---- 3x Zotac GTX 580 3gb 950/2400/1900 ---- avg fps 107.16 @ 1920x1080:


Good stuff! Glad to see that your happy with the new setup!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Welcome back Wermad, time to unlock that voltage limit.


----------



## badatgames18

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Welcome back Wermad, time to unlock that voltage limit.











Balla... just snatched myself 3x470s all reference asus... how many volts did you have to put through to get 900 core?

did you need more volts when on air vs water?


----------



## BigCactus

Alright here is my run at 1080p:

BigCactus ---- Phenom X4 840 @ 3.6ghz ---- GTX465 Unlocked (915/1830/1801)










1st one was 40.55fps second was 40.40fps. I think I'm about on par with what I should be getting at these settings. I could go higher but I don't want to flash the gpu bios, and then revert back.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14806180*
> Best I could manage with the trouble some tri-fire 6950/70s was 76fps. What a difference:


Something was wrong with your set-up. If you look at the results on the first page, I got 101 fps with a 6990+6970 Tri-Fire set-up a couple of months ago.

I'm sure my score would be near your score of 107 fps if I was using newer drivers. So nothing impressive with Tri-SLI vs Tri-Fire. They perform around the same with Metro.


----------



## grunion

Yeah I get 83 with 6950s and got 81 with 5870s.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14856293*
> Something was wrong with your set-up. If you look at the results on the first page, I got 101 fps with a 6990+6970 Tri-Fire set-up a couple of months ago.
> 
> I'm sure my score would be near your score of 107 fps if I was using newer drivers. So nothing impressive with Tri-SLI vs Tri-Fire. They perform around the same with Metro.


I sense some jelly levesque







, anyways AMD still needs to work on their drivers. I had troubles with my 48xx series cards and the same with the 6950s. I did post numerous times about not getting the most out my cards. Sure they ran games quite nicely, but every benchmark was crap. My old three 470s were scoring the same if not a bit more in 3d11 and vantage. Eyenfinity is a pita to disable to run benchmarks on a single monitor. I ended up using Sapphire Trixx to actually disable ulp and oc them. Still nothing compared to the ease of Nvidia. Call me what you want and say my scores can get better with newer drivers (meh), but Nvidia does have something AMD still needs to obtain, ease of use. I'm still running the same Nvidia drivers I installed when I got my first 580, disabling Surround is easy, and all games and benchmarks run beautifully. I've had no troubles and I'm quite content.

I would like to see your quad-fire scores, I know Tsm106 is running quad 6950/70s but I haven't seen his scores too.

-wermad


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14857481*
> I sense some jelly levesque
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , anyways AMD still needs to work on their drivers. I had troubles with my 48xx series cards and the same with the 6950s. I did post numerous times about not getting the most out my cards. Sure they ran games quite nicely, but every benchmark was crap. My old three 470s were scoring the same if not a bit more in 3d11 and vantage. Eyenfinity is a pita to disable to run benchmarks on a single monitor. I ended up using Sapphire Trixx to actually disable ulp and oc them. Still nothing compared to the ease of Nvidia. Call me what you want and say my scores can get better with newer drivers (meh), but Nvidia does have something AMD still needs to obtain, ease of use. I'm still running the same Nvidia drivers I installed when I got my first 580, disabling Surround is easy, and all games and benchmarks run beautifully. I've had no troubles and I'm quite content.
> 
> I would like to see your quad-fire scores, I know Tsm106 is running quad 6950/70s but I haven't seen his scores too.
> 
> -wermad


My scores right here under the 1680 group, since I'm running 3x1680. Anyways, I always put the problem with your rig under doing it the wrong way. AB and trixx are a joke man. I'm kinda repeating myself here, since you had reference cards you coulda used RBE and Racerx. That would have let you overclock like mad while keeping ULPS and Powerplay intact doing the fancy things AMD intended them to do, instead of jerry-rigging it by disabling those features.









And as I said before and again, eyefinity doesn't affect benching. When I run Metrobench at 1680, I run it at 1680. I dun have to disable anything, it just runs.

Anyways, time to play some crysis 2 in 3D on my son's green machine lol.









Faster - i7 990x ES @5Ghz - 4x GTX580 (1020/1125) - 131.24 FPS

Second Place:
tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.3GHz ---- Quad-CFX HD 6950 (970/1480) ---- 115.40 FPS

Third Place:
Defoler -- I7 980 @ 4.59Ghz ---- Quad-SLI GTX 580 @ 940 / 1075 ---- 114.01


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14857481*
> I sense some jelly levesque


Not at all.







But was just rectifying what you said. Since I was able to get 101 fps 3-4 months ago with Tri-Fire, you should have been able to get near that score with your Tri-Fire set-up. That's all.

I'm really happy if you are happy with your new set-up. More power to you!

But Tri-Fire and Tri-SLI are now really close in performance.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14857760*
> Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was just rectifying what you said. Since I was able to get 101 fps 3-4 months ago with Tri-Fire, you should have been able to get near that score with your Tri-Fire set-up. That's all.
> 
> I'm really happy if you are happy with your new set-up. More power to you!
> 
> But Tri-Fire and Tri-SLI are now really close in performance.


My tri-fire 6950s hit 99fps at 1080 back then. I wasn't interested in going after Lev back then hehe, as long as I could get there I knew the rig was A.OK.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14857760*
> Not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But was just rectifying what you said. Since I was able to get 101 fps 3-4 months ago with Tri-Fire, you should have been able to get near that score with your Tri-Fire set-up. That's all.
> 
> I'm really happy if you are happy with your new set-up. More power to you!
> 
> But Tri-Fire and Tri-SLI are now really close in performance.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;14857881*
> My tri-fire 6950s hit 99fps at 1080 back then. I wasn't interested in going after Lev back then hehe, as long as I could get there I knew the rig was A.OK.


Kinda strange that you guys got some fantastic numbers and I struggled a lot. But I guess what ever works for one my not be the same for others.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14857923*
> Kinda strange that you guys got some fantastic numbers and I struggled a lot. But I guess what ever works for one my not be the same for others.


Dude, you're numbers were real low, even lower than compudaze's crossfire 6950s. I'm not gonna go into why, but it isn't strange imo or that isn't how I'd describe it.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;14857991*
> Dude, you're numbers were real low, even lower than compudaze's crossfire 6950s. I'm not gonna go into why, but it isn't strange imo or that isn't how I'd describe it.


Yuppers, it was like this for all benchmarks. But running the game, the three 6950s ran a lot better than the 470s. I'm not sure if it was something with the last batch of remaining reference 6950s or something but in the end i just didn't behave the way I expected it to.


----------



## coolhandluke41

hey werm ..are you running with C states enabled ?
I apologize if this was asked already ,i didn't read the rest of this thread


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*


Faster - i7 990x ES @5Ghz - 4x GTX580 (1020/1125) - 131.24 FPS

Second Place:
tsm106 ---- i7 2600k @ 5.3GHz ---- Quad-CFX HD 6950 (970/1480) ---- 115.40 FPS

Third Place:
Defoler -- I7 980 @ 4.59Ghz ---- Quad-SLI GTX 580 @ 940 / 1075 ---- 114.01


Sorry I missed your post. Awesome score!!!!

I couldn't figure out why benches ran like crap. But I was so used to AB that's what I ended up relying on for oc'ing. I'm going to try to find a bit more speed out these guys and then I'll try the bios mod to up the voltage.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*


hey werm ..are you running with C states enabled ?
I apologize if this was asked already ,i didn't read the rest of this thread


Yes, I had played around with that turning it off (mainly for the cpu sleep issue) and it didn't make a difference


----------



## coolhandluke41

I'm thinking ..your NF200 chip have something to do with lower score (latency and what not),how much behind are you ?
If you need some help with 5.0+ PM me 
good luck


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*


I'm thinking ..your NF200 chip have something to do with lower score (latency and what not),how much behind are you ?
If you need some help with 5.0+ PM me 
good luck


It's not. We're all on the nf200.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41*


I'm thinking ..your NF200 chip have something to do with lower score (latency and what not),how much behind are you ?
If you need some help with 5.0+ PM me 
good luck


Thanks Luke. Board was replaced (sleep issue) and I still had the same results.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


It's not. We're all on the nf200.


This. Current cards don't have this issue.


----------



## Levesque

Metro is not installed anymore, and I'm finishing my Quad-Fire build, so my computer is not ready to do any benching. I'm still waiting for alot of parts.

So I will try to redo Metro bench when my computer is finnally up and running. Waiting after the mail. Sigh.

Almost done.


----------



## badatgames18

^^ very nice looking setup!


----------



## Levesque

Levesque - i7 2600K @ 5.3 - 6990+6970+6970 - 106.37 fps

No tweaking at all, only raised my GPU volt and multiplier to 53X100. No BCLK tweaking, no memory tweaking. GPUs at 950/1350 only.

Not bad for only 1300$ worth of cards.







I'm sure I could go higher if tweaking my BCLK and my memory (now only at stock timings DDR3-1600).


----------



## wermad

Some 2400mhz ram should do the trick









btw, you running triple or quad?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41;14861284*
> I'm thinking ..your NF200 chip have something to do with lower score (latency and what not),how much behind are you ?
> If you need some help with 5.0+ PM me
> good luck


NF200 has not held me back, it's just the lack of PCI-E lanes on my MIVE as opposed to a 1366 rig. I'm still in 3rd!


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14877335*
> Some 2400mhz ram should do the trick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw, you running triple or quad?


He's running quads.

Lev, can you raise your ram speed up anymore?


----------



## badatgames18

wow! 53 multi 3d stable at only 1.488v?
what's the max wall on that?


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


He's running quads.

Lev, can you raise your ram speed up anymore?


Figured that, I wasn't too sure if he had switched to tri-fire for comparisons. So pretty even and costs the same.

Tsm, where's your screenshot of your run (link to post)? Kora hasn't been updating the list so I don't know where I fall now


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


Figured that, I wasn't too sure if he had switched to tri-fire for comparisons. So pretty even and costs the same.


That's what I was saying all along. But we should try Metro 2560X1600 with 4AA now. Those 1.5Gb 580s will make a major dive...









For useless synthetic benchmarks, Nvidia are paying more money to the devs to see their cards on top (3D Mark 11, Heaven, etc).

But in REAL gaming real-world conditions, like Metro 2033, one of the most demanding game out there, then AMD is on par with Nvidia. No ''Nvidia is better'' with real games... only with synthetic benchmarks.

Here's my first run with the exact same settings for my CPU and RAM, but 2560X1600 and 4AA this time.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Levesque*


That's what I was saying all along. But we should try Metro 2560X1600 with 4AA now. Those 1.5Gb 580s will make a major dive...









For useless synthetic benchmarks, Nvidia are paying more money to the devs to see their cards on top (3D Mark 11, Heaven, etc).

But in REAL gaming real-world conditions, like Metro 2033, one of the most demanding game out there, then AMD is on par with Nvidia. No ''Nvidia is better'' with real games... only with synthetic benchmarks.

So Wermad. Should we try 2560X1600 with 4AA now? You have those 3Gb, so it should be interesting. But those with Tri-SLI 580s 1.5Gb = ouch.


I'll give that a try









I'm going to run the game for an hour to monitor the vram usage, I think last I played it I may have seen over 2gb of vram usage on two of the cards but I don't recall that well. I'll check it tonight or this weekend (I'm busy repainting some preowned wheels I got for my car







).


----------



## hermitmaster

How about a little love for 1600 x 900 or 1366 x 768? I want to post up the results for my laptop, but it doesn't support any of the listed resolutions.


----------



## wermad

Did a leisure run, cpu @ 4.5 and gpu running stock. This is the closest I could get in resolution on my three screens


----------



## tsm106

Oh, yer doing portrait.


----------



## coolhandluke41

PhysX disabled (single vanilla)


Enabled;


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wermad*


Did a leisure run, cpu @ 4.5 and gpu running stock. This is the closest I could get in resolution on my three screens












Hum. Something doesn't compute here. I get 66 fps while you get 51. I'm surprised. With 3Gb, I taught you would leave my set-up in the dust.

Can you try to raise your CPU clock a bit? Like 4.9-5?

Also, stop ''cheating'' and use MSAA 4AA like me, not AAA.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Levesque*


Hum. Something doesn't compute here. I get 66 fps while you get 51. I'm surprised. With 3Gb, I taught you would leave my set-up in the dust.

Can you try to raise your CPU clock a bit? Like 4.9-5?

Also, stop ''cheating'' and use MSAA 4AA like me, not AAA.










Yeah, I was just too lazy to oc









edit: lol, Levesque, I'm using the threads guidelines besides the resolution. Lmk, what terms and conditions you want to setup to compare so I don't "cheat"


----------



## wermad

@ 4.9 and gpu @ 950 w/ msaax4 2700x1600 avg fps 55.04



edit: here's w/ aaa


----------



## Levesque

Hum, Strange. You're taking a hit with 4AA vs AAA at 2560X1600.

You're faster then me at 1920X1080, but at 2560X1600 4AA, I'm faster. 66 fps average vs 51. So I'm 30% faster with a higher res + high AA. Interesting.

1350$ of AMD cards vs 1800$ of Nvidia cards.


----------



## coolhandluke41

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14893782*
> Hum, Strange. You're taking a hit with 4AA vs AAA at 2560X1600.
> 
> You're faster then me at 1920X1080, but at 2560X1600 4AA, I'm faster. 66 fps average vs 51. So I'm 30% faster with a higher res + high AA. Interesting.
> 
> *1350$ of AMD cards vs 1800$ of Nvidia cards*.


you couldn't pass on saying this ..right ?,somethings never change with you..


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hermitmaster;14890354*
> How about a little love for 1600 x 900 or 1366 x 768? I want to post up the results for my laptop, but it doesn't support any of the listed resolutions.


Bring it!!!!

View attachment 228339


----------



## Mistfang

Done with my main desktop.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14893782*
> Hum, Strange. You're taking a hit with 4AA vs AAA at 2560X1600.
> 
> You're faster then me at 1920X1080, but at 2560X1600 4AA, I'm faster. 66 fps average vs *55*. So I'm 30% faster with a higher res + high AA. Interesting.
> 
> 1350$ of AMD cards vs *1650*$ of Nvidia cards.










your cards are ~ $1500 not $1350.
Where are your screen shots??? you ain't posting any proof buddy























edit: fixed your post since second runs are the ones one's looking for







and my cards ~$1650


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Wermad, I'd be interested in seeing a triple landscape run with your rig. I've got a run from a few months ago that wasn't as nice as I'd like, but I think that was before I got the 3GB cards.

I can run it again with my current cards to see if there is any difference.

You should also post some results in my Surround/Eyefinity benchmark thread in my sig.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;14894622*
> Wermad, I'd be interested in seeing a triple landscape run with your rig. I've got a run from a few months ago that wasn't as nice as I'd like, but I think that was before I got the 3GB cards.
> 
> I can run it again with my current cards to see if there is any difference.
> 
> You should also post some results in my Surround/Eyefinity benchmark thread in my sig.


I'll give that a shot, 5760x1080?


----------



## _CH_Skyline_

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14895497*
> I'll give that a shot, 5760x1080?


That'll be close enough. My displays are x1200 so it'll do.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14894434*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your cards are ~ $1500 not $1350.


6990 695$ 6970 XFX 325$ (after manufacturer's rebate) 6970 Powercolor 325$(after manufacturer's rebate). Do the maths.

1345$ total.







BTW, I'm talking about the average result, not the second run. Look again.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14894434*
> Where are your screen shots??? you ain't posting any proof buddy


Huh? Page 90:


----------



## theturbofd

TheturboFD- i7 2600k @ 4.4GHz

EVGA GTX 480 (844/2000/1688)

47 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Levesque*


6990 695$ 6970 XFX 325$ (after manufacturer's rebate) 6970 Powercolor 325$(after manufacturer's rebate). Do the maths.

1345$ total.







BTW, I'm talking about the average result, not the second run. Look again.

Huh? Page 90:











Ah, didn't see my bad









Let's see what happens when you knock down your cpu to 4.9? Up to this challenge








I want to see what the results are with even cpu speeds.

Btw, to keep with the thread, as always count the second run, not the first







I'm sure your second run is always faster than your first.

edit: with discounts, my cards were ~$1600, without discounts, $1650.

double edit: You made that run on a single monitor? How about in Eyefinity







Lmk what you get


----------



## hermitmaster

hermitmaster ---- i7 2720QM @ Stock ---- GT 555m (750/1000/1500) ---- 13.51 FPS @ 1600 x 900


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion;14893956*
> Bring it!!!!
> 
> View attachment 228339


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hermitmaster;14905410*
> hermitmaster ---- i7 2720QM @ Stock ---- GT 555m (750/1000/1500) ---- 13.51 FPS @ 1600 x 900


Oh

Run it at the same settings as mine, that's what I actually play at.


----------



## hermitmaster

hermitmaster ---- i7 2720QM @ Stock ---- GT 555m (750/1000/1500) ---- 50.49 FPS @ 1366 x 768


----------



## grunion

Wowza, I'm impressed.


----------



## Mistfang

not bad. but my Llano is a sandybridge asskicker.


----------



## hermitmaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mistfang;14905947*
> not bad. but my Llano is a sandybridge asskicker.


...okay, if you insist. Post up your score. After that, you pick the bench and I will proceed to smoke you in that too.


----------



## Mistfang

a 555M beating a 6620G? lol..


----------



## hermitmaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mistfang;14906960*
> a 555M beating a 6620G? lol..


Any time you're ready.

*Edit*
For the record, I truly hope you're kidding. It's not even a close fight. I'm about 50% faster at stock clocks.


----------



## InfamousLegend

I'm submitting my benchmark for 1280x1024

For proof it was me look at the address bar in the internet browser, although I couldn't get my resolution settings in the screenshot.
InfamousLegend ---- I5 2500K @ 4.8GHz ---- MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr III (965/2200/1930) ---- 72.69 FPS @ 1280x1024


----------



## Coco10

Quote:



Originally Posted by *InfamousLegend*


I'm submitting my benchmark for 1280x1024

For proof it was me look at the address bar in the internet browser, although I couldn't get my resolution settings in the screenshot.
InfamousLegend ---- I5 2500K @ 4.8GHz ---- MSI GTX 570 Twin Frozr III (965/2200/1930) ---- 72.69 FPS @ 1280x1024


show us the drontline so we can see what options you used


----------



## hermitmaster

Quote:



Originally Posted by *grunion*


Wowza, I'm impressed.


I forgot to say thanks!







It does pretty good. I've been thoroughly impressed with this laptop overall. It's certainly a lot faster than the m11x R2 it replaced, and it's even considerably faster than my Athlon x4 620 desktop (retired to family duty).


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hermitmaster*


I forgot to say thanks!







It does pretty good. I've been thoroughly impressed with this laptop overall. It's certainly a lot faster than the m11x R2 it replaced, and it's even considerably faster than my Athlon x4 620 desktop (retired to family duty).


It's still too slow on a 1080 panel, much less on a 3D one. I can't complain about mine since I got a deal on it.


----------



## hermitmaster

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;14913321*
> It's still too slow on a 1080 panel, much less on a 3D one. I can't complain about mine since I got a deal on it.


Same here. I paid $940 shipped for it from the Dell outlet. The same config new was over $1800.


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;14893782*
> Hum, Strange. You're taking a hit with 4AA vs AAA at 2560X1600.
> 
> You're faster then me at 1920X1080, but at 2560X1600 4AA, I'm faster. 66 fps average vs 51. So I'm 30% faster with a higher res + high AA. Interesting.
> 
> 1350$ of AMD cards vs 1800$ of Nvidia cards.


Hey bro, where you at? Lets see what happens when you clock your cpu @ 4.9 and run 2700x1600 in Eyefinity? Lets compare gpu(s) directly if your up to this challenge


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wermad;14919293*
> Hey bro, where you at? Lets see what happens when you clock your cpu @ 4.9 and run 2700x1600 in Eyefinity? Lets compare gpu(s) directly if your up to this challenge


Sorry, but my benchmarks were done on my ''ghetto-rigged'' computer, directly on my working table. I'm in the middle of a gigantic build with 2X Quad 120 rads, 3X triple 120 rads and 2X 240 rads. Around 30'' of tubing and 6 liters of water.









And I have some defective Koolance QDCs VL4N thart I have to RMA. So my main computer is DOA right now, ripped apart.









I'm also installing high-end speakers and a Denon AVR-3312CI to my main computer to do a full 7.1 set-up. Alot of work to do on my gaming room.

Just wait a couple of days. And I will try to find 2 minutes to do it.


----------



## radagust

2600k + gtx590 (all stock)
not as good as i thought it would be







any suggestions?



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *radagust;14946116*
> 2600k + gtx590 (all stock)
> not as good as i thought it would be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any suggestions?


Edit your sig rig so we can see your setup. What is your cpu clocked at? At this res, the cards are cpu bottlenecked. You're about 10fps down I'd reckon.


----------



## radagust

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106;14946148*
> Edit your sig rig so we can see your setup. What is your cpu clocked at? At this res, the cards are cpu bottlenecked. You're about 10fps down I'd reckon.


done! yeah gotta get a monitor upgrade soon, just got my rig a month back. banks empty.

p/s i just oced it to 4.6ghz and it only increased by 3 average frames... somethings fishy


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Wermad, update to the beta drivers...

Quote:



GeForce GTX 580 Performance Improvements

Up to 5% in Call Of Duty: Black Ops
Up to 7% in Civilization V with SLI
Up to 5% in Crysis 2 DX11 with SLI
Up to 7% in F1 2010 with SLI
Up to 5% in Lost Planet 2 with SLI
Up to 5% in Mafia 2 with SLI
*Up to 13% in Metro 2033 with SLI*
Up to 8% in STALKER: Call of Pripyat with SLI
Up to 5% in StarCraft II (Check out the finals of the GeForce StarCraft II Pro/Am Tournament)



Get um boy!!!!

lol

@badatgaming

During the summer I used 1112/1125 mv for 900 core, but I also cracked my vram up from 16xx to 2150.

Winter is almost here, getting down around 37C load right now at 900 core, pretty soon I'm going to try some more 930+ core SLI runs












































Edit: Yeah I needed more voltage for the same clocks on air, but considering people are exceeding what my cards can do on air, I'd say mine are average at best... My problem is the OCP tripping, my cards aren't unstable they just don't like the wattage I'm trying to force through them.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


Wermad, update to the beta drivers...

Get um boy!!!!

lol


Lol, yeah, I have them installed but I'm working on my wiremanagement so a few things are disco. I'll see if I can get some runs this weekend


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Let me get at them 580s, I'll bench um til they break... I ain't never scared!


----------



## imhotep531

I just built a new system and am about to play Metro 2033 for the first time. I'd like to run the official benchmarking tool before and after overclocking, also before and after adding a second GPU. Any recommendations for the benchmark's settings?


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *imhotep531*


I just built a new system and am about to play Metro 2033 for the first time. I'd like to run the official benchmarking tool before and after overclocking, also before and after adding a second GPU. Any recommendations for the benchmark's settings?


There are none, you run them according to the rules in the first post.


----------



## wholeeo

wholeeo ---- Intel i7-970 @ 4.2GHZ ---- SLI 580 GTX (900/1800/2100) ---- 87.67 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## wermad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_CH_Skyline_;14894622*
> Wermad, I'd be interested in seeing a triple landscape run with your rig. I've got a run from a few months ago that wasn't as nice as I'd like, but I think that was before I got the 3GB cards.
> 
> I can run it again with my current cards to see if there is any difference.
> 
> You should also post some results in my Surround/Eyefinity benchmark thread in my sig.


Sorry about the delay, work has got me busy and I finished wiremanagement on my rig









I just did one run:


----------



## ColossusofRhodes




----------



## Mistfang

nice,, that 6850 get's same result's as my stock clocked HD 6870


----------



## Calipso

I never play in 16AF. Now I know why, this game kicks the hell out of my PC.

Calipso ---- i5-2500k @ 4.0Ghz ---- EVGA GTX 560 (850/1002/1701) ---- 30.83 FPS @ 1920 x 1080


----------



## Levesque

Just for fun. Only 2X 6970 Crossfire. LOL! I sold my 6990, and waiting for my waterblock for 3X6970 Tri-Fire. That's the score with only 2. Imagine 3.









Levesque - i7 2600K at 5.3 - *6970 Crossfire *1045-1400 - fps *96.35*










Not bad compared to 580 SLI. When it's not a synthetic benchmark, AMD 6970 Crossfire and 580 SLi are neck-to-neck with real demanding games.

Tri-Fire 3X6970 coming over the week-end... and with much better RAM also coming today or tomorrow.









Hope to go over 110 fps.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I'll have to run it on the latest drivers, but since I got 86 fps before maybe I can crack 90? I'd be pretty happy getting within a few fps of AMD's best cards at probably half the price in a game that favors AMD.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


I'll have to run it on the latest drivers, but since I got 86 fps before maybe I can crack 90? I'd be pretty happy getting within a few fps of AMD's best cards at probably half the price in a game that favors AMD.


Huh? Look at the best 580 SLI score.

You should have write: ''I got 86 fps before maybe I can crack 90? I'd be pretty happy getting within a few fps of Nvidia's best cards at probably 1/3 the price.''









Stop behing a Nvidia shill... Look at Nvidia 580 SLI score. We are neck-to-neck. But the 580 SLi set-up cost alot more then mine.









Go after the best Nvidia's card, and the one that cost the most, since everyone are saying that the 580 is sooooo much better then the 6970!


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol?


----------



## Levesque

Why do you want to be ''at a few fps from AMD best offering'', and not at a few fps from the 580 SLI set-up? Since I get the same score then the best 580 SLI score here?

I now have 5X 6970 at home, 3 cost me 325$, and the last 2 305$. So a 580 SLI set-up cost alot more then my Crossfire set-up.

So compare your Nvidia set-up that will be ''at a few fps'' from the higest priced Nvidia set-up. No? Not logical for an Nvidia loyalist? Afraid to put the 580 SLi set-up in a bad spot?

Typical.


----------



## blackbalt89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque;15036565*
> Why do you want to be ''at a few fps from AMD best offering'', and not at a few fps from the 580 SLI set-up? Since I get the same score then the best 580 SLI score here?
> 
> I now have 5X 6970 at home, 3 cost me 325$, and the last 2 305$. So a 580 SLI set-up cost alot more then my Crossfire set-up.
> 
> So compare your Nvidia set-up that will be ''at a few fps'' from the higest priced Nvidia set-up. No? Not logical for an Nvidia loyalist? Afraid to put the 580 SLi set-up in a bad spot?
> 
> Typical.


Why do you always bash on how expensive the 580s are?

We know how expensive they are. But we still bought them. Should tell you something.

Don't get on your high horse just because your cards can bench well in a synthetic scripted benchmark.


----------



## wholeeo

Looks like he has a history of going on crusades for AMD. I'd just ignore him.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Best just to ignore the trollz....


----------



## badatgames18

balla... what drivers did you use for your 86.03 score for your 470s? you beat my 570s and i was just 300mhz clocked lower than you on my cpu


----------



## grifers

One 6990 (with stock 6970 clock's):



Dont needed 4 gpu's o 3 GPU's for get a fantastic results







. And my 6990 get 1000 Mhz core and 1450 Mhz memory (Max OC). In this test only put stock clocks on 6970.

Bye







!!

P.D - Sorry my english







.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Levesque*


Why do you want to be ''at a few fps from AMD best offering'', and not at a few fps from the 580 SLI set-up? Since I get the same score then the best 580 SLI score here?

I now have 5X 6970 at home, 3 cost me 325$, and the last 2 305$. So a 580 SLI set-up cost alot more then my Crossfire set-up.

So compare your Nvidia set-up that will be ''at a few fps'' from the higest priced Nvidia set-up. No? Not logical for an Nvidia loyalist? Afraid to put the 580 SLi set-up in a bad spot?

Typical.










Why do I have to compare my cards to 580s though? I mean for what you paid for one of your cards I got two of mine.

Why can't I compare my scores to yours?

I love your logic against 580s, it works well for me with 470s vs 6970s.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *badatgames18*


balla... what drivers did you use for your 86.03 score for your 470s? you beat my 570s and i was just 300mhz clocked lower than you on my cpu


Looks like 270:

875 run:










900 run:


----------



## XXXfire

Nice runs with those 470 sli. Of the Fermi o.g. series, I've always felt them much underrated. Hell, as drivers matured they came to dominate the 5800 competition in entirety. And the 5870 (lopsided in shader capacity or not) was, and is, a powerful little thing. Nice work.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*


Best just to ignore the trollz....


Derp derp derp.

Bella is always bashing AMD cards. He's a well known Nvidia's fanboy. So why can't I do the same with Nvidia cards?

Because you own Nvidia cards I'm the troll and he's not?

Come on. Why does he has to compare is ''low cost'' set-up to AMD high-end cards, but not to Nvidia's high-end cards. Where's the logic in that?

Instead of calling me fanboy, take your 580 SLI and beat my 6970 Crossfire score. Easy. Instead of calling names. Do some real benching instead.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I'm just pointing out that by your logic for the 580s being a bad choice, so are your 6970s.


----------



## XXXfire

Here's my submission:










I operate almost exclusively in 6000x1920. 3560x1920, & 2560x1600. The scaling of quad 6970s seems competent at best compared to the very impressive triple 580/6970 runs whom have blazed these trails featuring one less GPU (minus the front-runner).

Despite the respectable score, I cringe a bit seeing my GPU usage bounce around between 50-80% when they typically, as an array, operate fully maxed out. Ah, well. Todays my birthday, btw







Thanks ya'll.

XXXFire - i7 2600K @ 5.344 GHz | Quadfire 6990 @ 1020 MHz / 1020 MHz / 1500 MHz | 110.26 FPS @ 1920 x 1080p


----------



## Levesque

Nice score XXXFire! Don't forget that 2X6990 cost a little bit less then Tri-SLI 580. So for around the same price, you get around the same performance.







Can you raise your 2600 k to 5.6-5.7?

Would like to see 2X 590 with the same settings. That would be interesting.

I'm still waiting for my 6970 Lightning to do a proper 3X 6970 at 1050-1500 run. Coming soon.


----------



## tsm106

Quote:



Originally Posted by *XXXfire*


Despite the respectable score, I cringe a bit seeing my GPU usage bounce around between 50-80% when they typically, as an array, operate fully maxed out. Ah, well. Todays my birthday, btw







Thanks ya'll.


It's down to Metro's coding which doesn't use AMD gpus to the fullest.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


It's down to Metro's coding which doesn't use AMD gpus to the fullest.










TWIMTBP hard at work.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol you guys crack me up with the 580 hate.

915 core:










88.26 fps, not bad considering they're only about 8% slower than 6970s @ 1045MHz in this benchmark.


----------



## wholeeo

wholeeo ---- Intel i7-970 @ 4.2GHZ ---- SLI 580 GTX (950/2050/1900) ---- 95.28 FPS @ 1920x1080










My first run was actually faster than my 2nd for some reason.


----------



## wholeeo

wholeeo ---- Intel i7-970 @ 4.2GHZ ---- SLI 580 GTX (970/2050/1940) ---- 101.49 FPS @ 1920x1080










New personal record.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

I've hit a wall!










I think it's the wall, as in the wall socket... The lights are flashing... All of the lights on the 120v the PSU is plugged into...

I need moar:

  
 You Tube  



 
.13 more fps compudaze... .13 - I'll get you.


----------



## wermad

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


I've hit a wall!










I think it's the wall, as in the wall socket... The lights are flashing... All of the lights on the 120v the PSU is plugged into...

I need moar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L53gjP-TtGE&ob=av2e

.13 more fps compudaze... .13 - I'll get you.










Time for LN2 on your cpu and gpu(s)


----------



## BallaTheFeared

lol, probably not









cpu is already at 5.3GHz, 2200 cas 8 on the ram, I think I'm pretty much done









I think there is a lot of noise in the power line though, because ever since they replaced the box about a week ago there has been a constant noise coming through the baby monitor.


----------



## coolhandluke41

this game looks sooooooo much better with PhysX enabled ...to bad AMD cards can't,DX11+PhysX it's like milk and honey


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared;15095540*
> I've hit a wall!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's the wall, as in the wall socket... The lights are flashing... All of the lights on the 120v the PSU is plugged into...
> 
> I need moar:
> .13 more fps compudaze... .13 - I'll get you.


Nice..
Force cpu physx and see what it does to your max fps, please.
My min and avg take a ~10% hit, but max fps is +50%
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolhandluke41;15096213*
> this game looks sooooooo much better with PhysX enabled ...to bad AMD cards can't,DX11+PhysX it's like milk and honey



















Really?
And fyi physx in m2033 runs fine on i5/i7 procs.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

That is with the cpu set to physx


----------



## coolhandluke41

Yes you can run it of i5/7 ..if you have one...on the other hand "~10% hit" ..not good
,i try to run of the CPU but didn't like what i was getting i only take small dip from my card

disabled


enabled


----------



## grunion

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BallaTheFeared*


That is with the cpu set to physx










Shows advanced physx disabled?

10% not good, on a single card maybe.
I can live with a 12fps hit, still > 70fps on avg.


----------



## BallaTheFeared

Oh advanced physx...

Well with my 9800GT in usage was around 8-16% on it, the physx in Metro is like 1/8th the physx work load of Mafia II.


----------



## wholeeo

I guess this thread is dead with no original post updates =(


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:



Originally Posted by *wholeeo*


I guess this thread is dead with no original post updates =(


I'm fine with that. I like my spot!


----------



## H3LLsREAPER911

I Wanted To Post My Score


----------



## mxthunder

figured I would update my score, for what is worth


----------



## blackbalt89

It sucks that this thread hasn't been updated in so long.

But here's my new scores with a SB rig and a higher OC on my 580s.

Maybe we can get a mod to give OP rights to someone else?










Blackbalt89 ---- i7 2600K @ 4.8GHz ---- SLI GTX 580 (935/1870/2100) ---- 95.1 FPS


----------



## tsm106

Metro is 5 bucks on Steam right now. If you don't have it yet, get it.


----------



## CerealKillah

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tsm106*


Metro is 5 bucks on Steam right now. If you don't have it yet, get it.


Done.

What sort of 1080p performance can I expect with a 2500K @ 4.6 and a 6950 @ 900 core/1400 mem and unlocked shaders?


----------



## driftingforlife

Just bought it with steam deal, crappy slow download though.


----------



## neonraver

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CerealKillah*


Done.

What sort of 1080p performance can I expect with a 2500K @ 4.6 and a 6950 @ 900 core/1400 mem and unlocked shaders?


Here's mine (I run my 2500k at 4.7Ghz):










Results aren't bad. Picked up the game in the Steam sale. Looking forward to getting another 6950 in the new year though.


----------



## Levesque

Levesque - i7 2600K at 5.3 - 3X6970 Tri-Fire - *108.39*

Moderators! We need some updates for this thread!


----------



## noahhova

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neonraver*


Here's mine (I run my 2500k at 4.7Ghz):










Results aren't bad. Picked up the game in the Steam sale. Looking forward to getting another 6950 in the new year though.


Wow shows how GPU dependent this game is. My sig gets 44FPS with a PII 3.5Ghz and a 6950 at 840/1325 unlocked shaders.

I only say that because the 2500k is SO much faster then the PII series.


----------



## steven88

hey guys, is it true that the newest WHLQ (not beta) drivers make metro crappier? 280.26 that is....I heard people say 280.26 is worse than say, 270 series.

Sorry for the newb question...this is my first time posting in this thread


----------



## noahhova

Just want to post my results;



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

*Weird finding;*
I had my eyefinity group on and ran the benchmark in 1080p. The benchmark ran with the FOV or the eyefinity it looked like. results at same settings as above.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

*Also a couple Eyefinity results;*

Medium Preset



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

High Preset



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


----------



## aznguyen316

Quote:



Originally Posted by *CerealKillah*


Done.

What sort of 1080p performance can I expect with a 2500K @ 4.6 and a 6950 @ 900 core/1400 mem and unlocked shaders?


I just bought this too =)

Oh and funny I just benchmarked this a couple minutes ago with similar system setup.

2500k @ 4.4Ghz, 6950 unlocked at 980/1400 memory
1920x1080
Vhigh
AAA
AF 16x
DX11
2 runs: avg 51.82/51.90 fps
----
I'll do a 900/1400 run now since that's my standard easy OC for the moment.

k uploaded another bench with lower clocks: avg 49.35/49.49, so only 2 fps decrease on avg lowering the core clocks. Not bad!


----------



## Levesque

i7 2600K at 5.3 - 3X 6970 Tri-Fire *2560X1600 4AA *- *66* fps average, best run 67 fps.

Is there anyone with a 580 Tri-SLI set-up that could try the same run with the same settings? It would be interesting. 2560X1600 4AA. Look at my screenshoot for the settings.

BTW, if we could have someone taking over the thread and the OP, we should have a new category: 2560X1600 with 4AA. We need to test higher resolutions with max AA with today's cards.


----------



## neonraver

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neonraver*












Impulse buy got me a shiny new 6950. The clocks i'm running are in the screenshot. Haven't played around too much with the cards yet as Afterburner is being a pain so going to go the registry hack way to get both cards running at 900/1400 but pretty pleased with the results. Not quite double but near enough:










Managed to get the clocks to 880/1375 using a registry hack and I'm pleased with the results. Pushed my average fps to over 80. Think i'm gonna keep the clocks here for the moment.


----------



## DoomDash

For some reason my Steam version with the benchmark crashes on start up. I found one more guy with similar problems in this thread, with no answers. Anyone else?


----------



## steven88

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DoomDash*


For some reason my Steam version with the benchmark crashes on start up. I found one more guy with similar problems in this thread, with no answers. Anyone else?


does the launcher screen keep opening and closing?


----------



## mannyfc

Mannyfc - E7300 @ 4.0ghz - GTX480 831/1995/1662 - 36.25 FPS @ 1920x1080










Not too shabby for c2d


----------



## ChaosBlades

yusky03 ---- i7-950 @ 4.2 Ghz ---- GTX 570 SLI (900/1800/2280) ---- 84.86 @ 1080p


----------



## HiLuckyB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DoomDash*
> 
> For some reason my Steam version with the benchmark crashes on start up. I found one more guy with similar problems in this thread, with no answers. Anyone else?


I have the same problem! It did work, And one day it didn't








Iv'e reinstalled it 2 times now, And get the same. The game works fine, But the benchmark just crashes on startup.


----------



## SnuffThePunkz

SnuffThePunkz ---- FX-4100 @ 4.2Ghz ---- CFX HD5850 (775/1125) ---- 44.55 FPS @ 1920x1080



I know it's an older game/thread but I'm getting myself ready for last light as I never finished it., and when I first played it was with a phenom x2 555 BE, and a 4850, night and freakin' day in gameplay.


----------



## chewdude

Chewdude ---- i7 990x @ 4.4G ---- EVGA GTX-580 Tri-Sli (797/2025/1594) ---- 91.01 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## IronWill1991

I can't to see the new results of quad-fire OC 7970s beating the top score.


----------



## Levesque

The OP doesn't update the first post anymore, so we all forgot that thread. I totally forgot that thread, honestly!









But let me do it after work. I will easily beat Vega, since I've already taken the first place in both 3D Mark 11 and Heaven.


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IronWill1991*
> 
> I can't to see the new results of quad-fire OC 7970s beating the top score.


Done. New top score.

i7 3930k at 5.0 - 7970 Quad-Fire 1250/1600 - *133.50* fps.


----------



## IronWill1991

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque*
> 
> Done. New top score.
> i7 3930k at 5.0 - 7970 Quad-Fire 1250/1600 - *133.50* fps.


Not bad! That is plenty fps for 120Hz monitor. HD7970 is definitely a new king until maybe Kelper? I never posted my benchmark. So I'll do it now.

I want to get 7970 soon.


----------



## Denim-187

*Give me first place please*


----------



## SnuffThePunkz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Denim-187*
> 
> *Give me first place please*


Your second, and the OP has long abandoned this thread.


----------



## Denim-187

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnuffThePunkz*
> 
> Your second, and the OP has long abandoned this thread.


LOL za.... 4 FPS compared to a quad 7970


----------



## Denim-187

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnuffThePunkz*
> 
> Your second, and the OP has long abandoned this thread.


damn i cant edit... didnt see the post above mine


----------



## SnuffThePunkz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque*
> 
> Done. New top score.
> i7 3930k at 5.0 - 7970 Quad-Fire 1250/1600 - *133.50* fps.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Denim-187*
> 
> So much FAIL on your behalf..and the OP is still around
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've put my score against a 1680x 1050 result?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lose at losing lol


You lose at reading.

And just because the OP is still around, doesn't mean he hasn't un-subscribed the thread, as he hasn't updated it since 8/16/11.
I'm sorry you were kicked in the head as a child, chin up.


----------



## Denim-187

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SnuffThePunkz*
> 
> You lose at reading.
> And just because the OP is still around, doesn't mean he hasn't un-subscribed the thread, as he hasn't updated it since 8/16/11.
> I'm sorry you were kicked in the head as a child, chin up.


I did lose at noticing the above post yeshh







and thnx for being so supportive about my head as a kidd


----------



## un1b4ll

Downloading now. Can't wait to get my 2860QM and 6990m CF in on this action >


----------



## Levesque

It's a useless thread now, since the OP don't update this thread anymore.

And the resolution of 1080p is too low. We should bench at least at 2560X1600 or triple screen res only.


----------



## grifers

1080p, Very High, MSA4x, DOF and Tesselation enable:



1080p, Very High, AAA (no AA), DOF and Tesselation Enable:



Bye!


----------



## tsm106

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levesque*
> 
> Done. New top score.
> i7 3930k at 5.0 - 7970 Quad-Fire 1250/1600 - *133.50* fps.


C'mon dude, you falling behind here. LOL, look at my temps, they're under 37c and under thru the run.


----------



## GetTheMoney

Just ran this on my new 7950, stock speeds on the recommended settings in this thread (very high, DX11 tesselation, AAA, DOF off) on 1680x1050 (yes I need a new monitor) and got 55 fps...sound about right? I have a 2500k if it matters


----------



## Levesque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> C'mon dude, you falling behind here. LOL, look at my temps, they're under 37c and under thru the run.


Probably driver or CAP related. My 4th card is not doing anything.









Will try later with next drivers + CAP. Quad-Fire is always forgotten by AMD...


----------



## owikh84

well my score is lower than you guys.


----------



## Darkcyde

Darkcyde --- Core i7 [email protected] --- CFX HD [email protected]/1450 --- [email protected]


----------



## just4funuk

FX-8150 inno3D GTX480

1280x1024
DX 11
Very High
AAA
16xAF
(no DOF or PhysX)


----------



## Canadarocker

ATI/MSI Twin Frozr II *6950* stock clocks + i5 2500K @ 4.5Ghz

1920x1080
DX 11
Very High
AAA
16xAF

Average of the two runs
Average Framerate: *39.50*
Max. Framerate: 113.10
Min. Framerate: 9.16

Its stuff like this that makes me want to OC my GPU


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well, here is my final submission to this thread with my 580's (switched to a 3960X):

*Majin SSJ Eric ---- Core i7 3960X @ 4800MHz ---- SLI GTX 580 Lightnings (940/2100/1880) ---- 97.00 FPS @ 1080p*


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

And here is a stock voltage max OC of my 7970 Lightnings!

*Majin SSJ Eric --- Core i7 3960X @ 4.8GHz --- CFX HD [email protected]/1400 --- [email protected]*



20FPS improvement over my max overclocked 580 Lightnings and this is at stock voltage!


----------



## Luca T

Hi guys, I read Metro2033 use "Multithreading" feature, so I was curious about the difference in fps' performance with HT on or HT off!?

Have you tried the difference?


----------



## Psykopathic

*
Psykopathic ---- i7 960 @ 4GHZ ---- SLI GTX 480 (800/2000) ---- 78.57 FPS @ 1920x1080*


----------



## amd655

Single GTX 480+ 2500k @4500mhz

Options: Resolution: 1920 x 1080; DirectX: DirectX 11; Quality: Very High; Antialiasing: AAA; Texture filtering: AF 16X; Advanced PhysX: Enabled; Tesselation: Enabled; DOF: Disabled


----------



## Sajin1337

I will be the top dog when I get my new hardware.









Enjoy the #1 spot while you can.


----------



## unknown guy

single 670sc boost clock at 1310mhz memory 6808mhz w/ 2700k @4600mhz


----------



## Pavix

Single EVGA GTX 680 SC stock, i5-2500k, 8GB RAM


----------



## venomblade

VenomBlade ---- i5 3570k @ 4.4ghz ---- EVGA GTX 670 FTW(1275/7012) ---- 72.47 FPS @1920x1080


----------



## grunion

AAA/X4MSAA


----------



## venomblade

@grunionship

How far have you OC'd that Varies series GPU?







. But in all seriousness, I'm curious about your specs.


----------



## grunion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venomblade*
> 
> @grunionship
> How far have you OC'd that Varies series GPU?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . But in all seriousness, I'm curious about your specs.


1200/1500

Just realized I mistakenly ran it at 1200p, so add ~8fps to the scores.

Close to beating my 6950CFX score.
So much smoother though on the 7970.


----------



## venomblade

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grunion*
> 
> 1200/1500
> Just realized I mistakenly ran it at 1200p, so add ~8fps to the scores.
> Close to beating my 6950CFX score.
> So much smoother though on the 7970.


Ah I see, looks good. I was pleasantly surprised to see my 670 hold up and beat some of the 680s on here, not like the difference between the two was that large to begin with, but it still feels good







. Tempted to start crankin' up the voltage and see how far I can really get on my 670.


----------



## sniperpowa

Here's my run on my 580's.


----------



## Bruennis

Here is what my Lightning 680 can do at 1372MHz/1779MHz using latest 306.97 driver. Processor is i5-3570K @ 4.6GHz

Average Framerate: 81.50
Max. Framerate: 252.02
Min. Framerate: 10.40

EDIT: Stock run @ 1202MHz/1503MHz 4.6GHz 3570K


----------



## makesithappen

Here's mine


----------



## mahiv87

mahiv87 ---- Intel i5-3570k @ 4.5Ghz ---- EVGA GTX670 FTW (1061/1692) ---- 70.57 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## Ashtyr

Ashtyr Phenom II [email protected] 4,18 Ghz ASUS GTX 670 (1363/7300) 72,68 [email protected]



With advanced physx and DOF enabled 43,50 fps


----------



## grifers

1080 Maxed out (DOF and Ms4x):










CFX 7970 Ghz stock clocks. Bye


----------



## [CyGnus]

My 24/7 settings: 3570K @ 4.5GHz and 7870 @ 1200/1350


----------



## Matthew89

*Matthew89 ---- i5 3570k @ 4.5Ghz ---- HD 7970 (1125/1575) ---- 78.09 FPS @ 1920x1080*


----------



## rdr09

13.1 Driver, 4.5 GHz, 1100/1575 . . .


----------



## homestyle

Do you guys notice that the first run you do for the benchmark when you turn on the computer is the fastest?

I get higher max fps, but everytime I run it again, the max fps is not as high as the first one.


----------



## paulyoung

I wish I could find out bought it last week and keep getting / Metro 2033 Executable has stopped working.From what I gather it is a well known problem


----------



## Cykososhull

So which frames should I be looking at for stability, max or min? WIth my sig setup I ran the bench with 1140/[email protected] 1.175core with a min/max of 7.29/164.59. I ran it again with the same clocks but added vcore to 1.2 with a min/max 5.13/192.59. So the min fps is lower, but the max is higher. I'm not sure what to make of this.


----------



## kyfire

kyfire...FX 6300 3.8MHz...GTX 650 1059 1250....29.02


----------



## stahlhart




----------



## Revolution996

Revolution996 ---- Phenom II 955BE @ 4.0GHz ---- GTX590 (607/1707/1215) ---- 69.84 FPS @ 1680x1050





Going to go Haswell when it comes...should let that GPU rip.

Revo.


----------



## Koniakki

I'm sure I can do both runs at 80FPS(proof below) if I tune my OC a bit better but I'm quite satisfied with this for now.

*Koniakki -- Intel i7 2600 @ 4.2 GHz --- GTX 680 @ 1254 MHz / 1850 MHz --- 78 FPS*



80FPS Run:


----------



## CooPaLooPa

Core i7 950 3.06 oc'd to 4.275 , 3way SLI GTX570 @ 797/975/1594
105.78fps @ 1920x1080

Proof:


----------



## CooPaLooPa

Get Around 69 fps @ 1920x1080 with all [email protected] max


----------



## NapalmV5

NapalmV5 ---- i7 980x @ 4.715 ---- Tri-SLI 3GB GTX580 (975/2350/1950) ---- 129.27 FPS @ 1920x1080


----------



## Mailman377




----------



## RedModRed

i7 950 @ 3.2Ghz ---- ASUS GTX690 (915/1830/1500 (stock)) ---- 94 FPS
1920x1080...

Hadn't seen a GTX690, thought I'd post...


----------



## turbobooster

i runed this old benchmark tread with my i7 2600k set to 4.5ghz sorry no cpu-z open.
my graphics card is the gtx 970 from msi at stock speed.

http://s1279.photobucket.com/user/Wilco_V_Gerwen/media/metro2033benchmarkgtx970_zps11af1e35.png.html


----------



## theelviscerator

2033.JPG 434k .JPG file


----------



## zeldacuz




----------

