3D Mark 2003 Guru3d Records

[Matt26LFC]

Originally Posted by cowie

yeah how true....but dont let lack of points stop you from having fun .
overclocking is not all for hwbot remember,we were benching before that.

True

I'm just a little disappointed I can't contribute more to the team atm

[cowie]

Xp Drivers gotten better for 680,i'd run xp with this driver for best scores on 680 for sure now.
Has the gt4 and gt2 of w7 and better gt1 and gt2 of xp,but still alittle weak compared to amd top card.

[Lane]

a little 200K ...

I7 2600K@5300mhz - 2x 7970@1280mhz ( mild OC, will go for more later, 12.7 + new Trixx OC software allow me for far more )



http://3dmark.com/3dm03/6472221

[cowie]

Nice lane very nice!
I am sick of crappy 680 dx9 benches i will get a 7980 again i think

[Lane]

I should see if i still have a xp DVD who lay somewhere, look like GT1 is not W7 friendly. Or maybe just the 100mhz you was using on the cpu was enough for push 200fps more.

[ricardonuno1980]

Originally Posted by cowie

Nice lane very nice!
I am sick of crappy 680 dx9 benches i will get a 7980 again i think

Why is GTX 680 crapped? Because GTX 680 is only a bit faster memory bandwidth than GTX 480 and I think GT2 has more intensive memory bandwidth than GT3 and GT4. - My GTX 480 got 683 fps (~855 fps simulated) on GT2 running AMD X6 1055T@3.28GHz.

I don't like GTX 680 because it's mid-end and has small die area and not faster memory bandwidth (than GTX 580) and GTX 680 is too expensive and bad price.

[cowie]

Originally Posted by Lane

I should see if i still have a xp DVD who lay somewhere, look like GT1 is not W7 friendly. Or maybe just the 100mhz you was using on the cpu was enough for push 200fps more.

Well tbh lane when i tested 7980 on first drivers 3d03 ran faster overall with w7 not xp but you can double check if you want to,maybe its better now.

Originally Posted by ricardonuno1980

Why is GTX 680 crapped? Because GTX 680 is only a bit faster memory bandwidth than GTX 480 and I think GT2 has more intensive memory bandwidth than GT3 and GT4. - My GTX 480 got 602 fps (~855 fps simulated) on GT2 running AMD X6 1055T@3.28GHz.

I don't like GTX 680 because it's mid-end and has small die area and not faster memory bandwidth (than GTX 580) and GTX 680 is too expensive and bad price.

yeah but its just as fast as a bigger bit and bus card for me i could care less about games play these benches better and i would be happy
The 680 sucks for older dx9 benches(vantage dx10 too) and only 3d11 really is better on it.
even 448 ti on dice will put up better 3d03 look at hwbot 140k is sucky for top nv card
i think i am the only one who even tried after seeing how sh!t they run in 03 and i tested all os's and did what i could to tweak even to get that.

[ricardonuno1980]

Originally Posted by cowie

yeah but its just as fast as a bigger bit and bus card for me i could care less about games play these benches better and i would be happy
The 680 sucks for older dx9 benches(vantage dx10 too) and only 3d11 really is better on it.
even 448 ti on dice will put up better 3d03 look at hwbot 140k is sucky for top nv card
i think i am the only one who even tried after seeing how sh!t they run in 03 and i tested all os's and did what i could to tweak even to get that.

it's probably not older DX9. But you try change from stock (1502 MHz) to more 200MHz Oc'ed for memory bandwidth and you should keep to stock for core GPU (1006 MHz) on GTX 680 - see if the difference between stock memory bandwidth and memory bandwidth overclocked is low or high for GT2.

[Lane]

Originally Posted by cowie

Well tbh lane when i tested 7980 on first drivers 3d03 ran faster overall with w7 not xp but you can double check if you want to,maybe its better now.


yeah but its just as fast as a bigger bit and bus card for me i could care less about games play these benches better and i would be happy
The 680 sucks for older dx9 benches(vantage dx10 too) and only 3d11 really is better on it.
even 448 ti on dice will put up better 3d03 look at hwbot 140k is sucky for top nv card
i think i am the only one who even tried after seeing how sh!t they run in 03 and i tested all os's and did what i could to tweak even to get that.

And again.. the tesselation tricks on 3Dmark11 make it really more easy for get some scores on 7970 .. ( around 19K at 1300mhz cfx ).

Im not really right with it, but when i want post a score on Hwbot: no choice..

[cowie]

yeah but if the amd card did run tess it would be a battle.
the no tess setting has nothing to do with dx9 benches thuo,the 7980 is just better at them.

[cowie]

Originally Posted by ricardonuno1980

it's probably not older DX9. But you try change from stock (1502 MHz) to more 200MHz Oc'ed for memory bandwidth and you should keep to stock for core GPU (1006 MHz) on GTX 680 - see if the difference between stock memory bandwidth and memory bandwidth overclocked is low or high for GT2.

bah i will test on a 7980 this week i waste time on 680 for this

[ricardonuno1980]

Ooh! Sorry, "602 fps" is bad but yes "683 fps" - I edited my post #1056.

[BlackZero]

Initial run at stock clocks.

[BlackZero]

Second run at CCC max clocks on 7970 (1125/1575)

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm03/6487577

[BlackZero]

Third run stock air max on 7970 (1275/1600), not pushing memory.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm03/6488090

[BlackZero]

A little higher on the CPU.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm03/6488232

[EddieG]

here is a screenie for gpu clock on a 680 classified

URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/689/33770asfulam03134086cls.jpg/][/URL]



more room to go up. Done at 1489 top, 1.4vc and chilled to 3~10c

[ricardonuno1980]

Originally Posted by EddieG

here is a screenie for gpu clock on a 680 classified

http://imageshack.us/a/img689/6620/3...3134086cls.jpg



more room to go up. Done at 1489 top, 1.4vc and chilled to 3~10c

not good score but try on XP to improve performance.

PS: GTX 680 is crap due to probably weak memory bandwidth (it's not faster than GTX 580) and nr of transistor count.

See my scores with 3DM06 included running CPU@stock and @OC and GPU@stock only

[EddieG]

Ricardo, I didn't post this for a score good or bad. Just to show gpu clock after some mod and do-ability. Performance for another day.

[cowie]

680 is not worth the 03 time for me
Messed around with stock cooling 680 card with 148k score but cpu @5.9
7980 is champs in this bench
Sucky but no tweaks hope to hit 180k soon

[ricardonuno1980]

@EddieG and @cowie: GTX 680 is (not bit nor little) slower than my GTX 480 at "Pixel Shader 2.0" feature test due to unknow reason (but not memory bandwidth).

Win 7 x64 SP1 with i5-2500K@Turbo Boost and GTX 480 296.10WHQL (HQ)

[EddieG]

here is a quick run with my little gpu water block installed. I had to make a shim to raise it a couple 1000th's.Then during the test a fan I had on the VRM popped a wire and I didn't notice until I saw 70c in my offboard display. I pulled it off while it was still running and soldered it and stuck it back on before the test was over!!!

[cowie]

Not bad ed
Try setlod beta 6 if you have not already.

Man i cant believe they go 220k in this one with vga/cpu on ln2

Originally Posted by ricardonuno1980

@EddieG and @cowie: GTX 680 is (not bit nor little) slower than my GTX 480 at "Pixel Shader 2.0" feature test due to unknow reason (but not memory bandwidth).

Win 7 x64 SP1 with i5-2500K@Turbo Boost and GTX 480 296.10WHQL (HQ)

Ric I dont know why it gets killed there but i wont bother with 680 03
Add the fact when cold with me its a "red screen" affair not fun and crap scores ontop of that.

[cowie]

03 cf stock cooling 3570k ln2



I will play more with this chip today

[BlackZero]

Just short of 160k single card.

7970 1300/1600
2600k 5.1GHz

159,310
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm03/6490600