Would anybody mind posting there GTX SLi 3dmark11 scores?

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by ArCElM, Jun 18, 2012.

  1. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
    Would anybody mind posting there GTX 680 SLi 3dmark11 scores?

    With links.

    I would just like to run through the detailed results, out of curiosity, thanks very very much.

    Here is my link

    http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3704724 - 16153

    Driver settings default as always - with prefer maximum performance.


    Cards are 1225Mhz core on both.


    Many thanks just want to see if all is on par - graphics test 1 2 3 & 4 I am interested in.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  2. Ade 1

    Ade 1 Master Guru

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX 690
    Have you seen this thread? You'll find some SLi scores in there!
     
  3. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
    Cheers mate,

    Holy crap my score is rancid lol cant see any links though to compare directly, like I like! :D
     
  4. gerardfraser

    gerardfraser Guest

    Messages:
    3,343
    Likes Received:
    764
    GPU:
    R9 290 Crossfire

  5. Bentez

    Bentez Guest

    Messages:
    1,309
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Palit GR RTX 3080
  6. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
    so depressing
     
  7. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Guest

    Messages:
    9,797
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    670's and 680's aren't that far off in 3DMark11 the main difference is the CPU fraser has an i7 but Bentez has an i5 that would explain the disparity. That and you could always comfort yourself the way I do and repeat to yourself "3DMark11 is only a synthetic benchmark" it doesn't always work but I tried. Hey I mean for God's sake I'm only pushing 6k in 3DM11.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2012
  8. Brendruis

    Brendruis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Reference GTX 680 SLI
    My 680 SLI is a straight 15K P 3DMark11. I don't overclock GPUs, too hard to find stability in every game.
     
  9. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,212
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    I got ~P15,200 and ~X6800 with my GTX 680 SLI from memory (I posted links to them in another thread actually so I'll see if I can find it). That's with a core offset of +150 MHz and a memory clock of 6.7 GHz. GPU1 runs at 1,287 MHz and GPU2 runs at 1,260 MHz on the core clock using those settings. The driver was v301.10 or v301.34 I think.
     
  10. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,212
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    Found 'em!

    These are my 3DMark11 results which show a comparison of my single GTX 680 (with CPU @ 3.6 GHz) vs. GTX 680 SLI (with CPU @ 3.8 GHz):

    Extreme Benchmarks (Graphics Test show almost 100% scaling!)

    Performance Benchmarks
     

  11. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
    Nice mate.

    1156 core clock on both cards ?

    Mine were at 1225 but BARELY scrape the lead on yours which seems odd, my memory is default though, don't know if that matters really on these cards.

    Compare link http://3dmark.com/compare/3dm11/3694889/3dm11/3441521

    I feel it is just the graphics tests 1 2 3 and 4 which count for diagnostic purposes, I have 70Mhz more on each core clock, seems quite a weak lead considering that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  12. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,212
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    Yes, but both boost to 1,260+ MHz as long as their temperatures are below 70 C.

    I was actually quite pleased when I got my first GTX 680 and found the core boosted to 1,139 MHz on the stock clocks and 1,287 MHz with a core offset of +150 MHz. Unfortunately, my memory won't go past 6.7 GHz, well, actually it was fine at 6.8 GHz in every thing but Deus Ex: Human Revolution (I got flickering lights unless I dropped down to 6.7 GHz but it was otherwise 100% stable).

    When I got my second ZOTAC card I was I bit concerned that I'd get a card that overclocked poorly or couldn't cope with the settings I used for my original Point of View card, given how much of a lottery it is when it comes to the overclocking potential of Kepler cards. I was, therefore, really pleased when I found that the second card not only handled the offsets fine but that it boosted very close to the first card at 1,260 MHz.

    The second card runs 5-10 C cooler than the first (and top) card even though there's a reasonable gap between the two on my motherboard. I probably need to check the fan on GPU1 isn't clogged with dust I think because I know a few degrees difference is normal but surely 10 C isn't? Considering that Kepler cards downclock above 70 C it's kind of annoying to have one card running so much cooler than the other. Neither have exceeded 76 C during hours of gaming or benchmarks though (I use a custom fan profile).
     
  13. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi

    Mate I have 10C difference also.

    LUCKILY, I have windforce.. and you probably already saw my other post.


    So to the point, during your 3dmark your cards were at 1250+ !?

    If I am understanding this correctly the situation is reversed, I thought I had a slight lead on your frame rates due to my 1225Mhz

    But I actually have a slight lead with LOWER clocks ? I am likely missing something unless the CPU comes into play on the GPU test 1 2 3 and 4 also..ofc if you hit 70C during 3dmark ofc they will have down clocked but still only a little I think.

    Anyway difference is near none but I just like to get to the bottom of things.
     
  14. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,212
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    I don't have Afterburner's OSD running for standalone benchmarks such as 3DMark and Heaven in case they interfere or reduce the overall scores so I couldn't say for sure. However, I think it's fair to assume that the two cards will have been running at 1,260+ MHz considering that is the behaviour I've seen in other games and built-in game benchmarks with both v-sync on and off where I use FRAPS or Afterburner.

    You have a much faster, more modern CPU than me though hence why you scored a 1,000 more in 3DMark11's Performance test. My scores are very similar to those of Guru3D's in their GTX 680 SLI review, unsurprising considering they also have a first-gen Core i7-9x0 CPU clocked at 3.75 GHz.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  15. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
    Hi mate my issue is nto with overall score, I am only looking at graphice test 1 2 3 and 4.


    Wondering what could effect that, like I said we have IDENTICAL cards, a few Mhz more on your cards means your tests (graphics 1 2 3 4) should beat mine? unless maybe drivers? I used the latest beta drivers 304.48

    And I have ot use afterburner during the test or I don't get my overclock btw.

    Like I said mine stayed solid at 1225 and assuming yours did, yoru extra 30odd Mhz I would have thought meant, u were a smidge faster on the tests, not a smidge slower.

    Ayyway I is no biggy just trying to figure it all out.

    Thanks for this btw at least I know my cards are not under performing as I thought they were at the start.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012

  16. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,212
    Likes Received:
    1,536
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying then I'm a bit slower on the tests despite the higher boost because I have a slower, older CPU (3.8 GHz vs. 4.5 GHz).

    Although 3DMark11 is heavily GPU-dependent, it still relies on the CPU to feed it data. Since yours is much faster then you get higher scores in many of the tests despite the GPUs not running as fast as mine. If your GPUs ran at the same speed as mine then your scores would be slightly higher, widening the gap between mine and your results.

    What's interesting is that even though the difference in the tests is only a few FPS (less than 3%) your score is 7% higher. That is likely because the Physics and Combined tests are CPU-dependent (the combined one is 14% faster going from 35 to 40 fps) and that pushes up your overall score.
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2012
  17. larsbaby

    larsbaby Guest

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    KFA2 GTX670 EX OC SLi WC
  18. Brendruis

    Brendruis Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,242
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Reference GTX 680 SLI
    nice 3dmark. you run that 2600k at 1.5V just for benching or 24/7 suicide rig?
     
  19. ArCElM

    ArCElM Banned

    Messages:
    1,434
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    Gigabyte WF 680 x2 SLi
  20. larsbaby

    larsbaby Guest

    Messages:
    120
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    KFA2 GTX670 EX OC SLi WC
    I only run them that high for fun with benching. For general use I back both Core and Memory off. Memory is good for another +50 but really it gains you nothing when it's clocked that high already.
     

Share This Page