Strange: didn't CUDA kick in?

That CPU score should have been WAY higher.

That score should have been way higher simply, fit managed to get 31k 3Dmarks on his i7 platform with 3 GTX260s in SLI, surely a 4th card should increase the performance significantly more than 1k.

by: crazy pyro

---

That score should have been way higher simply, fit managed to get 31k 3Dmarks on his i7 platform with 3 GTX260s in SLI, surely a 4th card should increase the performance significantly more than 1k.

---

That's because the CPU score was lower then the GPU one.

Check fit's 30+K bench: notice the CPU score.

I Agree it should have been higher. Hell, that score is nothing to sneeze at. Id like to see the X score for it.

by: HTC

---

That's because the CPU score was lower then the GPU one.

Check fit's 30+K bench: notice the CPU score.

---

So a i7 920 running 600+ mhz slower than a i7 965 scores almost double the score of the 965, I'm lost.

by: 1Kurgan1

---

So a i7 920 running 600+ mhz slower than a i7 965 scores almost double the score of the 965, I'm lost.

---

It's the CUDA: it shoots the CPU score WAY up.

Apparently, fit's bench has it enabled but this test doesn't.

Im assuming the score is lowish because GPU Physx acceleration is disabled, as that is what Futuremark stipulates for the scores to be official.

by: Totally Unr3al

---

Im assuming the score is lowish because GPU Physx acceleration is disabled, as that is what Futuremark stipulates for the scores to be official.

---

I was going to say that. They want to enter a valid score so they have to disable PhysX.

by: HTC

---

It's the CUDA: it shoots the CPU score WAY up.

Apparently, fit's bench has it enabled but this test doesn't.

---

Its PhysX not CUDA i think.

by: crazy pyro

---

That score should have been way higher simply, fit managed to get 31k 3Dmarks on his i7 platform with 3 GTX260s in SLI, surely a 4th card should increase the performance significantly more than 1k.

---

After looking at both results better, I must say that the dual GTX295 @705 mhz are indeed performing extremely well compared to fits tri-SLI @ 760 mhz. 26.8k (fitseries) versus 35.7k is indeed a good improvement considering the clock difference.

:roll: If we divide 26.8 by 3 and then multiply the result by 4 we get 35.7... LOL I don't mean anything with this, it's just curious and funny. :roll:

by: DarkMatter

---

After looking at both results better, I must say that the dual GTX295 @705 mhz are indeed performing extremely well compared to fits tri-SLI @ 760 mhz. 26.8k (fitseries) versus 35.7k is indeed a good improvement considering the clock difference.

:roll: If we divide 26.8 by 3 and then multiply the result by 4 we get 35.7... LOL I don't mean anything with this, it's just curious and funny. :roll:

---

:laugh: its 4 Gpu's vs 3 in fits score ;)

and yes PhysX has to be disabled since AMD doesnt have it to make things far

cpu score is horrible... ive scored way better than that myself...

anyway with a cpu score around 50k were starting to look at a 40k+ score :)

by: wolf

---

cpu score is horrible... ive scored way better than that myself...

anyway with a cpu score around 50k were starting to look at a 40k+ score :)

---

:shadedshu it has PhysX disabled :slap: :roll: it wont be a 3DMarK valid score ;)

by: DOM

---

:laugh: its 4 Gpu's vs 3 in fits score ;)

and yes PhysX has to be disabled since AMD doesnt have it to make things far

---

As I said if you extrapolate fits results to 4 GPUs you get 35.7k score on the GPU. That'd be 4 GPUs running at 760 Mhz. The GTX295 SLI running at 705 Mhz gets the same results. I think that's some pretty results and a superb scaling. If we extrapolated that result to 760Mhz we would get 38.5k so that's significantly more IMO. If you want it calculated in a different way extrapolating those results to 3 GPUs, you would have 28.8K, again way more than fits results.

Now I know things don't work so linearly, BUT that only works in favour to my comments!!! Usually as we go higher with GPU count the scaling is smaller not greater, so the fact that 4 GPUs are performing better per-GPU than 3 GPUs here is even more impressive.

Thats a pretty good score, but its not like i can afford that setup.:(

The beastest OCed CPU is weaker than my lonely GPU in physics stuff, not bad at all considering the price difference :) I get just over 30k for CPU score opposed to i7E965's 25k. If I clance at the GPU score the joy kinda stops :laugh:

damn i need a mobo and ram to get my 920 running because then id bench my GX2's vs these and see what improvment they bring

I dont think alot of people are understanding the difference that have physx enabled makes. With physx enabled it greatly improves the cpu score, since its disabled thats why the cpu score is low.

Yep my PhysX enabled CPU score is 55k on the CPU score.

agree , did nvidia and anyone here still think this card better than 4870x2 , im just tell how is think about this gtx295 beat x2 in all test's when FBS are higher than 40-50 , but see the tests when with high resolution and high AA 4870x2 eat gtx295 , and if you not sure yet see the tests and in same time see the tests of 9800gx2 compare it with gtx260 you see 9800gx2 beat any card in lowa nd mid setting , sure gtx295 not run with low and mid setting cuz it is high card , but very high AA show the truth

by: hayder.master

---

agree , did nvidia and anyone here still think this card better than 4870x2 , im just tell how is think about this gtx295 beat x2 in all test's when FBS are higher than 40-50 , but see the tests when with high resolution and high AA 4870x2 eat gtx295 , and if you not sure yet see the tests and in same time see the tests of 9800gx2 compare it with gtx260 you see 9800gx2 beat any card in lowa nd mid setting , sure gtx295 not run with low and mid setting cuz it is high card , but very high AA show the truth

---

EXACTLY!!!! finally someone who gets it..i get the same frams as people with 260's and 4870's etc..but in quad sli when i turn the AA up in crysis ut3 intensive games i can run at max settings with the AA up and not take a hit...i have yet to get a screen shot for you guys because for some reason when i hit prntscrn in crysis it turns out black WTF? but with quad sli in extreme or w/e its called i can run 16x AA and i will get 20FPS AMAZING

I think printscreen don't work if you have SLI enable, you will need FRAPS for that.

by: kid41212003

---

I think printscreen don't work if you have SLI enable, you will need FRAPS for that.

---

ya i used xfire before...that would explain alot thnx

3dmarks doesn't mean nothing if it doesn't apply for games , i bet those cards have crappy SLI support when it comes to games and only 0.1 % of people will try a setup like that and never do it again because of driver problems.
It's just a pride thing , look here i got the best 3dmark number , buy from me because i'm the best in 3dmark , yeah sure.
It's just overkill for benchmarks and worthless for actual games , even today when we have a bit better support for dual cards i still don't touch this area because when a good game launches it takes some time even a month for the producer of the game or graphics company to make a driver to support it and by then i already finish the game so what's the point after that ? just for bragging ? we get older and wiser to buy video cards just for bragging.