1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GTX295 SLi on Core i7 Platform Scores P32573 on 3DMark Vantage

Discussion in 'News' started by alexp999, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. alexp999

    alexp999 Staff

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,045 (3.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    862
    Location:
    Dorset, UK
    The guys over at Xfastest have been hard at work testing out the upcoming NVIDIA GeForce GTX295 graphics card based on a dual GT200 GPU setup. For this particular setup they have got two said graphics cards for a quad-SLi arrangement on an Asus Rampage II Extreme, featuring an Intel Core i7 Extreme 965 overclocked to 4.19Ghz. The graphics cards were overclocked to 705Mhz (core), 1480Mhz (shader), 1250Mhz (memory). The test was run on 3DMark Vanatage's Performance setting and gave a GPU score of 35711, leading to a total score of P32573. These scores look promising as the tests have been run on pre-release drivers which will not yet be fully optomized, if you want to try out these drivers, they can be found here, obviously these are pre-release beta drivers, so use them at your own risk.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    Sources: TechConnect XFastest
     
  2. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,240 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    Strange: didn't CUDA kick in?

    That CPU score should have been WAY higher.
     
  3. crazy pyro

    crazy pyro New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,662 (0.72/day)
    Thanks Received:
    125
    Location:
    Newcastle
    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.
     
  4. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,240 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    That's because the CPU score was lower then the GPU one.

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

    WarEagleAU Bird of Prey

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,797 (3.57/day)
    Thanks Received:
    546
    Location:
    Gurley, AL
    I Agree it should have been higher. Hell, that score is nothing to sneeze at. Id like to see the X score for it.
     
  6. 1Kurgan1

    1Kurgan1 The Knife in your Back

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2008
    Messages:
    10,325 (4.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,371
    Location:
    Duluth, Minnesota
    So a i7 920 running 600+ mhz slower than a i7 965 scores almost double the score of the 965, I'm lost.
     
  7. HTC

    HTC

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,240 (0.94/day)
    Thanks Received:
    303
    It's the CUDA: it shoots the CPU score WAY up.

    Apparently, fit's bench has it enabled but this test doesn't.
     
  8. Totally Unr3al

    Totally Unr3al New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    46 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    Im assuming the score is lowish because GPU Physx acceleration is disabled, as that is what Futuremark stipulates for the scores to be official.
     
  9. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    I was going to say that. They want to enter a valid score so they have to disable PhysX.
     
  10. EarlZ New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    339 (0.11/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Its PhysX not CUDA i think.
     
  11. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    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:
     
  12. DOM

    DOM

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,552 (2.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    828
    Location:
    TX, USA
    :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
     
  13. wolf

    wolf Performance Enthusiast

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    5,543 (2.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    842
    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 :)
     
  14. DOM

    DOM

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    7,552 (2.46/day)
    Thanks Received:
    828
    Location:
    TX, USA
    :shadedshu it has PhysX disabled :slap: :roll: it wont be a 3DMarK valid score ;)
     
  15. DarkMatter New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,714 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    184
    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.
     
  16. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    Thats a pretty good score, but its not like i can afford that setup.:(
     
  17. OnBoard

    OnBoard New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    3,044 (1.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    379
    Location:
    Finland
    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:
     
  18. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,257 (5.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Location:
    Florida
    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
     
  19. Totally Unr3al

    Totally Unr3al New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    46 (0.02/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    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.
     
  20. Binge

    Binge Overclocking Surrealism

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,982 (3.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,752
    Location:
    PA, USA
    Yep my PhysX enabled CPU score is 55k on the CPU score.
     
  21. Hayder_Master

    Hayder_Master

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2008
    Messages:
    5,177 (2.18/day)
    Thanks Received:
    638
    Location:
    IRAQ-Baghdad
    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
     
  22. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,257 (5.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Location:
    Florida
    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
     
  23. kid41212003

    kid41212003

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    3,584 (1.56/day)
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Location:
    California
    I think printscreen don't work if you have SLI enable, you will need FRAPS for that.
     
    Solaris17 says thanks.
  24. Solaris17

    Solaris17 Creator Solaris Utility DVD

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    17,257 (5.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,597
    Location:
    Florida
    ya i used xfire before...that would explain alot thnx
     
  25. leonard_222003 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    241 (0.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    25
    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.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page