3Dmark Time Spy - Post your scores!

[The Pack]

You have more cores... have a cookie. With update shortly.

He has 6 C 12T too... but 28 lanes...

 

[thesmokingman]

He has 6 C 12T too... but 28 lanes...

Yes of course, but i paid only 1000 Dollars for 2 cards...

It's poor form to get into subjects you're headed towards.

 

[The Pack]

Yes,sorry,you are right

 

[Vellinious]

Testing the new 1080 FTW before I put the block on. I reeaalllyy like this GPU. It's gonna beast under water.

8930 - Vellinious / 6950X @ 4.2 GHz / GTX1080 FTW @ 2151 - 1414

 

[freakshow]

A10-7860k w/ RX480

 

[phanbuey]

7866 - phan / Raisin @ 4.0 / GTX1080 SC @ 2009 - 1363

 

[EarthDog]

Updated results that were close to the correct formatting.

Please, dont put types of ram and other details in the passage... I then need to delete them so it will look proper on the front page. Please stick to the formatting on the front page. Don't add or change anything as this causes those running these threads more work and time.

 

[DR4G00N]

Never ran Time Spy before but I have a few older cards kicking around so I'll give it a shot.

 

[thesmokingman]

Just got my Ryzen and 1080ti in here is my score with the ryzen at 3.9 and the 1080ti at stock. Will have to mess around with the OC on it later

9215 - UNTRugby / Ryzen 7 1700 @ 3.9Ghz / GTX 1080ti @ 1602 mhz

You're not showing proper gpu clocks. GPUZ does not show the actual clocks in the graphics card tab. You need to switch to the sensors page and choose max clocks. In other words there's no way to hit that gpu score at 1600mhz, obviously.

Updated results that were close to the correct formatting.

Please, dont put types of ram and other details in the passage... I then need to delete them so it will look proper on the front page. Please stick to the formatting on the front page. Don't add or change anything as this causes those running these threads more work and time.

 

[DR4G00N]

2566 - DR4G00N / X5650 @ 4.52GHz / GTX 680 (PWR sense & cap modded) @ 1346MHz Core / 1753MHz Mem

Card was under water @ stock volts.

I miss my X58A-OC, this cpu would do 4.88GHz @ 1.66V on air. This X58 Classified 3 doesn't like going past 4.5GHz no matter the voltage.

 

[MrGenius]

AMD must have heard me saying that I've been getting worse performance in Time Spy and Superposition with the latest drivers. So they made sure the very latest 17.7.1 drivers work better than any previous drivers with my card in both of those benchmarks. My Time Spy graphics score went up .74%(22 points more than my previous highest), and my Superposition score went up 3.19%(70 points more than my previous highest). Both ran with the same clocks and settings as before. Thanks AMD!

3093 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming OC 3GB @ 1229MHz / 1850MHz

 

[Tomgang]

New GPU means new scores and guess what.... This also means a goodbey to sli. I have really been waiting for at card like GTX 1080 TI that is capable of 4K with out the need for sli

9210 - Tomgang / I7 980X @ 4.67 GHz / GTX 1080 TI @ 2050/1526

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2076604

 

[EarthDog]

.74% hahahahahaha

Will update soonish.

 

[therealmeep]

9038 - therealmeep/i7 6800k @ 3.6GHz/1080ti FTW3 @1911/5508

New GPU means new scores and guess what.... This also means a goodbey to sli. I have really been waiting for at card lige GTX 1080 TI that is capable of 4K with out the need for sli

Me too. Picked this guy up yesterday and so far it destroys anything I throw at it. Unfortunately I don't have a good 4k panel so I can't put it to its full potential..

 

[Tomgang]

9038 - therealmeep/i7 6800k @ 3.6GHz/1080ti FTW3 @1911/5508

Me too. Picked this guy up yesterday and so far it destroys anything I throw at it. Unfortunately I don't have a good 4k panel so I can't put it to its full potential..

Yeah same here. also need a 4K panel next. But a 1080 Ti sets you back a good deal, so have to save up for it in the coming time. But looking for to it. 4K is something else than this lowsy 1080P.

 

[MrGenius]

.74% hahahahahaha

Yeah I know. But it's far more than the variance between runs with the same drivers. Which is ~.2% or less. And compared to the most recent drivers before these(1 version prior) my graphics score is actually 1.78% higher. My previous highest graphics score came from much older drivers(10 versions earlier). And compared to my worst graphics score in this thread it's actually 5.87% higher. Anyway, stating it as a percentage difference can make it sound less significant...than it already is. Since from even my worst to best graphics scores(a gain of 165 points) the actual performance gained is less than 2 FPS. But this thread isn't about FPS, it's about scores. So I'll take whatever I can get there. So long as my score is higher than my previous high score, by more than the variance between runs, I'm calling that significant enough to post the new high score here.

Go ahead...laugh all you want. Seriously...it doesn't bother me.

 

[EarthDog]

3% i can hang my hat on! 22 points out of nearly 3k, less than 3/4%, is run variance. Ive seen graphics scores vary by 50-100 points before.

Ill get to a desktop tonight and catch up.

 

[MrGenius]

3% i can hang my hat on! 22 points out of nearly 3k, less than 3/4%, is run variance. Ive seen graphics scores vary by 50-100 points before.

I'm not seeing more than 5 points difference in graphics scores between runs with my card. They're very consistent for me. But my CPU scores vary by about 50 points. They're all over the place. It usually takes me several many runs to get a good CPU score to coincide with a graphics score I'm also happy with. Anyway, I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just calling it how I see it from my end.

 

[EarthDog]

Me too.

 

[therealmeep]

Round 2. 9108 thanks to 6800k @ 3.9 1080ti @ 1974/1425

 

[MrGenius]

Way more volts + Way more MHz = Way more points. Enough to earn me the silver(2nd place) for a single R9 280X on HWBOT even. Nice!

3208 - MrGenius / i5-3570K @ 4.8GHz / MSI R9 280X Gaming OC 3GB @ 1282MHz / 1850MHz

It'll be the highest valid score for a single R9 280X in the FM 3DMark record books too. If/when they get around to updating their list.

 

[cadaveca]

It'll be the highest valid score for a single R9 280X in the FM 3DMark record books too. If/when they get around to updating their list.

I should pull out my 7970 matrix, flash BIOS, and take #1, my card does 1350 MHz on GPU easy

Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487

3 208 with AMD Radeon HD 7970(1x) and Intel Core i5-3570K Processor

 

[MrGenius]

Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487

Well..what the heck? That's not right. It says AMD Radeon R9 200 Series on the screenshots. Going through my old results I can find a bunch that are listed as a 280X too. I wonder what the deal is with that. I also wonder what I should do as far as HWBOT. I mean the mistake isn't mine. But I imagine I might catch some flack about it. Oh well...hopefully not. Because I certainly don't want to be forced to compete against REAL 7970s. That's not even fair.

Speaking of BIOS, maybe that has something to do with it. I'm definitely not running a 7970 BIOS. But I have tweaked it quite a bit from its original form. I'm gonna try testing a non-tweaked version and see if it makes a difference. I need to test out these new 17.7.2 drivers anyway. Off I go...

EDIT: The switching to a stock 280X BIOS didn't work. I didn't really think it would. But now I'm fresh out of ideas as to what I might have done to cause it. Which is apparently nothing so far as I can tell. All my scores from before 7-16-17 are listed as a 280X. Everything after that date is listed as a 7970. I ordinarily wouldn't care about it. But now I'm all nervous it'll get me banned from HWBOT. Or whatever. Looks like I'm gonna have to contact FM and see what they can do...or undo. Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do about it on my own.

 

[cdawall]

I need to rerun this with CPUz/GPUz I guess

2x1080Ti's

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2081561

3x980Ti's

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1723368

 

[thesmokingman]

I should pull out my 7970 matrix, flash BIOS, and take #1, my card does 1350 MHz on GPU easy

Also, you don't have R9 280 score, you have 7970 score. Took some time for me to find it, because it doesn't show in list of 280 scores....

http://www.3dmark.com/spy/2124487

I had quads that did up to 1350 and one of them actually did 1400 on water. But ugh by the time Timespy came around I'd already broken the quads up. The 1400mhz run was done by a friend after I retired that ole XFX gem. Sadly it died in transit back to the US.

1330 run: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2563930

1400 single: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4282003

EDIT: The switching to a stock 280X BIOS didn't work. I didn't really think it would. But now I'm fresh out of ideas as to what I might have done to cause it. Which is apparently nothing so far as I can tell. All my scores from before 7-16-17 are listed as a 280X. Everything after that date is listed as a 7970. I ordinarily wouldn't care about it. But now I'm all nervous it'll get me banned from HWBOT. Or whatever. Looks like I'm gonna have to contact FM and see what they can do...or undo. Because I'm pretty sure there's nothing I can do about it on my own.

I wouldn't worry about it, no one really cares and we all know its the same card.