Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

My GTX 780 3DMark FireStrike score is low?

Tags:
  • Gtx
  • EVGA
  • 780
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
September 9, 2014 8:32:48 AM

Hello everyone, I'm trying to decide if my build is actually good or not. I found a lot people score higher than me and I want your opinions on my scores.

First my specs
AMD FX-8320 4.1 MHz
MB: Gigabyte 990FXA-UD3
12GB 1600 RAM
Coolmax 950w
EVGA GTX 780 SC ACX

Scores

EVGA GTX 780 SC
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2706924

Here is my EVGA GTX 780 SC overclocked to +75core/225memory
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2706888

I know for sure my physics score is low, what can I do about it? My GPU and CPU temps are fine. I always check them.

so, what do you think?

More about : gtx 780 3dmark firestrike score low

Best solution

September 9, 2014 8:42:58 AM

Its the CPU holding you back. I push those scores with 280X and i5.
Share
September 9, 2014 8:56:02 AM

Yeah, your CPU is the determining factor in physics benchmarks, and yours is, well, mid-end at best.
m
1
l
Related resources
September 9, 2014 10:27:58 AM

Undying89 said:
Its the CPU holding you back. I push those scores with 280X and i5.


so it's only my CPU, nothing is wrong with the card?

would you recommend AMD FX-9590 as an upgrade for the cpu?
m
0
l
September 9, 2014 10:29:24 AM

Vexillarius said:
Yeah, your CPU is the determining factor in physics benchmarks, and yours is, well, mid-end at best.


How about AMD FX-9590? would it be high-end then?
m
0
l
September 9, 2014 10:32:13 AM

Don't get an FX-9590, they're actually industrial heaters disguised as CPUs.

Seriously though, you're much better off if you get a 4690K and a Z97 motherboard. You can probably do that at the price of a FX-9590, if not less. The 9590 uses massive amounts of power and it produces massive amounts of heat and its performance simply doesn't justify that.
m
1
l
September 9, 2014 6:59:27 PM

Vexillarius said:
Don't get an FX-9590, they're actually industrial heaters disguised as CPUs.

Seriously though, you're much better off if you get a 4690K and a Z97 motherboard. You can probably do that at the price of a FX-9590, if not less. The 9590 uses massive amounts of power and it produces massive amounts of heat and its performance simply doesn't justify that.


I always had an AMD as a cpu for my builds. I just like them even though intel cpus give better performance in gaming. Maybe I'll consider a new build when DDR4 rams come out with the new cpus.

turns out my cpu wasn't actually overclocked. I overclocked CPU to 4.4 MHz, GPU +85/300 and I got this score.
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4008367?
not worried anymore about the physics score. I mainly considered about the graphics score. Is it good?

Thank you. Appreciate it.
m
0
l
September 10, 2014 4:21:20 AM

I love AMD too, AMD always gives me this vibe that their CPUs are built in a forge, by a man with a beard and a hammer :p  Intel just seems so... clean, sterile.

That score is about what I'd expect from your setup really, close to a 4770K with a Titan but not quite there because of the CPU. It's still the physics score that's holding you back, not the graphics scores. Those seem about right really.
m
1
l
September 10, 2014 5:01:08 AM

Vexillarius said:
I love AMD too, AMD always gives me this vibe that their CPUs are built in a forge, by a man with a beard and a hammer :p  Intel just seems so... clean, sterile.

That score is about what I'd expect from your setup really, close to a 4770K with a Titan but not quite there because of the CPU. It's still the physics score that's holding you back, not the graphics scores. Those seem about right really.


Can't believe I'm gonna switch to intel after +5 years with AMD :( 
but it's all for the best of my card :( 
would it help if I got FX-8350 :'( ?
m
0
l
September 10, 2014 5:06:26 AM

An 8350 wouldn't help, it's a 8320 but with a higher stock clock speed. There are no other differences, a 8320 OC'd to 4.4GHz performs the exact same as a 8350 OC'd to 4.4GHz.

m
0
l
September 10, 2014 5:59:26 AM

Vexillarius said:
An 8350 wouldn't help, it's a 8320 but with a higher stock clock speed. There are no other differences, a 8320 OC'd to 4.4GHz performs the exact same as a 8350 OC'd to 4.4GHz.


Well then, I'll get i7 when I can.

Thanks a lot man.
m
0
l
September 10, 2014 6:16:38 AM

You could also get an i5-4690K is you want to save some money. In games it still way outperforms the 83x0, and it's kind off the go-to CPU for gaming these days.

Otherwise, the i7-4790K is an absolute beast, can't go wrong with it.
m
0
l
September 10, 2014 6:36:01 AM

Vexillarius said:
You could also get an i5-4690K is you want to save some money. In games it still way outperforms the 83x0, and it's kind off the go-to CPU for gaming these days.

Otherwise, the i7-4790K is an absolute beast, can't go wrong with it.


No, it's not about saving money. I was going to go for i7-4790K. I just don't feel comfortable with Intel,don't know why.
But it's gonna be i7-4790K for sure.
m
0
l
!