Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Is my XFX 7950 double d heaven benchmark score normal?

Tags:
  • Radeon
  • Benchmark
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
February 3, 2013 4:14:40 AM

title says it all


http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=14y0d9w&s=6


I didn't OC, stock 900mhz core, 1250 memory. ( On the side note, I can't see my shader clock in gpu z or msi for some reason, anyone knows wuts going on? (not on catalyst either)


Does my score seem normal? it seems a bit low to me.

More about : xfx 7950 double heaven benchmark score normal

February 3, 2013 7:41:28 PM

I checked with most benchmarks for this card (
or at least the 7950) online, most of them are ran at 3.0 heaven or lower settings, so I really can't get an accurate comparison with mine. :( 
m
0
l
February 3, 2013 10:55:33 PM

Looks fine.
m
0
l
Related resources
February 3, 2013 11:57:45 PM

Looks fine, extreme tessellation will hamper your fps.
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 2:09:25 AM

RussK1 said:
Looks fine.



what does the 660 ti get for the same setting?
or 7970?
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 11:51:57 AM

hihiip201 said:
what does the 660 ti get for the same setting?
or 7970?


I get around the same score with my 7950 (same clock speeds) with a similar setup. So, your score is normal...

Old, but something to reference by:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/02-...
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 6:04:38 PM

RussK1 said:
I get around the same score with my 7950 (same clock speeds) with a similar setup. So, your score is normal...

Old, but something to reference by:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/charts/2012-vga-gpgpu/02-...



wow how come there are 7950 that scored much higher than mine?

the ASUS and AMD Radeon 7950 get as high as 56 fps!


forget to post my spec btw:


psu : gs700w
mobo : ga z77x ud3h
cpu: i5 3570k (3.4 ghz) turbo at (3.8)
16gb ram
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 7:24:00 PM

hihiip201 said:
wow how come there are 7950 that scored much higher than mine?

the ASUS and AMD Radeon 7950 get as high as 56 fps!


forget to post my spec btw:


psu : gs700w
mobo : ga z77x ud3h
cpu: i5 3570k (3.4 ghz) turbo at (3.8)
16gb ram


Probably because it's an older Unigine.

Try this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/391324-33-3dmark-benc...
m
0
l
February 4, 2013 8:41:43 PM

hihiip201 said:
awesome, i will post my 3dmark score once i have ran it.


Good deal! [:russk1]
m
0
l
February 5, 2013 1:46:06 AM

RussK1 said:
Good deal! [:russk1]




which one should i get? I don't really wanna pay for anything :[ tho, but which one is the latest one?
m
0
l
February 8, 2013 11:14:01 AM

after comparing my score to this:

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/30371-3dmark-fire-str...


i find that my physics score is rather low compared to the 7950 black edition, what would be the result of this?


while all other score i had was 1-2 fps higher, my physics fps is 3 fps lower than that of the 7950 black edition.
m
0
l
February 8, 2013 12:09:08 PM

Link to your result?

With 3DMark, when comparing GPU's you look at the graphics score. When comparing CPU's you look at the physics score. Without knowing your results I'm blind and cannot compare your 7950/3570K to their FX-8350/7950.

Things to consider are cpu, gpu and ram speeds.

My results (Fire Strike) with Catalyst 13.2 Beta 4 drivers:

Completely stock (gpu 900/1250MHz - cpu 3.4GHz)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/98471

Overclocked:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/37845
m
0
l
February 8, 2013 2:01:52 PM

RussK1 said:
Link to your result?

With 3DMark, when comparing GPU's you look at the graphics score. When comparing CPU's you look at the physics score. Without knowing your results I'm blind and cannot compare your 7950/3570K to their FX-8350/7950.

Things to consider are cpu, gpu and ram speeds.

My results (Fire Strike) with Catalyst 13.2 Beta 4 drivers:

Completely stock (gpu 900/1250MHz - cpu 3.4GHz)

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/98471

Overclocked:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/37845



the link is above my last reply.




Did you run yours on exterem of basic?


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/137697


and for firestrike:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/97667


your physics is much higher than mine btw, is it because i have i5 3570k and yours is i7 2600?

but i thought we both have 3.4 ghz, hell mine should run at 3.8 turbo.
m
0
l
February 8, 2013 2:16:53 PM

hihiip201 said:
the link is above my last reply.




Did you run yours on exterem of basic?


http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/137697


and for firestrike:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/97667


your physics is much higher than mine btw, is it because i have i5 3570k and yours is i7 2600?

but i thought we both have 3.4 ghz, hell mine should run at 3.8 turbo.


Looks fine... In fact you scored higher. I get a higher physics because of the hyper-threading (i7). When turbo is fully utilized (3.8GHz for the 3570K) it's only using one core. All four cores used it maxes at 3.6GHz...

Read:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/344230-28-reporting-3...

Quote:
2 x 100 MHz for four active cores (3.4 GHz + 200 MHz = 3.6 GHz across ALL FOUR cores)
3 x 100 MHz for three active cores (3.4 GHz + 300 MHz = 3.7 GHz across THREE cores)
4 x 100 MHz for two active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across TWO cores)
4 x 100 MHz for one active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across ONE core)


Further:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core%20i5-3...
m
0
l
February 9, 2013 12:07:15 AM

RussK1 said:
Looks fine... In fact you scored higher. I get a higher physics because of the hyper-threading (i7). When turbo is fully utilized (3.8GHz for the 3570K) it's only using one core. All four cores used it maxes at 3.6GHz...

Read:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/344230-28-reporting-3...

Quote:
2 x 100 MHz for four active cores (3.4 GHz + 200 MHz = 3.6 GHz across ALL FOUR cores)
3 x 100 MHz for three active cores (3.4 GHz + 300 MHz = 3.7 GHz across THREE cores)
4 x 100 MHz for two active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across TWO cores)
4 x 100 MHz for one active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across ONE core)


Further:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core%20i5-3...



reading now, thanks!

also you sure you were running fire strike Basic?
m
0
l
February 9, 2013 1:09:20 AM

RussK1 said:
Looks fine... In fact you scored higher. I get a higher physics because of the hyper-threading (i7). When turbo is fully utilized (3.8GHz for the 3570K) it's only using one core. All four cores used it maxes at 3.6GHz...

Read:

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/344230-28-reporting-3...

Quote:
2 x 100 MHz for four active cores (3.4 GHz + 200 MHz = 3.6 GHz across ALL FOUR cores)
3 x 100 MHz for three active cores (3.4 GHz + 300 MHz = 3.7 GHz across THREE cores)
4 x 100 MHz for two active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across TWO cores)
4 x 100 MHz for one active cores (3.4 GHz + 400 MHz = 3.8 GHz across ONE core)


Further:

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Core_i5/Intel-Core%20i5-3...



Are you certain it looks fine?


I just looked at both of our cloud gate score, and you got 4000 higher than mine, your score is 18000 and mine is 14000 due to the physics score 2000 difference.


I know the i5 3570k sucks but i didn't know it suck that much.
m
0
l
February 9, 2013 10:41:18 AM

Yeah basic Fire Strike test.

BTW the 3570K is a good chip. Tere's nothing wrong with it and OC's very easily.
m
0
l
February 9, 2013 5:05:49 PM

RussK1 said:
Yeah basic Fire Strike test.

BTW the 3570K is a good chip. Tere's nothing wrong with it and OC's very easily.




Phew, i was worry i might have to ship mine back to the manufacterer, so my score is normal huh? I'ma run another test with it OC to 4.2 and see what happens. but to be honest in bf3 I don't really see the difference by OCing cpu.
m
0
l