3DMark Firestrike 2013 Benchmark Thread - Post your scores! - Page 2
Tags:
- Benchmark
- Speed
-
Graphics
Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Kingsmp - Phenom II x 6 1100T BE 3.9 Ghz - EVGA 660Ti SC @1188/3600 - 5598
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1267588
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1267588
-
Reply to king smp
akensai
December 7, 2013 3:06:58 PM
rolandzhang3 said:
smeezekitty said:
Stand aside for a record low:[smeezekitty] - [Core 2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66] - [Radeon 6670 @ 800 / 667] - [614]
http://postimg.org/image/8uznsw8yd/
On a side note, since 3dmark is installed on a USB 2.0 hdd, it took a whopping 30 minutes(!) for the firestrike test to load
High five for below a 1000 score
Makes me want to try and run it on my ATOM single core 1.6ghz netbook (toaster coil for gpu) but I think it might explode.
king smp said:
Kingsmp - Phenom II x 6 1100T BE 3.9 Ghz - EVGA 660Ti SC @1188/3600 - 5598http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1267588
THUUUUUUUBANNNNN!
God I love that chip.
-
Reply to akensai
rolandzhang3
December 7, 2013 3:14:22 PM
Related resources
- 3DMark 11/Vantage Scores thread! (Benchmark Thread #3) - Forum
- My GTX 780 3DMark FireStrike score is low? - Forum
- 3Dmark Firestrike Extreme Thread - Forum
- HD6XXX series 3dMark scores (WORKING THREAD) - Forum
- how come my 3dmark 11 benchmark score is lower with my i7 4790k @ 4.7ghz then it was with my i7 4770k @ 4.3ghz ? - Forum
akensai said:
rolandzhang3 said:
smeezekitty said:
Stand aside for a record low:[smeezekitty] - [Core 2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66] - [Radeon 6670 @ 800 / 667] - [614]
http://postimg.org/image/8uznsw8yd/
On a side note, since 3dmark is installed on a USB 2.0 hdd, it took a whopping 30 minutes(!) for the firestrike test to load
High five for below a 1000 score
Makes me want to try and run it on my ATOM single core 1.6ghz netbook (toaster coil for gpu) but I think it might explode.
king smp said:
Kingsmp - Phenom II x 6 1100T BE 3.9 Ghz - EVGA 660Ti SC @1188/3600 - 5598http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1267588
THUUUUUUUBANNNNN!
God I love that chip.
I tell you the Grandpa of AMD high end CPUs is holding up well for me
still respectable on the THG CPU charts
I have an 1155 Z68 rig which runs a Xeon equilavent to a I5-2400 in it
for CPU upgrade I have to go to a 3770K to make it worthwhile over the 1100T
the 1100T can hold its own in multithreaded benches with the 3570 and 2400 and 3570 etc with a good OC
MOAH COARS!
-
Reply to king smp
stickg1
December 7, 2013 10:00:02 PM
-
Reply to stickg1
Nefos
December 8, 2013 1:42:33 AM
RussK1
December 8, 2013 5:34:32 AM
cklaubur said:
RussK1 said:
cklaubur said:
Mousemonkey said:
RussK1 said:
[RussK1] - [Lenovo Y500] - [i5-3230m] - [GT 650m SLi] (latest beta drivers)http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1267101
Something seems to be wrong, why is the zero on the end missing?
You mean my Crossfired 7770's aren't the worst?
For some reason, I can't get 3dmark to run at the overclocked settings. The graphics drivers keep crashing.
Casey
It's a laptop.
I know. I was just having a bit of fun at your expense.
Casey
Thanks I owe you one.
-
Reply to RussK1
stickg1
December 8, 2013 6:00:42 AM
king smp said:
nice stickhow much are the aftermarket cooling solutions going for?
if you find a cheaper one that you could mod the brackets to fit the H55 that would be sweet
Nefos said:
there is an NZXT bracket where you can install any coolers, for example hydro100
I heard tha you can unlock the modules, like you could on old AMD CPUs, can you do that here?
Looks like I can get the Gelid heatsink fan for $50 which does pretty well. Then there's that NZXT bracket which is made to mount an AIO liquid cooler and 92mm fan to any GPU for $30, so $30 for that plus ~$60 for the actual cooler.
Not sure what I'm going to do yet.
Yes people are able to unlock some of their 290's into full on 290x's. I haven't tried mine yet and probably wont until I get better cooling.
-
Reply to stickg1
Nefos
December 8, 2013 6:06:03 AM
stickg1
December 8, 2013 10:16:25 AM
king smp said:
stick if you need a LC there is a LC laying around work that I might be able to grabif I can then I will ship it you
no promises but I will see what I can do.
That sounds really good King. Do you know what model it is? PM me the details of the model, I will send you some money and start shopping for a bracket.
-
Reply to stickg1
cklaubur
December 8, 2013 3:31:03 PM
-
Reply to cklaubur
stickg1
December 8, 2013 3:38:52 PM
Nice run Casey! Looking forward to seeing more runs, thanks for sharing.
Start overclocking one card at a time individually, core clock first, add 25MHz at a time until you get artifacts/crashes. Then if applicable add voltage/core clock until stable. Then go for memory, then once you find the limit of both cards set them both to the same common stable overclock and JOY!
Start overclocking one card at a time individually, core clock first, add 25MHz at a time until you get artifacts/crashes. Then if applicable add voltage/core clock until stable. Then go for memory, then once you find the limit of both cards set them both to the same common stable overclock and JOY!
-
Reply to stickg1
giantbucket
December 9, 2013 5:16:12 PM
hmmpf... lowest official score is mine.
giantbucket - A6-3650 - GT610+9400GT (6 monitors) - 0
so that was fun. got to see about 55sec of the Ice Storm test and then it crashed the app. evidently it doesn't like my 6-screen resolution setting while being confined to just 2 of those screens (no Eyefinity here)
graphics looked good while it lasted though! makes me think "hmm, maybe one day i'll build a games-specific machine"
giantbucket - A6-3650 - GT610+9400GT (6 monitors) - 0
so that was fun. got to see about 55sec of the Ice Storm test and then it crashed the app. evidently it doesn't like my 6-screen resolution setting while being confined to just 2 of those screens (no Eyefinity here)
graphics looked good while it lasted though! makes me think "hmm, maybe one day i'll build a games-specific machine"
-
Reply to giantbucket
giantbucket
December 9, 2013 8:42:28 PM
yup, 2x3 grid. works GREAT for 2D productivity stuff, but starts to stumble on watching movies, and completely signs off on anything even remotely interesting or demanding. but it wasn't put together for anything other than 2D productivity, so i totally expected it to fail. heck, the initial build wasn't going to use more than 1 monitor anyways - stuff just got added to it after-the-fact.
and yeah, it's hard to function on anything less now, at least for work.
and yeah, it's hard to function on anything less now, at least for work.
-
Reply to giantbucket
stickg1
December 10, 2013 4:09:21 AM
giantbucket
December 10, 2013 5:53:02 AM
here's my somewhat unique non-gaming setup. i did the test just for kicks - and to get the lowest score!
6 monitors, each is 1920x1080 (all identical)
onboard GPU automatically disabled because i'm running dual cards in PCIe
GT610 is a special Galaxy MDT version that tells Win7 it has two 3840x1080 outputs (but internally each gets split into a left & right 1920x1080)
9400GT is just a plain vanilla BFG card, one DVI out and one VGA out
GT610 is in PCIe-x16 slot, 9400GT is in PCIe-x4 slot (x16 size but x4 electrically)
screens:
[1][2][3] **
[4][5][6]
1&2 are the 610's first output, 4&5 are the 610's second output, 3&6 are the 9400GT
1&2 are the primary, and that's what the test was using automatically - there's no way of telling it to use anything else
** irrelevant for this test, but these are mounted upside down so that the control buttons don't hit the bezel of the other monitors
it means i use my BIOS upside down (getting pretty good at it), but Win then rotates it when it loads drivers, so it's a non-issue
sometime in january, i'll run the test again on my next (replacement) build, and i'll get a score of 3. i'll be running dual 7790s (same monitors) but each will be in a full PCIe-x16 slot (running at x16/x16) since it'll go into a new mobo and with a new CPU (fx-6350)
Arnie voice: "i'll be back" /Arnie voice
6 monitors, each is 1920x1080 (all identical)
onboard GPU automatically disabled because i'm running dual cards in PCIe
GT610 is a special Galaxy MDT version that tells Win7 it has two 3840x1080 outputs (but internally each gets split into a left & right 1920x1080)
9400GT is just a plain vanilla BFG card, one DVI out and one VGA out
GT610 is in PCIe-x16 slot, 9400GT is in PCIe-x4 slot (x16 size but x4 electrically)
screens:
[1][2][3] **
[4][5][6]
1&2 are the 610's first output, 4&5 are the 610's second output, 3&6 are the 9400GT
1&2 are the primary, and that's what the test was using automatically - there's no way of telling it to use anything else
** irrelevant for this test, but these are mounted upside down so that the control buttons don't hit the bezel of the other monitors
it means i use my BIOS upside down (getting pretty good at it), but Win then rotates it when it loads drivers, so it's a non-issuesometime in january, i'll run the test again on my next (replacement) build, and i'll get a score of 3. i'll be running dual 7790s (same monitors) but each will be in a full PCIe-x16 slot (running at x16/x16) since it'll go into a new mobo and with a new CPU (fx-6350)
Arnie voice: "i'll be back" /Arnie voice
-
Reply to giantbucket
at home I have limited desk space so I run a primary 21.5 1080 LCD with a secondary 1280x1024 17 inch which is rotated to be used in portrait mode
the secondary is mainly used for monitoring,alarm clock,MS Outllook and Folding at Home depending on what I am doing.
going back to a single display would be rough
the secondary is mainly used for monitoring,alarm clock,MS Outllook and Folding at Home depending on what I am doing.
going back to a single display would be rough
-
Reply to king smp
giantbucket
December 10, 2013 8:10:53 PM
my screens are mounted to the wall. i custom made three "mounting boards" from 3/8" plywood, and then attached a long rail for all three boards to rest on, and hooks up top to keep it from topping down. i used to have a fancy twin-arm stand, but it wasted SO MUCH SPACE in behind for the mounts that it was dumb (at least 13" of space wasted in behind).
i use all 6 screens for forex trading.
i use all 6 screens for forex trading.
-
Reply to giantbucket
Bret Van Hof
December 11, 2013 8:50:49 AM
[BretVH] - [ FX-8350GHz @ 4.7] [EVGA GTX 770 @1156/1878] - [ 7260 ]
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1284910
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/1284910
-
Reply to Bret Van Hof
stickg1
December 14, 2013 9:34:22 AM
-
Reply to stickg1
4Ryan6
December 14, 2013 9:41:56 AM
stickg1 said:
This is my 24/7 clocksR9 290 @ 1075/1450 - 11127 pts
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1854215
Why are all these tests showing the graphics driver is not approved?
Are you using some bootlegged driver?
-
Reply to 4Ryan6
smeezekitty
December 14, 2013 9:45:04 AM
4Ryan6 said:
stickg1 said:
This is my 24/7 clocksR9 290 @ 1075/1450 - 11127 pts
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1854215
Why are all these tests showing the graphics driver is not approved?
Are you using some bootlegged driver?
It always says that for me. Just ignore it
-
Reply to smeezekitty
4Ryan6
December 14, 2013 9:48:44 AM
smeezekitty said:
4Ryan6 said:
stickg1 said:
This is my 24/7 clocksR9 290 @ 1075/1450 - 11127 pts
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/1854215
Why are all these tests showing the graphics driver is not approved?
Are you using some bootlegged driver?
It always says that for me. Just ignore it
Well there is a reason for any unvalid result, so IMO why would anyone want to post an invalid result from Futuremark, I want my result to be 100% valid, as it is.
It's not rocket science to run your tests with approved drivers, at least then, we all know the results are solid and not tainted.
-
Reply to 4Ryan6
smeezekitty
December 14, 2013 9:58:49 AM
4Ryan6
December 14, 2013 10:03:58 AM
4Ryan6
December 14, 2013 10:24:03 AM
Beta drivers may possibly give you a higher score but sometimes they don't and you may actually get a better score with an earlier approved driver.
This thread is a great way to compare system performances but with it full of unvalidated results, the information sharing is not dependable results.
That's the same as an unapproved CPU-Z validation, until it is actually approved the end result is a joke and not stable results, and the joke falls on the person posting it claiming the achievement which is actually a false claim and they don't even realize it.
Use approved drivers so the end results are comparable or else this entire thread is partially filled with invalid information.
Which makes a difference between th Ohh Ahh factor, and valid comparative results, that's why Futuremark has the validation process in the first place.
So others can equally compare the end results, it would seem that would be a prerequisite requirement, to post a valid Futuremark approved result.
But obviously not.
This thread is a great way to compare system performances but with it full of unvalidated results, the information sharing is not dependable results.
That's the same as an unapproved CPU-Z validation, until it is actually approved the end result is a joke and not stable results, and the joke falls on the person posting it claiming the achievement which is actually a false claim and they don't even realize it.
Use approved drivers so the end results are comparable or else this entire thread is partially filled with invalid information.
Which makes a difference between th Ohh Ahh factor, and valid comparative results, that's why Futuremark has the validation process in the first place.
So others can equally compare the end results, it would seem that would be a prerequisite requirement, to post a valid Futuremark approved result.
But obviously not.
-
Reply to 4Ryan6
stickg1
December 14, 2013 10:31:32 AM
smeezekitty
December 14, 2013 10:48:56 AM
Drivers generally only make small performance differences. Its not the night and day difference you are painting it to be.
And no I am not on beta drivers, I am on (old) Catalyst 13.1 because AMD dropped Vista support in the newer drivers!! (ticks me off)
But seriously the "validation" really means _nothing_ for practical comparison. Its just a benchmark thread not an official competition anyway.
And no I am not on beta drivers, I am on (old) Catalyst 13.1 because AMD dropped Vista support in the newer drivers!! (ticks me off)
But seriously the "validation" really means _nothing_ for practical comparison. Its just a benchmark thread not an official competition anyway.
-
Reply to smeezekitty
4Ryan6
December 14, 2013 10:53:26 AM
smeezekitty said:
Drivers generally only make small performance differences. Its not the night and day difference you are painting it to be.And no I am not on beta drivers, I am on (old) Catalyst 13.1 because AMD dropped Vista support in the newer drivers!! (ticks me off)
But seriously the "validation" really means _nothing_ for practical comparison. Its just a benchmark thread not an official competition anyway.
I am not painting it to be anything other than 100% valid results, if you cannot understand that, then I am just wasting my time!
-
Reply to 4Ryan6
stickg1
December 14, 2013 10:54:28 AM
I'll try it on some older drivers. Not sure if my card will be supported though. If you look at all of my other validations with nVidia cards you will see that none of their drivers are approved either. I just used whatever the latest WHQL is. I'm not going to roll back a few sets of drivers just to appease 3DMark. If the GPU manufacturer issues a new driver and recommends you use that for your card, that's what I tend to do.
-
Reply to stickg1
RussK1
December 14, 2013 10:57:12 AM
Invalid may mean two things- beta driver or Virtu MVP. Either way it'll list the reason... 3Dmark is slow approving drivers.
This message is displayed if your benchmark result was obtained using a set of graphics card drivers that are not (yet) approved by Futuremark.
In order to ensure that drivers do not breach our Driver Approval Policy, Futuremark tests video drivers and validates the results. Drivers are sent for testing and approval as soon as they are published but this process takes some time - usually between one and two weeks. Any results uploaded during this time initially shows as "not approved" but will turn to approved results when the driver approval process is complete for the specific driver version - you do not need to do anything, your result will transform into approved result in time.
Results obtained using beta, "hotfix" or otherwise non-WHQL drivers will also show this message and normally non-WHQL drivers are not approved for use with our benchmarks unless specifically requested by the graphics card vendor.
If there are no WHQL certified drivers yet for your video card/chip - usually if you buy your hardware as soon as it becomes available - you will have to wait until the first WHQL approved drivers with support for your card are made available for valid results. You can benchmark even with beta drivers - the results just won't be shown as valid and the result page will show that the drivers are not approved.
http://www.futuremark.com/support/troubleshooting
Quote:
Graphics driver is not approvedThis message is displayed if your benchmark result was obtained using a set of graphics card drivers that are not (yet) approved by Futuremark.
In order to ensure that drivers do not breach our Driver Approval Policy, Futuremark tests video drivers and validates the results. Drivers are sent for testing and approval as soon as they are published but this process takes some time - usually between one and two weeks. Any results uploaded during this time initially shows as "not approved" but will turn to approved results when the driver approval process is complete for the specific driver version - you do not need to do anything, your result will transform into approved result in time.
Results obtained using beta, "hotfix" or otherwise non-WHQL drivers will also show this message and normally non-WHQL drivers are not approved for use with our benchmarks unless specifically requested by the graphics card vendor.
If there are no WHQL certified drivers yet for your video card/chip - usually if you buy your hardware as soon as it becomes available - you will have to wait until the first WHQL approved drivers with support for your card are made available for valid results. You can benchmark even with beta drivers - the results just won't be shown as valid and the result page will show that the drivers are not approved.
http://www.futuremark.com/support/troubleshooting
-
Reply to RussK1
stickg1
December 14, 2013 11:27:31 AM
4Ryan6
December 15, 2013 8:00:48 AM
stickg1
December 15, 2013 8:38:59 AM
Nefos
December 15, 2013 8:43:13 AM
RussK1
December 15, 2013 9:22:53 AM
RussK1 said:
It's not worth it if the drivers don't work right.Be sorted in Jan 2014... maybe.
http://www.legitreviews.com/amd-gives-quick-update-fram...
-
Reply to Mousemonkey
stickg1
December 15, 2013 10:37:28 AM
lostmenoggin
December 16, 2013 4:08:07 PM
-
Reply to lostmenoggin
oOSlushyOo
December 16, 2013 4:16:22 PM
-
Reply to oOSlushyOo
stickg1
December 16, 2013 5:02:52 PM
oOSlushyOo
December 16, 2013 5:30:07 PM
oOSlushyOo
December 16, 2013 5:40:19 PM
Kind of the wrong thread for this, but here is a P-score from 3DMark11 with the same setup: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/7671959?
-
Reply to oOSlushyOo
- 1
- 2 / 4
- 3
- 4
- Newest
Related resources
- Post your 3dmark scores - upgrade recommendations? Forum
- 3dmark '03 FX5900 Ultra - please post your 3dmark scores h.. Forum
- New Multi-Threaded Awesome Benchmark Test. Please try it and tell me your processor model and scores Forum
- New intel 6-core 3dmark benchmark posted Forum
- Please POST Overclocking/ Furmark Scores (Benchmarking, Gaming- Performance) Forum
- More resources
Read discussions in other Graphics & Displays categories
!
