Nothing special. XBX2 is the fastest conroe board clock for clock in 3d01/AM3 and optimal 01 run order + LoD values :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoddemFX
Printable View
Nothing special. XBX2 is the fastest conroe board clock for clock in 3d01/AM3 and optimal 01 run order + LoD values :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SoddemFX
I am trying to get AFI to VMOD my card ;-P
its not really that hard...smd grabbers are so easy....have you ever used a clothes pin before? if so you can do it...Quote:
Originally Posted by phelan1777
SMD grabbers do not give as good as contact as soldering but for quick and dirty they work well.
Low nature score I think, are you a LODer or not ? I forget who does and who does not LOD on moral grounds ? :) All the other tests are pretty good .. nice RAM clocks :toast: Were the subtimings lowered, if not and you can then you should be able to pick up even more gains in lobby.
You should push for top spot..... good luck.
Regards
Andy
Yeah LoD 4.6 nature first in order off a clean boot, this is the fastest nature score I can get :(
Sub timings were as tight as possible, MAYBE I could have run TRFC 18 but I doubt it.
Might grab a quad GT for some dry ice action. Still debating if it's worth the money or not.
From my own experience, 4.6 is best for nature.
What PCI-E freq. did you run?
109 BIOS which is max, clockgen shows 107 and if I clockgen past it, I lock :(
I beat you in nature by just a little, but your clocks on both cpu and gpu are higher, I only have a GTX vs your GTS.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9103970
imo 4.6 is a little high, I got better results at just 4.
Not trying to sound like an a55hole but i think that you can improve those scores, i get 11581 on 3d06@3,96ghz conroe and 680/980, and 20500@same speed on 3d05, with 300mhz more it would be something better. Keep going! :toast:
Incase you didn't know
660 core (what I ran) = 648 real
680 core = 684 core real
54mhz shader difference also. 36mhz real difference in GPU limited benchmarks, of course your score will be better.
Yes i did know, but i'd bet that 200mhz on cpu is more than 36mhz on the core, wouldnt you ? On par at least, anyway i think that you can improve the results, if you dont...well i wont argue with you :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ^don.k's^
200mhz cpu is more than 36mhz core in 3d01 sure...but 05 and 06, totally gpu bottlenecked benchmarks of course the 36mhz core is worth more
Well i did some tests:
360mhz(cpu) extra = 260 points extra
36mhz(gpu) extra = 300 points extra
3600 + 660 gpu = 11025
3600 + 680 gpu = 11320
3960 + 680 gpu = 11581
so 4150mhz + 660gpu = 11420 ( according to my tests ) so i was wrong, not too much tho because you were running 20mhz faster memory :fact: i also prefer 3d05 where the cpu is more important.:slapass:
Regards :toast:
Yeah 06 is pretty crappy :( Mem speed doesn't mean much. 100mhz memory got my 5 fps in 01 nature.
you need quad core for 3DM06 :(
I think it's stupid that 3DMark 2006 factors CPU directly into your score.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supertim0r
It's 3DMark, not PCMark. :mad:
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
Yeah but the SM2.0 & 3.0 scores are the important part....look at it this way......no-one plays SUPER-Pi.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS
wtf?
Lmfao Hexa-post
Alright, for like 5 of the same post in this thread alone, reported.Quote:
Originally Posted by bikester1986
Also, if i see it again im going to kill you.
Nice results BTW! Makes me want a GTS all the more. The knowledge of 8900 keeps me from biting the bullet though... Ill wait a while and see what comes of R600 and 8900 series. 8900GTS SLI here i probably come!