Please do..:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
remember, I'm using the same 9 multi...:D
Printable View
Please do..:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
remember, I'm using the same 9 multi...:D
22,479
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2...3258fc8.th.jpg
I think I can go higher.:)
:up: So can I..a Little..:DQuote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Mine was at 3258 also..I think I can squeak out 3271mhz..
What I need to do is lap and volt mod the chips then I think I can get close to 3600..
http://www.gigafiles.co.uk/files/122/cine10.jpg
Not great, but decent performance out of the x1800xt
btw, cpu is at 3.4 during the bench, took the shot after it stepped back lol (hence 2.5Ghz in CPU-Z)
Looks great to me for an x1800xt.
I was pleasantly surprised at the gfx score myself
Anyone else having trouble running CineBench 10 on their rig? I cannot get it to run at all...
what OS? I'm on win2K3 server and it works fine..Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
I went back to XP SP2 after DRM issues with Vista made DiRT unplayable (and for a few extra points in Fmark lol) and it makes no sense. Cinebench 9 runs fine...using the irg in the sig with CF. I am really curious to see how the CF performs too--could it be a 2900 CF issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Then I'm not sure..I'm assuming DXDIAG is turned "on"..I ran into that issue in 2K3 but I think it's on by default in XP..Logged in as admin I assume..Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
Check properties on the exe and see if there's issues there.
Thanks I will see if I can figure this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dengyong
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dublin_Gunner
what does gfx have to do with this BM??
is there any diffrence in 2gb or 4gb on x64
Quote:
Originally Posted by billdavis
The second part of the benchmark (animation) is rendered on the GPU.
2gb or 4gb, are you referring to this benchmark, or in general? If you're referring to this bench, no difference at all, its not that big.
If you're referring to in general, you're off topic.
But the difference wouldbe, you have more ram, more virtual address & physical address space for your applications to work with.
right just the open glQuote:
Originally Posted by Dublin_Gunner
yeah i ran it with 4gb and there was no diff in this bench
sound of xtreme crickets
Now running on Win64 and yet 3.15 ghz.
11.2 k(win32) against 12.6k(win 64).
OpenGL score was 6800 against 7000.
rock stable settings, for 24/7.
http://img474.imageshack.us/img474/5...enchtz8.th.jpg
just another thing, but after installing vista 64 ultimate, i decided to take a run at Lost planet dx10 demo and with my GTS and 3.1 ghz(same specs as in the pic) and max graphs 1600x1200 i could just do average of 14 fps! lol
is this normal or am i very bad at this score? I thought i'd get a nice fps average, but 14 fps?!?!?! lol
24/7 settings
Harpertown X5482 @3560mhz.. WinXP 64bit
Supermicro X7DWA-N MB
4x2 gig DDR2-800FBDimms(Transcend)
Now you got me interested... 26K....nice
Here's all the benches I've run in the CB database. Highest was a little over 22K at 3ghz on the ST rig
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/7554/22ksg2.jpg
Then you might like this..Remember, stock volts as this supermicro board doesn't have the adjustments that the ST board has in the bios..Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberDruid
Oh yea, all on crappy stock Intel non heatpipe copper heatsinks, with a little help from a 12" turbine fan blowing in..:D
X3360 @ 3900, IP35_Pro, XP64
Here's my results with my 24/7 settings.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2eej89e.jpg
I'm pushing the envelope on this beast!:up: