Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sampsa
OMG. That is for real sampsa? :D
The guys at futuremark are really cool (at least the ones I've met) and I understand their position with the techncial aspect of the rules 100%. They have alot to balance over there with their resources and they do a great job.
The nv cheat article just seems really over the top with not so nice adjectives used. "usually sleazy way" for wanting to push physx on gpu...
The press just plain annoys me.
Don't take it seriously Vince, but what the hell do we now? Two sets of benches, one with physics drivers and one for hall of fame? That's all that matters in the 3D Team section. :p:
The Inquirer editor Charlie is known of hating NVIDIA and favoring AMD/ATI in his news posts and you can clearly see that in the text. If you remove all bad-mouthing and insults about NVIDIA and their products, some of the content actually makes sense. Anyway, I think he might have deserved the cake on his face :)Quote:
Originally Posted by k|ngp|n
ROFL, that is priceless Sampsa thanks link.
You are getting there Vince. 5.6 GHz, that CPU can do more, right? ;)
Vantage release had the worst timing ever. If everything would be like this from the beginning, the reputation of Vantage would be a lot higher. Scores changed way too much on the same system since Vantage came out. But regardless of what Futuremark allows to be published on the ORB, review sites will use the PhysX driver as Nvidia is making sure everybody gets the driver. A lot of review sites got the pro license from futuremark and use the latest drivers, so non enthusiastic people see those big numbers and how AMD/Ati gets that low scores though the hardware is not that slow in real world applications (games).
You have to admit that for an outsider it is hard to keep track of the current results when on the exact same system the final score increased by almost 50% using the PhysX driver. But what I don't get is why Futuremark allowed to take physics cards into the scoring system. Even though Ageia was bought in the middle of the development of Vantage, they could have disabled that scoring system for physics cars and so GPU physics, in case the scoring works that way..
I wish the would have taken 06 and add more fireflies to the forest and a non physics test ^^
i know personally im just going to just run the physx drivers and skip orb until they decided what they are going to do...
who really wants to run 4 vantage benchmarks with physx and then downgrade the driver and watch it re-run slower at the same clockspeeds..
Bullseye! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by youngpro
With the advent of hwbot, who really gives too much of a :banana::banana::banana::banana: about orb HOF anyway
http://overclockingpin.com/final%20g...le-tek9-40.jpg
Nice setup ,,
keep pushing it !! :up:
May i ask why Vince is not using a QX9770 or even a Skulltrail setup? Why only a QX9650? Wouldn't he get higher score then?
Not using QX9770 because he has a better clocking QX9650(he doesn't run stock) and not a skulltrail due to the slow and hot FB-DIMM'sQuote:
Originally Posted by aNoN_
Nice work DMH! Exactly what I would have typed. Do you charge for your services? :DQuote:
Originally Posted by DMH
Also right now I believe there is some issue with the pci-express slots not being 2.0 or something. SLI can't enable at all on skultriail.
If you don't get the 'sli capability' message, it's a conflict in the Nvidia drivers, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by k|ngp|n
Doesn't a QX9770 OC better than the 9650? Or is the clock the only difference between them?
they are the same internally, but the qx9770 sports a native 1600fsb.. I guess sometimes it's nicer to just test with a trusty cpu which you know works well at 5.6ghz rather than finding a new one that isn't cold bugged and might go a little further.. my WAG
Where can I snag a NB cooler like that ? Looks like it works better than stock.
Yes,I do,give me a new WR each 2 weeks and it's settled :DQuote:
Originally Posted by k|ngp|n
At this level of o'cing,the naming of the CPU doesn't matter,what matters is it speed,now every top-overclocker has a good clocking QX9650(5.6Ghz to 6Ghz range),so they simply stick with it,unless AndreYang is giving Vince(aka K|ngp|n) some new golden CPU's(something with a LGA1366 socket would be nice:p:)Quote:
Originally Posted by aNoN_
Just get a old heatsink from a motherboard,put thermal paste,a powerful fan and you're ready to goQuote:
Originally Posted by Darkatom
The 9650co has had better days in quad. It's still going 2 cores pretty good though Tell me you have seen a 9650 last longer or take more abuse then whats been thrown at this chip :D
This cpu has spent 99% of it's VERY long life benching -120 to -130c and 1.94v average voltage. I rarely run it on air and it has take so many WR's I can't even count them. VERY GOOD CHIP...
First round windows XP benching using two gtx280's in SLI went good.
Gonna switch over to 9770c1 5.7-5750mhz/475-500fsb quad capable for 2006on my final runs, but the 9650 is putting out again for 05 which is good.
Really want to see NV up top again in 2006..hopefully tonight :up:
If this CO chip could still do 5900mhz 06, it would have been lights out last night in 2006 :D
http://overclockingpin.com/32223-xp-SLI.jpg
http://overclockingpin.com/39631-05-SLI.jpg
k|ngp|n, does the 40k or more (41k? :cool:) is possible with 2xGTX280 in 05 ?
Just go for the QX9770C1, don't forget my WR's:D
Fatalbert:look at his GPUs clocks in 06 and 05,if he can push the 06 GPU clocks to the 05 I guess he might well get 40K
Why does he use a higher CPU clock for 05 than 06?
06 loads all 4 cores and is typically not stable to as high of a CPU frequency as 05, which only really needs 1 core. If you look at CPU-Z in his 05 run, you can see that two cores have been disabled as it shows only 2 cores for a QX9650.Quote:
Originally Posted by aNoN_
Ok thanks, how can he make it stable then but to keep the 5.8ghz clock in 06 and vantage?
The C1 is stronger but mine has -100c cold bug, I am sure there are better ones out there.
very nice start to the old benchmarks.., :-)