Es un photo espectacular!!! (hope I got that right)Quote:
Originally Posted by Handrox
Printable View
Es un photo espectacular!!! (hope I got that right)Quote:
Originally Posted by Handrox
What's your fan running at? I think that some of the failures are a result of the heat from the GPU causing some of the memory chips to overheat.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
My CPU was running at 3.3GHz though... yours looks to be a bit quicker. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
Expound upon this statement, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leeghoofd
Could you overclock your CPU too please and show us what you get on your max CPU clock and 1300 Mhz GTX 680?Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
I will try to do something fun this weekend. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bhavv
My max OC will be ~4.6GHz.
Heres my feeble score to compare it too, 4662 Mhz I7 980, 1000 Mhz GTX 560 tis:
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/2300377
P9849 :(
I'm never ramping my CPU that high again, so wont get any better, its on 4.4 Ghz @ 1.35v for 24/7.
Ha, target score for my hardware - P8700, thats funny :D
My current PB with cpu at gaming clocks and my gaming rams in:
P10713
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3029687
:D
Deleted.
Thats with fan set to max as stated, so 85%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian
:(
Bollocks. Maybe I got really lucky, then. Because most reviews were OC'd to about where you got your card. I don't quite get how I managed to get so lucky.Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Mine wont even pass at +180 all the time, its right on the edge, +170 is pretty stable.
Im running 3D11 right now and +180 just dropped gpu drivers again.
:(
OK new PB at +170:
P10862
http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035620
Edit: Bettered again
P10937 http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035660
Edit: I did it ... cracked 11k...
P11080 http://3dmark.com/3dm11/3035720
:D
Got bored since my third 680 isn't in to run my 3x FW900 setup so I tested one FW900 at 2560x1600 with each applicable game having all settings maxed.
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o...02560x1600.jpg
The most VRAM use I saw in BF3 was 1930 MB, Crysis 2 was 1971 MB, and the most in Skyrim was 2028 MB, all with no slow-downs with the 680's. The other games were well under 2GB usage.
I am not sure if the limit on the 8x/8x PCI-E 2.0 slots were hurting the 680's more than the 3GB 580's but the 680's in SLI only ended up an average of 24% faster than the 580's. A bit lower than I was expecting.
There was an anomaly that I reproduced having over 100% scaling in 680 SLI Skyrim. If you include that result, SLI scaling is a perfect 100%. If you exclude that result and go off the other four games, the SLI scaling is 90%. Still pretty darn good. As for the reason Skyrim was scaling so incredible in SLI, might be a driver issue with single card as in both instances the GPU's were at max utilization.
^^ AA enabled?
What you clock used in these tests, stock or have something Overclocking? Good day!Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
Yes, beautiful photography, PcL2Criminal was happy in that capture.Quote:
Originally Posted by SMTB1963
Yes, to be correct:D
have a good Day!
Mate, it wont do that at stock, thats cranked right up - 1230/6908 with 2600K @ 4500 for 10862, 5000 for 10937 and 5200 for 11080.Quote:
Originally Posted by Handrox
:)
Thanks, so he used the 1.2GHz GPU, that's what I wanted to know. Good day!Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
I still feel this is a highly tuned mid range card rather than a high end offering, it seems to lack the muscle of a high end card even though it does produce the results, maybe its the narrow headroom it has when compared to the 7970. BF3 results like these tell the story though:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/aid,87...e/Test/?page=6
:)
CF does that with some titles too. With the 6870s I saw CF scaling at up to 110% in heaven and some games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Callsign_Vega
the big chip will have loads of compute stuff though similar to 7970..Quote:
Originally Posted by aussie-revhead
I expect the big chip will jump perf on a similar level of 7870 to 7970!
PcCI2iminal's - Geforce GTX680 OC SLI Surround 5760x1080
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGI9...ture=autoshare
double.. sorry! :D
If you look at the Fermi generation, the GTX *70 and GTX *80 were GF 1*0 parts while the GTX *60 is a GF1*4 part. I think this may have been planned as a GTX 660, not even GTX 670 Ti.
This will probably irritate fanboys from both camps, but both companies deserve a bit of a knuckle-rapping. As good as Tahiti is, AMD got caught with their pants around their ankles this round, and Nvidia took full advantage by raping the customer. Look at the GTX 680, if you ignore performance there's nothing about it which screams high-end SKU. Four phase power, dual 6-pin power connectors, a PCB basic enough to have been designed by a first year engineering student. I can imagine the conversation at Nvidia:
Engineering: Behold, here's the GK104, a true successor to the 8800GT 512MB :D
Marketing: Holy :banana::banana::banana::banana:, look at that performance! Do you KNOW what we can sell this for?
Engineering: $299? It's a mid-range card?
Marketing: So? $499 :banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:es!
Once you've seen 6.5 GHz or higher, 6 GHz seems like 5.4 GHz on SB :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSmooth
I couldn't agree more, if the GTX 680 were priced at $400 if could be the second coming ^^Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Oj101