Download Unigine Valley here
http://www.guru3d.com/files-details/unigine-valley-benchmark-download.html
Use either the "Extreme HD" or "Basic" Preset
>>51411506
It's always ExtremeHD, no point comparing results if we don't all use the same preset.
This is the best I've gotten to date, a pretty bad score for some reason. Have since overclocked the cards a little more and ran the benchmark just now but got a lower score, can't be arsed to close everything else that's running.
Does anyone else get really bad drops during the scene transitions? That seems to be what's killing my score, it drops below 30fps almost every time.
>>51411792
>Nvidia card from early 2013 matches AMD card from mid-2015
Top kuck.
>>51411860
It's a rebrand of a card from late 2013.
>>51411792
A perfect example of my unusually low score, your single 390 scores the same as my two 290s. I see you also get the low frame rates, however your max is a shit ton higher than mine.
What overclock are you running? Mine are at 1070/1300 so only modest, could probably go a fair bit higher.
>>51411506
>>51411506
BENCHMARK v2.0:
>download ecmascript-262 pdf
>open in editor/viewer of choice
>CTRL + F
>'e'
>now count the time till it reaches 150171
Let's start easy, my phone does this in 26 seconds.
I'm sure your device can outrank me, can't it?
>>51412566
>URL: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-262.pdf
might unlock more shades later to full fury x
>>51412566
About 10 seconds on 2x Samsung EVO 120gb SSDs in RAID 0, running Windows 7 64 bit
Suck on this.
>>51413358
Disk is irrelevant.
cpu and ram?
>>51412482
Beautiful
>>51412482
What is this machine generally used for?
I'd like to see case/guts pics
>>51412566
it only shows more than 100 on ff and 999+ on ms edge, what should i use?
>>51411792
Why do you only have 4GB of vram on a 390?
>>51414218
nothing exciting, just 4k gaming
don't have any pics, sorry
>>51414486
>tfw you will never have the money to blow off to a shitposting machine
at least do renders or something.
>>51411506
hd 7790 at 1200/1700
>>51411506
ayy lmao
Why are amd owners even posting? Nvidia rapes amd in unigine benches.
>>51416184
7870?
>>51412482
Nice!
>>51416239
7850, look the clocks.
>>51411629
>>51412340
Taking a guess that it's your processor. Valley doesn't seem to be very well threaded at all and AMD has higher driver overhead, more so with crossfire.
>>51416258
Seems really low for 980 Tis which makes my theory here >>51416353 look even more sound
2006 T43p
2.13Ghz Pentium m
Xubuntu
This >>51412566
took 4 minutes and ~40 seconds in Document viewer
not even gonna try the valley
>>51416193
What are the temperatures like on your 390? For core and VRM's, also voltages?
Mines at 1100/1500. Should be 1525 for memory but I didn't see any performance increase in any games with memory overclocked and when it was overclocked it forces a constant 1.258v VDDC whereas with 1500 it sits at 1.188v VDDDC which gives significantly lower temperatures like 5c at least.
>>51411629
Here's my 290s
Your score is what I get with crossfire disabled. Sure you have it enabled?
>>51416963
damn. that's what I get with 2x980's. (ignore the 750ti) and a new gen cpu than you.
>>51417758
You should overclock your CPU. Valley doesn't give a shit how many cores you have, it just hammers a single thread.
how did I do?
>>51418489
7870 ghz 1100/1200
>>51418489
only 6 more and you could be leet
>>51418842
my old as fuck PC beat op's
Does tweaking the driver settings aid my scores, forcing AA off for example, yet running the test in 8x HD preset?
>Tfw running valley on my pair of gigabyte 7950s last winter
Now that summers here it might be time for some fresh paste. Don't have any benchmarks on my phone, think they scored around 2900 or so, similar to a 980/Ti.
>>51416353
That variation is tiny, my score's far lower than I'd expect from that. My single threaded performance is close to that of an 8320, but multi threaded is better than an 8350 and more like a 4790k at stock. >>51415080 for example beats my score with a single 290/X and an 8350.
>>51416963
Yeah it's enabled and I see activity on both cards, although it's not high with the loading jumping backwards and forwards between each card. I've seen similar issues running Firestrike and I also get a silly low score in that because of it.
>>51418965
As a comparison I just ran a bench with Crossfire disabled and got 2300. Still lower than I would've expected but still not a huge difference from going from two cards to one. Also throughout the bench with one card it was pinned at 100% load.
overclocked obviously
The fuck
What are the chances
>>51418489
>>51418709
>>51411506
7870 > 960
wtf, really?
>>51419325
Did you actually take a photograph?
>>51419356
Yes because its faster
>>51411629
Massive cpu bottleneck
>>51411506
That 960 sucks worse than my 7870?
>>51419431
>12 core Xeon
there's you answer
>>51419431
he's running two 5650 processors at 2.8ghz, think stock sandy bridge, reduce it to 2.8ghz, then -15% ipc difference.
>>51419368
Retard.
>>51419471
Makes sense i guess. Im running an FX 8320 so that only helps level the playing field if anything lil
>>51419482
Hey that's not nice. I demand an apology!
>>51419493
No.
>>51419423
I've had people say this many times before but I really don't think it's the issue. Core load on the first CPU was about 50-60%, like 20% on the second. If there's a bottleneck I'd expect much higher load on a single CPU, or single core if the application didn't handle multithreading well. Considering my single threaded performance is similar to an 8320 I'd expect performance similar to that at the least, yet there's a guy beating my score with an 8350 and a single 290/X.
I'm fairly certain it's Crossfire causing the issue, I just have no idea what's causing that to play up. It's not a power issue, it doesn't seem to be a setting issue (Crossfire is enabled and forced and partially working, and in some applications I get the performance I'd expect), and both cards are running at PCIE 2.0 8x which shouldn't be an issue. Drivers are up to date too and I've actually seen performance increases when installing newer drivers.
>>51419521
shits retarded im not browsing deep within my user directory when i already had my phone out waiting for the bench to finish
suck it sperg
>>51419572
Best way the verify would be to run another bench that is multithreaded and compare with other setups
My money is still on cpu bottleneck
Card is a 3GB R9 280, Mesa just doesn't report it properly.
>>51419594
kek
>>51419622
That doesn't really help when I have Crossfire issues in some benches.
My Firestrike score is similar to an 8350 and Crossfire 290/X, a little lower on the graphics score but much higher on the physics, but I'm not certain on which aspect mostly affects those different tests. For example my better multithreaded performance could be raising the physics score, my lower graphics score could be due to a lower overclock, or the fact that some of the separate tests within Firestrike don't utilise Crossfire as much.
I've seen absolutely nothing that would hint at the CPUs being a bottleneck, which is usually the CPU usage being really high. I have however seen signs that Crossfire isn't working properly, so the logical assumption that it is the issue and not the CPUs.
>>51420005
how come yours says x8, but mine says x4?
>>51418489
>>51420016
no idea
>>51411506
Honestly, my old 760 surprised me.
So im going to run this shit on my AMD 5350 APU.. This might be fun.
>>51421245
do it!
ok
mine
>>51419325
what clocks on your 980 ti?
i only got 93.4 with a core of 1.3ghz and stock memory.
>>51414218
facebook and counter strike
>>51421420
whats your rank bruh?
get rekt op
>>51421387
1500
>>51419345
>>51419450
Right. I'm running two x5650 CPUs. Unigine valley hardly even used the 2nd CPU, and only used 2-3 cores at a time on the 1st.
In games with better support for many cores I get good performance. For example, I can play Crysis 3 with the Ultra preset at 45-60 FPS average (with occasional dips to 30 fps). (At 1600x1200, which is admittedly about 8% less pixels than 1080p).
My firestrike extreme score, which I believe uses a little more of the dual CPU setup.
>>51422083
I just tried the game again with afterburner turned on and it's more around 30-45 on very high presets.
>>51421245
Well... Guessing no Fallout 4 for me.
>>51422083
I just got rekt
>>51422253
Not necessarily. You could play through a streaming service.
>>51422083
>dat physics score
Well fuck...
>tfw poorfag
I'm not disappointed with this score for my trusty old 7950.
Not planning on upgrading any time soon, considering the only game I actually play is BoI:R
>>51411506
>I almost bought the 960
>>51423167
With the same CPU your score would have been about the same with the 960.
>>51423207
I really dont think so. It would be probally at 36-37
>>51423376
That's really low.
All stock?
>>51416809
>390 series
>4GB
Flashed BIOS, anon?
>>51411506
Good?
>>51411629
Are you sure you have CrossFire enabled? This result looks legit for 1 290.
Also waiting for my Titan X from RMA. Ti is a survival GPU. Should I sell the X and the Ti and buy 2 980Tis from the money?
>>51423722
Oh i see basic display adapter, this is the reason why some applications only work when I tab out and in, how do I get rid of it?
Did DDU+safe mode and installed drivers several times.
What would be good to change here /g/?
Some anons on /b/ said that the CPU was still fine but the GPU needed some change and I would be back on the high end again.
>>51423803
GPU. Your i7 lacks OC options but its still i7. If you don't plan to get the latest 8-core X99 then stay with it.
Get a 290X or something.
>>51423722
>Are you sure you have CrossFire enabled?
Yes, I've ran the bench with it disabled and get a lower score and the second card shows no activity. With it enabled the load jumps between the two cards with only brief moments when both are under high load (which could just be down to the delay from GPU-Z).
it looks like a lot of you are using win 8.1/7.
>>51423803
time to upgrade?
>>51424508
Windows 10 also shows up as 8, the build 9200 ones.
Anybody know why my score is so low? Does Unigine just hate my card or what?
Also why is it reporting my CPU at stock speeds when it's at 4.5GHz? This benchmark seems pre bad.
hows this?
>>51412694
What GPU is that, and if 390(x) does unlocking all that shit reduce your card to 4GB of vram?
>>51424958
Clearly says Fury on it.
>>51423421
EVGA SC at stock. Seems low i must agree, still do get 7500 or around there scores on Fire Strike Ultra. Stil i do believe these benchmarks are broken sometimes.
cpu is shit. No questions.
>>51411506
as asked.
Here is mine.
>>51424970
Originally that was not what I meant, after the initial post reading that he was going to be unlocking more shaders on his card, I thought he meant that he already had done previous, and was using a different GPU bios so it would show in GPU-Z as a different card. Sorry m8
What is the point of benchmarks like this? What does it prove other than how many frames you get in one particular benchmark?
>>51426006
>valley thread
>posts heaven instead
i'll upload mine in a few, i5 4440 and 290x
>>51426006
You pie-faced cocksucker, can't you do anything right?
>>51426148
It's educational. Let's you know where hardware lies in relation to one another.
3,5GB reporting in
posting
b-buttery smooth
>>51426416
Now this is the sort of score I'd expect, same cards and similar CPU performance (mine's a little lower on the single threaded, little higher on the multithreaded) minus a couple hundred as you're probably higher overclocked than me. >>51411629
I've since managed to get mine from 2734 to 2822 by disabling ULPS (got both cards loaded up fairly evenly with less jumping between them) and turning frame packing off in Catalyst. Frame rate throughout the bench is slightly higher and more consistent with not as many large drops during the transitions. Still some ways to go, max frame rate is nowhere near.
>>51426595
i didn't turn ulps off, im running a 295x2 at 1050/1330 at stock voltage and power, and then 8350 at the 4635 (overclocked using fsb, got way more stable with way less voltage)
what are your settings/ cards? Honestly even though you have higher IPC it might just be a matter of clock speed on that xeon
>>51426560
>>51426740
man the 380 really is a lot slower than the 290x, seeing as we basically have the same cpu.
>>51426156
>>51426174
shit I can't read. Here it is.
>>51426649
I'm at 1070/1300 (stock voltage, power limit all the way to +50%), CPUs at stock of course.
I'm not sure how it works with dual GPU cards but does each core show up separately in GPU-Z? If so, what's the load like when running the benchmark (both at high load or does it jumps back and forth between them)?
Going by your average frame rate I'm guessing you're probably around 100fps on the easier scenes and down closer to 60 on the harder ones, mine's more like 70-80 and 40-50 respectively.
>>51421095
Your score is as low as this guys >>51411629
Your CPU OC'd at all? It should be at least 1k higher.
>>51426852
Xeon guy here, that's an interesting example that I missed earlier. His CPU has much higher single threaded performance than mine but about equal multithreaded. I'd be interested to know what his GPU usage is like whilst running the benchmark.
>>51426740
i expected a little bit better from the 2 280x's
>>51421330
Looks like your CPU is bottlenecking the GPU.
My 760 gave me two frames less. >>51420357
>>51426989
Yeah, really strikes me as odd since my score isn't far off with a single card and the same CPU.
I'll try it again at stock in a min
>>51419663
Which drivers? Radeon or fglrx?
>>51427066
I dont think its bottlenecking but something is definitely going on it seems.
>>51426797
>>51426797
thats pretty accurate for the frame rates. afterburner shows one gpu loaded at almost 100, and then the other floats from 25-50, tried again with ulps disabled got the same average framerate so that didn't help
FPS: 29.4
Score: 1231
Min FPS: 15.0
Max FPS: 54.0
Gigabyte 280x
OpenGL + Gentoo with the LTS 3.18 kernel (soon it will be the 4.4, for massive performance gains thanks to amdgpu)
ExtremeHD
Mesa-git, libdrm-git, radeon-git
Decent for an open source driver. The average score on windows, with the proprietary drivers is 1900. I got like 2000 IIRC.
>>51427378
Would be fun if more GNU/Linux people ran the benchmark.
>>51427072
Sorry for the delay
Here it is at stock, still not that far off
>>51421095
Doh, didn't realize those were 280s
>290x outperforms the Fury X
shit benchmark desu
>>51427770
Where?
>>51427813
>Where?
Here
>>51424889
vs
>>51415080
And there are other 290xs that come close:
>>51411629
>>51411792
>>51427902
Uhh two of those you linked are crossfired and that's a Fury, not a Fury X
>>51427101
I did say I was using Mesa, but to clear up any confusion that is with Radeon + Mesa RadeonSI.
>>51427378
Performance is starting to get very good, especially for things that only use OpenGL 3.3 level features like Valley. The hope is that with another few Mesa releases we'll get both better performance and hit at least OpenGL 4.3 support (or just compute shaders) so more games will run.
reran without web browser running.
390 @ 1100/1550 CPU @ stock
:^)
>2x7950s and a 3570k
>Get about 3500 on extreme hd
Sure feeling good about that purchase since it's beating put almost all new single cards
>>51428435
And then you realize that scaling in reality is shit or non existent half the time
>>51428372
i ran extreme hd - just noticed that it says "custom"
dunno what that's about
>>51411506
>>51411506
>>51428066
Oh I didn't notice (you quoted me twice), but yes, I do hope for that, it would be absolutely amazing to have 3d acceleration on par with the proprietary drivers on GNU/Linux and even windows'.
Soo, how long is this supposed to run?
>>51428750
Press benchmark in the top left.
>>51428750
>Soo, how long is this supposed to run?
KEK! I made the same mistake, what a dumb fucking GUI. It took me like 5 minutes to realise that I had to click on benchmark for it to start.
>>51428771
>>51428808
haha. thanks!
>>51428836
You're supposed to run the extreme HD preset.
>>51428748
We're getting there, when I first got this card it was actually slower than the 650ti that I replaced and the feature support and game compatibility was terrible. As its gotten updates though its just kept getting faster and faster and now it will run all but the latest OpenGL 4+ games well.
I have high hopes that we'll see Vulkan support bring a good improvement in speed, with projects like Gallium producing a generic Vulkan backend to make supporting OpenGL and projects like Gallium Nine much easier.
>>51428893
I genuinely don't understand why AMD, with its slow release cycle makes proprietary drivers for GNU/Linux.
They're a hassle to install, and you have to make sure it supports your version of X.org due to ABI changes. It's just silly. I want to be able to run any version of X I want, and the driver needs to be rebuilt when the ABI changes, meaning that proprietary driver users will be stuck with outdated software until the next long awaited release.
>>51428478
Works fine on my machine
>>51428704
What's up with this x4 bullshit?
>>51428974
4 cores.
>>51428889
>>51428952
AMD employees who have commented on the situation have said that at this point Catalyst is only really still around for Workstations and because Mesa doesn't support compute shaders yet. Next April we'll have the new power management code in the kernel, and possibly Mesa will be at OpenGL 4.3 support. At that point Catalyst could very easily be seen as a purely legacy option.
>>51426852
My GPU's are 270X's and CPU is at stock.
>>51429020
That's very weird (the difference being so little), but it makes me glad the GNU/Linux drivers are so good. Proprietary or free?
>>51429032
>Catalyst is only really still around for Workstations
What do you mean?
>Next April we'll have the new power management code in the kernel
Really? Isn't that what AMDGPU is trying to achieve? I don't really understand what AMDGPU is to be honest, is it a replacement for radeon or what?
At any rate, they could still open the code. It would speed up the development process.
>>51429081
proprietary
OP here.
I did a little basic overclocking tonight to see if I could get over the 1200 mark.
>>51429081
Catalyst (fglrx) supports OpenGL 4.5. Mesa RadeonSI which is what all GCN cards use for OpenGL currently only supports OpenGL 4.1. If you have an application or a game that relies on OpenGL 4.3 features then you still need the proprietary drivers.
>Isn't that what AMDGPU is trying to achieve?
Yes it is, the patches already exist that were mostly developed by developers who were formerly Catalyst-only. You can see their results in benchmarks that have been posted but they came to late to get into Kernel 4.4, so they won't be easily available to end users until 4.5 which with any luck will be the default kernel in the next LTS version of Ubuntu. Then again they managed to get Mesa 11 brought in to 15.10, but botched the OpenGL 4 support so I won't put it past them to fuck it up.
>I don't really understand what AMDGPU is to be honest, is it a replacement for radeon or what?
Yes, its the new kernel driver that is used if you have a GCN 1.2 graphics card like a 285, 380, or Fury. So the up side is that if you have one of those cards you're going to get official open source support from AMD. The downside is we still don't know what the support situation will be for GCN 1.1 cards like the 390 even though that's still one of AMD's current high end cards, and AMD's 'official' support has seen GCN 1.2 cards go without reclocking support for over a year.
>>51428551
It does the same thing for me.
>>51429208
you must be doing something wrong.
I can even see your font rendering is even done into shit. Wouldnt doubt your whole build is a trainwreck.
These are not the scores that show on youtube or other sites charts. What the fuck did/are you doing
>>51429239
In short, AMDGPU won't do anything for my 280x. SIGH.
>>51429269
>I can even see your font rendering is even done into shit.
Just by saying this I know I can disregard your opinion about everything.
>>51411506
>>51411629
>>51426397
>>51426595
>>51429208
lots of xeons in this thread, whats the story behind that? Like I know they're good for professional work and are sometimes like a cheaper non-overclockable i7 but whats up with all these?
After my r9 280x shit the bed i've been stuck with this old hd 4850. Still plays mass effect on max though. Waiting for zen and arctic islands.
>>51429300
Used Xeon and Xeon-based workstations are very cheap.
>>51429276
I'm in the same boat with a 280. So far things aren't looking too bad for us, Mesa RadeonSI is what all GCN cards will use so if AMD starts contributing more to Mesa we'll still be in good shape.
On the kernel front though Radeon may not be getting much support, and from what AMD's developers have said about Vulkan it may be AMDGPU only. Though an unofficial Vulkan driver for older GCN cards is basically guaranteed to happen, but it may take months after the Vulkan launch to arrive.
>>51428551
Your monitor doesn't have the resolution capability to run it at ExtremeHD preset which is 1920x1080
>>51429295
What about if I like taco bell but you also like taco bell
are you going to disregard that opinion I have on taco bell?
Even though what I am typing currently is irrelevant on the subject you have to face the face that Jesus is origome
>>51411506
>using a benchmarks without transparency
>>51429300
The X5500 and X5600 series Xeons are overclockable. You're not seeing them OC'd in this thread since not many motherboards that support those overclocking those CPUs are affordable.
>>51429363
That's what I figured. I'm using a monitor that supports 1920x1080, but does not send back EDID information.
Downloading right now, I wonder how much my 15 inch retina macbook will score?
>>51429442
Last years Mac Pro couldn't scrape 900, so I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
>>51429300
Cheaper, good performance (some can be on par if not better than high end i7s), have some nice features like ECC memory support, and as two of us are using multi socket motherboards Xeons are the only option.
>>51429389
I take it you're referring to the SR-2. If we were using single CPUs then we could just use X58 boards which are pretty cheap. It's a shame really, got all excited when I noticed a multiplier option in the BIOS of my Super Micro board and thought I'd found some mystical god board, but it maxed out at the stock multi.
>>51429508
> Mac Pro
you mean macbook pro right? Mac Pro's has a xeon + dual firepro
>>51429641
nope
https://youtu.be/3iwbLkCAbwU?t=322
Although this might have been the late 2013 model given the date of the video.
>>51429758
Also I was mistaken when I said it couldn't scrape 900, it actually did with a score of 998. But that is still very low score for a computer that costs so much. Of course, it isn't intended for gaming either..
>>51411506
>>51429779
done, this is the base 15 inch retina macbook pro (mid-2014), no dedicated GPU, Iris Pro 5200 only.
Guess no fallout 4 for now. I'm curious to see someone do this benchmark on the new macbook with the AMD dedicated GPU.
>>51429838
jesus christ
Now somebody needs to benchmark a Dell Precision M6800.
>>51429838
It won't run Fallout either. Genereally notebooks can't do that, but I think the Zenbook would at least play it on mid 1080p.
>>51429838
It will probably get 15-20 fps
Not too bad
>>51430065
>>51430099
Apparently it's pretty good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVWcu0v9Oes
>>51430155
>quality: medium
It's terrible.
>>51430155
>not extreme HD like the OP said
It's like you can't even into scientific testing
>tfw Unigine won't release their space demo because it's 15gigs
had a 93.3 with the 980 ti at stock; o/c'd to 1500 with a 500 mhz mem bump and some voltage and...didn't see much difference.
>>51430155
>>51430241
>>51430296
Lel, just noticed the mistake, I did the test again with the same presets, and looks like there's no huge difference between Iris pro and the AMD graphics (for some reason I couldn't get his 1920x1080 resolution, but 1050p is pretty close right?
Looks like that video card is garbage.
>>51430398
>(for some reason I couldn't get his 1920x1080 resolution, but 1050p is pretty close right?
It isn't. It's about 15% less pixels overall so there would be a noticeable difference in performance.
>>51430360
Get it to 4000, that would bug the shit out of me
>>51430439
still no huge difference.
>>51430503
how do they get the points score anyway?
Yo
>>51430515
idk m8
>>51430528
since the benchmark doesn't well define amd cards it's a good idea to say exactly what card you have.
4GB 7800 series R9.......what is that a 380?
>>51430528
How can you tell exactly what model GPU a person is using when you're looking at this information?
I assume this is a 290 based on the score.
>>51430583
cpu must be holding you back compared to my 290x score. that's still a fine cpu you've got there.
So what constitutes a "good" score?
What would a PlayStation 4 score on this test?
>>51430631
Yeah, games hopefully will use more cores later.
I may need to get two qx9775s and overclock them even farther. like 4.8ghz or something.
probably 1000-1500 for a ps4.
good score? 2000-2500.
great score? above 4000.
>>51430813
no way. my old pc with a 7870 got 1400ish
>>51430813
A "good" score would be one that allows you to play all modern games on default settings at 1080p with at least 30fps. You don't need a score of 2000 to do that.
I would say over 1000 is "good". Over 2000 is "great". Over 4000 is "a generation ahead".
>>51430900
well, that's just like, our opinions man.
i don't play games on pc just so i can sit back and say 'man, i sure hope i can stay above 30 fps!'.
1080p/60 is my standard. 45 is acceptable. 30 really isn't.
>>51430955
30 fps is the console standard, and the reason for that being it's about as low as you can go without feeling like motion is jerky or stuttery (provided you leave motion blur turned on). Perhaps 24 fps could be done on a monitor with *sync, but I've never tried it.
Matching the console performance basically means you aren't missing out on anything the developers intended for you to enjoy. It's the base experience.
And if you really want 60 fps it's as easy as turning a setting or two down one notch if you have a machine somewhere in the 1000-1500 range. AND that's only for a handful of demanding AAA titles. Everything else will be completely maxed out by something like a GTX 960 or R9 280x.
>>51431009
you DO know where you're at, right?
no shit.
>>51430900
>30fps
No
>>51430732
If we had any HD7850 users here, between 850 and 870. PS4 actually uses one of these chips but underclocked.
PS4 would fail hard because it's using shitty Jaguar cores and it isn't ported to their GNM api.
>>51422083
>>51422535
I redid the test tonight with a slight overclock and newer drivers. Also, I was in error when I said it was the extreme test. It is only the standard Firestrike 1.1 test. You have to pay for the Extreme version and I'm not about to do something like that.
>>51431246
I feel the PS4's 8gb of GDDR5 would benefit it well in this test.
>>51431356
at my best
hope my gm gf returns soon
i miss her
>>51431356
780 ti is still a powerhouse. As it ought to be.
>>51431187
I played through 100 hours of Dark Souls for PC at 30fps (game is buggy at anything else) and it was perfectly fine.
>>51430398
>but 1050p is pretty close right
Not close enough to compare the tests
>>51431398
yeah but don't you HAVE to play that shit at 30 fps or the whole game gets rekt since shit is tied to the framerate?
that's an exception.
>>51431441
I literally said that in my post
>(game is buggy at anything else)
It might be an exception, but it is also an example of how once you get over being nuts about FPS and get down to playing the game you stop noticing it. There was no point when I was playing DS that I thought the game was jerky or stuttery.
>>51431441
It works fine at 60fps except for a couple of jumps
>>51431484
You get dropped frames in Demon Ruins and a couple of other places if you enable 60 fps. Doesn't matter how powerful your system is.
>>51431461
DS is a terrible example because the whole game is tied around animations.
4930k @4.2ghz
980ti@ 1200(stock for strix), boosts to 1500
>>51431494
A drop to 40 in some areas is better than a capped 30
>>51431478
OC? Can't imagine a 970 would beat my 780Ti, even the Airboss Ultra 980 has only 12,5K graphics score.
>>51431574
Yeah it's heavily overclocked
1600mhz core/8000mhz ram
>>51431398
There's millions of console players that play at 30fps fine. Doesn't make it any less shitty eye cancer.
>>51431614
>Sounds legit, a stock 970 would have about 10-11K
>>51432009
not that guy, but hi
>>51431537
git gud
>>51432418
>>51431478
Firetsrike is fucking bullshit
I have 2 r9 290's, but I only get like 10k-11k score, despite having 21k graphics score. Because I have an fx 8350, and for some reason 4k less physics score is as much as 9k less graphics score, in a gaming oriented benchmark?
Old trusty 780.
>>51432865
>amd
You dug your lwn grave
>>51433060
What was your old processor?
>>51433067
What's a lwn grave?
>>51432418
>His browser doesn't even run at 60 fps
didnt oc my cpu yet
who 390 master race here
is valley the new heaven?
so i cant get my 970 to 1500mhz like i hear a lot of people can. i get it at +180 offset, which makes it hit about 1432 accoring to evga precision x, but im kinda worried about moving the voltage slider any higher. anyone know what i should try setting it to?
Glad I didn't listen to /g/.
>>51434752
Bit late to the party
