Show your FIRE STRIKE ULTRA scores

Should this benchmark competition include Multi Core Processors more than 4 physical cores?

  • YES

    Votes: 12 75.0%

  • NO , because Physics score is unfair and in games it makes no real difference

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Include but add a separate spreadsheet for 4 physical core since games dont use more than 4 cores

    Votes: 2 12.5%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
U

UnrealCpu

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
2,764
Please post your CPU type and Video card configuration and 3dmark 4k Firestrike results in link format as proof

(Updated to post #69) 18 MARCH 2016

[H]ard|OCP Forum Members Results for 4k Ultra FireStrike Scores

1. Supercharged_Z06 (9068) EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified SLI watercooled w/ OC BIOS, 4790k @ 4.5 GHz

2. Wareyore (9011) EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified SLI, X5670 @ 4.2 GHz

3. KickAssCop (9003) EVGA GTX 980Ti Classified SLI @1535/8200 on water, 5930k @ 4.5 GHz

4. UnrealCpu (8786) MSI GTX 980Ti SLI, 4790K @ 4.8 GHz (Lapped, Geild extreme)

5. Skypine27 (8773) Titan X in SLI, "watercooled badass picture!", 5960X @ 4.2 GHz

6. Whach (8755) nVidia reference GTX 980Ti SLI, 6700K @ 4.7 GHz

7. Lmah2x (8737) Titan X in SLI, 6700K @ 4.7 GHz

8. Solitude (8377) EVGA GTX 980Ti HYBRID SLI, 4790k @ 4.6 GHz

9. Ryan7968 (6647) EVGA GTX 980 SC ACX 2.0 SLI, 4790k @ 4.6 GHz

10. DKS (6210) GTX 980 SLI, 4790k

11. N=1 (5179) MSI GTX 980 Ti @1575, 4930k @ 4.6 GHz

12. BM00 (5082) nVidia reference GTX 980Ti SLI, 6700K @ 4.5 GHz

13. CrimsonKnight13 (5066) ZOTAC GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme @1520/8000, 5820K @ 4.5 GHz

14. Armenius (4940) Titan X @ 1467/8000, 4770 @ 3.9 GHz

15. Wiliacm (4889) EVGA GTX 980 Ti @1452/8000 , 6700k @ 4.7 GHz

16. Bomber (4556) EVGA 980Ti (Stock), 5820k @ 4.3 GHz

17. Doug_7506 (3023) GTX 970, 6700k @ 4.7 GHz

18. Sprayingmango (2301) GTX 980m on a Asus G752 gaming laptop, 6700 @ 2.7 GHz


Disqualified​
1. DejaWiz (4523) GTX 980ti , 3770k (Time Measurement Inconsistencies reported)

2. marcoi (5084) AMD Radeon R9 290x Crossfire, 3960X Extreme Edition (Reported Graphics
Driver not approved.)
 
Last edited:
UnrealCpu said:
Nice score what is your overclock?
Click to expand...

Thanks!

SLI'ed EVGA 980Ti Classy's (ASIC 71.6% and 72.5%) both with Samsung GDDR5, flashed with k|ngp|n's 980Ti Classy OC bios

GPU Core 1,493 / Mem 7592
Using Precision X: Power Target 141%, GPU Temp Target 91C, offsets of +92 to core and +194 to mem, +50mV (More voltage doesn't seem to help any, so that's all I use)

CPU 4790K @ 4.5Ghz
DDR3 @ 2,334 MHz (Timing 9,11,11,31)

Like your system, mine is also water cooled. Really wish my 980Ti's could handle 1500+ on the cores, but they get all flaky at 1506 or higher, even if given more juice.
 
Last edited:
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Thanks!

SLI'ed EVGA 980Ti Classy's (ASIC 71.6% and 72.5%) both with Samsung GDDR5, flashed with k|ngp|n's 980Ti Classy OC bios

GPU Core 1,493 / Mem 3796
Using Precision X: Power Target 141%, GPU Temp Target 91C, offsets of +92 to core and +194 to mem, +50mV (More voltage doesn't seem to help any, so that's all I use)

CPU 4790K @ 4.5Ghz
DDR3 @ 2,334 MHz (Timing 9,11,11,31)

Like your system, mine is also water cooled. Really wish my 980Ti's could handle 1500+ on the cores, but they get all flaky at 1506 or higher, even if given more juice.
Click to expand...



I am at about 1450mhz/ 7912 on mem or 1978... My video cards are air cooled.. Your power limit at 141% is way higher and custom bios is very nice . I am at 109% max PL :(
max temp 91 c before it downclocks.

I lapped the GPU heatsink and added Geild extreme!
Cant squeeze anything else out of it.
 
6210 with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980(2x) and Intel Core i7-4790K
 
UnrealCpu said:
I am at about 1450mhz/ 7912 on mem or 1978... My video cards are air cooled.. Your power limit at 141% is way higher and custom bios is very nice . I am at 109% max PL :(
max temp 91 c before it downclocks.

I lapped the GPU heatsink and added Geild extreme!
Cant squeeze anything else out of it.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your cards may be getting throttled just a bit due to heat then. Yup, the increased power limit is nice - especially since mine are both EK waterblocked, so no concerns as to heat. (GPU idle temps are at 22C and they peak at around 32C during heavy gaming or benchmark runs... Furmark can get the temps to climb a bit higher (upper 30's), but that is an insane/unrealistic GPU load.)

I'm pretty happy with where they are at... but like I said, it would have been really nice to lock them in somewhere north of 1500. My cards seem pretty much in line with the majority of 980Ti's out there that just don't reach much beyond 1500 on the core and remain stable, even with more voltage. The 780Ti's I had previously really liked the extra juice and seemed to have much longer legs when it came to OC'ing.
 
http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7476150

5179

MSi 980 Ti @ 1575 core 7800 mem
4930K @ 4.6GHz

Not bad at all considering I'm getting about 90% of ref 980 SLI performance going by Futuremark's 4K reference bench.

If I really wanted to I could push the 980 Ti a bit further, considering I used to bench at 1588/8000. But too lazy to flash the benching bios right now. Could also dual boot Win8.1 for FS bench, but again way too much effort for one bench.
 
Very, very nice core OC on that card n=1! :cool: If you could score another golden card that can clock as high, I bet you would easily break 10,000 on that bench run with an SLI setup!
 
4889

EVGA 980ti @ 1452/8000
6700K @ 4.7GHz

+260 on the core made the driver go Tango Uniform. As for gaming, +230 is as high as she'll go before dropping drivers.

I'm assuming n=1's cpu is what is getting him his higher score. Can't imagine 123MHz creating a 290 point difference.
 
Supercharged_Z06 said:
Very, very nice core OC on that card n=1! :cool: If you could score another golden card that can clock as high, I bet you would easily break 10,000 on that bench run with an SLI setup!
Click to expand...

Thanks, but absolutely no interest in going SLI ever again after having two 970s.

Have you tried using the GTX Classified Controller? The latest version is 2.1.0 and supports both the Classified and Kingpin cards. This tool allows independent control of the GPU and memory voltage, as well as the PCIe voltage supplied to the GPU.

Now although Maxwell doesn't voltage scale worth a damn until subzero, I'm still hard pressed to think you can't break the 1500/8000 barrier if you played around with the voltages a bit. As well, depending on what EVGA set as the default power limit in their bios, even 141% may not be enough. (141% of 250W = 352.5W)

I benched at those clocks at 1.23V, and during the first scene of FS Ultra I was pulling over 370W at times. To get the most out of your Classified card, bios modding is virtually a must. For balls-to-the-wall benching on water you really want to increase PL to at least 400W.
 
Just bought the advanced edition on Steam for $5...using this post as a placeholder until I can put my sig rig through the paces.


[EDIT]
Here is my first run results...CPU and GPU at stock clocks...


4523

Graphics - 4523
Physics - 10337
Combined - 2373
 
Last edited:
will update score board tonight! Looks like Kick Ass is in the lead at 9003 points
 
n=1 said:
Thanks, but absolutely no interest in going SLI ever again after having two 970s.

Have you tried using the GTX Classified Controller? The latest version is 2.1.0 and supports both the Classified and Kingpin cards. This tool allows independent control of the GPU and memory voltage, as well as the PCIe voltage supplied to the GPU.

Now although Maxwell doesn't voltage scale worth a damn until subzero, I'm still hard pressed to think you can't break the 1500/8000 barrier if you played around with the voltages a bit. As well, depending on what EVGA set as the default power limit in their bios, even 141% may not be enough. (141% of 250W = 352.5W)

I benched at those clocks at 1.23V, and during the first scene of FS Ultra I was pulling over 370W at times. To get the most out of your Classified card, bios modding is virtually a must. For balls-to-the-wall benching on water you really want to increase PL to at least 400W.
Click to expand...

Yep, I played around a bit with the Classy voltage tool, but other than being able to goose and tweak my memory a wee bit higher, it didn't make a damn bit of difference as to what I could squeeze out of the GPU cores. (Would most likely need to go well below water cooling temps to really get anywhere.) I'm happy with where I am at... trying to milk the cards to eek out another ~5-10% and all the added hassle of further BIOS mods and tweaks just to end up having them on the ragged edge where stability is concerned just doesn't appeal to me. :p
Maxwell is simply just a different animal... one that isn't as OC friendly as Kepler was at normal temps.
 
2301 on my new Asus G752 gaming laptop w/ Skylake i7-6700 & GTX 980M. All stock clocks.
 
UnrealCpu said:
will update score board tonight! Looks like Kick Ass is in the lead at 9003 points
Click to expand...

I'd suggest breaking up the scoreboard by # of cards employed. I.E. SLI/Crossfire x3 list, SLI/Crossfire x2 list, and a single card list. Each with score/name. Folks can then peruse the thread for further details.
 
Pay money for benchmarking software so I can get an inferiority complex about how I have 980's and not 980 Ti's? No thank you!
 
Heheh...
Still nice to have some affirmation that your rig, its configuration and all the time, effort and coin you put into it is performing up to snuff based on a verifiable performance benchmark. Quit your whining... It's just the cost of a Starbucks Coffee for you to be able to gain that complex! :)
 
Ryan7968 said:
I was able to tap into my computers secret reserve power and boost my score to 6647.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/7528127

I'm ready for a 4k monitor.
Click to expand...

go to walmart and buy some 1500, 2000 grit and geild extreme thermal compound at newegg and you will be able to squeeze some more after lapping and reapplying better compound . I know my load temps and idle temps have decreased about 5-8c
 
Ryan7968 said:
6477

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/10727488?

I hope all of you with your 980Ti's and Titans feel good. Maybe something is slightly underperforming in my system because I saw results with similar setups scoring over 7000.
Click to expand...

yes, that's called user error (misinterpreting results - confusion).. people tend to compare only the overall 3dMark score which include the CPU and of course that tool scale perfectly with any amount of cores so you can't expect to have the same score with your setup than any other with an hexa core i7 or octa-core i7.. even if you cards are higher oc'd and perform better the CPU score (physics) affect greatly the final result.

So the thread if its purely for GPU comparison then only Graphic score is what should taken in consideration as not everyone is running a 5960X xD

DejaWiz bud, weird to see still suffering from the Time measurement bug.. and again Overclock that puppy =) you will be pleased with the extra performance.
 
Last edited:
just updated score board to reflect up to post 30

KickAssCop is kicking all our butts
 
Araxie said:
yes, that's called user error (misinterpreting results - confusion).. people tend to compare only the overall 3dMark score which include the CPU and of course that tool scale perfectly with any amount of cores so you can't expect to have the same score with your setup than any other with an hexa core i7 or octa-core i7.. even if you cards are higher oc'd and perform better the CPU score (physics) affect greatly the final result.

So the thread if its purely for GPU comparison then only Graphic score is what should taken in consideration as not everyone is running a 5960X xD

DejaWiz bud, weird to see still suffering from the Time measurement bug.. and again Overclock that puppy =) you will be pleased with the extra performance.
Click to expand...

Anyone can list their scores no matter what processor you are running . Overall whoever has the highest score obviously has a better rig which performs better . Sorry but i am going to stick to the number of the overall valid results 3dmark reports:D:D
 
IIRC I had 8802 on my 2x Titan X, 5960x chilled water system. Thinking back I should have done suicide runs to break 9k. :)

That system has been largely disassembled and I run regular water with a 5960x/Titan X now.
 
Araxie said:
yes, that's called user error (misinterpreting results - confusion).. people tend to compare only the overall 3dMark score which include the CPU and of course that tool scale perfectly with any amount of cores so you can't expect to have the same score with your setup than any other with an hexa core i7 or octa-core i7.. even if you cards are higher oc'd and perform better the CPU score (physics) affect greatly the final result.

So the thread if its purely for GPU comparison then only Graphic score is what should taken in consideration as not everyone is running a 5960X xD

DejaWiz bud, weird to see still suffering from the Time measurement bug.. and again Overclock that puppy =) you will be pleased with the extra performance.
Click to expand...

You assume quite a bit and insult me by suggesting I can't read. When you submit results, one of the options you have is to compare "similar systems". The similar systems were all 4790k's (just like mine) and 980 SLI (just like mine). Hell man, they tell you the clock speeds of the CPU and cards too.

What was the point of your post?
 
Ryan7968 said:
You assume quite a bit and insult me by suggesting I can't read. When you submit results, one of the options you have is to compare "similar systems". The similar systems were all 4790k's (just like mine) and 980 SLI (just like mine). Hell man, they tell you the clock speeds of the CPU and cards too.

What was the point of your post?
Click to expand...

Can you repost your results so we can take you off the disqualified list. Your results need to be valid with no errors
 
I think theses scores Might mean something if 90% "of the high scores" weren't doing suicide runs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top