GTX680 owns Titan in 3dMark06

GTX 680 OCed from 706/1,502 (stock) to 1,780/3,800MHz

vs

GTX Titan OCed from 837/1,500 (stock) to 1,150/1,752MHz

Well, there's your problem.
 
Yeah, if the 7 year old bench can't put all those cores to use, the best clocker is going to win.
 
Evga has a hydrocopper version of the Titan, wonder if the top signature model from evga would make any difference in those benchmarks.
 
This is clearly a case of the Titan saying this application isn't stressful enough so it downclocks it.
 
Phishy714 said:
Nice trolling.

Move along people.
Click to expand...



Not at all. I found this out doing a little research on 3dMark06 performance and thought it was interesting.


Kingpin The same guy that holds the 3dMark11 world record with a GTX Titan also owns the world record 3dMark06 score record with a GTX 680.
 
And we care, why?

Who plays 3dMark06?

Who plays 3DMark anything?

1.) Canned benchmarks don't count. They are absolutely useless. No point in even bringing them up. They don't represent reality. (thought everyone who read the [H] knew this by now...)

2.) If we were - instead - talking about a game from '06 it's probably old enough now that it plays fast enough on any semi-decent machine to get decent frame-rates. It wouldn't matter if you have a Titan or a 680

3.) On all recent games that are more demanding (where it matters) the Titan outperforms the 680.

So, move along, there is nothing to see here.
 
Actually in 3dmark2001 you could play I think a couple of the benchmarks. Not that it was any fun or anything. :D
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H];1039802812 said:
And we care, why?

Who plays 3dMark06?

Who plays 3DMark anything?

1.) Canned benchmarks don't count. They are absolutely useless. No point in even bringing them up. They don't represent reality. (thought everyone who read the [H] knew this by now...)

2.) If we were - instead - talking about a game from '06 it's probably old enough now that it plays fast enough on any semi-decent machine to get decent frame-rates. It wouldn't matter if you have a Titan or a 680

3.) On all recent games that are more demanding (where it matters) the Titan outperforms the 680.

So, move along, there is nothing to see here.
Click to expand...


I care.

But it seems like the GTX680 is easier to over clock and that is why the GTX 680 wins on that benchmark. Could also be DX9 performance is stronger on GTX680. Not sure.

You may not find it interesting and others will. I find it interesting.

1000s of people over clock all over the world.
 
SonDa5 said:
I care.

But it seems like the GTX680 is easier to over clock and that is why the GTX 680 wins on that benchmark. Could also be DX9 performance is stronger on GTX680. Not sure.

You may not find it interesting and others will. I find it interesting.

1000s of people over clock all over the world.
Click to expand...

So we just ignore that Titan has also gone 1750+ sub-zero? Then compare a sub-zero 680 run to an average Titan on air? 3Dmark06 is a terrible bench for non BIOS-modded Kepler anyways, even on a 680 it only uses about 35% GPU, and Kepler downclocks when you don't stress it.

Here, take a look, my GTX 660 SLI barely beat my HD4850 Crossfire :rolleyes:

GTX 660 25667

HD4850 23437
 
After I got my Titan I downloaded and installed 3DMark06 just to see. I remember it kicking my 8800GT/C2D in the nuts pretty hard. The difference between then and now is amazing. Doesn't seem that long ago I thought my 8800GT was fast.

Where I was getting 5-10 fps it's now 300+ fps. Synthetic benchmarks might seem useless but they have some relevance.
 
SonDa5 said:
I care.

But it seems like the GTX680 is easier to over clock and that is why the GTX 680 wins on that benchmark. Could also be DX9 performance is stronger on GTX680. Not sure.

You may not find it interesting and others will. I find it interesting.

1000s of people over clock all over the world.
Click to expand...

That GTX680 was clearly modded and not on air, whereas the Titan was running at its normally achievable stock cooler air clocks...

I've had two different GTX680's, none of them got anywhere NEAR that clock speed. Not even close. I wouldn't expect even most skilled overclockers to get anywhere near that clock.
I'm guessing LN2, running just long enough to get through the benchmark run.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039803278 said:
That GTX680 was clearly modded and not on air, whereas the Titan was running at its normally achievable stock cooler air clocks...
Click to expand...
If you're talking about the OP's link, if you scroll down it says the GTX 680 in question had to be cooled using liquid nitrogen to get that score... which means that particular GTX 680 is likely already dead due to the extreme conditions it was put through.

Can't really draw valid conclusions from a something that cannot be run in a day-to-day working / gaming configuration.
 
SonDa5 said:
I care.

But it seems like the GTX680 is easier to over clock and that is why the GTX 680 wins on that benchmark. Could also be DX9 performance is stronger on GTX680. Not sure.

You may not find it interesting and others will. I find it interesting.

1000s of people over clock all over the world.
Click to expand...

It is easier to overclock, because there are 1000 less cuda engines on the 680 compared to the Titan. The Titan card may be for "Gaming" But let me assure you, I am plastering Maya3D and Adobe Premier with my Titan compared to my 680's running in SLI. I will be picking up a second Titan for my rig to make it even faster for my Pro Applications.

Plus 3DMark 2006 is just that...2006!!!! A canned DX9 renderer will not own any modern card..because DX9 does not stress a brand new card like the Titan.
 
I just tested 3Dmark06 on my Titan, I don't even hit stock clocks. The card maxed out at 736mhz and spent most of the time at 692mhz, 57% GPU usage.
 
Since when do the people at [H] care about 3d mark? I never viewed this forum as a big benchmarking forum. None of that crap translates to real world performance.

You're comparing the clocks on one card that you can hit on air to something with hard mods and subzero cooling that no one here uses.
 
3DMark 06 ALONE doesn't mean that GTX-680's better at DX9. Let me ask a question - which card runs Far Cry 3 in DX9 mode quicker - the GTX-680 or Titan? Titan?

/thread
 
LigTasm said:
I just tested 3Dmark06 on my Titan, I don't even hit stock clocks. The card maxed out at 736mhz and spent most of the time at 692mhz, 57% GPU usage.
Click to expand...

Yup because the fps is already so high, it dynamically saves power. Try turning "Adaptive" to "Prefer Max Perf" in the nv control panel, though I don't know for sure that'll work in all cases.
 
xorbe said:
Yup because the fps is already so high, it dynamically saves power. Try turning "Adaptive" to "Prefer Max Perf" in the nv control panel, though I don't know for sure that'll work in all cases.
Click to expand...

It won't work for this application, my global is already on prefer max. You'd need a custom BIOS to get it to stay constant because the load is so low. I may flash this card later and try it just to satisfy my curiosity.
 
LigTasm said:
It won't work for this application, my global is already on prefer max. You'd need a custom BIOS to get it to stay constant because the load is so low. I may flash this card later and try it just to satisfy my curiosity.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't flashing it void the warranty?
 
Can't you keep it locked at max clocks using EVGA K-boost in Precision like with the other 600 series cards?
 
RyanH said:
Can't you keep it locked at max clocks using EVGA K-boost in Precision like with the other 600 series cards?
Click to expand...

I haven't tried it, I only tried K-boost once and it immediately crashed the driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top