Post Your NEW 3DMark Sky Driver Benchmark Results

?? Never ever felt the need to do that. Maybe if I was in some professional benchmark competition where there was money on the line... but come on - these should be run with your every day settings ;)

Then you realized how ridiculous you sound for objecting to something that takes 5 seconds and a restart to do.
 
Then you realized how ridiculous you sound for objecting to something that takes 5 seconds and a restart to do.

It's pointless. Real men don't do that. Not to mention I can't even log into steam and open 3DMark if I were to do that. You seem to think it's a necessary thing "...whenever you're benching or stressing anything to make sure your services and startup programs arn't dragging you down" - if your "services" and "startup programs" are dragging you down in this day and age, you're doing something wrong. 1998 called Zoson, they want your computer back.
 
It's pointless. Real men don't do that. Not to mention I can't even log into steam and open 3DMark if I were to do that. You seem to think it's a necessary thing "...whenever you're benching or stressing anything to make sure your services and startup programs arn't dragging you down" - if your "services" and "startup programs" are dragging you down in this day and age, you're doing something wrong. 1998 called Zoson, they want your computer back.

So you're taking the stance of 'I don't use my computer for anything, so I don't need to do this' - fine, more power to you dude.

Some of us actually use our computers for general purpose computing, otherwise known as work. That necessitates software, which often installs services. This software, occasionally, will need to be launched by the user, but that user will want it open every time they start their machine, so it gets set to start on boot.

Your comment is hilarious, considering the fact that my 5 year old PC is faster than your nearly brand new one, though. :rolleyes:
 
So you're taking the stance of 'I don't use my computer for anything, so I don't need to do this' - fine, more power to you dude.
No, you're not paying attention. I am taking the stance of - it's 2014 and due to the OS and hardware capabilities I don't need to waste time worrying about what's running in the background. I also score a 27015, with Graphics Score of 35716, Physics score of 12443, and Combined score of 25241 - with a single video card. Supposedly better than 94% of all results, so I'm really not complaining.

How about you start a new thread posting the amazing and incredible difference between running the benchmark with and without your msconfig trick! I will wait patiently for the results.
 
Single MSI 290X Lightning @ 1200/1600 w/ 5960X :)

Score 30444

Graphics Score 35278
Physics Score 18446
Combined Score 28943

Score done during testing before NDA dropped on 5960X so it was run with system info off since it was borked before a fix got issued after the Haswell-E release.
ckKMVDS.jpg
 
Here a new update to a tri-fire config ( 3 x 290's ) I should note that 2 of the cards are 290x's and 1 is a 290. On this Asus Deluxe z97 board, all the ports default to 4x and the 290x's default to 290's. So this could really be hurting performance.

I never ever planned on 3 cards I just got lucky and bought 2 x 290's from a guy trying to make rent for $300 for the pair so couldn't pass the buy up.

hUvt34X.jpg
 
No, you're not paying attention. I am taking the stance of - it's 2014 and due to the OS and hardware capabilities I don't need to waste time worrying about what's running in the background. I also score a 27015, with Graphics Score of 35716, Physics score of 12443, and Combined score of 25241 - with a single video card. Supposedly better than 94% of all results, so I'm really not complaining.

How about you start a new thread posting the amazing and incredible difference between running the benchmark with and without your msconfig trick! I will wait patiently for the results.
And that's why your scores are awfully low for the equipment you're running. With your hardware you should be faster than 99%, just like everyone else with equipment like yours is.

4.5 GHz CPU, 1 GPU Faster than 99%
37078, 50266 Graphics, 17308 Physics, 29562 Combined
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2409635

4.4GHz CPU, 2 GPU
44848, 76961 Graphics, 16605 Physics, 28421 Combined
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2422162

It's not my msconfig trick. It's a widely known and used optimization in all types of benching. Apparently you hadn't heard. :rolleyes:
 
My single 780 Ti (980 / 1750) + 3770S stock scored 22876. That seems rather low but I didn't kill off any background processes

Graphics Score 36545
Physics Score 8551
Combined Score 17706
 
Just curious but why is this the sky driver thread and not firestrike? Is there something flawed about the firestrike test that makes this a better judge of how a system is performing?
 
My single 780 Ti (980 / 1750) + 3770S stock scored 22876. That seems rather low but I didn't kill off any background processes

I didn't kill anything that run, it was just a fresh restart without having anything but services, so I still had >100 processes in the background. Also, 780ti is supposed to be as fast as 980... So really... Your score is less than impressive.
 
My single 780 Ti (980 / 1750) + 3770S stock scored 22876. That seems rather low but I didn't kill off any background processes

I didn't kill anything that run, it was just a fresh restart without having anything but services, so I still had >100 processes in the background. Also, 780ti is supposed to be as fast as 980... So really... Your score is less than impressive.

its definitely the processor holding back the overall score badly.. the graphic performance its just average for that card at stock..

Just curious but why is this the sky driver thread and not firestrike? Is there something flawed about the firestrike test that makes this a better judge of how a system is performing?

because this was made in the moment skydiver was launched in the market.. Skydiver its way newer than firestrike just that..
 
And that's why your scores are awfully low for the equipment you're running. With your hardware you should be faster than 99%, just like everyone else with equipment like yours is.

4.5 GHz CPU, 1 GPU Faster than 99%
37078, 50266 Graphics, 17308 Physics, 29562 Combined
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2409635

4.4GHz CPU, 2 GPU
44848, 76961 Graphics, 16605 Physics, 28421 Combined
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2422162

It's not my msconfig trick. It's a widely known and used optimization in all types of benching. Apparently you hadn't heard. :rolleyes:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041159002&postcount=168
You truly have absolutely no idea (or you're just a troll) what you're talking about if you think my scores are "awfully low". We're still waiting patiently for the demonstration of how awesome this msconfig trick of yours is!! Don't let us down now!
 
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041159002&postcount=168
You truly have absolutely no idea (or you're just a troll) what you're talking about if you think my scores are "awfully low". We're still waiting patiently for the demonstration of how awesome this msconfig trick of yours is!! Don't let us down now!
You're the one who needs the optimization, not me.

http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?35793-ROG-Benchmarking-Tweaks-amp-Tips
http://rog.asus.com/forum/showthread.php?35793-ROG-Realbench-Tweaks-amp-Tips&p=294629#post294629
http://www.overclock.net/t/1235557/official-top-30-heaven-benchmark-4-0-scores/2200_50#post_22229323
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums...cooling-inside&p=897846&viewfull=1#post897846

You really have no idea what YOU'RE talking about.
 
40475 with 290x crossfire @ 1200 / 1375 and 4790k @ 4.8ghz

graphics 83409
physics 12984
combined 24027
 
Looked throught the links but didn't see your comparison of your awesome msconfig trick. When are you going to show us the difference?

Unlike you, I have nothing to prove. You're the one plugging your ears screaming "i'm not listening!!!" at the top of your lungs. Notice how nobody has backed you up at all? It's because you're wrong. So yeah, keep digging your hole buddy.
 
Unlike you, I have nothing to prove. You're the one plugging your ears screaming "i'm not listening!!!" at the top of your lungs. Notice how nobody has backed you up at all? It's because you're wrong. So yeah, keep digging your hole buddy.

I only responded again because you think my scores are "awfully low", even though I beat every single post that has a single R9 290. The only thing I notice is that you can't prove your point, benchmark boy.
 
http://www.3dmark.com/sd/2452721

3dmark%202014%20skydiver%20on%204.9ghz%20and%20oc%20vid.png


System in the sig running Windows 10 Tech Preview...

No idea why it's giving the time measurement data error... probably an incompatibility with Windows 10.

Anyway, LOVING this new Asus STRIX Edition GTX 970. Got the overclock all dialed in and it's sweeeet! :-D
 
http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4454089?

@Blue_Falcon What speed was your 2500K running at? I saw 4.9GHz in your signature so I wanted to try 4.9GHz with my FX-9370 just to see how they compare. My video card is missing part of the PCI-E connector from a mishap with USPS so it only runs at 8x speeds. But it scored pretty close to your 970. I'm 100% sure it can OC higher than what I set it to. Just so damn lazy and these settings worked beautifully in every game so I stopped there. It's an old mining card and I need to take it apart one day and apply some thermal paste before I try anything silly. :)

YyI4DTs.png
 
@Blue_Falcon What speed was your 2500K running at? I saw 4.9GHz in your signature so I wanted to try 4.9GHz with my FX-9370 just to see how they compare. My video card is missing part of the PCI-E connector from a mishap with USPS so it only runs at 8x speeds. But it scored pretty close to your 970. I'm 100% sure it can OC higher than what I set it to. Just so damn lazy and these settings worked beautifully in every game so I stopped there. It's an old mining card and I need to take it apart one day and apply some thermal paste before I try anything silly. :)[/IMG]

Definitely 4.9ghz, got the voltage pumped up to around 1.5v which is really high for Sandy Bridge... but Intel says anything up to 1.52v is safe.

I'm so tempted to bump that voltage up to 1.52v and see if I can get an even 5ghz out of it. :D
 
I'm at 1.512v on my FX-9370 @4.9GHz. Just played 4 hours or so of Warframe. What are you using for cooling? I have a Corsair H100i with 4 fans on it in this inverted Silverstone RV03.
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Definitely 4.9ghz, got the voltage pumped up to around 1.5v which is really high for Sandy Bridge... but Intel says anything up to 1.52v is safe.

I'm so tempted to bump that voltage up to 1.52v and see if I can get an even 5ghz out of it. :D

its safe but beware as some sandy bridge chips can degrade super fast above 1.5v... even at 1.5 some suffer from degradation.
 
its safe but beware as some sandy bridge chips can degrade super fast above 1.5v... even at 1.5 some suffer from degradation.

Noooo! You just threw a big damper on our drive for 5. :) Thx for letting him know though. Wouldn't want something to happen to his gear.
 
Noooo! You just threw a big damper on our drive for 5. :) Thx for letting him know though. Wouldn't want something to happen to his gear.

the 2600K i was using prior my 3770K degraded in like 3 - 4 months with 1.512 at 5.2ghz. after that time i was unable to post above 4.8ghz at same voltage.. my reaction was just like This and well.. just upgraded to 3770K XD.

funny cageymary xD i've just noticed it was the same 1.512 as your FX-9370 xD
 
Last edited:
Old x58 platform. L5639 @ 3.2GHz. MSI 970 GTX @ +210 core and +500 memory.

3dmarkskydive_zpsa03a1dbc.png~original
 
System Configuration
  • Intel i7-4790K
  • GigaByte Z97X-UD5H
  • CORSAIR Vengeance 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3 1600
  • Windows 7 64-bit
  • Samsung EVO 840 500 GB (Primary/Boot SSD drive)
  • Crucial m4 256GB (SSD Work Drive)

Sky Diver
Palit GeForce GTX 460 (Fermi) Sonic Platinum Overclocking Edition 1GB: 9861
GigaByte GTX 980 G1: 29547 (3x increase)
 
Back
Top