• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Crazy OC on X1800XT Single Card Beats SLI

LOL. The Inq doesnt have half a clue. Are they saying a x1800xt is only as fast as a gtx if you OC the x1800? LOL! Also, the dude's name was Macci, not Maki. And we all know by now that being faster in 3dmock doent mean it'll be faster in actual games. Still, even if you could OC it to 700mhz on air, it should easily hit 10k in 3dmock, and put up some nice numbers compared to an OC'd gtx. I'm waiting for some more results, on air, not much chance I'll be hooking up LN2 to cool a video card.
 
Nothing new. ATI cards have been beating SLI setups for as long as I remember. THe x850XTPE can def beat the 6600 SLI 🙂.
 
Few things I noticed about the article.

1. The CPU was overclocked to insane speeds. 3.6 Ghz? That is nearly, give or take, a 50% improvement over the stock version. If I remember correctly, the 3DMark score can only be derived from running with the CPU Benchmark. If that is the case, then much of this performance is due to the really high clocked CPU.

2. It does not really say what SLI it can beat. It could beat a 6800 SLI for sure, but a 7800 GTX SLI? Doubtful. When I was running 3DMark I would compare my online results... There were a few people with extreme overclocks like the one in the article and they were getting 16,000+ scores with a 7800 GTX (2) in SLI.

3. Using super cooling, or extreme cooling does not give us a real picture of what these cards will overclock like. For instance, the 3.6Ghz CPU overclock could not be achieved with air cooling. I have my suspicians if it would even hit 3.0Ghz with air cooling.
 
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Few things I noticed about the article.

1. The CPU was overclocked to insane speeds. 3.6 Ghz? That is nearly, give or take, a 50% improvement over the stock version. If I remember correctly, the 3DMark score can only be derived from running with the CPU Benchmark. If that is the case, then much of this performance is due to the really high clocked CPU.
Click to expand...

CPU speed and performance has pretty much NOTHING to do with 3D Mark 05 score.
You can get a full 05 score WITHOUT CPU tests, the CPU tests give you the CPU score (obviously).
Tomshardware also did some charts showing that CPU speed has a very small impact on 3D Mark05 scores, so it really doesn't matter how fast/how overclocked the CPU was.

Also remember that 3D Mark scores can vary by up to 10% (my own personal experience) based on driver quality settings.
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Few things I noticed about the article.

1. The CPU was overclocked to insane speeds. 3.6 Ghz? That is nearly, give or take, a 50% improvement over the stock version. If I remember correctly, the 3DMark score can only be derived from running with the CPU Benchmark. If that is the case, then much of this performance is due to the really high clocked CPU.
Click to expand...

CPU speed and performance has pretty much NOTHING to do with 3D Mark 05 score.
You can get a full 05 score WITHOUT CPU tests, the CPU tests give you the CPU score (obviously).
Tomshardware also did some charts showing that CPU speed has a very small impact on 3D Mark05 scores, so it really doesn't matter how fast/how overclocked the CPU was.

Also remember that 3D Mark scores can vary by up to 10% (my own personal experience) based on driver quality settings.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I remember the older versions of 3DMark did factor in your CPU into the tests. Maybe it was 2003? Been a while since I have tested the 3DMark 05' edition. Reason being is that I hold 3DMark in the same category as a grain of salt, or pepper, rather.
 
If you run 3DMark05 at defaults (10x7) then you will see significant increases by increasing the CPU speed . . .

We some real gaming benchies though to confirm that it can actually stand up to 7800 SLI . . . but still 800mhz+ is insane . . .
 
I ran my Venice at 1.8hgz and 2.5ghz, with a x800 video card, and I got about 200 point increase in 3dmark05. I dont think the cpu matters much in this case.
 
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Amuro
I don't know... After OC'ing my 4800+ to 2.7ghz from 2.4 I scored around 1200 points more in 3dmark05.

EDIT
Insanely overclocked single 7800 GTX with similar CPU and GPU clocks can beat 7800 GTX SLI @ stock as well:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1002966
Click to expand...

Hmm, then I guess I am back to square one... I'll have to test whether a faster CPU has any affect or not on the overall score.
Click to expand...

THG already did it
There isn't a huge difference, although it's slightly deceptive because they have no many CPUs fairly close that the performance difference is very gradual.
A 3000+ gets just under 3838, a 4000+ gets 3881, not a huge jump in score, despite over a 33% increase in clock (1800 -> 2600).
Amuro, did you also upgrade graphics card drivers between the two runs you did? Maybe from 7x.xx to 8x.xx?
 
Originally posted by: Lonyo
Originally posted by: ArchAngel777
Originally posted by: Amuro
I don't know... After OC'ing my 4800+ to 2.7ghz from 2.4 I scored around 1200 points more in 3dmark05.

EDIT
Insanely overclocked single 7800 GTX with similar CPU and GPU clocks can beat 7800 GTX SLI @ stock as well:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1002966
Click to expand...

Hmm, then I guess I am back to square one... I'll have to test whether a faster CPU has any affect or not on the overall score.
Click to expand...

THG already did it
There isn't a huge difference, although it's slightly deceptive because they have no many CPUs fairly close that the performance difference is very gradual.
A 3000+ gets just under 3838, a 4000+ gets 3881, not a huge jump in score, despite over a 33% increase in clock (1800 -> 2600).
Amuro, did you also upgrade graphics card drivers between the two runs you did? Maybe from 7x.xx to 8x.xx?
Click to expand...

No, I was running 81.84 before the OC. However, I run 3DMark05 at defaults (10x7).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top