That shouldn't matter I don't think?
Before I put you back on I would like to see if anyone else has any objections or ideas on why your score is much higher than the others. Thanks Omeds.
Hoho, I just saw your CF results Face2Face... Now I know why you asked if mine was legit :sneaky:
Edit: Similar position with omeds, though not quite as drastic.
Haswell at 4.8GHz slightly higher core on my cards results in a ~5 fps advantage, and you have more cpu than the 5GHz x6 SB users in this thread for this test.
I don't see any reason to believe his score isn't legit.
Edit: Similar position with omeds, though not quite as drastic.
Haswell at 4.8GHz slightly higher core on my cards results in a ~5 fps advantage, and you have more cpu than the 5GHz x6 SB users in this thread for this test.
I don't see any reason to believe his score isn't legit.
Last edited:
I was comparing yours and others that I have seen with and without tweaks.. hence why I asked. Not sure why there is so much variance? My score seems to be pretty much inline with others..
Looking at your score and his, you may be right..?
Well you have two Haswell chips at 4.8GHz spitting slightly better numbers than slower processors, seems a pattern is developing if you ask me 
Well you have two Haswell chips at 4.8GHz spitting slightly better numbers than slower processors, seems a pattern is developing if you ask me
It has to have something to do with multi-card setups because Elfear score is right in line with the others.
1100/1500
Slower than Sohaltang who was 1100/1575, same as TakeNoPrisoner which was 1200/1500.
*shrug*
Catalyst is 100% untouched, never even opened it since installing Windows 8.1 a few hours ago.
.6 fps difference between today, drawing 660w because no central air love, and last time which was just a shade over 600w.
Processor is at 4.8/4.4 so that could be some of it, not sure I was on 8.1 might of been 8, different driver, slight variations between runs...
Last edited:
Teizo
Golden Member
- Oct 28, 2010
- 1,271
- 31
- 91
Well you have two Haswell chips at 4.8GHz spitting slightly better numbers than slower processors, seems a pattern is developing if you ask me
Maybe the combo of Haswell and Windows 8 has something to do with it. I have heard that in some instances Windows 8 does perform better on some games (a Linus Tech Tip video) due to the way it handles resources, so maybe this benchmark is one of them.
I really don't know what to make of omeds unusually high scores to be honest. I have no problem at all believing his 4770K@4.8 is faster for this specific benchmark than my 3930K@5.1 or Groove's 3930K at whatever speed he was running at the time. However, he's also making up for a ~100mhz or more disadvantage in gpu core speed. I can't speak for Grooveriding but my Classifieds are not error correcting at +700 on memory (7400mhz), they do suffer from error correction at +800mhz (7600) @ default voltage. Adding just a touch of voltage solves that though.
What we've seen in the cpu bench threads on here is that per core a Sandy Bridge needs as little as about 200mhz to as much as about 500mhz to be on par with Haswell depending upon the specific bench. I think that's a pretty fair assessment, someone can chime in if they see it differently. From his 4.2GHz scores posted today, If I were to run my gpus at the speeds his are running I can't even match him @5GHz. That's an 800MHz gap, I'm not sure Haswell is that good. Maybe we have found a benchmark that just absolutely loves Haswell, still seems odd as it's primarily supposed to be a gpu taxing benchmark. It's all in fun though, I'm sure it will work itself out as time goes on and more Haswell's fill the chart and give us a better understanding of just how well Valley responds to them. I'm personally not going to cause the thread organizer stress over the issue as he's busy enough with the chart as it is, and I'm sure we all appreciate these fun little competitions.
Edit: Does anyone know what speed Piklar's cpu was running at for the benchmark, because he's running a 4770K as well with virtually the same clocks on his gpus as omeds.
What we've seen in the cpu bench threads on here is that per core a Sandy Bridge needs as little as about 200mhz to as much as about 500mhz to be on par with Haswell depending upon the specific bench. I think that's a pretty fair assessment, someone can chime in if they see it differently. From his 4.2GHz scores posted today, If I were to run my gpus at the speeds his are running I can't even match him @5GHz. That's an 800MHz gap, I'm not sure Haswell is that good. Maybe we have found a benchmark that just absolutely loves Haswell, still seems odd as it's primarily supposed to be a gpu taxing benchmark. It's all in fun though, I'm sure it will work itself out as time goes on and more Haswell's fill the chart and give us a better understanding of just how well Valley responds to them. I'm personally not going to cause the thread organizer stress over the issue as he's busy enough with the chart as it is, and I'm sure we all appreciate these fun little competitions.
Edit: Does anyone know what speed Piklar's cpu was running at for the benchmark, because he's running a 4770K as well with virtually the same clocks on his gpus as omeds.
Last edited:
Simple just show an afterburner graph demonstrating your claim of how "7.4ghz gives 10-20% lower scores than 7.38ghz." I'm sure if you can prove your statement your claims will be believable.
:hmm: Interesting
I will run it again when I get one more H100i mounting screw, they use very soft metal and I broke one of them replacing my TIM (DOH!). I have it rigged for the time being. I noticed the temps last night after playing BF4 - 85c ugh..
Also want to get another PSU, the one I have is a place holder until I can get my V1000 or similar, it probably won't make much of a difference, but I am stressing the PSU almost the max (705 watts) and I can hear the PSU fan cranking over everything else.
I also wonder if I am overlooking something with my cards? IIRC you said you Tomb Raider numbers were faster too? But I think my Metro numbers were a little better? I'm not sure?
Last edited:
Im haswell and win 8.0 on below setup. Did not touch anything except the sliders to max in CCC including +20% power. I tried afterburner and trixx but they both seem to give worst results at higher clocks. Then again IM not Oc genius. Wonder if I bump my 4770K up to 4.8 if I will see better gains. Is 8.1 any faster or the new beta drivers? I also noticed if you turn off frame pacing you get slightly lower scores.
omeds
Senior member
- Dec 14, 2011
- 646
- 13
- 81
You want me to show you an unstable memory oc produces a lower score? Is this unheard of to you??
You're the one who said it not me, plus I don't really care one way or the other. My integrity is not being questioned in this thread... You are the person whos scores were removed because nobody believes you are telling the truth about them.
You think one thing is odd & questionable, and everyone else thinks something different is odd & questionable.
Grooveriding
Diamond Member
- Dec 25, 2008
- 9,147
- 1,329
- 126
My memory is not error-correcting. It does on one card at about 700 over stock. I can also adjust memory voltage on these cards to compensate if I need to.
You can't miss error correction impacting your Valley score because the benchmark is so sensitive to memory speeds (shows huge gains from better memory OC) I just echo YBS in that for what is a GPU-limited benchmark, I'm not sure how a CPU can compensate for a 125 & 180 core clock advantage (thereabouts) But I could just not be aware of something, YBS' score makes it harder to see though because a 5.1 SB-E is only going to be a hair slower than a 4.8 Haswell in apps that don't use multithreading well. As well it bears considering that my SB-E is at 4.8 and my score is higher than YBS' is with the difference being one of my cards is a bit faster. Who knows though.
I would suggest taking a look at the Valley thread on OCN. There is a TON of data there from people posting their results. Maybe you can find some correlation from other Haswell users that shows something similar happening.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1360884/official-top-30-unigine-valley-benchmark-1-0
You can't miss error correction impacting your Valley score because the benchmark is so sensitive to memory speeds (shows huge gains from better memory OC) I just echo YBS in that for what is a GPU-limited benchmark, I'm not sure how a CPU can compensate for a 125 & 180 core clock advantage (thereabouts) But I could just not be aware of something, YBS' score makes it harder to see though because a 5.1 SB-E is only going to be a hair slower than a 4.8 Haswell in apps that don't use multithreading well. As well it bears considering that my SB-E is at 4.8 and my score is higher than YBS' is with the difference being one of my cards is a bit faster. Who knows though.
I would suggest taking a look at the Valley thread on OCN. There is a TON of data there from people posting their results. Maybe you can find some correlation from other Haswell users that shows something similar happening.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1360884/official-top-30-unigine-valley-benchmark-1-0
Are you attempting to test me to shift focus? lol Check the heaven thread I have the highest Red team score.
Are you the person whos score got banned here or is it me? Guys I can't remember... did my score get banned? Or was it Omeds score? Omeds why did the mods remove your score? Refresh my memory please. Thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter