xxbassplayerxx

Whoa... with the clocks you're pushing, this should be much closer to 5 minutes 50 seconds! Great chip you have there. If you get the efficiency up, you could be looking at first or second place for this chip.

You going to freeze those sticks? Because they want it!

What was this done on? Mine was on my EeePC so i can't raise the voltage

Yes. The only place PhysX is mentioned in rules is under 3DMark Vantage. Having it enabled will not improve scores for any other 3D benchmark on HWBot, which is why it is not prohibited on the others.

PhysX is not against the rules for 3DMark 03 as it has no effect. The only benchmark on HWBot which it effects is 3DMark Vantage. If you're reporting scores, you should read the rules for the benchmark first. A knowledgeable userbase saves the moderators time. EDIT: Seems Mike just beat me to it!

Did you have any mods on your card? Mine died during my 1100/1200 run at only 1.212V. The VRM's fried.

Nice

Thanks man. Wish I still had it!

266.35? That driver had horrible performance for me!

Hey man, it was the 1.212V cap since I haven't modded this card. Putting it on phase allowed me to get much higher clocks.

Your memory is at 2250, not 2133!

Kintaro, what kind of VTT did you need for such high Uncore? My 970 doesn't like to boot with more than 1.415 VTT, which only gives a stable Uncore of around 4.1GHz.

Whoa! Sandy Bridge is the new E8600! Epic score man!

Thanks Gappo! I really wanted 3 more BCLK, though!

How awful is ET6? I like my UD9, but if that isn't the worst piece of overclocking software out there, I have no idea what is.

It seems you've convinced me to re-do my 465 scores! I'll grab some dice Great submission!

Looks like I won't be entering. I guess my Hypers don't want to do it, even with the 970 and the lower uncore it allows. They're good for 1800 C6, but I can't seen to get even 2000 8-8-8 32M stable regardless of voltage, and they're rated for 2133 8-8-8 24 @ 1.65V.

A 200MHz OC on my processor and my score went up 16 points. However, between different chips, you still have a huge scoring discrepancy. With the same GPU clocks, even with a massive OC on my 950 I wouldn't be able to compete with a stock 980X. That's kind of lame.

Zing!

Spec, I'll be able to check that next week once I grab my 970.

I don't think they want to address the issue. I posted a topic about it on their site and 70 views later still had nothing to say about it... http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138910

Ahh... That makes sense. I guess it's good that I have keys for all of my Futuremark products. Now all they need to do is step up their game and make 3DMark 11 worth having. What's up with the awkward area next to the CPU/GPU used on the score window? Oh... it's where they removed the subscores from...

Awesome. I'm definitely going to be trying it out and hopefully it'll set my Hypers free!

Since SB is dropping in early January, any chance of them being added to the competition? I remember the rumors about 2400 being cake on memory!

Just because I haven't been in the game for long, I have a question. Many of you mention Vantage and '06. Were these same issues there at launch for those? Does Futuremark listen to what we want? Like I said earlier, it seems to be deliberate to funnel users through their web site so they gain ad revenue.