Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums
Vellinious

Vellinious - Radeon R9 290X @ 1310/1846MHz - 16005 marks 3DMark - Fire Strike

Recommended Posts

WHY WAS THIS BLOCKED?! WHAT THE.....

 

The clocks on the VGA details CLEARLY state 1310MHz on the core. The base clock in GPUz is reading 1000MHz.

 

Unblock this.

 

nL8sfyL.jpg

 

This is a legit run..."MATE"....

 

yImPopI.jpg

 

TWO runs with identical scores, both above 1300 on the core and 1860ish on the memory.

 

Result

 

 

What's the problem

Edited by Vellinious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just check your subtests and it will become more clear... your GT2 score is way too high for the given clocks thus classified as a bugged run...

 

No need for rocket science...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The run was done at 1307 on the core. There was no BUG. The screenshot was taken after I had returned the overclock to normal.....so GPUz is only showing 1000mhz. And you delete the score for that?! Even the 3D Mark link showed the clocks correctly.

 

That's some ticky tack crap....and you know it. Rocket science indeed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Graphics test 2 responds better to memory clocks?

 

Even before I cranked the memory up further, and was running sub 1750, I was getting 71+ FPS on graphics test 2.

 

There was something about the 8GB 290X that allowed for MUCH higher memory clocks than the 4GB version of the same card. Couple that with driver improvements when I was making those runs, and....there's a lot of the difference right there.

 

I dunno who was running those tests in the graph you posted, but their GT2 frames sucked.

 

Here's one I ran with the memory at 1750, similar core clocks and...WELL above 70 fps.

 

AMD Radeon R9 290X video card benchmark result - Intel Core i7-5820K Processor,ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. X99-A

 

You're WRONG, man. Period.

 

 

Go ahead and test it yourself. Run once with a normal overclock. Now, drop the memory down by 100 base. The variance is much larger in GT2, than it is to GT1. You're welcome.

Edited by Vellinious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have never witnessed a +6FPS gain on GT2 with just 100Mhz more on the memory. But the moderators are intrigued nevertheless.

 

We need more data and will compare it with our 290X setup. Secondly we will forward your data to Futuremark for analysis. Either you found the ideal OS/driver/setting combo or our suspicions will be confirmed.

 

Plz provide us with a screenshots and the validation files of:

 

1200 core / 1600 mem run

1200 core / 1700 mem run

1200 core / 1800 mem run

 

This to witness the GT2 scaling per added 100Mhz, this makes it easier to crosscheck our data.

 

Mail it to albrecht@hwbot.org

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have never witnessed a +6FPS gain on GT2 with just 100Mhz more on the memory. But the moderators are intrigued nevertheless.

 

We need more data and will compare it with our 290X setup. Secondly we will forward your data to Futuremark for analysis. Either you found the ideal OS/driver/setting combo or our suspicions will be confirmed.

 

Plz provide us with a screenshots and the validation files of:

 

1200 core / 1600 mem run

1200 core / 1700 mem run

1200 core / 1800 mem run

 

This to witness the GT2 scaling per added 100Mhz, this makes it easier to crosscheck our data.

 

Mail it to albrecht@hwbot.org

 

I don't even own that GPU any more. I sold it last spring.....

 

This is some heavy handed bull....

 

I trust you scrutinize EVERY run with this much speculation, and biased opinion? Because, that's EXACTLY what this is.....

 

Do what you wish...delete it, keep it, I guess it doesn't matter that much.

 

Just know, that I know it's total crap. And I've told everyone I know about this thread.

 

G'day to ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well your score got reported and then we cross check what's okay or not... and your GT2 is tha bomb...

 

For my own peace of mind I'll still run the tests on my 290X lightning to see if there is a significant GT2 boost with Win10 and these drivers over Win7 and 14.12 omega.

 

Ow you also told your team captain about this thread? Would be nice to get his 5 cents on the matter in here too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to hear it as well. I'm more than just a little peeved at this entire line of garbage.

 

pmd him, to accelerate stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we are still gathering data and wading through the results. The scores have been removed for further investigation... not permanentely deleted...

 

Nr1 at 290 is also impressive +100fps GT1...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well we are still gathering data and wading through the results. The scores have been removed for further investigation... not permanentely deleted...

 

Nr1 at 290 is also impressive +100fps GT1...

 

Maybe in crossfire GT1 100FPS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont have a 290, but if i run this bench back to back with only changeing memory clock on my 980ti will that suffice in proving/disproving gains from memory clock in GT2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be conducting tests as promised once I'm home... I can't do 1800+ but can test the scaling in GT2... from stock to 1700ish speeds...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Leeg, got your PM... sorry for the slow reply... wedding is in less than a month!

 

I'd like to say a few things. First, @Vellinious, I know it feels like you're being personally attacked. If your result is 100% legit, don't worry about it. Look at it this way... someone couldn't get anywhere near your score, thought it looked suspicious, and reported it. The mods checked it out, thought it looked suspicious as well, and removed it to investigate. Part of the investigation, and unfortunately the most helpful, is usually the user being able to replicate it at different clockspeeds to show the true scaling. There can be massive differences between drivers. The second issue is that even if your run was completely and totally legit on your end, something could still be breaking in the driver or in the benchmark. Judging by the scores being so difficult to replicate, I'd say this is the issue. I don't believe that you cheated, but I do believe that something bugged.

 

I'd shrug this one off if it gets permanently removed and review your submissions with greater scrutiny in the future. That can do nothing but help you. If your run looks bugged, you can investigate yourself. If your run looks low, you can try to learn how to improve subscores, etc.

 

@Leeghoofd, I'm looking forward to your review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey Leeg, got your PM... sorry for the slow reply... wedding is in less than a month!

 

I'd like to say a few things. First, @Vellinious, I know it feels like you're being personally attacked. If your result is 100% legit, don't worry about it. Look at it this way... someone couldn't get anywhere near your score, thought it looked suspicious, and reported it. The mods checked it out, thought it looked suspicious as well, and removed it to investigate. Part of the investigation, and unfortunately the most helpful, is usually the user being able to replicate it at different clockspeeds to show the true scaling. There can be massive differences between drivers. The second issue is that even if your run was completely and totally legit on your end, something could still be breaking in the driver or in the benchmark. Judging by the scores being so difficult to replicate, I'd say this is the issue. I don't believe that you cheated, but I do believe that something bugged.

 

I'd shrug this one off if it gets permanently removed and review your submissions with greater scrutiny in the future. That can do nothing but help you. If your run looks bugged, you can investigate yourself. If your run looks low, you can try to learn how to improve subscores, etc.

 

@Leeghoofd, I'm looking forward to your review.

 

Nothing bugged during the run. No dropped textures, no black screens and no screen flashing. A few artifacts? Absolutely. I wasn't using any of the bios tricks to get higher frames (see the tools that used magic hex)....

 

I ran nearly all of my benchmark runs between 1802 and 1846, because that's where it ran the best. It was an outstanding 8GB 290X that overclocked like no other Hawaii I had seen.

 

I've been accused of cheating, and in the process, been cheated myself.

 

In conclusion: eat me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody called you a cheater in this thread... if we can't replicate this it will be classified as a bugged run... we suspect driver wise something is going bonkers due to too unstable GPU memory...CN is also on this and will crosscheck my upcoming findings with the Futuremark peeps...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody called you a cheater in this thread... if we can't replicate this it will be classified as a bugged run... we suspect driver wise something is going bonkers due to too unstable GPU memory...CN is also on this and will crosscheck my upcoming findings with the Futuremark peeps...

 

Oh, you have an 8GB XFX 290X that will clock the memory to 1800+? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me we don't need 1800+ mems to measure/predict GT2 scaling or not. If a certain moment it goes nuts with just a few Mhz more, it is bugged... not an optimum setting...

 

If your 1750MHz gives 71.8 and 1830 already does 78, I should be able do the same 6FPS or higher boost comparing between 1450 and 1600MHz right ?

Edited by Leeghoofd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...