K404 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Just saw this. Gyrock-san..... how did you achieve this great score with such a low CPU clock? The scores around you have 400-600MHz!!! more CPU clock, but no difference in score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrock Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Hi K404-san! Thanks for your comment for such an old submission As far as I know, 3DM11 requires GPU power much more than CPU one, so the impact of CPU clock is not big. For the score range like this, even if you earn 1000 pts more from PT, you can only get 80 pts for total score.. The impact is so small that we would better take care of GPU temperature for the best efficiency from VGAs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 (edited) Sorry Gyrock-san, I disagree. I have a 3DMark11 calculator and if I use these examples, based on your 22615 score (I change one variable at a time): Physics score - 1000. Total score = 22355 (-260pt) Physics score + 1000. Total score = 22851 (+235pt) GPU score - 1000. Total score = 22058 (-560pt) GPU score + 1000. Total score = 23156 (+550pt) Of course, adding 1000 to the CPU score is a bigger % increase than adding 1000 points to the GPU score. .... but I do not understand how you matched the Physics test and Combined test scores of people running 500MHz higher than you. Good tweaking? (quite possible!! ) Bug? (I hope not ) Edited June 20, 2012 by K404 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrock Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Hi K404-san You are right and I am wrong:P I just misunderstood the figure, sorry for that. Your calculation is correct, as my calculator says the same Refer to attachment file. The reason of good PT score is due to ver.1.0.1 whose PT score is higher than other versions. It' no secret. Please read the thread below. http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=32095 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K404 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Ah! ok, 1.0.1. I could not tell the version used in any of the scores. I did not know the difference in Physics was so big between versions! Thanks for the explanation My calculator is less pretty than yours!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrock Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 You are always welcome, K404-san Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle fester Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 nice run gyrock, always pushing it. i wish i had time for benching but work is driving me crazy no time for benching Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrock Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Thanks fester-san!! I am sorry for hearing you have no time for benching... My situation is almost the same as yours though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subaruwrc Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 killer eff as always Gyrock ! Im hunting down the trick of vantage cpu test, can u give me some hints about ? how to get 1k 1.2k eff ? ( I mean for example 53,000 points of cpu score at 5200mhz or so ) Thank you in advance, and keep pushing ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrock Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Hi subaruwrc-san There is no trick of Vantage CPU test, on X79 all you need to do is memory tweaking for better efficiency. That's the very different point compared to on X58. Mem clock@1200MHz and timing like 9-11-9-27 or 8-11-8-27 would give you 1000 more points, I think. Try this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splave Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) ^ True I have tested with same conclusion for moa Americas Tight timings better than frequency and 1.0.1 version give boost without any changes. 2400 10-12-10 (GTX8 Hynix) 1866 8-8-8 (dominator GT Hyper) 700 points faster in physx (2.25FPS) here is 5.0ghz 8-11-9 2400mhz for 17.2k http://hwbot.org/submission/2281489_splave_3dmark11___performance_radeon_hd_7970_14925_marks so tighter timings and 100mhz more cpu clock is totally achievable 17.6k Edited June 21, 2012 by Splave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.