• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

**The New Official THIEF-Incorporating Bench mark Thread**

humbug said:
Did you actually get 93.361 fps or are you just adding up?

15% higher clock = 15% higher score does not add up to me, clock scaling is never that linear.

Your 81 FPS @ 1175 on your Titan is the same as Tommy on his 290X @ 1175, and yet Avenged7Fold only got 86 @ 1300Mhz also on a 290X and a faster Haswell CPU. while Greg only got 84 on his 1300Mhz Titan.

So 100% clock to score scaling doesn't happen, it never does.

All those add up. Alatar's does not, not even close.

His FPS in all 3 aspects are way higher than anyone, in double digests, it should be marginal if anything.

Its just not making sense to me.



I can't just add anything, if its not right. its not fair on others.
Click to expand...

Just add it, not worth the hassle. I want to know what happened to the first screenshot he posted that was 99fps though? Everyone missed that, apart from me. ;)

Scotty seems to think its legit so thats good enough for me.
 
LtMatt said:
Just add it, not worth the hassle. I want to know what happened to the first screenshot he posted that was 99fps though? Everyone missed that, apart from me. ;)

Scotty seems to think its legit so thats good enough for me.
Click to expand...

We have all said our bit now but the bottom line is if Humbug really does not think it is legit then he should not add it. If he were to add it still thinking it was not legit, it would bother him every time he looked at the thread.

Humbug if you don't think it is right don't add it.
 
Seeing as Humbug didn't bother to move my old score over when the thread began as I requested (shocker :p).

1080P

4960 @ 4.7 (water)

780Ti SC ref (water) 1315/1965

oz2u.jpg

Or was that not legit either? :rolleyes:

note this is on an older build of the game. Last time I tried to run it after the big patch, things were in the lower end of the 90s. I suppose I should run it up again to put this to bed. Although if Matt did see a 99fps shot taken down truly, then obviously somethings a little flaky about that :D
 
Last edited:
MjFrosty said:
Seeing as Humbug didn't bother to move my old score over when the thread began as I requested (shocker :p).

1080P

4960 @ 4.7 (water)

780Ti SC ref (water) 1315/1965

oz2u.jpg

Or was that not legit either? :rolleyes:

note this is on an older build of the game. Last time I tried to run it after the big patch, things were in the lower end of the 90s. I suppose I should run it up again to put this to bed. Although if Matt did see a 99fps shot taken down truly, then obviously somethings a little flaky about that :D
Click to expand...

Give it a go on the new build of the game and put it to bed.:)
 
I don't have my old profiles set up and have new dimms so this is a crude overclock at best, and barely even trying...


4.7 4960

780Ti Ref on stock bios still...

1280/3800

Basically, I'd say it's quite easily a legit run from him. Albeit it is a Titan, but very high Titan clocks! I will run it at 1345 core later on but will need a flash. I have a job to go to :p

aM1esws.jpg
 
Kaapstad said:
Nice score sir.:)
Click to expand...

:D Thanks chap. I will do some more testing later once flashed and really go for it. These latest betas would appear to be pretty good for this game.

I think the AMD crew need to pipe down a bit with the accusations and get their facts straight, speaking forthright. This is an UE3 engine game, everyone knows UE3 prefers Nvidia hardware, before you go anywhere. There are all sorts of factors to consider. CPU/BCLK / RAM speed/ Timings/GPU clocks and drivers on top of that. There is no need for the bitterness.
 
humbug said:
#1, Avenged7Fold: 290X @ 1300/1600, 4770K @4.5 - Mantle FPS: Min 71.4 / Avr 86.3. Link

#3, tommybhoy: 290X @ 1175/1475, 3770K @ 4.5Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 59.7 / Avr 81.8. Link
#4, Protoo: 290X @ 1208/1498, FX-9370 @ 4.9Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 63.0 / Avr 80.3 - DirectX FPS: Min 36.0 / Avr 56.0. Link
#5, Kaapstad: 290X @ 1250/1625, 4930k @ 4.8Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 61.3 / Avr 79.4 - DirectX FPS: Min 61.9 / Avr 80.2. Link
Click to expand...

If all the scores have to add up before they're added, how did all these get on? Can someone explain them?
Kaap and Avenged7Fold, Kaap with a lower GPU overclock but higher memory. CPUs I'd imagine would perform fairly similarly given the overclocks (unless 5 or 6 cores are used). 6.9 fps average difference, or a little under 8%.

Now Protoo has a lower GPU overclock, quite a bit lower VRAM overclock and is using a CPU that is quite a bit worse, but given these are Mantle results, it's probably not an issue. So with lower clocks he scores higher?

Then Tommybhoy has even lower overclocks again on both core and VRAM, but has a higher score. Much lower overclocks than Kaap, but a higher score.

Compare Tommybhoy's score with Avenged7Fold's, 125MHz less core and VRAM but only 4.5fps difference on average.

All on AMD cards, didn't seem to be an issue. Along comes a good Nvidia score and it's questioned. Just an observation, may well be complete coincidence.

It is a tricky one though. Pity more benchmarks don't do the Heaven thing of showing settings used and some hardware info.

Not sure what anyone is going to gain by cheating on these benchmark threads though, it's not like the 'official' or anything. Hardly anyone is going to care where you've managed to come, I see it more of a personal thing really and if you've cheated then you won't even have that.
Questioning things is fine, the number of times in the Heaven thread that someone ran the wrong res or wrong level of tessellation, probably by accident, shows that not every submission will be valid. Still if someone claims they're legit and it's at least close enough to split opinion I don't see there's much need to make too much out of it.
In 6 months time (or whatever), who's gonna care?
 
@ Matt, i did see that 99 FPS, it disappeared and was replaced with the one we are now debating right after you questioned it in the other thread.

@ Kaap, could re-post your results without this debate in them please? i'm linking to the results page, i just want to keep it nice and clean :)

MjFrosty said:
I think the AMD crew need to pipe down a bit with the accusations and get their facts straight, speaking forthright. This is an UE3 engine game, everyone knows UE3 prefers Nvidia hardware, before you go anywhere. There are all sorts of factors to consider. CPU/BCLK / RAM speed/ Timings/GPU clocks and drivers on top of that. There is no need for the bitterness.
Click to expand...

MjFrosty said:
Seeing as Humbug didn't bother to move my old score over when the thread began as I requested (shocker :p).

1080P

4960 @ 4.7 (water)

780Ti SC ref (water) 1315/1965

oz2u.jpg
Click to expand...

Frosty, So far most of us have managed to keep a cool head, despite one or two running around pouring petrol trying to get this thread to blow up.
I would appreciate it if you could refrain from such remarks highlighted, or i completely ignore all your future posts.

Please re-post your results without those remarks so i can add them to the results. thanks :)

All others updated.
 
Last edited:
Oh lighten up monkey :D.

GK110 is faster in UE3, there isn't any funny business occurring, so I stand by my remarks. If you're going to coat the thread in tinfoil you shouldn't be running it, sorry.

I am absolutely fine with you not adding my score, more fool you
 
Last edited:
Not many people seem to have this game do they?

The ones that do probably got it free with a card or at a very cheap price.

Only 11 entries for a game i thought would be quite popular is quite a surprise to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom