**Official 3DMark 'Fire Strike' Leaderboard**

[Gregster]

All scores added. I still see people are not adding what type of cooling is used (as per the rules), so I will be scrolling past any scores that don't follow the simple rules in future

 

[CEUOTC]

Final run for this rig, managed to get 4.7 stable in FS. (Well untill another driver update happens and they bring out another card )

i7 [email protected] Ghz Water Cooled
290(P) Flashed to X @1,222 Mhz/1,600 Mhz Watercooled.

AMD 14.9.2 drivers

SCORE
11845 with AMD Radeon R9 290X(1x) and Intel Core i7-3770K Processor
Graphics Score 14137
Physics Score 12191
Combined Score 5245

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3187129

 

[bloodkil]

Let's add my latest run:

i7 4790K @ 4.8GHz cooled with H100i

Running 2 x 290X @ 1200/1650 both using NZXT Kraken's with Corsair H55's

Used the AMD 14.9.1 drivers

SCORES:

18880

Graphics: 26643
Physics: 13268
Combined: 7402

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/3179803

 

[ciggybumly]

980 Gtx sli (MSI reference and EVGA SC reference)

i7 4970K @ 4.6GHZ (h100 cooling)
Both cards clocked to 1450 core/ 1950 mem
Drivers 9.18313.4460

19.9K

Graphics - 29010
Physics - 13022
Combined - 7790

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4643034?

 

[LtMatt]

[email protected] (water)
4x290X@1225/1625Mhz (air)
14.9

SCORE
28896 with AMD Radeon R9 290X(4x) and Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Processor
Graphics Score 50462
Physics Score 17762
Combined Score 8851

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4661519

 

[SS-89]

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4661522?

Overall - 18992
Graphics - 26477
Physics- 13393

970 SLI Air cooled 1531/8000
[email protected] Watercooled

 

[Rangerjr1]

[email protected] (water)
4x290X@1225/1625Mhz (air)
14.9

SCORE
28896 with AMD Radeon R9 290X(4x) and Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition Processor
Graphics Score 50462
Physics Score 17762
Combined Score 8851

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4661519

You are like 400-500 points off quad 980 on the GS with 290xs on AIR... My ****ing sides, you have made my day Matt

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Rangerjr1]

Lets look at this again

My quad 980 result was just a quick run and I used the first result I got.

If we are comparing graphics scores remember my CPU was only clocked @4.5 which is very low for 4 GPUs compared to 4.95 for Matts CPU.

If I shifted my 980s over to my 3930k PC which can do 5.1 (even more if I hook up my chiller) and maxed the cards I could probably get another 4 to 5k on the graphics score lol.

1080p is not the strong point for quad 290Xs, they need to be used at very high resolution to get that bus working.

Since when did CPU clocks affect GS that much? And even if it did, shouldnt you have higher because of your 8 core? FS is fully threaded lol

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Rangerjr1]

With a single card it does not effect the result too much but running a low CPU clock with 4 cards makes a very big difference.

Using 4, 6 or 8 cores with or without H/T makes very little difference to the graphics score result and clock for clock there is very little difference if you are using Haswell, SB, IB, Haswell E, IB-E or SB-E. The graphics score is all about raw CPU mhz to drive the cards.

The only place the extra CPU cores make a difference is on the physics and combined tests.

Yea, but Haswell-E has 7-9% IPC advantage over SB-E. And your CPU is clocked to 4.5? 4.5 x 1.09 = 4.905GHz in terms of sandy. Which is about what Matts CPU is clocked to, not to mention you got DDR4 and 2 extra cores.

What am i missing?

 

[Rangerjr1]

Here's an hypthesis...

If we are comparing graphics scores remember my CPU was only clocked @4.5 which is very low for 4 GPUs compared to 4.95 for Matts CPU.

If I shifted my 980s over to my 3930k PC which can do 5.1 (even more if I hook up my chiller) and maxed the cards I could probably get another 4 to 5k on the graphics score lol.

So basically what you're saying is that with your 3930k at 5.1 - 5.2 even would give you another 4-5K GS. And that equals to about 4.6-4.7GHz Haswell-E.

Does that mean... If i can push maybe 50-100mhz more on my 3930k i can get 750-1250 more GS (your claim of acquired GS divided by 4~ because i have 1 card and you have 4)?

Hell, even 500 GS more would be great.

Edit: Or does this only apply to 4 cards? If so care to elaborate?

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Rangerjr1]

It only makes a difference with multi GPU setup the more GPU grunt you have the higher you need to run the CPU to avoid a bottleneck simple.

As to using a single card if all you are after is maximum graphics score then lowering your CPU clockspeed can help as it will run slightly more efficiently and give you a few more points.

Alright. Mind responding to this?

With a single card it does not effect the result too much but running a low CPU clock with 4 cards makes a very big difference.

Using 4, 6 or 8 cores with or without H/T makes very little difference to the graphics score result and clock for clock there is very little difference if you are using Haswell, SB, IB, Haswell E, IB-E or SB-E. The graphics score is all about raw CPU mhz to drive the cards.

The only place the extra CPU cores make a difference is on the physics and combined tests.

Yea, but Haswell-E has 7-9% IPC advantage over SB-E. And your CPU is clocked to 4.5? 4.5 x 1.09 = 4.905GHz in terms of sandy. Which is about what Matts CPU is clocked to, not to mention you got DDR4 and 2 extra cores.

What am i missing?

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Rangerjr1]

Edit: Oh i didnt see your post. Deleted.

The extra efficiency makes hardly any difference on the synthetic benches 4.5 on Haswell E is near enough the same as 4.5 on SB E

It is all about raw mhz with 4 cards

So... FX9590 5GHz or above Raw MHz would actually be better here by your logic?

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit

 

[Rangerjr1]

I don't know how it works with AMD CPUs.

With Intel CPUs on the graphics tests it is down to having enough speed to avoid bottlenecking the cards on the graphics tests (in these benches the graphics tests are solely concerned with the GPUs).

But speed is DIRECTLY related to efficiency on the CPUs (IPC). And when the 4.5 haswell matches a 4.9 sandy because of the IPC difference you cant use the "i have lower clocks" excuse for your low GS.

Because as you see in this score: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/2893001 The GS is ridiculously close again, a little lower than matts because of the lower RAM clock but its the same exact CPU that you are using at 4.5GHz and i cant see any 4-5k GS difference compared to matts 3930k score .

 

[Kaapstad]

Edit