• 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.

***Official Unigine Heaven 2.5 Benchmark Scores***

Status
Not open for further replies.
That nvidia driver that increases scores by a lot, is that only for Heaven or for everything?
I remember a scandal years ago where (think it was) ATI(?) tweaked their drivers to show higher scores for 3DMark than what they should be getting.

I of course think nvidia looked at this thread and decided to make custom drivers for it. /tinfoil
 
This is bizarre, I was running the benchmark yesterday to test the VRAM overclock on my card with a little voltage tweak, became unstable at around 1475 MHz mark (was limited at 1375 MHz on a previous BIOS) and scores at 1450 MHz were around 1050-1060 iirc.

Now running the same overclock (850/1450) as yesterday and getting 300 points more? :confused:

Confirmed twice and appears stable enough.

eLSu9.jpg

What's bizarre as this score puts me very high up the list of 6950/70s and I haven't even touched the core clock. :eek:
 
Surveyor said:
When w3bbo updates the scores he should note that your score is for a GTX 580 (as per GPU-Z) rather than a GTX 285 (as shown in the benchmark).
Click to expand...

I mentioned this in te first benchmark i did....I dont know why it is reading the GTX285 as that just drives a second monitor and acts as a physx processor.

Strange.
 
insejn said:
That nvidia driver that increases scores by a lot, is that only for Heaven or for everything?
I remember a scandal years ago where (think it was) ATI(?) tweaked their drivers to show higher scores for 3DMark than what they should be getting.

I of course think nvidia looked at this thread and decided to make custom drivers for it. /tinfoil
Click to expand...

Its for "everything"! just a beta driver release.
Id be more cynical on the release of gx cards and the timing between the 2 chipmakers.
Cmas 2011 to now(7970 +7950) seemed v like cmas 2009 on(5870+5850) .Nvid will soon be hitting back, with their kipper.
 
After a reboot my results are back to normal (1050).

I can only suspect that the card was running at different clocks albeit Afterburner had shown 850/1450 so I still don't know what caused this change in results.
 
Mr Krugga said:
After a reboot my results are back to normal (1050).

I can only suspect that the card was running at different clocks albeit Afterburner had shown 850/1450 so I still don't know what caused this change in results.
Click to expand...

That 13xx run seems off the walls! 152 max fps is 50 more than usual in what I get on mine. 1150ish should be a fair bit of OC'd 6950. Wonder what switch you got to go to ludicrous speed :D
 
insejn said:
That 13xx run seems off the walls! 152 max fps is 50 more than usual in what I get on mine. 1150ish should be a fair bit of OC'd 6950. Wonder what switch you got to go to ludicrous speed :D
Click to expand...

Well the card was certainly running at 850/1450 and settings were as shown in the screenshot.

It didn't get hotter or anything so I can only suspect a bug in the benchmark that turned some options off? :confused:

Normally I had 10 fps less during the benchmark, on average and score was around 1050, not 1324.

Mind you, I did two runs before the reboot to see if that changes anything.

I'm trying an overclock now, 950/1450 results in 1120 score, hopefully I can push it a bit higher.

My card doesn't like clocking above 1GHz on core I think. Unluckily as my 5850 could do much higher clocks than that.
 
I don't know why, but i'm getting different scores every time - max FPS varies, min FPS varies and obviously, average FPS varies.

On HD 6990 in 5 goes back to back...

First: 2305 (min. FPS: 31)
Second: 2215 (min. FPS: 38)
Third: 2300 (min. FPS: 19)
Forth: 2277 (min. FPS: 27)
Fifth: 2293 (min. FPS: 36)

Nothing is changing aside from fanspeed (automatic) and obviously temperature of components (well-cooled case though).
 
Mr Krugga said:
I'm trying an overclock now, 950/1450 results in 1120 score, hopefully I can push it a bit higher.

My card doesn't like clocking above 1GHz on core I think. Unluckily as my 5850 could do much higher clocks than that.
Click to expand...

My MSI wants a lot of volts to go that high, with 950/1450 I get 116x but it comes with a lot of tear and/or stalling unfortunately. Keeping it almost stock atm just to avoid issues.
 
f00f1ght0r said:
I don't know why, but i'm getting different scores every time - max FPS varies, min FPS varies and obviously, average FPS varies.

On HD 6990 in 5 goes back to back...

First: 2305 (min. FPS: 31)
Second: 2215 (min. FPS: 38)
Third: 2300 (min. FPS: 19)
Forth: 2277 (min. FPS: 27)
Fifth: 2293 (min. FPS: 36)

Nothing is changing aside from fanspeed (automatic) and obviously temperature of components (well-cooled case though).
Click to expand...

90 difference between the first two :eek: That's a lot! Need to try this.
 
f00f1ght0r said:
I don't know why, but i'm getting different scores every time - max FPS varies, min FPS varies and obviously, average FPS varies.

On HD 6990 in 5 goes back to back...

First: 2305 (min. FPS: 31)
Second: 2215 (min. FPS: 38)
Third: 2300 (min. FPS: 19)
Forth: 2277 (min. FPS: 27)
Fifth: 2293 (min. FPS: 36)

Nothing is changing aside from fanspeed (automatic) and obviously temperature of components (well-cooled case though).
Click to expand...

Maybe your memory overclock is unstable and throttles back? Try and put it back a little.

Some variation is to be expected though, around 1-2% I think. You have a variation of 4% which isn't terrible but quite high anyway.

Also the first run doesn't count as the texture load on demand, the second run should give more consistent results.
 
Finally got round to properly unlocking and heavily overclocking my 6950:

Capture-5.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom