Stock timespy score on RTX2070

PiKe · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:23

The time spy benchmark thread only has overclocked 2070's, what should a stock i7 9700 and a RTX2070 score?

TheRealDeal · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:31

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_rtx_2070_armor_8g_review,27.html

Gives you a rough idea but the cpu is different.

PiKe · 26 Jun 2019 at 18:50

Getting about 800 lower :confused:

holty · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:29

I'm getting 7194 on my laptop all stock with a RTX2070.

TheRealDeal · 26 Jun 2019 at 19:38

PiKe said:
Getting about 800 lower

Post up a link to your score so we can have a look.

The Old School Gamer · 26 Jun 2019 at 20:14

MSI RTX2070 Gaming Z (stock)

Auto OC scanner custom curve, +500 memory.

tommybhoy · 26 Jun 2019 at 21:40

2070/2700X@stock 8894
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7542807

2070@2GHz/[email protected] 9566

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6208907

PiKe · 26 Jun 2019 at 21:42

I think the graphics score was only 8000, will have to re-run it tomorrow.

PiKe · 27 Jun 2019 at 09:09

GPU is at 100% for the whole test.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37090614

The Old School Gamer · 27 Jun 2019 at 14:17

Your probably not maintaining a higher enough boost clock.
What are your GPU temps and case air flow like?

The maximum power limit is also quite restrictive as well on the 2070s.
Even at stock you want that maxed out.

PiKe · 27 Jun 2019 at 17:10

Tried with power limit 112%, it sat at over 1800mhz for the entire run.

Still 7725

MSI Armor 2070 8G if that matters.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jun 2019 at 17:18

There is definitely something up with your system as your Cpu score is way down on what it should be. Losing around 800 points to Guru's result there. Could try setting windows to high performance mode. I take it all chipset drivers are up to date. Maybe updating to the latest bios for your motherboard if it's not already on it. A fresh install of windows if it's fairly old.

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_9700k_processor_review,17.html

The Old School Gamer · 27 Jun 2019 at 19:16

Yeah as expected your GPU boost clock is far too low.
Your core clock should be hovering anywhere around the 1960-2025 mark.

What are your GPU temps under load?
*Try temporarily whacking your case and GPU fans to max when running the benchmark.

@TheRealDeal - My CPU score is far lower than his, so that is not the limiting factor here.

tommybhoy · 27 Jun 2019 at 21:03

The Old School Gamer said:
Yeah as expected your GPU boost clock is far too low.
Your core clock should be hovering anywhere around the 1960-2025 mark.

Doubt it, it's a non A chip like mine, it settles down to ~1865 boost@stock-temp limited.

Mines hit a max oc of 2025 on a flashed bios with higher power limits, before that it wouldn't hit 2GHz due to lack of power-exactly as intended by Nv unless you paid more for their A chip.

A pure **** move by Nv imo but £100+ wasn't worth +300Mhz.

TheRealDeal · 27 Jun 2019 at 21:04

The Old School Gamer said:
Yeah as expected your GPU boost clock is far too low.
Your core clock should be hovering anywhere around the 1960-2025 mark.

What are your GPU temps under load?
*Try temporarily whacking your case and GPU fans to max when running the benchmark.

@TheRealDeal - My CPU score is far lower than his, so that is not the limiting factor here.

Your Cpu is not a 9700k though. There maybe a link to why both his cpu/gpu scores are lower than expected. I don't think his cpu is holding the graphics back but pointing out his 9700k is also under performing.

muon · 27 Jun 2019 at 21:15

PiKe said:
GPU is at 100% for the whole test.

https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/37090614

Is your memory at 2133mhz or 4266mhz? If it is the former then that is your problem.

edit:

Looking at my various scores, you don't need to double the memory clock. So that is most likely the problem. Enable XMP.

The Old School Gamer · 27 Jun 2019 at 22:13

tommybhoy said:
Doubt it, it's a non A chip like mine, it settles down to ~1865 boost@stock-temp limited.

Mines hit a max oc of 2025 on a flashed bios with higher power limits, before that it wouldn't hit 2GHz due to lack of power-exactly as intended by Nv unless you paid more for their A chip.

A pure **** move by Nv imo but £100+ wasn't worth +300Mhz.

Ah yes I think you are correct.

Guess I lucked out picking my Gaming Z up for £380.
The current price for it is totally ridiculous though.

HRL · 27 Jun 2019 at 22:19

tommybhoy said:
2070/2700X@stock 8894
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/7542807

2070@2GHz/[email protected] 9566

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/6208907

That’s a mental clock for that bottom 2700X. I thought I was doing alright getting 4.5Ghz!

tommybhoy · 28 Jun 2019 at 00:23

The Old School Gamer said:
Ah yes I think you are correct.

Guess I lucked out picking my Gaming Z up for £380.
The current price for it is totally ridiculous though.

Well done mate!

Here was me thinking I got lucky paying launch day mrrp of £439 for my WF(elsewhere-because Gibbo refused point blank to sell it@mrrp because imagine he needed his gouging cut from the £60 to finance his Ferrari

).

HRL said:
That’s a mental clock for that bottom 2700X. I thought I was doing alright getting 4.5Ghz!

I didn't do the oc, I don't have a clue or the inclination(too lazy now

) on how to clock AMD via bios, it was Aurus engine on my X370-Gaming K7 that auto clocked it.

Coming from just raising the multiplier on Intel as I said cba working out how to do it on AMD, besides both cpu/gpu run at stock 99% of the time anyway.

tommybhoy · 28 Jun 2019 at 00:40

tommybhoy said:
Well done mate!

Here was me thinking I got lucky paying launch day mrrp of £439 for my WF(elsewhere-because Gibbo refused point blank to sell it@mrrp because imagine he needed his gouging cut from the £60 to finance his Ferrari).

Just realised reading that back that I'm now classing paying non gouged mrrp as 'lucky' what an utter disgrace the PC scene is these days due to the sheer greed from the manufacturers all the way down to the etailers!

Roll on PS5/XB*, even if they cost ~£6/700 they will destroy and embarrass a ~£6/700 PC!!!