Hey, I am running my unlocked 6950 at 880/1375 with no problems. My cpu is a q6600 oc to 3.0ghz and I have 4GB ram.
I don't have a link sorry, but in 3d mark 11 I get 4724 3d marks. But, what interested me the most was the graphics score and the physics score. I get 5197 for my graphics score but only 4690 for my physics score. Guess it's time to upgrade the Q6600data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :-) :-)"
I am just looking at your score Easyrider that you posted in the first page of this thread, the 3d mark 11 link with your clocks at 900 and 1351. So for 20 less core clocks and 25 more memory clocks I am getting over 200 more for my graphics score?(4961 v's 5197) Wonder why the difference?
I ran the the benchmark with powertune at 0 and CAtalyst AI at high quality with the enable surfact texture optimizations unticked.
I don't have a link sorry, but in 3d mark 11 I get 4724 3d marks. But, what interested me the most was the graphics score and the physics score. I get 5197 for my graphics score but only 4690 for my physics score. Guess it's time to upgrade the Q6600
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc608/fc608ab6e6dc2469165c10f9a8cb020731d10c69" alt="Smile :-) :-)"
I am just looking at your score Easyrider that you posted in the first page of this thread, the 3d mark 11 link with your clocks at 900 and 1351. So for 20 less core clocks and 25 more memory clocks I am getting over 200 more for my graphics score?(4961 v's 5197) Wonder why the difference?
I ran the the benchmark with powertune at 0 and CAtalyst AI at high quality with the enable surfact texture optimizations unticked.