PC GFX Benchmarking.....
12 November 2012, 07:39 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
PC GFX Benchmarking.....
Just bought a new HD7970 and thought it was time we had some benchmarking results again! 
i7 920 overclocked to 4Ghz
6GB RAM
HD7970 overclocked to 1180/7000
Heaven DX11 Benchmark v3.0
Settings:
DirectX 11
Tessellation: Normal
Shaders: High
Anisotropy: 4x
Stereo 3D: Disabled
Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Full Screen: (yes)
Resolution: 1920x1080
Nothing ground breaking but this is a 100% stable gfx card clock used for anything and not just to push a benchmark figure.
So come on guys..... line 'em up!
i7 920 overclocked to 4Ghz
6GB RAM
HD7970 overclocked to 1180/7000
Heaven DX11 Benchmark v3.0
Settings:
DirectX 11
Tessellation: Normal
Shaders: High
Anisotropy: 4x
Stereo 3D: Disabled
Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Full Screen: (yes)
Resolution: 1920x1080
Nothing ground breaking but this is a 100% stable gfx card clock used for anything and not just to push a benchmark figure.
So come on guys..... line 'em up!
Trending Topics
13 November 2012, 09:56 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
lol
Well it's all wasted since COD BLOPS II is up the ****ter as I can't even launch the game on Steam. It just fails and there are issues all over the Steam forums. What a **** up!!
Well it's all wasted since COD BLOPS II is up the ****ter as I can't even launch the game on Steam. It just fails and there are issues all over the Steam forums. What a **** up!!
14 November 2012, 11:29 AM
#13
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northampton, Xbox GamerTag - Neanderthal1976
Posts: 6,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oops didn't notice they were different versions!
My primary monitor only does 1680x1050
Will run it again on the other monitor.
My primary monitor only does 1680x1050
Will run it again on the other monitor.
15 November 2012, 10:37 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northampton, Xbox GamerTag - Neanderthal1976
Posts: 6,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stupid program, I thought it would default to the settings the same as v2.5 did!
Powered by Unigine Engine
Heaven Benchmark v3.0 Basic
FPS: 43.2
Scores: 1088
Min FPS: 12.2
Max FPS: 95.5
Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 7 2012
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz
CPU flags: 3410MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 9.18.13.697 2047Mb
Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1680x1050 4xAA fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Tessellation: normal
Powered by Unigine Engine
Heaven Benchmark v3.0 Basic
FPS: 43.2
Scores: 1088
Min FPS: 12.2
Max FPS: 95.5
Hardware
Binary: Windows 32bit Visual C++ 1600 Release Mar 7 2012
Operating system: Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit
CPU model: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600K CPU @ 3.40GHz
CPU flags: 3410MHz MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 SSSE3 SSE41 SSE42 HTT
GPU model: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 Ti 9.18.13.697 2047Mb
Settings
Render: direct3d11
Mode: 1680x1050 4xAA fullscreen
Shaders: high
Textures: high
Filter: trilinear
Anisotropy: 4x
Occlusion: enabled
Refraction: enabled
Volumetric: enabled
Tessellation: normal
15 November 2012, 12:42 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i7 3770k @ 4.5
16GB Samsung Green @ 2000
XFire 5850's @ 800/1050
Daily settings. I still don't think its worth the money to upgrade the GFX, but maybe next year!
15 November 2012, 08:05 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
The latest beta AMD drivers are really making differences on their gfx cards.
Running on these drivers:
Benchmarks are one thing but these drivers are giving me over 5% increase in actual gaming FPS. From a driver update this is substantial. The 7970 is already an awesome performing card compared to the NVidia GTX680. This pushes it on even further.
Running on these drivers:
Benchmarks are one thing but these drivers are giving me over 5% increase in actual gaming FPS. From a driver update this is substantial. The 7970 is already an awesome performing card compared to the NVidia GTX680. This pushes it on even further.
16 November 2012, 10:05 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll say one thing though, if they keep porting PC games from consoles then high end gfx cards are wasted!
Black Ops 2 I can run 1920x1200 with full everything and 8xAA and still get generally over 100fps, with occasional drops to 80. TBH the gfx in that game are shocking and IMHO look about 5 years old, when in fact its only been out days
BF3 is a bit more hungry though!
Black Ops 2 I can run 1920x1200 with full everything and 8xAA and still get generally over 100fps, with occasional drops to 80. TBH the gfx in that game are shocking and IMHO look about 5 years old, when in fact its only been out days
BF3 is a bit more hungry though!
16 November 2012, 12:49 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I'll say one thing though, if they keep porting PC games from consoles then high end gfx cards are wasted!
Black Ops 2 I can run 1920x1200 with full everything and 8xAA and still get generally over 100fps, with occasional drops to 80. TBH the gfx in that game are shocking and IMHO look about 5 years old, when in fact its only been out days
BF3 is a bit more hungry though!
Black Ops 2 I can run 1920x1200 with full everything and 8xAA and still get generally over 100fps, with occasional drops to 80. TBH the gfx in that game are shocking and IMHO look about 5 years old, when in fact its only been out days
BF3 is a bit more hungry though!
In all seriousness some of us have a minimum of 2560x1600 and beyond. That is the future of gaming with expanding resolutions and multi screen.
Playing a game at a minimum of 2560x1600 with full AA makes it and the graphics look so much more advanced.
The need some serious GPU power for this.
16 November 2012, 03:32 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 10,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because you're using a "pony" resolution.
In all seriousness some of us have a minimum of 2560x1600 and beyond. That is the future of gaming with expanding resolutions and multi screen.
Playing a game at a minimum of 2560x1600 with full AA makes it and the graphics look so much more advanced.
The need some serious GPU power for this.
In all seriousness some of us have a minimum of 2560x1600 and beyond. That is the future of gaming with expanding resolutions and multi screen.
Playing a game at a minimum of 2560x1600 with full AA makes it and the graphics look so much more advanced.
The need some serious GPU power for this.
And screen power
In all serious tho I don't believe any of that would make console ports better. I can only imagine a bigger screen res would make the likes of BO look even worse. Totally agree on what you say though if PC games are made dedicated to support that kind of thing....
16 November 2012, 03:42 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northampton, Xbox GamerTag - Neanderthal1976
Posts: 6,850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess PC gamers will just wait until the next release of consoles in order to realise the potential of their £300 gfx cards 
