TR Forums

Just played with the new valley benchmark and my only thought was, 'If only Skyrim looked like this.'

With the specs in my sig, and DX11, Ultra, 8x, 1920x1080, in other words, wide open minus 3D/multi monitor setup:

The results:
http://i.imgur.com/px55JYn.jpg

My card hit 60c with the Accelero Xtreme III running at 100% fan speed.

And I spent way to much time running around then I should have.

EDIT: Added a photo instead of the text. I just ran the bench again for this. The drivers are the 13.2 beta 6 drivers AND 880/1375 clock speeds. The cpu IS running at 4.1Ghz though.

ClickClick5 wrote:

Just played with the new valley benchmark and my only thought was, 'If only Skyrim looked like this.'

Hehe, you haven't played with enough Skyrim mods! You can make Skyrim look as good or better than Valley:





I'll run Valley and post scores once I get my new GPU. My current GPU probly can't do much with it.

auxy wrote:

ClickClick5 wrote:

Just played with the new valley benchmark and my only thought was, 'If only Skyrim looked like this.'

Hehe, you haven't played with enough Skyrim mods! You can make Skyrim look as good or better than Valley:

[Images went here. But due to content restriction laws in Zawbimbzi, they have been removed. Sorry for the inconvience. ~Management]

I'll run Valley and post scores once I get my new GPU. My current GPU probly can't do much with it.

Oo0

Well.... I feel my 6970 wont run that smoothly.

What did you score?

ClickClick5 wrote:

What did you score?

I don't have my new GPU yet! Nobody has them in stock; Newegg said 2/25, then on 2/25 they changed it to 2/28, and then on 2/27 at 11:30pm they changed it to read 3/21... (ノД`)・゜・。

Just ran this in Ultra settings (everything set to highest) at 1920x1200 with an HD 7970 clocked at 1200 core/1500 mem. Don't remember my benchmark score, but the average FPS was in the 41-42 range. Seems to give a similar average FPS to the new version of Heaven (4.0)

cynan wrote:

Just ran this in Ultra settings (everything set to highest) at 1920x1200 with an HD 7970 clocked at 1200 core/1500 mem.

That's a nice OC on your 7970! (･｀ｪ´･)b三b

It'll be really neat to see how TITAN fares in this benchmark. Nobody seems to be using it yet. I'm not even really sure what it really measures! (e.g. Heaven is mostly a tessellation benchmark, so I wonder what this aims to test.) (ㅇㅅㅇ;)

Didn't run benchmark, but i've quickly had a play at 1920 x 1200 on my rig in sig - I set quality to Ultra on DirectX 11 and turned off all AA. It was bouncing between 52-70 ish FPS depending on scene.

Not bad I guess. Just for kicks I left it as was, but changed the render to OpenGL. I barely managed 6-8 FPS - glad to see thats optimised well on the Radeon's...

rcs2k4 wrote:

Didn't run benchmark, but i've quickly had a play at 1920 x 1200 on my rig in sig - I set quality to Ultra on DirectX 11 and turned off all AA. It was bouncing between 52-70 ish FPS depending on scene.

Not bad I guess. Just for kicks I left it as was, but changed the render to OpenGL. I barely managed 6-8 FPS - glad to see thats optimised well on the Radeon's...

Interesting. When I tried OpenGL on the HD 7970, my frames only dropped by half (to around 20FPS). Is GCN optimized better for OpenGL?

cynan wrote:

Interesting. When I tried OpenGL on the HD 7970, my frames only dropped by half (to around 20FPS). Is GCN optimized better for OpenGL?

Possible - I'm going to run the benchmark twice and see the difference. Maybe you could do the same with same settings??? Our average FPS will be totally different im sure, but will interesting to see what the performance drop off is between rendering mode chosen...

Settings:
API: Dx11 then OpenGL
Quality: Ultra
Stereo 3D: Disabled
Monitors: Single
Anti-Aliasing: Off
Full Screen: Check
Resolution: 1920 x 1200

Meh, that was easy. OpenGL on my system sucks balls (Or it's a Crossfire issue) - Thats all I can conclude!

DirectX 11:
FPS - 65.8
Score - 3108
Min FPS - 46.8
Max FPS - 91.6

OpenGL:
FPS - 6.9
Score - 290
Min FPS - 3.0
Max FPS - 11.6

Either way, I hope in our future of multi-platform games and API's no one will be using OpenGL anytime soon... *shrugs*

Auxy, what is your new card?

ClickClick5 wrote:

Auxy, what is your new card?

I think he/she has ordered a Titan based on this: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=86616&p=1156245#p1156245

i'm not jealous much of course...

ClickClick5 wrote:

Auxy, what is your new card?

ASUS GTXTITAN-6GD5. (ﾉ)´∀｀(ヾ)

Unfortunately they're being a little pokey with the shipping, but I don't mind waiting ... that much. ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌

rcs2k4 wrote:

Meh, that was easy. OpenGL on my system sucks balls (Or it's a Crossfire issue) - Thats all I can conclude!

ATI/AMD's OpenGL driver has always been a gruesome MiniGL hack. It barely works; see the issues with Rage on its release and the continual issues with long-updated games like CIty of Heroes and Second Life, neither of which ever worked 100% correctly (or at full speed) and neither of which AMD ever bothered to look into. (;´Д`) Rather than hoping nobody uses OpenGL, you should hope AMD will improve their OpenGL ICD -- although I suppose the chances of that happening are slim to none, so ... yeah.

auxy wrote:

ClickClick5 wrote:

Auxy, what is your new card?

ASUS GTXTITAN-6GD5. (ﾉ)´∀｀(ヾ)

Unfortunately they're being a little pokey with the shipping, but I don't mind waiting ... that much. ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌

Ooof...I can't get myself to pay that much for a single part. Unless it is a server. Yeah, run this bench in 1080 with that and post back the info, I'm curious. I like the normal bench reviwes but to compare it with my card now, I need a resolution that is close to what I have, and at the moment, that is 1920x1080.
Thus: DX11, Ultra, Disabled, Single, x8, full screen, 1080.

I will wait. lol

ClickClick5 wrote:

Yeah, run this bench in 1080 with that and post back the info, I'm curious. I like the normal bench reviwes but to compare it with my card now, I need a resolution that is close to what I have, and at the moment, that is 1920x1080.

I only have 1080p displays, hehe.

ClickClick5 wrote:

I will wait. lol

Me too. (っ˘̩╭╮˘̩)っ It looks like it's going to be a few weeks though, so keep checking back!

rcs2k4 wrote:

cynan wrote:

Interesting. When I tried OpenGL on the HD 7970, my frames only dropped by half (to around 20FPS). Is GCN optimized better for OpenGL?

Possible - I'm going to run the benchmark twice and see the difference. Maybe you could do the same with same settings??? Our average FPS will be totally different im sure, but will interesting to see what the performance drop off is between rendering mode chosen...

Settings:
API: Dx11 then OpenGL
Quality: Ultra
Stereo 3D: Disabled
Monitors: Single
Anti-Aliasing: Off
Full Screen: Check
Resolution: 1920 x 1200

I run again when I get home. But that won't be for a while... BTW, my FPS of 41-42 was with 8x Anti-Aliasing. Maybe the performance penalty for AA is less for OpenGL?

auxy wrote:

cynan wrote:

Just ran this in Ultra settings (everything set to highest) at 1920x1200 with an HD 7970 clocked at 1200 core/1500 mem.

That's a nice OC on your 7970!

The HD 7970s loves them some low temps. Water cooled, it hits 38-39 deg C max at load (according to GPU-Z). I'll report benchmark scores at 1300 Mhz core if you like (I just normally run at 1200 Mhz so I don't have to go much above stock voltage) - though I don't see why you'd care as you just bought a TITAN!!

cynan wrote:

The HD 7970s loves them some low temps. Water cooled, it hits 38-39 deg C max at load (according to GPU-Z). I'll report benchmark scores at 1300 Mhz core if you like (I just normally run at 1200 Mhz so I don't have to go much above stock voltage) - though I don't see why you'd care as you just bought a TITAN!! :o

Hehehe. (*/ω＼*) Well, I didn't pay for it, but I'm not sure if I should talk about that or not.

Actually, a lot of reviews seem to be indicating that the 7970 runs surprisingly close in certain benchmarks! (´⊙ω⊙`)！So, I'm really curious to see if the grotesque shader power of the GTX Titan helps much on this kind of benchmark, which seems to be much more constrained by geometry crunching power.

Titan is also quite limited in its overclockability, due (if I recall correctly) to the relatively low thermal ceiling set by Nvidia. I believe ~990Mhz is as high as you can go without raising the voltage, and you can't raise the voltage very much (again, IIRC). So, since you have a pretty good OC on your card, I'm curious to see the comparison! °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°

auxy wrote:

I believe ~990Mhz is as high as you can go without raising the voltage, and you can't raise the voltage very much (again, IIRC).

No, you can go higher with stock voltages, although the max stable (before the card will start to throttle it down) core clock varies from card to card (even if they all have same stock clocks)... Check out the "Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN Owners' club" at overclock.net's forums - there are a lot of "crazy" Titan owners here who already posted their results There are even rumors here about custom BIOS which can raise the power limits higher

JohnC wrote:

No, you can go higher with stock voltages, although the max stable (before the card will start to throttle it down) core clock varies from card to card (even if they all have same stock clocks)... Check out the "Nvidia GeForce GTX TITAN Owners' club" at overclock.net's forums - there are a lot of "crazy" Titan owners here who already posted their results :wink: There are even rumors here about custom BIOS which can raise the power limits higher :o

Ohh, I see! (๑・ω-)～♥”

Sorry to be a bit off topic here, but what mods were used to make Skyrim look so good in the above screenshots?

My rig doesn't break a sweat with the HD texture pack and highest in-game settings on 1080p, and those screens are making me want to jump back into Whiterun!

Prestige Worldwide wrote:

Sorry to be a bit off topic here, but what mods were used to make Skyrim look so good in the above screenshots?

I didn't take the above screenshots, so I can't honestly say. I can tell you with authority that they are using at least an ENBSeries and SMAA injector. Other than that:

• Probably a 2K texture pack
• some sort of weather mod
• some sort of foliage density mod with the settings turned WAY up
• some kind of 'better trees' mod

The person I got those screenshots from said they made their 680 run ~25 FPS, so good luck with that!

In any case, with 670 SLI, you should definitely be running an ENBSeries and SMAA. ┐(￣ヮ￣)┌

Prestige Worldwide wrote:

Sorry to be a bit off topic here, but what mods were used to make Skyrim look so good in the above screenshots?

My rig doesn't break a sweat with the HD texture pack and highest in-game settings on 1080p, and those screens are making me want to jump back into Whiterun!

The mod used for screenshots is called "Lush trees and grass". I personally prefer "Skyrim Flora overhaul", as it adds new types of flora. Both of these may be compatible with each other, but I have't tried using them together. I also recommend trying out "Project Reality" for lighting and weather effect enhancements. All these mods are available at http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/

auxy wrote:

Titan is also quite limited in its overclockability, due (if I recall correctly) to the relatively low thermal ceiling set by Nvidia. I believe ~990Mhz is as high as you can go without raising the voltage, and you can't raise the voltage very much (again, IIRC). So, since you have a pretty good OC on your card, I'm curious to see the comparison! °˖✧◝(⁰▿⁰)◜✧˖°

Here is an idea of how the Valley benchmark scales with overclocking on the HD 7970. Benchmark is run with every setting on maximum, but with anti-aliasing off this time to make results comparable with rcs2k4's results. Resolution was 1920x1200. Reported values are what the benchmark spits out at the end.

core 1050 Mhz (This is what a GHz edition would run at with boost): FPS: 64; Score: 2678

core 1209 Mhz: FPS 71.4; Score: 2988

core 1309 Mhz: FPS 76.1; Score: 3184 (First time I've hit 40 deg C on this card under water)

Mem clock was 1500 for all runs.

Seems more or less linear to me. Let's see what the almighty Titan can do!

cynan wrote:

Let's see what the almighty Titan can do!

A little bit faster than your results (not my own card):

JohnC wrote:

cynan wrote:

Let's see what the almighty Titan can do!

A little bit faster than your results (not my own card):

Well, ir's obviously because those Titan benches were run at 1920x1080 while the HD 7970 was running at 1920X1200

Well, you can drop resolution lower to match this

JohnC wrote:

cynan wrote:

Let's see what the almighty Titan can do!

A little bit faster than your results (not my own card):
Image here

Wow. That's nice...heh, the min is almost higher than my max. *right in the chest*
I'm trying to hold out till 2015!

And also, that Titan benched above must have been overclocked pretty much to the max. From the quick dig around google, it seems that the HD 7970 gives a good 2/3 the performance of the Titan in the Valley benchmark.

cynan wrote:

And also, that Titan benched above must have been overclocked pretty much to the max. From the quick dig around google, it seems that the HD 7970 gives a good 2/3 the performance of the Titan in the Valley benchmark.

I wanna see Titan SLI run this now.
EDIT: added in the end pic for my system in the op.