johnksss

On 1/27/2017 at 3:23 PM, LordTyler said:

 

Klem,

 

Do you know of a vBIOS with a .950 voltage at default?

Yep. One of mine. Not the stolen version of the one posted at the beginning of this thread.

Dang, it's been a while since i Posted anything over here.

Decided to go ahead and bench the 6820HK/1070N. It would seem this little beast knocked out all the competition in it's class at the moment. Being BGA and all.

http://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/geforce_gtx_1070_notebook_mxm/

Now this is interesting.....

Yep. This is true. You certainly did have a bad luck run on gpus, but it's always nice to actually get some good ones from time to time.

Side Note:

That score was hidden because it's over all score was lower.

At the end of the day....After the numbers are crunched....They are still the same. A half of a fps does not really settle things.

There you go speed racer.

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11456296

It's because on a laptop you can not control the load line calibration setting.

On most desktop boards you can control this thus locking the voltage in place.

I found during my testing that it does still work in our favor for a variety of benches, that is for sure.

Just load another ssd is all.

The score is definitely a 1070. 100% sure of that.

100% sure his 980M is not 2k/2k

And the machine in question is a 

https://www.google.com/search?q=Terrans+Force+X799&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS707US707&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZtvaLloXPAhUQzGMKHbSsAmYQ_AUICigD&biw=2560&bih=1274#imgrc=qmeM6AgjWzp0lM%3A

So maybe a TB2/TB3 1070 is what he used. 

Their website is too damn slow to load. Seems they have a 1070 model as well, still...not sure how the 980M is in there unless they used maybe mini pcie to 1070

5 hours ago, Prema said:

2000Mhz, DA FUCK?!:

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10075267

@Johnksss
@Mr. Fox

@Khenglish

It is reading wrong.....

He has a 1070 also.

Sorry, miss read that.

You need to run a modded vbios with higher voltage.

It takes a memory volt mode to get things rolling.....

Yep. 

11 hours ago, D2ultima said:

Okay. I've run the three benches I said I would. I DID see a benefit on single GPU in the physics test. But it was very slight, as reflected in the results.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10073292/fs/10073334/fs/10073378

 

As far as I can see, this is what should happen. The slight benefit, logically, is due to the fact that SLI in itself has a CPU overhead to render. The same should be for crossfire. It's probably a good thing people haven't figured out a way to use NVPI to specifically disable SLI via NVAPI for the physics test alone, or that would be a way to boost scores without actually turning SLI on/off inbetween tests (which would really be impossible I think).

 

As for why multi-GPU is doing better in Physics with Maxwell (and Pascal, since Pascal is essentially die-shrunk maxwell overclocked), you've got me stumped right there. I couldn't begin to guess. It makes no logical sense to me.

Physics is for the cpu. No GPU involvement.

I'll let you guys figure out the tech aspects of it. I'm just going to bench it and move on.

Getting better @D2ultima

Higher Physics Score, but it still lost.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10073122/fs/10073016

5 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

The fourth one was at 3.9GHz, though. What I can do at some point is run a firestrike, disable SLI, run another, enable SLI, then run a final one, and see if scores are generally consistent across them for Physics or not. I will have to do it at 3.8GHz however, since 3.9GHz has been wonky on this particular 4800MQ ever since I've gotten it. Randomly shuts off the PC under stress if I use it. I figure I could toss more voltage at it and stabilize it, but I'd rather use what I know is stable.

 

This however will be later, as I'm about to play some Killing Floor 2 with a friend.

My apologies though! I did not mean to offend

Side note

Good thing physics is on it's way out the door. 

8 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

Your own scores show that 1080N does the same thing.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9988160 single GPU from you, 4788MHz, 14,790 score.

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9954310 dual GPU from you. 4790MHz, 15085 score.

Yep, because of an os slow down i can't seem to get straighten out yet.

Im actually 500+ points behind from what pap was saying.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/3489139/fs/7284874/fs/6599319

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/3489139/fs/7284874/fs/6599319/fs/6040190

7 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

.....

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9954310/fs/10053831# this is the score comparison that @Mr. Fox posted with your score versus another user with a 6920HQ at 4GHz.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/10053831 This is the score that I pulled from the above link just now, to look specifically at the Physics score (35.11fps; 11,059 score).

 

http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9595299 This is a run from @Spellbound, who I asked to provide one of her benches with her 6700K at 4GHz for me, so I could check her physics score (39.79fps; 12,534 score), as I felt that the above 6920HQ run was way too slow. Also, I noted that in his other benchmark (the comparison in Mr. Fox's post to your score in Time Spy and the MSI score in Time Spy was from the same person) his CPU only went up to 3.6GHz (either he removed the overclock, or something else happened).

 

My original post, saying "something is wrong", is pointing out that the 6920HQ at 4GHz should have minimum cracked 12K, and not sat at 11k on the PHYSICS test.

 

You bashed me, and posted a single GPU benchmark with a 4.7GHz chip in response. That was pointless. Then you told me that single GPU gets higher Physics scores than SLI setups, which while it may be true, does not equate to 1500 points lost. And then you post benchmarks for single GPU where the highest CPU speed is 3.6GHz, which does not equate to the 4GHz that was supposedly on the MSI benchmark.

 

What exactly have I "misunderstood" now? Unless if I go and disable SLI on my notebook and run a single GPU firestrike right now, I'll end up with a solid 1.5k increase in score?

I think you should go and read my edit's...:)

Edit: Yep. Why don't you go disable sli and find out for yourself. I'll wait right here.

Unless you have a 6920hq/980N setup? Then I already know that answer as well.

 http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9595299

That is a 6700k, where do you get 6920hq from that?

I think you might want to go back and check first before jumping the gun my friend....

These are more closer to what you should be looking at.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10011170/fs/10001580/fs/10059807

And like i have pointed out many times before. A single gpu physics score will always be higher unless the person benching does not know what they are doing by a very very long shot.

(Apparently not the case with 6920HQ and 980N. See below)

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9269885/fs/7575204/fs/8619427/fs/7602138/fs/9312667/fs/10053831

But this one is the one that would prove your point..

And now I understand why hmscott made the comment about higher physics with dual cards. That would seem to hold true for the 6920HQ.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/10053831/fs/7808124/fs/8437252/fs/8124431

17 minutes ago, D2ultima said:

Copying and pasting from NBR:

I thought something was very odd about this... and I was right. In Firestrike ALONE he runs at "4GHz" (the rest have a slower reported clockspeed, unlike John's benches). But his physics score is too low. Here's @Spellbound's physics score from a random bench she did with stock CPU clocks: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/9595299

 

Note how her physics score was 12500? The 6920HQ at 4GHz (I know it can clock up to and hold 4GHz on all 4 cores without issue as long as the laptop isn't limiting it somehow) only had 11059 for Physics. That's too large a discrepancy; it was throttling pretty hard. My 3.8GHz 4800MQ can get about 10400 with crap RAM; Skylake at 3.8GHz or a bit less might hit 11,000. But that wasn't 4GHz.

This is exactly why things go the way they do.

Why don't you try matching it with a SINGLE gpu setup like it was meant to be compared to in stead of thinking you found the holy grail of mistakes made.

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/9988160/fs/9595299

Edit:

And I have explained this thing with physics quite a few times already, but no one seems to get it so I shut up about it. Those that figure it out see the gains while others do not.

Desktop cards are now caught.