NVIDIA forum benchmarking leaderboard new threads planned
  1 / 5    
Good day everyone!

There have been some excellent threads in the past on both nzone and slizone to act as a leaderboard for benchmark scores, however unfortunately the original thread creators (in all instances) have since disappeared. In addition there have been no new threads established since the forum merger and restructure. I think such an addition to the forum will help to increase activity, keep a better track of our scores... plus allow some friendly competition of course /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

I am therefore currently planning to create a number of new threads in the Hall of Fame section in order to act as official leaderboards for the NVIDIA forums. To avoid the possibility of these threads going dead like others have in the past, the spreadsheet that contains the data will be published as a web page using a google spreadsheet. This not only keeps the data somewhere else other than a forum post, but also allows for other people to be given editing rights. This ensures that if I disappear for any reason the updates can continue.

The current plan is that I will be providing another chosen forum member access rights, along with a forum moderator as backup. A moderator may also be involved in the initial posting of the topics to ensure that updates simply need to be made to the spreadsheet and not the initial thread post itself.

Periodically I will also export the spreadsheet data to a .xls file as backup.

Provisionally the plan is to create four threads:
- 3D Mark 06
- 3D Mark Vantage (PPU enabled)
- 3D Mark Vantage (PPU disabled)
- 3D Mark 11

This thread is to ask for ideas and feedback on the structure of these threads before they are created. I.e. how many seperate threads, and what information people feel should be recorded in the sheet. Should standard tests be used, or Performance/Extreme? Should only FM approved drivers be allowed? Are there other benchmarks that should be considered rather than the FM ones?

Another idea i've seen on other forums is that of a thread that covers a number of different benchmarks, with a leaderboard based on cumulative scores.

Otherwise, the general plan is much the same as other threads that have been created in the past. In order to have your score added to the spreadsheet, a valid compare link or screenshot for your score is [u]required[/u].

In addition to this, I think it would be useful to include the following information for reference:
- CPU clock (multiplier & FSB speed)
- GPU type (and SLI details)
- GPU clocks
- Driver version

Slightly thieving the format from an existing thread, an example of the type of spreadsheet I am referring to is here:
[url="https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AoseDXynJ8lTdEs3bm5QTU0yODhpLVhsdkJ2a1RidlE&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html"]3D Mark Vantage (PPU enabled)[/url]

Please let me know your thoughts :)


J
Good day everyone!



There have been some excellent threads in the past on both nzone and slizone to act as a leaderboard for benchmark scores, however unfortunately the original thread creators (in all instances) have since disappeared. In addition there have been no new threads established since the forum merger and restructure. I think such an addition to the forum will help to increase activity, keep a better track of our scores... plus allow some friendly competition of course /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



I am therefore currently planning to create a number of new threads in the Hall of Fame section in order to act as official leaderboards for the NVIDIA forums. To avoid the possibility of these threads going dead like others have in the past, the spreadsheet that contains the data will be published as a web page using a google spreadsheet. This not only keeps the data somewhere else other than a forum post, but also allows for other people to be given editing rights. This ensures that if I disappear for any reason the updates can continue.



The current plan is that I will be providing another chosen forum member access rights, along with a forum moderator as backup. A moderator may also be involved in the initial posting of the topics to ensure that updates simply need to be made to the spreadsheet and not the initial thread post itself.



Periodically I will also export the spreadsheet data to a .xls file as backup.



Provisionally the plan is to create four threads:

- 3D Mark 06

- 3D Mark Vantage (PPU enabled)

- 3D Mark Vantage (PPU disabled)

- 3D Mark 11



This thread is to ask for ideas and feedback on the structure of these threads before they are created. I.e. how many seperate threads, and what information people feel should be recorded in the sheet. Should standard tests be used, or Performance/Extreme? Should only FM approved drivers be allowed? Are there other benchmarks that should be considered rather than the FM ones?



Another idea i've seen on other forums is that of a thread that covers a number of different benchmarks, with a leaderboard based on cumulative scores.



Otherwise, the general plan is much the same as other threads that have been created in the past. In order to have your score added to the spreadsheet, a valid compare link or screenshot for your score is required.



In addition to this, I think it would be useful to include the following information for reference:

- CPU clock (multiplier & FSB speed)

- GPU type (and SLI details)

- GPU clocks

- Driver version



Slightly thieving the format from an existing thread, an example of the type of spreadsheet I am referring to is here:

3D Mark Vantage (PPU enabled)



Please let me know your thoughts :)





J

Official GeForce Forums Benchmarking Leaderboards
NVIDIA SLI Technology: A Canine's Guide

Corsair Obsidian 350D mATX, Asus Maximus VI GENE Z87 mATX, Intel Core i7-4770k @ 4.40GHz, Corsair H110, Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x4GB) @ 2400MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, 1x WD Scorpio Black 750GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 1TB, EVGA GeForce GTX 780Ti Superclock, Enermax 1250W Evolution, Windows 8 64bit.

Logitech G9x, Razer Black Widow Ultimate, Logitech G930, 2x Eizo EV2333W.

Twitter | Steam

#1
Posted 12/01/2010 10:14 AM   
While I'm mulling over the ins-and-outs of this excellent idea, you might swap the numbers in your FSB and Multi columns...

While I'm mulling over the ins-and-outs of this excellent idea, you might swap the numbers in your FSB and Multi columns...


Intel Siler DX79SI Desktop Extreme | Intel Core i7-3820 Sandy Bridge-Extreme | DangerDen M6 and Koolance MVR-40s w/Black Ice Stealths | 32 GB Mushkin PC3-12800LV | NVIDIA GTX 660 Ti SLI | PNY GTX 470 | 24 GB RAMDisk (C:\Temp\Temp) | 120 GB Intel Cherryville SSDs (OS and UserData)| 530 GB Western Digital VelociRaptor SATA 2 RAID0 (C:\Games\) | 60 GB G2 SSDs (XP Pro and Linux) | 3 TB Western Digital USB-3 MyBook (Archive) | LG BP40NS20 USB ODD | LG IPS236 Monitor | LogiTech X-530 Speakers | Plantronics GameCom 780 Headphones | Cooler Master UCP 1100 | Cooler Master HAF XB | Windows 7 Pro x64 SP1

Stock is Extreme now

#2
Posted 12/01/2010 11:13 AM   
[quote name='jaafaman' date='01 December 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1291202025' post='1154148']
While I'm mulling over the ins-and-outs of this excellent idea, you might swap the numbers in your FSB and Multi columns...
[/quote]

A very reasonable point :P

Changes made, should automatically republish in a few minutes.


J
[quote name='jaafaman' date='01 December 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1291202025' post='1154148']

While I'm mulling over the ins-and-outs of this excellent idea, you might swap the numbers in your FSB and Multi columns...





A very reasonable point :P



Changes made, should automatically republish in a few minutes.





J

Official GeForce Forums Benchmarking Leaderboards
NVIDIA SLI Technology: A Canine's Guide

Corsair Obsidian 350D mATX, Asus Maximus VI GENE Z87 mATX, Intel Core i7-4770k @ 4.40GHz, Corsair H110, Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x4GB) @ 2400MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, 1x WD Scorpio Black 750GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 1TB, EVGA GeForce GTX 780Ti Superclock, Enermax 1250W Evolution, Windows 8 64bit.

Logitech G9x, Razer Black Widow Ultimate, Logitech G930, 2x Eizo EV2333W.

Twitter | Steam

#3
Posted 12/01/2010 11:20 AM   
Hey Jim, I have some suggestions for you if that's OK.

First of all, I think this is a fantastic idea and is something that should of been done a long time ago.

Number one on my list of suggestions is that I don't think that there should be a PPU enabled Vantage thread. FutureMark doesn't allow you to submit a score if the PPU is enabled so in the spirit of making our list comparable to what is on their site and other forums, it would possibly be best to not have a PPU scoreboard. I also believe that having both would cause the PPU disabled thread to be ignored by most users as it would mean a lower score, hence less "e-peen" waving. Just a suggestion, however I feel that a lot of people will reject this proposition on accounts of it not being "The Ways It's Meant to be Played."

The other thing was that it may be hard to do a 3DMark 06 scoreboard as when I tried to submit a score yesterday, FutureMark's website informed me that support has been discontinued. I believed that without a paid for account, the only way to show one's score was to submit it to the FutureMark site, however, this may just be an issue with their site caused by the looming release of 3DMark 11.

Thanks for taking this up Jim, it really is appreciated.
Hey Jim, I have some suggestions for you if that's OK.



First of all, I think this is a fantastic idea and is something that should of been done a long time ago.



Number one on my list of suggestions is that I don't think that there should be a PPU enabled Vantage thread. FutureMark doesn't allow you to submit a score if the PPU is enabled so in the spirit of making our list comparable to what is on their site and other forums, it would possibly be best to not have a PPU scoreboard. I also believe that having both would cause the PPU disabled thread to be ignored by most users as it would mean a lower score, hence less "e-peen" waving. Just a suggestion, however I feel that a lot of people will reject this proposition on accounts of it not being "The Ways It's Meant to be Played."



The other thing was that it may be hard to do a 3DMark 06 scoreboard as when I tried to submit a score yesterday, FutureMark's website informed me that support has been discontinued. I believed that without a paid for account, the only way to show one's score was to submit it to the FutureMark site, however, this may just be an issue with their site caused by the looming release of 3DMark 11.



Thanks for taking this up Jim, it really is appreciated.

Image

#4
Posted 12/01/2010 12:05 PM   
[quote name='The Professor' date='01 December 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1291205115' post='1154158']
Hey Jim, I have some suggestions for you if that's OK.

First of all, I think this is a fantastic idea and is something that should of been done a long time ago.

Number one on my list of suggestions is that I don't think that there should be a PPU enabled Vantage thread. FutureMark doesn't allow you to submit a score if the PPU is enabled so in the spirit of making our list comparable to what is on their site and other forums, it would possibly be best to not have a PPU scoreboard. I also believe that having both would cause the PPU disabled thread to be ignored by most users as it would mean a lower score, hence less "e-peen" waving. Just a suggestion, however I feel that a lot of people will reject this proposition on accounts of it not being "The Ways It's Meant to be Played."

The other thing was that it may be hard to do a 3DMark 06 scoreboard as when I tried to submit a score yesterday, FutureMark's website informed me that support has been discontinued. I believed that without a paid for account, the only way to show one's score was to submit it to the FutureMark site, however, this may just be an issue with their site caused by the looming release of 3DMark 11.

Thanks for taking this up Jim, it really is appreciated.
[/quote]

I see what you mean about the Vantage threads - it certainly is a tricky one. Obviously NVIDIA cards are going to dominate a PPU enabled leaderboard due to the inherent advantages of PhysX in these tests. This then makes it difficult for it to become truly comparative - I therefore would tend to agree with you that we should have a non-PPU thread only. It then becomes something a lot more relevant for other (non-NV forum members) as a true comparison.

Any thoughts on the mode of test that should be run with Vantage? My general feeling is that P is sufficient, and there is no need to run the H or X tests.

I'd be surprised if 3D Mark 06 has reached that stage - I only recently ran 03 for and was able to submit my score fine. Will download 06 onto my laptop now and give it a whirl.

A 3D Mark 11 thread will certainly draw a lot of interest therefore it would be good to have this in place as close to release as possible. but will leave discussing the format of this one till its available.

What are peoples thoughts on other benchmarks like Heaven, SuperPi, etc?


J
[quote name='The Professor' date='01 December 2010 - 12:05 PM' timestamp='1291205115' post='1154158']

Hey Jim, I have some suggestions for you if that's OK.



First of all, I think this is a fantastic idea and is something that should of been done a long time ago.



Number one on my list of suggestions is that I don't think that there should be a PPU enabled Vantage thread. FutureMark doesn't allow you to submit a score if the PPU is enabled so in the spirit of making our list comparable to what is on their site and other forums, it would possibly be best to not have a PPU scoreboard. I also believe that having both would cause the PPU disabled thread to be ignored by most users as it would mean a lower score, hence less "e-peen" waving. Just a suggestion, however I feel that a lot of people will reject this proposition on accounts of it not being "The Ways It's Meant to be Played."



The other thing was that it may be hard to do a 3DMark 06 scoreboard as when I tried to submit a score yesterday, FutureMark's website informed me that support has been discontinued. I believed that without a paid for account, the only way to show one's score was to submit it to the FutureMark site, however, this may just be an issue with their site caused by the looming release of 3DMark 11.



Thanks for taking this up Jim, it really is appreciated.





I see what you mean about the Vantage threads - it certainly is a tricky one. Obviously NVIDIA cards are going to dominate a PPU enabled leaderboard due to the inherent advantages of PhysX in these tests. This then makes it difficult for it to become truly comparative - I therefore would tend to agree with you that we should have a non-PPU thread only. It then becomes something a lot more relevant for other (non-NV forum members) as a true comparison.



Any thoughts on the mode of test that should be run with Vantage? My general feeling is that P is sufficient, and there is no need to run the H or X tests.



I'd be surprised if 3D Mark 06 has reached that stage - I only recently ran 03 for and was able to submit my score fine. Will download 06 onto my laptop now and give it a whirl.



A 3D Mark 11 thread will certainly draw a lot of interest therefore it would be good to have this in place as close to release as possible. but will leave discussing the format of this one till its available.



What are peoples thoughts on other benchmarks like Heaven, SuperPi, etc?





J

Official GeForce Forums Benchmarking Leaderboards
NVIDIA SLI Technology: A Canine's Guide

Corsair Obsidian 350D mATX, Asus Maximus VI GENE Z87 mATX, Intel Core i7-4770k @ 4.40GHz, Corsair H110, Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x4GB) @ 2400MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, 1x WD Scorpio Black 750GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 1TB, EVGA GeForce GTX 780Ti Superclock, Enermax 1250W Evolution, Windows 8 64bit.

Logitech G9x, Razer Black Widow Ultimate, Logitech G930, 2x Eizo EV2333W.

Twitter | Steam

#5
Posted 12/01/2010 02:14 PM   
Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.

I think we should definitely have separate PPU Enabled/Disabled threads for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage, which it is in some games. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

This is a great idea, I was actually considering proposing it myself, but when I remembered how gargantuan the task is of keeping a thread like that up to date, especially the initial onslaught of numbers like there probably would be, could be quite daunting.

I wouldn't mind helping out by maintaining one of the threads if you don't want to handle all 4, just lemme know if you want the help.

Sidenote: Wow, you're still using 189-series drivers :-D GTX 295 ftw? I heard they have issues with newer drivers.

I will be getting my GTX 580 in the next... 10 hours or less from UPS, so my question would be, what's the plan as far as multiple setups/video card setups goes?

Like say for instance if I were to run benchies on my system with my 285s in SLi, then the 580, and my 260 and 9600GT, to have different reference points of expected speeds/performance numbers for different video cards, would each of those be listed separately? While that would add to the already big task of keeping this refreshed, I think it'd be nice because of the simple fact that it would allow Joe-Schmoe to come to the forum, view that thread, and, very likely be able to find the exactly (or around the same) hardware as he has, and see what score he SHOULD be getting. I think that should be a secondary purpose of these threads, on top of them of course being "Leaderboards".

Whatcha think?
Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.



I think we should definitely have separate PPU Enabled/Disabled threads for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage, which it is in some games. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



This is a great idea, I was actually considering proposing it myself, but when I remembered how gargantuan the task is of keeping a thread like that up to date, especially the initial onslaught of numbers like there probably would be, could be quite daunting.



I wouldn't mind helping out by maintaining one of the threads if you don't want to handle all 4, just lemme know if you want the help.



Sidenote: Wow, you're still using 189-series drivers :-D GTX 295 ftw? I heard they have issues with newer drivers.



I will be getting my GTX 580 in the next... 10 hours or less from UPS, so my question would be, what's the plan as far as multiple setups/video card setups goes?



Like say for instance if I were to run benchies on my system with my 285s in SLi, then the 580, and my 260 and 9600GT, to have different reference points of expected speeds/performance numbers for different video cards, would each of those be listed separately? While that would add to the already big task of keeping this refreshed, I think it'd be nice because of the simple fact that it would allow Joe-Schmoe to come to the forum, view that thread, and, very likely be able to find the exactly (or around the same) hardware as he has, and see what score he SHOULD be getting. I think that should be a secondary purpose of these threads, on top of them of course being "Leaderboards".



Whatcha think?



Image


Image

Help fight Cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease by donating unused CPU and GPU power to Stanford University's Research Folding@Home projects:

Simplest method is to setup the FAH v7 client with this Windows Installation Guide

#6
Posted 12/01/2010 02:18 PM   
[quote name='jimbonbon' date='01 December 2010 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1291212892' post='1154188']
I see what you mean about the Vantage threads - it certainly is a tricky one. Obviously NVIDIA cards are going to dominate a PPU enabled leaderboard due to the inherent advantages of PhysX in these tests. This then makes it difficult for it to become truly comparative - I therefore would tend to agree with you that we should have a non-PPU thread only. It then becomes something a lot more relevant for other (non-NV forum members) as a true comparison.

Any thoughts on the mode of test that should be run with Vantage? My general feeling is that P is sufficient, and there is no need to run the H or X tests.

I'd be surprised if 3D Mark 06 has reached that stage - I only recently ran 03 for and was able to submit my score fine. Will download 06 onto my laptop now and give it a whirl.

A 3D Mark 11 thread will certainly draw a lot of interest therefore it would be good to have this in place as close to release as possible. but will leave discussing the format of this one till its available.

What are peoples thoughts on other benchmarks like Heaven, SuperPi, etc?


J
[/quote]


We definitely have to set standards. When I ran (I believe it was) a 3DMark06 Leaderboard, we stipulated "stock" free settings. Same should be done with 3DMark Vantage, because we have to remember not everyone is gonna wanna pay money to run it again, and the trial version only lets you run it once, and only on P(erfromance) settings. So we should definitely use P-settings as the benchmark for 3DMark Vantage.

I think as far as Heaven goes, the problem would become again, running standards. We'd have to have at least 2 separate tables for DX10 vs. DX11, and then we'd have to set "run at these settings", that'd be a real hassle cuz I know a lot of people, including myself, like to run it multiple times, some with AA enabled, some with AA Disabled, etc.

I'm gonna be running it in DX11 for the first time today, looking forward to it.

SuperPi I really don't think is worth having a leaderboard for anymore, but that's just my opinion. We could do as the old board had (I think anyway) and have a 1M and 32M (I think that's what they were) leaderboard, both in one thread.

I'm still a strong believe that we should have separate PPU Enabled and Disabled threads though, because for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage we deserve, the PPU Enabled thread would be nice, and for comparison to ATI users, the PPU Disabled thread will suffice.
[quote name='jimbonbon' date='01 December 2010 - 07:14 AM' timestamp='1291212892' post='1154188']

I see what you mean about the Vantage threads - it certainly is a tricky one. Obviously NVIDIA cards are going to dominate a PPU enabled leaderboard due to the inherent advantages of PhysX in these tests. This then makes it difficult for it to become truly comparative - I therefore would tend to agree with you that we should have a non-PPU thread only. It then becomes something a lot more relevant for other (non-NV forum members) as a true comparison.



Any thoughts on the mode of test that should be run with Vantage? My general feeling is that P is sufficient, and there is no need to run the H or X tests.



I'd be surprised if 3D Mark 06 has reached that stage - I only recently ran 03 for and was able to submit my score fine. Will download 06 onto my laptop now and give it a whirl.



A 3D Mark 11 thread will certainly draw a lot of interest therefore it would be good to have this in place as close to release as possible. but will leave discussing the format of this one till its available.



What are peoples thoughts on other benchmarks like Heaven, SuperPi, etc?





J







We definitely have to set standards. When I ran (I believe it was) a 3DMark06 Leaderboard, we stipulated "stock" free settings. Same should be done with 3DMark Vantage, because we have to remember not everyone is gonna wanna pay money to run it again, and the trial version only lets you run it once, and only on P(erfromance) settings. So we should definitely use P-settings as the benchmark for 3DMark Vantage.



I think as far as Heaven goes, the problem would become again, running standards. We'd have to have at least 2 separate tables for DX10 vs. DX11, and then we'd have to set "run at these settings", that'd be a real hassle cuz I know a lot of people, including myself, like to run it multiple times, some with AA enabled, some with AA Disabled, etc.



I'm gonna be running it in DX11 for the first time today, looking forward to it.



SuperPi I really don't think is worth having a leaderboard for anymore, but that's just my opinion. We could do as the old board had (I think anyway) and have a 1M and 32M (I think that's what they were) leaderboard, both in one thread.



I'm still a strong believe that we should have separate PPU Enabled and Disabled threads though, because for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage we deserve, the PPU Enabled thread would be nice, and for comparison to ATI users, the PPU Disabled thread will suffice.



Image


Image

Help fight Cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease by donating unused CPU and GPU power to Stanford University's Research Folding@Home projects:

Simplest method is to setup the FAH v7 client with this Windows Installation Guide

#7
Posted 12/01/2010 02:24 PM   
[quote name='Goddess84' date='02 December 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1291213110' post='1154189']
Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.
[/quote]
I doubt that was the only reason. Originally it was intended to showcase the Ageia PPUs but after nVidia enabled processing available on their GPUs, the whole thing went down hill. I'm sure FutureMark does not allow PPU scores more in the interest of fairness than because ATI "threw a hissy fit". I'm sure if they really cared, AMD would have bought Ageia when they were considering it to compete with Havok back in 2007.
[quote name='Goddess84' date='02 December 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1291213110' post='1154189']

Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.



I doubt that was the only reason. Originally it was intended to showcase the Ageia PPUs but after nVidia enabled processing available on their GPUs, the whole thing went down hill. I'm sure FutureMark does not allow PPU scores more in the interest of fairness than because ATI "threw a hissy fit". I'm sure if they really cared, AMD would have bought Ageia when they were considering it to compete with Havok back in 2007.

Image

#8
Posted 12/01/2010 02:37 PM   
[quote name='The Professor' date='01 December 2010 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1291214228' post='1154197']
I doubt that was the only reason. Originally it was intended to showcase the Ageia PPUs but after nVidia enabled processing available on their GPUs, the whole thing went down hill. I'm sure FutureMark does not allow PPU scores more in the interest of fairness than because ATI "threw a hissy fit". I'm sure if they really cared, AMD would have bought Ageia when they were considering it to compete with Havok back in 2007.
[/quote]

That's the main reason NVidia purchased it first, while AMD and Intel were battling over Havok. The original idea of Ageia PPUs was noble, and I think the fact that it was integrated in to NVidia cards, and thereby give us an edge in Physx-enabled games, should be able to be showcased on one of our leaderboards, as fair's fair, and it's a fact that NVidia cards will perform better than their ATI counterpart in games where Physx is used. That's more along the lines of what I meant. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
[quote name='The Professor' date='01 December 2010 - 07:37 AM' timestamp='1291214228' post='1154197']

I doubt that was the only reason. Originally it was intended to showcase the Ageia PPUs but after nVidia enabled processing available on their GPUs, the whole thing went down hill. I'm sure FutureMark does not allow PPU scores more in the interest of fairness than because ATI "threw a hissy fit". I'm sure if they really cared, AMD would have bought Ageia when they were considering it to compete with Havok back in 2007.





That's the main reason NVidia purchased it first, while AMD and Intel were battling over Havok. The original idea of Ageia PPUs was noble, and I think the fact that it was integrated in to NVidia cards, and thereby give us an edge in Physx-enabled games, should be able to be showcased on one of our leaderboards, as fair's fair, and it's a fact that NVidia cards will perform better than their ATI counterpart in games where Physx is used. That's more along the lines of what I meant. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



Image


Image

Help fight Cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease by donating unused CPU and GPU power to Stanford University's Research Folding@Home projects:

Simplest method is to setup the FAH v7 client with this Windows Installation Guide

#9
Posted 12/01/2010 02:40 PM   
[quote name='Goddess84' date='01 December 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1291213110' post='1154189']
Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.

I think we should definitely have separate PPU Enabled/Disabled threads for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage, which it is in some games. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />

This is a great idea, I was actually considering proposing it myself, but when I remembered how gargantuan the task is of keeping a thread like that up to date, especially the initial onslaught of numbers like there probably would be, could be quite daunting.

I wouldn't mind helping out by maintaining one of the threads if you don't want to handle all 4, just lemme know if you want the help.

Sidenote: Wow, you're still using 189-series drivers :-D GTX 295 ftw? I heard they have issues with newer drivers.

I will be getting my GTX 580 in the next... 10 hours or less from UPS, so my question would be, what's the plan as far as multiple setups/video card setups goes?

Like say for instance if I were to run benchies on my system with my 285s in SLi, then the 580, and my 260 and 9600GT, to have different reference points of expected speeds/performance numbers for different video cards, would each of those be listed separately? While that would add to the already big task of keeping this refreshed, I think it'd be nice because of the simple fact that it would allow Joe-Schmoe to come to the forum, view that thread, and, very likely be able to find the exactly (or around the same) hardware as he has, and see what score he SHOULD be getting. I think that should be a secondary purpose of these threads, on top of them of course being "Leaderboards".

Whatcha think?
[/quote]

[quote name='Goddess84' date='01 December 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1291213466' post='1154192']
We definitely have to set standards. When I ran (I believe it was) a 3DMark06 Leaderboard, we stipulated "stock" free settings. Same should be done with 3DMark Vantage, because we have to remember not everyone is gonna wanna pay money to run it again, and the trial version only lets you run it once, and only on P(erfromance) settings. So we should definitely use P-settings as the benchmark for 3DMark Vantage.

I think as far as Heaven goes, the problem would become again, running standards. We'd have to have at least 2 separate tables for DX10 vs. DX11, and then we'd have to set "run at these settings", that'd be a real hassle cuz I know a lot of people, including myself, like to run it multiple times, some with AA enabled, some with AA Disabled, etc.

I'm gonna be running it in DX11 for the first time today, looking forward to it.

SuperPi I really don't think is worth having a leaderboard for anymore, but that's just my opinion. We could do as the old board had (I think anyway) and have a 1M and 32M (I think that's what they were) leaderboard, both in one thread.

I'm still a strong believe that we should have separate PPU Enabled and Disabled threads though, because for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage we deserve, the PPU Enabled thread would be nice, and for comparison to ATI users, the PPU Disabled thread will suffice.
[/quote]

Thanks for the input guys and gals.

Yeh I have also been considering this for ages, and did raise this subject with the mods some time ago. Being around the forum merge time it was far from ideal however. Right now seems a good time to kick things off again, and I have the time to commit to it.

In terms of offering to help out to maintain the thread, many thanks. This may well be required, although lets see where we get to first. I also need to make sure there are not too many people doing the maintaining as this could make it messy again.

I think its okay to have multiple scores in the list, assuming there is a significant difference in the configuration of the computer. Making a call on this is pretty subjective, and will probably need to remain that way. Perhaps we need to set a maximum number per user (i.e. three perhaps?).

PPU versus non-PPU is always going to be a tricky discussion, so lets not get tied down in the history and technicalities of it...

I would agree it gives the NVIDIA users an advantage and therefore a PPU enabled thread fits the forum, but do we want a thread that only really applies to NVidia users? If the opinions are very mixed, then I would suggest we implement both.

Goddess - that data is from a long time ago now, although 185.85 is still the best driver I have found for benchmarking quad SLI with 295' :)


J
[quote name='Goddess84' date='01 December 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1291213110' post='1154189']

Futuremark doesn't like PPU being enabled because ATI threw a hissy fit... just an FYI.



I think we should definitely have separate PPU Enabled/Disabled threads for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage, which it is in some games. /wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />



This is a great idea, I was actually considering proposing it myself, but when I remembered how gargantuan the task is of keeping a thread like that up to date, especially the initial onslaught of numbers like there probably would be, could be quite daunting.



I wouldn't mind helping out by maintaining one of the threads if you don't want to handle all 4, just lemme know if you want the help.



Sidenote: Wow, you're still using 189-series drivers :-D GTX 295 ftw? I heard they have issues with newer drivers.



I will be getting my GTX 580 in the next... 10 hours or less from UPS, so my question would be, what's the plan as far as multiple setups/video card setups goes?



Like say for instance if I were to run benchies on my system with my 285s in SLi, then the 580, and my 260 and 9600GT, to have different reference points of expected speeds/performance numbers for different video cards, would each of those be listed separately? While that would add to the already big task of keeping this refreshed, I think it'd be nice because of the simple fact that it would allow Joe-Schmoe to come to the forum, view that thread, and, very likely be able to find the exactly (or around the same) hardware as he has, and see what score he SHOULD be getting. I think that should be a secondary purpose of these threads, on top of them of course being "Leaderboards".



Whatcha think?





[quote name='Goddess84' date='01 December 2010 - 02:24 PM' timestamp='1291213466' post='1154192']

We definitely have to set standards. When I ran (I believe it was) a 3DMark06 Leaderboard, we stipulated "stock" free settings. Same should be done with 3DMark Vantage, because we have to remember not everyone is gonna wanna pay money to run it again, and the trial version only lets you run it once, and only on P(erfromance) settings. So we should definitely use P-settings as the benchmark for 3DMark Vantage.



I think as far as Heaven goes, the problem would become again, running standards. We'd have to have at least 2 separate tables for DX10 vs. DX11, and then we'd have to set "run at these settings", that'd be a real hassle cuz I know a lot of people, including myself, like to run it multiple times, some with AA enabled, some with AA Disabled, etc.



I'm gonna be running it in DX11 for the first time today, looking forward to it.



SuperPi I really don't think is worth having a leaderboard for anymore, but that's just my opinion. We could do as the old board had (I think anyway) and have a 1M and 32M (I think that's what they were) leaderboard, both in one thread.



I'm still a strong believe that we should have separate PPU Enabled and Disabled threads though, because for those of us that believe Physx is an advantage we deserve, the PPU Enabled thread would be nice, and for comparison to ATI users, the PPU Disabled thread will suffice.





Thanks for the input guys and gals.



Yeh I have also been considering this for ages, and did raise this subject with the mods some time ago. Being around the forum merge time it was far from ideal however. Right now seems a good time to kick things off again, and I have the time to commit to it.



In terms of offering to help out to maintain the thread, many thanks. This may well be required, although lets see where we get to first. I also need to make sure there are not too many people doing the maintaining as this could make it messy again.



I think its okay to have multiple scores in the list, assuming there is a significant difference in the configuration of the computer. Making a call on this is pretty subjective, and will probably need to remain that way. Perhaps we need to set a maximum number per user (i.e. three perhaps?).



PPU versus non-PPU is always going to be a tricky discussion, so lets not get tied down in the history and technicalities of it...



I would agree it gives the NVIDIA users an advantage and therefore a PPU enabled thread fits the forum, but do we want a thread that only really applies to NVidia users? If the opinions are very mixed, then I would suggest we implement both.



Goddess - that data is from a long time ago now, although 185.85 is still the best driver I have found for benchmarking quad SLI with 295' :)





J

Official GeForce Forums Benchmarking Leaderboards
NVIDIA SLI Technology: A Canine's Guide

Corsair Obsidian 350D mATX, Asus Maximus VI GENE Z87 mATX, Intel Core i7-4770k @ 4.40GHz, Corsair H110, Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x4GB) @ 2400MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, 1x WD Scorpio Black 750GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 1TB, EVGA GeForce GTX 780Ti Superclock, Enermax 1250W Evolution, Windows 8 64bit.

Logitech G9x, Razer Black Widow Ultimate, Logitech G930, 2x Eizo EV2333W.

Twitter | Steam

#10
Posted 12/01/2010 03:30 PM   
Well what I was thinking, in terms of multiple submissions goes, is giving people "reference" stock scores to compare themselves against.

Say I run my system at 3GHz (stock) which is about average for a run-of-them-mill C2Q user, then run the benchies with the GTX 260, 285s in SLi, then the 580. That'd give everyone starting points with a C2Q and those cards, with which to compare themselves... then again at 4GHz, they'd have what numbers they should be getting at that speed... course, if we allow everyone to do that, we'd have 10000 scores from 400 people, so to speak.

But I think having a "reference point" chart perhaps separate from the actual "records" would be prudent... like, have each person's "record" and isolate that so it has to be a different setup, and only one score per setup maximum, on the record list, that way it doesn't get too crowded, but have a separate "references" list that have "stock" settings with certain setups so people know what they [i]should[/i] be getting at certain speeds etc.

I dunno, just reading that again makes it sound complicated, perhaps it'd be best if we leave the actually CHART itself to "records only". Like say my P27k score in Vantage with 3-way SLI-ed GTX 260s, then my 580 score, would be separate... Anywho, my head hurts, back to Starcraft II. lol
Well what I was thinking, in terms of multiple submissions goes, is giving people "reference" stock scores to compare themselves against.



Say I run my system at 3GHz (stock) which is about average for a run-of-them-mill C2Q user, then run the benchies with the GTX 260, 285s in SLi, then the 580. That'd give everyone starting points with a C2Q and those cards, with which to compare themselves... then again at 4GHz, they'd have what numbers they should be getting at that speed... course, if we allow everyone to do that, we'd have 10000 scores from 400 people, so to speak.



But I think having a "reference point" chart perhaps separate from the actual "records" would be prudent... like, have each person's "record" and isolate that so it has to be a different setup, and only one score per setup maximum, on the record list, that way it doesn't get too crowded, but have a separate "references" list that have "stock" settings with certain setups so people know what they should be getting at certain speeds etc.



I dunno, just reading that again makes it sound complicated, perhaps it'd be best if we leave the actually CHART itself to "records only". Like say my P27k score in Vantage with 3-way SLI-ed GTX 260s, then my 580 score, would be separate... Anywho, my head hurts, back to Starcraft II. lol



Image


Image

Help fight Cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's Disease by donating unused CPU and GPU power to Stanford University's Research Folding@Home projects:

Simplest method is to setup the FAH v7 client with this Windows Installation Guide

#11
Posted 12/01/2010 03:49 PM   
Hey Jim, Is the new topic going to be in Hall of Fame / Overclocking? If so then lets go for the numbers! This is NVIDIA, PPU Enabled, Yeah the Numbers

/spaz.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':spaz:' />
Hey Jim, Is the new topic going to be in Hall of Fame / Overclocking? If so then lets go for the numbers! This is NVIDIA, PPU Enabled, Yeah the Numbers



/spaz.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':spaz:' />

CM HAF 932 - ASUS Rampage IV Extreme- Intel i7 3930K - Mushkin Redline 16GB 2133 - Antec HCP 1200kw - Galaxy GTX 670 3 way SLI - 2 WD 1TB Black,WD 640GB Black, WD SSD 64GB - Thermaltake CLW0217 Water 2.0 Extreme - ASUS 24x - Logitech G9 - Logitech G105 - I INC 28" Monitor at 1920 X 1200 (Native) Wow Gaming is great! Speakers - Logitech 530's - Win 7 Ultimate 64bit

Posted by Rsabatino, techjesse you are the people's champ of overclocking

Vantage P70249ORB
Image

#12
Posted 12/01/2010 08:26 PM   
Also, if possible, set it up in "Classes" i7's, i5's, i3's, 775's and 200 series, 400 series, 500 series and so on..... TJ
Also, if possible, set it up in "Classes" i7's, i5's, i3's, 775's and 200 series, 400 series, 500 series and so on..... TJ

CM HAF 932 - ASUS Rampage IV Extreme- Intel i7 3930K - Mushkin Redline 16GB 2133 - Antec HCP 1200kw - Galaxy GTX 670 3 way SLI - 2 WD 1TB Black,WD 640GB Black, WD SSD 64GB - Thermaltake CLW0217 Water 2.0 Extreme - ASUS 24x - Logitech G9 - Logitech G105 - I INC 28" Monitor at 1920 X 1200 (Native) Wow Gaming is great! Speakers - Logitech 530's - Win 7 Ultimate 64bit

Posted by Rsabatino, techjesse you are the people's champ of overclocking

Vantage P70249ORB
Image

#13
Posted 12/01/2010 08:39 PM   
[quote name='techjesse' date='01 December 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1291235173' post='1154338']
Hey Jim, Is the new topic going to be in Hall of Fame / Overclocking? If so then lets go for the numbers! This is NVIDIA, PPU Enabled, Yeah the Numbers

/spaz.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':spaz:' />
[/quote]

Hi jesse - yep the plan is for the leaderboards to be situated in the Hall of Fame section, hence it is probably best to stick with best scores. Please keep the ideas coming though... This is hopefully for the good of the forums in general :)

Initial feedback implies we are only really going to see the best of both worlds by having a PPU enabled and PPU disabled thread...

All other ideas on rules, format, and data points appreciated.

EDIT - on your other point, my personal opinion is that this may complicate matters. In my experience from other threads it is nice to see the really heavily OC'd 775's up there with the i7's etc. CPU model and clocks will be noted... should LN cooled scores be allowed?!


J
[quote name='techjesse' date='01 December 2010 - 08:26 PM' timestamp='1291235173' post='1154338']

Hey Jim, Is the new topic going to be in Hall of Fame / Overclocking? If so then lets go for the numbers! This is NVIDIA, PPU Enabled, Yeah the Numbers



/spaz.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':spaz:' />





Hi jesse - yep the plan is for the leaderboards to be situated in the Hall of Fame section, hence it is probably best to stick with best scores. Please keep the ideas coming though... This is hopefully for the good of the forums in general :)



Initial feedback implies we are only really going to see the best of both worlds by having a PPU enabled and PPU disabled thread...



All other ideas on rules, format, and data points appreciated.



EDIT - on your other point, my personal opinion is that this may complicate matters. In my experience from other threads it is nice to see the really heavily OC'd 775's up there with the i7's etc. CPU model and clocks will be noted... should LN cooled scores be allowed?!





J

Official GeForce Forums Benchmarking Leaderboards
NVIDIA SLI Technology: A Canine's Guide

Corsair Obsidian 350D mATX, Asus Maximus VI GENE Z87 mATX, Intel Core i7-4770k @ 4.40GHz, Corsair H110, Corsair Dominator Platinum 16GB (4x4GB) @ 2400MHz, 1x OCZ Vertex 4 256GB, 1x WD Scorpio Black 750GB, 2x WD Caviar Black 1TB, EVGA GeForce GTX 780Ti Superclock, Enermax 1250W Evolution, Windows 8 64bit.

Logitech G9x, Razer Black Widow Ultimate, Logitech G930, 2x Eizo EV2333W.

Twitter | Steam

#14
Posted 12/01/2010 08:45 PM   
if you can do it on a benchmark (and it isnt cheating as layed out by the hardwarebot rules) then it should be allowed
if you can do it on a benchmark (and it isnt cheating as layed out by the hardwarebot rules) then it should be allowed

_ NVLDDMKM problems_ | _ problems getting a driver for a laptop graphics card_ | _What PSU do I need?_

[quote name='The Professor' date='11 August 2011 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1313055223' post='1277858']

I think Qazax is a pretty cool guy. eh kills aleins and doesnt afraid of anything.

#15
Posted 12/01/2010 08:54 PM   
  1 / 5    
Scroll To Top