New Lightsmark 2007 OpenGL Benchmark

[skier]

Up to 144 now, woohoo!

how did it double?

[martini161]

sorry for the hugeness. rig in sig, clocked lower on the gfx
if you cant see the score its 530

[ibleet]

We can't see what resolution you ran it at, which is important. Nice score BTW!

What 3dMark06 score you getting with that rig?

[vicaphit]

Up to 144 now, woohoo!

how did it double?

I tore out the 7600GT, and put in an 8800GT.

My Athlon 4000+ kinda hurts my score though.

[Sparky]

Had to try it on the new laptop!

[ibleet]

@martini161 - what resolution did you run it at to score 530?

I wanna see your score at 1280x1024.

[DMB2000uk]

@martini161 - what resolution did you run it at to score 530?

I wanna see your score at 1280x1024.

1440x900 looks to be his monitors native res, so it won't do 1280x1024 if that is the case. Minus 1.12% from his 1440x900 score and it should be the same pixel count as 1280x1024 (provided the benchmark scales linearly). But we still need confirmation of the 1440 run

Dan

[martini161]

SHHHHHHHH!!! i ran it at 640x480 to make my score look higher ill post my 1280x1024 score later. and i may do more tests to see if this benchmark does infact scale linearly

[ibleet]

SHHHHHHHH!!! i ran it at 640x480 to make my score look higher ill post my 1280x1024 score later. and i may do more tests to see if this benchmark does infact scale linearly

LMFAO! I was wondering how you bested my score! You tricky devil you.

[vicaphit]

I ran mine again in vista, and with a slight overclock and scored 175 at 1280x720.

[Bio-Hazard]

Here ya go, this is mine for right now...........;). I'll have to reboot into Windows to do a bit of OC'ing and run it again if I need to.

Default setings.

LM483.JPG (130.35 KiB) Viewed 44393 times

640x480........;)

LM789.JPG (129.57 KiB) Viewed 44386 times

[vicaphit]

I saw the 789 and my jaw dropped, then I saw the resolution listed on the picture title. Though Lightsmark shows 1280x1024 still.

Still, awesome scores!

[martini161]

wow bio, even though your gpu clock was only 75 mhz higher, you got like 230 more points than me. looks like it doesn't scale very linearly at all in terms of gpu clock

[Bio-Hazard]

check to see what your shader and memory clocks are, they all play a part in the overall score.

[ibleet]

Matched Bio's GPU clocks and ran this...same CPU, lower FSB, GT vs GTS, win xp Pro.

[Bio-Hazard]

You got a few more shaders going for yourself there......;)

CPU clocks don't seem to play a huge role in this really, the difference between 3.2 and 3.6 on my rig isn't what I would call impressive.

[ibleet]

Ya, I agree...cpu clocks play more of a role using something like 3DMark06. The extra 20 points come from the GTS.

Post your latest 3dMark06 score.

[Bio-Hazard]

It's floating around here somewhere on the forums, not sure where anymore..............

14,000 something I think.

[ibleet]

Yep, I figured you would get me on that one.

[Bio-Hazard]

Here's a screenie of mine.................