Search the Community

UPDATE 4/7/21: I see this is still being used but fairly outdated. I will look to update this and create a new tracking system to organize the results. I have decided to start a LTT 3DMark spreadsheet for anyone looking to keep track of their scores in relation to other users of the community. Much thanks to Jumper118 for maintaining the Valley thread found here. I will be maintaining 3 different benchmarks to start, I will add more if needed later on. You can download 3DMark from their website: http://www.futuremark.com/benchmarks/3dmark Rules: You must use the template below to submit your score. Only valid scores will be added. If you are updating your score please indicate you are doing so in your post. Template: Benchmark: (Fire Strike, Fire Strike Extreme, Sky Diver) CPU: GPU: GPU Core: GPU Memory: Score: 3DMark Link: PCPartPicker Link: (optional) Current link (DXMember's May 17 2016 Update): https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=718A6487E3EBF0D2!175&authkey=!AFgMhhezFkbXg6Q&ithint=file%2Cxlsx

Hello world! I'll do my best to keep it short and sweet The Setup: Win11 + 120Ryzen 3900x + ROG Strix X570-E Gaming + 2x16GB Ram G. Skill Trident Z 3600 CL16 + (RTX 2080Ti) + Corsair RMX850x 3dmark 4y ago when I built the setup: ~14500 (sure, cant truly compare apple to apples with older versions of 3Dmark), but I could see GPU Load all maxed out back then. Sold a kidney and one eye and bought: RTX 4090 + MSI A1000G PCIE5 Run 3Dmark on the old setup and detected that the performance of my 2080ti was being really capped: My score ~8500 VS average of the community with same hardware: ~14000 Looking at the pretty graphs from 3dmark: CPU performance as expected (clock wise and CPU score), and temps never higher than 62c (eyeballing the graph). Clocks of the 2080ti: Consistent 1750mhz GPU Memory, and close to 2000mhz GPU Core, GPU Load: ~50% (eyeballing the graph), Temps always bellow 60c Thought to myself something was wrong, but who cares, I have a fancy new toy... Off with the old PSU, off with the old GPU. New PSU, new GPU, sexy and problematic single cable PCI5 cable. Everything boots up, new drivers from nvidia detected. Installed. Run 3dMark and I get... the same score range.. ~8500... GPU boosted a bit to 2800mhz, but seems to be averaging at 1200mhz. GPU Core temp max 48c. I think to myself, whatever... who cares about synthetic benchs? I boot up No Man's Sky, and I was having around the same FPS I had with the 2080ti! (at 4K, 70ish FPS). Ah... poorly optimized game.. sure... Cyberpunk.. crank everything up... (high quality than I used to play) and I get around the same FPS I had before! (At least the raytracing eye candy didn't seem to have impact in the performance). Thats when I went down the rabbit whole: Was it g-sync? No. Was it power profile of the computer? No. Was it the old BIOS? update to latest: No. Is it the CPU virtualization that I need to run docker containers? No. Was it the overclocked RAM? No. High activity of some random program on the background? No. Swamp the RAM sticks - their position between themselves- No Windows pending updates? No Should have removed all the graphic drivers before installing the new one? No worries, nuke windows and install it again: No Some power limit set? Install MSI afterburner, confirm power limit set to 100%: No Use MSI afterburner to train the Overclock curve and maybe it will work? No Was my cat seating on top of the computer? No Am I leaving performance on the table by pairing a 4090 with an old system? Yes, but I need to wait for my Kidney and eye to regenerate to sell them again (that's how it work, right?... right?) What makes things more interesting, is that in the miserable score I get, in the distribution graph that shows the scores of ppl with the same core hardware I have, it shows a little bump around my poor score, indicating that there is a fair number of people getting the same kind of scores that I get. Attached you can see the screenshots of the detailed results of 3DMark. I've also attached the 3dmark result files (if you want to open them with 3dmark to check all the details). My goal really isn't to use 3dmark as the source of all truth and reality (although I did put most focus on it, cuz it's the only instrumentation I got) but gaming is also showing that something is not ok. My knowledge, limited experience in debugging these issues, and whatever ability I have in googling things, leave me at thinking that ... maybe the motherboard is having a problem? But it's I don't know what best way to debug from here. Any tool that is able to capture more detailed information on what's happening with the card? Perhaps power delivery? I have no idea where to pick this from. I'm hopping that this community is able to help me, and all the other 3dmarkers that seem to be having the same problem, and I have a feeling that there might be people on a budget that might be extending themselves so they can enjoy their games, and be facing the same issue. The truth is that over the last 4 years, I went through a backlog of games, and I'm not able to tell when I started having this issue with the 2080ti. Jumping from old games, to AAA games, I believe that I just didn't notice performance drop, and accepted the underutilized reality of my 2080ti, since before this built I had not been playing for 10y. Thanks for reading all the way here, thanks in advance if you chose to help, and now I'll go curl into a ball and cry myself a river. 2080ti - 3DMark-TimeSpy-8651-20230725214529.3dmark-result 4090 - 3DMark-TimeSpy-8675-20230726171831.3dmark-result 2080ti when first built in 2019 - 3dmark-autosave-20190929205015.3dmark-result

Hey guys, I have a really weird issue with Time Spy, but first the specs: Ryzen 7 5800X, Powercolor Red Dragon RX 6800XT, Kingston Fury 32GB 3200MHz CL16 RAM, Asus TUF B550 motherboard, Asus TUF 750W 80+ Gold PSU, Windows 11, every driver is up to date. So I buildt this PC a few month ago and back then I only cared about GPU OC and decided to not touch anything else in BIOS except DOCP. Now Time Spy gave me very interesting results even back then, to be precise, my graphics score were much lower then others had with same settings on identical system. But my games were running with same performance as others, only 3DMark was fucking with me, so I didn't bother with it. And so we arrived to last weekend, my friend buildt the same system and hit 20k graphic score in Time Spy while my best was 18k AND WE HAD THE SAME OC SETTINGS. So I started to mess with the tuning in Adrenaline but nothing came close to even 18k score. My every day use OC is: Min freq 2500MHz, Max 2600MHz, UV 1050, VRAM fast timing and 2100MHz, power limit 15%. But benchmark was ran with min 500MHz and I simply changed Max to 2650MHz. Now here Time Spy crashed, then after setting UV to the max, which is 1150V, it eventually completed the benchmark, with, you guessed, NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL ! After searching on the internet, some people said on forums that PBO maybe can affect it and that auto PBO is like turning it off. So I set PBO to enabled instead auto. When I went back to run Time Spy once again it just crashed every time !!!!!!! So I reverted the changes I made but it still keeps crashing, actually doesn't matter what changes I make in Adrenaline cuz it crashes every time. Thought I killed Time Spy but reinstall didn't help and other benchmark softwares (Userbenchmark, Cinebench, Heaven, Prime 95-ran it for 7h, Furmark, PCMark, Geekbench) were actually running. After this I ran my PC for over 18h and tested performance in 15 games (ToF, RE4, FH5, Cyberpunk, Hogwarts Legacy, AC Valhalla, Marvel's Spider-man, GI, Last of Us, NFS Unbound, FF XV, Railway Empire 2, Forspoken, Knights of Honor 2, TW Warhammer 3) with max settings at 1440p. Played all game for over a hour and no crashes happened, temps were normal (even junction never above 95 °C), performance excellent and no problem with any other system parts either. So I just want a confirmation basically, that my PC has no stability problems if only problem is with 3DMark TimeSpy? And a question, should I set PBO to auto or enabled? (don't want to do any manual OC with my CPU atm)

Hello everyone. Recently I ran 3DMark on both of my 3070 cards. My first card (Gigabyte RTX 3070 Eagle OC) that’s been in the PC for around a year runs pretty hot at full load - sub 85 degrees. My second card (Asus RTX 3070 Dual) that I just put in runs way cooler – sub-70 degrees. There’s plenty of airflow in the case, 3 intake fans, and one exhaust fan. (Deepcool MATREXX 55 MESH ATX Mid Tower) The Gigabyte card has 3 fans, and the Asus one – has 2. Speaking of scores (image below) neither of the cards seems to hit the average score of a 3070. My questions are: Why cant I reach the average score? Could the difference between my scores and average scores be summed up to a margin of error? (100 – 900 less) Is the first 3070 running at 85 degrees vs the second one at sub-70 silicon lottery, or is the hotter card damaged/bad? What’s OC about the Gigabyte card? The only OC thing I see is that heat. One thing that crossed my mind – I’ve installed HD Sentinel and it shows that my Samsung 960 EVO 250 GB is at 42% health (no bad/weak sectors though). Both OS and 3DMark are installed on it. Maybe this could hamper performance. PC Specs: Motherboard: Asus Z490 Gaming X CPU: i5-10400f + Arctic Freezer 34 Cooler GPU: RTX 3070 RAM: 32 GB DDR4-2666 Corsair Vengeance SSD: Samsung 960 EVO 250 GB PSU: Gigabyte UD1000GM 1000W Case: Deepcool MATREXX 55 MESH ATX Mid Tower Monitor: AOC 1440p 75Hz

Hello, my 3DMark score is 2000 points under average with the same hardware, that's 1/3 the score of my old pc. I feel like I'm missing out on performance. My graphics card is a Powercolor Fighter Radeon RX 6700 XT which is quite slim with only two fans. My CPU is a 5700x cooled by a Dark Rock 4. They're both not overheating. Any ideas why it is? Thanks for reading, have a nice day!

I've posted here before about how I felt that my GPU/CPU were underperforming and one of the problems people pointed out was that I had only one RAM stick. So I decided to just buy the same stick and have 2x16gb. Would you consider the increase in the 3dmark's score to be worth it? The RAM is 2X DDR4 HyperX Fury Black 16GB/3000 CL15 RTX 3070 I7-10700k MSI B460 motherboard

So I got my new pc with the zotac rtx 3070 twin edge oc I7-10700K 16gb ram (single stick) msi b460 motherboard 700W power supply And I feel that the gpu itself is really underperforming, maybe it is the combination of the cpu and gpu that is causing the problem? I don't really know that much to tell. An online bottleneck calculator told me that the bottleneck is about 5% at 1440p and it was "great". What caught my attention the most is the framerate in the RDR2. I'm playing on 1440p 144hz with Vulcan and all setting on high. The built-in benchmark shows me the average fps to be around 85. It's rather low right? On a new cutting-edge gpu with high setting not even in 4k. I know it's not a 3090 but still. So I checked some old benchmarks of the RDR2 on older card and the guy with everything on high in 1440p, (I copied his settings) and he got the average of 88 fps with the 2080 super which I would consider as "less powerful"? So I did the 3Dmark benchmark (attachment) and it says the score is great but it is below average. I don't really want to overclock the gpu. What is also weird is that when I change the monitor to a 1080p one the fps doesn't really change that much. During load like the benchmark the temperature of the gpu doesn't exceed 70/71 degrees Celsius - hwmonitor ss also included - Even though it says 100% gpu usage I feel like it doesn't really unleash its power. So in the end, is the score perfectly fine or is the gpu just "bad" and I am missing something?

I just ran 3D Mark and I wanted some insight on how to improve my PC. I know the scores are low and I'm kind of embarrassed to ask, but it was an $800 USD setup that I couldn't be mad at, since i was broke at the time. Please look over the scores for me and tell me what I could improve vs is it even worth it? 3DMark Benchmark Result from their website: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER video card benchmark result - AMD Ryzen 5 3600,HP 8643 (3dmark.com)

I haven't seen any benchmarks yet for Windows 10 21H2 GPU-P with different cards and benchmarks. Can anyone point me to a source?

Was having the weirdest issues involving Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Video (DHCP content in general it seems) auto-restarting my PC, which I was able to fix by updating the BIOS on my ASUS B550-F Gaming (non WiFi) from version 1004 to 1202. After re-enabling XMP and whatnot I ran 3dmark to see if I would score similarly to before and ended up getting a similar score (expected), but found it weird that my cpu frequency now has strange dips even while under load. Any idea what the cause of this is? Maybe a new (stranger) boost algorithm via new BIOS? Thermals don't seem to be an issue. Will test in-game to see if this matters at all, still bugs me though lol. Screenshots below, thanks! Before: After:

Hi All, I recently built a pc and it is scoring very low on 3dmark, when performing the tests the screen is really laggy. I believe the parts I put together are of very high calibre and performance so I do not know why I am getting a poor score. Any ideas or suggestions much appreciated. 3dmark result: http://www.3dmark.com/fs/24465275 Specs: intel core i5 10600 3.3ghz cooler master hyper 212 LED Turbo Asus Prime H470m - plus LGA1200 mATX Desktop Motherboard Samsung 860 EVO serioes 500GB m.2 SSD Seagate Barracuda 4TB HDD Deep cool Matrexx 50 adressable RGB mid tower black case Zotac Gaming Geoforce RTX 3070 Twin Edge OC 8GB NZXT C Series C750 750W Modular 80Plus Gold ATX Power Supply Thank you

*attached the specs table* i have Asrock rx 6800 chellenger pro. every time i launched time spy it would crash when started to gpu test 1. (also other gpu stress benchmarks like superposition) after a few days i figured out that the radeon software has tuning options so i checked it out and it showed that default sepcs are over the manufacturer's specs. i changed chenged the specs until it passed the test on 92% frequency(stable in games aswell), but then it also ran ok if i started the test on 94% and then raised it to 100% and even 114%(not in games). even weirder is that when i raised the clock mid run it actually ran slower and got the same resault. is the radeon program reading the card specs wrong? is my gpu defective? is 12250~ score ok for this gpu without overclock? (1440p) *the freq seen in test for over 94% is starting 94% and then after 1 sec change to 100% or 113%

Specs are: 3090 tuf, 5800x, 4000mhz trident z royal, crosshair viii, and kraken x63. My score in Fire Strike was 31k and the average is 36k. I don't understand why. I have docp on and gpu and chipset drivers. Any clues?

Just wondering if it's a bug or what? Uninstalled this crap for now, but yeah, seems highly unprofessional, bug or not. Their phone app also never worked properly for me... Yes, I know, it's good for comparing pc performance, but jc... So just me or are they really having a constant update thing going on currently? (steam version)

Summary Benchmark results featuring alleged NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 16GB have now been posted on Chiphell forums. Chiphell’s member ‘panzerlied’ has shared the following benchmarks which give us an idea of how this upcoming GPU performs. Going into more details, 'panzerlied' shared benchmarks for 3DMark, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Red Dead Redemption 2. The first results are in native resolution and the second is with DLSS. As for Shadow of the Tomb Raider, its benchmarks are with DLSS Quality Mode. Quotes My thoughts First thing that should be mentioned is, as many of the news outlets pointed out, the card isn't coming out for another month; therefore how this individual obtained a driver that supports the RTX 4080 16GB is quite a conundrum. Take these results with a grain of salt definitely, could be fake. Now taking your skeptical glasses off, the RTX 4080 16GB here is 25% faster than an RTX 3090 Ti in Fire Strike Ultra. The RTX 4080 16GB is 31% faster than an RTX 3090 Ti in Time Spy Extreme. The RTX 4080 16GB is 19% faster than an RTX 3090 Ti in Port Royal. I tried finding a comparison for some of the gaming benchmarks that weren't present, but wasn't having too much luck. If you have an RTX 3080, 3080 Ti, 3090 or 3090 Ti and can test Shadow of the Tomb Raider with the same settings and RDR2 with DLSS enabled then post in this thread. As TechRadar mentions performance can definitely improve if you are disappointed by these results. As there is definitely some driver issues going on here. When official driver supports comes the 4080 16GB should surely be faster. Lastly, it should be noted that the OP of this leak on Chiphell deleted the post recently, now it says translated, "Okay, everyone knows, you can delete it". Sources https://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia-GeForce-RTX-4080-16-GB-gaming-and-synthetic-benchmarks-leak-online.659990.0.html https://www.guru3d.com/news_story/assumed_nvidia_geforce_rtx_4080_16gb_3dmark_performance_benchmarks_leaked.html https://www.techradar.com/news/nvidia-rtx-4080-gpu-leak-disappoints-some-gamers-but-lets-not-get-carried-away https://videocardz.com/newz/alleged-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-16gb-3dmark-benchmarks-have-been-leaked https://www.dsogaming.com/news/first-gaming-benchmarks-leaked-for-nvidia-geforce-rtx-4080-16gb/ https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/rtx-4080-16gb-benchmarks-performance-glimpse https://www.chiphell.com/thread-2448461-1-1.html

After getting an upgrade to a GTX 1080, the honorary benchmarking run went into effect as soon as I got the system up and running. My choice for benchmarking is 3DMark mostly because I have my results tracked on Futuremark's website. Still, the results do tell me enough about my systems across the years to see what improved or what didn't. 3DMark 03 I remember when I first ran this benchmark on a Athlon XP 2500+ and a GeForce FX 5600. And that machine chugged along, barely getting 30FPS in most of the tests. I don't have it recorded, but I'm pretty sure it only had a 4-digit score. And I remembered the glorious day I could finally run this benchmark suite at 60FPS. The main systems I have listed are: Core 2 Duo E8400 w/ GeForce 8800 GT 512MB: 39210 Core i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 51774 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 83417 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 148169 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 135828 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 141541 There's definitely one takeaway from this test now, you can use it as a CPU benchmark for your games! Well, that depends on how actual multi-core rendering comes along. The interesting points are: Between the i5-2500 and i5-4670K results. Just changing up the CPU added 30,000 points. I have no real explanation for this unless the i5-2500 ran at 3.3GHz the entire time and the i5-4670K ran at 4.0GHz (what I overclocked it to), but even taking architectural improvements into account, it shouldn't increase the score by nearly 40%. Upgrading the GTX 670 to the GTX 980 nearly doubled the score, but that was expected. Going to the i5-4670K to the i7-6700 seemed to be expected, since the i7-6700 (note there's no K here) runs at a lower clock speed. Even if I was bottlenecking the graphics card, the GTX 1080 still gets a measurable lead. The tests it excelled at were Battle For Proxycon and the feature tests. 3DMark 06 I skipped 3DMark 05 since it's mostly the same as 06. But since I mention 3DM05, I did run the Athlon machine on it. Needless to say it didn't like it very much (seconds per frame anyone?). Core 2 Duo E8400 w/ GeForce 8800 GT 512MB: 12161 Core i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 19740 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 33004 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 34498 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 32636 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 32702 Mostly the same relative results as 3DMark 03. Between the i5-2500 and the i5-4670K with the GTX 670, the FPS was boosted in the latter machine with the CPU test scores barely nudging. I do have a run with a laptop running a Core i7-4700HQ and the CPU test was appreciably better than either the i5 machines, suggesting 3DMark 06 had a pretty good multithreaded CPU test. 3DMark Vantage This is where the Core 2 Duo machine stops being recorded. But for some reason I'm also missing the i5-2500 machine results. The preset for this run was the Extreme preset. Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 17359 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 28705 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 40843 So the thing to note here is surprisingly, 3DMark Vantage is not low end enough to expose bottlenecking. Granted this is the Extreme preset, but the i7's did score appreciably better in the CPU test. 3DMark 11 For this one I seem to be missing the i5-4670K's results! Oh well, it's still nice to see how the old machine did. Actually for good measure, let's throw in the laptop run I have in here too. This time I used the Performance preset. i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 7716 i7-4700HQ w/ GeForce GTX 765M: 4237 i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 15205 i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 20448 The funny thing here is the laptop beat the i5-2500 in 3DMark 06, but here it's getting it's rear smacked down by it. It's also nice to see that relatively speaking for DX11, the i7-6700/GTX 980 combo is twice as powerful as the i5-2500/GTX 670 combo. But seeing an appreciable amount (like up to almost 70%) upgrading to the GTX 1080 certainly instills confidence that my processor isn't bottlenecking. 3DMark And here we come to the latest and greatest. But there's now five tests... and yes I did run the tests I could for my machines... Here are the results: Ice Storm Extreme: Core i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 120828 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 119531 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 156462 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 146869 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 147316 It's interesting to see where the graphics cards stop giving improvements to a low-end enough game and where raw single-threaded CPU power is needed to carry it. Cloud Gate: Core i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 14411 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 15934/17527 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 20131 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 28115 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 29920 The i5-4670K w/ GTX 670 is with and without an overclock. This benchmark seems to favor multiple threads by the jump between the i5-4670K and the i7-6700. The GeForce 900 and Radeon R9 300/Fury series seems to be the last GPU the results will greatly improve upon though. Sky Diver: Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 16006 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 24353 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 28799 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 35357 Sky Diver likes more threads it seems, and the technical brief explains that it runs the physics parts in multiple threads (up to 96). Otherwise between the two GTX 980 runs, the graphics score was the same. Though it's nice to see that with a GTX 1080, the score jumped up nicely. Fire Strike: Core i5-2500 w/ GeForce GTX 670: 5476 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 670: 5693 Core i5-4670K w/ GeForce GTX 980: 10720/5624 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: (DNR)/6058 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 16548/9542 The first/only scores are for the vanilla Fire Strike. The second scores are for Fire Strike Extreme. Similar to Sky Diver, the physics test wanted more logical cores, otherwise the graphics performance remained the same. Time Spy: Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 980: 4175 Core i7-6700 w/ GeForce GTX 1080: 6527 Going off on this alone, it seems to me that obviously the older the game or the technology (I'm guessing Ice Storm uses a DX9 render path), the more sensitive to single threaded performance it is. DX10 games may not be as CPU sensitive, as I did see a performance improvement expected between the GTX 980 and the GTX 670 despite the i5-4670K getting a slight edge over the i7-6700 if the test was pegging the CPU more. DX11 games? Well anything reasonably high end on the CPU side won't be bottlenecked as far as I know.

Summary Over at Weibo, the leaker known as “Golden Pig Upgrade” (translated) posted a result from a 3DMark Time Spy benchmark test with a 10,138 Time Spy Score (10,107 Graphics Score). This score was achieved with Intel’s new Arc Alchemist mobile GPU known as Arc A730M, which is not even the full ACM-G10 based model; this discrete GPU features 24 Xe-Cores out of 32 available. It is scoring between a RTX 3060 and 3070 Laptop GPU depending on where you look. Quotes My thoughts I'd say this is looking pretty darn good for Intel, IMHO. It's well in line with many of the previous predictions, so Intel definitely delivered in that regard. There seems to be some disparity between 3060 and 3070 performance, but that's expected with different Laptop models being tested and driver optimization. As for instance, my RTX 3060 Laptop scores 9,802 (9,303 Graphics) in Time Spy and 21,639 (23,288 Graphics) in Fire Strike. So, according to the charts I'm around a 3070 Laptop in Time Spy and the A730M in Fire Strike. I'd say this definitely brings the competition to the midrange mobile market; bringing hope to the release of the Arc desktop GPUs. Of course we will have to wait and see what sort of gaming performance Arc brings; as Tom's Hardware points out that it's easy to optimize for 3DMark rather than a wide gamut of games. Sources https://wccftech.com/intel-arc-a730m-12-gb-mobile-gpu-is-faster-than-nvidias-rtx-3070-mobility-3dmark-performance-benchmarks/ https://www.techpowerup.com/295592/intel-arc-a730m-3dmark-timespy-score-spied-in-league-of-rtx-3070-laptop-gpu https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/in-3dmarkthe-intel-arc-a730m-outperformed-the-rtx-3070-mobile.html https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-arc-a730m-is-faster-than-rtx-3070-laptop-gpu-in-3dmark-timespy-test https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-arc-a730m-close-to-mobile-rtx-3060-3dmark-time-spy Update to this story ~ Summary Weibo’s user “Golden Pig Upgrade” tested the Intel Arc A730M discrete mobile graphics card in a number of games, such as Assassin’s Creed: Odyssey, Metro Exodus, & F1 2020 at two resolutions. The performance is around an RTX 3060M or faster than a 3050 desktop but slower than 3060 desktop depending on the scenario. Quotes Sources https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-arc-a730m-game-tests-gaming-performance-differs-from-synthetic-performance.html https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-arc-a730m-has-been-tested-in-games-with-performance-between-rtx-3050-and-rtx-3060 https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-arc-a730m-gaming-benchmarks-show-rtx-3050-mobile-level-performance https://www.techpowerup.com/295624/intel-arc-a730m-tested-in-games-gaming-performance-differs-from-synthetic https://wccftech.com/intel-high-end-arc-a730m-gpu-is-barely-faster-than-an-nvidia-rtx-3050-in-gaming/ https://www.pcgamer.com/first-intel-arc-alchemist-benchmarks-are-a-bit-of-a-mixed-bag/ https://hothardware.com/news/intel-arc-a730m-benchmarks-mobile-geforce-rtx-gpus My thoughts I think there is definitely some driver maturation to be done of course, but performance is not too shabby. I know because of the synthetics people were expecting more, but I think this is still a great start to be honest. I'm not as gloom and doom as some of these news outlets are (not all of them are) because I think this is still early. I also think it's unfair to judge the GPU based solely on 3 games. Between now and when the GPUs are widely available they will definitely have some time to do some serious work. Second update to this story ~ Summary There are some more Gaming (and Workstation) Benchmarks available today, and it seems the Arc A730M loses to an RTX 3060M in mostly all instances (except Metro Exodus and Elden Ring). The performance is all over the place with many inconsistent results. There's a brief video from "Golden Pig Upgrade" comparing the Arc A730M and GeForce RTX 3060 Laptop and also a full review from IT-Home. The results from IT-Home are based on an unofficial driver (30.0.101.1726) so the results may vary. But both reviews appear to show similar synthetic performance, so the numbers should be accurate. Quotes Sources https://videocardz.com/newz/first-review-of-intel-alchemist-acm-g10-gpu-is-out-arc-a730m-is-outperformed-by-rtx-3060m-in-gaming https://wccftech.com/intel-arc-a730m-high-end-mobility-gpu-slower-than-rtx-3060m-despite-latest-drivers/ https://www.tomshardware.com/news/geforce-rtx-3060-mobile-kicks-intel-arc-a730m-around https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1US4y1i7ne https://www.ithome.com/0/623/070.htm My thoughts I'm guessing this might be why the lineup has been limited to Chinese markets first before global release. It might simply be that the software is not even close to ready. I know things were looking promising with the synthetics a few days ago, and even yesterday the first gaming benchmarks weren't looking too bad. But this is quite a different scenario altogether, as even the synthetics here have nothing beneficial going on for the A730M. This is supposed to be a relatively high-end GPU in the end and it's not really competitive with NVIDIA's mainstream offering. If this is the final performance to be expected when the product launches worldwide, the only saving grace is pricing; as the performance is pretty poor in this showing here. Obviously it would be best to wait until Arc lands into the hands of respected reviewers, instead of guesstimating performance from these early reviews. However, nevertheless, it's still quite disappointing.

Aloha everyone! I've been a fan for a bit, but never had a reason to reach out until now... ==>ISSUE: Over the last 2 weeks since I put my Aorus 2080super in I've been diagnosing a major GPU problem that's left me unable to play any game at almost any settings. Before this my system worked perfectly with my RX590 Fatboy backup; albeit at lower resolutions. -Since then I've used DDU, (safe mode), to uninstall ALL AMD/NVIDIA drivers. -Reinstalled NVIDIA 445.87 with windows auto-update off. -Updated all drivers at the manufacturer website; through aorus engine, in windows devices/printers. -Downloaded Nvidia Control Panel. ("Let the 3d Application Decide") -NOW: Uninstalled all HW control; NO Aorus Engine, no MSI Afterburner, No Corsair iCue, No RGB Fusion2.0. Wallpaper Engine disabled for week, (uninstalling that next). ==>SPECS: Just put this together over the last two months; my 4th PC build in 5 years. CPU - i59600k (No OC ever) MB - Aorus z390 ITX Wifi RAM - G.Skill Trident Z 8+8GB, 3000 (XMP Disabled) PSU - EVGA 750w GA (Full Mod) CASE - Thermaltake P1 ITX --RISER - Thermaltake AC-045-CN1OTN-C1 TT Premium PCI-E x16 3.0 Extender Riser GPU - 2080s Aorus 8GB (2 Separate/individual 6+2 Connectors; included with PSU) MON - Asus VG32VQ @1440p, HDMI2.0 SSD - Intel 660 M.2 1TB (Boot) --OS - Windows 10 Pro SSD - Samsung 990 EVO 1TB HDD - Seagate 4 TB ==>PROBLEMS: Artifacts in game include streaking, tearing, stuttering in COD:MW; red spots, lighting and reflection issues in everything especially Timespy Benchmark; spots and flickering in CIV6; freezes and black screens in Tomb Raider, Far Cry, Xcom2, etc. all ending in Directx/Developer Errors. All these games have crashed at 1 point, MY PC NEVER HAS TO RESTART, but recovers to Desktop: event examples below. It crashes in the 1st minute when running Aorus OC Auto Scan in Aorus Engine. Crashes in DX12 Timespy Test in under 3 mins. @100% load. / https://www.3dmark.com/3dm/46988902? Plays through DX11 Firestrike Test fine with no spikes but red spots and slight stuttering. ===>LOGS/Crashes: All logs in Google drive, screenshots are in numerical order by date. HWinfo logs should be labeled. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/18y1wu5vQ2DMFIccvLzS7y-MeTmsN0Vgq?usp=sharing CRASH EVENT EXAMPLES: **CIV6 CRASH (Ranges over 3 hours): https://drive.google.com/open?id=11R2qlfAnFSaR2CCLe2a0Es0yW2uhtw1f Black Screen -> Blue Screen -> Error Message of Failed graphics drivers -> firaxis crash report -> back in desktop; PC did not restart. **COD:MW CRASH (5 minute Log):https://drive.google.com/open?id=19vHMCtv_zVbGxsRPKqWP8CsDHZPTKLpy Frozen menu -> Black screen -> Dev. Error message about unrecoverable Directx failure -> back to desktop; PC did not restart. ======= Mahalo for reading! I have nothing better to do then solve this, so I'll be around if anyone has questions or advice. PS. Its been steadily worse since I uninstalled aorus engine, and the -MHz underclock. Idk if it was the underclocking that helped stabilize it as I didn't have artifacts before in civ6 and cod, but I just had a crash in Civ 6 when in my city center que-ing up production. I was already experiencing some black specs/artifacts on the map and cutscenes and wrote it off as FPS, *(even though its limited to 120 FPS in Nvidia Control Panel and 60FPS in game, @1440p High settings)*. In COD:MW, wih 150+FPS (no in game limiters only N CP), @1440p, Normal settings, I would see black streaks, tears and stuttering.

Hey folks, I´m a newbie in this forum, but not quite when it comes to PCs. I recently discovered a lot of errors with my video card (GTX 1080TI with Watercooling). When playing any game, the program will suddenly stop and sometimes display a driver error, but when used normally (Desktop/Youtube) it works just fine. First, I thought about a driver problem, because I updated it not long ago, but after multiple up and downgrades and a windows 10 reinstallation, it would still occur. Even more I than proceeded to use Fur Mark. It runs normally and does not crash whether I use the Burn Test, or the 4k Preset. To me personally this was a good sign. After continuing the testing with 3DMark TimeSpy I figured out, that it might be an API problem with DirectX, but Minecraft with good shaders will also crash. I went on by increasing the voltage using MSI Afterburner. -> no change Then I increased the power limit. -> Fur Mark dies and my PCs shows me pictures of a drug trip.... But after a reboot it will continue to work just fine, if not used for gaming. I really hope that my GPU isn´t dead...I have no warranty and only have had this card for 5 months. I am from Germany so I´m already sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes. Hope u can help me Best regards Lukas Thomann

Hello! I got a GTX 1080 last fall but I just realized I should be getting more frames in some games (only get around 150-200 in CS:GO), so I did a 3DMARK Time Spy benchmark (demo version) and got a score of 6162. https://gyazo.com/2dde766dd4337e1758f3afd2cd97e7cf Is that score low or is it normal? My specs are: GPU: ASUS GTX 1080 STRIX CPU: i5 4690k (not OC'd) 8gb ram Monitor at 1440p (ASUS ROG swift) (I'm planning on upgrading CPU, ram motherboard etc this summer)

source: https://steamcommunity.com/games/223850/announcements/detail/889837210517988628 good news everyone today, Futuremark replaced the deprecated MANTLE API Overhead test with Vulkan Overhead Test in case you didn't knew, MANTLE 'was" a low level graphics API developed by AMD for their Radeon graphics lineup sometime ago, AMD offered all their MANTLE knowledge to the Khronos Group who used it to develop Vulkan, a cross platform GPU vendor agnostic low level graphics API on PC, Vulkan is available for select AMD, nVidia and Intel GPUs 3DMark API Overhead is a tool used to measure the PC's capability to handle draw calls over 3 APIs: DirectX11, DirectX12 and Vulkan ^ as stated in Unity Engine's documentation

I have been trying to get Time Spy to work on my new GTX 1070 and it always errors out after collecting systeminfo. Anybody know how to fix this? All other tests run fine. Thanks in advance!

Recently a generic VGA card from amd has surfaced in the 3dmark time sky database. data from the site: 1200 mhz core clock; 8 Gb of Vram; 700 mhz memory clock (1.4 Gbps hbm2) 1800x at 3.6 Ghz with 16 Gb of 2133 mhz ram. and it got 5950 total score, with 5721 graphics score and 7699 cpu score. Opinion: this gpu is performing at the levels of a fury x at 1200 mhz with 540 mhz hbm while having the same clock but much less memory bandwidth, we don't have the number of compute units but its probably 4096, The numbers are around the levels of a nvidea 1070 the fury x was memory starved for some reason so seeing this levels of perf at lower bandwidth is good. What i expect: core clock to increase to around 1525 mhz and up; hbm2 running at 2 Gbps to achieve 512 Gb/s memory bandwidth. nerdy specs: fury x :1220 mhz core 540 mhz hbm => 10 tflops, and 552 Gb/s memory bandwidth 5762 graphics score Vega ??:1200 mhz core 700 mhz hbm2 =>9.8 tflops, and 358 Gb/s memory bandwidth 5721 graphics score sources: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/1544741 http://hwbot.org/submission/3272905_dagget3450_3dmark___time_spy_radeon_r9_fury_x_6179_marks

I just spent about $1500 & built a new PC. Ryzen 1700x, gtx 1070, 32gb ram, m.2 drive - to replace my 4 yr old Intel machine, just wasn't cutting it with video editing any more, I needed more speed Put it together, fire it up, everything seems ok. Go to use some my video editor Davinci Resolve and the performance is WORSE than my 4 year old intel. Its quite noticeable. I run some benchmarks and they are brutal. Supposedly this cpu should do about 1500+ on cinebencz, but I get 917. In open GL would be 110 or so, I can't crack 70. Same thing when I did some 3dmark tests.. clearly something is wrong. How can this OC'd 3700 8 core Ryzen not be able to scrub a timeline without choppiness, and struggle to display a transition in a clip? I was able to get my ram up to 2400 and OC'd the CPU to 3700... there is no difference. What am I missing? BIOS shows CPU at 3700, RAM at 2400 speed. Cool temps, seems stable & fine. But performance is a joke. I feel so sick to my stomach. I spent all this money for nothing. Please any help? I dont know what else to do or where to go from here. What could be causing poor performance when BIOS shows everything up and running fine? I have the most recent BIOS, most recent driver from nvidia, most recent chipset from AMD... updated windows... dont know where else to turn

can you share your Ice Storm Extreme (1080p) score ? (i need to compare old gpus DX9 and ISe is the only "new" benchmark that still run that ) my ICE STORM EXTREME 1.2 SCORE is 47628 with AMD Radeon HD 8670D (1x) and AMD A10-6800K (and 30 tabs open in chrome)