*Official Benchmark Thread* - Post it here or it didn't happen :D

[Mr. Fox]

3 minutes ago, tps3443 said:

While 2fps is very very small that is actually 10% difference. Make sure you have Rebar forced. I am also using Intel Application Optimizer as well. My GPU is running 2910 boost steady. My first run did 27fps, and I should have screen shot that one. But I tried again and it was 26fps. 

I've never installed that Intel Optimizer thing. I may tr it. My boost is only holding 2775. So, you're 200MHz higher on core, which would explain that 2 FPS difference.

 

I will try the Intel Optimizer first and see if that makes any difference, and then lock my boost to match yours and see what it does.

[tps3443]

Just ran it again. This GPU is a sensitive baby with overclocking. If you OC just a tiny bit too much it will lock up your whole computer. One of the most sensitive GPU's I have ever owned in my life lol. 



 

[Mr. Fox]

9 minutes ago, Prema said:

Speaking of Intel APO. Here are the latest drivers:

 

https://mega.nz/file/6Ml0RCgI#vqCfokXy0EqbrYLpI6ejZs-r2l-15Xhop-AnrykiVXY

 

Does this require DTPF be enabled in the BIOS? I have that disabled. I don't like it. The Optimizer says "Failed to Connect" probably because of that.

[tps3443]

Just now, Mr. Fox said:

Does this require DTPF be enabled in the BIOS? I have that disabled. I don't like it. The Optimizer says "Failed to Connect" probably because of that.

Yes, it does. I didn't think Dynamic tuning enabled in bios did or changed anything else, other than allowing APO to work. I do not use XTU or anything, but Dynamic tuning is enabled in the bios on my system. 

[Mr. Fox]

31 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

I've never installed that Intel Optimizer thing. I may tr it. My boost is only holding 2775. So, you're 200MHz higher on core, which would explain that 2 FPS difference.

 

I will try the Intel Optimizer first and see if that makes any difference, and then lock my boost to match yours and see what it does.

 

21 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

Does this require DTPF be enabled in the BIOS? I have that disabled. I don't like it. The Optimizer says "Failed to Connect" probably because of that.

 

21 minutes ago, tps3443 said:

Yes, it does. I didn't think Dynamic tuning enabled in bios did or changed anything else, other than allowing APO to work. I do not use XTU or anything, but Dynamic tuning is enabled in the bios on my system. 

Well the Intel Optimizer (with DTPF enabled in the BIOS) actually hindered performance. Decreased my results by 1 FPS but also looks more stuttery than it does with it disabled. It looks like the App doesn't have any support for this game. Metro Exodus is the only one listed that I play. Most of the supported games I either do not own or have zero interest in owning/playing them. I am going to check some of CPU benchmarks to see if they were diminished and probably disable that in the BIOS. I have always hated DTPF and Intel ME feces. It doesn't look like I have any legitimate need for it or the Optimizer app.

[Prema]

Check the Advanced tab for it to be enabled on unsupported games.

[Talon]

38 minutes ago, Prema said:

Speaking of Intel APO. Here are the latest drivers:

 

https://mega.nz/file/6Ml0RCgI#vqCfokXy0EqbrYLpI6ejZs-r2l-15Xhop-AnrykiVXY

 

 

Speaking of APO, maybe you can answer this for Intel 13900HX chips. I have a Lenovo laptop with 13900HX that will not connect to APO services even with latest drivers and Intel DTT turned on in BIOS. I know XMG had to do a BIOS update to get 13th and 14th gen HX laptops working. Do you know what or why that is? Is there some service or option that must be enabled in the hidden BIOS I can enable to make it work? 

[Prema]

6 minutes ago, Talon said:

 

Speaking of APO, maybe you can answer this for Intel 13900HX chips. I have a Lenovo laptop with 13900HX that will not connect to APO services even with latest drivers and Intel DTT turned on in BIOS. I know XMG had to do a BIOS update to get 13th and 14th gen HX laptops working. Do you know what or why that is? Is there some service or option that must be enabled in the hidden BIOS I can enable to make it work? 

[Mr. Fox]

10 minutes ago, Prema said:

Check the Advanced tab for it to be enabled for unsupported games.

It was enabled when I ran it, so that base was covered.

 

I disabled it and disabled DTPF in the BIOS and the lost FPS was recovered (identical avg/min/max FPS) and it no longer is extra stuttery feeling like it is with DTPF enabled with the Optimizer turned on.

[tps3443]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

It was enabled when I ran it, so that base was covered.

 

I disabled it and disabled DTPF in the BIOS and the lost FPS was recovered (identical avg/min/max FPS) and it no longer is extra stuttery feeling like it is with DTPF enabled with the Optimizer turned on.

I’ll try to turn mine off and see if I gain any performance. 

[Mr. Fox]

@electrosoft just FYI. I went back to the old (January) BIOS on the Z790I Edge motherboard. The new BIOS with 0x129 MC was causing one of my M.2 slots to randomly stop working. I noticed it because one of my SN770 SSDs that I use for data/file storage at work was randomly disappearing. I could tell when it was going to not work because it would go through a couple of boot cycles like memory training. Sometimes it would come back after a reboot, but I also noticed when the M.2 port would go AWOL in the BIOS was showing me menus for MSI Developer mode. So something buggy with their BIOS. After going back to the old BIOS I have had no more issues with that M.2 port vanishing. I doubt it is the MC change. Probably something else MSI buggered up with the firmware modifications to appease those that want Intel defaults.

[electrosoft]

2 hours ago, tps3443 said:

I mean, it’s still 8.5% and your resolution slider was 65% and not 66% 😂 But, I really don’t think it matters about CPU OC, and or RAM OC. I’m pretty sure an i3 with DDR4 3200 would probably yield a similar result as me now with my 4090. My 4090 doesn’t overclock well at all. I saw one 4090 boosting near my max OC only his was completely stock (Very sad) 😭 but you probably will beat me in this one easily @electrosoft 

I’d go ahead and do a full on OC run with the GPU OCed. I think this benchmark might come down to whose GPU has best silicon. I didn’t exactly see any action in the benchmark, it looks like a bunch of senior animal ninjas slowly walking around their retirement resort in the jungle. 😂

 

It's 66. I don't know why it kept showing 65, but when I went back in and manually set it to 66, it would show 65. I actually did the run *3* times trying to get it to show the 66 I selected! 🙂

 

1 hour ago, tps3443 said:

My GPU is aircooled. It does not hold high boost. It is a very poor bin unfortunately. Looks to be hitting 71c max

 

Thinking about blocking it?

 

2 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

 

The game has great graphics no matter what settings are chosen. Very good appearance. I am so glad the benchmark is free. Now I don't need to buy the game to get the benchmark. (Not a fan of the RPG genre, so it is highly unlikely that I will buy it.)

 

For comparison:

14900KF @ 59x-P, 48x-E, 52x Cache

Memory @ 8400 CL38

4090 Stock
Display @ 4K 144Hz
DLSS, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation On 

---

---

DLSS, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation Off

---

DLSS, RT OFF, Frame Generation On

---

DLSS, RT OFF, Frame Generation OFF

---

FSR, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation On

---

TSR, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation On

---

XeSS, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation On

---

DLSS SR 100%, DLSS, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation On

 

---

DLSS SR 100%, RT On-Very High, Frame Generation OFF

 

Max everything out and set Super Resolution to 66 to see how it stacks up to @tps3443 and my scores at the same settings.

 

 

[Mr. Fox]

2 hours ago, tps3443 said:

It’s almost a double cheeseburger! But not quite. Still impressive for your laptop though. If we could force DLSS OFF, we’d gain much more FPS at native 100% scaling. This is essentially DLAA. 
 

So, I ran this on the Apex and it fell in the middle between your results and the Encore results previously submitted. I think this is all within a margin of error. When framerates are too low to be playable they no longer matter if it is 1 or 2 FPS difference.

 

17 minutes ago, electrosoft said:

Max everything out and set Super Resolution to 66 to see how it stacks up to @tps3443 and my scores at the same settings.

OK, I have to lead an operations meeting in a few minutes, but I will try that later.

[ryan]

170 plus fps..antsy need to get a 4080/4090 desktop..I have geforce now and internet 2gig for it with decent ping...it's just not the same. Feels similar to a remote desktop. Waiting patiently for nvidia to have a canadian server either west or central canada. Once they do that there will be little reason to get a new computer. If they opt out it looks like my first desktop will be a 4080 12th gen setup. 

[Mr. Fox]

20 hours ago, tps3443 said:

These settings are how I will play the game. 4K/DLSS@66%=Quality DLSS/ Ray Tracing=ON/ Frame Gen=ON




During the shader compile my CPU peaked at a thirtsy 297.7 watts of juice at 5.9P/4.8E/5.0R DDR5 8600C36-49. Not sure why the font turned this color. But yeah, we all know some of these modern game shader compiles can use as much power as Cinebench lol.





Happy Birthday @Papusan 🎊

 

17 hours ago, electrosoft said:

And yeah, the shader compiles are brutal. I'm fishing through various setups on my 14900KS on the AIO to find what works best....7950X3D just shrugged it off and said, "and what?" 🤣

 

3 hours ago, electrosoft said:

Max everything out and set Super Resolution to 66 to see how it stacks up to @tps3443 and my scores at the same settings.

 

3 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

OK, I have to lead an operations meeting in a few minutes, but I will try that later.

OK this benchmark draws insane amounts of power for some reason if run on Windows 11. And, it is not only during shader compiling. It's from start to finish. Just for giggles I wanted to see if the FPS got better or worse, so I booted into Windows 11. I tripped my circuit breaker twice and had to leave my work computer turned off when testing on Windows 11 for some reason. I almost never use Windows 11 and now I find myself wondering if that (Windows 11) has something to do with the Intel CPU degradation being complained about. This did not happen on Windows 10 (circuit breaker tripping thing). It seems like the power utilization spirals out of control on Windows 11, but does not when I am running the benchmark on Windows 10.

On Windows 11, my framerates are higher by about 5 FPS, but the power draw increases by more than the minor increase in FPS. The WireView meter on the 4090 Suprim shows up to 490W (almost 100W more than Windows 10 does) and almost 100W more on the CPU on Windows 11. My Kill-A-Watt showed up to 790W being pulled from the wall, almost the entire duration of the benchmark the GPU is above 400W and over 700W from the wall the entire time while the benchmark is running.

  

3 hours ago, electrosoft said:

It's 66. I don't know why it kept showing 65, but when I went back in and manually set it to 66, it would show 65. I actually did the run *3* times trying to get it to show the 66 I selected! 🙂

That is a bug in the game, not unique to you. I experienced exactly the same thing. To get the scale to 66 in the benchmark I have to set it to 67 or the benchmark runs at 65%. But the scores are identical with 65 or 66. No measurable difference. This benchmark is also very consistent. Back-to-back runs stay the same in terms of FPS and vary by zero to 1 FPS between runs.

 

65 (settings show 66)

66 (settings show 67)

[ryan]

Consistent here also..buttery smooth 4fps maxed..I prefer this cinematic experience. Goes to show what alot of advances in tech and obscene amounts of time can accomplish..all kidding aside it is actually a very consistent and accurate benchmark with great visuals. Not much difference from timespys accuracy.

[Mr. Fox]

11 minutes ago, ryan said:

Consistent here also..buttery smooth 4fps maxed..I prefer this cinematic experience. Goes to show what alot of advances in tech and obscene amounts of time can accomplish..all kidding aside it is actually a very consistent and accurate benchmark with great visuals. Not much difference from timespys accuracy.

The nice thing about 4 FPS is if you blink while watching you only miss one or two frames.

[electrosoft]

42 minutes ago, Mr. Fox said:

 

 

 

OK this benchmark draws insane amounts of power for some reason if run on Windows 11. And, it is not only during shader compiling. It's from start to finish. Just for giggles I wanted to see if the FPS got better or worse, so I booted into Windows 11. I tripped my circuit breaker twice and had to leave my work computer turned off when testing on Windows 11 for some reason. I almost never use Windows 11 and now I find myself wondering if that (Windows 11) has something to do with the Intel CPU degradation being complained about. This did not happen on Windows 10 (circuit breaker tripping thing). It seems like the power utilization spirals out of control on Windows 11, but does not when I am running the benchmark on Windows 10.

On Windows 11, my framerates are higher by about 5 FPS, but the power draw increases by more than the minor increase in FPS. The WireView meter on the 4090 Suprim shows up to 490W (almost 100W more than Windows 10 does) and almost 100W more on the CPU on Windows 11. My Kill-A-Watt showed up to 790W being pulled from the wall. 

  

That is a bug in the game, not unique to you. I experienced exactly the same thing. To get the scale to 66 in the benchmark I have to set it to 67 or the benchmark runs at 65%. But the scores are identical with 65 or 66. No measurable difference. This benchmark is also very consistent. Back-to-back runs stay the same in terms of FPS and vary by zero to 1 FPS between runs.

 

65 (settings show 66)

66 (settings show 67)

 

Yeah, the power draw is one thing but having to actually use my Y-cruncher/OCCT profile to get it to run for a game benchmark is crazy. Using my other settings, it would just exit out before it even got to the shaders compiler screen. I'll have to go back in and figure out where 5.7 and 5.8 can get it to run too unless the pull/heat gets a little too much for my modest setup.

 

Glad to know I wasn't seeing things as I tried three times to get my adjusted 66 to then show up on the final results screen.

 

Seems like over on the OCN forums, they have all decided on max everything at 4k, Super Resolution setting of 75 and trying to see how many can break 80fps and by how much. I saw a couple 83fps scores.

 

14 minutes ago, ryan said:

Consistent here also..buttery smooth 4fps maxed..I prefer this cinematic experience. Goes to show what alot of advances in tech and obscene amounts of time can accomplish..all kidding aside it is actually a very consistent and accurate benchmark with great visuals. Not much difference from timespys accuracy.

 

LOL.... I chuckled nicely at that one. 🙂

 

 

[Mr. Fox]

4 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

@electrosoft just FYI. I went back to the old (January) BIOS on the Z790I Edge motherboard. The new BIOS with 0x129 MC was causing one of my M.2 slots to randomly stop working. I noticed it because one of my SN770 SSDs that I use for data/file storage at work was randomly disappearing. I could tell when it was going to not work because it would go through a couple of boot cycles like memory training. Sometimes it would come back after a reboot, but I also noticed when the M.2 port would go AWOL in the BIOS was showing me menus for MSI Developer mode. So something buggy with their BIOS. After going back to the old BIOS I have had no more issues with that M.2 port vanishing. I doubt it is the MC change. Probably something else MSI buggered up with the firmware modifications to appease those that want Intel defaults.

I would not even be able to test the Intel Application Optimizer on the Z790I Edge if I wanted to. I was going to see if it made any difference with the 3090 Ti but the menu option for Intel DTPF is missing from where it is supposed to be according to MSI documentaion (right below the setting for CFG Lock). I wish I knew what the key combo is for MSI desktop firmware developer mode to access all menus. The old key combo that worked on laptops does not work on the desktop motherboard. It is stupid that MSI also hides the IA VR Limit menu. So, you cannot set a cap on the VRM voltage output (and therefore can't limit VCore properly) in their firmware. Super dumb.

[Prema]

Yep, power draw is on TSE levels. 

Seeing 330W with shunts and CPU at stock on the 4090/13900HX combo. 

 

 

[ryan]

@tps3443 has matched you guys...his numbers are close to yours, been following thread for two years and its suprising such a small forum houses the elite overclockers of the world..now all we need is for someone to hand out elite samples like what biso biso gets..

[Mr. Fox]

12 hours ago, ryan said:

@tps3443 has matched you guys...his numbers are close to yours, been following thread for two years and its suprising such a small forum houses the elite overclockers of the world..now all we need is for someone to hand out elite samples like what biso biso gets..

That would be nice. Although, I am pretty sure that is never going to happen. You have to be part of the right clique and none of us are. Our results don't matter except to the extent that they become a threat to the Chosen Ones. I am pretty sure that CENS pursued the golden sample CPU that @tps3443 had because he wasn't "supposed to have it" and not because CENS actually wanted or needed it. Someone at Intel must have let it make its way into the retail channel by mistake. And, when he bought it from our Brother here it would not surprise me if it was with someone else's money.

---

Well, this benchmark runs nice enough on 3090 Ti FTW3 if you don't go too crazy on the settings. There is no NVIDIA frame generation or DLSS 3.0 on pre-40 series RTX, so cranking the settings will crush it just as it does the 4090 with frame generation disabled. UE5 has its own though, and works fairly well. This system is connected to two 1440p displays for work.

[tps3443]

2 hours ago, electrosoft said:

 

Yeah, the power draw is one thing but having to actually use my Y-cruncher/OCCT profile to get it to run for a game benchmark is crazy. Using my other settings, it would just exit out before it even got to the shaders compiler screen. I'll have to go back in and figure out where 5.7 and 5.8 can get it to run too unless the pull/heat gets a little too much for my modest setup.

 

Glad to know I wasn't seeing things as I tried three times to get my adjusted 66 to then show up on the final results screen.

 

Seems like over on the OCN forums, they have all decided on max everything at 4k, Super Resolution setting of 75 and trying to see how many can break 80fps and by how much. I saw a couple 83fps scores.

 

 

LOL.... I chuckled nicely at that one. 🙂

 

 

Real world stability testing is always the best. These modern games are stout. People use to pick on the idea of using games as stability testing. Now most of the time systems can pass through stability testing and fail to run games lol. 

[ryan]

Did another exhilarating flythrough, pity I had to blink a few times, had to of missed 3 or 4 frames ruining the overall showcase. good thing I didnt buy a desktop as you gents suggested, otherwise I would have missed this exhilarating ride.

 

 

what a rush

 

 

[electrosoft]

3 hours ago, Mr. Fox said:

I would not even be able to test the Intel Application Optimizer on the Z790I Edge if I wanted to. I was going to see if it made any difference with the 3090 Ti but the menu option for Intel DTPF is missing from where it is supposed to be according to MSI documentaion (right below the setting for CFG Lock). I wish I knew what the key combo is for MSI desktop firmware developer mode to access all menus. The old key combo that worked on laptops does not work on the desktop motherboard. It is stupid that MSI also hides the IA VR Limit menu. So, you cannot set a cap on the VRM voltage output (and therefore can't limit VCore properly) in their firmware. Super dumb.

 

Ugh, MSI is supposed to be right up there by Asus in regards to BIOS controls. One thing I can say about Asus is they really do give you the kitchen sink and then some. EVGA was up there too. I always considered MSI next but watching BZ flip around in Gigabyte's BIOS, it seems pretty competent these days too.

 

Asrock is missing a lot of fine/granular controls and I find their FIVR controls a bit lacking. So far, it is Asus and Gigabyte with the ultimate cut off valve for vrout max settings.

 

1 hour ago, tps3443 said:

Real world stability testing is always the best. These modern games are stout. People use to pick on the idea of using games as stability testing. Now most of the time systems can pass through stability testing and fail to run games lol. 

 

When it comes to games, I have always run a mix of configs allowing me to scale to the games demands and reap the rewards in clock settings. It lets me really wring out every last bit of performance per game from my chips without trying to implode them. 🙂

 

What I usually do is when I find a game or stressor I want/need to run, I will then adjust around it and create another profile tier to run. For example, WoW, Starfield and FO76, I can even get away with tuned/dialed in auto and run it up to 6ghz all core if I want but 5.9 is the perfect sweet spot. I could actually probably run FO76 6.1ghz all core most likely. CP2077 I can do 5.8 all core.

 

This Wukan benchmark? I had to go back and use my "big boy" profile at 5.6 which means I'll have to adjust up 5.7 and most likely 5.8 won't run but it might. 5.9 is definitely a pipe dream on my lidded AIO setup.

 

With that being said, I absolutely agree that real world stability is the best as it assures everything will run, but the cost is performance left on the table when a game can run more with less.

 

Did you ever find out what made your monitoring text turn color and what it meant when running this benchmark? I'm curious.