Your rig

[mikev]

980 ti at ultra settings


[/URL]

[38ruk]

I did mine in custom/high like most, but also in Ext HD just to see, and I didn't lose much when bumping up the detail.

Thats interesting , there is usually a decent hit between custom high and extreme hd. Didnt seem to phase your 670 thou 8)   

[Gman]

With my AH rig w/3820@3.8 and an eVGA SuperClock 980 (not ti), with monitor set to 1980 x 1080, ultra detail, it did 124.6 fps and 5103 score with min fps 36.5 max 165.4.  Not bad for a 3 year old MB/CPU and a 10 month old GPU now.  Still a GPU world, I bet with a ti this platform would be very close to the 4790k CPU even oc'd.

I'll try the 5960x box with our Titan in it and see how it compares, I'll bet the ti box here and it are neck and neck.  The 980ti is a very good deal, I'd not have bought the Titan in retrospect had I known it was as fast as it was going to be for the $.

[mikev]

With my AH rig w/3820@3.8 and an eVGA SuperClock 980 (not ti), with monitor set to 1980 x 1080, ultra detail, it did 124.6 fps and 5103 score with min fps 36.5 max 165.4.  Not bad for a 3 year old MB/CPU and a 10 month old GPU now.  Still a GPU world, I bet with a ti this platform would be very close to the 4790k CPU even oc'd.

I'll try the 5960x box with our Titan in it and see how it compares, I'll bet the ti box here and it are neck and neck.  The 980ti is a very good deal, I'd not have bought the Titan in retrospect had I known it was as fast as it was going to be for the $.

i was wondering what the 980 would do . now the ti is only $100 more looks like the difference is small but enough for some to change later . i was going to go with the titan originally but when i saw this come out  was sold on it from the beginning. and the $400 savings did not hurt . most of the test i have seen  rank the titan and the ti neck and neck . just watch out for your video card  temps  this test really heats  it up . my guess is the titan and mine will both be around 83 C which is why i wont run this test again.

[ebfd11]

This shows well what a waste of money an i7 is for a gaming rig.

Uhhh that's your opinion ... and we know what opinions are like....

LawnDart

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Uhhh that's your opinion ... and we know what opinions are like....

LawnDart

It's not an opinion it's a measureable fact.

[The Fugitive]

This shows well what a waste of money an i7 is for a gaming rig.

No it shows how much a dog the 960 is. The i7 run very nicely on mine.

[Chalenge]

You're not likely to find the Unigine system to be bound to any one CPU over another anyway.

[ebfd11]

OK i am on my AMD rig and will post as soon as I get the results..

LawnDart

Unigine Valley Benchmark 1.0

FPS:
54.1

Score:
2265

Min FPS:
18.4

Max FPS:
107.6


System

Platform:
Windows 7 (build 7601, Service Pack 1) 64bit

CPU model:
AMD FX(tm)-8350 Eight-Core Processor (4334MHz) x4

GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.18.13.4475 (4095MB) x1


Settings

Render:
Direct3D11

Mode:
1920x1080 8xAA fullscreen

Preset
Extreme HD


Powered by UNIGINE Engine

Unigine Corp. © 2005-2013

Just as a FYI this is a water cooled system too

[38ruk]

Score:
2265

GPU model:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 9.18.13.4475 (4095MB) x1

Thanks for the 970 results .  That card has been on my radar for a replacement for my 280X ...and it basically doubled my 1110 extreme score.  I almost pulled the trigger on a 290x but ive been kinda let down by AMD's lack of support for the 280x . I'm thinking the 970 is pretty hard to beat for the money ...3.5GB or not . 

[Pudgie]

[Pudgie]

[MrRiplEy[H]]

No it shows how much a dog the 960 is. The i7 run very nicely on mine.

LOL! This comment shows you understood nothing of what I wrote.
The point was exactly that you don't gain more speed to games by paying half of the computer price for a super expensive cpu.

[Chalenge]

LOL! This comment shows you understood nothing of what I wrote.
The point was exactly that you don't gain more speed to games by paying half of the computer price for a super expensive cpu.

Actually, the results you commented on concern a system that is using 1952x1080 resolution, yet also has surround active (multi-monitors). Duplicating this on your own system (if you can) will demonstrate that it is not ideal for the best benchmark scores regardless which CPU is used.

I have a slower i7 CPU and yet I get more than 600% better results on the same LGA 1150 platform. but with the GTX 980. Where what you say is somewhat true concerns SLI where a faster CPU will allow greater scaling.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Actually, the results you commented on concern a system that is using 1952x1080 resolution, yet also has surround active (multi-monitors). Duplicating this on your own system (if you can) will demonstrate that it is not ideal for the best benchmark scores regardless which CPU is used.

I have a slower i7 CPU and yet I get more than 600% better results on the same LGA 1150 platform. but with the GTX 980. Where what you say is somewhat true concerns SLI where a faster CPU will allow greater scaling.

Can it be, a second one in a row? For the second time: I said an expensive CPU does _not_ bring you a sizeable benefit in gaming performance. Very poor bang for buck.