PDA

View Full Version : FurMark score??



Clintlgm
10-14-2012, 06:07 PM
Well I'm not really familiar with this benchmark or really fast Video. But this seems like it's less that half of what I should be getting. I am running the latest drivers 306.97 This G75 is not really set up as a gaming computer. I do have lots of software loaded. I did not do a clean install of Win 7. Windows performance is 7.4.
12519 is this a problem, do I need to do something different?

Seems slow here lately so I am putting this up. I'm going to be purchasing a game to learn to play, If I need to get this running better now's the time for me. Not sure what game yet looking for something to get started with that has great graphics, easy to learn so I don't just get discouraged and can be played keyboard only. The last game I played was Descent and I had Descent II but never got anywhere with it, do to no longer having time.

c_man
10-14-2012, 06:22 PM
Do more tests, with different programs.

Clintlgm
10-15-2012, 01:00 AM
3D Mark 11, score
[ATTACH=CONFIG]12522[/ATTACHH]

Clintlgm
10-15-2012, 03:59 AM
Passmark Performance Test ver 8, summery
1253312534

Well this one looks pretty good. I don't have any other testing programs. It still seems furmark and 3D Mark 11 were very slow. I'm wondering if maybe I'm not running them correctly? I see others on here talking about 45 FPS furmark scores. but then maybe that's just with out other software running in the back ground?

ZeroBarrier
10-15-2012, 04:35 AM
Well this one looks pretty good. I don't have any other testing programs. It still seems furmark and 3D Mark 11 were very slow. I'm wondering if maybe I'm not running them correctly? I see others on here talking about 45 FPS furmark scores. but then maybe that's just with out other software running in the back ground?

Fur mark is designed to completely max out your GPU and bring it to it's knees, no way any G75 is hitting 45 fps on it. As for 3DMark, are you running these tests while plugged in and using P4G performance setting?

Clintlgm
10-15-2012, 01:26 PM
I do have the Power for gear setting to high performance. I always have this notebook plugged in I seldom ever use it on battery
12538

c_man
10-15-2012, 01:42 PM
You should run the normal test from Basic Edition.

I have no way to compare since I do not own an Advanced Edition.

bignazpwns
10-15-2012, 10:07 PM
Heres a furmark on a GTX 660m. Left side is overclocked and the right side is stock. A lot of people dont use furmark as a benchmark. They just use it as a tool to check overclocks and temps.

12546


I mean its not that your card is running super slow its in the range of what i seen GTX 670m's hitting but its towards the back end of that.

Clintlgm
10-16-2012, 01:13 AM
1256012561125621256312559

This is a basic run Physic looks pretty good to me but the frame rates seem pretty slow for all the other graphics test. All of it was very jerky watching, Stuttering I guess you would call it?

c_man
10-16-2012, 11:21 AM
Your GPU is not working well, can't tell why. At best a driver problem, might even be in a form of conflict with something else. Or some setting who knows where.

Graphics score of 869 is like 2.5 time less than my stock 660M. 670M the way I run it is around 4 times faster.

Clintlgm
10-16-2012, 03:52 PM
I deleted all the nvidia software, Reinstalled the Graphics drivers sound drivers and 3D drivers, I wonder do I really need the 3D drivers I don't have a 3D setup? In Safe Mode, then reinstalled the Physics driver in windows. retested and have the same results in 3D Mark 11. I have Roxio EZ installed, I remember back aways that someone had a conflict there. I'll uninstall and see it that helps. If that doesn't do it I guess I'll have to do a clean install of Win 7 and start over again.

c_man
10-16-2012, 04:01 PM
OK, get back with new data asap. You do not need the 3D, but it does not hurt either, so it's not that. I've stopped using Roxio years ago, can't say I know something about latest apps.

bignazpwns
10-16-2012, 06:12 PM
What settings are you using.. Below are the default settings everyone uses. I(f your still running at 1920X1080 that's how it should be that benchmark will kill a GTX 670m. Default is 1280X720



Default settings used
Yes
Edition
Basic
Screen Width
1280
Screen Height
720
Msaa Sample Count
1
Texture Filtering Mode
Trilinear
Max Af Anisotropy
1
Tessellation Detail
5
Max Tessellation Factor
10
ShadowMapSize
5
Shadow Cascade Count
4
Surface Shadow Sample Count
16
Volumetric Illumination Quality
5
Ambient Occlusion Quality
5
Depth Of Field Quality
5
Enable Window Mode
Off
Enable Vertical Sync
Off
Enable Triple Buffering
Off
Enable Wireframe
Off
Color Saturation
100%

c_man
10-16-2012, 06:17 PM
That is why I tell people to run the Basic stuff directly. You might be right.

bignazpwns
10-16-2012, 08:26 PM
That is why I tell people to run the Basic stuff directly. You might be right.

Hes just running extreme. That's why his score is X and not P

X = extreme default
p= preference default.

I mean from what i seen his score is fine. Not the highest but not the lowest. Deff. not using the best drivers for benching

Clintlgm
10-17-2012, 03:05 AM
Yes afer the reinstall I ran the same Basis mode extream setting, results were just about the same no improvement

Clintlgm
10-17-2012, 03:26 AM
Ok here are the results with these setting, My experience was there was still some jitteriness to the video's but much improved. FR seem to have doubled except for Physics which remain about the same

12610 1261212611

Clintlgm
10-17-2012, 03:36 AM
Ok here are the results with these setting, My experience was there was still some jitteriness to the video's but much improved. FR seem to have doubled except for Physics which remain about the same

1261012611

Lucas
10-17-2012, 04:04 AM
show your signatre lien

bignazpwns
10-17-2012, 06:00 AM
Ok here are the results with these setting, My experience was there was still some jitteriness to the video's but much improved. FR seem to have doubled except for Physics which remain about the same

12610 1261212611

Its not that it doubled it's your now running preformance and not xtreme. The settings got cut way deon from extreme. You were basing the scroes off performance and you were running the extreme preset.

Clintlgm
10-17-2012, 08:30 AM
So then my set up is running normal for what i have, I just had the settings running the benchmark set to high for my equipment. I think that answers my orignal question. I'm ready to go get my self a game and have some fun.

c_man
10-17-2012, 08:49 AM
Now it looks OK.

Clintlgm
10-17-2012, 02:21 PM
I think I understand now that the extream setting would be for a crossfire or sli system or overclocked etc. I just didn't pick up on that earlier. I guess this would be common knowledge with gamers.

c_man
10-17-2012, 04:49 PM
Not really. But the Basic version is free so we all use that. You only buy this for extended testing under heavy load.

If you feel OK with a bit of OC, at 71C you could go a bit higher with little temp increase and a nice performance boost.

bignazpwns
10-17-2012, 09:50 PM
I think I understand now that the extream setting would be for a crossfire or sli system or overclocked etc. I just didn't pick up on that earlier. I guess this would be common knowledge with gamers.


Not so much. Its just meant to be the max.

E- Entry is pretty much low settings

P- Performance is Mid range settings low res.

X- Extreme is high settings at 1920X1080 what most people wanna game at.