Arne Saknussemm wrote:
980 would be 75000-80000...980Ti...90000ish.....

You can run that part of the test on the CPU as well...check tweaks and tips section...increase score a bit...

Or move over to my 5960X system... increase score a bit. Lol.

Gobe wrote:
Or move over to my 5960X system... increase score a bit. Lol.

Yep, if you show all users on the leaderboard, you'll see your 5960x/x99-Pro right there with mine and Menthol's RVE. I have 2 heavily OC'd GTX980's for that run and barely edge out your 960. This benchmark is heavily skewed toward other things.

Interesting that at least with SLI - the openCL is largely bound by memory throughput. I see a 1:1 increase with DDR4 speed there. Given all the bulk copies that go on, that isn't too surprising, but it does confirm what I'd seen in my compute usage that DDR4 speed and x16 PCIe matter where they don't much to games.

My 5960x hits a wall at 4.8GHz. Timing, not temps stops me... 4.81 will crash pretty much no matter what I do. 4.6 is 24/7 stable at 1.275-1.28 4.75 is stable, but at 1.31-1.32 runs a bit warm for my usage (heavy loads for days at a time). 4.8 requires 1.37 and 85C. No go for 24/7 but so far hasn't crashed.

cekim wrote:
Yep, if you show all users on the leaderboard, you'll see your 5960x/x99-Pro right there with mine and Menthol's RVE. I have 2 heavily OC'd GTX980's for that run and barely edge out your 960. This benchmark is heavily skewed toward other things.

Interesting that at least with SLI - the openCL is largely bound by memory throughput. I see a 1:1 increase with DDR4 speed there. Given all the bulk copies that go on, that isn't too surprising, but it does confirm what I'd seen in my compute usage that DDR4 speed and x16 PCIe matter where they don't much to games.

My 5960x hits a wall at 4.8GHz. Timing, not temps stops me... 4.81 will crash pretty much no matter what I do. 4.6 is 24/7 stable at 1.275-1.28 4.75 is stable, but at 1.31-1.32 runs a bit warm for my usage (heavy loads for days at a time). 4.8 requires 1.37 and 85C. No go for 24/7 but so far hasn't crashed.

Is that 4.8 GHz at less than 1.3 volts via a pre-binned CPU or did you get lucky with a winning silicon lottery ticket? I can get 4.5 rock stable at 1.25V but it takes around 1.35 to stabilize 4.6. So I run routine at 4.5. Stabilizing 4.7 was doable, but it took stupid extremes to pull it off.

The tight clustering of the top 5960X scores says that these numbers represent about all that this CPU can do. Seems that some of us get a scoring edge in one aspect and might lag in another. Some of it is the silicon lottery and some of it is know-how. There's also a bit of luck and the good graces of the overclocking gods to be had. I've been OCing on and off for the past 15 years (longer if you count fooling with old i486 CPUs in the mid 90s via motherboard jumper clusters and painfully sparse documentation) and I'm finding the Haswell-E in combination with the X99 motherboards to be the most fun and versatile platform yet.

Gobe wrote:
Is that 4.8 GHz at less than 1.3 volts via a pre-binned CPU or did you get lucky with a winning silicon lottery ticket? I can get 4.5 rock stable at 1.25V but it takes around 1.35 to stabilize 4.6. So I run routine at 4.5. Stabilizing 4.7 was doable, but it took stupid extremes to pull it off.

Voltages are actually roughly:
4.6 1.275-1.280
4.7 1.30-1.32 (I didn't tune much, temps were uncomfortable for 24/7 100% load)
4.8 1.36-1.37

I put a premium on high cache and DDR as well since my intended use benefits greatly from them. So, all of the above are with a 4.4 cache at 1.27.

Not pre-binned - dumb luck and perhaps a little coin-toss probability. I have 2. The other tops out at 4.4 @1.290. In both cases, I haven't gone past 1.37, maybe there is more, but I'd need to do something more extreme than the EK mono-block and 420 rad. I am not doing ice or chilled water.

Gobe wrote:

The tight clustering of the top 5960X scores says that these numbers represent about all that this CPU can do. Seems that some of us get a scoring edge in one aspect and might lag in another. Some of it is the silicon lottery and some of it is know-how. There's also a bit of luck and the good graces of the overclocking gods to be had. I've been OCing on and off for the past 15 years (longer if you count fooling with old i486 CPUs in the mid 90s via motherboard jumper clusters and painfully sparse documentation) and I'm finding the Haswell-E in combination with the X99 motherboards to be the most fun and versatile platform yet.

Agreed, though it also speaks to how the benchmark is scored.

Gobe wrote:
Or move over to my 5960X system... increase score a bit. Lol.

Yep! LOL

Your image edit score is quite a bit higher than mine....32GB memeory at 14 14 14 seems to run very well! I've got my eye on one of those Ripjaws V kits....

Though Menthol's score is pretty much same as mine on 32GB even tighter....so not sure if it's just down to memory...

Arne Saknussemm wrote:
Yep! LOL

Your image edit score is quite a bit higher than mine....32GB memeory at 14 14 14 seems to run very well! I've got my eye on one of those Ripjaws V kits....

Though Menthol's score is pretty much same as mine on 32GB even tighter....so not sure if it's just down to memory...

I just posted on this elsewhere, but storage could have a small but real impact here if the image editing benchmark is doing disk read/write. Samsung 950 Pro NVMe is crazy fast. I've got two of them at 512 GB each and my initial thought was to set them up in RAID 0 until I learned this can't be done on the X99-Pro/USB3.1. There are boards that will do this, so if anyone has the notion to boot from NVMe RAID0, do yourself a favor and make sure your motherboard allows this.