Probably this is where custom cooling comes into the picture. My boost clock speed tends to stay consistent throughout the testing. Temperatures range just below 68C at auto fan settings.

But your finding is very interesting. I thought that since my card has a slightly higher base clock, it should have a higher max boost clock speed compared to a reference clocked card. Perhaps in my free time, I will try to tune the fan profile to see if the max boost clock speed got increase or not.

At first I also thought that why my card able to hit 1149Mhz while GPU boost is only at 1033Mhz.


Then I found here
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7103/nvidia-...x-760-review/17

Yes, that's right. The extra MHz on top of the Boost Clock shown at the GPU-Z is known as Kepler Boost, and can be unique to the respective cards. Some good read here.

Generally, this is where Nvidia actually comes clean, listing the base clock and boost clock, where it is guaranteed to achieve, at the very least. AMD on the other hand lists just the "max" boost clock (e.g 1000MHz for R9 290X), with no guarantee of it consistently hitting it at all times, depending on the cooling solution used.

For 290 and 290X, actually there are stock clock speeds. I remembered 290's stock clock is 662MHz. AMD just lists the max boost clock, the reason is that on alot of cases it did manage to hit that speed...

If you see the original msrp price for 290 and 290X, AMD offered the performance based on the price, not based on the max boost clocks. It's just that many people think it's a waste to leave the untapped performance.

I liked the AMD's new powertune 2.0 philosophy in design, just that many people misunderstood how AMD wanted it to work.

But there are often times when it didn't consistently hit either, its bane is mainly due to the lackluster reference cooling solution. If you've run a reference card before, you can easily see how throttled it can become at times. I have tested 3 runs of Heaven and I observed that the overall framerates drop consistently with each subsequent round of testing, especially when once it hit the max thermal threshold. Pricing wise, I believe AMD hit the nail right on the head. That's why today you see massive price cuts on the GTX 770 / 780, and forced Nvidia to unleash the 780 Ti in a desperate grasp to hold on to the performance crown.

Just my own opinion, I believe it was more of a marketing reason to list the max boost clock speed instead of the base clock. People who are more attuned to graphic cards will likely know how the cards perform, but to the less informed, they will easily compare with Nvidia and ask; eh, how come my clock speed just 662 MHz? Nowadays more and more cards are breaking the GHz barrier, so you can guess why things happen as they are right now. Just an analogy only, I know Nvidia's 780 / 780 Ti all also run at sub GHz clockspeeds also.

Why are my result not included in the leaderboard ?

Our boss is busy kut?

Fear not, will be updated tonight.
"Assignment Week"...so yeah...

testing 1.2.3

there go my score... Congratulation


This post has been edited by Unseen83: Mar 20 2014, 09:15 PM

4K points on 900p??

even Unseen's score is a far cry

EDIT: just notice that Unseen's score is super low, wonder why?

This post has been edited by marfccy: Mar 20 2014, 09:16 PM

i told the second R9 290X to sleep i forgot to enable crossfire on setting then run the benchmark lol... no matter... i no longer got 2x R9 290X...

owh

i was expecting you to try counter back :/

wait until the 295X2

you also mean the GTX 790

wth is that?

naah im good with Single R9 290X triX ... got no money to buy another Trix spend RM2.1K..

youre the only one to counter mah

the rest of us all single card users