worlds fastest 965m broke 10000 3dmark11 gpu

mobius i can prove it!

and no im not high,. where do you NBRS get your info from cause its not coming from reality

 

ya, try running around novigrad in tw3 with your ulv i5/7

 

in game

edit ok ill post screens

 

here you can see 27fps at a cpu levelof a ulv i3 and then a overclocked 3.8ghz i7 getting 27fps also...0 difference. nowI really do know what imt alking about and i can prove everything i
say

 

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i3-4005U-Notebook-Processor.102733.0.html

on this level it may limit a 980m but the skylake version will not...I repeat will not be a bottleneck unless your playing FSX or using a emulator.


edit..


so now that ive proven my point why are you guys talking about 4.4ghz cpus. it would be uninteresting to find out you were running 9ghz as it has 0 gaming related applications and this is a gaming forum

 

that's not novigrad

also, what laptop has ulv i7 and 980m?

 

lol...

I suppose im arguing nothing....just upset my thread was derailed as per usual.

i personally wouldnt want a ulv cpu and 980m but i was just saying its not really that important..it is but it isnt...4720hq wont be a bottleneck...hopefully we can agree on that

 

since my thread is about cpus now....how do i get my cpu up to levels of 8000 cpu score in 3dmark 11...im getting 6900. before i upgraded my ram i was at 5900 so i jumped 1000 points but im still 1000 points below normal

 

Games haven't been exclusively GPU limited for quite some time. 2015 in particular was a year filled with CPU demanding games.

 

yea i heard that...alot of my games are from 2015....cpu plays a large role but still isnt a bottleneck

 

4720HQ is a very powerful CPU, but it will limit gameplay in some games. The limit won't be below 60fps though, for the time being. I think the comments regarding ULV core i7s are true for many games though, because ULV core i7 tend to be 2ghzs, dual core variations, which will definitely be affected in a large number of games. 4720HQ are considerably stronger than ULV CPUs.

You would need to first confirm at what speeds, utilization and temps your CPU is running when gaming and during tests. there is also the possibility that higher speed ram is affecting scores. Normally I'd say 7600 is a realistic score for the 4720HQ with 1600mhz ram and 3.6ghz quad core. My 4720HQ is not power limited and it's running 2133mhz ram.

Remember that software that runs on the background also affects your performance during tests!

 

Since late 2014 when devs' unoptimization target switched from excessive vRAM usage to excessive CPU power. Or any gaming above 60Hz.

Oh most people are. However you are one of them, with such a statement.

You must be exceedingly high, drunk, or a huge troll.

From me, with pictures like this:
https://hostr.co/file/mEVR0Ohh9YdW/Screenshot1909.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5U3DymN.jpg
And this video, where I drop below my target 125fps while having excess GPU power.

And that's two 780Ms with a 4800MQ. You are flat out WRONG that a ULV i5 won't bottleneck a 980M.

 

It all depends on the framerate you are going for. Those of us with 120hz screens are in the minority right now. I've done my own experiments with underclocking the CPU and in most situations, 60FPS is still attainable as low as 2.5GHz. I wouldn't go so far as to say that a ULV chip would be acceptable but if 60FPS is your target, lower CPU clocks tend not to be the bottleneck.

 

d2 how old are you. i dont want to put a kid down but 125fps isnt a reasonable framerate and too prove mewrong you say its affected at 125fps...human eyes cant spot the difference

 

the moderators know what they are talking about and i posted pictures. do you aimfor125fps in witcher 3 maxed?

 

Don't start flaming or I'll hand out warnings.

When you buy a 120hz LCD you tend to want to actually use what you paid for so I don't really believe that it's unreasonable to expect 125FPS in order to maximize performance but I do think it's a bit unreasonable to use that as a standard for everyone when most are happy at 60 and a lot of us are even used to 30 on consoles.

 

It's not so much a processor isn't able to feed the graphics but more being able to do everything else while doing that.

 

Whoe Whoe Whoe... Hold up there.
120+ is very reasonable. I usually target around 110. Don't give peasantry lines and say the 'human eyes cant spot the difference'...
Anyone with a 120hz + screen knows how ridiculous that sounds. It's night and day. I could tell you in an instant - I'm sure others can too.

Something tells me you think 30fps more cinematic too?

 

Yeah..., Why buy 144Hz screen and better and better graphics if the human eye can't spot the difference? Wasted money?

 

ULV CPU will definitely bottleneck a 980m. Depends on the game, resolution, settings, and everything else of course, but ULV CPU just won't cut the mustard for a high end GPU. See these charts from TechSpot:

Doom: http://www.techspot.com/review/1173-doom-benchmarks/page5.html

Witcher 3: http://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page5.html

Watchdogs: http://www.techspot.com/review/827-watch-dogs-benchmarks/page5.html

GTA V: http://www.techspot.com/review/991-gta-5-pc-benchmarks/page6.html

 

diff. between 60 & 120HZ is night and day ... Even going through open windows on desktop

 

oic. I thought the human eye uses bluring after a certain point. everyones different i did the test and could only detect 60hz. was from scientific american. edit some fighter pilots can detect up to 300hz but then again who here is atrained fighter pilot....hawx doesnt count


edit its not about 120hz really you guys....its about highend i7s being the bottleneck...i just showed my cpu scoring 2700 in 3dmark and it not being the bottleneck. ulv cpus can score 4700 so nearly double the performance, surely the i5 would not bottleneck the 980m unless your gunning for 120fps.

no scientist or educated person would tell you there is a night and day difference between 120hz and 60 hz. every article ive read says the difference is nearly un noticable. the human brain uses blurring past a certain point. if you think there is a night and day difference then im done here as i dont want a flame war and respect nbr enough.

 

I am not that sensitive to refresh, but I can tell you that I can tell the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz. Must be seen and used to be believed. But it's along the same lines as other tech that you don't realize it as much until you've used it for a while and then don't use it any more. Kind of like SSD's or G-sync. Try using a system with an SSD for a long while then go and do the same tasks on the same machine several months later using a 5400RPM hard drive. Ugh.

 

oic. well i retract my statements. lol i guess i was in a bad mood

was wondering htwingnut why my cpu is underperforming i bought another8gb of ramand it helped but its still performing poorly

 

Despite this being cleared up, for the record, it was to show that if I'm CPU bottlenecked under 120fps, a ULV CPU (clocked lower, with half the cores, less cache, etc) is on average going to get less than half my FPS. 78fps in GTA V bottlenecked? That's probably closer to 40fps in that particular point on a ULV. ~80FPS in the particular BF4 scenario I showed? 50 or less on a ULV in the same situation. And ESPECIALLY with people pushing that ULV CPUs and eGPUs like the Razer Core can run nice high FPSes, it hits home even more. How is that going to push something harder than a 980M? Like a 1080?

 

If you actually made your CPU behave exactly like an ULV i3 (with only two cores, no boost and no HT) then all you've proved is that your GPU can't keep up at all.

If you haven't locked out cores, disabled boost and HT, then it's irrelevant to the comparison at hand and you're still GPU bound.

 

raduque????really

I did the test with other games,projectcars dropped 8fps from 118 to 110. if its performance is 2700. well it is what it is. hyperthreading- cores ect are irrelevant. but why troll an almost ended discussion.

on a happy note you seem to know alot how do i get my cpu score to normal levels its at 6900 should be 8k for a 4720hq

 

Try to see it for what it is - imparting knowledge. It's not trolling if someone presents a contrary fact

At the end of the day we're all here to share and learn.

 

You should listen to other points of view also, not only your own point!!
It's not always you can do so much with a i7-Hq processor. Either destroyed Bios / Ec - bad binned chips or both... Ask @unclewebb (The author of TS) in throttlestop guide for help.

 

I'm not trolling, seriously. I've just got enough experience in this to know when a game is CPU or GPU bound. If you increase (or decrease!) CPU frequency and end with a minimal impact in FPS (and 8 is very minimal - it's not even 10% of 118), then your GPU is holding you back.

I'm sorry, that's actually a question I can't really answer. The best you can do is find out if you're thermal or power throttling and the forum can help you go from there.

 

oh ok i understand..and i do listen to others views

 

8K in what?

You don't sound that way with your posts on the last three pages.

 

Most likely in 3DM11 physics You remember... 47xxHQ?

 

Well depending on the test specifically I could figure out a reason.

 

Getting your HQ processor to work as it should is a headache. If you are not ready to mess with additional software, tweaks, and very very recommended repasting because it's a lower end MSI machine, I suggest locking performance at lower speeds and not worry about it.

 

oh ok ill set it lower.not like slowing the processor down will decrease performance

 

worked...found out why im scoring low....cough

thermal throttling


so now i need a laptop cooler

this is the best one i could find http://www.thesource.ca/en-ca/compu...ech-cross-flow-laptop-cooling-fan/p/108042587

id imagine taking away the heat would be better at 2500rpm vs 1500rpm (cm cf storm 17) and blowing warm air at the vents what do you guys recommend for heating.

 

If you are looking for World Record class cooling, get a portable air-conditioner with an easy to redirect cold air output so you can place the laptop over the cold air output easily.

@Mr. Fox @johnksss may have some recommendations.

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11369380


my gaming clocks performance solid stable ect

not too bad under a 970m by a hair but still fast

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm11/11369380

gaming clocks

 

Got a firestrike result with those clocks?

 

http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/12855314?

 

Im just waiting on my CM SF17 notebook cooler should lower temps 10-20c

thermal throttling is still prevelant, cpu score and combined scores are affected the most. gpu score would be higher with differant drivers but i need the newest for compatibilty, I realize benchmark numbers arent everything but i seriously get better framerates in games when i use good older drivers. like i remember witcher 3 maxed running at 29fps now it runs at 19-21fps pretty big drop....i think im done benchmarking for now...found out what i wanted to know and shared the results. this is not the first time ive been tops in the world infact i have been top with 260m hd 2600 6990m hd 5650. all mid range cept the 6990m man o man was that a good card.

Im wondering if anyone knows of better drivers for witcher 3 i dont mind turning down settings to get playable framerates as as far as my blindness goes i just can see the differance....in fact dare i say in new games the only thing that changes is the lighting thanks too the console ports

 

10-20C? You're dreaming man. 5C maybe.

 

How do you see the performance history for a single card, ex the 965M on 3dmarl website?

 

You also have to remember the 965M evolved over it's life as a product. It switched from GM204 to GM206 with higher clocks and better performance.

Sent from a 128th Legion Stormtrooper 6P

 

Which is exactly why I hate the xx5M cards. Confusing and redundant.

 

Use the advanced search and start typing in the model number and you will get a drop down to select the one you want. This works for CPU's too and even combinations of them.

Hopefully the link below works for you, if not just go to http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode=advanced and try it yourself.
http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?mode...00?minScore=0&gpuName=NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M