The GTX 280M Overclocking and Benchmarking Results Thread

I put XP home on it by choice and it was my own copy I had laying around the house, so I didn't pay for Pro to which I see little advantage to. I've got both home and pro across several machines.

 

New 3D Mark 06 scores are up. 11902

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=10671456

 

Not bad scores, but you can do better You should be able to beat my sig score without a problem.

 

10342 for me on 3d mark 06.

Seems inaccurate as the results say 4x fps... and I was getting
8x in some areas once it kicked into high gear. 4x would be an average.

 

stock clocks?

 

Yes, stock GPU clocks. The CPU is overclocked to 3.46 though.

 

What specs?

 

So if I read the picture of your 3dmark score, you didn't do the full test (no feature or batch size tests), and you are overclocked, correct? Does skipping those last two test change the score?

When I get back to my laptop I'll try the same set of tests to test this theory.

 

So how are the 280m's comparing to the 9800m gtx's?

 

No difference, btw.

 

im wondering this very thing right here.

 

10% difference.

 

is that based on speculation according to clock speeds or real/in game observation?

 

more like 1 percent at the present time...if that. if you over clock a 9800m gtx to 280 clocks..they are pretty much the same. what will break the 280 away is if it has over clocking above 950 mhz memory.

 

don't forget the extra 16 pipelines

 

nah, i haven't forgotten
it's gonna take some time to get these cards up to where they should be....

 

2 people (including OP) already benched it with crysis and it is 10% difference between 9800m gtx and 20% difference between 8800m gtx & 9800m gt. so yeah it is based on factual evidence.

 

i think you might want to look at the benchmarks posted for a single 9800m gtx in this thread first....

 

Well, obviously ARGH is referring to STOCK scores, in which he's pretty much correct.

 

you forgot the modified crysis run while your at it.
and 10 percent stock is fine..we already knew this when i ran the 98's at stock 280 clocks. that gave us that answer a while back. and it was more than 10 percent.
but if that card is locked at 950 mhz...then it's all a m0ot point in the end, don't you think?

Re: The GTX 280M Overclocking and Benchmarking Results Thread <hr style='color: rgb(238, 238, 238);' size='1'> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> Tried 625/1550/950 and the driver crashed near the end of the first loop. Going to try "stock" 583/1450/950 now.

Well good news, 583/1450/950 ran solid. 18.975 went to 20.5 for the CCC Level 5 test, DX10 1680.

Going to try 3dmark06 now.

Re: The GTX 280M Overclocking and Benchmarking Results Thread <hr style='color: rgb(238, 238, 238);' size='1'> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> @600/1500/950

DX10 1680 x 1050 CCC Level 4: 29.87 FPS
DX10 1680 x 1050 High: 30.73 FPS (2.5 above stock clocks)

 

Someone needs to send anothergeek the modded vbios with upped voltage so we can solve this mystery. His(her?) 280M is stable at 600/1500/950 without the voltage raise. Hopefully this means 950Mhz can be surpassed when it's given more juice.

 

tis is true....
im about dien' over here waiting to find out if this thing goes in to the 1000/1100 range on memory.
also got all the files for flashing under windows. thanks to gangstaone, but he would also need to know about changing the device id...

 

Here it is (courtesy of oile):

 

hummm, is the threshold suppose to be 108'c for that card? i was just looking at olies rom right now.

 

thanks for that but uh, few questions:

How do I save my current video bios?
How do I flash the new bios?
Can something go terribly wrong and I wont be able to go back to the original bios? <.<

 

[uote=anothergeek;4749606]thanks for that but uh, few questions:

How do I save my current video bios?
use gpuz to save a copy of your original bios. (hopefully this works)

How do I flash the new bios?
two ways..
1 is the old dos boot method of flashing.
the other is using nvflash under windows to flash. best part of this is...your video stays up and running while flashing. and they have a bat file that all you do is click it and it flashes for you. (depending on where the files sit on your hard drive)

Can something go terribly wrong and I wont be able to go back to the original bios? <.<[/quote]
i wont lie to you. yes something can go wrong. you can forget to change the device id back to 060A and when you reboot, the screen.
will be black. it is fixable with a blind flash or cdrom blind auto boot cd or flash usb stick

 

I know somebody was crying for this earlier, ran it while at work. Stock clocks (800 on the memory)



For whatever reason, the bench didn't have 1280 x 800 and 1440 x 900. However, 1280 x 1024 has a near identical pixel count to 1440, so that works.

 

one question...
what are your in game settings set to right now. when you bring up the real game?

 

customized ccc...

 

k, thanks.

 

I suppose I wasn't too helpful

Hmm, loaded up a fallout 3 save in the pentagon and slayed some NPC's. Ultra settings 4x AA 16x AF 615/1525/950 and it's 50-60 FPS

 

?
i was laying down..these long hours are killing me.

 

Updated front page... check it out!

 

At DX10 1680 x 1050, Ultra averaged 36 frames (30 min 47 max). <---what ranch run is this?

 

The standard one.. I didn't change the levels

 

if you ever get back around to running it... can you run it ultrahigh/ranchlong/1680x1050. this is what we usually use for comparison sake.

thanks.

 

Little later then, just ran warhead @dx9, doing dx10 next while I get some grub...

600/1500/950, not bad scores. These are 32 bit since there's no 64 bit option

 

also try this crysis benchmark tool as well. the 0.28 through 0.32 seem to not always be accurate.
http://www.gamershell.com/download_33800.shtml

 

mmm five guys

added dx10 benches... dx10 lost a few frames, more than crysis which lost none

 

avg 37 max 59 min 23

 

edit: nevermind, isn't this the tool that people were complaining about?

 

Dox's 185.68... not much of a difference

 

We need Nvidia to update the mobile driver to a version that supports the 160M/260M/280M.

You should also submit the BIOS to the online database by clicking that button in GPU-Z. That'll get the card supported in the next update.

Oh, and raise your voltage lol.

 

New high 3dmark score of 12662 with the GPU @ 599/1490/944 and CPU @ 3.46. Not sure why I can't select 600/1500/950, because that's what I trying to use.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=10692066

Also, how accurate is the "find optimal" button for core/shader/mem settings?

 

It worked! I don't know what voltage it was that I flashed, but thanks guys!

640/1600/975 made a stable run, gonna try even higher clocks. Probably shouldn't have flashed with an OC applied, but whatever.

 

Okay. I figured out how to get the right clocks set (600/1500/950) 3dmark = 12671

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=10693424

 

660/1600/980 stable... going for 675/1600/1000

crashed

Going to actually play the game @660/1600/980 for a bit and check for stability

Couldn't last 10 minutes...

 

Temp hit 81C, would that be cause of stuttering? Guess it's time to break out the Zalman.

 

660/1600/980 only 81°C is already really good....For me 600/1500/950 is enough, it´s still a 15.4´NB.

 

congrats! 660mhz stable and 980mhz memory ain't too shabby