Solved hd 6870 Unigine Heaven Post your score !

[Solarstarshines]

it did me like that too but took a chance it is not a WQHL driver that is why i assume

I installed it it kept giving me options, at first i decided not to but went for it worse comes to worse i can just re do my machine and make it better

 

[sygnus21]

Im scared to see how high yours will go I can tell you this benchmark ran alot smoother then 2.0 that i was useing

Well I haven't even installed it. I downloaded it last night though. BTW IE (MSE) flagged it at "suspicious"

The ole we've never seen this one before warning. Used to link provided here, and downloaded it from 2 different servers. Hmmm.......

Here's what I'm talking about.....

 

[Solarstarshines]

Im scared to see how high yours will go I can tell you this benchmark ran alot smoother then 2.0 that i was useing

Well I haven't even installed it. I downloaded it last night though. BTW IE (MSE) flagged it at "suspicious"

The ole we've never seen this one before warning. Used to link provided here, and downloaded it from 2 different servers. Hmmm.......

Here's what I'm talking about.....

View attachment 149549

yes i seen that but then again were using IE-9 which is acting like firefox before the new IE came out the warnings weren't so scarey looking either or if you have a virus protect should be able to somehow scan these files before they are open

 

[sygnus21]

Yeah, you're right. Anyway MSE says the file is clean

I'll install it later as I'm watching TV (basketball game) on the PC, and posting at both the Yankees forum, and here right now

 

[Solarstarshines]

Yeah, you're right. Anyway MSE says the file is clean

I'll install it later as I'm watching TV (basketball game) on the PC, and posting at both the Yankees forum, and here right now

multi tasking you devil you

 

[sygnus21]

Yeah I've got like 5 different forums open, the TV going, and some minor no restart PC maint going

 

[DarkXeno]

Well I might as well join in this one.
New Build so you guys are giving me an idea of where I should be.

This is a MSI AMD R6950 2g card with one screen at 1900x1080.

 

[Solarstarshines]

Well I might as well join in this one.
New Build so you guys are giving me an idea of where I should be.

This is a MSI AMD R6950 2g card with one screen at 1900x1080.

that score looks off a little if you look at page 2 there is a poster that gave varies resolutions and one of them was 1900x1200 - and it was a little higher take into mind the guy was useing a 580 gxt ----still looks good though

 

[BugMeister]

I appologize and also thank you for linking Unigine heaven

No need to apologize - we're all part of the team and the link is posted. As for my thoughts, well..... you see this thread took on a life of it's own so thanks for making the thread

Anyway interesting scores smarteyeball.

BTW here my 6950 crossfire score when I had a temporary setup as posted here - http://www.sevenforums.com/graphic-cards/138499-ati-6950-a-6.html#post1236506

ooh, nice..
- was that with stock timings on the card?

BTW - which driver were you running back then, 'cos the 11.4 preview is a doozy with the 6*** series..

- might be worth benchmarking to the 2.5 version of Unigine,
- be cool to see what the effects of W7's SP1 are, too..


- wonder what made the Min FPS blip low like that..??

PS that 5*** series result is no fluke either, I've seen some amazingly high scores with those cards
they might thrash a bit, but AMD were right to tout them as the fastest in the world..!!

 

[sygnus21]

BTW - which driver were you running back then, 'cos the 11.4 preview is a doozy with the 6*** series..

- might be worth benchmarking to the 2.5 version of Unigine,
- be cool to see what the effects of W7's SP1 are, too..


- wonder what made the Min FPS blip low like that..??

PS that 5*** series result is no fluke either, I've seen some amazingly high scores with those cards
they might thrash a bit, but AMD were right to tout them as the fastest in the world..!!

I'm not sure if I had SP1 installed or not at the time of the test. I want to say it was, but..... and that score was taken in Feb as shown in the link, and I was using either Cats 10:12 or 11.1

Anyway I no longer have the Crossfire setup as stated in the link.

 

[Hopalong X]

Im scared to see how high yours will go I can tell you this benchmark ran alot smoother then 2.0 that i was useing

Well I haven't even installed it. I downloaded it last night though. BTW IE (MSE) flagged it at "suspicious"

The ole we've never seen this one before warning. Used to link provided here, and downloaded it from 2 different servers. Hmmm.......

Here's what I'm talking about.....

View attachment 149549

The download from the tech site did me the same last night.
It is clean.
That is what I used in my v2.5 I posted earlier.

The security is tighter on downloads with IE9 and with its newer updates.
That was the third flagged download the last couple of weeks for me that I know were safe.
Mike

 

[sygnus21]

Well here's my score after upgrading to Heaven 2.5......



Here's the one with version 2.2.....



BTW it's kind of hard to compare scores since people are using different resolutions. I think a standard res of 1280x1024 should be used to compare scores to one another. With that....



Note that all of these are using the same drivers. Cats 11.4 preview (the fist ones).

And yeah Mike you're right about the false positive IE9 gives

 

[Hopalong X]

Sygnus

That is strange yours went down....but then the v2.5 was updated for the Nvid 500's and the ATI 6000's.
So I guess it is more accurate.???

Your 12xx X 10xx res makes sense except on wide screen.
My 1400x900 would be sort of comparable that I posted. So I don't feel bad with my 460's results.

I have read that games look better on equal monitors except if one is 2ms response time and another 5ms for example.
I always wondered how much if any the millisecond response time rating has on benchmarks?

I know resolution goes up frame rate drops. That makes sense it has to make a larger image.
It would make sense response time is lower for same resolution the frame rate would increase.

Not a big deal just a hmmm? curiosity moment.

 

[sygnus21]

Well I do have a 6000 series video card (6950). In fact I never used Heaven until I got my card as discussed here - http://www.sevenforums.com/graphic-cards/138499-ati-6950-a-6.html#post1236506

Anyway I was so surprised to see the score go down that I restarted the computer and ran the test again.... only to get the same score, so.......... :shock:

 

[DarkXeno]

Ive gone threw and looked at some of my setting I see I have work to do to tweak this card and my mobo.
But this that said here is a base line with res at 1280x1024 using cat 11.3
Still have some work to do and to mess with the second bois on the card too.

 

[sygnus21]

You score is more in line with mine at that resolution as we both have 6950 2gig cards.

Now if everyone here used the same resolution (1280x1024) for comparision purposes we'd have a better idea of how our cards compare/should compare to one another.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[smarteyeball]

smartey your gtx580 is one hell of a card how much did that run you if you don't mind me asking

More than I afford to waste

Newegg.com - ASUS ENGTX580 DCII/2DIS/1536MD5 GeForce GTX 580 (Fermi) 1536MB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Support Video Card

But after all the constant frustration I had with my 5970, it's been worth every damn penny. What I've lost in raw FPS, I've made up for practically everywhere else. Overall, it's just a better gaming experience.

It's far smoother, far less glitchy and so damn quiet.


1280x1024



As for these benchmarks, they should be taken for what they are - a bit of fun.

 

[IownAmoneyPit]

As per Sygnus21 suggestion 1280x1024, stock settings on card.

 

[sygnus21]

@ smarteyeball, what'd you do with the 5970? Sell it? Just curious - (no I don't want it)

BTW the last time I paid that much for a card was in 2003 when I bought an ATI All in Wonder 9800Pro for 427.69

Anyway nice card and damn good numbers

@ IownAmoneyPit, same with you nice numbers.

Glad to see everyone using a standard we can compare to.

Thanks

And dang, my little ole 6950 is getting left in the dust :shock:

 

[BugMeister]

ran 'em again at 1280x1024


that one was with the basic settings as before..


this one's with everything in sight maxed to the hilt..

- not much difference..
- no need to worry about playing games at ultra-max..

- the native res of my monitor is 1600x900, so I assume it's more "efficient" at that setting
- at least the circles stay round and all that.. heh, heh..!!