Ah yes, you could do similar tricks with Pentium CPUs back in the day, or sometimes just by flicking a DIP switch to get a 600$ processor out of your 200$ processor.
Not that long ago. The GTX 690 was launched only 7 years ago. I was tempted to try the Quadro mod for fun but eventually sold the card as is when I switched to Pascal.
I have a 1080 and running @ 3440*1440 I've never had to turn down graphics settings a single notch due to FPS issues but I've had to due to lack of VRAM on a few occasions...
8 GB is fine for the 2060. But not fine for the 2070 and 2080. They should both have at least 11 GB. And the 2080 Ti should have at least 14. I am happy for the people who bought a 1080 Ti. They have a card with a very long breath. I wish I would have been so smart and bought one when they were around $600 to $700.
Is it not. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years now, so I've tossed it out.
However if there's a newer, similar benchmark you'd like to see, then I'd be eager to hear it. The current GPU compute benchmark situation is rather ugly.
I was wondering the same thing. My GPUs spend as much time mapping the stars, looking for little green men, and working to cure disease as they do playing games. With this being one of the few sites that puts any compute benchmarks into GPU reviews (for which I am grateful), I would be fine with you keeping an older compute test or two. I'm not sure crunching for science (in whatever realm) sees apps change as often as games, and for those of us who do that, I don't think we'll complain. I understand every benchmark takes time to run, just know there are those of us who do look forward to F@H tests. Or, maybe I'm just stuck in the past, where for years, in EVERY new GPU review, I anxiously looked to see if THIS would be the card that could run Crysis :-)
FAHBench is based on core21 which is still the current workhorse for molecular dynamics simulations at Folding@Home. There is a new core22 in development but it is still in beta testing. I do see links to Anandtech's FAHbench results in multiple forums including the folding forum at Stanford so it is still important to those of us that support science with our GPUs.
Very interesting. That's good to know! I was under the impression that the project had already discarded core21. FAHBench is easy enough to run, so that wouldn't be too hard to re-integrate.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
281 Comments
View All Comments
V900 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Ah yes, you could do similar tricks with Pentium CPUs back in the day, or sometimes just by flicking a DIP switch to get a 600$ processor out of your 200$ processor.Overclocking actually made sense then.
Sadly, those days are long gone.
Koenig168 - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
Not that long ago. The GTX 690 was launched only 7 years ago. I was tempted to try the Quadro mod for fun but eventually sold the card as is when I switched to Pascal.Kvaern1 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Still only 8GB RAM on the 2080...I have a 1080 and running @ 3440*1440 I've never had to turn down graphics settings a single notch due to FPS issues but I've had to due to lack of VRAM on a few occasions...
Beaver M. - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
8 GB is fine for the 2060. But not fine for the 2070 and 2080. They should both have at least 11 GB. And the 2080 Ti should have at least 14.I am happy for the people who bought a 1080 Ti. They have a card with a very long breath. I wish I would have been so smart and bought one when they were around $600 to $700.
solnyshok - Saturday, July 6, 2019 - link
I bought one, used, for $350 about 6 months ago.biodoc - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Is FAHbench part of the new benchmarks suite? It is of interest to those of us into scientific computing.Ryan Smith - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
Is it not. It hasn't been updated in a couple of years now, so I've tossed it out.However if there's a newer, similar benchmark you'd like to see, then I'd be eager to hear it. The current GPU compute benchmark situation is rather ugly.
catavalon21 - Tuesday, July 2, 2019 - link
I was wondering the same thing. My GPUs spend as much time mapping the stars, looking for little green men, and working to cure disease as they do playing games. With this being one of the few sites that puts any compute benchmarks into GPU reviews (for which I am grateful), I would be fine with you keeping an older compute test or two. I'm not sure crunching for science (in whatever realm) sees apps change as often as games, and for those of us who do that, I don't think we'll complain. I understand every benchmark takes time to run, just know there are those of us who do look forward to F@H tests. Or, maybe I'm just stuck in the past, where for years, in EVERY new GPU review, I anxiously looked to see if THIS would be the card that could run Crysis :-)biodoc - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
FAHBench is based on core21 which is still the current workhorse for molecular dynamics simulations at Folding@Home. There is a new core22 in development but it is still in beta testing. I do see links to Anandtech's FAHbench results in multiple forums including the folding forum at Stanford so it is still important to those of us that support science with our GPUs.Ryan Smith - Wednesday, July 3, 2019 - link
Very interesting. That's good to know! I was under the impression that the project had already discarded core21. FAHBench is easy enough to run, so that wouldn't be too hard to re-integrate.