Shady GTX 580 FurMark Screenshot



GTX 580 + FurMark = pas bien!!!



I just found this FurMark screenshot (from pconline.com.cn) of a GTX 580 that seems a bit shady. We can read an average FPS of 31. I just tested FurMark 1.8.2 with a GTX 480 with different settings:

GTX 480 + FurMark
1280×1024, no AA: Avg FPS = 112

GTX 480 + FurMark
1920×1080, no AA: Avg FPS = 102

GTX 480 + FurMark
1920×1080, AA 8X: Avg FPS = 64



According to the leaked screenshot, a quick analysing tells me that the resolution used was 1280×1024. In 1280×1024 my GTX 480 runs at around 112FPS and in the worst case, 1920×1080 8X MSAA, the GTX 480 shows a nice average FPS of 64. So the 31 FPS for a GTX 580 is not really normal (very very slow). If this screenshot is true, I have a bad feeling with new GF110-based cards…

GTX 580 + FurMark = pas bien!!!



7 thoughts on “Shady GTX 580 FurMark Screenshot”

  1. WacKEDmaN

    Xtreme Burning Mode enabled maybe? but even that doesnt hold up…im getting about 55 fps with it enabled @ 1280×1024 0x MSAA..
    in standard mode i get 115 fps at the same res.. (gtx470 @ 800/1600/2000/1.087v)

  2. Zorg

    The GTX 500 series will have better overload protection than the 400 series. This is normal. Maybe the drivers use some software workaround too, I don’t test it yet.

  3. Zibri

    I don’t know why (maybe it’s a setting somewhere) but I also get 31 fps in furmark with my 2 460 in SLI… obivously it’s because of some settings, because even with a single card I have the same result..

  4. Zibri

    Yep.. I just tested it again.
    Running furmark (not the multi gpu one) I get 105 fps with standard settings…
    Enabling AFR1 or AFR2 I see both cards working but I get the same FPS… which is odd.

  5. JeGX Post Author

    @WacKEDmaN: in stability test + Xtreme mode, I get an avg FPS of 56 with my GTX 480…

  6. JeGX Post Author

    @Zorg: maybe you’re right, one year after AMD, NVIDIA has certainly added some kind of over current protection in hardware.
    We have to wait for the launch to have more details.

Comments are closed.