Shady GTX 580 FurMark Screenshot

GTX 580 + FurMark = pas bien!!!

I just found this FurMark screenshot (from 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!!!


  • 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)

  • filip007

    It’s so fast that negative FPS comes out.

  • 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.

  • 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..

  • 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.

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

  • @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.