Here is where we dig out the FutureMark tests.
For overall system performance we use PCMark Vantage. This is run in both x86 and x64 mode to give the best indication of performance.
If you are anything like me you are completely confused at this point. The Stock scores I get, but the overclocked scores are very unexpected. With the memory and HDD scores we have seen I would not expect a second place showing behind the UD9!
For synthetic gaming tests we used the industry standard and overlockers bragging tool 3DMark Vantage. This is a test that strives to mimic the impact modern games have on a system. Futuremark went a long way to change from the early days of graphics driven tests to a broader approach including physics, AI and more advanced graphics simulations.
3DMark Vantage uses the DX10 API in addition to having support for PhysX. As we are no longer using an NVIDIA GPU for testing you will only see the CPU based PhysX results in the scores. For testing we use the Performance test run.
With 3DMark Vantage the RIIIF did outstanding. It tops out both the stock and overclocked testing groups. This is a good sign as it could mean the RIIIF is an excellent gaming board.
Cinebench R11. x64
Cinebench is a synthetic rendering tool developed by Maxon. Maxon is the same company that developed Cinema4D, another industry leading 3D Animation application. Cinebench R11.5 tests your systems ability to render across a single and multiple CPU cores. It also tests your systems ability to process OpenGL information.
The Cinebench results are also interesting. The stock scores are very good and only fall .01 points behind our fastest stock board (the Sabertooth X58). However, the overclocked score is right at the top. Again this is unexpected given the RAM scores and the HDD scores. We are beginning to think that we have counter balancing scores there. Sandra could be more accurate in testing the HDDs, while AIDA64 might have a better handle on the memory. Let's take a further look to see.