Furmark 1080p Scores

[Thedore Rosa]

Sandy Instability can be because of OC going to far or an insufficient power supply. If you have overclocked, scale it back a little. Update drivers etc too. Might help.

I ran my MSI 7770/OC to 1160mhz single card and got a 1680 with the 1920 x 1080 burn in test. I am getting a second card soon so i will post the CF results when i can.

Oh and i modified my fan settings to run at 80% at 50 Cel and 100% at 70 cel, i had a steady temp of 60 at peak.

I have a Phantom 410 with 1 stock intake and 1 Premium intake both 120mm, 1 120mm stock exhaust at the rear and a 140mm prem and 120mm prem exhaust at the top through a corsair H100 Radiator.

I haven't cranked up the memory clock very far as i'm new to OC'ing, using MSI Afterburner. I'm not really sure why i can only grab 11fps tho. I cant test under 1080. But can in 720. But I feel like this is quite low compared to my old 6850. Is this a limitation based on my card, Or simply my other hardware being sub-par?

wont submit scores. 2 different tests on 15 min burn. first was on saved profile 4 and cant remember if it was set to my current res of 19201080. second was using prof 5. just ran a 3rd with profile 5 to write the results down. using msi afterburner. profile 5 is my comfort level and pretty sure its pretty high setting (see below) as im a noob at using this kind of software.

FurMark is a very intensive OpenGL benchmark that uses fur rendering algorithms to measure the performance of graphics cards. Fur rendering is especially adapted to overheat the GPU and that's why FurMark is also a stability and stress test tool (also called GPU burner) for the graphics card.

One of the important changes is that FurMark 2 is a command line tool (furmark.exe on Windows and furmark on Linux). The GUI (FurMark_GUI.exe on Windows and FurMark_GUI on Linux) is an optional component but it's very handy to quickly launch FurMark 2 and to keep the habits of FurMark 1.

FurMark 2 is built with GeeXLab. The GUI is a pure GeeXLab application while the furmark command line tool is built with the GeeXLab SDK. GeeXLab being cross-platform, this first version of FurMark 2 is available for Windows and Linux (the Linux 32-bit version is also available, I will re-compile it for the next update). I plan to release FurMark 2 for Raspberry Pi (I just received my rpi5 board!) and maybe for macOS too.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 29 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: -guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study compares personality traits measures (using NEO and KSP questionnaires) between SAD patients and controls, and explores the presence of latent empirical clusters based on the personality profiles reported among clinical subsample. It has been conducted in a large sample of patients diagnosed with SAD (n=265) and controls (n=164).

f. Statistical analysis: I suggest using a procedure for correcting the increase in Type-I error due to the statistical multiple comparisons different to Bonferroni-method. Alternative procedures (such as Finner, Holmes or Simes) have evidenced to be preferable alternatives.

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at fig...@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Background: This section is well argued adding a great deal of new insight to this topic. It also logically generates the aims. I only suggest including the empirical hypothesis of the study based on the theoretical background.

Response: As the personality instruments are the prime focus of this paper, we have added internal consistency values for the NEO-PI-R and KSP (Methods, p. 9). Unfortunately, data on profiling variables (LSAS, SIAS, STAI-T, fear and distress ratings) were not digitally stored in a uniform way over the 20-year data collection period, i.e. data were stored mainly as summed scores. Therefore, we could not determine alpha values. However, the scales are established, validated and widely used. In the discussion, we apologize (limitations p. 29), that certain psychometric data are unfortunately lacking.

Response: Since the pattern or results was very clear, and none of the conclusions would be altered with another post-hoc test, we would prefer keeping the Bonferroni post-hoc comparisons. While we acknowledge that there are other (and presumably more sensitive) post hoc alternatives, the Bonferroni method is still valid and a widely used post hoc test.

Response: Thanks, we are very grateful for the thoughtful comments and suggestions for improvement. We added a new reference to the final paragraph (p. 31) highlighting current cluster analytic research on differences and similarities between social anxiety disorder and avoidant personality disorder:

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at , click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at author...@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onep...@plos.org.

3a8082e126