Jump to content

Gigabyte Gtx 970 G1 Clocks?


19 replies to this topic

#1 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 21 November 2014 - 04:27 PM

so i recently purchased the card and immediately started running benchmarks on it with Unigen Heaven. Through MSI AB i have the core clocks set at +15 so 1193 base and 1344 boost. but when i start running the benchmark i see a peak clock at 1420. I also see 1420 in hardware monitor and GPU-Z sensors and in MSI AB monitors. so where is the 1420 coming from? is that the true speed (seems so)? but GPU-Z main page reports the "proper" clocks. any ideas?

#2 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 21 November 2014 - 07:01 PM

This is a well-documented behavior of Nvidia's boost system, where the card will attempt to boost as high as it can while adhering to the heat and TDP limits that are set. You can rest assured there is nothing afoul here.

#3 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 21 November 2014 - 09:40 PM

ooooh, ooook. thats pretty cool. thanks!

#4 poohead

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 99 posts

Posted 23 November 2014 - 07:07 AM

You should be able to push it between +100 to +150 by only upping the power limit slider in AB, no need to touch the voltage. This should boost you to around 1500 or more in game. You should also be able to do +300 to +500 on the memory.

This is what I can do on my MSI 970 anyway.

Use the sensor tab on GPUZ to get the most accurate reading of clocks (imo).

Edited by poohead, 23 November 2014 - 07:08 AM.


#5 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 23 November 2014 - 10:12 AM

View Postpoohead, on 23 November 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

You should be able to push it between +100 to +150 by only upping the power limit slider in AB, no need to touch the voltage. This should boost you to around 1500 or more in game. You should also be able to do +300 to +500 on the memory.

This is what I can do on my MSI 970 anyway.

Use the sensor tab on GPUZ to get the most accurate reading of clocks (imo).


That's an awfully aggressive stock-voltage boost, even with the power limiter turned up. I'm impressed that 970s will do that.

#6 poohead

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 99 posts

Posted 23 November 2014 - 12:07 PM

They have a lot of headroom in them, and voltage doesn't appear to up the OC by much. They are mostly limited by what appears to be a hard thermal ceiling - mine won't go over 80 degrees C. They really don't seem to OC the same way previous generations have.

Mine only boost up to around 1480 but that's because in SLI one of my cards is 10 degrees warmer :/
But on the other hand FREE EXTRA Mhz! :D can't really complain

#7 Catamount

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • LIEUTENANT, JUNIOR GRADE
  • 3,305 posts
  • LocationBoone, NC

Posted 23 November 2014 - 12:58 PM

I just can't help but wonder if Nvidia is volting these so aggressively that they're already at their maximum, and too high for stock use. I mean, if the cards survive that, then hey, no problem at all, and they do certainly run cool, it would just be interesting to undervolt and see if that's the case, for curiosity's sake if for no practical purpose.

If it was the case, the "why" of it could also be really interesting (and I can think of a few testable ideas, had we enough 970s for a good sample)

Edited by Catamount, 23 November 2014 - 12:59 PM.


#8 xWiredx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,805 posts

Posted 23 November 2014 - 08:12 PM

View PostCatamount, on 23 November 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

I just can't help but wonder if Nvidia is volting these so aggressively that they're already at their maximum, and too high for stock use.


If the power draw was a lot higher (like the R9 AMD cards), I'd be more apt to believe that was a possibility. The power draw on the 970s and 980s is really low, and the power delivery components on most cards is higher-end than is needed by a pretty fair margin.

#9 Flapdrol

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 1,986 posts

Posted 24 November 2014 - 03:23 AM

View PostCatamount, on 23 November 2014 - 12:58 PM, said:

I just can't help but wonder if Nvidia is volting these so aggressively that they're already at their maximum, and too high for stock use. I mean, if the cards survive that, then hey, no problem at all, and they do certainly run cool, it would just be interesting to undervolt and see if that's the case, for curiosity's sake if for no practical purpose.

If it was the case, the "why" of it could also be really interesting (and I can think of a few testable ideas, had we enough 970s for a good sample)

Nvidia isn't the one doing it. Gigabyte was bragging they installed a 600W cooler on the 970/980, no kill like overkill I guess. They set a different TDP, something like 250W instead of the default ~170W or something.

What kills chips is the combination of high temperature AND high voltage, with the ridiculous coolers on the aftermarket cards the the temps stay low, so a moderately high voltage isn't going to be a problem.

#10 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 27 November 2014 - 08:27 PM

So far I'm at a 1500 core clock with 112% board power and +25 mv. I didn't crash yet, just got tired of running heaven. Hasn't broken 65c yet

#11 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 08:53 AM

View PostAznpersuasion89, on 21 November 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

so i recently purchased the card and immediately started running benchmarks on it with Unigen Heaven. Through MSI AB i have the core clocks set at +15 so 1193 base and 1344 boost. but when i start running the benchmark i see a peak clock at 1420. I also see 1420 in hardware monitor and GPU-Z sensors and in MSI AB monitors. so where is the 1420 coming from? is that the true speed (seems so)? but GPU-Z main page reports the "proper" clocks. any ideas?

MSI here, but GTX 970, running MSI Afterburner overclocking software @extended MSI settings: with +87mV set; 110% power limit and 91 Degrees limit set; +168 MHz Core set; and +400 MHz Memory set. It runs Heaven "extreme" benchmark (unmodified) normally and gives me 1808 or so result from the benchmark. My monitor is 1920x1200 though--just a side note, and that is what I run mwo at.

#12 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 09:05 AM

View PostFlapdrol, on 24 November 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

Nvidia isn't the one doing it. Gigabyte was bragging they installed a 600W cooler on the 970/980, no kill like overkill I guess. They set a different TDP, something like 250W instead of the default ~170W or something.

What kills chips is the combination of high temperature AND high voltage, with the ridiculous coolers on the aftermarket cards the the temps stay low, so a moderately high voltage isn't going to be a problem.


It's limited by NVidia drivers--they kick in to limit Over Voltage, Over Temperature, Over Thermal Limit, and plane Jane Voltage limit too. In all, including SLI limiter, there is about 5 limiters that could and do kick in--all driven by NVidia drivers. You can observe this behavior in detailed MSI Afterburner graph display or other software that shows that. There is also 4 (count them--FOUR) power states that are implemented on the VGA BIOS level and they turn on even during the game play and scale down clocks (core and/or memory) down, as needed (or not as needed--that part remains to be seen.) All in all, this is a new architecture (sure, it's basically GTX 470 on steroids but still) and new drivers that, hopefully, would continue being optimized. Trust me, this card COULD have been overclocked a lot ALOT higher, core wise, but, NVidia is to blame for settings such aggressive limiters. Perhaps with time aftermarket BIOSes would become available.. for now, that's that. Max memory OC you should expect is +400 (total 7,800 MHz) (some rare cases possible to get up to 8,000MHz but very rare) and core OC you should expect is around +168 (total of 1,500 when the internal NVidia 'boost' kicks in) which would be limited by 1st power limiter and not the temperature limiter. I haven't seen my card go even to 80 degrees AT ALL. I think 73 degrees is the highest I've seen with fans running at around 73% too or so. There is ALOT of headroom for the core IF only BIOS was not limiting it.

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 29 November 2014 - 03:17 PM.


#13 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 29 November 2014 - 02:53 PM

Ya I raised the board limit to max after I ran heaven and the card mini crashed at 1470. I also added +25mv just to step up the clocks before my next crash (got bored at 1500). My buddy just his card and clocked to 1505 right out of the box. Lucky *******. I used oc guru and set to target heat to 80c but it never reaches that or anywhere close (62c). Nor does it get close to the 100 percent power target, peaks at 73 ish. Is that the maximum I'm allowing or a limit that the card should push to in order to get maximum speed (I thought the latter).

Edited by Aznpersuasion89, 29 November 2014 - 02:54 PM.


#14 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 03:09 PM

View PostAznpersuasion89, on 29 November 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

Ya I raised the board limit to max after I ran heaven and the card mini crashed at 1470. I also added +25mv just to step up the clocks before my next crash (got bored at 1500). My buddy just his card and clocked to 1505 right out of the box. Lucky *******. I used oc guru and set to target heat to 80c but it never reaches that or anywhere close (62c). Nor does it get close to the 100 percent power target, peaks at 73 ish. Is that the maximum I'm allowing or a limit that the card should push to in order to get maximum speed (I thought the latter).


Hm, looks like there is something else that is going on. Check your motherboard's BIOS, and also see if there are any updates to it on the manufacturer's web site. My card often hits 110% power limit and OV and V limits with the settings I set it at when I run something really demanding. If your card doesn't get to even 100% power target at heavy duty tasks then there is something wrong. Here is my Firestrike results http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/4881924 of 8775. Try afterburner, see if maybe you missed some setting or something. I think I know though.. my card came with about 70% thermal power limit set as default when I installed it and looked in afterburner. I cranked it up to 110% maximum allowed. I think that is exactly what is going on with your setup. Double check your settings and crank the power limit to 110% or whatever max is allowed for your particular card.

#15 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 29 November 2014 - 03:14 PM

Right I use afterburner for over clocking perposes. I'm reading gpuz for voltages. I think msi said I was at 1.23xx volts. I don't know what stock voltage is. I'm getting performance out of it that is linear with overclocking. I'm probably just reading something wring is gpuz is wrong. I know gpuz is saying I'm using 72% of whatever my power limit is. Do I need to click something in AB settings? I'm not sure what I have clicked as I'm not home right now

Edited by Aznpersuasion89, 29 November 2014 - 03:15 PM.


#16 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 03:28 PM

View PostAznpersuasion89, on 29 November 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

Right I use afterburner for over clocking perposes. I'm reading gpuz for voltages. I think msi said I was at 1.23xx volts. I don't know what stock voltage is. I'm getting performance out of it that is linear with overclocking. I'm probably just reading something wring is gpuz is wrong. I know gpuz is saying I'm using 72% of whatever my power limit is. Do I need to click something in AB settings? I'm not sure what I have clicked as I'm not home right now


Try to run Firestrike benchmark or Heaven benchmark and see if your power limit/usage goes over 72% to 100% or more--if it doesn't then you need to double check your settings in Afterburner. Another way to force the video card to go over 100% is to play a demanding game on ultra settings (not mwo though because it only runs it at 30% gpu utilization and is cpu limited, for the most part). Go and enable extended (if available) or standard Voltage control in "Settings" and pretty much choose everything there except "Force constant voltage". Then, save that by clicking on the "OK" on the bottom. Then, on main screen (once you are out of "Settings"), pull "Power Limit" slider all the way to the right to 110%, then click on "Apply" to make it valid. (Then you can save your setting if you want to) and click on little green dot on the bottom left corner of the AB to make overclock enabled everytime your Windows boot up. As a side note, I use Afterburner 4.0

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 29 November 2014 - 03:33 PM.


#17 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 29 November 2014 - 03:36 PM

Ya I use heaven for benchmarking. My most demanding game is bf4 ultra and far cry 4 ultra. I'll check the power settings/usage of them. But I don't play overclocked since I hit 60 fps stock clocks anyway and checked power after them. Never got above 73%. And yes I've slid the board limiter all way and added core voltage. I'll do another run on heaven stock then overclock and far cry 4 stock and overclock for 10 minutes and use the msi AB graph and report back on the power usage.

Edited by Aznpersuasion89, 29 November 2014 - 03:45 PM.


#18 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 03:45 PM

View PostAznpersuasion89, on 29 November 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Ya I use heaven for benchmarking. My most demanding game is bf4 ultra and far cry 4 ultra. I'll check the power settings/usage of them. But I don't play overclocked since I hit 60 fps stock clocks anyway and checked power after them. Never got above 73%. And yes I've slid the board limiter all way and added core voltage


Cool. Maybe those games don't use 100% of gpu and it doesn't draw all that power? Who knows. I would actually recommend that you install latest Furmark burn in software and run your gpu at it's max settings--I see my card's thermal draw going up all the way to 110% when I am running it. http://www.majorgeek...ls/furmark.html

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 29 November 2014 - 04:40 PM.


#19 Aznpersuasion89

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 614 posts
  • Locationca

Posted 30 November 2014 - 10:42 AM

so stock clocks heaven 1405 core 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP 72.1% and VDDC 1.2120 v.
Overclock was +85 MHZ core, 1502 boost core 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP was 80%, and VDDC was 1.2370 . 66c peak temp. +26 Mv core and board at 112%

Stock furmark 1366 boost core, 1752 mem, load 99%, 99.4 TDP and VDDC 1.1430
Overclock (same) 1480 boost core, 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP 111.7%, VDDC 1.2120 v. 73c peak temp.

Edited by Aznpersuasion89, 30 November 2014 - 10:52 AM.


#20 MechWarrior4172571

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • 251 posts

Posted 01 December 2014 - 08:48 AM

View PostAznpersuasion89, on 30 November 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

so stock clocks heaven 1405 core 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP 72.1% and VDDC 1.2120 v.
Overclock was +85 MHZ core, 1502 boost core 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP was 80%, and VDDC was 1.2370 . 66c peak temp. +26 Mv core and board at 112%

Stock furmark 1366 boost core, 1752 mem, load 99%, 99.4 TDP and VDDC 1.1430
Overclock (same) 1480 boost core, 1752 mem, load 99%, TDP 111.7%, VDDC 1.2120 v. 73c peak temp.


Yeah, that's about a typical experience you should expect from an NVidia GTX 970 card. I'll add though that if you run high resolution monitor(s) then boosting memory instead of maxing out the core might give you better results, since resolution goes hand in hand with memory (not related to MWO so much, but 'normal' games which were meant for GPUs.) Added: Oh, and I run Heaven benchmark at "Extreme" settings, simply because that's what is meant for this type of video card, not the lower resolution Heaven benchmark... just a clarification. Not sure if you run the "Extreme" one or not, but wanted to clarify the difference.

Edited by Jesus DIED for me, 01 December 2014 - 08:50 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users