DaBogo

KingEngineRevUp
Almost broke 22000 GPU score in Timespy, just shy a few points. +195/+1250
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/20913451
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/1082242
 
Also, here are my stress test, +165/+1250 running 20 loops straight each
https://www.3dmark.com/tsst/2021793
https://www.3dmark.com/prst/109334
 

but can +165mhz / +1250memory also be used for daily tasks and gaming or is this only for benchmarking?
 
Thanks
Dali

Nope, and I can explain why. Games that are lighter in loads, lower in power can cause your clocks to boost 15-30 MHz and when that happens you'll crash. You see, my card would jump up clocks I didn't set them at due to boost, it would jump up to 2115-2130 or sometimes even 2145 on a light load and then crash. I was stable and I passed those stress test because my card was power limited and the average clocks dropped due to that.
 
I have since backed off to +120/+1250 and haven't crashed at all in games like Assassin's Credd Valhalla and Warzone which are lighter loads. I was able to game for many hours on RE8 Village but that's because that game power limited my card due to RTX. 
 
I highly recommend anyone that thinks they're stable at a certain clock to start playing lower load games. You have to make sure you're stable across the the board. Not just at the top of your voltage curve, but at the bottom and at light loads that can cause low thermal bonus boost when you're around 50C and lower. 

DaBogo

KingEngineRevUp

DaBogo

KingEngineRevUp
Almost broke 22000 GPU score in Timespy, just shy a few points. +195/+1250
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/20913451
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/1082242
 
Also, here are my stress test, +165/+1250 running 20 loops straight each
https://www.3dmark.com/tsst/2021793
https://www.3dmark.com/prst/109334
 

but can +165mhz / +1250memory also be used for daily tasks and gaming or is this only for benchmarking?
 
Thanks
Dali

Nope, and I can explain why. Games that are lighter in loads, lower in power can cause your clocks to boost 15-30 MHz and when that happens you'll crash. You see, my card would jump up clocks I didn't set them at due to boost, it would jump up to 2115-2130 or sometimes even 2145 on a light load and then crash. I was stable and I passed those stress test because my card was power limited and the average clocks dropped due to that.
 
I have since backed off to +120/+1250 and haven't crashed at all in games like Assassin's Credd Valhalla and Warzone which are lighter loads. I was able to game for many hours on RE8 Village but that's because that game power limited my card due to RTX. 
 
I highly recommend anyone that thinks they're stable at a certain clock to start playing lower load games. You have to make sure you're stable across the the board. Not just at the top of your voltage curve, but at the bottom and at light loads that can cause low thermal bonus boost when you're around 50C and lower. 

That‘s exactly the information i was expecting. To be honest i never had +120 / + 1250 + maxed out power to 113 and i just did two tests: time spy / mark fire and i‘m really surprised how clean this went through. My highest result yet. I‘ve just noted that final result was worst than my highest score till now because i will need to finetune my ryzen 5900x there. How is your ryzen overclocked? bios or with some other tools? I know that it also would help to tune that 3800mhz rams but due leak of expirience i dont wanna screw stability just to hit higher number on the benchmark. By the end of the day benchmark score is worthless if i cant work on that system. But i was just wondering cause i was seeing some other threads and oc values and i was not sure what is a point going so high but thank you for explanation.

Br
Dali

Well here's one thing that also happened, for aesthetic reasons, I'm using QL120 fans on my hybrid and they suck. My GPU temperatures jumped 7C-10C higher. So that's probably the main reason I have to go down from +165 to +120. Where I was comfortably around 55-58C at max load, I am now at 63-65C. 

Ineedgfx
That's a HUGE performance hit for aesthetics

Lol, 0.5% in performance loss is not huge. But what's considered a huge loss in performance can be relative. 

I might be able to do some real benchmarks by the end of the weekend with my 3080ti. Looks like my old 4790k mobo is dead that I've got the 3080ti in. New X570 board on the way. Already have a 3900x and 3600C16 left over from upgrades to my 3090 machine.

KingEngineRevUp
 
Lol, 0.5% in performance loss is not huge. But what's considered a huge loss in performance can be relative. 

 
Fair point, I should have said huge temp performance hit, not so much in actual gfx frequencies. And we're all chasing small gains; some would even say tiny gains relative to the monetary investment.

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 
 
I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 
 
When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 
 
That's my advice. 

I finally have enough post counts to post links to my score https://www.3dmark.com/pr/1073556

I can only hear a little wine if I open my case up and put my ear close to the card. Other than that, I don't hear it over the fans. 

KingEngineRevUp
I can only hear a little wine if I open my case up and put my ear close to the card. Other than that, I don't hear it over the fans. 

I wish mine were that quiet. I heard it with the stock air cooler and thought it would be more noticeable with a water block. Sure enough, I was right about that. It’d be nice if EVGA injected the inductors with resin or something to keep them from vibrating so much. Even my amplifier for my home theater system is encased in resin to keep the iron cores of the toroids from humming so much.

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 

I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 

When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 

That's my advice. 

+1

Funny you say that about War Zone. It randomly crashes for me at +150, so I have to downclock it to +125. It’s the only game that’s given me crap so far.

Yeah, continue to test lower powered games. And +125 is really +120. Remember it's in increments of 15. If you want to see this, open up the voltage curve. Type +120 and hit enter. Then type +125 and hit enter. I bet you curve just falls back down to +120?

I’ve been benchmarking for more realistic gaming performance, and I found that +165/+1350 is the sweet spot. However, we both know that games like War Zone, as we discussed, can have a negative impact. I may also drop my overclock to +120 and see how it runs with +1350.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having issues with games randomly minimizing to the desktop? This only recently started for me, and I get the impression it’s from the latest round of Windows updates. It’s even doing it when benchmarking which crashes the benchmark when it does this. So annoying.

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 

I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 

When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 

That's my advice. 

+1

Funny you say that about War Zone. It randomly crashes for me at +150, so I have to downclock it to +125. It’s the only game that’s given me crap so far.

Yeah, continue to test lower powered games. And +125 is really +120. Remember it's in increments of 15. If you want to see this, open up the voltage curve. Type +120 and hit enter. Then type +125 and hit enter. I bet you curve just falls back down to +120?

I’ve been benchmarking for more realistic gaming performance, and I found that +165/+1350 is the sweet spot. However, we both know that games like War Zone, as we discussed, can have a negative impact. I may also drop my overclock to +120 and see how it runs with +1350.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having issues with games randomly minimizing to the desktop? This only recently started for me, and I get the impression it’s from the latest round of Windows updates. It’s even doing it when benchmarking which crashes the benchmark when it does this. So annoying.

I was able to play a few games at +165 for hours no problem. The reason, it's because the games power limited the card and made the clocks drop down so I was actually stable at that voltage. 
 
Playing games that don't require as much power can, again as I explained earlier, cause boost to shoot your clocks up, become unstable and crash. 
 
I guess you can do a profile for certain games. For me, I don't want to have to switch between profiles, so I decided to just stick to +120 for convenience reasons. I'm not really missing that +45 Mhz, but I am missing out if my buddies and I are close to dubbing in Warzone and I get booted. It happened 3 times, so I said "screw the extra 45 Mhz!"

That’s my bottom line as well - not having to switch profiles. In all reality, those extra 45 MHz only equate to a couple of FPS in gaming performance. By the way, +120/+1350 didn’t seem like it was cutting it, but I did just pass a +120/+1250 Time Spy stress test at 99.1%. It’s looking like our cards are pretty much evenly matched.

Praise be the silicon goddess for she giveth greatness to thee.

Seriously though, nice.

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 

I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 

When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 

That's my advice. 

+1

Funny you say that about War Zone. It randomly crashes for me at +150, so I have to downclock it to +125. It’s the only game that’s given me crap so far.

Yeah, continue to test lower powered games. And +125 is really +120. Remember it's in increments of 15. If you want to see this, open up the voltage curve. Type +120 and hit enter. Then type +125 and hit enter. I bet you curve just falls back down to +120?

I’ve been benchmarking for more realistic gaming performance, and I found that +165/+1350 is the sweet spot. However, we both know that games like War Zone, as we discussed, can have a negative impact. I may also drop my overclock to +120 and see how it runs with +1350.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having issues with games randomly minimizing to the desktop? This only recently started for me, and I get the impression it’s from the latest round of Windows updates. It’s even doing it when benchmarking which crashes the benchmark when it does this. So annoying.

I was able to play a few games at +165 for hours no problem. The reason, it's because the games power limited the card and made the clocks drop down so I was actually stable at that voltage. 

Playing games that don't require as much power can, again as I explained earlier, cause boost to shoot your clocks up, become unstable and crash. 

I guess you can do a profile for certain games. For me, I don't want to have to switch between profiles, so I decided to just stick to +120 for convenience reasons. I'm not really missing that +45 Mhz, but I am missing out if my buddies and I are close to dubbing in Warzone and I get booted. It happened 3 times, so I said "screw the extra 45 Mhz!"

That’s my bottom line as well - not having to switch profiles. In all reality, those extra 45 MHz only equate to a couple of FPS in gaming performance. By the way, +120/+1350 didn’t seem like it was cutting it, but I did just pass a +120/+1250 Time Spy stress test at 99.1%. It’s looking like our cards are pretty much evenly matched.

Time Spy and Port Royal stress test only tell you how your card is power limited. Being power limited doesn't stress test your card at the max clocks and lowest voltage point on a curve. If you look at my previous post here:
 
Also, here are my stress test, +165/+1250 running 20 loops straight each
https://www.3dmark.com/tsst/2021793
https://www.3dmark.com/prst/109334
 
And again, I found later that lower powered games caused me to crash. So I would only rely on these stress test for one type of test, when your card TDP is being pushed to the max. 
 
 

What are you using to test the lowest point with? Also, most of the games I play that don’t max out a GPU’s power also don’t always ramp up the core clock if the game environment isn’t that demanding. Occasionally, I play Star Wars: The Old Republic, for example, and a lot of times the card sits between 1800-1900 MHz. Of course, that’s now just about a decade-old title, and not very demanding by today’s standards. But, that’s been my experience with other titles as well. If the GPU isn’t being fully utilized to max out a game’s engine, then the GPU won’t ramp up its core clock frequency towards max.

I found Assassin's Creed Valhalla to be a good test because it pushed the card to almost 100% usage, it didn't reach my monitors max hz (98FPS average on a 165 Hz monitor) and the power draw was 300-320W. 
 
This had my card at lower temperatures and it boosted upwards. I found that at +120W, I need to at least turn my voltage slider up 50% and it hasn't crashed in either ACV or Warzone. I haven't crashed since I moved to +120. 
 
 

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 

I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 

When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 

That's my advice. 

+1

Funny you say that about War Zone. It randomly crashes for me at +150, so I have to downclock it to +125. It’s the only game that’s given me crap so far.

Yeah, continue to test lower powered games. And +125 is really +120. Remember it's in increments of 15. If you want to see this, open up the voltage curve. Type +120 and hit enter. Then type +125 and hit enter. I bet you curve just falls back down to +120?

I’ve been benchmarking for more realistic gaming performance, and I found that +165/+1350 is the sweet spot. However, we both know that games like War Zone, as we discussed, can have a negative impact. I may also drop my overclock to +120 and see how it runs with +1350.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having issues with games randomly minimizing to the desktop? This only recently started for me, and I get the impression it’s from the latest round of Windows updates. It’s even doing it when benchmarking which crashes the benchmark when it does this. So annoying.

I was able to play a few games at +165 for hours no problem. The reason, it's because the games power limited the card and made the clocks drop down so I was actually stable at that voltage. 

Playing games that don't require as much power can, again as I explained earlier, cause boost to shoot your clocks up, become unstable and crash. 

I guess you can do a profile for certain games. For me, I don't want to have to switch between profiles, so I decided to just stick to +120 for convenience reasons. I'm not really missing that +45 Mhz, but I am missing out if my buddies and I are close to dubbing in Warzone and I get booted. It happened 3 times, so I said "screw the extra 45 Mhz!"

That’s my bottom line as well - not having to switch profiles. In all reality, those extra 45 MHz only equate to a couple of FPS in gaming performance. By the way, +120/+1350 didn’t seem like it was cutting it, but I did just pass a +120/+1250 Time Spy stress test at 99.1%. It’s looking like our cards are pretty much evenly matched.

Time Spy and Port Royal stress test only tell you how your card is power limited. Being power limited doesn't stress test your card at the max clocks and lowest voltage point on a curve. If you look at my previous post here:

Also, here are my stress test, +165/+1250 running 20 loops straight each
https://www.3dmark.com/tsst/2021793
https://www.3dmark.com/prst/109334

And again, I found later that lower powered games caused me to crash. So I would only rely on these stress test for one type of test, when your card TDP is being pushed to the max. 

What are you using to test the lowest point with? Also, most of the games I play that don’t max out a GPU’s power also don’t always ramp up the core clock if the game environment isn’t that demanding. Occasionally, I play Star Wars: The Old Republic, for example, and a lot of times the card sits between 1800-1900 MHz. Of course, that’s now just about a decade-old title, and not very demanding by today’s standards. But, that’s been my experience with other titles as well. If the GPU isn’t being fully utilized to max out a game’s engine, then the GPU won’t ramp up its core clock frequency towards max.

I found Assassin's Creed Valhalla to be a good test because it pushed the card to almost 100% usage, it didn't reach my monitors max hz (98FPS average on a 165 Hz monitor) and the power draw was 300-320W. 
 
This had my card at lower temperatures and it boosted upwards. I found that at +120W, I need to at least turn my voltage slider up 50% and it hasn't crashed in either ACV or Warzone. I haven't crashed since I moved to +120. 
 
 

I do have AC Valhalla, but haven’t played it yet. Sounds like a good opportunity to do so in the near future.

I usually max out the voltage slider when applying an overclock. Oh, and Port Royal surprisingly crashed with +120/+1250. Running it again now with +1200 memory. Not sure why it was able to handle higher core and memory earlier, but not lower clock speeds. That’s VRAM for you. Some modules just don’t like some frequencies.

Is your GPU warmed up now? It can be due to the heat. 

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre

KingEngineRevUp

ObscureEmpyre
I must have won the silicon lottery, as I’m stable at +200/+1200 (benchmarking). I’m not quite done yet, but I’ve already taken the #1 spot for Time Spy, Fire Strike, and Port Royal for a 9900K / 3080 Ti combo. I’m stable at +150/+1000 for gaming, but that was literally my starting point. Haven’t experimented with higher clocks for gaming yet.

+200 is probably +195, it goes by multiples of 15 MHz. 

I highly recommend not just stress testing at at high loads, but testing games with low loads that will shoot your clocks up because of boost. My card is very similar to yours, +195/ +1250. I was gaming at +165/ +1250 no problem on high loads. I even passed several stress test. 

When it came time to playing Warzone and Assassin's creed Valhalla, games that only need 300W, I saw my card run very cool like in the low 50s. Next thing I know, boost added +30 Mhz to my clocks and it caused me to crash. I lowered it to +120 now because of lower power draw games. 

That's my advice. 

+1

Funny you say that about War Zone. It randomly crashes for me at +150, so I have to downclock it to +125. It’s the only game that’s given me crap so far.

Yeah, continue to test lower powered games. And +125 is really +120. Remember it's in increments of 15. If you want to see this, open up the voltage curve. Type +120 and hit enter. Then type +125 and hit enter. I bet you curve just falls back down to +120?

I’ve been benchmarking for more realistic gaming performance, and I found that +165/+1350 is the sweet spot. However, we both know that games like War Zone, as we discussed, can have a negative impact. I may also drop my overclock to +120 and see how it runs with +1350.

On an unrelated note, is anyone else having issues with games randomly minimizing to the desktop? This only recently started for me, and I get the impression it’s from the latest round of Windows updates. It’s even doing it when benchmarking which crashes the benchmark when it does this. So annoying.

I was able to play a few games at +165 for hours no problem. The reason, it's because the games power limited the card and made the clocks drop down so I was actually stable at that voltage. 

Playing games that don't require as much power can, again as I explained earlier, cause boost to shoot your clocks up, become unstable and crash. 

I guess you can do a profile for certain games. For me, I don't want to have to switch between profiles, so I decided to just stick to +120 for convenience reasons. I'm not really missing that +45 Mhz, but I am missing out if my buddies and I are close to dubbing in Warzone and I get booted. It happened 3 times, so I said "screw the extra 45 Mhz!"

That’s my bottom line as well - not having to switch profiles. In all reality, those extra 45 MHz only equate to a couple of FPS in gaming performance. By the way, +120/+1350 didn’t seem like it was cutting it, but I did just pass a +120/+1250 Time Spy stress test at 99.1%. It’s looking like our cards are pretty much evenly matched.

Time Spy and Port Royal stress test only tell you how your card is power limited. Being power limited doesn't stress test your card at the max clocks and lowest voltage point on a curve. If you look at my previous post here:

Also, here are my stress test, +165/+1250 running 20 loops straight each
https://www.3dmark.com/tsst/2021793
https://www.3dmark.com/prst/109334

And again, I found later that lower powered games caused me to crash. So I would only rely on these stress test for one type of test, when your card TDP is being pushed to the max. 

What are you using to test the lowest point with? Also, most of the games I play that don’t max out a GPU’s power also don’t always ramp up the core clock if the game environment isn’t that demanding. Occasionally, I play Star Wars: The Old Republic, for example, and a lot of times the card sits between 1800-1900 MHz. Of course, that’s now just about a decade-old title, and not very demanding by today’s standards. But, that’s been my experience with other titles as well. If the GPU isn’t being fully utilized to max out a game’s engine, then the GPU won’t ramp up its core clock frequency towards max.

I found Assassin's Creed Valhalla to be a good test because it pushed the card to almost 100% usage, it didn't reach my monitors max hz (98FPS average on a 165 Hz monitor) and the power draw was 300-320W. 

This had my card at lower temperatures and it boosted upwards. I found that at +120W, I need to at least turn my voltage slider up 50% and it hasn't crashed in either ACV or Warzone. I haven't crashed since I moved to +120. 

I do have AC Valhalla, but haven’t played it yet. Sounds like a good opportunity to do so in the near future.

I usually max out the voltage slider when applying an overclock. Oh, and Port Royal surprisingly crashed with +120/+1250. Running it again now with +1200 memory. Not sure why it was able to handle higher core and memory earlier, but not lower clock speeds. That’s VRAM for you. Some modules just don’t like some frequencies.

Is your GPU warmed up now? It can be due to the heat. 

Quoting this quote because it's a big one and looks fun.  Please trim the fat folks.