Scorch010

Sajin

Scorch010
Having a similar display lockup issue as i have read in some of the other comments. Seems to happen after applying the changes to OC settings. displays will freeze, sometimes change to a solid color, reset (if they manage to get that far) and then everything comes back up. 
 
System Build: "https://pcpartpicker.com/list/Q6JDYr"
using nvidia surround - 5760x1080 resolution
 
At first I was not getting past the solid color issue. Windows would boot back up after a power button restart and i would get about 30-60 seconds of time to do something before it locked up again. Ended up having to go into safe mode, uninstalling the nvidia drivers. afterwards i could restart normally, precision would not detect hardware, and would not freeze my machine. From this point i was able to uninstall it. Also would like to note that there is a precision.cfg file that is not deleted when you uninstall. Found it after several attempts to reinstall the software after removing the folder and having the same issue immediately happen. Removed the file and was able to load and view the UI for precision. Started to change OC settings again one at a time, hit apply, there would be a few moments of display locking, reset, and then displaying fine again. I thought: "Great! I can work with this". 
 
Made a new profile. Hit apply...total screen lock again this morning at 2AM. Shut it down and went to sleep. Ill let you know if I have any success.
 
Anyone else having this kind of issue? Is there a more stable release that is not overriding the nvidia drivers for display settings when you OC the GPU?

Sounds like you overclock settings may be too high. What clocks are you trying to run? Post the actual MHz you're trying to run instead of the offsets.

Hey Sajin,
 
So the actual values i was getting before using Heaven was gpu clock: 195X (+400 offset) and mem clock: 550X (+60? offset) which is right about where i wanted it to get to. I also bench marked with 3DMark but i do not remember the score or have the link.
 
On this iteration of testing and adjusting I thought i was unstable so i went for 1859/5500 respectively.
 
In both cases I pushed the power adjustment to max of 117%.
 
-Scorch
 
  

QuantumHive
The crash was caused because I didn't had the latest NVIDIA drivers. After installing the latest driver, EVGA Precision X was working again.

Squall_Rinoa86
Where did the CPU monitor go??? :/ I want that back...

SiliconKid
6.1.16 is doing something very odd with CPU usage.
 
I'm running it on a rig that has 2 x EVGA 1060 6GB Mining cards and 1 x EVGA 3GB Gaming card in it.
 
Several times now the rig has locked up and something has gone wrong, and when I investigate I find that Precision is using 50% CPU, even though nothing is using the GPUs anymore (all apps have been closed).
 
I have to force kill Precision in the Task Manager to get control back, then launch it again. 
 
Sometimes this takes hours to happen, sometimes a few days. But it has happened multiple times now.

SiliconKid
And another thing, it seems to take forever for Precision to startup now.
 
It shouldn't take so long for an app to run and appear on the tray. It really takes abnormally long.

Gawg36

Sajin
No problem. +100 may be too high as well. Start with +20 and work your way up in +20 increments.

Saijin, you may be able to answer this long time question that I've never got a clear answer on. When overclocking, people say/guides say increase in increments of 10MHz or 20MHz. but, I heard ages ago that cards don't OC by single MHz increments. It OCs by bins. One bin is either 12MHz or 13MHz or between. When I OC if I go up in small increments nothing changes when running unless the added speed is at least 12MHz higher.
 
It's driving me crazy because my testing implies this is true, but no guide says to do this. Googled, found nothing. You may be the man to know, Saijin? Or anyone else reading this of course.

Gawg36
Thanks Saijin. Good to know that when overclocking. I think I'll use 13MHz steps in future. Just found out it's not a round number, something like 12.65Mhz. I forget exactly but not really important, using steps of 13MHz will ensure one speed bin each 13Mhz bump. Cheers!

EVGATech_LeeM

Gawg36

bdary

Gawg36
Thanks Saijin. Good to know that when overclocking. I think I'll use 13MHz steps in future. Just found out it's not a round number, something like 12.65Mhz. I forget exactly but not really important, using steps of 13MHz will ensure one speed bin each 13Mhz bump. Cheers!

+1.  When I get a new GPU and want to see what it's max clocks will be, I use multiples of 13MHz.  Usually start out with a +52Mhz, test it out and then add another 26MHz and so on.  Always a multiple of 13MHz though.  13, 26, 39, 52, etc...

Great. Thanks for the clarification, now I am in no doubt at all, and will continue doing, as you do, using steps of 13MHz.

Think of it this way:  It's not so important in terms of whether you raise the speed by 5, 10, or 13MHz; what is important is that you're following a methodology that allows you to raise the speeds in an incremental manner so that you can easily determine when the OC has gone wrong.  Because many cards have different steps, it's easier to just use a round number to introduce people into using a solid process.  
 
Eventually, when you've got a good handle on overclocking, you probably won't stick with small steps - but that's because you understand how to troubleshoot a bad overclock and you've probably also got a better feel for the card's stability and performance.  You're at the point now where you no longer need to worry about the step you use to raise the overclock, since you understand the process of safely raising the clock speed.

dinicthis
Why does Precision X not have  64-bit version? This is the 21st century, when all processors are 64-bit.