fkrIII
asic and overclock:
starting with the asic score. this does represent efficiency and it also sets what the max boost clocks that card will run at out of the factory (this is why a bios flash can help as it changes the asic to boost clock variable). but efficiency has nothing to do with a max overclock of a gpu. a high asic will achieve a more reliable overclocking potential since it is already closer to the overclock naturally. simply put if you have a ASIC 82.9% then you have a Boost 1442.8 MHz, so getting to 1500 is not really all that much meanwhile a ASIC of 65.0% gives a Boost of 1379.5 MHz so getting to 1500 is a pretty significant increase. In the end you are probably going to have to keep those temps significantly lower on that 65 asic card to get a good overclock but this does not correlate to the actual highest overclock that you can achieve.
Correct. The reality is that if your ASIC is lower you'd need a better chip to get a higher overclock. Because "better chip" usually means "higher ASIC", a lower ASIC is most likely not going to overclock as well. :)
fkrIII
when overclocking I noticed in your video you said that you never broke 80C. why are you that close to the thermal limit. people use ln2 to lower temps so I would assume you would use all of the cooling potential you have while testing an overclock. do you run all of your tests at 100% fan speed, if not you really should when wanting to know what your max overclock is. you can then lower your fan speed to see what the max temp that overclock will run at but I have noticed a temp barrier of around 60C while overclocking and I keep a slightly aggressive fan profile to keep my boost clocks but I have to stay under 60C to keep it completely stable.
Well… no. :) This was the max stable overclock. When I was going for max overclock, I set the fans to 100%… By "stable overclock", I also meant "an overclock I was comfortable running 24/7", which fans at 100% are not. :P In that way, when testing for max overclock, I also found that I was hitting the OC max before I ran into temperature issues, even with max overvoltage!! I guess I can try modded BIOS to get even more voltage, but that was beyond the scope of these videos… :)
fkrIII
so the above is really all just to say that everybody should absolutely upgrade to the new ssc+ or the ftw+. the new cooler, the new voltage control and increased limit, the extra 2 phases of voltage, the mosfet plate, a second bios switch (if you wanted to flash now you can safely); these all increase the longevity and reliability of the cards and are all things more than worth the upgrade from the old sc at the max potential cost being 50-100hz. you would have to have such an exceptional example of the gtx970 to not upgrade for what is a significantly better overall GPU.
in the end I would bet that 90+% of the gtx970's will get to 1500 on the core with the correct temps and maybe a bios fix if needed. In the overclockers world sometimes you have to be willing to do a bios flash to get the most out of your card or increase your fan speeds but these are the joys of overclocking not the why has this not been done for me attitude.
Hmmm, yes and no. My first FTW+ really didn't perform well, so I have a hard time recommending it to someone with a good FTW or SC. Again, that's without getting into BIOS mods which, though personally I'm perfectly comfortable doing, I'm not sure many are. Like you said, "in the overclocker's world sometimes you have to be willing to do a bios flash", and I agree. That's why my recommendation was "hmmm, I don't necessarily recommend a step-up to everyone": my first FTW+ didn't even clock at "advertised" speeds, and for "non-overclockers" that's a deal breaker, and I totally understand. So, though this last video, which included the conclusions and recommendations only benchmarked the overclocked cards, my previous video was comparing it with a reference, non-overclocked card, and my final recommendations included a "non-overclocker's" recommendation (though personally I do overclock… everything. :P
fkrIII
coil whine:
as far as coil whine I get none except for when I am f@h and doing a core 15. I will get a noticeable but faint whine from the gpu. I run this rig pretty nonstop and it seems that the coil whine is getting less and less with time.
I get some, but not very noticeable unless it's a black screen. It's definitely faint but I did mention in the video I didn't have an "older" 970 to compare it with… :(
fkrIII
frame pacing:
http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Frame-Rating-GTX-970-Memory-Issues-Tested-SLI
read through these 4 articles for a great understanding of the situation and some good testing. these reviews are still missing some info on shadow of mordor and what happens with frame pacing and runt frames at that 3.5 barrier but those are referenced and covered by others.
Will definitely do. I intentionally kept the video at a very high level, but I have been reading up on the subject and might even do a little video with more info on it, along with my overclocking procedures… :)
fkrIII
AMD CF:
your experience may have been bad but I started running CF with a 7870 tahiti le (replaced an evga gtx560) and a MSI twin frzr 7950. I later swapped out the 7870 for another MSI 7950. I never ran into issues at 1440p @110hz. frame pacing was an issue that came into play at first and for a long while but I ran a fps cap of 60 fps and at first I only had a 1080p monitor so it always seemed to run well for me since I was not pushing a resolution or performance limits. later I bought a 1440p and by then frame pacing was inline with nvidia and as of now sites like hard ocp say that amd is better at frame pacing now than nvidia. these things change with every driver but to say AMD has not caught up is wrong. I understand that AMD has a resent history of driver issues but nvidias past is not exactly great either so who ever is performing right now is all that I care about.
My issues with AMD/CF was artifacting. It was disgustingly terrible (I have some videos I shot with my phone I can post sometime). It was TERRIBLE and deal breaking. Even if the performance is good, if the image is screwed up, I can't game with it. I downgraded/upgraded to multiple versions of the drivers and had no luck. I had heard those were just bad batches, but that is exactly my point: AMD/Asus screwed up the quality in order to mass produce while the cards had a SUPER inflated price because of the cryptomining craze this time last year. I got screwed because of that, paid a premium for it, and Asus/AMD were always super vague about what I should do (i.e. "try these new new new drivers"). I just don't think they have the moral high ground (or technological lead) to be on the offensive on this issue: the 970 is a better deal than any AMD card right now (even at discounted prices, AMD's TDP is soo ridiculously high, you pay the difference in your electrical bill in a couple of years, and they're less future proof).
I'm not saying I'm done with AMD forever. I'm just saying I'm not biting their bait for the next… few… years? :P
Thanks for your feedback, man! I love these discussions! :D