machie

My card really doesn't like 2100MHz, even with 1.1V to the GPU core, so I had my card locked at 2085MHz with 1.075V. When pinned at 1.1V GPU core voltage, the card hits the pwr limitter so often that the board power draw, core voltage and core clock fluctuates so much that I don't think you'll get good benchmark off of it anyway. All I'm trying to do here is draw as much power as I can, not set the best frequency/voltage curve for a benchmark run.
 
I did managed 19.2k graphics score in time spy at with the card locked at 2070MHz with 1.05V to the GPU core, and that's pretty the best my card can do.

As far as I understand it, the benches count how many frames you can draw in a given amount of time.. More frequency, more frames (Provided no errors); the power draw is just a consequence of the processor doing it's thing.
As you hit power limits, the frequecy will drop further as the voltage drops..
 
Yes, lower voltage = less power limiter bashing, but also = lower frequency and still dips to the same level anyway when you hit the power limits. Score wise you're typically still better off having it high as possible, even if it's got dips (So long as it doesn't introduce stutters etc) It's a bit like driving in the wrong gear all the time because you don't want to get close to the redline.
 
When you say pinned at 1.1v, do you mean you locked it on the curve in afterburner? Or you adjusted the curve so it actually ran at 1100mv? And you don't have to run 2100mhz, but 1100mv might be enough for 2085 stable 1.093 might be enough for 2070mhz stable etc
 
 
Granted, this is difficult without seeing your exact curve but it's just that your +100 core doesn't appear to be doing anything currently. If the curve you've set doesn't increase in clocks at that maximum voltage point you want.. It'll just run at lowest voltage for the highest frequency you've set like this. But maybe you did that and i'm misunderstanding you.
https://i.imgur.com/BwZQKiZ.jpg

Drwaffles

machie

My card really doesn't like 2100MHz, even with 1.1V to the GPU core, so I had my card locked at 2085MHz with 1.075V. When pinned at 1.1V GPU core voltage, the card hits the pwr limitter so often that the board power draw, core voltage and core clock fluctuates so much that I don't think you'll get good benchmark off of it anyway. All I'm trying to do here is draw as much power as I can, not set the best frequency/voltage curve for a benchmark run.
 
I did managed 19.2k graphics score in time spy at with the card locked at 2070MHz with 1.05V to the GPU core, and that's pretty the best my card can do.

As far as I understand it, the benches count how many frames you can draw in a given amount of time.. More frequency, more frames (Provided no errors); the power draw is just a consequence of the processor doing it's thing.
As you hit power limits, the frequecy will drop further as the voltage drops..
 
Yes, lower voltage = less power limiter bashing, but also = lower frequency and still dips to the same level anyway when you hit the power limits. Score wise you're typically still better off having it high as possible, even if it's got dips (So long as it doesn't introduce stutters etc) It's a bit like driving in the wrong gear all the time because you don't want to get close to the redline.
 
When you say pinned at 1.1v, do you mean you locked it on the curve in afterburner? Or you adjusted the curve so it actually ran at 1100mv? And you don't have to run 2100mhz, but 1100mv might be enough for 2085 stable 1.093 might be enough for 2070mhz stable etc
 
 
Granted, this is difficult without seeing your exact curve but it's just that your +100 core doesn't appear to be doing anything currently. If the curve you've set doesn't increase in clocks at that maximum voltage point you want.. It'll just run at lowest voltage for the highest frequency you've set like this. But maybe you did that and i'm misunderstanding you.

Yup, I meant I locked it in the curve editor in msi afterburner. The frequency/voltage settings in my posts here are all intentional. My point all along was I had no issues pulling 430++W if I wanted to, and evga probably fixed something on newer 3080s to address cards not pulling over 108% of the TDP.

At 1.1V to the GPU core, it actually dropped all the way to 1900+MHz for core clock due to hitting the pwr limit and losing a few boost bins to thermals, so I'm definitely doing way better by running less voltage to the GPU core.

DrwafflesWouldn't necessarily recomend the XOC on air (Nor my solution) 420w+ is hard to keep cool. Even with 85% fan duty and an open case I'd see 65-72c.. It can help if you're trying to get up the leaderboards on timespy, but I'd only do one bios and keep the other standard, at least you've got the option.
I've got an EK block now and it's 46-52c under heavy load depending on my water temperature.

 
And as you've said here, 450W is not easy to keep cool, not without active cooling. 

From my experience, you start losing 15MHz of boost bin in the 60+ degree Celsius range, and about 30MHz and more above 73 degree Celsius. Settings that are stable at lower temps can also become unstable at higher temps.

post approved

What are your serial number first 4 digits? For people who can/cannot reach 450W?
 
From the 3090 forums,
I am seeing the 2119 batch reaches 500W and 2012 batch not being able to reach 500W
 

I can turn a worse port royal at 450w than I can at 412w

cennis2018
What are your serial number first 4 digits? For people who can/cannot reach 450W?
 
From the 3090 forums,
I am seeing the 2119 batch reaches 500W and 2012 batch not being able to reach 500W
 

2014..
Wonder if it's a firmware issue or they physically made revisions/difference in the card?

My gut feeling (No evidence) is it's a load balancing issue.
My pcie power draw would always max out at 45w on XOC.
The difference between that and 75w would being me up from my 415w limit to the 445 it should be.
Granted might just be coincidence..

Drwaffles

cennis2018
What are your serial number first 4 digits? For people who can/cannot reach 450W?
 
From the 3090 forums,
I am seeing the 2119 batch reaches 500W and 2012 batch not being able to reach 500W
 

2014..
Wonder if it's a firmware issue or they physically made revisions/difference in the card?

My gut feeling (No evidence) is it's a load balancing issue.
My pcie power draw would always max out at 45w on XOC.
The difference between that and 75w would being me up from my 415w limit to the 445 it should be.
Granted might just be coincidence..

I think its this Strix has even pull on the 8pins and I think 50w pci-e. It is most likely a load balancing issue I hope they can fix it.
I just got mine last week 2114 model

Can we get a few people listing their SN production code and upload a screenshot of a GPUZ timespy run?
Always been somewhat concerned that my middle pin drew more power than the other two..

I have had 2 3080s , both experienced un-even draw across the 3 8pins my first config had a daisy chain on 1 and 3 and I first thought this was due to the daisy chain, but with a new PSU and new independent cables, I think 3 has been lower on both cards. one SN was 2012 and the current is 2014

2014 HERE AND I THHINK THATS THE BAD ONE... NOW I CAN'T BE STABLE 2040MHZ :( CRASH WITH CYBERPUNK, EVEN WITH THE MSI SUPRIM BIOS, ONLY I CAN GET 2025MHZ (+50 ON THE CORE), HYBRID KIT INSTALLED, VERY DISSAPOINTED OF EVGA, I WILL NEVER BUY ANOTHER CARD FROM THEM, SORRY BUT THAT'S THE TRUE.