-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
EVGA 980 SC ACX 2 bios
- Thread starter facboy
- Start date
Only difference is clock speeds, you can easily overclock to match it.
ah...actually it's not that. i have a theory, not backed up by hard proof. i've been banging on in other threads about the overclocking/low util/low voltage problem...basically when you oc with a core offset GPU Boost 2.0 doesn't adjust the voltages to match, so while your top speed (eg 1500) remains stable, suddenly it tries to run speeds below that at ridiculously low voltages. eg if your boost speed was 1366 and that required 1.22v at stock, while base was 1266 and required...1.1 volts, you'll find that if you o/c it with +100 so that boost hits 1466, it will run 1.22v at 1466, but when it downclocks to 1366 because of low util, it will try and run that with 1.1, and will prolly try to run 1266 at 1.0.
this happens with modded bioses too, so over on OCN when people have been modding the boost table they have to mod the voltage table too and increase the voltage in the lower bins.
thing is, if you look at all the different stock bioses for the cards, they all have exactly the same voltage table, at least in Maxwell Bios Editor, even though the boost tables are different. The Nvidia ref bios which maxes boost at 1226 has exactly the same voltage table as the EVGA SC ACX which maxes boost at 1366. This makes me think that there might be something else in the bios that adjusts the voltage table lookup to compensate for the change in the boost table. Thus why I wanted to compare the ACX and non-ACX, as i figure the bios's should be very similar except for the difference in boost tables. Didn't see anything obvious though.
Of course I could be wrong, perhaps they just bin the chips so that they will run at 1366 with the same voltage required for 1226. Though i'm quite cynical tbh, i think that the 'binning' is a marketing gimmick.
If anyone can be bothered, i'd be interested to know what voltage a ref 980 runs at max boost at stock (from AB or GPU-Z), also be interested to know what voltage an EVGA SC (both acx and non-acx) run at base clock of 1242/1266.
this happens with modded bioses too, so over on OCN when people have been modding the boost table they have to mod the voltage table too and increase the voltage in the lower bins.
thing is, if you look at all the different stock bioses for the cards, they all have exactly the same voltage table, at least in Maxwell Bios Editor, even though the boost tables are different. The Nvidia ref bios which maxes boost at 1226 has exactly the same voltage table as the EVGA SC ACX which maxes boost at 1366. This makes me think that there might be something else in the bios that adjusts the voltage table lookup to compensate for the change in the boost table. Thus why I wanted to compare the ACX and non-ACX, as i figure the bios's should be very similar except for the difference in boost tables. Didn't see anything obvious though.
Of course I could be wrong, perhaps they just bin the chips so that they will run at 1366 with the same voltage required for 1226. Though i'm quite cynical tbh, i think that the 'binning' is a marketing gimmick.
If anyone can be bothered, i'd be interested to know what voltage a ref 980 runs at max boost at stock (from AB or GPU-Z), also be interested to know what voltage an EVGA SC (both acx and non-acx) run at base clock of 1242/1266.
If its a marketing gimmick, how come EVGAs classified cards overclock so well compared to the norm?
Last edited: