Most seem to do 8ghz
-
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.
NVIDIA GTX 970 OWNERS THREAD
- Thread starter Ayahuasca
- Start date
Person at the bottom of that page says it didn't do anything.
Voltage only helps the core, but on the 970 it doesn't seem to help at all above a certain level as GPU-Z shows it throttling back down to lower voltages in games or benchmarks, that's why we need skynet bios that force certain voltages and give more power target to stop this happening.
Yeah that's what I meant, nvflash doesn't seem to work yet. Hopefully see some 1700mhz+ core clocks when flashed.
Reckon if i can get my cpu to bench @ 4.8 and my card @ 1500+ i should clear the 12k mark, only need 12245 to take 15th spot, that's what i'm aiming for
You'll have to be quick as more clocked 980's will be appearing in the top 15 soon!
Yep it's all down to the chip usually, fancy coolers and power phases etc may help a small amount but not a lot.
With watercooling though people say a low ASIC% is best as it means you can stick more volts through the card whilst keeping it cool.
With watercooling though people say a low ASIC% is best as it means you can stick more volts through the card whilst keeping it cool.
Ouch, I don't think I've ever seen a card as low as 61%. My 780 was 67% and poor clocker.
Yeah that's the catch for now
Sometimes it can take a while to test if your OC is truly stable. Different/new games can sometimes catch you out and it can depend on how long you stay on a game for. I doubt there's many that are 1600mhz game stable in every title or for hours of continuous play. I thought mine was game stable just under 1600mhz but then different games would make it crash sometimes not until an hour or so into playing. I think this is down to unstable voltage though and not temperature, the 970's need a custom bios to maintain a constant overvoltage it seems.
You basically add around 100 to the boost clock GPU-Z shows on the first page, or you run a game and check the sensors tab in GPU-Z to see what it's really boosting to.
Every MSI card I've owned has been spot on and they've all coincidentally been the best overclockers.
460, 560 and 970
460, 560 and 970
You need to change the resolution in your game to the downscaled one, you should see 3820x2160 in game now when you selection resolution setting.
You don't have to use the 4k setting, but yeah 25fps sounds about right for what a single 970 would achieve in BF4 at 4k. Remember to take AA off as well as you shouldn't need it that much when downsampling.
Don't think there's blocks yet for these, the PCB is very custom.
Is it worth mining on these then? Profit to be made?
Is that 24/7 what about without the cost of electricity?
My card is maxed, damn 108% TDP limit
It's boosting from 1440Mhz to 1480Mhz depending on the game.
Anyway to flash the cards yet? Need a better BIOS on this card as with more power budget 1500Mhz+ should be quite easy.
So far it's WAY behind my 290 in the couple of games that I have tried.
No surprise as your 290 is one of the rare ones that will hold 1250mhz stable in games. The 970 you bought probably wasn't the best choice for overclocking either.
http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=GX-259-EA&groupid=701&catid=1914&subcat=1010
This will be the fastest out of the box one when it arrives. EVGA website reports it will boost to 1367.
I'm not sure if others will do faster models like an MSI hawk or lightning.
The only reason the MSI seems to clock better is because more people have them and more people report good overclocks. I've still seen people who can't get theirs 1500mhz stable. I wouldn't pay £40 more for the EVGA just advising that will be the best out of the box model.
Most of the 1600mhz stable ones seem to be the Gigabyte G1's probably due to being able to pull more power and keep them stable.
Most of the 1600mhz stable ones seem to be the Gigabyte G1's probably due to being able to pull more power and keep them stable.
EVGA do this with certain models like the classified but the premium you pay for a cherry picked chip is rather high, sometimes £50-100 more over a reference model. Don't think it's really worth that when you may as well just buy a GTX 980 for the difference and guarentee yourself better performance.
It's usually only the top card they offer it on though like the 980 and the 980ti when/if released. Doubt we'll see any cherry picked 970's as most enthusiasts looking for the highest scores buy the top card.
As James said above the Gigabyte has a higher power target.
He's explaining why the ASUS can't exceed 225w.
MSI's when overclocked will be pulling more than 225w. The ASUS won't be able to.
MSI's when overclocked will be pulling more than 225w. The ASUS won't be able to.
It's just down to what they've allowed their card to draw then from their BIOS power tables. I think Gibbo achieved a larger core clock on the Giga than the MSI, 1640 or 1680 over the 1600 on the MSI.