Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Am i doing something wrong or is this just a good card?

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
August 26, 2011 2:43:34 AM

hey, im trying to overclock my msi n560gtx-ti hawk and its starting to scare me how much its pushing it on stock voltage.

its currently at:
core:1010
shader: 2020
memory: 2400

its gotten to more (1050+ core)
but im scared to go any higher than 1010 for 24/7 (this is my first time overclocking). im currently using furmark stability test and temps dont go past 70

should i continue pushing it until an error/artifact? will running at higher OC's than the one stated above reduce life span even if at stock voltage?

EDIT: Just ran Heaven benchmark and got 10 fps more than what i was getting at stock :)  (950/1900/2100)

More about : wrong good card

a c 171 U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 26, 2011 3:45:35 AM

i honestly wouldnt use furmark anymore, it has a tendancy to blow up cards.
m
0
l
August 26, 2011 4:11:57 AM

ok so what should i use instead? also can you answer any of the questions i posted?
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 4:33:43 AM

3D Mark Vantage seems to be more unforgiving than 3D Mark 11 when it comes to aggressive overclocks. My 570 was at 800-810 I think it was but would crash repeatedly in Crysis 2 (dx11 mode only) and 3D Mark Vantage unless I clocked it down to 750... that's been my experience... one speed may not be so great depending on the title.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 26, 2011 4:40:19 AM

If you ran 3D Mark Vantage, 3D Mark 11, PC Mark (version whatever for overall system stability), Aliens vs Predator, Heavenly, and any other game benchmarks you like or have available, it'll probably be ok if its stable throughout testing (even if it's not, it may be a driver issue, so re-test with slower speeds to test)... Heat is the main killer... I'd focus on that mainly.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 26, 2011 9:33:15 AM

(950/1900/2100) is exactly what my Gigabyte 560Ti is running aswell, with 1075 vcore.

Runs very nicely for a 24/7 overclock each time i push towards 1GHz i have to really ramp the voltages up and the temps go a little high for my liking. 950MHz core gives me max temps of like 66-68 when gaming and 72-73 when stress/burn in testing.
m
0
l
August 26, 2011 2:22:21 PM

mines currently running pretty stable at 1000/2000/2240 at 1.050 volts under load and 0.950 at idle. temps are at around 72 under full load and fans dont go past 58%. hopefully temps lower when i get my new case fans. im still testing these settings and if there are still crashes then ill be lowering the memory by about 10 each time until its 100% stable (im pretty sure it will be stable at 2200 mem unless its already stable at 2240
m
0
l
August 26, 2011 6:59:55 PM

i was getting a bug with bfbc2 which kept making me think my gpu was crashing... fixed it and cranked the memory up to 2400 :D 

running stable at 1000/2000/2400 (stock volt, 1.05) on heaven benchmark, a bunch of demanding games. I think thats enough, what do you guys think?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
August 28, 2011 1:58:01 AM

on the 570, i couldn't find any benchmark run that showed any difference running the memory at 1900 or 2100.... that was a crap pny model that i couldn't even tweak the bios file for changing voltages though... pretty much hard-locked to do little more than stock. bottleneck was elsewhere i assume.

i'd like to know the results of any experiments you might have done, specifically with the memory speed....
m
0
l
August 28, 2011 3:04:39 AM

ok i ran some tests including the one you asked clonazepam.

Video card: MSI N560gtx-ti hawk

Test1: Memory speed preformance test:
core clock: 1000
shader: 2000

result1: Battlefield bad company 2
memory speed: 2100 (stock memory speed of my GPU) - 105 fps at max settings

result2: Battlefield bad company 2
memory speed: 2300 - 108 fps max settings

Now I have conducted another test, let me know which one you guys would prefer and which one i should choose as a 24/7 setting.

Setup 1:
core: 950 (stock setting)
shader: 1900 (stock setting)
memory: 2100 (stock setting)
core voltage: 1000 mV (lowered voltage from the default value of 1050 mV
average temp: 65C - keeps fans pretty quiet

performance:
Battlefield BC 2: 101 fps
Heaven: 27 fps
Metro 2033: 56 fps
Counter strike source: 414 fps
Team fortress 2: 375 fps

Setup 2:
core: 1000 (OC'd)
shader: 2000 (OC'd)
memory: 2300 (OC'd)
Core voltage: 1050 mV (stock voltage)
temp: 70C - noticeably louder fans


performance:
Battlefield BC 2: 108 fps
Heaven: 29-30 fps
Metro 2033: 60 fps
Counter strike source: 439 fps
Team fortress 2: 397 fps

*all games ran at the same settings

so is it worth a small performance gain and adding another 5C to the temps?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
August 29, 2011 2:35:33 PM

Anything over 40 fps really isnt going to make very much difference. With 60 being the absolute optimal. Your probably better off just running a lower OC and keeping your temps lower. You can always clock it up again if you find a game where the frame rate struggles.
m
0
l
!