# Overclocking a GTX 1070 Ti with Afterburner, pushing it higher... suggestions?



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

So last night, I sat down and watched a few YT videos on overclocking a GTX 1070 using Afterburner.  Pretty simple to use once you know the basics and interface

The only controls I messed with so far are:
1. Power and temp limits (MAXED out 120% and 97c)
2. Core clock.  The final stable OC = +160 or 2025Mhz +/-
3. Mem clock. The final stable OC = +850 or 4850Mhz or 2x2425 (wow)

In all the test I ran, the temp never gets over 62c ...and that is with the default fan curve!  I was disappointed that I could only get my core up to that amount.  The high memory overclock helped make up for that.  I've gone over stock Vega 64 scores in all of the 3D mark tests

It appears that the power limit is squashing the core overclock any higher.  GPUz shows the max TDP at 135%, and max core voltage at 1.06.  This is running Furmark, Time Spy Extreme and Firestike Ultra.

Question - is there any way to push the power limit higher???  I know they limit it for safety reasons, but given the headroom for temps, I'd like to push it higher.

Here are the controls I messed with (this is a generic screen capture):


----------



## infrared (Jan 23, 2018)

Unfortunately you can't really get around the power limit without either a bios flash or physical modification, neither of which I'd recommend.

You might be able to eek a bit more out of it using the frequency/voltage graph (click the symbol to the left of the Core clock text. or Ctrl + F) If you find it's crashing at a certain frequency you can go to that point on the graph and adjust the curve so that it'll only go to that frequency on the next voltage point. Although this isn't gonna help much if you're already on the power limit :/ Maybe setting a higher frequency at slightly less than stock voltage .1.062v is stock (well, stock on 1080ti, I might be wrongly assuming it's the same on a 1070ti), try setting your max frequency at 1.043v and all points after at the same frequncy so it doesn't jump to 1.062v, this might help it stay under the 120% tdp limit.

I hope that helps, have a play and see how you get on


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

infrared said:


> Unfortunately you can't really get around the power limit without either a bios flash or physical modification, neither of which I'd recommend.



Yea, I wasn't planning on going there.  I was wondering if afterburner itself has some possible mods, or is the power limit burned into the BIOS and that's what Afterburner reports and is limited to?



infrared said:


> Maybe setting a higher frequency at slightly less than stock voltage .1.062v is stock (well, stock on 1080ti, I might be wrongly assuming it's the same on a 1070ti), try setting your max frequency at 1.043v and all points after at the same frequncy so it doesn't jump to 1.062v, this might help it stay under the 120% tdp limit.



When I first played with MSI AB overclocking , I tried messing with the curves and still couldn't get the core to behave over 2050.  I didn't really know what I was doing, since I was also playing with the voltage slider ...and have no clue how the voltage slider and the speed/voltage curves interact, do they?  I think the 1.062v is the same for the 1070 Ti and the 1080 Ti... at least is seems so and makes sense.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

MSI AB will not do it as was said earlier.

You need to crank the power limit and use the voltage to find the best clocks without throttling due to power limit. Welcome to locked down NVIDIA, for the 2nd........or is it 3rd...... generation.

Ditch furmark, would ya? If you didn't notice, Furmark throttles the cards clocks way back. Not a good barometer at all as you are not even remotely testing the clocks you intended to test.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> You need to crank the power limit and use the voltage to find the best clocks without throttling due to power limit.



That's basically my method.  If I goto +165 on the core, I start noticing the scores going down slightly.



EarthDog said:


> Ditch furmark, would ya? If you didn't notice, Furmark throttles the cards clocks way back.



It worked quite well to find the top Core / Mem clocks.  Saw artifacts in Kombustor at +950 mem, so that's when I dialed it back.  Also, testing with 3DMark can be a complete PITA when the system crashes and you have to reboot.  With Kombustor, it crashes "gracefully" ... so it's a great tool for getting close to the "zone"


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

It throttles the CORE back, not the memory. Run 3D FS and watch the GPU clocks, then run furmark and see if it comes close to the same clocks. 

Ditch furmark.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> It throttles the CORE back, not the memory.



What throttles the core back is any load that exceeds the power limit.  Kombustor worked great for finding the sweet spot, so no, I'm not going to "ditch" it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

...and Furmark. Test it since you don't seem to believe me.

Look where your core clock settles in Heaven, 3DMark, etc, then run Furmark and see where those clocks settle. You should notice the core clocks are fairly different, thus invalidating what Furmark can really do as you are not really testing against the intended clocks.


----------



## mobiuus (Jan 23, 2018)

is that ti or the regular 1070? the afterburner pic u posted shows 1070...


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> ...and Furmark. Test it since you don't seem to believe me.
> 
> Look where your core clock settles in Heaven, 3DMark, etc, then run Furmark and see where those clocks settle. You should notice the core clocks are fairly different, thus invalidating what Furmark can really do as you are not really testing against the intended clocks.



It worked damn well for me to find the clocks that proved stable in all of the other tests.  For the core, it finds the power limit and stability at +165 (due likely to power limit)  For the memory, it found stability at around +950



DarkStalker said:


> is that ti or the regular 1070? the afterburner pic u posted shows 1070...



Yea, that's just a stock MSI afterburner image I grabbed from Google.  ...Mine is a Gigabyte Aorus GTX 1070 Ti.


----------



## John Naylor (Jan 23, 2018)

As a means of comparison....also 62C.  

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1070_ti_titanium_8g_review,43.html

Core Clock: 1,757 MHz
Boost Clock: ~2,038
Memory Clock: 8,996 MHz


----------



## mobiuus (Jan 23, 2018)

how much if u dont mind me askin,, did u pay and where??

p.s.u can safely push voltage slider to max (nothing dangerous will happen due to nvidia boost 3.0 safe restrictions) try that

i put power and voltage slider to max and i get 2114mhz gpu-ingame and mem 9500mhz


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

John Naylor said:


> As a means of comparison....also 62C.
> 
> http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/msi_geforce_gtx_1070_ti_titanium_8g_review,43.html
> 
> ...



I guess I can't complain too much   That's almost EXACTLY what I'm getting.

Edit: no, my memory clocks are +850, theirs are +500 (I win)

*Why do they see the power limit at 133%... I can only get up to 120%.  The only difference I see is they have turned on voltage slider and maxed it out.*




DarkStalker said:


> how much if u dont mind me askin,, did u pay and where??
> p.s.u can safely push voltage slider to max (nothing dangerous will happen due to nvidia boost 3.0 safe restrictions) try that
> i put power and voltage slider to max and i get 2114mhz gpu-ingame and mem 9500mhz



Newegg for $590 ouch.  ...those clocks are on your MSI 1070?


----------



## infrared (Jan 23, 2018)

You'd be better off testing with firestrike, or just games that you intend to play tbh. Furmark will always slam a card against the power limit and as a result the core clock will drop more than it normally would in real world situations.

And as dark stalker said, you can put the voltage slider to +100%, it's a very small increase tho, it'll take your card from 1.062 to 1.093. This would increase power draw so you might end up worse off, which is why I suggested playing with the slightly lower voltages. Try a real game and see what your tdp does, you may not be as power limited as you think


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

infrared said:


> You'd be better off testing with firestrike, or just games that you intend to play tbh. Furmark will always slam a card against the power limit and as a result the core clock will drop more than it normally would in real world situations.



Between you and Earthdog, I'm going to put a bullet in my head....  Do I need to scream this out?  I'm using it for short-term stability testing!!!  Ultimately, I'm doing *all *significant stability testing with 3DMark Firestrike (Ultra, Extreme & Standard) + Time Spy (Standard + Extreme).  Kombustor saved me HOURS!



infrared said:


> And as dark stalker said, you can put the voltage slider to +100%, it's a very small increase tho, it'll take your card from 1.062 to 1.093. This would increase power draw so you might end up worse off, which is why I suggested playing with the slightly lower voltages. Try a real game and see what your tdp does, you may not be as power limited as you think



Yes, that's my next try.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

Nobody is saying it doesn't work. What I am saying is even though you are on +265, when running Furmark it will test at a lower clock due to throttling then when testing with a different application. You are robbing yourself of higher clocks.


I took the liberty of running 3DM Fire Strike Ultra and Furmark with QHD defaul settings. Notice the difference in clocks? You will also notice I hit the power limit withg Furmark and wasn;t close with 3D FS Ultra. Perhaps now you see what I mean and what infra supported. 












infrared said:


> You'd be better off testing with firestrike, or just games that you intend to play tbh. Furmark will always slam a card against the power limit and as a result the core clock will drop more than it normally would in real world situations.
> 
> And as dark stalker said, you can put the voltage slider to +100%, it's a very small increase tho, it'll take your card from 1.062 to 1.093. This would increase power draw so you might end up worse off, which is why I suggested playing with the slightly lower voltages. Try a real game and see what your tdp does, you may not be as power limited as you think


Exactly what I am saying.


EDIT:



Sasqui said:


> Between you and Earthdog, I'm going to put a bullet in my head.... Do I need to scream this out? I'm using it for short-term stability testing!!! Ultimately, I'm doing *all *significant stability testing with 3DMark Firestrike (Ultra, Extreme & Standard) + Time Spy (Standard + Extreme). Kombustor saved me HOURS!


I feel like it needs to be a large caliber bullet... 

... all we are saying is that they are testing differently. You are testing the lower clocks with furmark and the higher clocks with whatever other app you are using. That doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> Nobody is saying it doesn't work. What I am saying is even though you are on +265, when running Furmark it will test at a lower clock due to throttling then when testing with a different application. You are robbing yourself of higher clocks.
> 
> 
> I took the liberty of running 3DM Fire Strike Ultra and Furmark with QHD defaul settings. Notice the difference in clocks? You will also notice I hit the power limit withg Furmark and wasn;t close with 3D FS Ultra. Perhaps now you see what I mean and what infra supported.
> ...



Yes, Kombustor pushes the power envelope more than 3DMark, you are overstating the obvious.  What you don't seem to get... It's a great (and quick) tool to get near the stable core and men overclocks to then try in more realistic tests.  Maybe it doesn't work for you, can't help you there


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

And what you don't seem to get is that its really not 'great and quick'. You are testing nearly 75 MHz lower clocks when running Furmark than you are when running other, sane, applications. Its like for a CPU you are testing at 4 GHz when you want to test 4.3 GHz.

You do you...not trying to force your hand, but to show what is what and perhaps save some time in your testing (my testing is fine, mind you). Just trying to help. 

GL!

EDIT: In other words, I used to do it this way, however, due to the way NVIDIA GPUs boost, I have been stable with Furmark 100 Mhz lower, and not stable in games where is boosts higher.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> And what you don't seem to get is that its really not 'great and quick'. You are testing nearly 75 MHz lower clocks when running Furmark than you are when running other, sane, applications. Its like for a CPU you are testing at 4 GHz when you want to test 4.3 GHz.



After establishing "max" clocks in Kombustor (aka Furmark), the next step is to test and max out clocks in "sane" applications. 

*To your point, what I found was +165 was max core in Kumbustor, but it crashed Time Spy*.  So I dialed it back to +160 and it's all good.

...every crash in 3D Mark meant about 5-10 minutes of rebooting and starting up applications all over again.  And each run of 3D Mark is 10-15 minutes itself.  So Kombustor saved a TON of time.  And by running Kombustor, I'm talking about letting it runw 2-3 min each clock change.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

I have no idea why it takes 5-10mins to reboot and start up applications... are you on a HDD from 2004? I literally reboot in less than 30s. I give it a minute to settle to idle, open up 3DM and go.

I also don't know why 3DMark is 10-15 mins.. TS is like a 3 minute benchmark. Maybe 4 with the demo....5 mins at most to reboot and rerun. If it takes 15-25 minutes to reboot and run as you say, something is wrong with your rig.


Anyway, you do you... just trying to help by giving it a bit of perspective on what you are actually testing versus what is believed to be going on.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

EarthDog said:


> I have no idea why it takes 5-10mins to reboot and start up applications... are you on a HDD from 2004? I literally reboot in less than 30s. I give it a minute to settle to idle, open up 3DM and go.
> 
> I also don't know why 3DMark is 10-15 mins.. TS is like a 3 minute benchmark. Maybe 4 with the demo....5 mins at most to reboot and rerun. If it takes 15-25 minutes to reboot and run as you say, something is wrong with your rig.
> 
> ...



Nah, you just seem to enjoy arguing. Lol


----------



## infrared (Jan 23, 2018)

Just do whatever works mate, we've all got different methods and favorite test programs etc.. And we all think our own way is the best 

Good luck


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 23, 2018)

Exactly.

I am not forcing you to do anything. Just attempting to share the reasons why we say not to use Furmark/Kombustor as it doesn't remotely test the same clock speeds for stability and will ADD time to stress testing (you gave an example of how it adds time) in many cases.

GL. Unsubscribed.


----------



## Sasqui (Jan 23, 2018)

infrared said:


> Just do whatever works mate, we've all got different methods and favorite test programs etc.. And we all think our own way is the best
> 
> Good luck



Yes indeed, as evidenced by the various methods on Youtube as well, some used Heaven, some used Kombustor while doing a short test of given clock speed

In any case... thanks.  I'll update if I have any luck breaking the current power limit barrier.


----------



## RejZoR (Jan 23, 2018)

For testing, several loops of Unigine Heaven or Valley is still the most realistic workload.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 2, 2018)

Sasqui said:


> That's basically my method.  If I goto +165 on the core, I start noticing the scores going down slightly.
> 
> 
> 
> It worked quite well to find the top Core / Mem clocks.  Saw artifacts in Kombustor at +950 mem, so that's when I dialed it back.  Also, testing with 3DMark can be a complete PITA when the system crashes and you have to reboot.  With Kombustor, it crashes "gracefully" ... so it's a great tool for getting close to the "zone"



Do whatever you like but I can only add to this that Valley and Heaven NEVER fail when it comes to determining the maximum core clock. Your method is just wrong.

Another big advantage is that they will never force a reboot, the worst you'll get (unless you do something really stupid I suppose like set core to +400) is a locked application, close the process, done.

But above all: *Valley and Heaven are very good at showing the minute performance differences that result from your OC*. I mean stability is one thing, but if your highest clocks still result in lower performance (especially memory clocks too high can do this, they can even create stutter which is punished HARD in Unigine scores) then its pointless to push those clocks, all it serves then is an e-peen screenshot or something.

I have honestly never needed Furmark/Kombustor for any GPU ever to get it stable. The only purpose it has is frying your GPU back in the day, and today it really has no purpose at all. It doesn't test stability, it doesn't test actual clocks, and it doesn't test actual temps. All you realistically test is how fast can you yank a card into the highest power state and top-end temperature allowed in its BIOS. Well yay!


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 2, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Your method is just wrong.



No, not "*WRONG*", there are better methods out there.  Kombustor found a stability range, the next step was to run all 3DMark tests (DX11 and DX12) and see what ended up stable, it was only within 10% of what the Kombustor tests showed was stable.

So, Kumbustor is ok for "Quick" stability testing (yes it IS!).  I don't disagree that Valley is better, I just didn't use it.  Next time, I probably will.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 2, 2018)

The thing is that with Pascal you can get any card and put it within 10% of its max OC right from the get-go. There simply isn't more OC headroom to get.

Kombustor, once again, does not test a single thing, not even same ballpark.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 2, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Kombustor, once again, does not test a single thing, not even same ballpark.



Hey, it worked for me, showed memory artifacts at +900, which is why I dialed it back to +850.  Core was off just a little more.  What more can you ask for?

Yes, oranges and apples... Kombustor is OpenGL, where hardly any games are these days.  That's why final testing was done with 3DMark.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 2, 2018)

No it didn't - you needed 3DMark to actually see what limited you.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 2, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> No it didn't



You're saying I didn't see artifacts?


----------



## Bamaofficial (Jun 13, 2018)

I have the 1070 ti Asus strix Advanced Binned I was able to hit 250mhz on the core and 500mhz on the memory.  Never touched voltage and It is rock solid.  I want to push it more because this thing never gets over 63c.  This thing amazing me.


----------



## Sasqui (Jun 14, 2018)

Bamaofficial said:


> I have the 1070 ti Asus strix Advanced Binned I was able to hit 250mhz on the core and 500mhz on the memory.  Never touched voltage and It is rock solid.  I want to push it more because this thing never gets over 63c.  This thing amazing me.



If it wasn't for the power limiter on those cards, you'd see a heck of a lot higher clocks, and probably still have nice temps too.  But as it stands, you're in stock Vega 64 territory.


----------



## Bamaofficial (Jun 14, 2018)

Sasqui said:


> If it wasn't for the power limiter on those cards, you'd see a heck of a lot higher clocks, and probably still have nice temps too.  But as it stands, you're in stock Vega 64 territory.



I have about $250 invested in this card.  For that reason alone I am satisfied with the results. lol


----------



## John Naylor (Jun 15, 2018)

According to TPU testing, the outta the box performance of the Strix is right on par with the stock 1070 Ti and 4% lowe than the stock Vega 64 ... ... difference being the Asus will go an extra 12.1% when overclocked ... Unfortunately at time of testing AMDs drivers were incapable of OCing.  Other tests subsequently done on AIB Vega's showed a drop in performance and core clocks  were actually lower. ... havent seen any subsequent testing so as to know whether anyone's been able to do better.  Dosn't seem to be much interest.

As for performance versus clocks I have found it hard to  make any hard and fast rules other than Highest clocks don't = highest fps.   And each test I use has usually produced different results, non of them (Heaven, Valley, Firestricke, etc) showing any consistency as the "best tool".  Other things I have found...

a)  Some Ocs may be fine for a game in general .. but I sometimes have to drop to another profile to get thru certain parts ... example when you coine out from underground in metro 2033 and when you have that charging bull thing on ice.

b)  Any OC that is stable in every other game has a solid likelihood of crashing in BF anything

c)  Game betas are particularly problematic


----------



## Assimilator (Jun 15, 2018)

Sadly NVIDIA cards are voltage/power/temperature limited very hard nowadays, and there's no way to overcome that unless you're able to figure out how to flash modified Pascal BIOSes.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jun 15, 2018)

My 1070ti will OC 250mhz on the core and a measly 33mhz on the memory.....
I can get the memory up and I can run Time spy etc and it's fine until I game then it's intsa-crash...
Every single crash is a driver failure


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 15, 2018)

jmcslob said:


> My 1070ti will OC 250mhz on the core and a measly 33mhz on the memory.....
> I can get the memory up and I can run Time spy etc and it's fine until I game then it's intsa-crash...
> Every single crash is a driver failure



Points to a weak IMC I guess. Most memory does get further, at least +100 should be easy.

As for @John Naylor  's findings about OC reliability, I can't really say I can draw a similar conclusion. My 660's in SLI back in the day ran on the OC I had set right from the start until the moment I sold them. The 770 after that crashed once in Crysis 3, I dropped one bin (13mhz) and it was fine ever since; the 780ti after that didn't even OC proper so it remained at stock (Gigabyte Windforce + meh chip probably did the trick), and the 1080 I have now has been running +120 core / +500 mem ever since I bought it. I had one TDR crash with the 1080, I did not dial down and hasn't crashed since.

And I play an extremely wide variety of games too, from alpha's even up to open/closed beta, lots of indies, old and new, to day one patched triple A junk.

I think the trick is not to push it too far, and when you find your top end clocks, take one small step back for stability.


----------



## Bamaofficial (Jun 15, 2018)

Vayra86 said:


> Points to a weak IMC I guess. Most memory does get further, at least +100 should be easy.


 
I settled on 600mhz.  I just need to push it any further when I reached the core overclock.  I would say it would go a little further but not sure how much.   It was a advanced Binned card also tho.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jun 15, 2018)

Bamaofficial said:


> I settled on 600mhz.  I just need to push it any further when I reached the core overclock.  I would say it would go a little further but not sure how much.   It was a advanced Binned card also tho.



Don't let the marketing fool you. Binning on Pascal is heavily overrated. All cards clock to 2 Ghz at least and all memory goes to 11Gbps / 9Gbps (GDDR5X/5) regardless of whether you have a newer version of it or not. The best ones *may* hit 2148 or 2176 but that's all and they will also need more volts to do it, raising temp = dropping the clock faster.  The headroom beyond that is 2-4% at best and core clocks depend more on temps than they do on voltage; Pascal will force voltage down and drop a bin every 5 C you gain. All this combined makes any sort of binning rather pointless.

And as others have pointed out as well, clocks do not always translate to performance, especially when it comes to memory. You can use Valley scores to get a good handle on performance gain/loss with little memory tweaks. Heaven as well, to a somewhat lesser degree.

Another thing of note is that 1070's and possibly all GDDR5 based GPUs are likely to clock higher, because less power is reserved to feed VRAM and shader count is lower, so clock bumps are easier.


----------



## Bamaofficial (Jun 15, 2018)

2165mhz is stable at 250mhz.  That's about where It seems to range.


----------



## Sasqui (Jun 15, 2018)

Assimilator said:


> Sadly NVIDIA cards are voltage/power/temperature limited very hard nowadays, and there's no way to overcome that unless you're able to figure out how to flash modified Pascal BIOSes.



Actually, it's not the BIOS, but hard wired power limiters on the card itself, at least most of the 10xx series.  There are some guides out there that are very much like pencil mods to increase the power limit.

Here's a tutorial, there are more out there too:  http://www.overclock.net/forum/69-n...shunt-mod-titan-x-many-other-nvidia-gpus.html



Bamaofficial said:


> 2165mhz is stable at 250mhz.  That's about where It seems to range.



That's exactly where I ended up too (exactly where NVidia put up the wall).  I got more out of the memory tho, I was up close to +500mhz.  Beat the Vega 64 in all 3D mark tests.  However, when I overclocked the Vega, it left the 1070 ti in the dust.


----------



## Junkie XL (Jul 16, 2018)

Sasqui said:


> That's exactly where I ended up too (exactly where NVidia put up the wall).  I got more out of the memory tho, I was up close to +500mhz.  Beat the Vega 64 in all 3D mark tests.  However, when I overclocked the Vega, it left the 1070 ti in the dust.



Until you put the two in actual games. I could care less about a card(s) performance in a software benchmarking suite. I care about what actually matters, gaming. Which is ironically also the best place to test stability. Idk how many times I've tuned my cards stable in 3DMark or Heaven (Valley is trash), only for it to crash in games, sometimes immediately. 

In games, no way is the Vega 64 leaving the 1070ti in "the dust". Granted I don't own a Vega (I'm done with anything AMD GPU related), but I've seen enough gaming benchmarks to know both Vegas are underwhelming, esp for the price. I can only assume it's due to the majority of games being optimized for the green team. Which would make sense as last time I looked nvidia holds a solid 60% of the marketshare, vs AMD's 19% (Intel has 17% lol).


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 16, 2018)

Junkie XL said:


> Idk how many times I've tuned my cards stable in 3DMark or Heaven (Valley is trash), only for it to crash in games, sometimes immediately.



Agreed, the benchmarks are a sort of "fleshing out" of what clocks and voltages look stable.  Ultimately, if it can't play a game without crashing or artifacting, then what's the point?

Keep in mind, part of the process is the thrill of the chase in itself


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jul 16, 2018)

I couldn't agree more with using benchmarks to test stability as that's not going to happen..
I had mine "Benchmark Stable" and I was so impressed then I went to play a few games and instacrash... Literally as soon as I would start playing it would crash...
I'm really starting to distance myself and my expectations away from benchmarks... They are becoming quite pointless.


----------



## Junkie XL (Jul 16, 2018)

Sasqui said:


> Agreed, the benchmarks are a sort of "fleshing out" of what clocks and voltages look stable.  Ultimately, if it can't play a game without crashing or artifacting, then what's the point?
> 
> Keep in mind, part of the process is the thrill of the chase in itself



Oh yea. Overclocking is like gambling. You never know what the end result will be, chip from chip. Even though GPU overclocking is hit and miss for 5-6 FPS increase on average it's still fun to do. 

I used to use benchmarking software to find a chip stables OC, but to me, they are a waste of time. I just boot up a few of my most sensitive games and go from there.


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 18, 2018)

Junkie XL said:


> I just boot up a few of my most sensitive games and go from there.



What are your most sensitive games?  I'm assuming it's not solitaire lol


----------



## Junkie XL (Jul 19, 2018)

Sasqui said:


> What are your most sensitive games?  I'm assuming it's not solitaire lol


MMO's tend to be pretty sensitive for whatever reason. Though Final Fantasy 15 with everything maxed out 3880x1440, worked wonders for tuning my current 1070Ti



Bamaofficial said:


> I have the 1070 ti Asus strix Advanced Binned I was able to hit 250mhz on the core and 500mhz on the memory.  Never touched voltage and It is rock solid.  I want to push it more because this thing never gets over 63c.  This thing amazing me.



Wow an Asus GPU worth a crap? I just had to replace an Asus Strix R9 390 that kicked the bucket. No surprise, that thing gamed between 89-92c even with me replacing the thermal paste to Kryonaut. My roommate picked up the Sapphire Nitro R9 390 and it stayed cool and quiet. My other previous Asus GPU was a GTX 660Ti TOP DirectCU II.was nothing but a PITA. Constantly crashed everything. Defective memory controller I think it was, and it was a 'binned' GPU. RMA'd it only for a worse replacement. Love their everything else though.

I wouldn't bother adding voltage to the 1070ti. I found worse OC headroom when I added voltage to mine. Thought I had defective power delivery. Did some research and seems it's an issue with Pascal in general. I cannot complain really. Mine was able to boost up to 2,106 mhz stable in games 14.4k Passmark 3D score. Though in some games the boost will droop a bit under 2.1, but only 3 of my games.


----------

