GTX 1660Ti (mobile) in GPU-Z

[Valour549]

Using GPU-Z v2.21, which according to its changelog supports GTX 1660 Ti Mobile but it shows some strange information. I'm using an MSI GL73-8SDK with the latest NVIDIA drivers.

Values from the TechPowerUp page:

1) Why does the GPU Clock and Default Clock both show the boost as identical to base clock?

Spoiler

2) I ran Assassin's Creed Origins for half an hour, during which I obtained these values from the sensors. The screenshot below shows the max values, but the average values of GPU clock and memory clock are 1875 MHz and 6000 MHz respectively, which are pretty much the maximum values. Are these values actually correct or is this just a GPU-Z bug?

Spoiler

3) If I were to overclock, what are some good values to start with?

 

[Assimilator]

1) Seems like a bug, paging @W1zzard.

2) Core clock is correct. The boost clock specified by NVIDIA or the manufacturer is the lowest maximum core clock that all cards are guaranteed to achieve. But if there is additional thermal and/or power headroom, the GPU boost algorithm will allow the clock to be pushed even higher so that the card is effectively delivering its maximum possible performance within those constraints.

On the other hand, memory should be showing 12000MHz since it's GDDR6 which is 8 bits/clock. Thus the TPU page is correct and GPU-Z is again wrong. @W1zzard this seems like a reemergence of a previous bug where GDDR6 was effectively detected as GDDR5/X.

3) First, you need to get yourself a copy of MSI Afterburner, then you simply use it to push the GPU's Power Limit to the max which gives GPU boost more headroom to work with, which means it should now boost to higher clocks. You can also increase the Core Voltage, which again will give more ability for higher boost. But considering this is a mobile chip, you may not be able to increase those limits.

As for memory, you do it the old-fashioned way: increase the clock by a certain amount, run a demanding game to ensure there are no visual artifacts, wash rinse and repeat until you see artifacts, then take the clock down a notch. The increments you use are up to you, I'd suggest 100MHz.

 

[Valour549]

2) Core clock is correct. The boost clock specified by NVIDIA or the manufacturer is the lowest maximum core clock that all cards are guaranteed to achieve. But if there is additional thermal and/or power headroom, the GPU boost algorithm will allow the clock to be pushed even higher so that the card is effectively delivering its maximum possible performance within those constraints.

If what you say here is true, then doesn't that suggest MSI Afterburner is somewhat redundant since the GPU automatically overclocks itself to the highest core clock values possible?

Also since MSI Afterburner only allows me to adjust the core clock and memory clock, I guess it means Afterburner is only useful to boost memory clock then?

 

[Toothless]

If what you say here is true, then doesn't that suggest MSI Afterburner is somewhat redundant since the GPU automatically overclocks itself to the highest core clock values possible?

Also since MSI Afterburner only allows me to adjust the core clock and memory clock, I guess it means Afterburner is only useful to boost memory clock then?

Using MSI Afterburner can allow you to hit higher clocks than what the card would normally hit. Like my card will go to 1972mhz by itself, but I can get it to 2050mhz with AF. Also fan profiles.

 

[Assimilator]

If what you say here is true, then doesn't that suggest MSI Afterburner is somewhat redundant since the GPU automatically overclocks itself to the highest core clock values possible?

GPU Boost will clock the core to the maximum possible value *it determines to be safe*. This may or not be the actual maximum clock your GPU is capable of - Boost errs on the conservative side, for obvious reasons.

You also need to remember that the max clock Boost chooses using the default Power Limit and Core Voltage, will be lower than if you use Afterburner to increase those limiters.

It is still possible to apply custom clock offsets to override Boost (this is essentially the overclocking that we're all used to), but in my experience, Boost does such a good job of pushing clocks near the limit, *without sacrificing stability*, that I honestly don't bother with manual GPU overclocking anymore. Just dial in the max Power Limit and optionally Core Voltage, and let the algorithm do the work for you.

One final thing to note is that pushing Core Voltage to the max is not necessarily a silver bullet for higher clocks - since more volts = more heat, pushing that value too high can actually result in Boost giving you lower clocks than if you used less vCore!

 

[trog100]

laptops are subject to all sorts of power and thermal throtting that desktops arnt..

trog

 

[Valour549]

Also fan profiles.

I don't know how I'd go about adjusting the fan profile, but as far as I'm aware I feel like the stock fan profile on my MSI laptop is doing a fine job.

One final thing to note is that pushing Core Voltage to the max is not necessarily a silver bullet for higher clocks - since more volts = more heat, pushing that value too high can actually result in Boost giving you lower clocks than if you used less vCore!

As per the screenshot in my first post, my max GPU temp seems to be around 72°C (probably 75°C in prolonged gaming) and GPU boost is hitting 1890 MHz, so is this still worth overclocking and do I have enough headroom in terms of temperature?

I guess I'm basically asking what the GPU analogous value of the "prochot" is, namely the temperature at which the GPU begins to thermal throttle and manual overclocking actually causes adverse performance.

 

[trog100]

my asus laptop has three fan settings.. silent.. balanced and boost.. it will not run at full speed if the fans are not set on boost..

modern laptops play some fancy games trying to keep the heat down when they are plugged in and improving battery life when they are not..

trog