Official GTX 670 Overclocking Thread

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,231
Similar to the 680, how about we share some 670 overclocks here? Be sure to post what OC tool you are using, settings, case/cooling info etc.

I haven't had a chance to OC mine past factory yet, but my Gigabyte 670 OC was boosting to 1162MHz on factory OC (spec says 1058MHz is factory OC boost) in BF3 last night with 69% power target level. Temp peaked at 59c and 34% fan speed. Can't wait to see what I can do with it in the coming days.
 
I bought a MSI one at a local Frys. It's already factory overclocked, but it couldn't take anything more than 50mhz.
 
Still tweaking my Gigabyte right now. But it boosted 1189mhz out of the box. I just finished heaven bench 3.0 at 1305mhz core and 3281 on the memory. I'm pretty sure I'll need to dial it down a little to be game stable though.
 
I was able to hit 1215 boost, out of the box. I think that's pretty good.
Still running and my max temp so far, after about 5-10 minutes, is 74c.
Untitled.jpg
 
My 670 Gigabyte has the following speeds:
980 core/boost 1058 but during unigine 100% load it goes to 1175, not sure why...
 
Last edited:
The gigabyte cards(maybe others) boost much higher then advertised.

Thing is, I had a 680 Phantom which I returned and its speeds were:
1084 core
1150 boost (but it had a +25 mhz added) so a total of 1175.

Thing is in full load it never passed 1175, while the 670 boots over the supposed boost of 1059 to the same 1175.
 
Last edited:
My 670 Gigabyte has the following speeds:
980 core/boost 1058 but during unigine 100% load it goes to 1175, not sure why...

The listed boost speed is the minimum it will boost to. Each card will have a different maximum boost clock, based on power/thermals.
 
The listed boost speed is the minimum it will boost to. Each card will have a different maximum boost clock, based on power/thermals.

Oh, now I understand, wonder if what I got is a good rating w/o any overclock. Max temp was 70C btw.
 
Oh, now I understand, wonder if what I got is a good rating w/o any overclock. Max temp was 70C btw.

1175 would be pretty good for a GTX 680, but there haven't been enough reports yet to see how good that is for the GTX 670 (which seem to boost farther). Sounds pretty good though. Of course the big test is how far you can overclock it.
 
Still tweaking my Gigabyte right now. But it boosted 1189mhz out of the box. I just finished heaven bench 3.0 at 1305mhz core and 3281 on the memory. I'm pretty sure I'll need to dial it down a little to be game stable though.

You (and nvidia) just made me mad!jk. Mine gtx 680 crash at anything above 1295 on heaven!but my memory is 3500, try that.... But you paid $100 less :(

From the reviews the 670 is the best card out there right now! Nvidia makes no sense! sli gtx 670 4 gb for $938, 2gb $800 vs sli gtx 680 2gb $1000 equal performance vs 690 $999 worst performance! I am so pissed off!lol

Nice oc by the way!
 
Last edited:
Ok- Messed around with clock.. Max offset for me was +76.. Clock of 1215. Machine would hard lock with anything over..

Quick question - Do I need to mess around with "power target" if the OSD shows anywhere from 60-70% usage? What is the point in boosting past 100% if the card never goes over 70?
 
Ok- Messed around with clock.. Max offset for me was +76.. Clock of 1215. Machine would hard lock with anything over..

Quick question - Do I need to mess around with "power target" if the OSD shows anywhere from 60-70% usage? What is the point in boosting past 100% if the card never goes over 70?

Just set power target to the maximum, otherwise it will throttle GPU usage to meet the TDP target.
 
having mine shipped from the states to japan, hopefully ill be in here sharing my adventures within the next week or so.
 
Just set power target to the maximum, otherwise it will throttle GPU usage to meet the TDP target.

But if it's already locking up with a GPU offset of 100, with power consumption apparently at 70, will boosting that up to 110 have any impact?
 
You (and nvidia) just made me mad!jk. Mine gtx 680 crash at anything above 1295 on heaven!but my memory is 3500, try that.... But you paid $100 less :(

From the reviews the 670 is the best card out there right now! Nvidia makes no sense! sli gtx 670 4 gb for $938, 2gb $800 vs sli gtx 680 2gb $1000 equal performance vs 690 $999 worst performance! I am so pissed off!lol

Nice oc by the way!

Have you tried dialing down your memory that may give you a little more on the core. I was crashing in Heaven at 1300mhz and 3342 memory. Then I tried lowering the memory to 3256 and upping the core to 1305mhz on the core became stable.
 
But if it's already locking up with a GPU offset of 100, with power consumption apparently at 70, will boosting that up to 110 have any impact?

I'd run the power target up anyway. It doesn't hurt, and it might help.
 
But if it's already locking up with a GPU offset of 100, with power consumption apparently at 70, will boosting that up to 110 have any impact?

Sorry, I didn't see the first part of your post (not sure if it was edited in :) as I quoted?). It won't likely help at all with getting the card stable at higher clocks but it may raise the GPU usage at the stable clocks, and thus speed things up.
 
I bought a MSI one at a local Frys. It's already factory overclocked, but it couldn't take anything more than 50mhz.

Have you tried MSI afterburner to increase the voltage? With some more voltage you should be able to get more than 50mhz.
 
Got my evga 670 today non "superclock". Boosts to 1110 core out of the box, got the boost up to 1260. stopped there. temps were 65c under load. idles at 31c
 
Last edited:
I went to the fedex depot to pick up my pair of gigabyte oc's since the overnight shipping got delayed due to an error... they're running at different speeds even non-overclocked which is kinda weirding me out (one boosts to 1120 out of the box, the other goes to 1190 out fo the box, both working together in SLI and those clocks are at the same time). The lower one is seeming to hit a wall on oc'ing past about 1230, while the higher one is at the same time running 1290. I saw a mention in one review that cards may run at different speeds, but it's really odd feeling to me. They perform like crazy, however I want to be sure nothing's "wrong"... half wondering if I should send the one that's not keeping up back for a replacement, though if they're technically OK I'm not going to send back for simply not clocking as well, obviously.

EDIT: Upon further thought, with AFR which is what SLI uses anyway... frames already take different amounts of time to render. I'm thinking a small difference in clockspeed isn't going to handicap performance other than at worst to the lower card's speed...?
 
Last edited:
Picked up a MSI 670 from Frys last night, boosted to 1140 core out of the box. over clocked to 1082 and now i get 1260 with boost. had to turn the fans on a more aggressive profile cause i was hitting 50 C idle and 82C under load.
 
I went to the fedex depot to pick up my pair of gigabyte oc's since the overnight shipping got delayed due to an error... they're running at different speeds even non-overclocked which is kinda weirding me out (one boosts to 1120 out of the box, the other goes to 1190 out fo the box, both working together in SLI and those clocks are at the same time). The lower one is seeming to hit a wall on oc'ing past about 1230, while the higher one is at the same time running 1290. I saw a mention in one review that cards may run at different speeds, but it's really odd feeling to me. They perform like crazy, however I want to be sure nothing's "wrong"... half wondering if I should send the one that's not keeping up back for a replacement, though if they're technically OK I'm not going to send back for simply not clocking as well, obviously.

EDIT: Upon further thought, with AFR which is what SLI uses anyway... frames already take different amounts of time to render. I'm thinking a small difference in clockspeed isn't going to handicap performance other than at worst to the lower card's speed...?

That's normal GPU Boost behavior - each card will boost to what it can do so you'll have to play with the offset to get them at the same speed if you want (+100 for one, +130 for the other, or something).
 
That's normal GPU Boost behavior - each card will boost to what it can do so you'll have to play with the offset to get them at the same speed if you want (+100 for one, +130 for the other, or something).

Yeah, unfortunately PrecisionX just has offsets not in sync reset randomly it seems like and on reboots, so... not nice. My GTX 680's were always in sync on boosts other than 12mhz or so from temperature causing throttling. These ones are just plain different. Still, not a big deal... and if I get the urge I can simply flash the "lower" card to use the same BIOS as the other one and cure my speed-difference "issue". :)
 
I wonder if the speed is controlled by the BIOS - the minimum boost speed certainly, but I don't know that the real boost clock speed is set - I got the impression that it is dynamic.
 
I wonder if the speed is controlled by the BIOS - the minimum boost speed certainly, but I don't know that the real boost clock speed is set - I got the impression that it is dynamic.

The BIOS contains all of the boost offsets in a table for current Kepler cards. (I think 11 discrete steps around 12mhz apart). The boost clock you set as a user is simply an offset of the base clock on the table, which is determined by the temperature (high temp = throttling back on clocks, stepping down until it's in check).
 
The BIOS contains all of the boost offsets in a table for current Kepler cards. (I think 11 discrete steps around 12mhz apart). The boost clock you set as a user is simply an offset of the base clock on the table, which is determined by the temperature (high temp = throttling back on clocks, stepping down until it's in check).

But not all cards boost to the same frequency, so there is more to it than just temperature. The card has some way of figuring out how high to go, and that doesn't seem like something that would be programmed individually into the BIOS - so putting a different card's BIOS probably wouldn't change the top boost (although it would change the min if you put a SC BIOS on, for example).
 
But not all cards boost to the same frequency, so there is more to it than just temperature. The card has some way of figuring out how high to go, and that doesn't seem like something that would be programmed individually into the BIOS - so putting a different card's BIOS probably wouldn't change the top boost (although it would change the min if you put a SC BIOS on, for example).

The BIOS has a built-in step table that the offset affects. One of my cards, apparrently, has lower values in there, so the same offset results in a lower speed. I've seen others mentioning theirs being different from eachother in SLI as well now that I dug a little more. I probably should have thrown an extra comma in there, but I meant that the value used on the table is determined by temperature (i.e. which step, not which mhz).
 
If it is that way, then that implies that each card basically has a custom BIOS - the tables are different for each card. I don't think that's the way it works, as that would be too time intensive to set-up/program. More likely is that the card dynamically calculates which step to go to based on power/temp/something - but that each BIOS has the same tables - the difference between cards is what step it goes to, not what the value is for each step. In other words, any EVGA BIOS I put on my card will give me the same clocks, because the boost is based on the chip/card, not the BIOS. Can you imagine them having a custom BIOS for each card? That seems unworkable in the extreme.
 
I don't understand how to use the new EVGA precision overclocking tools. I was fine with the 5xx series precision, but this new version I just don't get. I use there built in stress and benchmark tools, one time I'll run it, it will go to a clock of 1230mhz and then the next stress test it won't go above 1180 or so mhz, it just seems all over the place. I set my EVGA sc edition at power target 122%, GPU offset +125 and mem offset +25 but I haven't the slightest clue if that is how to overclock with this new utility or not.
 
That's how to overclock, but the card automatically downclocks at higher temps, so at lower GPU use and lower temps it might go to 1230, but then it'll drop down as the temps increase in a more demanding test. The built-in stress test doesn't seem very stressful, so that may be why. You should be able to push the memory quite a bit farther than that - most people seem to get +250 or more out of theirs.
 
If it is that way, then that implies that each card basically has a custom BIOS - the tables are different for each card. I don't think that's the way it works, as that would be too time intensive to set-up/program. More likely is that the card dynamically calculates which step to go to based on power/temp/something - but that each BIOS has the same tables - the difference between cards is what step it goes to, not what the value is for each step. In other words, any EVGA BIOS I put on my card will give me the same clocks, because the boost is based on the chip/card, not the BIOS. Can you imagine them having a custom BIOS for each card? That seems unworkable in the extreme.

They don't. The Gigabyte models have two sets of boost tables they're shipping with, based on binning/luck. A "high" one and a "low" one, from what I've seen at OCN. That's why there's the difference for me since I got one of each apparrently.
 
Have you tried dialing down your memory that may give you a little more on the core. I was crashing in Heaven at 1300mhz and 3342 memory. Then I tried lowering the memory to 3256 and upping the core to 1305mhz on the core became stable.

I will try!

What is suppose to give better performance?Higher core or higher memory?
 
I got my gpu to +120 and memory to +200. This was stable with no artifacts. I started off higher but got some freezes and artifacts so I just lowered it by about 10% and that is how I got to 120 and 200, it was stable so I figured I'd just stick to that. I don't really care to keep doing trial and error to find the absolute maximum overclock, what i have I feel is good. That puts me at a non boost of GPU 1087 and memory of 6608, with GPU boost usually around 1240. Do you guys think those will put me near GTX 680 clocks? If not I might look at just going ahead and upgrading to a 680 4gb version when it releases.
 
I will try!

What is suppose to give better performance?Higher core or higher memory?

It's actually pretty balanced. So some of both.

I got my gpu to +120 and memory to +200. This was stable with no artifacts. I started off higher but got some freezes and artifacts so I just lowered it by about 10% and that is how I got to 120 and 200, it was stable so I figured I'd just stick to that. I don't really care to keep doing trial and error to find the absolute maximum overclock, what i have I feel is good. That puts me at a non boost of GPU 1087 and memory of 6608, with GPU boost usually around 1240. Do you guys think those will put me near GTX 680 clocks? If not I might look at just going ahead and upgrading to a 680 4gb version when it releases.

That should put you comfortably in GTX 680 territory. 1240 is on the high end of 680 clocks, for the most part.
 
I have...

Galaxy GeForce GTX 670 2GB (reference board, reference cooling)
Default core clock 915MHz, memory 6008MHz.

Using EVGA Precision X 3.0.2 + EVGA OC Scanner X to test.
Power target 122%
GPU Clock offset +150MHz
Mem clock offset +250MHz
Core boosting to average of 1234MHz, memory 6500MHz @ 78C load. Fan set to auto.



Core Offset +200MHz fail/crash.
 
Last edited:
Guys, some people have reported errors with the EVGA tool and setting clocks/ stability.

I recommend using MSI's afterburner which has been more stable for me. Not in terms of squeezing more out of my card, but in terms of applying the offset changes consistently.
 
Guys, some people have reported errors with the EVGA tool and setting clocks/ stability.

I recommend using MSI's afterburner which has been more stable for me. Not in terms of squeezing more out of my card, but in terms of applying the offset changes consistently.

Is this an Afterburner beta beyond version 2.20?:cool:
 
Back
Top