Rtx 3000 series undervolt discussion

VirtualMirage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
384
More thorough testing is needed, but making the changes starting at +105 offset per your suggestion, I noticed the following in TimeSpy:

  • Prior to editing my curve, with GPU temp idling at 31C, my curve showed a peak clock speed of 2,085MHz from 1,137mV to 1,243mV
  • Average temp only went up only by 1C (64C vs 63C), but ambient temp in house is up by about 2C from the test I am comparing to (this week has been warmer than usual).
  • Peak clock speed is up by 30MHz (2,055MHz vs 2,025MHz)
  • Average clock speed is up by 51MHz (1,872MHz vs 1,821MHz)
  • Graphics score, not overall score, is up 167 points (19,787 vs 19,620), roughly .8%. I didn't want to use overall score since my CPU score has varied (but same clock speed as before).
  • Graphics Test 1 framerate is nearly identical (129.44 vs 129.45)
  • Graphics Test 2 framerate is up 1.78fps (113.08 vs 111.30), roughly 1.6%
My test today was on driver version 27.21.14.5730 and while the older benchmark was running on 27.21.14.5709. Power limit was left at 100%, Temp Limit at 83C, no added memory clock speeds (stock), and stock fan profile.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,234
I just started messing with undervolt on the Aorus Xtreme 3080 - so far this is the best I've got that seems stable (running FurMark for awhile, haven't tested other things):

1605214136078.png


When you find something stable, do you try to bump up the clocks, or down the voltage, or what? When I tried .950 V it wasn't stable at these speeds. However, I get boosting to 2040 Mhz and temps seem to have dropped by almost 10 C.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,234
Okay never mind, this one is better:
1605215074858.png


Sustained 2055-2070 Mhz, 63C max. I tried at 0.975 but it wasn't stable, bumping to 1 V seems to be good, and still dropped my temps from 71C at full load (was only maxing out at 2025 Mhz before as well).

Haven't messed with VRAM OC yet - is that necessary?
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,620
I just started messing with undervolt on the Aorus Xtreme 3080 - so far this is the best I've got that seems stable (running FurMark for awhile, haven't tested other things):

View attachment 298570

When you find something stable, do you try to bump up the clocks, or down the voltage, or what? When I tried .950 V it wasn't stable at these speeds. However, I get boosting to 2040 Mhz and temps seem to have dropped by almost 10 C.
using my guide as a baseline, bumping clocks is the same thing as downing voltage. Both occur. There is definitely a point where you are sacrificing stability if you are trying to set peak clock speed to too low a voltage, but if you increase incrementally by 15mhz, you usually dial it back before that point anyway, for instability at a different frequency. Also, furmark may or may not be the best test for stabilty; certain programs/games can cause the card to be power limited and not actually operate under the conditions that cause instability. Further, you want to test with an application that causes your card to fluctuate a bit in terms of clock speed, otherwise you are really only testing a single point on the curve.

You can OC Vram but it will take power away from the GPU core. If you are not power limited, it doesn't matter, but if you are, then you might hurt performance. It probably isn't worth it in real world use.
 

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
I only tested VRAM in SOTTR ranging from -250 MHz to +700 MHz, only saw a 1 FPS difference. Didn't do much testing though would be nice to get some more information on VRAM overclocks.
 

VirtualMirage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
384
I went ahead did two other tests, one was dropping the power limit to 90% and the other I upped the power limit to 114% (temp limit to 90C) and added +500 to the memory. Both are using the same stock fan profile and same curve as before. The comparisons are to my prior test.


Test with Power Limit lowered to 90 % compared to original stock test:
  • Average temp is the same (63C vs 63C), remember that room is 2C warmer than when stock was tested.
  • Peak clock speed is up by 50MHz (2,070MHz vs 2,025MHz)
  • Average clock speed is down by 27MHz (1,794MHz vs 1,821MHz)
  • Graphics score, not overall score, is down 332 points (19,288 vs 19,620), roughly 1.7%.
  • Graphics Test 1 framerate is down by 2.51fps (126.94 vs 129.45), roughly 1.9%
  • Graphics Test 2 framerate is down 1.66fps (109.64 vs 111.30), roughly 1.5%
  • Peak power usage was around 315w
Test with Power Limit lowered to 90% compared to prior test:
  • Average temp decreased by 1C (63C vs 64C)
  • Peak clock speed increased by 15MHz (2,070MHz vs 2,055MHz)
  • Average clock speed is down by 78MHz (1,794MHz vs 1,872MHz)
  • Graphics score, not overall score, is down by 499 points (19,288 vs 19,787), roughly 2.5%.
  • Graphics Test 1 framerate is down 2.5fps (126.94 vs 129.44), roughly 1.9%
  • Graphics Test 2 framerate is up 3.44fps (109.64 vs 113.08), roughly 3%
  • Peak power usage was around 315w
Test with Power Limit at 114% and memory overclocked +500 compared to prior test:
  • Average temp increased by 3C (67C vs 64C)
  • Peak clock speed increased by 15MHz (2,070MHz vs 2,055MHz)
  • Average clock speed is up by 62MHz (1,934MHz vs 1,872MHz)
  • Graphics score, not overall score, is up 799 points (20,586 vs 19,787), roughly 4%.
  • Graphics Test 1 framerate is up 5.35fps (134.79 vs 129.44), roughly 4.1%
  • Graphics Test 2 framerate is up 4.47fps (117.55 vs 113.08), roughly 4%
  • Peak power usage was around 409w
That last test is putting me within spitting distance of my best benchmark I did earlier last week where I had similar settings except for instead of a clock curve, I had a flat +100MHz, had the core voltage set to +100%, and all fans at 100%. On that test my average temp was 54C, peak clock 2,115MHz, and average clock at 1,958MHz. That one had a graphics score of 20,765, only 179 points higher and within a 1% framerate difference.

So set to a 90% power limit (~315w), I am seeing about a 1.5-2% drop in performance over stock. Left at a 100% power limit (~350w), I am seeing about a 1-1.6% increase in performance over stock. Bumping the power limit to 114% (~400w) and memory +500MHz, I am seeing a 6.2-7.2% increase in performance over stock.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,234
Is +500 on the memory a pretty safe bet, or did you tweak until you got that number?

EDIT: I see you are on a 3090 and I'm on a 3080, so I guess it might not equate over exactly.
 

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
Is +500 on the memory a pretty safe bet, or did you tweak until you got that number?

EDIT: I see you are on a 3090 and I'm on a 3080, so I guess it might not equate over exactly.
I was able to go all the way to +1500 without artifacting, not sure if I stressed it enough though. It didn't seem to have any effect on performance, I only tested it in Heaven.
 
Last edited:

VirtualMirage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
384
Is +500 on the memory a pretty safe bet, or did you tweak until you got that number?

I was able to go all the way to +1500 without artifacting, not sure if I stressed it enough though.
But remember the memory is ECC and won't necessarily crash or fail, but will have an adverse effect on performance as well as create a lot of heat for the chips. The chips should have safety features built in to prevent temp damage, but again at the expense of performance.

The memory is rated at 21Gbps (21,000MHz, 1,312-1,313MHz x 16). The 3080 stock is clocked for 19Gbps (19,004MHz, ~1,187-1,188MHz x 16). The 3090 stock is clocked for 19.5Gbps (19,500MHz, 1219MHz x 16).

In Afterburner, a +500MHz memory overclock, if I am figuring it out correctly, is really a +63MHz overclock on the core memory clock. Afterburner's 500MHz reading is really a x 8 and not the x16, so the effective memory overclock is really 1,000 MHz after the x 16 calculation. This brings the memory speed to 20,504 MHz (or 20.5 Gbps). To hit the 21Gbps design limit (again, not calculating memory or power thresholds), you would have to overclock the memory to around 750-752MHz in Afterburner. Quite a few people on here seem to be able to hit 700MHz overclock on their memory on a 3090 but I don't feel comfortable doing that, mainly because my M.2 SSDs sit millimeters above the 3090 where it's memory resides and I don't want to heat those up more than necessary. With the 3080s (mainly the FE) being smaller and less ability to disperse heat, you may or may not have as much room to overclock the memory.

For me I think +500MHz is going to be as far as I push it until I put a water block on it just for heat's sake. I only set it to +500 for testing purposes here and will most likely either leave it at stock or maybe only bump it up +250MHz, which will have the memory running at an even 20Gbps, a .5Gbps bump over stock.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,234
But remember the memory is ECC and won't necessarily crash or fail, but will have an adverse effect on performance as well as create a lot of heat for the chips. The chips should have safety features built in to prevent temp damage, but again at the expense of performance.

The memory is rated at 21Gbps (21,000MHz, 1,312-1,313MHz x 16). The 3080 stock is clocked for 19Gbps (19,004MHz, ~1,187-1,188MHz x 16). The 3090 stock is clocked for 19.5Gbps (19,500MHz, 1219MHz x 16).

In Afterburner, a +500MHz memory overclock, if I am figuring it out correctly, is really a +63MHz overclock on the core memory clock. Afterburner's 500MHz reading is really a x 8 and not the x16, so the effective memory overclock is really 1,000 MHz after the x 16 calculation. This brings the memory speed to 20,504 MHz (or 20.5 Gbps). To hit the 21Gbps design limit (again, not calculating memory or power thresholds), you would have to overclock the memory to around 750-752MHz in Afterburner. Quite a few people on here seem to be able to hit 700MHz overclock on their memory on a 3090 but I don't feel comfortable doing that, mainly because my M.2 SSDs sit millimeters above the 3090 where it's memory resides and I don't want to heat those up more than necessary. With the 3080s (mainly the FE) being smaller and less ability to disperse heat, you may or may not have as much room to overclock the memory.

For me I think +500MHz is going to be as far as I push it until I put a water block on it just for heat's sake. I only set it to +500 for testing purposes here and will most likely either leave it at stock or maybe only bump it up +250MHz, which will have the memory running at an even 20Gbps, a .5Gbps bump over stock.
I may try bumping to +250 to see if it's worthwhile. Thanks for the detailed reply.
 

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
Since the spec is 21,000MHz on the VRAM and it runs at 19,500MHz wouldn't that mean that the memory controller on the GPU is the bottleneck and not the actual memory itself?
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,620
Since the spec is 21,000MHz on the VRAM and it runs at 19,500MHz wouldn't that mean that the memory controller on the GPU is the bottleneck and not the actual memory itself?
If the bottleneck isn't ram temperature. Like a cpu might have a rated boost clock that's unsustainable with stock cooling. I was running +500 without problems but really didn't see the point other than going up a bit in benchmarks.
 

VirtualMirage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
384
If the bottleneck isn't ram temperature. Like a cpu might have a rated boost clock that's unsustainable with stock cooling. I was running +500 without problems but really didn't see the point other than going up a bit in benchmarks.
I believe that the bottleneck, as you said, has more to do with temperature and power draw. These memory chips at full speed are pushing over 100C and I believe have a TjMax of around 110C and can be damaged if they reach or exceed 120C, if I read Igor Labs correctly. Of course, safety measures should be in place to prevent damage, but performance will suffer. That’s a lot of heat coming from these small chips, which will be a power draw and require ample cooling. It’s probably why they are clocked under their rated specs to run cooler and account for a wide range of installation scenarios where cooling may not be the best.

As such, I don’t think the memory controller is a limiting factor here.
 

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
If the bottleneck isn't ram temperature. Like a cpu might have a rated boost clock that's unsustainable with stock cooling. I was running +500 without problems but really didn't see the point other than going up a bit in benchmarks.
Yea so far I haven't seen a benefit to VRAM overclocking on my card other than benchmarks. Seems like a waste of time at this point.
 

Micas99

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Messages
70
I've done quite a bit of under-volt testing, and the sweet spot on my 3080 XC3 Ultra appears to be 1800Mhz @ .806v, completely stable. Pushing clocks harder generates a seemingly exponential increase in power for very little performance gain. Stock clocks settle at about 1845 @ 1.056v. Power goes from ~268w UV to ~400w stock.

I've mentioned it before, but I still find the whole thing baffling. It's as if at stock, the GPU is over-clocked like mad.
 

badmojomk

n00b
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
15
Bright memory infinite, you should be able to download it by clicking the text in the original post.
Thanks, will try it out.

In my experience, the game that can show instability where other games run fine is Quake 2 RTX. I’ve had to up the voltage/reduce clocks before it would be stable.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,620
Hi,

i've just tried this curve on my Strix 3090,

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=20/46/0edp.png

https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/15304171/spy/15274495

The score is not that much better than with 0.900 @ 1965hz and i got some perfcap reason pwr + pwr therm in gpu z even with maxed power limit

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=20/46/qg3e.png

What does it mean for my card and overclock?
means you are power limited, and your card is getting hot. That curve you set is an extreme slope. Look at the first post step 6, a stepped curve should net better results.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,234
Does upping the temp limit in Afterburner actually do anything if you're not hitting those temps? I only got about 70C max on my card without undervolting, now it's around 63C max. I have the boost set to 2070 but it still drops to 2055 for the most part, wondering if there is a way to keep it more stable.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,620
Does upping the temp limit in Afterburner actually do anything if you're not hitting those temps? I only got about 70C max on my card without undervolting, now it's around 63C max. I have the boost set to 2070 but it still drops to 2055 for the most part, wondering if there is a way to keep it more stable.
Sounds like a power limit.
 

Elric82

n00b
Joined
Jul 15, 2017
Messages
43
The
means you are power limited, and your card is getting hot. That curve you set is an extreme slope. Look at the first post step 6, a stepped curve should net better results.
The card wasn't that hot, 71c max
For the curve you mean it should be more regular? I have to set it manually? For the power limit is the limit coming from the gpu itself? Is there a way to max it? I see in gpuz that it hits 478 W so yeah I guess it's the reason but isn"t it very high for that kind of OC?
 
Last edited:

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
I removed my previous posts because the testing wasn't accurate enough. This is realistic expectations with a solid curve with power efficiency in mind.
This is the curve I thought up, directions how I came to this is in the bottom of the post.

This is my V/F curve:

1606252514254.png

Stock GPU = Stock Clocks + My Fan Curve, All tests were done with my fan curve, I used it for realistic gaming expectations.

1606331454642.png

Some Results from this method...


Port Royal
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 12,721 | Baseline
280w | 180/1860 | 80% PL | 12,257 | -3.7% Performance
298w | 180/1860 | 85% PL | 12,605 | -1% Performance
315w | 180/1860 | 90% PL | 12,951 | +1.8% Performance
332w | 180/1860 | 95% PL | 13,200 | +3.7% Performance
350w | 180/1860 | 100% PL | 13,326 | +4.6% Performance

TimeSpy (Graphics Score)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 19161 | Baseline
280w | 180/1860 | 80% PL | 18539 | -3.3% Performance
298w | 180/1860 | 85% PL | 19054 | -.6% Performance
315w | 180/1860 | 90% PL | 19504 | +1.8% Performance
332w | 180/1860 | 95% PL | 19955 | +4% Performance
350w | 180/1860 | 100% PL | 20085 | +4.7% Performance

Shadow of the Tomb Raider (DX12/4K/Highest Preset/Ultra RTX Shadows/No AA)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 62.2 FPS | 09778 Frames | Baseline
280w | 180/1860 | 80% PL | 60.8 FPS | 09558 Frames | -2.3% Performance
298w | 180/1860 | 85% PL | 62.6 FPS | 09851 Frames | +.008% Performance
315w | 180/1860 | 90% PL | 63.9 FPS | 10052 Frames | +2.8% Performance
332w | 180/1860 | 95% PL | 65.2 FPS | 10243 Frames | +4.6% Performance
350w | 180/1860 | 100% PL | 65.7 FPS | 10328 Frames | +5.4% Performance

Deus Ex Mankind Divided (DX12/4K/Ultra)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 73.7 FPS | Baseline
280w | 180/1860 | 80% PL | 71.3 FPS | -3.3% Performance
298w | 180/1860 | 85% PL | 73.0 FPS | -1% Performance
315w | 180/1860 | 90% PL | 75.0 FPS | +1.8% Performance
332w | 180/1860 | 95% PL | 76.1 FPS | +3.2% Performance
350w | 180/1860 | 100% PL | 76.9 FPS | +4.2% Performance

Hitman 2 Mumbai (DX12/4K/Max Settings/Nvda Sharpening)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 105.77 FPS | Baseline
280w | 180/1860 | 80% PL | 101.76 FPS | -3.8% Performance
298w | 180/1860 | 85% PL | 105.04 FPS | -.007% Performance
315w | 180/1860 | 90% PL | 108.38 FPS | +2.5% Performance
332w | 180/1860 | 95% PL | 112.82 FPS | +6.3% Performance
350w | 180/1860 | 100% PL | 114.35 FPS | +7.6% Performance

To guarantee a atleast stock performance on my card I have to run it around 305w or 87% Power Limit.

My machine is SFF and I do aim to keep it as quiet as possible. These are intentionally close in performance, the main goal here is to reduce power as much as possible and maintain a minimum of stock performance in every scenario. This reflects the temperature on my setup. All tests were started at 40c with my fan profile I use for gaming and the room temperature was 73F/23C . I was going to do long term testing of like an hour in a stress test, but decided I wanted to verify the performance is near identical so I went with this route.


Shadow of the Tomb Raider (DX12/4K/Highest Preset/RTX Shadows Ultra/No AA)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 9778 Frames | 62.2 FPS | 73c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 9868 Frames | 62.7 FPS | 67c

DeusEx Mankind Divided (DX12/4K/Ultra Preset)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 73.7 FPS | 69c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 74.3 FPS | 65c

Hitman 2 Mumbai (DX12/4K/Max Settings/Nvda Sharpening)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 105.77 FPS | 73c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 107.46 FPS | 68c

Hitman 2 Miami (DX12/4K/Max Settings/Nvda Sharpening)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 87.49 FPS | 74c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 89.29 FPS | 69c

TimeSpy (Graphics Score)
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 19161 | GT1 126.21 FPS | GT2 108.86 FPS | 72c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 19185 | GT1 126.87 FPS | GT2 108.61 FPS | 67c

Port Royal
350w | Stock GPU | 100% PL | 12721 | 58.89 FPS | 73c
305w | 180/1860 | 87% PL | 12737 | 58.97 FPS | 67c

This is however not the most optimal the card can be. There is a tradeoff PL where you lose slight performance from stock but gain about another 15-20w in efficiency. It is between 81%-84% power limit on my card. This is the range that will hit the bottom of the V/F curve under extreme stress without dropping out of it. So technically that range is overclocked and target optimize it if you want, my guess is it would be about 1.5% performance loss with 5% (17w) less power draw in comparison to 87% if you want to make that trade. Right now I just want atleast the performance I paid for so I will be running my card at 87% PL.

If anyone finds a superior method, would be nice if you posted it.

GPU Boost 3.0 Optimization Guide (Ampere Users)
By: DFenz @ [H]


Values were determined based off my results on a EVGA RTX 3090 XC3 Ultra which is a heavily power limited card, it maxes out at 364w. 400w-500w cards and or water cooling may see wildly different results. This guide may work on Turing as well, but I forgot if frequency increases in 15 MHz increments.

Prerequisites:
I. MSI Afterburner + (Optional) RivaTuner Statistic Server​
II. Port Royal Benchmark ($3 for 3DMark owners)​
III. Know your maximum stable overclock or the knowledge of how to find your maximum stable overclock.​
IV. (Optional) A very demanding game scenario. (I used Hitman 2 at 8K/Max)​

Preferred/Recommended Practices:
I recommend waiting until the boost table defaults before applying changes to voltage/frequency curve. Some would say it takes about 10-15 minutes. I decided to wait until my GPU is about 30c with my case open to speed up the process, then refreshed the curve until it appears to be at default.

Through the duration of the process I recommend either maxing out your GPU fan speed or atleast keeping it a static 85%, you want as much consistency between tests as possible.

Throughout the entirety of Sections 1 and 2, keep your Power Limit at the maximum level.


Section 1: Finding your target frequency.
1. In MSI Afterburner load your maximum stable overclock. (Mine was +75)​
2. Ensure your Power Limit, Fan Speed are all at their maximum.​
3. Run Port Royal Benchmark​
4. Record your Score (My Score was 13316)​
5. Record your Average Clock Speed, which is listed in the Graphics section of the results page (My Average was 1853)​
6. Open the Voltage/Frequency Curve editor in MSI Afterburner [CTRL+F], look for the frequency that is your average clock speed on your curve, if it isn't there round up to the nearest point. (My target was 1860)​

Section 2: Finding an optimized voltage for your target frequency.
1. Using the frequency slider in MSI Afterburner add 90 MHz to your current maximum overclock. (Mine was 75 + 90 = 165)​
2. Open the Voltage/Frequency Curve Editor in Afterburner [CTRL+F]​
3. Locate your target frequency point on the Editor and select it.​
4. Highlight your selected frequency from slightly to the left of it and select every point to the right of it. [Shift+Left Click and drag]​
5. Flatten that portion of the curve. [Shift+Enter, then Enter]​
6. Run Port Royal, if there is a crash lower the core clock by 30 MHz, but keep the same target frequency and repeat steps 1-5 of this section. Repeat if you encounter more crashes afterwards.​
7. If you succeeded at +90 MHz and want to go higher, increase the clock by 15 MHz and repeat steps 1-5. Repeat until you crash in Port Royal. (My system crashed at +225)​
8. Once you find the clock you crash at, subtract 45 MHz from that point and remake the curve with steps 1-5. (I settled 862mV was the optimal position for my target frequency of 1860 with +180 on the core clock)​
9. Run Port Royal with your new curve, it should be about equal to your score in Section 1, but at a lower power usage. (My score at this point was 13356 which was higher than my original run at my max stable overclock)​
10. You can now set your GPU back to whatever power level you prefer.​

(Optional) Section 3: Finding the lowest optimal power limit
The point of this section is to have the lowest power limit that will continue using an overclocked frequency, so you are always at a benefit from the curve. I feel 90-100% power limit is the most optimal on a 3090 with the above curve, but out of curiousity I did test 80, 85% on my card. I think 3070s/3080s will be more efficient in the 80-90% range due to them having less power demand on VRAM.
1. Open the Frequency and Voltage Curve Editor, make a note of the frequency listed at 700 mV and close the editor. (1410 MHz on my curve)​
2. Select your desired power limit in the main Afterburner window. (Personally I wanted to get mine as low as possible since my system is SFF build, so I selected 80% and worked my way up)​
3. Load the demanding game scenario of your choice at 2x your screen resolution (DSR or SSAA)​
4. Using RTSS OSD while playing the game, try to pay attention to areas that may drop the frequency below the minimum on your Frequency/Voltage Curve. (Testing my curve at 80% dropped me below my lowest frequency on my curve down to 1275, so I raised it to 85% and went back to the same location and it stayed above 1410MHz)​
5. Repeat increasing this section if your power limit if your frequency drops below the minimum clock on your curve. If you want your card to always maintain more optimized clocks.​
(Optional) Section 4: Adding to the to the boost curve
While not necessary to have optimized performance, you might want some extra boost clocks for those situations when the GPU has power to spare. I want to stress that this section isn't really necessary and can add to some instability down the line.
1. Zero out your curve as if you are remaking it. Use your Core Clock overclock from Section 2 as the base. (Mine was +180)​
2. Open V/F Curve editor, remake your curve keeping your Target Clock right where you established in your optimized curve in Section 2. But this time you will leave 2 additional frequency levels on top of that (Since my Target was 1860@862mV, I'll leave 1875@868mV and 1890@875mV).​
3. At this point it is up to you to game on this curve and if it is stable, you can continue adding to it until you have TDR/Driver Crashes. I would recommend two levels at a time, then back off two levels if you have stability issues. Play on some game engines that historically have stability issues with overclocks if you have these available, such as Frostbyte from DICE (Battlefield, etc) or Glacier from IOI (Hitman games) and you want to cause TDR issues to appear sooner than later because you might be scratching your head in the future wondering why you're crashing. Better to now test on sensitive engines. If you encounter TDR/Nvidia Driver Crashes, reduce the additional frequency levels you added.​

I wouldn't recommend continue optimizing the curve further by skipping voltage levels to increase boost points, it's not worth it in my opinion and when I tried it for an extended period of time I ran into stability issues because the curve needed to be applied exactly the same every cold boot.

Thanks to mnewxcv, without his guide I wouldn't have thought up this guide which ended up working out better on my rig, but his guide got me in a much better place than what I had prior.
 
Last edited:

Oscar Meyer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
325
Here's what I did with my 3080 FE. I got crappy old 1080p monitors at 60hz, so 60fps is all I need. Does it in every game I've played at 4k DSR resolution. Main thing though is I have a Bitfinix Prodigy case and the 3080 gets hot unless I undervolt it. At stock it goes to 80c quick and throttles. I figure I didn't need those extra frames anyway since I got it vsync'ed to 60fps. Now the 3080 does 65 to 70 c and uses about 250 watts. I'm pretty happy with it. Now if only I can figure out a way to stick the 3080 in a NZXT H1 case and keep the temps down.


Capture.PNG
 

badmojomk

n00b
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
15
I noticed that when I set a custom curve in Afterburner, the core clock will sometimes go up one bin higher than the max clock speed specified e.g. 1965MHz even though the max set is 1950MHz@900mV in the Curve editor. I noticed this primarily happens when Folding. Does anybody know why?
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,620
I noticed that when I set a custom curve in Afterburner, the core clock will sometimes go up one bin higher than the max clock speed specified e.g. 1965MHz even though the max set is 1950MHz@900mV in the Curve editor. I noticed this primarily happens when Folding. Does anybody know why?
are you ever changing any settings in afterburner such as power limit, fan curve, etc? Any time you make a change and apply it in afterburner, the curve gets reapplied, and as I said in the first post of this thread, the curve is not based on absolute frequency, but rather OFFSET. Therefore, if your profile is saved with +180MHz offset at 900Mv which nets 1965MHz, and the card was warmer when you made that profile, reapplying it or making any other changes in afterburner and clicking apply will reapply your curve, but being cooler, the card may have a higher baseline, so 180MHz offset is a boost bin higher because the baseline curve was a boost bin higher because of lower temperature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFenz
like this

DFenz

Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,022
Here's what I did with my 3080 FE. I got crappy old 1080p monitors at 60hz, so 60fps is all I need. Does it in every game I've played at 4k DSR resolution. Main thing though is I have a Bitfinix Prodigy case and the 3080 gets hot unless I undervolt it. At stock it goes to 80c quick and throttles. I figure I didn't need those extra frames anyway since I got it vsync'ed to 60fps. Now the 3080 does 65 to 70 c and uses about 250 watts. I'm pretty happy with it. Now if only I can figure out a way to stick the 3080 in a NZXT H1 case and keep the temps down.

I think you should try the method mnewxcv posted in the the first post and see how that works for you. I use a small case and have limited fan space, it worked for me for the most part. If you have more advanced knowledge of Afterburner check out my post, it's similar to mnewxcv's method but it targets the lower portion of the v/f curve. Which could potentionally benefit you, might be harder to understand though. I do recommend the method in the OP though its a well written guide and beats a flat curve.
 
Last edited:
Top