Maxxtraxx

to quote Anandtech:

To start, Pascal clockspeeds are much more temperature-dependent than on Maxwell 2 or Kepler. Kepler would drop a single bin at a specific temperature, and Maxwell 2 would sustain the same clockspeed throughout. However Pascal will drop its clockspeeds as the GPU warms up, regardless of whether it still has formal thermal and TDP headroom to spare. This happens by backing off both on the clockspeed at each individual voltage point, and backing off to lower voltage points altogether.

To quantify this effect, I ran LuxMark 3.1 continuously for several minutes, until the GPU temperature leveled out. As a compute test, LuxMark does not cause the GTX 1080 to hit its 83C temperature limit nor its 180W TDP limit, so it’s a good example of the temperature compensation effect.

What we find is that from the start of the run until the end, the GPU clockspeed drops from the maximum boost bin of 1898MHz to a sustained 1822MHz, a drop of 4%, or 6 clockspeed bins. These shifts happen relatively consistently up to 68C, after which they stop.

article is: HERE

5 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

You sure it's not a power limit? Above 2GHz is a lot.

This is correct, pascal cards usually hit 2 to 2.2 Ghz depending on silicon lottery so your clocks are good.

as i stated before, GPU clock speeds do not work the same way as CPU clock speeds.

a CPU will run at the speed to tell it to until it can no longer operate(crashes)

Nvidia GPU's use an underlying Clock speed adjuster that take into account 3 main things and it will adjust clock speeds on its own and it is NOT under your control: temperature, power draw and voltage

as temperature goes up, clock speeds will drop at specified points

as power draw goes up, the card will drop clock speed to remain within a maximum power draw ceiling

as voltages go up, heat goes up and eventually the card loses stability.

5 minutes ago, raul2k said:

Hi guys, my graphics card (Gtx 1070ti MSI armor) when it gets above 65c it starts to decrease core mhz. I have an +220 mhz overclock and from 2100 mhz it gets down to 2050 at 65c and even lower at higher temps. i think it lowers the mhz to keep cooler, because i heard on from some guys graphics cards lowers frequency above 65c. How can i disable that ? 

An increased temperature limit is not likely to help,

What you are describing is normal operation for Nvidia's GPU boost 3.0, the only way to maintain the higher clocks is to reduce temperature otherwise GPU boost will automatically down clock as temperatures go up.

Some options for helping this:

1: raise your fan speed

2: help a healthy supply of cool air reach the GPU to assist cooling

3: reapply thermal paste with higher quality paste, like conductonaut or noctua NT-H1

4: purchase a larger aftermarket cooler to help lower temperatures

5: purchase a liquid cooling kit from EKWB or others to provide maximum cooling potential.

19 minutes ago, Slottr said:

It's a waste of money and time, SLI on the 10 series is an unsupported mess. If you want more performance get a single card, like what you said. Though I don't think the 1070 to a 2070 is enough of a jump to upgrade unless you really need RTX.

agreed,

My take: buy a used 1080Ti and then sell your 1070

9 hours ago, SidM said:

1.3 is way too much ,unless ur @5.3 or have lottery loser

Notice I said UP TO 1.3v, he's looking for help and some recommendations.

I know you understand overclocking, what you've said has been unhelpful to the OP's request, I'm happy for your luck in your own personal silicon lottery 8700k.

It would be useful to the OP if you shared your personal overclocking recommendations for his situation given your own setup and experience.

up to 1.4v is what many consider safe, temps will get a bit crazy at that voltage though.

the lower the better, but up to 1.3v can produce more controllable temps (i aim for under 90c stress testing)

you'll settle on a max voltage and therefore temp that you're comfortable with as you go

start but upping the multiplier one notch at a time, i generally sync all cores and set the voltage to something like 1.3v

stress test until you crash or temps are too high and start adjusting the voltage up or down in .01v increments till your stability/temps combination hits the sweet spot.

38 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

At-will employment, no paid vacation, no paid family leave and strict limits even on unpaid family leave, extremely low minimum wage, poor regulation of working hours and work-life balance, poor safety regulations and compensation, allowing pseudoscientific shit like polygraph testing at all...

At will employment is not a problem, it's life no matter what millennials think they're entitled to.

not having paid vacation is not normal but still a 1st world problem, i'm fine with unpaid vacation, the employee also needs to be conscious that their employers specific needs to its customers and thusly the employee needs to be reasonable in taking their vacations, not just demanding they be catered to regardless of the company's needs.

FMLA eligibility requires the following criteria: The employee must have been employed with the company for 12 months. The employee must have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months prior to the start of FMLA leave.

Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:

• the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth;
• the placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care and to care for the newly placed child within one year of placement;
• to care for the employee’s spouse, child, or parent who has a serious health condition;
• a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the essential functions of his or her job;
• any qualifying exigency arising out of the fact that the employee’s spouse, son, daughter, or parent is a covered military member on “covered active duty;” or

• Twenty-six workweeks of leave during a single 12-month period to care for a covered servicemember with a serious injury or illness if the eligible employee is the servicemember’s spouse, son, daughter, parent, or next of kin (military caregiver leave).

Low minimum wage means look for another job with higher wages, means education to improve opportunities, means do your job well and get promoted, or find another job.

poor regulation of working hours, the hours the job requires should be known when you take it, if it changes without your approval, find a new job. 

I understand the work life balance issue it can be hard, if you can't handle it then move on, I worked for 8 years as a salary(paid the same regardless of hours worked) employee at a company that required working five 12 hours days and one 11 hour day, every week, thats 60-70 hours a week. I didn't die. I have a wife, I now have 3 kids. I eventually left for reasons other than what I listed above.

Poor safety regulations, we have OSHA, they're not perfect, some of their regulations are based on 1960's information, but they provide requirements that are generally reasonable for workplace safety so long as employees provide a dose of common sense.

IMO: there is so much right with workers rights protections today that the grievances have progressed into the territory of workers not being given enough special attention, special accommodations, coddling and pleasures that were all completely non existent 100 years ago. I'm not saying that these things are not good and helpful.

I'm saying that there's so much right that we don't realize that much of our complaining revolves around special accommodations and treatment and makes it all sound very much like we're actively looking for things, anything to be upset about... we have protections and regulations that HUGE swaths of the world can barely even dream of, they're just trying no to die on the job and put food on the table, screw FMLA, paid family leave, poor working hours, work/life balance, and polygraph tests.

We sometimes sounds very much like twitter.

4 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Those lazy workers work at non-union job and skate by as well. Unions, generally, protect members from crap like "at-will" employment laws meaning a job has to have just cause to fire someone. It is up to the place of employment to justify that cause, according to contracts and the employee handbook (is one exists). If bad workers, union job or not, are allowed to stick around and keep being bad workers that is on the employer. Bad employees sticking around despite being terrible at their job or just too lazy to do anything is a problem anywhere, it is not remotely exclusive to unions.

These lazy workers skate by at companies with uncaring/incompetent/lazy HR and management, they do not last at companies with competent HR and management. I have worked for both types of companies and seen the stark difference between them.

Unions add another layer of protection for incompetence, unions started off with good intentions, unions can still do good, unions have long since passed from public sector commonality because of the enormous improvements in the workplace in the past 100 years.

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

With a good union, strikes are part of making sure their members get the contracts required to make life better for them. The recent SAG-AFTA strike against the game industry is a great example. While the union didn't get everything they wanted, they forced the game industry to actually negotiate a much better deal for their members.

Good for them, I'm not advocating for abusive action on either side, better pay and benefits are good but they should be based upon individual performance in the form of quality of work, performance, and production. 

The goal of any good employer to employee relationship is that the employee provides more income for the company via their performance than their cost of performing the work they do, that's how the company makes money, making money for performing services is what the employee does and what the employer does for their customers. The more valuable the employee is by producing more goods or services for the company the more they are due in compensation.

My problem with collective bargaining is that it too often provides security and cover for workers who are incompetent, lazy and unwilling to do more than the minimum... they ride on the coat tails of others doing the work and everyone is worse off because of it, the employer costs go up, other employees have to pick up the slack caused by the poor performance of others and the union often advocates and protects for those who have hurt other employees and the employer because of their actions.

34 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

 

Care to share your grievances about certain short comings that you have in mind?

US dept of labor worker protection laws summary: Here

What protections above and beyond the items listed above would you find reasonable and necessary?

5 minutes ago, porina said:

I've yet to see an employment union that I'd consider useful. If the employer is breaking the law, take legal action. Otherwise, if you just don't like it, GTFO.

My take:

In the US, Unions once had a purpose, to provide an effective countermeasure to the enormous monopolies(not talking about the current  google, facebook, twitter, ect)  who completely controlled entire industries.

In the US, workers protections under the law are very good, Unions now operate more like the Mafia, they use intimidation and harassment against non union members(regularly destroying and vandalizing non union work trucks and stealing their equipment), they work to protect dead weight(incompetent, unwilling and blatantly uncaring) workers employment, they demand protection money to even be considered for a job(which in govt sector unions could be forcefully taken against your will from your paycheck until the most recent supreme court case).

The greatest protection against abusive employers is to be good at your job, be financially independent(have little to no debt, have a 3-6 month emergency fund) and to be willing to leave.

If you've tied yourself to your job with golden handcuffs because of financial obligations you've knowingly and willfully taken on and are constantly living paycheck to paycheck.

In the US, unions have a very bad reputation, for a very good reason.

If a union was to operate with reason, rationality and reason-ability instead of like a bully it could be useful... but power corrupts and once power is gained it is not often willingly given up.

(the best, most effective, most efficient government in the world would be a benevolent dictatorship(adjective for well meaning and kindly)... but power corrupts and a democracy/republic is often needed to correct the loss of benevolence inherent with unquestioned power)

My opinion since money expenditure is already in crazytown, this will eliminate cooling concerns and give you great performance.

Website: Here

Plus: Here

FYI: those are with an intel 7900x @4.5 ghz

you may see a lower fps result especially at higher fps with your current processor and clock speed.

here you go:

pick your desired resolution and minimum desired FPS and choose a card.

and these... 

IMO

are not sexy

not sure about anyone else 

but IMO

These are Sexy:

5 minutes ago, ZolSnak3 said:

Also I know this isn't the ram section but for the X370, would dual or quad channel RAM be better?

To my knowledge Ryzen 2700x is only a dual channel setup, installing 4 sticks of ram will not provide better performance vs 2 sticks of ram because installing 2 more sticks of ram does not increase the memory bandwidth.

however, 2 sticks of ram could potentially give you better overclocking results due to only having to deal with overclocking 2 sticks of ram instead of 4 sticks and the likelyhood of one of those sticks dragging the others down in speed.

also, if your primary use for this setup will be gaming and you have no other specific need for 32gb of ram, then for gaming anyway, I can see no reason to have more than 16gb of ram in the system.

Just now, ZolSnak3 said:

Do you think the 2080 would work as well or should I just invest into a 2080ti?

the 2080 would work very well, it's what... like $400 usd less for 15-20% lower performance. so it's a much better performer at FPS per dollar spent and it can do 4k 60 and 1440p 144hz but it may need some settings turned down to maintain that performance

One of the biggest benefits that i've heard discussed with the Ryzen processors is getting high speed and low latency ram, the ryzen chips really like faster and quicker ram, it helps them especially well.

I don't personally have a lot of knowledge on what the new Ryzens are maxing out at with memory speeds, i do recall that the first gen ryzens had difficulty getting memory to run very fast.

Just now, ZolSnak3 said:

Would an upgrade on any other part of my system help at all and/or bottleneck with a 2080ti?

 

technically yes, an overclocked intel 9700k or 9900k would help somewhat, but primarily with very high refresh rate gaming, you're not likely to notice any meaningful difference with most 4k games but you may see a few more fps at 1440p and 140+ FPS.

but, thats really splitting hairs IMO. it's a huge cash investment for a small improvement.

I may stand corrected, looks like the 2080Ti will hit 130-140 fps at 1440p maxed in witcher 3

https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-review,29.html

Just now, ZolSnak3 said:

Is the titan XP faster than the 2080 ti?

no, it's the same as a 1080Ti

2 minutes ago, ZolSnak3 said:

I have a dell 1440 144hz, and a seperate samsung 4k 60hz. I play black ops, witcher, gta. i was looking for like 150-200 fps

wow, that's a LOT of GPU horsepower you're looking for.

with 1440 144hz and 4k 60

2080Ti is your only option, and that likely won't do 144hz with max settings at 1440p on some AAA games like Witcher 3

my 1080Ti won't do 100hz at 1440p in witcher 3 if i recall and a 2080Ti is 15-20% faster i believe

As Nocte said,

the answer to your question depends on:

1. what resolution you want to run

2. what refresh rate you want to run

3. what graphical quality you're interested in

the answers to these questions could mean you choose anything from an RX580 to a 2080Ti

The temperatures are high, but possibly normal. the 9 series intels run hot.

it appears that these temperatures all at stock settings?

One of the things that I am seeing is AVX, AVX instruction set stress testing will give much higher thermal results than a standard stress test.

If this stress test is using AVX:

1. are you planning on using AVX regularly in your normal usage of the CPU? if so, an AVX offset may help the temps

2. if not then run a non AVX stress test and see what happens with the temperatures.

also: I have seen some youtubers with very high temps get good results from lapping their CPU IHS due to some IHS's having a convex shape that impedes thermal transfer to the cooler.