Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

eera5607

Member
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Vejnemojnen in Do I need to overclock?   
    where's the fun in that? Buying hw and not tinkering it? Sounds dull.
  2. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Sorenson in Do I need to overclock?   
    You can definitely do all of this, but it also takes a lot of time to set it up properly your first time. If you are just looking to play games and web browse you are fine at the default settings. If you like tinkering then go ham. 
  3. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Vejnemojnen in Do I need to overclock?   
    Plus advantage: custom user modes. Ie.: undervolted, power limited mode for browsing, desktop apps, and general usage, and an OC-d mode with raised memory clocks and gpu core clocks.
     
    The GDDR6 memories are not that great for OC-ing though. But, with reasonable power&voltage setups, one can get a bit of performance increase, without compromising GPU-s lifespan. 
  4. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Jurrunio in Do I need to overclock?   
    Apart from overclocking and setting fan speed curves, software can also let you tune voltage and lower voltage means less heat and temperature. It's basically "advanced mode" for your GPU, to squeeze out every bit of potential from it.
  5. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Sorenson in Do I need to overclock?   
    like others have said, you only need the utility if you want to push the card further. I've done it in the past and don't any more because the gains are generally very small over the factory overclock. It also tends to make the GPU louder. 
  6. Like
    eera5607 reacted to GalacticRuler in Do I need to overclock?   
    It's a factory overclocked card, but the utility is there if you want to overclock further. Factory overclocking involves binning GPUs to use the ones that can reach the factory overclock, but that doesn't mean it hits its max potential.
  7. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Fasauceome in Do I need to overclock?   
    the OC clock speeds are built in, no need for software
  8. Informative
    eera5607 reacted to Airdragonz in Maximus IX Code and multiple SATA and PCIE SSDs   
    Yes that's correct. You'll only have 3 sockets. The performance will be the same regardless of the socket as long as both are x4 PCIE. And correct, a USB to SATA adapter does not use any SATA ports. 
  9. Informative
    eera5607 reacted to DocSwag in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    The writes seem a bit low... Have you made sure that the SLC caching is enabled in Samsung Magician (they call it something other than SLC caching but yeah)
  10. Like
    eera5607 reacted to DocSwag in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Try using something like crystal disk mark instead as it's way easier to see stuff.
     
    It could just be because your drive is 80% full, really.
  11. Like
    eera5607 reacted to RadiatingLight in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Does it have lots of airflow?
    maybe it's thermal throttling (a real problem with M.2 SSDs)
  12. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Zebedeeboing in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Ideas:
     
    1) It's not plugged into a 6Gb/s sata slot (I did this for years without noticing!) 
    2) Thermal throttling.. very unlikely over a sustained period
    3) The drive is nearly full. SSDs do not like being full. They slow a LOT as they approach max capacity. Clear your drive as much as possible. 
    4) Try Samsung Magician to check on the health of the drive.. it might just be a bad drive/dying. 
  13. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Zebedeeboing in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Excuse point number 1, I had read that as an SSD not M.2 NVME. 
  14. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Himommies in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    It's a m.2 drive
  15. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Zebedeeboing in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    I did comment on that right below my original post, tired eyes. My bad.
  16. Like
  17. Informative
    eera5607 reacted to RadiatingLight in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Try taking off the cover, pointing a fan on it, and running the test again.
  18. Like
    eera5607 reacted to Seanzky in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    I posted something similar here: 
    Not sure why it's performing like that even with Samsung's own software.
     
     
  19. Like
    eera5607 got a reaction from DocSwag in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Well it seems that it is working as expected now. Now UserBenchmark says the EVO 90 is "Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)" (Complete results: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4965874). A big difference with original benchmark: ¨Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)" .

    This is what I did:
    I discovered that Corsair Link shows the SSD temperature and tested it after placing the GPU on the PCIe x16 slot that is not blocking the air intakes of the PCIe M.2 slot where the SSD is connected to the motherboard. During the benchmarks the SSD reached 39 °C and that seems to be ok. 

    I also installed the oficial NVMe drivers from Samsung since it was using the Windows ¨generic¨ drivers. That in combination with changing the GPU position helped the performance on UserBechmark A LOT. Thank you all for the ideas and contribution to solve this issue.
  20. Like
    eera5607 got a reaction from DocSwag in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Thanks @DocSwag @RadiatingLight and @Zebedeeboing ! I discover something that help a little. I had the Windows NVM driver installed:

    and not the oficial driver that you can download from Samsung's website:

    I keep getting a benchmark "below the expectations" but before it was "way below expectations" on UserBenchmark. 
    The problem in this benchmark is definitely related to this section:

    I still have to try taking out the GPU and taking  off the cover of the SSD to check if it is related to temperatures. The thing is that is working fine with the other two tests and bad with the last one (DQ Read, DQ Write, DQ Mixed).
     
    Thanks!
     
  21. Like
    eera5607 got a reaction from ARikozuM in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Well it seems that it is working as expected now. Now UserBenchmark says the EVO 90 is "Performing way above expectations (91st percentile)" (Complete results: http://www.userbenchmark.com/UserRun/4965874). A big difference with original benchmark: ¨Performing way below expectations (15th percentile)" .

    This is what I did:
    I discovered that Corsair Link shows the SSD temperature and tested it after placing the GPU on the PCIe x16 slot that is not blocking the air intakes of the PCIe M.2 slot where the SSD is connected to the motherboard. During the benchmarks the SSD reached 39 °C and that seems to be ok. 

    I also installed the oficial NVMe drivers from Samsung since it was using the Windows ¨generic¨ drivers. That in combination with changing the GPU position helped the performance on UserBechmark A LOT. Thank you all for the ideas and contribution to solve this issue.
  22. Like
    eera5607 reacted to ARikozuM in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    I've got one as well, but I found that he already found out which one. Did the Samsung driver help your EVO?
  23. Like
    eera5607 reacted to ARikozuM in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Are you thinking of RAPID or TurboWrite?
     
    Never mind.
  24. Informative
    eera5607 reacted to pyrojoe34 in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    This is what you should expect with the 500GB 960 Evo:
     

     
    So your CrystalMark benchmark is right where it should be.
  25. Informative
    eera5607 reacted to DocSwag in SSD Samsung 960 EVO performing way below expectations on UserBenchmark   
    Actually I just figured out what the SLC caching is called, Samsung calls it turbowrite.
×