Significantly slower memory clock

[Godcer]

I still use my laptop from 2012. It has caused many problems over the years, mostly because of the two GPUs, integrated (Intel) and dedicated (AMD). I think I have at least managed to make it so that it is the dedicated GPU that is being used when running games and such. It is an old 6770m, which runs at 725 MHz core clock and 800 MHz memory clock. Well it is at least supposed to be running at those speeds. The core clock runs at the speed it is supposed to, but the memory clock is stuck at 216 Mhz, even though the GPU is under 100% load. This slow memory speed causes the GPU to have a memory bandwidth of only 13.8 GB/s while it should have as much as 57.6 GB/s. This info was gathered using GPU-Z. I would assume the reduction in memory clock speed causes games to run slower.

 

My questions are:

1. Is it possible to make the clock speed run at its intended speed againg?

2. Will a higher (normal) memory frequency and memory bandwidth make any difference?

 

I belive the laptop is an HP Pavilion dv7-6140eo. Intel Core-i7 2630QM at stock speed, 8Gb DDR3 RAM at 667Mhz, AMD Radeon HD 6770M.

[tim19683]

could it be thermal throttling?

[tim19683]

actually, gpuz shows lower clocks for some readon idk why my overclocked 1070 shows 2000mhz instead of 8000

[Godcer]

Just now, tim19683 said:

could it be thermal throttling?

It could be, but the memory clock never goes above 216 MHz, not even at the beginning when it is still cool.

 

 

1 minute ago, tim19683 said:

actually, gpuz shows lower clocks for some readon idk why my overclocked 1070 shows 2000mhz instead of 8000

But why is the memory bandwidth so much less than it should be?

[Godcer]

3 minutes ago, tim19683 said:

actually, gpuz shows lower clocks for some readon idk why my overclocked 1070 shows 2000mhz instead of 8000

Do you think what is happening is that it shows everything correct if you divide it by 4? Like in your case

[Naeaes]

3 minutes ago, Godcer said:

Do you think what is happening is that it shows everything correct if you divide it by 4? Like in your case

I think so. I was just looking for a verification that GPU-Z does that too. (I know CPU-Z does it). I think it's the whole thing with QDR memory having four times the effective speed of the physical or real speed of the RAM.

 

Edit: Well, there you go: http://www.geeks3d.com/20100613/tutorial-gpu-tools-and-gpu-memory-clock-real-and-effective-speeds-demystified/

[Godcer]

28 minutes ago, Naeaes said:

I think so. I was just looking for a verification that GPU-Z does that too. (I know CPU-Z does it). I think it's the whole thing with QDR memory having four times the effective speed of the physical or real speed of the RAM.

 

Edit: Well, there you go: http://www.geeks3d.com/20100613/tutorial-gpu-tools-and-gpu-memory-clock-real-and-effective-speeds-demystified/

What you say may be true, but I think my case is a little different. I downloaded MSI Afterburner and underclocked the GPU to only 400 MHz on the memory clock and did nothing to the core clock. I did a benchmark before and after and it performed just as well, and GPU-Z still only showed 216 MHz. I thought that GPU-Z was going to show half the memory clock, but it didn't.

[Naeaes]

16 minutes ago, Godcer said:

What you say may be true, but I think my case is a little different. I downloaded MSI Afterburner and underclocked the GPU to only 400 MHz on the memory clock and did nothing to the core clock. I did a benchmark before and after and it performed just as well, and GPU-Z still only showed 216 MHz. I thought that GPU-Z was going to show half the memory clock, but it didn't.

Hmm. Did Afterburner show the new frequency right? Maybe this is really an issue with GPU-Z and it being stuck on showing 216MHz for whatever reason? Try some other programs maybe. 

[Godcer]

8 minutes ago, Naeaes said:

Hmm. Did Afterburner show the new frequency right? Maybe this is really an issue with GPU-Z and it being stuck on showing 216MHz for whatever reason? Try some other programs maybe. 

I did the same benchmark as before, both 800 Mhz and 400 Mhz in Afterburner. I used the Afterburner hardware monitor this time and it showed me 800 Mhz... both times. It appears that the underclocking did not actually affect the memory speed. I reduced it from 800 MHz down to 400 MHz, but nothing actually happened. That explains why the benchmark showed very similar results.

[tim19683]

1 hour ago, Godcer said:

Do you think what is happening is that it shows everything correct if you divide it by 4? Like in your case

i just had another look. Within GPU-Z the mem clock shows up as 2039MHz but FurMark reports 4032MHz. I have no idea why...