A safe 90th Percentile OC on a 1080Ti Strix OC?

[FUR1AN]

Hey guys/girls,

 

I'll be running an ROG Strix 1080Ti with a Intel 8700K in my new build. I know mileage may vary (silicon lottery), but what is a fairly safe overclock to start at in the 80-90th percentile for this GPU?

 

What I mean is, to my understanding 2.1Ghz is pretty much the ceiling for OC on the 1080Ti and is entirely dependent on your sample, but what would be a safe, high overclock to set and forget without trying to squeeze out every ounce out of the card via upping core offsets and voltage.

 

I was hoping to set the following overclocks and call it good for the time being (initial setup).

 

CPU: 5.0Ghz

GPU: 2.0Ghz

 

I may be way off base but let me know your thoughts.

 

Thanks all

[PETRGangKing]

I think you may want to look into how all this works a little more, before you start overclocking. Overclocking, when done right, is rarely something that you can just throw together. You generally have to do a fair amount of going back and forth between tinkering and stress testing.  With your GPU, as long as you allow it max power draw, it will do most of the work for you. You can squeeze a little more performance by turning up the clock offset, or bump up the memory speed via the offset. Most 1080ti cap out around 2063mhz. I've seen some get up in the 2.1ghz range, I've got mine at 2126mhz.

 

5.0ghz is probably attainable with that chip, but again it's not something you're going to be able just to plug some numbers in and call it good, to get stability there's a lot of back and forth between adjusting clock settings and stress testing. 

[Froody129]

Using step overclocking will usually yield better results than just an offset but requires a lot more tweaking. I’d say start at 2GHz and a voltage you like that doesn’t cause too much fan noise, then see how high you can go. It’s really easy nowadays

[Somnax]

If you can put in the offset in afterburner at all, chances are it is a safe setting so just go until you crash. I find heaven and overwatch to be pretty good at crashing pretty soon when you hit instability.

[Somnax]

For cpu you could either slowly go up, or you could start around 1.35 volts 5ghz and test for stability. If it is stable either push for higher clocks or lower the voltage to lower temps and reduce power usage.

[FUR1AN]

2 hours ago, Somnax said:

For cpu you could either slowly go up, or you could start around 1.35 volts 5ghz and test for stability. If it is stable either push for higher clocks or lower the voltage to lower temps and reduce power usage.

Thanks for the response. I was planning to use afterburner for GPU and tweak COU in BIOS using heaven as a stress test. My post may have been a bit high level. I guess what I was asking was what’s a fair overclock in which it would be generally predictable to pass stress tests without crashing. Then I would work down voltage from there for a “safe” overclock to run consistently. Again, I’m not trying to rev the hardware to the max, just make use of the performance headroom in a reasonable way.

[FUR1AN]

3 hours ago, PETRGangKing said:

I think you may want to look into how all this works a little more, before you start overclocking. Overclocking, when done right, is rarely something that you can just throw together. You generally have to do a fair amount of going back and forth between tinkering and stress testing.  With your GPU, as long as you allow it max power draw, it will do most of the work for you. You can squeeze a little more performance by turning up the clock offset, or bump up the memory speed via the offset. Most 1080ti cap out around 2063mhz. I've seen some get up in the 2.1ghz range, I've got mine at 2126mhz.

 

5.0ghz is probably attainable with that chip, but again it's not something you're going to be able just to plug some numbers in and call it good, to get stability there's a lot of back and forth between adjusting clock settings and stress testing. 

I understand it’s a more involved process and have done a fair amount of research, I guess my point was to start at a mild overclock and then slightly tweak from there including stress tests via Heaven and the BMW cpu Test (I forget provider). What I don’t want to do is spend hours and hours trying to squeeze the life out of the components. That is why I thought 5ghz on the CPU and 2ghz on the GPU would be solid as an end state.

[Princess Luna]

What resolution are you trying to play at?

[FUR1AN]

Just now, Princess Cadence said:

What resolution are you trying to play at?

2560x1440 ultra settings. That was the point of going overkill on the 1080Ti. I wanted to be able to run pretty much anything fairly easily.

[Princess Luna]

17 minutes ago, wpowell13 said:

2560x1440 ultra settings. That was the point of going overkill on the 1080Ti. I wanted to be able to run pretty much anything fairly easily.

You're only hurting performance by overclocking the CPU to 5ghz at this resolution, you're GPU bond so the extra frequency does not add performance while it turns the system ever so slightly more unstable even when "stable".

 

The result is that my way much cheaper locked i7 8700 is actually going to outperform your i7 8700k at 5ghz at this resolution:

 

Here reliable benchmarks and do listen the guy's explanation, I already set the time for you right in the gaming benchmarks:

So if you actually want the maximum performance leave CPU at stock #lmao

 

I know this is "new" and "odd" to think about because the golden rule always was frequencies... the thing is we're no longer limited to 4 cores only that was already fully saturated by system usage + game what made the only way to gain more performance was through the clockspeeds.

 

Going to 6 cores did wonders so more frequency when past 4+ghz already makes little difference specially in todays world all games can fully utilize at least 4 cores leaving the other 2 for system resources, there is breathing room again and much more multi-threading optimization on today's games.

 

 

[FUR1AN]

16 minutes ago, Princess Cadence said:

You're only hurting performance by overclocking the CPU to 5ghz at this resolution, you're GPU bond so the extra frequency does not add performance while it turns the system ever so slightly more unstable even when "stable".

 

The result is that my way much cheaper locked i7 8700 is actually going to outperform your i7 8700k at 5ghz at this resolution:

 

Here reliable benchmarks and do listen the guy's explanation, I already set the time for you right in the gaming benchmarks:

So if you actually want the maximum performance leave CPU at stock #lmao

 

I know this is "new" and "odd" to think about because the golden rule always was frequencies... the thing is we're no longer limited to 4 cores only that was already fully saturated by system usage + game what made the only way to gain more performance was through the clockspeeds.

 

Going to 6 cores did wonders so more frequency when past 4+ghz already makes little difference specially in todays world all games can fully utilize at least 4 cores leaving the other 2 for system resources, there is breathing room again and much more multi-threading optimization on today's games.

 

 

Thanks for the info and I’ll give it a look. I will say that I do plan to move to 4K once I get settled in and prices come down for 4K, as well as available content goes up.

[iiNNeX]

My 1080ti OC Strix hits 2068 at the moment, can't get it to stay at higher numbers (doesn't crash just doesn't keep GPU boost up there).

 

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

You're only hurting performance by overclocking the CPU to 5ghz at this resolution, you're GPU bond so the extra frequency does not add performance while it turns the system ever so slightly more unstable even when "stable".

 

The result is that my way much cheaper locked i7 8700 is actually going to outperform your i7 8700k at 5ghz at this resolution:

 

Here reliable benchmarks and do listen the guy's explanation, I already set the time for you right in the gaming benchmarks:

So if you actually want the maximum performance leave CPU at stock #lmao

 

I know this is "new" and "odd" to think about because the golden rule always was frequencies... the thing is we're no longer limited to 4 cores only that was already fully saturated by system usage + game what made the only way to gain more performance was through the clockspeeds.

 

Going to 6 cores did wonders so more frequency when past 4+ghz already makes little difference specially in todays world all games can fully utilize at least 4 cores leaving the other 2 for system resources, there is breathing room again and much more multi-threading optimization on today's games.

 

 

What nonsense are you talking about?

 

Of course a 8700k at 5ghz will be faster than a i7 8700! Jesus christ...At 1440p he will push many games over 100fps (i know because I have a 1080ti on 165hz 1440p display with that CPU, and he will need the extra juice from the overclock). Stop spreading lies pls. ktnx

 

 

 

[Princess Luna]

8 minutes ago, iiNNeX said:

Stop spreading lies pls. ktnx

Sorry can't really be bothered by someone qq'ing with a single video from completely unreliable youtube channel feeling bothered just because wasted money on the unlocked version of the chip.

 

Cheers.

[Somnax]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

You're only hurting performance by overclocking the CPU to 5ghz at this resolution, you're GPU bond so the extra frequency does not add performance while it turns the system ever so slightly more unstable even when "stable".

 

The result is that my way much cheaper locked i7 8700 is actually going to outperform your i7 8700k at 5ghz at this resolution:

 

Here reliable benchmarks and do listen the guy's explanation, I already set the time for you right in the gaming benchmarks:

So if you actually want the maximum performance leave CPU at stock #lmao

 

I know this is "new" and "odd" to think about because the golden rule always was frequencies... the thing is we're no longer limited to 4 cores only that was already fully saturated by system usage + game what made the only way to gain more performance was through the clockspeeds.

 

Going to 6 cores did wonders so more frequency when past 4+ghz already makes little difference specially in todays world all games can fully utilize at least 4 cores leaving the other 2 for system resources, there is breathing room again and much more multi-threading optimization on today's games.

 

 

Well that's not true.

 

If for some reason your 5ghz performs worse than stock, then you weren't actually stable and that is user error and not due to frequency speed. 

 

And at 1440p with a 1080 ti there are games where he will be cpu bound. Cannot apply a blanket statement saying he will always be gpu bound. You can also always just move to high instead of ultra because honestly there is very little difference these days and your framerate will be higher and push even more load on the cpu.

[Somnax]

1 hour ago, wpowell13 said:

Thanks for the info and I’ll give it a look. I will say that I do plan to move to 4K once I get settled in and prices come down for 4K, as well as available content goes up.

Ah I see you didn't mention 144hz. I assumed since you had a 1080 ti and an 8700k that you weren't only at 60hz at 1440p. At 60hz there is not really much need to overclock your gpu because you'll be monitor bound and turning off vsync on a 60hz panel creates a tearing mess. That is not to say that overclocked cpus perform worse than non overclocked ones because reasons, just that you won't get much benefit because of your monitor.

[FUR1AN]

26 minutes ago, Somnax said:

Ah I see you didn't mention 144hz. I assumed since you had a 1080 ti and an 8700k that you weren't only at 60hz at 1440p. At 60hz there is not really much need to overclock your gpu because you'll be monitor bound and turning off vsync on a 60hz panel creates a tearing mess. That is not to say that overclocked cpus perform worse than non overclocked ones because reasons, just that you won't get much benefit because of your monitor.

I guess I forgot to mention, I will be running 1440p @ 165hz w/ gsync

[Somnax]

13 minutes ago, wpowell13 said:

I guess I forgot to mention, I will be running 1440p @ 165hz w/ gsync

Oh then yes overclock your cpu. It will help. Even the video that was linked allegedly showing it doesn't help shows massive gains at 1440p for gtav and far cry.

[Somnax]

38 minutes ago, wpowell13 said:

I guess I forgot to mention, I will be running 1440p @ 165hz w/ gsync

I also have a 1440p 165hz monitor and I have no intentions of going to 4k until 4k 144hz is more readily available. Never going back to 60 Hz. And windows scaling still isn't perfect and imo it is needed below 32 inches at 4k.

[FUR1AN]

29 minutes ago, Somnax said:

I also have a 1440p 165hz monitor and I have no intentions of going to 4k until 4k 144hz is more readily available. Never going back to 60 Hz. And windows scaling still isn't perfect and imo it is needed below 32 inches at 4k.

Yah I am not going to run 4k until tech. catches up (GPU's, monitors, content)

[Somnax]

Just now, wpowell13 said:

Yah I am not going to run 4k until tech. catches up (GPU's, monitors, content)

Yeah same. One more thing on the 8700k. Not all of them will run 5ghz stable. You may need to go to 4.9 or 4.8 if you are unlucky. Most of them should hit 5ghz though.

 

For a somewhat quick test, you can run 2 hours of realbench stress test and if it passes that it is generally stable. If you want to go more try-hard, you can run prime95 version 26.6 overnight and it should have no errors. That is the version without avx workload. In games you will not be using avx. Also remember to xmp your memory. A surprising amount of people either don't know/forget to do that.

[iiNNeX]

8 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

Sorry can't really be bothered by someone qq'ing with a single video from completely unreliable youtube channel feeling bothered just because wasted money on the unlocked version of the chip.

 

Cheers.

it's common sense, but it's ok, I understand you couldn't afford the K version

[FUR1AN]

11 hours ago, Somnax said:

Yeah same. One more thing on the 8700k. Not all of them will run 5ghz stable. You may need to go to 4.9 or 4.8 if you are unlucky. Most of them should hit 5ghz though.

 

For a somewhat quick test, you can run 2 hours of realbench stress test and if it passes that it is generally stable. If you want to go more try-hard, you can run prime95 version 26.6 overnight and it should have no errors. That is the version without avx workload. In games you will not be using avx. Also remember to xmp your memory. A surprising amount of people either don't know/forget to do that.

Okay I will give those a run and keep the 5ghz +\- 200mhz in mind when OC’ing.

 

thanks for the help!