290X, First time properly overclocking

[AnthonyPaull]

So, I just got my hands on a 290X, upgrading from a 290 that had heat issues and struggled to get past 1140Mhz. At stock clocks (1030Mhz) it peaked at about 78C in Furmark, impressive from a 290X. I was looking into Overvolting and the dangers/benefits thereof, and decided to overclock the hell out of the card, because why not.

 

So I started out just increasing the clockspeeds, without overvolting, and got a stable 1100/1350Mhz overclock. I backed off on the memory and started overvolting, getting it to 1150 at a voltage of 1.137, shown here. I left it there for a few days, max temp 86C in some fairly heavy gaming, that included Elite Dangerous, Eve, SWTOR, ACunity, AC Black flag and a few others, all with VSync off and at 1440p. After talking to some people on YouTube I decided to really push it, and try to get my score in to the top 2 in the "Similar Systems" graph on 3DMark. After a little more tinkering, I got a core clock of 1175 at a voltage of 1.175 (IKR, so cool) Stable, and 1195Mhz at 1.182v (But the display driver gave up at the 14 minute mark of the burn in test), the first one hitting 94C, the second 97C (I increased the thermal ceiling to 100C from the default 95C in order to avoid throttling. I read around quite a bit and found 100C is usually OK, but more than that is getting into the danger zone).

 

Memory was easy, I got to 1450 with no issue, 1500 was stable, but due to the nature of overclocking memory, I decided it would be safer to just back off a little.

 

The link to my final stable overclock is here, and the comparison is here.

 

How did I go? Is there anything I should know for next time, and does anyone have any 290X 3DMark scores they could show me? I think I did OK, and If I was under water I would have gone further.

 

I ended up settling on 1125/1350 at 1.125V for my normal use, I don't really need the extra horsepower, but I find overclocking pretty fun.

 

EDIT: Link to my PC Part Picker list: HERE

[Aruxx]

Phewwie that's getting a bit hot don't you think?  I left overvolting alone on my graphics card and it still saw a decent performance increase without turning my computer into a fancy spaceheater.

 

Nice build though!

[arronleeds]

you did very well, that scores about 200 more than my  970 on the graphics score, and thats mine at 1554mhz.

[AnthonyPaull]

Phewwie that's getting a bit hot don't you think?  I left overvolting alone on my graphics card and it still saw a decent performance increase without turning my computer into a fancy spaceheater.

 

Nice build though!

Haha, I did it for the benchmarks, not to run daily. Also It's winter in Australia, so I use it as a heater anyway

 

you did very well, that scores about 200 more than my  970 on the graphics score, and thats mine at 1554mhz.

Nice, It annoys me when people say AMD can't overclock. 2 different approaches, Nvidia go for less actual hardware and higher clocks, AMD go for beefier hardware and lower clocks. Both have their merits. Why can't we all get along!?

[arronleeds]

Haha, I did it for the benchmarks, not to run daily. Also It's winter in Australia, so I use it as a heater anyway

 

Nice, It annoys me when people say AMD can't overclock. 2 different approaches, Nvidia go for less actual hardware and higher clocks, AMD go for beefier hardware and lower clocks. Both have their merits. Why can't we all get along!?

amd gpus dont actually overclock that well compared to nvidia on the "numbers" however in terms of overclock scaling they win hands down, just look at your core clock, 1175 vs 1554mhz and mine doesnt even get a higher score in firestrike.

[Aruxx]

Haha, I did it for the benchmarks, not to run daily. Also It's winter in Australia, so I use it as a heater anyway

 

Nice, It annoys me when people say AMD can't overclock. 2 different approaches, Nvidia go for less actual hardware and higher clocks, AMD go for beefier hardware and lower clocks. Both have their merits. Why can't we all get along!?

 

Haha that's my plan when it starts getting cold here.  The whole fanboy argument thing is just silly, I've been on both sides and while one may go ahead of the other in some sections, it isn't as bad as it is in the CPU department.  

[AnthonyPaull]

Haha that's my plan when it starts getting cold here.  The whole fanboy argument thing is just silly, I've been on both sides and while one may go ahead of the other in some sections, it isn't as bad as it is in the CPU department.  

In terms of performance they're both pretty much neck and neck in perf/dollar, but I've been siding with AMD recently due to moral reasons, and because I have a tendency to support the underdog. I don't argue that AMD cards are better though.

 

 

amd gpus dont actually overclock that well compared to nvidia on the "numbers" however in terms of overclock scaling they win hands down, just look at your core clock, 1175 vs 1554mhz and mine doesnt even get a higher score in firestrike.

It's all about percent. Increase 64 ROP's at 1000mhz by 10%, you get 70.4. Increase 56ROP's by 25%, you also get 70. 

[arronleeds]

dont forget though, the 290x may get better numbers in firestrike, but doesnt mean the number in terms of fps will be better.

[AnthonyPaull]

dont forget though, the 290x may get better numbers in firestrike, but doesnt mean the number in terms of fps will be better.

True, however I'm on 1440p, so the 290X would beat the 970 quite handily in most titles.

[arronleeds]

True, however I'm on 1440p, so the 290X would beat the 970 quite handily in most titles.

 

 

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8568/the-geforce-gtx-970-review-feat-evga/6

 

not true my friend, 4k is where it pulls away, 1440p id say its a trade still.

[AnthonyPaull]

Grab

Lol, since Anand left Anandtech they've been snuggling up with Nvidia. Also those are 2 very Nvidia positive games. (But Crysis seems to love the Fury)