r9 380 overclock

[GeorgeKellow]

What should I be able to overclock to? (I know every card is different I just want a baseline) 

[Imakuni]

+56. Cuz why not, any random number has the same validity here...

[don_svetlio]

1100-1200

[i_build_nanosuits]

8 minutes ago, GeorgeKellow said:

What should I be able to overclock to? (I know every card is different I just want a baseline) 

+50mhz...it's an AMD card therefore it probably won't overclock very far...i'd start at +50mhz...if this is very stable try +80mhz...i would suspect this to not be stable.

[Prysin]

7 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

+50mhz...it's an AMD card therefore it probably won't overclock very far...i'd start at +50mhz...if this is very stable try +80mhz...i would suspect this to not be stable.

according to HWBOT, the average OC for a 380 is 1157 MHz Core and 1569 memory. Which is not THAT surprising.

My 295x2 hits slightly north of 1100 for the core and 1500 for memory, whilst under a strict firmware locked 75c max temp and +10-20mV to the core.

 

A custom cooled 380 should easily hit 1100+. Tonga is based on Tahiti, which is basically a 7970. We all know how well the 7970 OCd.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

according to HWBOT, the average OC for a 380 is 1157 MHz Core and 1569 memory. Which is not THAT surprising.

My 295x2 hits slightly north of 1100 for the core and 1500 for memory, whilst under a strict firmware locked 75c max temp and +10-20mV to the core.

 

A custom cooled 380 should easily hit 1100+. Tonga is based on Tahiti, which is basically a 7970. We all know how well the 7970 OCd.

yeah but depending on which card he has...it's most likely factory overclocked already with not much headroom left...AMD cards tend to be aggressively clocked out of the box already.

 

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah but depending on which card he has...it's most likely factory overclocked already with not much headroom left...AMD cards tend to be aggressively clocked out of the box already.

 

almost none of the factory OCd one hits 1100. Some are 1080MHz at most (Sapphire/MSI/XFX).
 

In all honesty, with Sapphire TRIXX or MSI Afterburner, a decent 2 fan cooler like MSI GAMING or Sapphire NITRO (not gigabyte or ASUS, not sure about XFX DD), you should be able to hit 1150 or 1200 with a little +mV to the core.

[GeorgeKellow]

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

almost none of the factory OCd one hits 1100. Some are 1080MHz at most (Sapphire/MSI/XFX).
 

In all honesty, with Sapphire TRIXX or MSI Afterburner, a decent 2 fan cooler like MSI GAMING or Sapphire NITRO (not gigabyte or ASUS, not sure about XFX DD), you should be able to hit 1150 or 1200 with a little +mV to the core.

 

22 minutes ago, Imakuni said:

+56. Cuz why not, any random number has the same validity here...

 

20 minutes ago, don_svetlio said:

1100-1200

 

19 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

+50mhz...it's an AMD card therefore it probably won't overclock very far...i'd start at +50mhz...if this is very stable try +80mhz...i would suspect this to not be stable.

 

6 minutes ago, Prysin said:

according to HWBOT, the average OC for a 380 is 1157 MHz Core and 1569 memory. Which is not THAT surprising.

My 295x2 hits slightly north of 1100 for the core and 1500 for memory, whilst under a strict firmware locked 75c max temp and +10-20mV to the core.

 

A custom cooled 380 should easily hit 1100+. Tonga is based on Tahiti, which is basically a 7970. We all know how well the 7970 OCd.

 

5 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

yeah but depending on which card he has...it's most likely factory overclocked already with not much headroom left...AMD cards tend to be aggressively clocked out of the box already.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Prysin said:

almost none of the factory OCd one hits 1100. Some are 1080MHz at most (Sapphire/MSI/XFX).
 

In all honesty, with Sapphire TRIXX or MSI Afterburner, a decent 2 fan cooler like MSI GAMING or Sapphire NITRO (not gigabyte or ASUS, not sure about XFX DD), you should be able to hit 1150 or 1200 with a little +mV to the core.

Thanks everyone

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

almost none of the factory OCd one hits 1100. Some are 1080MHz at most (Sapphire/MSI/XFX).
 

In all honesty, with Sapphire TRIXX or MSI Afterburner, a decent 2 fan cooler like MSI GAMING or Sapphire NITRO (not gigabyte or ASUS, not sure about XFX DD), you should be able to hit 1150 or 1200 with a little +mV to the core.

that depend on the chip...i assumed he as an already factory clocked card...which like you said is probably running close to 1050mhz or something...and if he can add +50mhz that would make it an 1100mhz card which would be in the ball park for most of these AMD chips...+80mhz would likely push things beyond 1100mhz which is likely to not be 100% stable in all games.

I think my recommendation is fairly conservative but good

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

that depend on the chip...i assumed he as an already factory clocked card...which like you said is probably running close to 1050mhz or something...and if he can add +50mhz that would make it an 1100mhz card which would be in the ball park for most of these AMD chips...+80mhz would likely push things beyond 1100mhz which is likely to not be 100% stable in all games.

I think my recommendation is fairly conservative but good

well, going step by step is always the way to do it.

secondly, using GPU-Z you can check the ASIC level. Gives you a pretty good pointer as to whether you got a good overclocker, or bad one.

[i_build_nanosuits]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

well, going step by step is always the way to do it.

secondly, using GPU-Z you can check the ASIC level. Gives you a pretty good pointer as to whether you got a good overclocker, or bad one.

ASIC...yeah.

But my 980ti Strix is only 70% ASIC for example...but i can hit 1460mhz stable on it...so this is just one of many things...but yeah a GPU with good asic usually consume a bit less energy allowing for higher voltages and slightly better overclocks...my 980ti i can bruteforce because it has a brutal cooler and a massive 12 phase power delivery...but on a reference board this thing would be crap and would likely not even be able to clock 1400mhz i think. So there are a lot of things to consider.

But overall nvidia leave a lot of OC headroom on the table where AMD does not usually.

 

[Prysin]

6 minutes ago, i_build_nanosuits said:

ASIC...yeah.

But my 980ti Strix is only 70% ASIC for example...but i can hit 1460mhz stable on it...so this is just one of many things...but yeah a GPU with good asic usually consume a bit less energy allowing for higher voltages and slightly better overclocks...my 980ti i can bruteforce because it has a brutal cooler and a massive 12 phase power delivery...but on a reference board this thing would be crap and would likely not even be able to clock 1400mhz i think. So there are a lot of things to consider.

But overall nvidia leave a lot of OC headroom on the table where AMD does not usually.

 

its the architecture.

GCNs sweetspot (perf per watt) is probably around 850-900MHz, anything over is "extra" speed. However GCN has either much higher IPC or insanely good MHz scaling compared to Nvidia. We know this based simply on how clock speed scales on GCN vs how it scales on Kepler/Maxwell. Nvidia need more MHz to get the same % increase in performance as AMD. So while you can scoff at 50MHz for GCN, the % increase in performance is probably equal to +75-125 MHz on comparable Nvidia card (in this case GTX 960). While there is upsides and downsides to GCN and Kepler/Maxwell, one cannot say the difference in either IPC or MHz scaling is negative or not. Both vendors achieve respectable performance per watt and performance per dollar at their respective MHz. Saying that one reaching a higher MHz number then the other makes it outright better is a fallacy. Because it is based on the idea that both vendors scale equally with clock speed, which Nvidia does not.

 

As for Nvidia clock sweetspot, i dont know. Their Maxwell Quadros were around 1000-1200MHz max, so i assume around 1100ish were their utmost efficient clock speed.