4890 Overclock

[lopri]

Mine just came (MSI 4890) and I did a quick testing. 1000MHz was a no go but 975MHz seems fine. Same for the mem - 1200MHz no but 1175MHz OK. Temps reaches up to 80C while running OCCTGPU 0.64. It seems to me the core needs more voltages to reach 1GHz. What prog do I use to change voltages? Does the ASUS Voltage Tweak thing work on other brands' 4890 as well?

Anyway, let's share your 4890 OC story.

BTW - Be careful with OCCTGPU! It's the scariest stress testing tool I've ever used.

 

[Tempered81]

try voltage factory for help getting the last few mhz from the core -

http://www.xtremesystems.org/f...howthread.php?t=215521

There is also independent control of memory voltage via Volterra VRMS on HD4890s. Increasing this voltage is just as easy, only requires writing to a different register.

 

[lopri]

I decided to settle @950/1150 until I get to play with voltages, so I started looping 3DMark06 GPU tests @2560x1600/8AA/16AF before I went out for dinner. Just came back in to see it still running (4hrs+) so I am a happy camper for now.

Thank you for the link. I will check it out soon. Gosh I need a 955BE like yesterday.

 

[Elfear]

One of my cards did 950/???? (didn't test mem yet) and the other did 890/1100 on stock voltage.

 

[kmmatney]

I ordered the MSI HD4890 on the ZZF $179AR deal, but haven't received the card yet. I was planning on seeing if RBE (Radeon Bios Editor) will allow you to tweak the voltages. I'll probably just stick with stock voltages and see where that takes me.

Another good GPU stress tool is Furmark. This will REALLY test your overclock!

 

[lopri]

Here are some pics for your viewing pleasure.

Default state - before it's popped open!

Max temp after 10 mins of OCCTGPU

I couldn't let it run longer than 20 mins because this test makes me nervous and I didn't want to leave it unattended. :laugh:

Below is just for fun. 3DMark06 runs GTX 280 vs. HD 4890.

E8400/GTX 280, 1280x1024, NoAA/NoAF
E8400/GTX280, 2560x1600, 8AA/16AF

4050e/HD4890, 1280x1024, NoAA/NoAF
4050e/HD4890, 2560x1600, 8AA/16AF

 

[error8]

Well this card heats up all right. 79 C with the fan at 40% is something. The extra voltage on the GPU shows its teeth.

 

[SunnyD]

Reserving this slot for my MSI 4890 T2G1D-OC. I haven't played with the clocks and such yet - trying to get an idea of where the thermals in my case currently lie. This is in an Antec P180 case with fairly poor cable routing at the moment.

(So far @ stock - 880MHz/3.996GHz)
Temps (Fan @ Auto):
- Idle : ~57C
- Furmark : ~79C
- Gaming (Mabinogi) : 65C - Note, this seems to be a fairly light game on the GPU, will try something more intense later
- Folding : Not tested

Right now, I'm pretty damn happy with the temps and the fan on Auto. I only heard it (over my case fans/speakers) once last night briefly, it had to have hit about 35%, which is about the point that you can start to hear it in the case.

 

[Adul]

Originally posted by: lopri
Here are some pics for your viewing pleasure.

Default state - before it's popped open!

Max temp after 10 mins of OCCTGPU

I couldn't let it run longer than 20 mins because this test makes me nervous and I didn't want to leave it unattended. :laugh:

Below is just for fun. 3DMark06 runs GTX 280 vs. HD 4890.

E8400/GTX 280, 1280x1024, NoAA/NoAF
E8400/GTX280, 2560x1600, 8AA/16AF

4050e/HD4890, 1280x1024, NoAA/NoAF
4050e/HD4890, 2560x1600, 8AA/16AF

WOuld be helpful if you compared it on like cpus

 

[shangshang]

I'll bet if your core clock goes from 950 to 1000 Mhz, you will see absolutely no difference in real world gaming. Why? Because if your game is chocking, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make it smoother. And if you're gaming is fine, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make you see a smoother framerate either. A +50 mhz will probably only show up a few point increase on synthetic benchmarks.

So before anyone thinks about modding the Bios or voltage (and risk turning your card into brick) to get that extra 50 Mhz, do think twice.

I also think that the video card market is so competitive these days that if a video card maker can safely & stably push the core speed up, they would already have done so and sell it as an "OC Edition" for the win, and not leave it to Joe Enthusiast to make his own "OC Edition".

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: shangshang
I'll bet if your core clock goes from 950 to 1000 Mhz, you will see absolutely no difference in real world gaming. Why? Because if your game is chocking, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make it smoother. And if you're gaming is fine, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make you see a smoother framerate either. A +50 mhz will probably only show up a few point increase on synthetic benchmarks.

So before anyone thinks about modding the Bios or voltage (and risk turning your card into brick) to get that extra 50 Mhz, do think twice.

I also think that the video card market is so competitive these days that if a video card maker can safely & stably push the core speed up, they would already have done so and sell it as an "OC Edition" for the win, and not leave it to Joe Enthusiast to make his own "OC Edition".

Thanks mom.

I believe most people's point of overclocking is the same reason people obsess over cars - to get something for nothing. A month or two from now, we'll be seeing 1GHz 4890's from the factory, they'll be had for a premium. If I can get 1GHz out of mine for the price of a base model, why shouldn't I? Seriously... :roll:

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: shangshang
I'll bet if your core clock goes from 950 to 1000 Mhz, you will see absolutely no difference in real world gaming. Why? Because if your game is chocking, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make it smoother. And if you're gaming is fine, then a +50 Mhz increase isn't gonna make you see a smoother framerate either. A +50 mhz will probably only show up a few point increase on synthetic benchmarks.

So before anyone thinks about modding the Bios or voltage (and risk turning your card into brick) to get that extra 50 Mhz, do think twice.

It's the same as going from 3.9 ghz to 4 ghz on a cpu. You most surely will not see that difference in any game or application or whatever. But it's a psychological step and we, as enthusiasts, like squeezing everything out of our hardware. Reason has nothing to do with this.

Voltage increasing, if done right, will not kill the card. You do look like one of those people that never modded or overclocked anything, so it's probably hard for you to understand this.

Originally posted by: shangshang
I also think that the video card market is so competitive these days that if a video card maker can safely & stably push the core speed up, they would already have done so and sell it as an "OC Edition" for the win, and not leave it to Joe Enthusiast to make his own "OC Edition".

So, you're saying that every card out there, that doesn't have any "OC edition" sticker on it, it's basically unoverclockable? Man, you are so wrong. :thumbsdown:
And posting a "no overclocking" warning in a videocard overclock thread is out of place.

 

[lopri]

Well, if I play with voltages, it'll be for testing purpose only. I am very happy with 950/1150.

As for Adul's request - sorry it's not likely happen for now. I just finished re-organizing my rigs (took 2 days) and I really don't want to open the case of my main rig. AMD platform is flexible since it's still under testing, though. Then again, 3DMark06 run was just for fun (well, no actually I am testing PCIe bandwidth for Motherboard Forum) and faster CPU won't likely make a difference @2560x1600.

One interesting observation is how huge a performance drop occurs in SM3.0 test on GT200, when AA is applied. So I went on to run the rest of the test suit to see if I can find anything, and I did.

Perlin Noise?

I have no idea what Perlin Noise is, and that's the only thing GT200 loses to RV770. All the other specs (well, not all but most) are superior on GT200. But apparently that affects hugely the SM3.0 test in 3DMark06.

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: Elfear
One of my cards did 950/???? (didn't test mem yet) and the other did 890/1100 on stock voltage.

Are they from a same vendor?

 

[lopri]

Originally posted by: error8
Well this card heats up all right. 79 C with the fan at 40% is something. The extra voltage on the GPU shows its teeth.

Exactly. That's what makes me think the card has more clocking headroom if more juice is given. I'd think the card can take a little more heat. MY GTX 280 (oc'ed to 650/1400/1200) stabilizes around 90C with the same benchmark. Fan = 100%

 

[Elfear]

Originally posted by: lopri

Originally posted by: Elfear
One of my cards did 950/???? (didn't test mem yet) and the other did 890/1100 on stock voltage.

Are they from a same vendor?

Yup, both are Sapphire. I've got an MSI I'll be throwing in there on Saturday to test. I'm hoping for 950/1150 in CF with a little added voltage.

 

[JBT]

Just got mine.

Played LotRO for a few hours at 950 core 1050 memory. Everything seems fine.

 

[kmmatney]

I just got mine. I got in on the $199 deal, and the card is pre-overclocked to 890 Mhz on the core. So far, I've gotten to 980 core, and 1050 memory.

This card runs a lot hotter than my HD4830. It's idling at 59C, which seems a bit high. There's no way I'm going to add more voltage, so I'll just see what stock voltage can do.

What are everyone else's temperatures?

Edit: Now at 980 on the core...

I couldn't get OCCT GPU to run. It complains about a missing DX9 file. I'm running Windows XP.

Rdit: A DirectX webupdaye fixed the OCCT GPU problem. That program does get the card heated up in a hurry!

 

[lopri]

Mine idles 55C~60C. Load under gaming = 70~75C. Furmark or OCCTGPU = 80C.

59C is normal for an overclocked 4890. As a matter of fact, I think 55C~60C is the target temp regardless of clock speed. Underclocking or not overclocking simply lowers fan speed, so the temp seems to stay the same.

 

[kmmatney]

Is there a reason why the GDDR5 memory isn't underclocked in 2D? I manually underclocked it in CCC and hit apply, and the Idle temperature went down several degrees.

Edit: I manually lowered the memory to 500 Mhz, and the temps dropped to 52C on idle, so if the memory was underclocked in 2D, the card could run cooler. There must be a reason why they don't underclock the memory - my HD4830 underclocked the memory and was 30C at idle (and much quieter).

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Is there a reason why the GDDR5 memory isn't underclocked in 2D? I manually underclocked it in CCC and hit apply, and the Idle temperature went down several degrees.

Edit: I manually lowered the memory to 500 Mhz, and the temps dropped to 52C on idle, so if the memory was underclocked in 2D, the card could run cooler. There must be a reason why they don't underclock the memory - my HD4830 underclocked the memory and was 30C at idle (and much quieter).

I wonder this myself. I'm using two profiles in ATI tray tools, one for 2d with 400/500 mhz, the other one is with 800/975 mhz for 3d, both set to start automatically. At 400/500 and the gpu undervolted to 1.083V, I have 39 C in idle!!! That is a fantastic drop in temperature and power consumption, and most of it comes from the lowered GDDR5 frequencies. Why isn't ATi doing this on their cards?

 

[TC91]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: kmmatney
Is there a reason why the GDDR5 memory isn't underclocked in 2D? I manually underclocked it in CCC and hit apply, and the Idle temperature went down several degrees.

Edit: I manually lowered the memory to 500 Mhz, and the temps dropped to 52C on idle, so if the memory was underclocked in 2D, the card could run cooler. There must be a reason why they don't underclock the memory - my HD4830 underclocked the memory and was 30C at idle (and much quieter).

I wonder this myself. I'm using two profiles in ATI tray tools, one for 2d with 400/500 mhz, the other one is with 800/975 mhz for 3d, both set to start automatically. At 400/500 and the gpu undervolted to 1.083V, I have 39 C in idle!!! That is a fantastic drop in temperature and power consumption, and most of it comes from the lowered GDDR5 frequencies. Why isn't ATi doing this on their cards?

Changing clocks on GDDR5 causes attrocious flickering in my experience with my 4870 1GB. It looks absolutely horrible when it happens; horrible enough to make someone think their card might be broken when it's actually not.

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: TC91


Changing clocks on GDDR5 causes attrocious flickering in my experience with my 4870 1GB.

Mine makes just a split second flicker, but it does it, no matter if it's the ram or GPU clock, changed. It doesn't flicker after the clocks have been changed. The last Sapphire 4870 I had, didn't had any flicker whatsoever when changing clocks.

Originally posted by: TC91
It looks absolutely horrible when it happens; horrible enough to make someone think their card might be broken when it's actually not.

So do you think ATI didn't wanted to implement this, because it would have bothered the owners? It might be true, though.

 

[TC91]

Originally posted by: error8

Originally posted by: TC91


Changing clocks on GDDR5 causes attrocious flickering in my experience with my 4870 1GB.

Mine makes just a split second flicker, but it does it, no matter if it's the ram or GPU clock, changed. It doesn't flicker after the clocks have been changed. The last Sapphire 4870 I had, didn't had any flicker whatsoever when changing clocks.

Originally posted by: TC91
It looks absolutely horrible when it happens; horrible enough to make someone think their card might be broken when it's actually not.

So do you think ATI didn't wanted to implement this, because it would have bothered the owners? It might be true, though.

Mine didn't flicker for gpu clock changes, but memory clock changes, every single darn time. Yes I absolutely do believe they did not implement this because it will bother the owners. It definitely bugged the hell out of me. It also probably somewhat lowered the rate of RMAs.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: TC91
Mine didn't flicker for gpu clock changes, but memory clock changes, every single darn time. Yes I absolutely do believe they did not implement this because it will bother the owners. It definitely bugged the hell out of me. It also probably somewhat lowered the rate of RMAs.

I think I've said this before but there must have been something wrong with your card. I go from 550/400 to 800/1000 everytime a game starts and it has never done the flickering thing as you describe it. The only time it would flicker was when CCC kept continuously changing between 2D and 3D clocks and I think this was fixed in some of the new drivers. Once I set Tray Tools to the profiles I wanted, that went away.

EDIT: Do the 4890 cards show VRM temps? I didn't see it in Lopri's pic.