GTX 670 Owners. What's your ASIC?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
The_Golden_Man

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
1
0
Don Karnage said:
At 1.175v and 1279 boost clock im maxing out target power
Click to expand...

:eek: You max at 122% ? I've seen a little over 100% ( 103 - 104%) at 1267 boost clock and 1.175v using latest OCCT GPU test

Edit: maybe I should try furmark? I thought this latest OCCT was just as demanding though. Will check it out
 
chimaxi83

chimaxi83

Diamond Member
May 18, 2003
5,649
61
101
Is that a 6+6 pin connector reference card? That's weird. Even on my reference 680 running almost 1300MHz (+170), it still maxes out around 105% power limit out of 132%.
 
The_Golden_Man

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
1
0
Lol.. just tried the latest Furmark 1.10.1 burn-in-test and it did barely reach 50c with my GTX 670 and AC Twin Turbo II. Latest OCCT GPU test is wothout a doubt the most stressfull test I've found. It will reach 57 - 59c in my setup. And are simply to demanding for most reference coolers. I think it was OCCT who finally killed my Gigabyte GTX 570 reference card.

My current clocks is 1238MHz Turbo boost and 1.175v.

Edit: I tried to hit burn-in-benchmark 15 minutes. Seems like this is more demanding. Will report back

Edit 2: The burn-in-benchmark 15 minutes seemed to max out at 55c for my setup. couple of degrees lower VS occt. burn-in-benchmark also lowered the Turbo boost clock down to the 1150 - 1170MHz range, 1.1v, even though I had the power limiter sat to 110% in MSI afterburner. Afterburner reports max 102% power usage. So OCCT seems to be the most demanding of all. Only shows how insane this AC Twin Turbo II is on a GTX 670. 57 - 58c, in very silent mode in the most demanding testing program there is. And the most demanding games like The Witcher 2 and Two Worlds II DX10 will max out in the 45c - 47c range. This cooler totally destroys both the Gigabyte triple Windforce and ASUS Direct CU II when it comes to temps/noise
 
Last edited:
D

d3fu5i0n

Senior member
Feb 15, 2011
305
0
0
The_Golden_Man said:
:eek: You max at 122% ? I've seen a little over 100% ( 103 - 104%) at 1267 boost clock and 1.175v using latest OCCT GPU test

Edit: maybe I should try furmark? I thought this latest OCCT was just as demanding though. Will check it out
Click to expand...

Talking about boost clocks, my pre-OC'd MSI 670 is supposed to have a boost of 1046 [from GPU-Z - the same core and boost the EVGA SCs have [967; 1046] (a little higher than the advertised MSI OC speeds)], but got to 1189 boost just from running one of those nVidia SDK D3D SDK demos.
It's also running in adaptive mode [for the power - and not constant performance] if that makes any difference.

The increase in boost is rather intriguing.
 
The_Golden_Man

The_Golden_Man

Senior member
Apr 7, 2012
816
1
0
d3fu5i0n said:
Talking about boost clocks, my pre-OC'd MSI 670 is supposed to have a boost of 1046 [from GPU-Z - the same core and boost the EVGA SCs have [967; 1046] (a little higher than the advertised MSI OC speeds)], but got to 1189 boost just from running one of those nVidia SDK D3D SDK demos.
It's also running in adaptive mode [for the power - and not constant performance] if that makes any difference.

The increase in boost is rather intriguing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't understand this.. My MSI GTX 670 (Standard one) is also advertised to run 1046MHz boost clock. But got between 1137 - 1150MHz with no overclocking in various games and 3DMark11.

This is probably why many GTX 670's have scored higher in reviews VS GTX 680. The real boost clock varies from card to card. What I don't understand is by having this feature on the loose, one should believe nVidia is ruining sales of their top of the line 680 cards. In other words, shooting their own leg. Also, seeing as the GTX 670's have 2GB mem, just as the 680, makes it even worse (Or better for us consumers).
 
D

d3fu5i0n

Senior member
Feb 15, 2011
305
0
0
The_Golden_Man said:
Yeah, I really don't understand this.. My MSI GTX 670 (Standard one) is also advertised to run 1046MHz boost clock. But got between 1137 - 1150MHz with no overclocking in various games and 3DMark11.

This is probably why many GTX 670's have scored higher in reviews VS GTX 680. The real boost clock varies from card to card. What I don't understand is by having this feature on the loose, one should believe nVidia is ruining sales of their top of the line 680 cards. In other words, shooting their own leg. Also, seeing as the GTX 670's have 2GB mem, just as the 680, makes it even worse (Or better for us consumers).
Click to expand...

Indeed... [about the memory], especially too, due to the memory being clocked the same.

However, what would've been better for us consumers is if we got GK104 for the initial internal prices [mid-range] and got GK110 for purchase, let alone having it at the current 'mid-range' prices ~ (if the - 'what-seems-to-be' credible - speculations are true).
 
omnimodis78

omnimodis78

Junior Member
Sep 20, 2009
2
0
0
The score on my 670 (Gigabyte GV-N670OC-2GD) went from high 90 (I think 98%) when I first got the card back a few months ago, to now standing at 69.1%. I tested it a few times, before and after I OCd the card and it was consistently at the high 90. I remember this clearly because I thought wow how special is that! I don't really get the true meaning of this score, but I sure hope that my current OC (which is rock stable) isn't causing any degradation to the chip! The only thing that changed is the gpuz version, so maybe the 98% was originally incorrect?
 
wand3r3r

wand3r3r

Diamond Member
May 16, 2008
3,180
0
0
omnimodis78 said:
The score on my 670 (Gigabyte GV-N670OC-2GD) went from high 90 (I think 98%) when I first got the card back a few months ago, to now standing at 69.1%. I tested it a few times, before and after I OCd the card and it was consistently at the high 90. I remember this clearly because I thought wow how special is that! I don't really get the true meaning of this score, but I sure hope that my current OC (which is rock stable) isn't causing any degradation to the chip! The only thing that changed is the gpuz version, so maybe the 98% was originally incorrect?
Click to expand...

It was a bug in the software which was fixed sometime ago long (after the gtx 6xx series were released) so your original score was false.

This thread can die though, the OP is a con artist and has been banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom