Is there yet a BIOS hack available for GTX 1070?

[BonzaiDuck]

I hadn't done much in graphics overclocking until I had my GTX 970 2x SLI configuration. I'm still learning "new stuff."

I bought my Gigabyte GTX 1070 Mini OC card as much for its size and my case configuration as for being the second-tier NVidia card. From reviews, the Mini OC holds its own equally with many of the larger cards. If I have a problem, it's not with Gigabyte cards or "mini" cards: it's probably more about NVidia.

The reviews and street skinny tell me that the 1070 will clock up to 2,063 Mhz for the core, and possibly even beyond 9,000 Mhz for the memory.

My stable, rock-solid overclock gives me 2,063 Mhz "Maximum" reported in Afterburner, but this is momentary. With Valley Benchmark in full-screen mode, the card settles in at 2,038 Mhz with little variation. A more demanding game shows fluctuations reaching 2,025 but bouncing around above 1,974 Mhz. My memory clock is now set to +448 or 8,900 Mhz. I should have nothing to complain about.

But I began to wonder about Afterburner's reports for my Power % and Power Limit (1 or 0). While some 1080 cards never reach the power limit, my PL graph is bouncing around all over the place. Certain other forum sites suggest "nothing to worry about." But further web searches seemed to reveal a fly in the ointment for the 1070 and 1080 cards.

Apparently -- correct me if wrong -- you can raise the power target for the 1080 to 120%. For the 1070, the slider only goes to 112%, and this may explain why the 1080 has ample room before it throttles.

With my overclock and with either Valley, Assetto-Corsa or GRID2, the "Power %" graph bounces around between ~103 and the maximum limit. While it seldom registers 112%, there is the occasional spike which can vary from 112 to 115. Spikes over 112 are very infrequent, only occasionally observed.

Apparently, a lot of users are whining about the TDP limitation, which apparently assures that voltage never exceeds 1.093V with the voltage slider at 100%. People are begging for some BIOS hack that allows increasing the TDP limit beyond the 1070's 112% or the 1080's 120%. And the same folks are whining that there should be a way to add 10 to 100 mV to the maximum voltage.

Is there any hope for -- or does there exist -- a BIOS hack for the GTX 1070? I'm pretty sure you couldn't flash a 1070 with a 1080 BIOS hack, but I need to look further to see if someone had done it.

There seems to be a consensus that these cards would run at 2,100+ Mhz if the TDP setting could be increased.

Can't complain otherwise, though, because a single 1070 is just a hair behind 2x GTX 980 SLI.

 

[Bouowmx]

Minimize temperatures (with maximum fan) to maximize frequency, courtesy of GPU Boost.

 

[tviceman]

Be happy with your OC. While my EVGA GTX 1070 core clock OC is similar to yours, my vram maxes out with a +360mhz, resulting in 8720mhz. Pretty low for a memory OC based on professional and user reviews around the web.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Be happy with your OC. While my EVGA GTX 1070 core clock OC is similar to yours, my vram maxes out with a +360mhz, resulting in 8720mhz. Pretty low for a memory OC based on professional and user reviews around the web.

Don't want to get your hopes up, but I had edged up my memory speed in small chunks, and early in the process I think I was stuck at something close to your speed.

I soon found it necessary to turn attention back to the core speed. If it seemed stable with Valley in this or that respect, actual game-play with GRID2 would cause occasional artifacts to appear, driver resets etc. I think I went through a second cycle of this discovery when I got the memory up to about +408. Or -- it became really apparent at about 416.

Instead of moving around the graph points in the visual configuration of a Mhz/V curve, I reverted to simply pivoting the curve anchoring the mouse on the right-most point of the curve with CTRL-[mouse]. I moved the curve by shifting that point about 4 Mhz at a time. If Afterburner showed speeds in the range of 2,050 to 2063 during stress, those same readings would appear but less often by pivoting the curve down in small increments.

I then discovered that I could push the memory clock higher. 480 led to artifacts; 460 artifacts less often. It seemed rock solid at 450, so I dropped it down to 448 for good measure.

I could be wrong, and you could be at the end of your tether with that. And no less true: the difference between 8,720 and 8,896 isn't going to seem like any difference even for starting at the 12th position of the stock car run to Cote d'Azur's St. Laurent.

I guess I was hoping that there would be a BIOS hack to change the power limit, and I may still hope for it. It seems like the very best overclocks you can get with these cards are pushing right up against that power limit, and the power limit is likely the real reason why you can't get beyond 2,063 Mhz. At that level, the temperatures don't rise much above 65C -- 59/60C for Valley.

And I'm still trying to decide when or if I'll shell out for a BenQ XL2730Z 2560x1440.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Minimize temperatures (with maximum fan) to maximize frequency, courtesy of GPU Boost.

Oh, I've done the best possible with that. With Valley Benchmark, the temperature hovers between 58 and 60C. Gaming brings it up to 65C. I haven't seen it exceed that. So I'm guessing that a 5C increase in temperature causes the clock to drop on these? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Bouowmx]

Oh, I've done the best possible with that. With Valley Benchmark, the temperature hovers between 58 and 60C. Gaming brings it up to 65C. I haven't seen it exceed that. So I'm guessing that a 5C increase in temperature causes the clock to drop on these? Is that what you're saying?

Yeah: I noticed that GPU Boost reduces frequency (in steps of 12.5 MHz) once temperatures exceed 50 C.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Yeah: I noticed that GPU Boost reduces frequency (in steps of 12.5 MHz) once temperatures exceed 50 C.

So the only way to circumvent the GPU Boost's behavior would be to keep temperatures below 50C -- which would mean fitting the GTX 1070 Mini-OC with a water cooler . . .

Just when you thought you were out . . . . they try to pull you back in! [From "The Godfather."]

 

[wilds]

Just be happy with it. I have to set my fan at 100% to get a stable 2.1+ GHz, otherwise I would have to increase the clockspeed to like ~2,2 GHz to have the card maintain 2.1 Ghz at 68-69C. I settled with a small clockspeed offset of +114 core and +700 memory and am completely happy with 2050 MHz as my base clockspeed with a boost up to 2063 MHz; all in silence. The performance difference between 2.05 Ghz and 2.15 Ghz is negligible at best. Most of the performance gains from overclocking is my 9.4 GHz memory overclock, which doesn't really effect temps too much. Watercooling would only net single digit performance improvements at best.
My 1070 has the option of raising the power limit to 126%. I honestly don't think it is doing much, but I have it set to 126% anyways.

What I wish we could do is circumvent this silly GPU Boost feature entirely, like you could do on Kepler and Maxwell. I always use Nvidia Inspector for my 650M to lock clockspeeds. The GPU will only throttle if I become power limited or it hits a critical temperature. I prefer using .bat files to regulate my GPU's clockspeed. I use 3 .bat files. The first locks the pState to idle, forcing idle clocks and preventing GPU boost from working at all. The second is forcing pState to maximum performance and locking the GPU core and memory clockspeed. The final one resets the GPU to normal GPU boost behavior. Pascal's GPU boost feels like it is hand-holding the user when it comes to overclocking. I feel responsible enough to manage my GPU's thermals but Nvidia doesn't think so

edit: One thing you can do is go into Nvidia Control Panel -> Manage 3d settings -> Global/Specific Game and set the Power Management Mode to "Prefer Maximum Performance". This will force the GPU to its maximum boost speed, but will still be regulated by thermals.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Just be happy with it. I have to set my fan at 100% to get a stable 2.1+ GHz, otherwise I would have to increase the clockspeed to like ~2,2 GHz to have the card maintain 2.1 Ghz at 68-69C. I settled with a small clockspeed offset of +114 core and +700 memory and am completely happy with 2050 MHz as my base clockspeed with a boost up to 2063 MHz; all in silence. The performance difference between 2.05 Ghz and 2.15 Ghz is negligible at best. Most of the performance gains from overclocking is my 9.4 GHz memory overclock, which doesn't really effect temps too much. Watercooling would only net single digit performance improvements at best.
My 1070 has the option of raising the power limit to 126%. I honestly don't think it is doing much, but I have it set to 126% anyways.

What I wish we could do is circumvent this silly GPU Boost feature entirely, like you could do on Kepler and Maxwell. I always use Nvidia Inspector for my 650M to lock clockspeeds. The GPU will only throttle if I become power limited or it hits a critical temperature. I prefer using .bat files to regulate my GPU's clockspeed. I use 3 .bat files. The first locks the pState to idle, forcing idle clocks and preventing GPU boost from working at all. The second is forcing pState to maximum performance and locking the GPU core and memory clockspeed. The final one resets the GPU to normal GPU boost behavior. Pascal's GPU boost feels like it is hand-holding the user when it comes to overclocking. I feel responsible enough to manage my GPU's thermals but Nvidia doesn't think so

edit: One thing you can do is go into Nvidia Control Panel -> Manage 3d settings -> Global/Specific Game and set the Power Management Mode to "Prefer Maximum Performance". This will force the GPU to its maximum boost speed, but will still be regulated by thermals.

Yeah -- I did that. Apparently it had already been set to "maximum performance."

It's the "hand-holding" that's frustrating.

The best I can do with the memory-clock is about 8,900 Mhz. I'm wondering which 1070 card you're using. I chose the Giga Mini-OC for "case-interior-decorating." Long cards won't fit in my arrangement.

I even made provision for the option of a second card in 2x SLI. But it won't offer anything unless I'm gaming at 4K resolutions, and I think -- for the future -- I'm more comfortable with 2560x1440 because of certain monitor features I want.

 

[wilds]

I have the MSI Gaming 1070. I bought it because it has that 126% power limit and has a 8+6 pin connecter vs just the 8 pin.

I do not know if it is even worth flashing to get the 126% power limit (probably is a gimmick just like the additional 6 pin).

At stock voltage it can only do 8.8 GHz. At max voltage it can do 9.6 GHz, but it has negative scaling in one of my games, so I run 9.4 GHz instead. This is with Samsung memory. What type of memory do you have (GPU-Z)?

I wish I had Dave3000's temperature malfunctioning 1080, but with the Gaming cooler that my 1070 has. That would allow easy thermal management + none of that temperature boost crap.

Part of me believes we can somehow get rid of Boost 2.0 entirely and go back to Kepler's dumb boost system; which was far easier to overclock.

I'd flash my BIOS in a heart beat if that was possible.

Edit: I wouldn't be too worried about 4k. Your 1070 can do it no problem (Even Crysis 3); just make sure to lower Ambient Occlusion to low or off and Shadows down to high from very high and 60 fps is easy. 4k 120hz on the other hand.... I thought 4k was going to murder my 1070, but it hasnt. My card is often in the 1100-1500 Mhz range because it can run 2160p60 no problem. Not maximum settings though, but high.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I have the MSI Gaming 1070. I bought it because it has that 126% power limit and has a 8+6 pin connecter vs just the 8 pin.

I do not know if it is even worth flashing to get the 126% power limit (probably is a gimmick just like the additional 6 pin).

At stock voltage it can only do 8.8 GHz. At max voltage it can do 9.6 GHz, but it has negative scaling in one of my games, so I run 9.4 GHz instead. This is with Samsung memory. What type of memory do you have (GPU-Z)?

I wish I had Dave3000's temperature malfunctioning 1080, but with the Gaming cooler that my 1070 has. That would allow easy thermal management + none of that temperature boost crap.

Part of me believes we can somehow get rid of Boost 2.0 entirely and go back to Kepler's dumb boost system; which was far easier to overclock.

I'd flash my BIOS in a heart beat if that was possible.

Edit: I wouldn't be too worried about 4k. Your 1070 can do it no problem (Even Crysis 3); just make sure to lower Ambient Occlusion to low or off and Shadows down to high from very high and 60 fps is easy. 4k 120hz on the other hand.... I thought 4k was going to murder my 1070, but it hasnt. My card is often in the 1100-1500 Mhz range because it can run 2160p60 no problem. Not maximum settings though, but high.

That's reassuring. I think my next desktop gaming monitor will be a BenQ 2560x1440. I have to balance the features that I can get and want, against 4K at any cost or sacrifice.

In the same way, I'd toyed with the idea of buying a second card -- because my master-plan required at least the option for one. I can defer purchasing the monitor indefinitely, but eventually, the only Giga GTX 1070 Mini-OC I'll be able to find after a lapse of time will be a used one.

The only real frustration I have so far involved the insertion of a PCI-e x1 SATA controller in the x1 slot below the x16_1 slot. With a gap of about 1cm, it obstructs about 20% of airflow going into the single-fan Mini-OC. I think I actually noticed a temperature increase of 1C, but I couldn't be sure.

Just to know, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who got two GTX 1070s for SLI -- dual-fan or reference barrel-fan model or "Mini" -- about the temperature difference they notice between the top and bottom cards with air-cooling.

I might even see if I can find a shorter SATA controller with a similar Marvell chip. Moving it to the top x1 slot will be a pain-in-the-ass for extra things to do for making it possible. But for what I thought I noticed in temperatures, that doesn't make much sense, either.

 

[Dufus]

Until people start requesting and receiving Hulk certs from the manufacturer for VBIOS tweaking there's not much point in customizing it. Nvflash will generate a user request file for the purpose of obtaining a key.

Have you requested a cert?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I have the MSI Gaming 1070. I bought it because it has that 126% power limit and has a 8+6 pin connecter vs just the 8 pin.

I do not know if it is even worth flashing to get the 126% power limit (probably is a gimmick just like the additional 6 pin).

At stock voltage it can only do 8.8 GHz. At max voltage it can do 9.6 GHz, but it has negative scaling in one of my games, so I run 9.4 GHz instead. This is with Samsung memory. What type of memory do you have (GPU-Z)?

I wish I had Dave3000's temperature malfunctioning 1080, but with the Gaming cooler that my 1070 has. That would allow easy thermal management + none of that temperature boost crap.

Part of me believes we can somehow get rid of Boost 2.0 entirely and go back to Kepler's dumb boost system; which was far easier to overclock.

I'd flash my BIOS in a heart beat if that was possible.

Edit: I wouldn't be too worried about 4k. Your 1070 can do it no problem (Even Crysis 3); just make sure to lower Ambient Occlusion to low or off and Shadows down to high from very high and 60 fps is easy. 4k 120hz on the other hand.... I thought 4k was going to murder my 1070, but it hasnt. My card is often in the 1100-1500 Mhz range because it can run 2160p60 no problem. Not maximum settings though, but high.

That's very good intelligence, ZGR. Now I'm even more inclined to stop with just one card. So it's in a higher power-state at the higher resolution, but that would be expected. It just makes graphics cooling more of a priority, I would think.

 

[krugern]

My SLI 1070 is stable at 2126 MHz core and 9000 MHz memory. Temperature at max 42°C water cooled. Hitting the power limit quite often..., please let me adjust it

I know there is a way to do it, by bypassing the resistor with liquid metal. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Qi8fxIi_Y The downside is I will have to remove my water blocks to apply it..

 

[SirCanealot]

There are a couple of unlimited BIOSs for the GTX 1080 — I am running one at the moment on my FE (I think it's a BIOS from one of the high end Asus cards that is used for LN2 overclocking — the BIOS got leaked at some point). Some people suggest they can actually decrease performance though, due to the complexity of GPU boost... (I really need to do a batch of benching on the unlocked BIOS and then flash back to the default FE bios to compare, but too lazy...)

There are also plenty of different BIOSs with different TDPs for the 1080. I would assume this is the case for the 1070 as well. I've checked and I see some with limits set to 200w rather than 170w:
https://www.techpowerup.com/vgabios...=GTX+1070&interface=&memType=&memSize=&since=
Edit: There's a Gainward BIOS with 230w!

However, what you can and can't flash to your card is a different question!

There's a crapload of info over on overclockers.net. Might want to check in the 1070 posts there and see what is going to work for your particular card.