Geforce GTX285 overclocking thread

Printable View

02-04-2009, 01:10 PM
Biker

Geforce GTX285 overclocking thread

Hi all .

I just was curious how ppl were getting on with their GTX285's....

I was hoping that they would be voltage adjustable via Rivatuner like several other cards have been found to be over the last week or two but it turns out things are not so simple.

Hopefully it is just a case of finding the right register to write to but things have scaled down from the 280's 4 voltage state registers to just 2. Whether other registers can be opened up to increase the range is at the moment unknown (well at least it is by me!) but right now it seems all 285's have a max voltage of 1.15 before you break out the soldering kits (it was 1.1875 in the 280) so lets see how we get on with these limitations....

I was initially going to fork out for an EVGA SSC but I had a feeling that most of these cards would clock more or less the same so I could not justify paying almost £100 more for a card that might be already maxed out so I settled for a Zotac AMP! edition which arrived today...

First thing I did was back up the bios but I was very reluctant to flash anything without checking its integrity with Nibitor. The latest available version 4.8 does not support the 285/95 series yet so I was stuck with Zotac's own "Firestorm" tool which provides all the basics: Core / Shader / Ram and Fan speed sliders.

Having read reports of ludicrous clocks I was tempted to go for broke but have decided to take it relatively easy for now.

I have just finished a 3 hour gaming session at 720 / 1620 / 2772 and all was perfectly stable / artifract free so I am going to eventually go for more but at this speed I can finally do rediculous things like play Crysis Warhead and 2560x1600 with all detail maxed out (DX9).

I was also supplied with an evaluation copy of Nibitor 4.9 to test and can happily report that it works flawlessly...

How is everybody else getting on? :)
02-04-2009, 02:54 PM
Blkout

eVGA 285 vanilla here. These are actual clocks, as Nvidia sets clock speeds in increments. Stock cooler, auto fan profile. 100% stable and artifact free.

729c/1620s/1458s

From my testing, Crysis/Warhead benchmark and 3DMARK06 loops are the best tests to check for artifacts and crashes when overclocking.
02-04-2009, 05:57 PM
Talonman

Some 285 numbers...

The memory does pritty darn well...

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...55983;�
02-04-2009, 06:18 PM
Envydia007

Mine is just at SSC speeds. Awesome vanilla.
02-04-2009, 06:46 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Talonman

Some 285 numbers...

The memory does pritty darn well...

http://www.evga.com/forums/tm.asp?m=...55983;�

Lots of those numbers aren't ACTUAL clock speeds though. Apparently most people don't realize that Nvidia clocks their cards in increments.

For example, I can set the the shader clock to 1638, but actual is only 1620. Once I set the shader clock to 1639, actual clocks become 1656. Same goes for the core clock speed but they move in smaller incremements.

It's a little frustrating to compare clock speeds when people aren't using ACTUAL clocks.
02-04-2009, 07:01 PM
Envydia007

Regardless, the 285's are awesome clockers.
02-04-2009, 10:09 PM
NapalmV5

whatever clocks you think youre gonna post biker are gonna be invalid till you share nibitor 4.9 with the rest of us :D
02-04-2009, 10:25 PM
dengyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

whatever clocks you think youre gonna post biker are gonna be invalid till you share nibitor 4.9 with the rest of us :D

+1 :yepp:
02-05-2009, 01:51 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Envydia007

Regardless, the 285's are awesome clockers.

Who are you speaking to? Who said the 285's didn't overclock well? :shrug:
02-05-2009, 06:42 AM
bito

I have found that whilst 3dmark and other benchmarks run relatively easily, including Furmark, actually playing Crysis Warhead will test the card far better.
02-05-2009, 10:09 AM
Brahmzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by bito

I have found that whilst 3dmark and other benchmarks run relatively easily, including Furmark, actually playing Crysis Warhead will test the card far better.

Me too. I always use Crysis Warhead loops to test my overclocks. I'll either get artifacting or black screens from it.
02-05-2009, 11:06 AM
pinto

My two Evga SSC stock cooling 100%:

http://images2.hiboox.com/images/060...e0e8096b79.jpg
02-05-2009, 05:07 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by bito

I have found that whilst 3dmark and other benchmarks run relatively easily, including Furmark, actually playing Crysis Warhead will test the card far better.

It's a lot easier to see artifacts in 3DMARK06 during the forest and canyon tests. Both are also VERY stressful on a video card when run at 1920x1200, 4xAA. You can easily spot artifacts using no more than 3 loops of each test.

After I pass those test, then I move to Crysis Warhead at 1920X1200 and usually I'm pretty close to where I want to be. Artifacts are harder to spot, but crashes are easy using Crysis Warhead.

I use BOTH tests, not just one or the other, they work well together for different overclock testing.
02-06-2009, 01:23 PM
bito

Excellent testing regime Blkout :)
Crysis Warhead will heat up and stress the cards like no other game, including FC2.
02-07-2009, 10:47 AM
G4h4o8s6T

My vanilla eVGA 285 on water..........

771-1620-1476

30min Furmark\Warhead looped 10x

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2579/...rk30minzy5.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3476/...ad10loogu3.jpg
02-07-2009, 06:15 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T

My vanilla eVGA 285 on water..........

771-1620-1476

30min Furmark\Warhead looped 10x

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2579/...rk30minzy5.jpg

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/3476/...ad10loogu3.jpg

Are you using the MCW60 for water cooling?
02-08-2009, 07:32 AM
G4h4o8s6T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Are you using the MCW60 for water cooling?

Yeah, MCW60 + Ram/Mosfet sinks
02-08-2009, 09:53 AM
pinto

Still stock cooling:

http://images2.hiboox.com/images/060...6033ecb46c.jpg
02-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T

Yeah, MCW60 + Ram/Mosfet sinks

Cool, that's what I thought. Your core speed is much higher than mine on stock cooling but your shader and memory speed isn't any better so that's why I was wondering. I'm going with a FC block because I want more memory speed as well, but I'm just waiting to see some reviews from those that have tried them first. I would buy Danger Den without question, but they don't have a block yet.

Got any pics by any chance?
02-08-2009, 04:33 PM
G4h4o8s6T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Cool, that's what I thought. Your core speed is much higher than mine on stock cooling but your shader and memory speed isn't any better so that's why I was wondering. I'm going with a FC block because I want more memory speed as well, but I'm just waiting to see some reviews from those that have tried them first. I would buy Danger Den without question, but they don't have a block yet.

Got any pics by any chance?

The ramsinks on my card dont even get that hot, so not sure if a FC block would help mem clocks too much.

Here are a few pics, but I haven't gotten a chance to do any cable management, so still messy :p:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8625/dscn0178iu0.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8887/p2080005aq2.jpg
02-08-2009, 05:14 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T

The ramsinks on my card dont even get that hot, so not sure if a FC block would help mem clocks too much.

Here are a few pics, but I haven't gotten a chance to do any cable management, so still messy :p:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8625/dscn0178iu0.jpg

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/8887/p2080005aq2.jpg

Cool, thanks. :up:
02-08-2009, 05:19 PM
dengyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Lots of those numbers aren't ACTUAL clock speeds though. Apparently most people don't realize that Nvidia clocks their cards in increments.

For example, I can set the the shader clock to 1638, but actual is only 1620. Once I set the shader clock to 1639, actual clocks become 1656. Same goes for the core clock speed but they move in smaller incremements.

It's a little frustrating to compare clock speeds when people aren't using ACTUAL clocks.

Do you have a chart ?
02-08-2009, 06:11 PM
techguy2k5

Just ordered an XFX vanilla 285, anyone else have one of these? I'll post my results next weekend, but hoping to get an idea what to expect beforehand. Also wondering how CPU-limited I'm going to be with an E8400 @ 4GHz (8x500). Considering an upgrade to a QX because I figure that's the only quad I'd have a chance of hitting 4GHz on air.
02-08-2009, 06:13 PM
Glow9

Rivatuner ickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk EVGA precision all the way
02-08-2009, 06:19 PM
dengyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glow9

Rivatuner ickkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk EVGA precision all the way

They are the same, precision just has a simple gui.
02-09-2009, 06:45 AM
ReverendMaynard

1 Attachment(s)

Vanilla eVga 285, first run.
02-09-2009, 07:02 AM
ewitte

Hmm I have a BFG 285 OC and if I use the OCX settings Crysis Warhead demo blue screens the computer pretty quickly. It even eventually did it at 685/1584/1332 as well but after a much longer time. Running 2k6 at 720/1600/1332 and forced 100% fan did it as well. IDK I don't think I got a good overclocker but am thinking of eventually doing the trade up to the dual GPU card at some time anyway.
02-09-2009, 07:19 AM
CryptiK

Quote:

Originally Posted by techguy2k5

............... Also wondering how CPU-limited I'm going to be with an E8400 @ 4GHz (8x500). Considering an upgrade to a QX because I figure that's the only quad I'd have a chance of hitting 4GHz on air.

You should still score/game quite well, however if you can get it up to 4.2 - 4.3GHz you will see a gain for sure. A quad will only give you a a benefit in 3DM06 and farcry 2 (AFAIK), most things are not optimized for 4 cores, and a higher clocked dual will usually give you better frame rates. Also dont buy a QX, a Q9650 will clock much better (E0 stepping) and easily hit 4GHz, and is also much less expensive.

***********************

This is mine with E8400 @ 4.3GHz

3D Mark 06
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...23v-215vHP.jpg
02-12-2009, 02:01 AM
nickless

Here is my first try with XFX 285 OC. CPU- 24/7-4750MHz, video: 756/1584/1350 - on air.
Mark 06: XP x86 - 20631: http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/672...0631nf8.th.jpg
Now I'm on water already with vmod and I'll make some serious benches ;)
02-12-2009, 01:02 PM
CH33TAH

I am soon stepping up my 280's to 285's. My Core is already pretty solid but I am looking to gain on the shader and RAM.
02-12-2009, 04:36 PM
techguy2k5

Quote:

Originally Posted by CryptiK

You should still score/game quite well, however if you can get it up to 4.2 - 4.3GHz you will see a gain for sure. A quad will only give you a a benefit in 3DM06 and farcry 2 (AFAIK), most things are not optimized for 4 cores, and a higher clocked dual will usually give you better frame rates. Also dont buy a QX, a Q9650 will clock much better (E0 stepping) and easily hit 4GHz, and is also much less expensive.

***********************

This is mine with E8400 @ 4.3GHz

3D Mark 06

Sweet! Thanks for the info, and nice scores.

I'm mostly thinking of going quad because I plan on using this system at least until Westmere (think I'm gonna skip Nehalem) and I don't think my Wolfdale will last me that long, if for no other reason than the insane voltage it requires to hit 4GHz (1.46-1.48 according to OCCT). Also I do a lot of video encoding and the extra cores would help tremendously. I'm thinking of a QX because I don't want to give up any clockspeed and I'm thinking the unlocked multiplier will make it much easier to hit 4GHz on a quad. 8x500 is doable on air on a dual-core but I doubt there are many quads that can handle that... Probably would pick up a used QX at that, definitely not going to pay $1000 for a processor :p
02-13-2009, 03:34 PM
wilson

What do you guys think of the new 182.05 betas? They run alot better for me but i had my 1st nvk error yesterday with them :mad:
02-15-2009, 06:38 PM
Carfax

My GTX 285 is sitting at 756/1656/1455 right now :) I might take it higher later on, but for now, it more than suffices.

It's good to have an Nvidia card again though I must say.....after sending my GTX 260 216 back to EVGA for the step up, I was left with my HD 4870 1GB..

Don't get me wrong, the HD 4870 is a very nice card, but after installing my GTX 285, I can definitely notice the full frame AF, compared to the angle dependent AF of the ATI card..

This cards IQ is extremely good! :up:
02-15-2009, 06:54 PM
chispy

This is my xfx gtx 285xxx on H2O EK Block

it shows 752 core but real clock was 756core.

http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2254/92925950ps9.jpg
By chispy at 2009-02-14
02-16-2009, 10:18 AM
Carfax

I've noticed that most vanilla GTX 285 cards maxes out at 1620 on the shaders, when using stock cooling..

Even though mine runs very cool (doesn't exceed 65c) at 756/1656, it has a tendency to lock up... At 756/1620, it's rock solid stable though..

But when you look at the GTX SSC, it is seemingly capable of running at up to 1700+ shader speed..

It's probably a voltage issue, wherein the SSC is using a a higher Vcore giving it the ability to hit higher clocks.
02-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

I've noticed that most vanilla GTX 285 cards maxes out at 1620 on the shaders, when using stock cooling..

Even though mine runs very cool (doesn't exceed 65c) at 756/1656, it has a tendency to lock up... At 756/1620, it's rock solid stable though..

But when you look at the GTX SSC, it is seemingly capable of running at up to 1700+ shader speed..

It's probably a voltage issue, wherein the SSC is using a a higher Vcore giving it the ability to hit higher clocks.

It's a slight voltage boost on the SSC which can be duplicated very easily if you check out this thread.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=215224
02-16-2009, 12:33 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

It's a slight voltage boost on the SSC which can be duplicated very easily if you check out this thread.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=215224

I've never tried anything like that before.

I think I'll wait until EVGA releases that voltage tuner :up:
02-16-2009, 12:39 PM
billdavis

what is the diffrence in benchmarks for a 280 and 285 with the same clocks
02-16-2009, 01:44 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by billdavis

what is the diffrence in benchmarks for a 280 and 285 with the same clocks

At the same clocks? No differences at all.

But the GTX 285 has a higher core to shader ratio than the GTX 280, and it's based on 55nm tech rather than 65nm, so it's better than the GTX 280.
02-16-2009, 01:46 PM
MisterMagoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

I've never tried anything like that before.

I think I'll wait until EVGA releases that voltage tuner :up:

You will be waiting forever ;)
02-16-2009, 03:02 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by MisterMagoo

You will be waiting forever ;)

What makes you say that?

They've already released it for the GTX 295, 280 and 260 (65nm), so I'm sure they'll eventually update it to include the GTX 285.
02-16-2009, 05:12 PM
G4h4o8s6T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

What makes you say that?

They've already released it for the GTX 295, 280 and 260 (65nm), so I'm sure they'll eventually update it to include the GTX 285.

285s do not have the same voltage controller as the 260/280/295, and it does not support software voltage control.

Heres the detailed info on that........

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...2&postcount=77

I just wanted to update results on my card. 771 core gave artifacts after a good Crysis session, had to drop back down to 756. 1620 shader was giving me black screens every once and a while, had to drop down to 1584. And heres one I wasnt expecting. 1476mem was giving me artifacts while watching movies through WMP, had to drop down to 1404. :down:

Vmod here I come! :p:
02-16-2009, 06:02 PM
jaredpace

Quote:

Originally Posted by CryptiK

You should still score/game quite well, however if you can get it up to 4.2 - 4.3GHz you will see a gain for sure. A quad will only give you a a benefit in 3DM06 and farcry 2 (AFAIK), most things are not optimized for 4 cores, and a higher clocked dual will usually give you better frame rates. Also dont buy a QX, a Q9650 will clock much better (E0 stepping) and easily hit 4GHz, and is also much less expensive.

***********************

This is mine with E8400 @ 4.3GHz

3D Mark 06
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/i...23v-215vHP.jpg

Hey Cryptik, I have a similar system w/ e8400 @ 4300, just wanted to share with you guys.

This is mine with E8400 @ 4.3GHz

3D Mark 06
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/5787/3dmark06dr9.jpg
02-16-2009, 06:59 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T

285s do not have the same voltage controller as the 260/280/295, and it does not support software voltage control.

Heres the detailed info on that........

http://www.xtremesystems.org/Forums/...2&postcount=77

Well this definitely puts a new complexion on the matter.. :D

I guess I'll have to try it too some day... Is there any soldering involved for that mod?
02-17-2009, 01:59 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Well this definitely puts a new complexion on the matter.. :D

I guess I'll have to try it too some day... Is there any soldering involved for that mod?

Please read the thread I posted. It answers your question.
02-17-2009, 04:19 AM
pinto

EVGA SSC watercooled

http://images1.hiboox.com/images/080...91342aeef3.jpg
02-21-2009, 08:54 AM
Celcius

I just joined the gtx 285 club :up:

But my question is, does overclocking the shader do much if anything for the card's performance? Has anyone ran a bench at stock vs only with the shader OC'd?
02-21-2009, 08:58 AM
NapalmV5

core clock is above all else.. always been always will be

ex.

evga: ssc vs ftw

pcb: 4808 vs 5008

cooling: stock vs stock

actual precision clocks: 756/1764/1512 vs 799/1692/1494

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/7699/285dk6.png http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/427/ftwls3.png
02-22-2009, 04:16 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celcius

I just joined the gtx 285 club :up:

But my question is, does overclocking the shader do much if anything for the card's performance? Has anyone ran a bench at stock vs only with the shader OC'd?

Yes, it helps, some people argue it makes the most difference, but I totally disagree, core speed will give more performance clock for clock than shader speed increases as evident by Napalm's post above and any other benchmarks you should choose to run.

However, you do want to concentrate on getting the shader AND core speeds as high as possible before overclocking the memory as it will have less of an effect on performance than the former two.
02-22-2009, 03:09 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

I've noticed that most vanilla GTX 285 cards maxes out at 1620 on the shaders, when using stock cooling..

Even though mine runs very cool (doesn't exceed 65c) at 756/1656, it has a tendency to lock up... At 756/1620, it's rock solid stable though..

But when you look at the GTX SSC, it is seemingly capable of running at up to 1700+ shader speed..

It's probably a voltage issue, wherein the SSC is using a a higher Vcore giving it the ability to hit higher clocks.

You gain very little going from 1620MHz shader speed to 1700MHz, core speed is far more important and makes a much bigger difference. If you don't believe me, run a benchmark increasing only your core speed by 100MHz, then do the same increasing only your shader speed by 100MHz and notice how much more impact core speed has than shader speed.
02-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Blkout

Currently running at 799c/1656s/1485m on water cooling. These are ACTUAL clocks, per Nvidia's step clocking process. Strangely, 3DMARK Vantage pulls heavily on the video card memory during the PhysX test as I can't overlock the memory past 1440Mhz when running this test with PhysX enabled, even though it will pass all other tests in Vantage and any other benchmark, Crysis included at 1485MHz. That being said, I don't think I have any games that really use PhysX much to see if it will fail above 1440MHz in gaming, or if it's just Vantage causing this limitation.
02-22-2009, 03:30 PM
Demo

Going to get a GTX285 very soon, whats the safe temps for these babies to run at 24/7 ?
02-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Going to get a GTX285 very soon, whats the safe temps for these babies to run at 24/7 ?

It won't exceed 85c unless you have terrible cooling in your case. If you leave the fan on auto setting, it will reach 85c under heavy loads as the fans ramps up slowly, however if you set the fan to a manual setting higher than 40%, you can usually keep temps lower than 85c. If you can stand the fan noise, you can set it to 80% and you'll rarely ever exceed 65-70c.
02-22-2009, 04:39 PM
Celcius

I run my fan at 75% and my max load temp is 71C (during crysis).

For some reason my card doesn't like it when I OC the shader. Anyone have an idea of why? Yesterday I played through the entire campaign of COD:WAW plus a little bit of some other games at the clocks in my sig and they're stable but I'm just curious about the shader...
02-22-2009, 04:44 PM
ReverendMaynard

1 Attachment(s)

some final stock cooling clocks.
02-22-2009, 04:51 PM
G4h4o8s6T

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Currently running at 799c/1656s/1485m on water cooling. These are ACTUAL clocks, per Nvidia's step clocking process. Strangely, 3DMARK Vantage pulls heavily on the video card memory during the PhysX test as I can't overlock the memory past 1440Mhz when running this test with PhysX enabled, even though it will pass all other tests in Vantage and any other benchmark, Crysis included at 1485MHz. That being said, I don't think I have any games that really use PhysX much to see if it will fail above 1440MHz in gaming, or if it's just Vantage causing this limitation.

Nice clocks, did you end up getting a FC block, and what are your temps. like? And is that with stock volts, or did you vmod?

So far Im able to do 810c/1836s 15min furmark with 2.28v, but need to do more testing.
02-22-2009, 05:01 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celcius

I run my fan at 75% and my max load temp is 71C (during crysis).

For some reason my card doesn't like it when I OC the shader. Anyone have an idea of why? Yesterday I played through the entire campaign of COD:WAW plus a little bit of some other games at the clocks in my sig and they're stable but I'm just curious about the shader...

Some cards are just shader sensitive.. Although yours seems to be overly so if it won't go past 1476.

A vanilla GTX 285 is usually able to do up to at least 1585 on the shader..

Did you unlink your shader clock?
02-22-2009, 05:02 PM
Zenoth

My vanilla eVGA GTX285 is a poor over-clocker when it comes to its Memory, the Core and Shader frequencies however can be high enough I'd say. But the Memory just refuses to stay stable as soon as I go above 1332Mhz, after which it either locks-up or crashes the system after 10 minutes of FurMark (during which the load temperature reaches 86ºC). So the card is already going hot enough in FurMark, so I decided to stay at my current 702/1512/1332 over-clock which corresponds more or less to the SC edition's speeds. The temps however are probably reaching that high due to the fan speed being at 73%, because I cannot for the love of God sustain the jet-engine-like loudness of the fan past 80% speed, much less at 90%+, at which point it becomes simply immoral and inhuman.
02-22-2009, 05:07 PM
Celcius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Some cards are just shader sensitive.. Although yours seems to be overly so if it won't go past 1476.

A vanilla GTX 285 is usually able to do up to at least 1585 on the shader..

Did you unlink your shader clock?

Yes and I'm using evga precision to OC. The shader might go a little past stock, but the lowest OC I tested was 1500. If it won't even get 1500 then I might as well leave the shader at stock. :shrug:
As long as the core and mem OC then I'm good :up:
02-22-2009, 05:08 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenoth

My vanilla eVGA GTX285 is a poor over-clocker when it comes to its Memory, the Core and Shader frequencies however can be high enough I'd say. But the Memory just refuses to stay stable as soon as I go above 1332Mhz, after which it either locks-up or crashes the system after 10 minutes of FurMark (during which the load temperature reaches 86ºC). So the card is already going hot enough in FurMark, so I decided to stay at my current 702/1512/1332 over-clock which corresponds more or less to the SC edition's speeds. The temps however are probably reaching that high due to the fan speed being at 73%, because I cannot for the love of God sustain the jet-engine-like loudness of the fan past 80% speed, much less at 90%+, at which point it becomes simply immoral and inhuman.

Your load temp is 86c with your fan speed set to 73? :eek:

What kind of case do you have? Those temps are a little high, especially since you have your fan speed set considerably above the default.
02-22-2009, 05:16 PM
Carfax

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celcius

Yes and I'm using evga precision to OC. The shader might go a little past stock, but the lowest OC I tested was 1500. If it won't even get 1500 then I might as well leave the shader at stock. :shrug:
As long as the core and mem OC then I'm good :up:

Yeah apparently the GTX 200 series benefits more from core clock than shader clock..

You could try setting it to 756 though, if you want to squeeze more performance out of it.
02-22-2009, 05:19 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by G4h4o8s6T

Nice clocks, did you end up getting a FC block, and what are your temps. like? And is that with stock volts, or did you vmod?

So far Im able to do 810c/1836s 15min furmark with 2.28v, but need to do more testing.

I went with the EK block against my better judgment but it's actually turned out to be a good block from a performance standpoint. I did have an issue with the factory O-ring gasket being pinched and leaking water when I started it up for the first time, but Eddy at EK was very responsive and apologetic and is sending me another O-ring gasket. In the meantime, I used silicone RTV sealent to create a new gasket and seal it up. It's been working fine since Friday.

At idle, GPU is 35c, memory is 29c according to Everest 5.0. GPU is 43c during the OCCT GPU test. Stock voltage, no other mods.

My waterloop consists of a Wolfldale E8400 @ 4.1GHz and of course the GTX 285, swiftech dual rad, nothing special or fancy.
02-22-2009, 11:19 PM
Demo

Wow 765 sounds pretty high on stock cooling and volts
02-23-2009, 12:31 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Wow 765 sounds pretty high on stock cooling and volts

Many of the 285's are getting somewhere around this range on stock cooling and voltage, especially the eVGA's.
02-23-2009, 01:45 AM
Demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Many of the 285's are getting somewhere around this range on stock cooling and voltage, especially the eVGA's.

I see, my retailer informed me that ill be getting my GTX285 tom afternoon or wed morning, whats safe max voltage for VGPU/MEM for 24/7 air cooling ?
02-23-2009, 03:34 AM
firas

I thought I can softmod the volt as mentioned here, but seems that hardmod (mentioned here and here)is the only way to do it

Quote:

Originally Posted by babalouj

GTX285 does not support software voltage manipulation. Its voltage controller does not have an I2C or serial interface allowing programs to control it. The only way to adjust the voltage is by doing a hard mod using a resistor/variable resistor or bridging VID connections. Only video cards with volterra VT11XX voltage controllers can use the rivatuner/EVGA tool to adjust voltage.

true?

btw, idles at around 53, 77@load (fan@40%), and reached 88 in about 1 minute before I immediately close that furmark thing (fan@100%)

http://s5.tinypic.com/33k3h48.jpg
02-23-2009, 05:37 AM
Demo

@firas

Thanks for the heads up, gonna prepare my conductive ink then.

But best way to know is to try, i believe nothing will go wrong.
02-23-2009, 06:52 AM
deathman20

Got this with my i7 920 @ 3.8Ghz in Vantage Performance
P16617 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dmv=823502

756/1620/1404

This seems to be the max I can top at. I know my shaders are maxed well unless my core clock is running 702 then I can bump it to 1656, the core is nearly maxed and not sure I want to push it the next notch up, and memory unsure if its maxed or not but with the minimal benefit to even OCing it more I doubt I'll do it, its fast as is.

Wish there was software voltage control. Want more speed :) Temp wise 65% fan speed, with 68C in Warhead, 66C in 3D Vantage.
02-23-2009, 07:29 AM
Demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by deathman20

Wish there was software voltage control. Want more speed :) Temp wise 65% fan speed, with 68C in Warhead, 66C in 3D Vantage.

Theres a patched evga tuner that is supposed to work on all cards, maybe you can try that?
02-23-2009, 07:35 AM
deathman20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Theres a patched evga tuner that is supposed to work on all cards, maybe you can try that?

The patched version that I've see is the one that allows increased voltage tuning. Other then that I haven't seen one. If there is im sure people would love to know where to get it.
02-23-2009, 10:49 AM
veedubfreak

I'm able to run 756 core and 1400 memory. Havent been able to get anything past that without crashing. Waiting for the voltage tuner. 45c load temps on water across all 3 cards.
02-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Demo

So both the EVGA and Rivatuner methods dont work with these new GTX285's ?
02-23-2009, 12:51 PM
LexDiamonds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

So both the EVGA and Rivatuner methods dont work with these new GTX285's ?

Correct. As has been noted in multiple threads, the 285 uses a different (cheaper) voltage regulator that doesnt allow volt stepping ala the 65nm 260s and 280s. EVGAs tools are based directly off of Rivatuner...

Napalm has a excellent thread on 285 hardmods....
02-23-2009, 05:34 PM
Zenoth

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carfax

Your load temp is 86c with your fan speed set to 73? :eek:

What kind of case do you have? Those temps are a little high, especially since you have your fan speed set considerably above the default.

It's reaching 86ºC in FurMark only, or with the latest OCCT 3.0.0's GPU stress test, but there's none of my games able to make my GTX285 that hot. It's the same with CPU's, no games out there will make a CPU work and get hot as much as Prime95 or Orthos at Priority 10 could do.

So yeah, my GTX285 at load in Crysis for example (1280x960, 4xMSAA and 16xAF) will reach around 75ºC. I still base my maximum over-clocks based on the stability and heat I get from FurMark or other GPU synthetic benchmarks or stability tests however, since no games out there can stress a GPU as much as FurMark can, so the best GPU test for stability isn't gaming, at least not in my book, as much as the best stability test for a CPU isn't just playing Crysis or UTIII for even a full day non-stop.
02-23-2009, 08:09 PM
Demo

Ive been wondering what an artifact in furmark looks like,, the same old torn textures / yellow blinking dots?
02-25-2009, 12:20 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Ive been wondering what an artifact in furmark looks like,, the same old torn textures / yellow blinking dots?

Pretty much, blinking colored dots is one sure sign. But really anything that just doesn't look normal. Run Furmark at default speeds and get an idea of what it's supposed to look like, then OC and do the same. If anything looks unusual, it's an artifact.
02-25-2009, 07:47 PM
GAR

one game that stresses this GPU alot is Shellshock 2, my crysis overclock was not stable in this game, so if you think you have a stable overclock, you might wanna run this game to confirm.
02-25-2009, 11:04 PM
Demo

Did some little overclocking, seems like my vanilla 285 can run at the same speed with EVGA's SSC ( so i guess the SSC's arnt binned chips after all )
02-26-2009, 09:04 AM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Did some little overclocking, seems like my vanilla 285 can run at the same speed with EVGA's SSC ( so i guess the SSC's arnt binned chips after all )

Yep, as stated in the mod thread though, the SSC does have slightly more voltage but it doesn't seem to make much difference as the vanilla's are clocking almost as well. I do however think that eVGA is getting a better batch of chips though as they seem to overclock better than the other manufacturers based on OC data I've seen so far from various forums.
03-02-2009, 12:22 AM
Demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Yep, as stated in the mod thread though, the SSC does have slightly more voltage but it doesn't seem to make much difference as the vanilla's are clocking almost as well. I do however think that eVGA is getting a better batch of chips though as they seem to overclock better than the other manufacturers based on OC data I've seen so far from various forums.

Must be from that higher stock voltages that they are putting in default.
03-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Blkout

Quote:

Originally Posted by Demo

Must be from that higher stock voltages that they are putting in default.

Well, you're the only one reporting lower voltages with your Palit brand so I don't think that's it as eVGA's still seem to be overclocking better than the other brands. I've seen XFX's and BFG's that don't overclock as well as the average eVGA card.
03-02-2009, 01:36 PM
Demo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blkout

Well, you're the only one reporting lower voltages with your Palit brand so I don't think that's it as eVGA's still seem to be overclocking better than the other brands. I've seen XFX's and BFG's that don't overclock as well as the average eVGA card.

NaplamV5 also has 1.13-1.14 on his regular GTX285 as posted on the other thread.

So i guess the reference default is 1.13-1.14 and not 1.15 -1.16 since in my getting those.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NapalmV5

yeh 1.13-14 should at least be the bootup voltage.. my amp 285 had the same 1.13-14 @ bootup before any mods

try diff mobo/psu

hard to believe 1.20 offered nothing over 1.13-14.. but the vid bridging should and it does raise vgpu to 1.26-28.. it did on my amp
03-03-2009, 08:36 PM
Demo

720/1566/1350 and im getting 91c under Furmark in this blazing 35c afternoon!

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:08 AM.

XtremeSystems