Solved

Over clocked gpus bad results need help please (970)

I recently overclocked both of my zotac 970s (im running sli) and the scores in fire strike extreme seem really really bad in comparison to other scores, any ideas as to why?

score: http://i.gyazo.com/c437005f999b6f3fd071b870ac58a330.png
reported gpu and cpu specs: http://i.gyazo.com/79c9ad7157b793f6ec096eac36a7bd75.png
overclock results: http://i.gyazo.com/6175316fe53c31944c40494bc36a3b3a.png

pc specs:
Zotac gtx 970 x2 gpu
AMD FX 9590 cpu
16gb hyperX fury blue ram
990fxa-ud3 mobo
corsair cs750m 80+ gold psu
8 answers Last reply Best Answer
More about clocked gpus bad results 970
  1. Best answer
    Are those other scores that seem to be better also using the 9590 CPU or are they using a Intel Extreme? That could account for the difference.
  2. cub_fanatic said:
    Are those other scores that seem to be better also using the 9590 CPU or are they using a Intel Extreme? That could account for the difference.


    they're also using the amd 9590, what seems weird is that my maximum turbo clock is only 1.4ghz when it's a 5ghz processor,

    I checked the results of a few people and they seem to be getting both higher gpu and cpu scores
  3. If the turbo clock is actually negative, it could be a motherboard BIOS issue. Is the BIOS updated to the latest version? Also, you might want to disable any power saving feature (look for "cool n quiet in the settings) that would bring the CPU clock speed down during benchmarking. Another thing that could account for the other people's higher scores is overclocking of both the CPU and GPU. If they are using custom liquid cooling to push the 970s and 9590 even higher than the stock overclock speeds, for example.
  4. cub_fanatic said:
    If the turbo clock is actually negative, it could be a motherboard BIOS issue. Is the BIOS updated to the latest version? Also, you might want to disable any power saving feature (look for "cool n quiet in the settings) that would bring the CPU clock speed down during benchmarking. Another thing that could account for the other people's higher scores is overclocking of both the CPU and GPU. If they are using custom liquid cooling to push the 970s and 9590 even higher than the stock overclock speeds, for example.


    Sorry for the late reply, but I turned off c'n'q in the bios and now the turbo clock is equal to the stock clock, so it's not negative but it's not positive either, could there be anything stopping my cpu from reaching the 5gz turbo?
  5. Dalton Stamp said:
    cub_fanatic said:
    If the turbo clock is actually negative, it could be a motherboard BIOS issue. Is the BIOS updated to the latest version? Also, you might want to disable any power saving feature (look for "cool n quiet in the settings) that would bring the CPU clock speed down during benchmarking. Another thing that could account for the other people's higher scores is overclocking of both the CPU and GPU. If they are using custom liquid cooling to push the 970s and 9590 even higher than the stock overclock speeds, for example.


    Sorry for the late reply, but I turned off c'n'q in the bios and now the turbo clock is equal to the stock clock, so it's not negative but it's not positive either, could there be anything stopping my cpu from reaching the 5gz turbo?


    It could be your motherboard, your power supply, your CPU cooler or you got unlucky with that CPU.

    The motherboard might not support that high TDP CPU (220 watts). According to the specs of the 990FXA-UD3, it only supports up to a 140 watt processor. Even though the 9590 is an FX chip and works in that board, it can't max out. Technically, the 9590 is just an out of the box overclocked FX 8300 series chip and many people have trouble getting it to its stock rated clock using low end heat sinks. It could be that your motherboard is simply a poor overclocker (since running this chip stock on a 140 watt board is technically overclocking).

    It could be the power supply. You already have 2 pretty power hungry GPUs running on a 750 watt PSU. The 9590 consumes quite a bit of power under load and trying to push the turbo clock to 5 GHz, despite it being the stock turbo clock, could be maxing out your 12v rail.

    It could be that your CPU cooler can sufficiently cool the CPU under non-turbo clocks but it can't when it tries to ramp it up to 5 GHz so it drops it all the way down to 1.4 GHz for whatever reason.

    It could simply be that you got a CPU that isn't as good as most of the other 9590s. Not all CPUs perform the same and you might have gotten one that works fine but has slightly worse trouble staying cool.

    It is hard to rule all of these out and be certain which is the true issue. One thing I would suggest is to remove at least one of the GTX 970s and see if the turbo clock can hit 5 GHz. Another thing is to maybe try a bigger PSU if you have access to one but removing a GPU should rule that issue out. Next, maybe try a better CPU cooler if you have access to one. If not, turn your AC down or open a window if you live up north and see if that makes a difference. As for the motherboard wattage issue, the only way to rule that out is to use a FX 9xxx series approved board that specifically states it can handle 220 watt TDP CPUs.
  6. cub_fanatic said:
    Dalton Stamp said:
    cub_fanatic said:
    If the turbo clock is actually negative, it could be a motherboard BIOS issue. Is the BIOS updated to the latest version? Also, you might want to disable any power saving feature (look for "cool n quiet in the settings) that would bring the CPU clock speed down during benchmarking. Another thing that could account for the other people's higher scores is overclocking of both the CPU and GPU. If they are using custom liquid cooling to push the 970s and 9590 even higher than the stock overclock speeds, for example.


    Sorry for the late reply, but I turned off c'n'q in the bios and now the turbo clock is equal to the stock clock, so it's not negative but it's not positive either, could there be anything stopping my cpu from reaching the 5gz turbo?


    It could be your motherboard, your power supply, your CPU cooler or you got unlucky with that CPU.

    The motherboard might not support that high TDP CPU (220 watts). According to the specs of the 990FXA-UD3, it only supports up to a 140 watt processor. Even though the 9590 is an FX chip and works in that board, it can't max out. Technically, the 9590 is just an out of the box overclocked FX 8300 series chip and many people have trouble getting it to its stock rated clock using low end heat sinks. It could be that your motherboard is simply a poor overclocker (since running this chip stock on a 140 watt board is technically overclocking).

    It could be the power supply. You already have 2 pretty power hungry GPUs running on a 750 watt PSU. The 9590 consumes quite a bit of power under load and trying to push the turbo clock to 5 GHz, despite it being the stock turbo clock, could be maxing out your 12v rail.

    It could be that your CPU cooler can sufficiently cool the CPU under non-turbo clocks but it can't when it tries to ramp it up to 5 GHz so it drops it all the way down to 1.4 GHz for whatever reason.

    It could simply be that you got a CPU that isn't as good as most of the other 9590s. Not all CPUs perform the same and you might have gotten one that works fine but has slightly worse trouble staying cool.

    It is hard to rule all of these out and be certain which is the true issue. One thing I would suggest is to remove at least one of the GTX 970s and see if the turbo clock can hit 5 GHz. Another thing is to maybe try a bigger PSU if you have access to one but removing a GPU should rule that issue out. Next, maybe try a better CPU cooler if you have access to one. If not, turn your AC down or open a window if you live up north and see if that makes a difference. As for the motherboard wattage issue, the only way to rule that out is to use a FX 9xxx series approved board that specifically states it can handle 220 watt TDP CPUs.


    I think it's a voltage issue, I went into AMD overdrive and I could get the voltage any higher than 1.550 volts when trying to oc to 5ghz, so that would back up the mobo being the problem

    About the cooler, the temps are at the high 40's while under load which isn't as hot as I'd thought it would of been (i'm using a h80i liquid cooler)

    if it is the mobo would it possibly be worth going back to the 8350 and ocing to 5+ ghz or do you think it'd be better with a new mobo?

    If it'd be better with a new mobo, what motherboard would you recommend and would i need a new installation of windows? (last time i tried using the same harddrive with my old mobo on a new mobo it didn't work)
  7. Did you try running the benchmark with only one GPU to see if it turboed properly to 5 GHz? Not being able to pump more power into the CPU might not be a motherboard issue...

    40c under load? Sounds like cooling is not an issue at all.

    Apparently, the 990fxa-ud3 *REV. 4 does fully support the FX-9xxx series chips but if yours is anything below this, it doesn't. (http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4672) So, if you don't have the rev. 4 PCB, then that would be a good board to get. Another good one is the Asus Sabertooth 990FX R 2.0. I'm not sure what Gigabyte and Asus changed in these new revisions of these boards but if I had to guess, they probably beefed up the VRMs and maybe the VRM heat sinks.

    If you have the rev. 4 board, swapping in an 8350 and OC'ing it to 5 GHz would essentially be the same as running the 9590 stock. The 9590 should have better thermals, though, since it is rated for a higher TDP and OC'd out of the box. But, if you have a rev. 1, 2 or 3, the 8350 will probably run better with a mild OC. I don't know if you will get 5 GHz stable with an H80i, but at least try to match the 9590 at 4.7 GHz.
  8. cub_fanatic said:
    Did you try running the benchmark with only one GPU to see if it turboed properly to 5 GHz? Not being able to pump more power into the CPU might not be a motherboard issue...

    40c under load? Sounds like cooling is not an issue at all.

    Apparently, the 990fxa-ud3 *REV. 4 does fully support the FX-9xxx series chips but if yours is anything below this, it doesn't. (http://www.gigabyte.com/support-downloads/cpu-support-popup.aspx?pid=4672) So, if you don't have the rev. 4 PCB, then that would be a good board to get. Another good one is the Asus Sabertooth 990FX R 2.0. I'm not sure what Gigabyte and Asus changed in these new revisions of these boards but if I had to guess, they probably beefed up the VRMs and maybe the VRM heat sinks.

    If you have the rev. 4 board, swapping in an 8350 and OC'ing it to 5 GHz would essentially be the same as running the 9590 stock. The 9590 should have better thermals, though, since it is rated for a higher TDP and OC'd out of the box. But, if you have a rev. 1, 2 or 3, the 8350 will probably run better with a mild OC. I don't know if you will get 5 GHz stable with an H80i, but at least try to match the 9590 at 4.7 GHz.


    Yeah I tried before I had 2 gtx 970's and i had the same issue, I already have the rev 4.0 edition of the 990fxa-ud3 however it seems like the max cpu watt on the 990fxa-ud3 is 140 watts, which is able to keep the 9590 at 4.7ghz fine (sometimes, it may be around 4.5 ghz) but doesn't allow for the extra voltage needed to achieve 5ghz
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking GPUs Zotac CPUs SLI