(g51vx-rx05) Question about overclocking and GPU temp

If I set my gpu to 507/799/1267 then ran a furmark benchmark and the max gpu temp was 90c, do I need to back it down? Or is 90 ok? I haven't looked at undervolting yet either and my cpu is overclocked at 2.4

 

Also, I tried undervolting my CPU to 1.113v but when I ran the load test I blue screened.

But here is the weird part, when my system came back up, everything was reset, the voltage was back to 1.250 and the GPU was back to 500/799/1250, which I expected. But my CPU was still OC'ed to 2.4. I thought after a reboot it goes back to 2.0?

Am I mistaken?

 

What are you using to OC with - SetFSB?

Most voltage control software like RMClock doesn't touch the cpu clockspeed part of things on restart (it just resets the chip voltages), but those OCers here can offer better informed opinions.

 

I'm using SetFSB. I just rebooted cleanly and opened up cpuz which showed 2.4 again.

 

The CPU stays OC'd if your computer shuts down too quickly, for instance, when you blue screened. Just restart the computer normally and the OC will not load.

 

Your CPU overclock is too high. When your system blue screened, it set everything back to stock clocks. Either bring the CPU speed down or increase the voltage until it goes stable again.

The GPU clocks are going to always be set back to factory defaults unless you set a rule up in nTools or have your GPU boot to those clocks at start.

Here's Tev's guide to overclocking the G51 (and most other Asus computers). I'd use that.

Edit: By the way, 90C is perfectly acceptable. At my clocks (slightly higher than a GTX260M should be) FurMark at 1366x768, 8xMSAA, and post processing enabled drives my GPU temps up to 94C on average. Normal gameplay see around 87C. 95C is more or less the point at which myself (and Soviet) will say to stop a test. That doesn't necessarily mean you should decrease your clocks, as FurMark pushes your GPU far passed what even Crysis would do.

 

The GPU temps are fine.

You're going to have to choose between overclocking more or undervolting more. You can probably have the CPU stay at 1.113v if you overclocked less but if you want to keep the 2.4Ghz, raise the voltage.

 

I've been using your guide, and I was aiming for your stats, but I just realized that I went to 2.4 (past your 2.3) without accounting for it during the unvolting.

I'll try again, thanks.

 

Yeah, it looks like you got stuck with the same kind of P7350 Tev did, sorry for your loss.

 

Oh and on a side note Tev's GPU clocks are after he undervolted his GPU. YOu could go higher than those and sacrifice GPU temps for performance.

 

I have the CPU set to 2.4 and 1.125.

I have the GPU set at 507/799/1267

Attached are the test results from both orthos and furmark.

 

The CPU seems fine overclocked and undervolted to that point.

You could really overclock your GPU a bit more without any problems.

 

Your clocks are stable. You might be able to squeeze and extra .1 GHz if you go back to stock CPU voltage, bu at the cost of some extra heat.

You can safely increase you GPU clocks a bit more if you're looking for even more performance.

 

Tev, we need to start taking turns.

 

When you guys say I can safely increase my GPU clocks do you mean all 3 (core/mem/shader) or just the core and shader? How many ticks do you think I should go up in between testing?

Also, I didn't bother with undervolting the GPU because it looks like a pain, so I don't want the heat to get out of control on the GPU.

 

We mean that you can more than likely safely overclock everything.

Myself, I'm little impatient. I went from the standard clocks on the 260M in the G51, then to Tev's overclocks before his undervolt, then straight to Forge's, which were much higher. It was probably a minimum jump 50MHz or more for the memory, and close to 200MHz on the core speed.

If you're a little leery at jumping that fast, just increase each clock by 10MHz at a time.

 

I bumped the GPU up to Rez's speeds (605/950/1450) and ran Orthos and furmark at the same time. The CPU's are cool as can be and the only time the GPU hit 90c was during the furmark benchmark. Attached is the test result.

 

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.

Don't run them both, dude.

But your temps are fine. Your PU temps are slightly lower than mine, but I push FurMark further and use the DOX drivers.

All in all, you look stable. Good job.

 

I'm not trying to freak you out on running them both, by the way. I just consider it on par with running two virus scans at the same time or encoding video while defragging.

I just don't like the idea of running two programs that stress your system to that level at the same time. I may be wrong, but that's how I see it.

 

Oh, I understand. I thought one stressed your CPU and the other your GPU, so I figured it would be ok.

BTW - What are you guys getting for the windows index rating? Out of the box I think the G51 got a 5.0. When I installed windows 7 that jumped up to a 5.5 and since making the changes today it's now at 5.9.

 

The WEI score is based on the lowest value of all of your system parts.

The CPU, the P7350, is the lowest individual WEI subscore so if you've overclocked it, the score will rise

 

My WEI score, at the clocks in my sig, is:

Processor, 6.1
RAM, 6.8
Graphics, 5.9
Gaming Graphics, 5.9
Hard Disk, 5.9

I don't quite understand why the GPU score is so low, but meh.

 

Just to chime in, a good overclock that gives me good framerates in Crysis (which means super awesome framerates in everything else) is 580/1450/900. Also, my heat isn't bad at all.

I'm tending to keep my memory clocks low in comparison to the other two, since I'm taking Soviet's advice that upping the memory clock increases heat for a minimum gain.


And speaking of clocks, Rezigrene, try a setting of 605/1512/950. From the standard clocks, core/shader/memory ratio should be 1/2.5/1.6. (Like I said, don't worry about the memory in the ratio, though).

 

Stability isn't as greatly affected by core/memory ratio as core/shader ratio. Also, the standard way of referring to core/memory is to use memory as the base and the core/shader as the linked independant. For example, 600/1500/900 would be referred to as a 0.666, or 2/3, core/memory ratio.

Stability concerning memory is entirely dependant on itself. If the GPU is artifacting, then the memory is too high at the given voltage, or the core/shader is too low in proportion to the memory. However, it is only in the extreme case where the core/shader would be too low as all G92's can operate anywhere from 0.55 to 0.75 or wider providing that the power bus can supply enough current to the GPU.

 

Processor 6.0
Memory (RAM) 6.6
Graphics 5.9
Gaming graphics 5.9
Primary hard disk 5.9


I picked up Wolfenstein on the way home so I can can try out the new overclocked sweetness that is my laptop.

 

My lowest score is also 5.9 from the hard drive.

 

I think you can only go past 5.9 in WEI with SSDs or perhaps RAID 0

 

Bumped them up to 605/950/1512.

Those clocks are already higher than the GTX280M clocks (except for the memory). I think I'll up the memory speed to 990 (sound safe?) and run a FurCube/3DMark benchmark. I'll post the temps and all afterword. GTX280M clocks are... as high as I think I'll go.

 

It's safe in the sense that you won't blow something up. I wouldn't recommend it, at least for anything other than a quick 3DMark trial. A higher memory clock increases heat significantly with minimal gains.

 

Yeah, true. 605/950/1512 it is.

 

I played both wolfenstein and world of warcraft for while and everything was smooth. Temps never got very high so I might try and push it further.

 

I bumped everything up to CPU: 2469 1.175v, GPU: 605/1512/950 and orthos has been running for about 5 minutes now and nothing has gone past 67c.

I might try 2.5 again.

Edit: I should also say that I'm using a cheap $25 belkin laptop cooler, but my testing showed that to only count for about 2 degree difference.

 

Orthos isn't going to stress your GPU.

Run FurCube until the temperature graph levels off.

 

It leveled off at 91c using furmark. I tried 2.5 again and orthos got an error after about 11 minutes.

Edit: I let furmark run longer, it got to 98c and then started dropped to about 96c.

 

This is the best I could do:

2457 MHz / 1.188v
605/1512/950

 

That's a healthy overclock, spikesnet. Now drop your memory back to 900MHz and crank the core/shader now.

 

I know you have a different card, but what was your highest overclock, Soviet?

 

That's classified. KGB (Klevo Gaming Brigade) only. But I will tell you this. I secretly hold the record for the highest 3DMark'06 score for a mobile CPU/single GPU setup.

 

Probably greater than 10%, then.

And your cooling was perfectly fine with it?

 

KGB is dead, now they have the FSB (not front side bus either).

 

Much greater than 10%, my friend. My system was packing quite a wallop because my maximum temperature ceiling for the CPU and GPU was greatly reduced due to the very high overclock. I had to remove my backpanel and force air from my condo's air conditioning to the CPU and GPU so that they can stay within stable operating temperatures. My QX9300 was multiplier and FSB overclocked up the ying yang, and my GTX 280M was pushed to insane clocks under non-native voltages. That is a day I will never forget.

If the Alienware guys disabled their second GPU on their M17x and come down to my level, they would lose miserably. The same goes for the guys in the Clevo forum. But why do I stay in the shadows and not brag about it like the guys in the Alienware forum? Because I'm a humble and modest man that doesn't want to be at the top of the mountain. I don't want to be that person. I would turn into a benchmark zombie if I chose to walk down that path. I just want to be that friendly (not so friendly) middleman that everybody enjoys being around and sharing tech help with.

The KGB will never die as long as I live.

 

Ah-hah. So it is mortal.

How did you multiplier overclock? I noticed you can go higher in Crystal CPUID, but when I open CPU-Z to take a look I don't have a higher multiplier.

 

My BIOS allows me to push my QX9300 to 11x, or 2.93GHz. Clevo has locked out the higher multipliers because of obvious power contraints; my notebook only has a 120W power supply. I think you can guess what happens after that.

Also, I benched my notebook when my cooling overhaul was partially complete, and I wasn't as familiar with my notebook at the time. If I were to do it again, I would most likely beat my own score.

 

Ah, so a BIOS overclock.

But even with cooling there is only so much you can overclock, right? I know heat is the biggest enemy in overclocking, but you still have limits in the sense that hardware simply cannot operate at a higher clock.

 

Yes, that is true. There is a hardware limit to overclocking. I pushed my CPU to that limit under the best (improvised) cooling immediately available to me.

 

So, you didn't think you hit your hardware limit. Damn.

 

Haha....Soviet you should just connect a bigger PSU to your laptop and while you're at it, throw in a water cooling kit......its still called a laptop as long as its physically possible to carry it right?

 

I'm not that insane, haha. I'm happy with my system the way it is now. I wouldn't ever put it through the rigors of that day ever again. I would have fallen to the dark side if I pressed the benchmark button one more time.

 

Well, you should still benchmark.

But instead of revealing your score, just tell us your temperatures.

 

Hey, In-game L4D and Crysis (warhead) today i was getting these intense triangulated shapes as i moved around.. GPU was freaking out. I have artifacting going on on my desktop and internet as well now..

anyone know what's up?