Overclocking MSI 7950 TF3... (xpost from Benchmarking Activity)

[totalanonymity]

I have a post over on Reddit, too, but it seems no one's on currently and was hoping maybe you guys would be alive here. I just realized there was a specific forum for AMD GPUs and thought it'd be better to it here. "xpost" no longer active; has since been deleted.

This is my first time overclocking anything, so!
Just read from my purchase on Newegg that the core clock is 880 MHz. When I opened Afterburner, I'm pretty sure it was at 850 to start.

i5-3570K @ stock

MSI 7950 TF3 @ stock

• 3DMark11 Score: P7923 (Composition: Graphics: 8276, Physics: 7214, Combined: 6763)

Tried overclocking 7950 using Afterburner

+20% power, 1000/1575

• Doing this, tried to run 3DMark 11. It loads up, then I go back to desktop with a blown up screen (think, using magnifier on the screen), but it is still running in task manager and CPU/GPU are being used. I can't click on any windows or anything, as if I'm still in the program, just not seeing their little visual demo they use. Should I just let it run anyway?

950/1500

• Same results as above

+0% and 850/1250

• Runs perfectly and normally

+20% and 900/1350

• Success! New 3DMark11 Score: P8782 (Composition; Graphics: 9751, Physics: 6938, Combined: 6522)
• Max temperature: 53-54 C (varies between the two depending on temperature monitoring program used)

Should I be worried about the lowered physics (and thus combined) score(s)?

+20% and 950/1400

• Same problem as above

Ran Furmark @ 900/1350

• Score: 3600

+20% and 900/1350

• Turns out it isn't stable
• Mouse disappearing on screen
• Lockup when loading up GPU-Z
• Display lost signal, computer was still running, required illegal shutdown

Now... I'm confused...

+20%, but 850/1250 (stock)

• 3DMark11 Score: P9962 (Composition; Graphics: 11724, Physics: 6994, Combined: 6685)

+20% and 875/1275

• Run 1: 3DMark11 Score: P10081 (Composition; Graphics: 11942, Physics: 7002, Combined: 6682); Max temperature: 55 C
• Run 2: 3DMark11 Score: 10073 (Composition; Graphics: 11945, Physics: 6987, Combined: 6659); Max temperature: 55 C

Quite the jump for such a small increase. Hm...

I hit "Reset" in Afterburner and it turns out stock speeds are 880/1250. So, underclocking the core by 5 MHz and overclocking the memory clock by 25 MHz gave me an increase in score of about 2000?! That sounds ridiculous!

+0% and 890/1290 (had reset to default, forgot to put +20%!)

• 3DMark11 Score: P10198 (Composition; Graphics: 12147, Physics: 7026, Combined: 6686); Max Temperature: 55-56 C (depending on temperature monitoring program used)

+20% and 895/1295

• 3DMark11 Score: P10229 (Composition; Graphics: 12199, Physics: 7042, Combined: 6679); Max temperature: 55-56 C (depending on temperature monitoring program used)
• Furmark Score: 3600 (Benchmark Preset: 720; AA: Off); Max temperature: 54 C
• Furmark (1080p) Score: 2813(Benchmark Preset: 1080; AA: Off); Max temperature: 58 C
• Furmark (User-Defined) Score: 2725 (1280x720; AA: 2x); FPS: 45; Max temperature: 58 C
• Furmark (User-Defined) Score: 1397 (1280x720; AA: 4x); FPS: 23; Max temperature: 59 C
• Furmark (User-Defined) Score: 612 (1280x720; AA: 8x); FPS: 11; Max temperature: 59 C

+20% and 900/1300

• 3DMark11 Score: P10273 (Composition; Graphics: 12270, Physics: 7026, Combined: 6726); Max temperature: 56 C

+20% and 950/1350

• ERROR: Unable to run test; shows error (hastily clicked out and didn't write down)

+20% and 925/1325

• ERROR: Unable to run test [see error here:

  https://imgur.com/aRQmb

  (1)]

+20% and 925/1300

• ERROR: Unable to run test fully [see error

  https://imgur.com/7egLD

  (2)]

+20% and 920/1300

• ERROR: Unable to run test fully (same as error "1")

+20% and 915/1300

• ERROR: Unable to run test fully; "application lost exclusive access"

+20% and 900/1300

• 3DMark11 Score: P10279 (Composition; Graphics: 12302, Physics: 7012, Combined: 6702); Max temperature: 51 C

It seems that 900/1300 is a good stable point for me. With the errors occurring at a core clock as close as 915, it may be best to not try for 901-914 at this point.

Inquiry: I do wonder, though, even with all cards being uniquely different in terms of overclocking potential: How is it that I am so far what most can do without any voltage tweaking (e.g. 1050/1550)? I can only really go 20 MHz past my card's stock core clocks, which seems ridiculously low. Further, though, it also seems weird that even though I can barely push my clock speeds (core/memory) any great length past stock, I obtain scores far higher than shown in guides regarding this card when they would overclock it to 1000+ MHz core/1500+ memory and with voltage increases as well.

It seems I jumped the gun...

ERROR! ERROR! ERROR!

• Fired up a game of BF3 while running 900/1300. A few minutes in, crashed. [expletive].

Fixed issue by going down to 890/1275. Played BF3 for 30 minutes on "Ultra" with a slight increase in FPS from stock settings (from 40, give or take a few -> 50, give or take a few). Can I really not overclock this card?! Only 10/25 more than stock speeds... there's gotta be something wrong.

 

[ninjacore]

You might just have a low clocking card. In my experience, cards which come factory OC'ed have much less headroom for additional OC.

If it's not stable at the max voltage, it's not stable. It's a bummer, but 50 FPS is nothing to complain about

 

[totalanonymity]

You might just have a low clocking card. In my experience, cards which come factory OC'ed have much less headroom for additional OC.

If it's not stable at the max voltage, it's not stable. It's a bummer, but 50 FPS is nothing to complain about

It's definitely a bummer when the card was recommended and hailed on sites as being a "beast for overclocking" and I'm not seeing this beast awaken much at all. Granted, my scores are higher with lower overclocks than those who overclock it far more + increase voltage. I haven't messed with the voltage at all; maybe that will allow me to increase it a bit more. Also, more of a bummer when the card is advertised with all this "overclocking" marketing on it and you only can overclock it the tiniest bit. (10 MHz is absolutely nothing to me.)

Also, 50 FPS is nothing to complain about, sure, but as most can surely relate to: I want more!

 

[ninjacore]

I hear ya. 10Mhz is indeed highly disappointing. You didn't accidentally tick the box for some strange kind of thermal throttling, did you?

MSI 7950 TF3 @ stock
3DMark11 Score: P7923 (Composition: Graphics: 8276, Physics: 7214, Combined: 6763)

+20%, but 850/1250 (stock)
3DMark11 Score: P9962 (Composition; Graphics: 11724, Physics: 6994, Combined: 6685)

That part is especially strange to me. It almost seems like it is not getting the volts to run at stock speeds, so it's downclocking?

Might be worth an inquiry to newegg/MSI.

 

[totalanonymity]

I hear ya. 10Mhz is indeed highly disappointing. You didn't accidentally tick the box for some strange kind of thermal throttling, did you?

[redacted]

That part is especially strange to me. It almost seems like it is not getting the volts to run at stock speeds, so it's downclocking?

Might be worth an inquiry to newegg/MSI.

I wouldn't even know if there were a box for some kind of thermal throttling or what that would mean. I'm quite new to this!

I don't know. It always says the max at stock it runs at is the correct clock speeds. Yet, adding that +20% power really made it jump. Also, I mistakenly believed that 850 was stock for my card. It's actually 880. Very odd that setting the clock lower than stock and increasing power made the score jump 2000.

 

[ninjacore]

Also, I mistakenly believed that 850 was stock for my card. It's actually 880. Very odd that setting the clock lower than stock and increasing power made the score jump 2000.

There's really no explanation for this other than that it wasn't running at 880.

Have you updated your drivers to latest?

The thermal throttling probably isn't the issue as the temp samples you gave were pretty low, but I know that sometimes you can decrease the temp at which speeds do throttle down and if you made it low enough (55-60C), it would kick in and ruin the results.

Does anyone know of an application which will monitor GPU frequency during a benchmark? That'd be nice to see for this case to make sure it's running at whatever speed you think it is the whole time.

Also, you aren't using Virtu or anything like that are you, where the iGPU could be kicking in?

 

[EarthDog]

There isnt a setting to lower thermal throttling on a GPU that I know of...

MSI AB monitors the frequency in a graph.

 

[totalanonymity]

There's really no explanation for this other than that it wasn't running at 880.

Have you updated your drivers to latest?

The thermal throttling probably isn't the issue as the temp samples you gave were pretty low, but I know that sometimes you can decrease the temp at which speeds do throttle down and if you made it low enough (55-60C), it would kick in and ruin the results.

Does anyone know of an application which will monitor GPU frequency during a benchmark? That'd be nice to see for this case to make sure it's running at whatever speed you think it is the whole time.

Also, you aren't using Virtu or anything like that are you, where the iGPU could be kicking in?

I have VirtuMVP installed (came with mobo), but I have it disabled since it causes way too many issues.

 

[ninjacore]

totalanon, can you post a screenshot of that afterburner graph of the gpu frequency for a run at stock speed and at 880?

 

[totalanonymity]

totalanon, can you post a screenshot of that afterburner graph of the gpu frequency for a run at stock speed and at 880?

Here you go:

https://imgur.com/SlkAx

Looks like I fixed some errors that were saying things about the test, too. Silly VirtuMVP was being retarded. Fully disabled and disabled HyperFormance as well and my stock test now reads: P7287
It seems HyperFormance was incorrectly inflating my scores as well. I ran it before this last one and it gave me P9484. Fully disabling everything with it now gives me the one above. So, gotta re-try some stuff.

 

[ninjacore]

I'll have to do a run with mine when i get home to verify, but it does seem weird that it is jumping down to 300 so often during a graphics benchmark. Anyone know of hand if that's typical?

 

[totalanonymity]

I'll have to do a run with mine when i get home to verify, but it does seem weird that it is jumping down to 300 so often during a graphics benchmark. Anyone know of hand if that's typical?

That can be assumed to be the time between the graphics tests. It runs four graphics tests, with small loading times between each. Also, the big 0% usage before the last frequency hill is because it is the physics only test, which is handled by the CPU, I believe.

I increased to 900/1300 and my score went from P7287 to only P7349. I guess that "HyperFormance" was really, really, really doing something. Maybe it was also ruining my ability to overclock as well? I've got to run to the store, but I'll be running further stability tests past 900/1300 to see if that was the problem. I also rolled back to the 12.10 driver instead of sticking with the 12.11 beta.

 

[EarthDog]

Quite typical.. that is the time between the tests, yes...

Seems like the lucid stuff was mucking with you a bit. Hopefully you can push it further now.

 

[totalanonymity]

Quite typical.. that is the time between the tests, yes...

Seems like the lucid stuff was mucking with you a bit. Hopefully you can push it further now.

It's not the first time VirtuMVP has screwed around with me. It's more trouble than it's worth, really. When I first got this computer (my first gaming PC and my first build), I eagerly wanted to finally fire up some Borderlands in a resolution above 800x600 (and there was still issues at that resolution on my old laptop) and Borderlands refused to load, even though my PC is overkill for the game. Dead Space 2 didn't wanna work, either. Found a forum where someone talked about VirtuMVP regarding DS2 and I turned it off. Bam, Borderlands went without so much as a hiccup. So, the issue of making some games unplayable and messing with my scores/clocks speeds. We'll see. Gonna run some tests. /textwall

 

[totalanonymity]

Yeah, anything past 900/1300 refuses to do anything. 3DMark crashes every time beyond that. I spoke to MSI and they were more than happy to provide me with an RMA if I wanted. If it really can't overclock even the tiniest bit, the rep said there might be an issue (even though he said they don't fully support advice about overclocking). What do you guys think? Should I just RMA it?

 

[ninjacore]

If you've seen a resounding opinion that the card should go way beyond what you're seeing, then I wouldn't hesitate to RMA. If the card is defective, you could run into issues later on, so it's best to get a normal card now.

 

[totalanonymity]

If you've seen a resounding opinion that the card should go way beyond what you're seeing, then I wouldn't hesitate to RMA. If the card is defective, you could run into issues later on, so it's best to get a normal card now.

Yeah, from what I've read (even though all cards are different; gotta keep making that disclosure), this card should be a piece of cake beyond this and I can barely get any distance away from stock. Essentially, I almost can't overclock it. It's such a negligible difference that if I remain with this card, I may as well just stay at stock speeds. Might as well RMA it. 5-10 business days after receipt of card is a painful amount of time...

 

[ninjacore]

That's not too long and you'll have your iGPU in the meantime.

 

[totalanonymity]

That's not too long and you'll have your iGPU in the meantime.

True, true. Not too sure what this Intel 4000 will run anyway. Customer service is not too fun to deal with. Tech support was way easier, amazingly.

 

[totalanonymity]

Turns out my computer has just decided to start hating me now. I reset to stock just to avoid any further issues. Now, BF3 is crashing on me (and I even lowered the settings to get nearer 60 FPS). Flash won't stop crashing (when I haven't had any problems whatsoever with it before).