Overclocking

With the GTX 590 NVIDIA found themselves with a bit of a PR problem. Hardcore overclockers had managed to send their GTX 590s to a flaming death, which made the GTX 590 look bad and required that NVIDIA lock down all voltage control so that no one else could repeat the feat. The GTX 590 was a solid card at stock, but NVIDIA never designed it for overvolting, and indeed I’m not sure you could even say it was designed for overclocking since it was already running at a 365W TDP.

Since that incident NVIDIA has taken a much harder stance on overvolting, which we first saw with the GTX 680. The reference GTX 680 could not be overvolted, with voltage options limited to whatever voltage the top GPU boost bin used (typically 1.175v). This principle will be continuing with the GTX 690; there will not be any overvolting options.

However this is not to say that the GTX 690 isn’t built for overclocking. The GTX 680 still has some overclocking potential thanks to some purposeful use of design headroom, and the GTX 690 is going to be the same story. In fact it’s much the same story as with AMD’s Radeon HD 5970 and 6990, both of which shipped in configurations that kept power consumption at standard levels while also offering modes that unlocked overclocking potential in exchange for greater power consumption (e.g. AWSUM). As we’ve previously mentioned the GTX 690 is designed to be able to handle up to 375W even though it ships in a 300W configuration, and that 75W is our overclocking headroom.

NVIDIA will be exposing the GTX 690’s overclocking options through a combination of power targets and clock offsets, just as with the GTX 680. This in turn means that the GTX 690 effectively has two overclocking modes:

  1. Power target overclocking. By just raising the power target (max +35%) you can increase how often the GTX 690 can boost and how frequently it can hit its max boost bin. By adjusting the power target performance will only increase in games/applications that are being held back by NVIDIA’s power limiter, but in return this is easy mode overclocking as all of the GPU boost bins are already qualified for stability. In other words, this is the GTX 690’s higher performance, higher power 375W mode.
  2. Power target + offset overclocking. By using clock offsets it’s possible to further raise the performance of the GTX 690, and to do so across all games and applications. The lack of overvolting support means that there isn’t a ton of headroom for the offset, but as it stands NVIDIA’s clocks are conservative for power purposes and Kepler is clearly capable of more than 915MHz/1019MHz. This of course will require testing for stability, and it should be noted that because NVIDIA’s GPU boost bins already go so high over the base clock that it won’t take much to be boosting into 1.2GHz+.

NVIDIA’s goal with the GTX 690 was not just to reach GTX 680 SLI performance, but also match the GTX 680’s overclocking capabilities. We’ll get to our full results in our overclocking performance section, but for the time being we’ll leave it at this: we hit 1040MHz base, 1183MHz boost, and 7GHz memory on our GTX 690; even without overvolting it’s a capable overclocker.

Meet The GeForce GTX 690 GeForce Experience & The Test
Comments Locked

200 Comments

View All Comments

  • InsaneScientist - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link

    Well, let's be fair... it's not nVidia's fault. It's TSMC that can't get their act together to produce 28nm chips in volume.
  • CeriseCogburn - Sunday, May 6, 2012 - link

    The GTX680 has sold more card by the verified reviewers at NewEgg than the entire lot of the 7870's and 7850's at NewEgg combined, and that's just with ONE GTX680 sold by EVGA - check it out my friend...
    ROFL
    GTX680 in one listing outsells the entire lineup of 7870 and 7850 COMBINED at newegg- with verified owners count.
    HAHAHA
    Yes, the supply is always "key". ROFL
  • vladanandtechy - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    I must confess that every logic i can think of says i don't need this GPU.....but.....i want it....i don't need it.....but damn it....i want it.....it's nvidia....it's aluminium....it's 4 GB VRAM....it's probably 5 times faster than what i have.......and i want to congratulate the team for the review wich i read from start to finish...but to be honest with you.....you don't need 19 pages to describe it...for me...."futureproof" says it all....
  • mamisano - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Is there any way you can post the average FPS achieved during OCCT tests? Curious how 680 SLI, 690 and 7970 CF compare in this regard.
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Sorry, but we don't currently record that data (though if it's a big enough deal we can certainly start).
  • Filiprino - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Simply put, NVIDIA has superior software department in comparison with AMD.
    AMD is mainstream. Whenever they try to reach the high end, they fail miserably, both on GPU and CPU camps. Driver issues with crossfire, trifire and quadfire with or without eyefinity in numerous games (with eyefinity even more problems) etc.
    If they don't get their problems solved by Catalyst 12.5 buying AMD cards for high end builds (anything multicard related) is a waste of money. And that is sad.
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Yes, and the reviewer is constantly trying to catch nVidia in a big lie - and it shows - he even states how he never believed a word nVidia said about this card but had to admit it was all true.
    I have never, in many years, seen the same bad attitude given to amd's gpu's.
    The bias in the write up is so blatant every time it's amazing they still get nVidia cards for review. The reviewer is clearly so pro amd he cannot hide it.
  • N4g4rok - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    He did say that Crossfire was so broken that he couldn't recommend it. He's been pointing out flaws in both companies along the way I think you should dial back the bias accusations a little bit.
  • CeriseCogburn - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Well if you want me to point out like 10 blatant direct wordings in this article I will. I'm not the only one who sees it, by the way. you want to tell me how he avoids totally broken amd drivers when he's posting the 7970CF ? Not like he had a choice there, your point is absolutely worthless.
  • silverblue - Thursday, May 3, 2012 - link

    Okay then, for our benefit (because we're stupid and that), please point out the reviewer's transgressions.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now