Overclocked: Power, Temperature, & Noise

Our final task is our look at GTX 690’s overclocking capabilities. NVIDIA has told us that with GTX 690 they weren’t just looking to duplicate GTX 680 SLI’s performance, but also its overclocking capabilities. This is quite the lofty goal, since with GTX 690 NVIDIA is effectively packing 2 680s into the same amount of space, leaving far less space for VRM circuitry and trace routing.

GeForce 600 Series Overclocking
  GTX 690 GTX 680
Shipping Core Clock 915MHz 1006MHz
Shipping Max Boost Clock 1058MHz 1110MHz
Shipping Memory Clock 6GHz 6GHz
Shipping Max Boost Voltage 1.175v 1.175v
Overclock Core Clock 1040MHz 1106MHz
Overclock Max Boost Clock 1183MHz 1210MHz
Overclock Memory Clock 7GHz 6.5GHz
Overclock Max Boost Voltage 1.175v 1.175v

In practice NVIDIA has not quite kept up with GTX 680, and in other ways completely exceeded it. When it comes to the core clock we didn’t quite reach parity with our reference GTX 680; the GTX 680’s highest boost clock bin could hit 1210MHz, while the GTX 690’s highest boost clock bin topped out at 1183MHz, some 27MHz (2%) slower.

On the other hand, our memory overclock is so high as to be within the “this doesn’t seem physically possible” range. As we have discussed time and time again, GDDR5 memory busses are difficult to run at high clocks on a good day, never mind a bad day. With GF110 NVIDIA couldn’t get too far past 4GHz, and even with GTX 680 NVIDIA was only shipping at 6GHz.

It would appear that no one has told NVIDIA’s engineers that 7GHz is supposed to be impossible, and as a result they’ve gone and done the unthinkable. Some of this is certainly down to the luck of the draw, but it doesn’t change the fact that our GTX 690 passed every last stability test we could throw at it at 7GHz. And what makes this particularly interesting is the difference between the GTX 680 and the GTX 690 – both are equipped with 6GHz GDDR5 RAM, but while the GTX 680 is equipped with Hynix the GTX 690 is equipped with Samsung. Perhaps the key to all of this is the Samsung RAM?

In any case, our final result was a +125MHz core clock offset and a +1000MHz memory clock offset, which translates into a base clock of 1040MHz, a max boost clock of 1183MHz, and a memory clock of 7GHz. This represents a 12%-14% core overclock and a 17% memory overclock, which is going to be enough to put quite the pep in the GTX 690’s step.

As always we’re going to start our look at overclocking in reverse, beginning with power, temperature, and noise. For the purpose of our testing we’ve tested our GTX 690 at two different settings: at stock clocks with the power target set to 135% (GTX 690 PT), and with our custom overclock alongside the same 135% power target (GTX 690 OC). This allows us to look at both full overclocking and the safer option of merely maxing out the boost clocks for all they’re worth.

As expected, merely increasing the power target to 135% was enough to increase the GTX 690’s power consumption, though overclocking further adds to that. Even with the power target increase however, the power consumption at the wall for the GTX 690 is still lower than the GTX 680 SLI by over 20W, which is quite impressive. As we’ll see in our section on performance this is more than enough to erase the GTX 690’s performance gap, meaning at this point its still consuming less power than the GTX 680 SLI while offering better performance than its dual-card cousin.

It’s only after outright overclocking that we finally see power consumption equalize with the GTX 680 SLI. The overclocked GTX 690 is within 10W of the GTX 680 SLI, though as we’ll see the performance is notably higher.

What does playing with clocks and the power target do to temperatures? The impact isn’t particularly bad, though we’re definitely reaching the highest temperatures we really want to hit. For the GTX 690 PT things are actually quite good under Metro, with the temperature not budging an inch even with the higher power consumption. Under OCCT however temperatures have risen 5C to 87C. Meanwhile the GTX 690 OC reaches 84C under Metro and a toasty 89C under Metro. These should be safe temperatures, but I would not want to cross 90C for any extended period of time.

Finally we have load noise. Unsurprisingly, because load temperatures did not go up for the GTX 690 PT under Metro load noise has not gone up either. On the other hand load noise under OCCT has gone up 3.5dB, making the GTX 690 PT just as loud as our GTX 680 SLI in its adjacent configuration. In practice the noise impact from raising the power target is going trend closer to Metro than OCCT, but Metro is likely an overly optimistic scenario; there’s going to be at least a small increase in noise here.

The GTX 690 OC meanwhile approaches the noise level of the GTX 680 SLI under Metro, and shoots past it under OCCT. Considering the performance payoff some users will no doubt find this worth the noise, but it should be clear that overclocking like this means sacrificing the stock GTX 690’s quietness.

Power, Temperature, & Noise Overclocked: Gaming Performance


View All Comments

  • paul878 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Nvidia is getting very good at building Vaporware. Reply
  • paul878 - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Nvidia is getting very good and making Vaporware. Reply
  • krumme - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Is 6000 pcx. within the first month fx. a paper launch in your view?

    As selling numbers in that size, does nothing for the economy directly, what do you think is the strategic choices behind putting it on "sale" now?

    How do you think marketing at NV thinks about how they can tailor perception from the reviewers on what is perciewed as a paper launch?

    Do NV marketing present themselves as one of your kind, having the same background, understanding your dilemmas and problems?
  • mac2j - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Wonder what the 7990 will look like next month. AMD clearly waited on purpose to see how the 690 was going to perform. They easily could have released a dual 7970 card already or at the very least sent specs to card manufacturers but they haven't.

    We know they left a lot of headroom on the 7970 - some people have even suggested we'll get a 7980 at some point - wonder if now we'll get 2 x fully clocked 7970s on the same card ... will be interesting to see how they deal with that power consumption at load though.
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    With 2x7970 @ STOCK they are already 175 watts over the 690's power draw.
    Good luck with that "headroom".
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    amd is late to the race, they never showed up this time, and when they do, they will lose, think housefires. Reply
  • Beenthere - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    Really? There are some sick people in this world. ;) Reply
  • Nfarce - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    No, unlike OWS protesters, there are some successful people in this world who get off their butts and work hard enough to be able to afford a $1,000 GPU (or in my case 2 GTX 680 $530 GPUs). Reply
  • anactoraaron - Thursday, May 03, 2012 - link

    "Thus even four years since the release of the original Crysis, “but can it run Crysis?” is still an important question, and the answer when it comes to setups using a pair of high-end 28nm GPUs is “you better damn well believe it.”"

  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, May 04, 2012 - link

    No they actually cannot. 1920X, even the cf 7970 or 690 need help with lowered settings, as in many of the games. Can't even keep up with the 1920X monitors resolution refresh rate, set at a low 60.
    Sorry, more fantasies another for you perhaps. :)

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now