Tuesday, September 29th 2020

EVGA GeForce RTX 3090 KINGPIN Achieves 2.58 GHz Core Clock, Breaks World Record in 3D Mark Port Royal

[Update, September 29, 2020: We now have a good first look at the card courtesy the man himself. It confirms what we already knew, with a 360 mm AIO cooler and a flip-up OLED screen paired to the flagship offering from EVGA this generation.]

It's only been moments after the RTX 3090's release, but professional overclockers are already unleashing the power available on NVIDIA's GA-102 chip by resorting to exotic cooling techniques. Renowned overclocker Vince "K|NGP|N" Lucido, who works in close proximity with NVIDIA AIB EVGA, tamed the RTX 3090's temperature by resorting to liquid nitrogen. This, alongside tweaks to Vcore (1069 mV) allowed the card to reach a startling 2.58 GHz core clock (a staggering 52.2% increase over NVIDIA's base clock), and 10.750 MHz (21.5 Gbps) memory clocks on the GDDR6X subsystem, which in itself is a 10.3% increase over reference clocks.

The 16.673 3D Mark Port Royal score was achieved with a fully custom design made by EVGA with Vince Lucidos' input. This über 3090 ultimately delivered a performance increase of around 30% more than the stock RTX 3090 would be able to, which isn't a bad equilibrium between the core and memory clock increases. Some might say this is the performance delta one would expect between the 3090 and the 3080 (an overall 40% performance increase, considering the 3090 is already an average of 10% faster than the 3080 at stock clocks).
Sources: Vince Lucido @ Facebook, via Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

31 Comments on EVGA GeForce RTX 3090 KINGPIN Achieves 2.58 GHz Core Clock, Breaks World Record in 3D Mark Port Royal

#1
the54thvoid
Can only wonder at the power draw. I Know it was for OC record but it'd be cool (or hot) to see the power delivery required to get those clocks. I figure the LN mitigatyes some of the power but still...
Posted on Reply
#2
xkm1948
What is with this sudden narrative shift from time spy to port royal? I have seen it in tech tubers RTX3xxx review. Feels like some sort of conditioning for upcoming Navi release and review
Posted on Reply
#3
the54thvoid
Port Royal has DX12 ray-tracing, so I suppose it's a good test to use going forward for included RT performance? Given EVGA used it for the PR above, and they dont work with AMD, I think it's an innocent move, unrelated to any Navi results. Unless, you mean the opposite of what I thought; EVGA used it to make Navi look worse, knowing how decent NV's RTX is?
Posted on Reply
#4
xkm1948
the54thvoid
Port Royal has DX12 ray-tracing, so I suppose it's a good test to use going forward for included RT performance? Given EVGA used it for the PR above, and they dont work with AMD, I think it's an innocent move, unrelated to any Navi results. Unless, you mean the opposite of what I thought; EVGA used it to make Navi look worse, knowing how decent NV's RTX is?
Yeah that is what I am worried about. And probably not a EVGA thing, more like Nvidia's reviewer gudieline

Reviewers with long history of integrity like W1zzard wont follow these guide lines. At the same time I feel there will be a good chance we will see more push for Port Royal as the Go-To synthetic test after RTX3000 and RX6000 series.
Posted on Reply
#5
Dimi
xkm1948
What is with this sudden narrative shift from time spy to port royal? I have seen it in tech tubers RTX3xxx review. Feels like some sort of conditioning for upcoming Navi release and review
Because, mr tinfoil hat, Port Royal only runs a GPU benchmark.
Posted on Reply
#6
EarthDog
2.58 GHz, ehh.. wowzas! I'd also love to see the power it needed there!!
xkm1948
What is with this sudden narrative shift from time spy to port royal? I have seen it in tech tubers RTX3xxx review. Feels like some sort of conditioning for upcoming Navi release and review
Narrative shift? RT is coming to Navi if you weren't aware. I don't see anything questionable/dubious here at all...

As was said, PR is DX12 and uses RT...one of the few synthetics that do. So it makes complete sense to simply add a (synthetic) test to cover it.

Simple and nothing to worry about.
Posted on Reply
#7
RH92
xkm1948
Yeah that is what I am worried about. And probably not a EVGA thing, more like Nvidia's reviewer gudieline

Reviewers with long history of integrity like W1zzard wont follow these guide lines. At the same time I feel there will be a good chance we will see more push for Port Royal as the Go-To synthetic test after RTX3000 and RX6000 series.
Big time facepalm ! :kookoo::roll: Put your fanboy tinfoil hat down dude , what guidelines are even you talking about ? Port Royal is being used by the XOC community because one it's heavily GPU dependent unlike Time Spy and two it's one of the only benchmarks that takes raytracing into account . Considering this is where the industry is heading it's natural that more and more reviewers and benchmarkers start to shift towards it ............
Posted on Reply
#8
xkm1948
WTF is wrong with people calling "fan boy" JFC Learn to be a decent human being and have a normal conversation.

Back to the point @EarthDog Well put. I guess at this point there are little decent synthetic DXR benchmarks out there that people can compare to.
Posted on Reply
#9
InVasMani
Nice unsustainable performance my favorite type of useless benchmark metric.
Posted on Reply
#10
EarthDog
InVasMani
Nice unsustainable performance my favorite type of useless benchmark metric.
We get it.. not for you. But no reason to hate on it... move along.
Posted on Reply
#12
WeeRab
THE BLOWER IS BACK !!
Posted on Reply
#13
Bubster
Wait, does it crash too from the bad quality untested capacitators???
Posted on Reply
#14
Fluffmeister
If Big Navi doesn't beat this score by 69% I'll be disappointed.
Posted on Reply
#15
EarthDog
Fluffmeister
If Big Navi doesn't beat this score by 69% I'll be disappointed.
420% or bust. :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#16
QUANTUMPHYSICS
I never opened my 3090. I'm gonna SELL IT and use the money for this.

My 3080, however, is doing fine. No crashes to desktop.
Posted on Reply
#17
lexluthermiester
Raevenlord
and 10.750 MHz (21.5 Gbps) memory clocks on the GDDR6X subsystem
This should read 10.750GHz.
Posted on Reply
#18
tigger
I'm the only one
lexluthermiester
This should read 10.750GHz.
unless its 10,750mhz which would be 10ghz yes. unless i am really shit a maths
Posted on Reply
#19
lexluthermiester
tigger
unless its 10,750mhz which would be 10ghz yes. unless i am really shit a maths
No, that would work.
Posted on Reply
#21
lexluthermiester
krusha03
Unlike US, in Europe we mostly use comma for decimal and dot as thousand separator
Which is historically backwards. Should be the other way around for logical reasons.
Posted on Reply
#22
krusha03
lexluthermiester
Which is historically backwards. Should be the other way around for logical reasons.
I was making a snarky remark. I agree with you, especially since in the rest of the article dot is used as decimal separator :)
Posted on Reply
#23
lexluthermiester
krusha03
I was making a snarky remark. I agree with you, especially since in the rest of the article dot is used as decimal separator :)
No worries. No offense was taken.
Posted on Reply
#24
QUANTUMPHYSICS
As long as this card has no issues with capacitors - which we will find out - I intend for this to be my 3090 card.

I am SELLING my FE 3090 (with markup) so I can get this.
Posted on Reply
#25
Vayra86
So this is why my system just turned off last night.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment