NVidia controlling AIB BIOS overclocking... what?

[Sasqui]

This is NOT meant to be a flame or fanboy thread, please keep comments civil. I have owned both NVida and AMD video cards. Love em or hate em, they both have their good and bad. Be thankful for competition, we wouldn't have shit without it.

Ok, the point of this thread: In reading a TH review (found via a link in the TPU GPU database) for a Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1070 Ti, I came across a curious statement about NVidia banning an overclocked BIOS on one of the Gigabyte cards. Question is... why? Was it a normal thing or something specific to this card? There are plenty of 1070 Ti cards out there with boost and OC features without special software, so what's up with this? Anyone have any insight?

Link to TH review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gigabyte-gtx-1070-ti-gaming-8g,5338.html

Snip:

However, since Nvidia banned this first edition of the card and refused to allow the overclocked BIOS' use

More snip...

Prior to launch, Gigabyte had an overclocked BIOS ready to go. It was initially even approved by Nvidia. As a result, around 25,000 cards shipped out from the factory with matching labels (the following two labels show the difference between our first sample and the model that eventually hit retail). If you were lucky enough to receive one of the first cards, you're probably seeing much higher frequencies than everyone else with a 1070 Ti.

However, since Nvidia banned this first edition of the card and refused to allow the overclocked BIOS' use, we're honoring Gigabyte's request to only use the updated version of its card for our review.

I ask more out of curiosity... I just purchased a Gigabyte GTX 1070 Ti Aorus HERE, and it has advertised boost clocks up to 1771. Just arrived today. I may flip my Vega 64 and keep the 1070 if it performs close to on par with the Vega. That's a whole 'nother story...

 

[xkm1948]

Probably to prevent cannibalizing their 1080 sale.

 

[Sasqui]

Probably to prevent cannibalizing their 1080 sale.

That was one conclusion I came to as well

 

[bug]

Probably to prevent cannibalizing their 1080 sale.

Yes, this has been known for a while to be true.
It also matters little, because the GPU will still overclock itself as long as it has the thermal headroom.

 

[EarthDog]

That was mentioned in most any review already... this cannibalizing 1080 sales... well known. What isn't well known is there are cards in the wild like this that snuck out with higher base clocks...

That said, it makes complete sense, does it not? Continuing on, they only limited the ability for the AIBs to have overclocked versions. Users are still able to manually overclock the cards through software like normal. Don't forget boost also 'overclocks' over base as well.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[Sasqui]

Much ado about nothing.

LOL, I wasn't trying to start a drama club, and so far the responses have been level headed.

If you were lucky enough to receive one of the first cards, you're probably seeing much higher frequencies than everyone else with a 1070 Ti.

That statement probably confirms what you're all saying.

 

[EarthDog]

I didn't say you were... I was just clarifying it is much ado about nothing. Old news for many.

 

[bug]

That was mentioned in most any review already... this cannibalizing 1080 sales... well known. What isn't well known is there are cards in the wild like this that snuck out with higher base clocks...

That said, it makes complete sense, does it not? Continuing on, they only limited the ability for the AIBs to have overclocked versions. Users are still able to manually overclock the cards through software like normal. Don't forget boost also 'overclocks' over base as well.

Much ado about nothing.

It's not much ado about nothing though. We should keep our eyes on them, lest this becomes widespread. Which I'd rather it didn't.

 

[John Naylor]

For previous generations, folks had cracked the nVidia BIOS and you could edit the cards yourself, To my knowledge, there is no crack for the current Boost 3 equipped BIOSs. But it's not a "new thing" other than w/ each generation nVidia has placed more and more limitations, both legal and design wise, to limit what AIB partners can do. The simple fact is, with no real competition existing from the 1060 on up, nVidia can do pretty much whatever they want. With 9xx series, two things hurt 980 / 980 Ti sales:

1. Overclocking - This was so much of an issue that nVidia lowered the throttling temperature of the x70s because otherwise performance was too close to the higher tier cards.

2. SLI - The 9xx series higher end cards sales were crushed by the erformance of twin 970s, which even accounting for the games that didn't scale well or at all still left 970s in SLI far above in dollars per fps across TPUs game test suite. So nVidia nerfed SLI performance to stem this cash loss as they make far "net" money selling 1080s and 1080 Ti's than a pair of 970s. But with even the 1080 Ti struggling to stay above 60 fps @ 4k w/ hi refersh rates, they kept decent scaling at 4k whereas 1080p is just 18%.

So yes, while each successive change in policy has been a significant step, ... it's been going on step by step for several generations now and the latest step was the subject of much attention when the 10xx series came out 18 months ago.

 

[EarthDog]

It's not much ado about nothing though. We should keep our eyes on them, lest this becomes widespread. Which I'd rather it didn't.

It really is though... at least for most enthusiasts. I cant really think too much of why it would affect normal users much either. So what if a card doesn't blur the lines of the next card up the stack. If this propagates, oh well... just manually overclock. And if not, oh well as well, get the next higher card or it is what it is.

I mean, I personally could care less what factory overclocks come with my GPU. As you mentioned, there is boost, and then we can overclock on top of that. This is a simple way of NVIDIA trying to not neuter their sales of the next higher up card. I highly doubt it will become widespread. And even so, it does nothing but to CLARIFY the lines between cards and lets the users make the difference.

1. Overclocking - This was so much of an issue that nVidia lowered the throttling temperature of the x70s because otherwise performance was too close to the higher tier cards.

They did????????

2. SLI - The 9xx series higher end cards sales were crushed by the erformance of twin 970s, which even accounting for the games that didn't scale well or at all still left 970s in SLI far above in dollars per fps across TPUs game test suite. So nVidia nerfed SLI performance to stem this cash loss as they make far "net" money selling 1080s and 1080 Ti's than a pair of 970s. But with even the 1080 Ti struggling to stay above 60 fps @ 4k w/ hi refersh rates, they kept decent scaling at 4k whereas 1080p is just 18%.

So, you don't think the scaling is a function of the horsepower versus the CPU trying to push that much data at 1080p? Hmm... interesting perspective. I mean it cant have anything to do with 4K being wholly GPU bound while 1080p, especially with SLI, is CPU bound, could it? (facetious question for the record )

 

[Sasqui]

It's not much ado about nothing though. We should keep our eyes on them, lest this becomes widespread. Which I'd rather it didn't.

I think we just have to reluctantly accept the fact that NVdia keeps their thumbs and lawyers firmly on partners and even non partners to protect their revenue stream. That's their prerogative and culture it seems. I don't like it personally, but it's what they do.

 

[xkm1948]

I would expect tighter driver control over BIOS lock down.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Yup, to keep the 1070Ti a few percent more away from the 1080 in reviews. Manual OC is not restricted, but the 9GHz DDR5 is the limit there as they can't go as far with OC as the DDR5X on 1080 can. Frankly if anyone is out for the 1070Ti, just buy a 1080 for a couple of bucks more.

@OP post some vega 64 vs 1070Ti benches at 3440x1440, can either of them run any modern,demanding games at 60 fps ?

 

[EarthDog]

I would expect tighter driver control over BIOS lock down.

I deleted the wrong post in an effort to clean up the thread.

Do you think that method is counterproductive compared with what they are trying to accomplish? What you are saying actually allows them to shrink that gap at the AIB level and neuter the user.

Manual OC is not restricted, but the 9GHz DDR5 is the limit there as they can't go as far with OC as the DDR5X on 1080 can. Frankly if anyone is out for the 1070Ti, just buy a 1080 for a couple of bucks more.

I agree with the end point. However, considering these are not meant for much over FHD(1080p)/QHD, memory bandwidth isn't terribly important. There are plenty of samples breaking 9 GHz as well. Ive seen some hit 10 GHz. IN the end, you are correct in that it doesn't overclock as far.

 

[DRDNA]

@OP post some vega 64 vs 1070Ti benches at 3440x1440, can either of them run any modern,demanding games at 60 fps ?

Always room for more tests results and nice to see from amateur testers ...good idea

 

[Sasqui]

@OP post some vega 64 vs 1070Ti benches at 3440x1440, can either of them run any modern,demanding games at 60 fps ?

Good question... the most demanding games probably a close call. I don't have a big suite to go from... so was just going to run the battery of 3Dmark tests and also Tomb Raider 2013. Yea, I know it's not a large enough sample size but I'll get an idea. That and other benchies like ones on here on TPU, for instance:

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1070_Ti_FTW2/28.html

...only a 6% gap at the highest res. I've had 2 Vega 64's and the latest is more thermal limited than the first. I'm interested to see if this 1070 will win, it's got 4 pipe direct contact cooler, looks like a great unit. Just released with no reviews yet. We'll see, don't know if I'll have time to do it tonight

What you are saying actually allows them to shrink that gap at the AIB level and neuter the user.

Personally, I think that's exactly what they're doing and TH was saying that in a roundabout way.

 

[EarthDog]

Isn't it the opposite though? NVIDIA wants to not vulture sales of its 1080 and did so by telling AIBs they cannot sell samples over the reference clocks. If they did it the other way around as xkm says, then the AIBs would be biting into 1080 sales and users would then be handcuffed. Its the opposite of what they would want to happen.

 

[Sasqui]

NVIDIA wants to not vulture sales of its 1080 and did so by telling AIBs they cannot sell samples over the reference clocks. If they did it the other way around as xkm says, then the AIBs would be biting into 1080 sales and users would then be handcuffed. Its the opposite of what they would want to happen.

I think we're saying the same thing, just not seeing that way? I'm itching to try the Aorus sitting in front of me. Working from home today so I guess I'll fire up some benchies with the Vega 64 to start.

That said and OT, anyone know if there's a way to bench with Tomb Raider 2013. Guess I could google it lol

 

[EarthDog]

We are saying polar opposite things I think. I am saying the way it was done, to limit AIBs and allow overclocking for users, is what they wanted and did. XKM mentioned it should/can be done in the drivers, which would let the AIBs go wild and neuter overclocking for users, which would shoot NVIDIA in its own face... AKA the opposite of what NVIDIA wanted to accomplish.

Anyway, interested in the results...

 

[Sasqui]

We are saying polar opposite things I think. I am saying the way it was done, to limit AIBs and allow overclocking for users, is what they wanted. XKM mentioned it should/can be done in the drivers, which would let the AIBs go wild and neuter overclocking for users, which would shoot NVIDIA in its own face.

Anyway, interested in the results...

Yea, interesting thing is if you look at the card specs, it specifically says the boost is through software only, so there's something peculiar going on with that specific card I guess. The others say boost clocks on the order of 1771 out of the box, like the Aorus I've got.

Can't find any out of the box test for TR 2013, that sucks. Someone wrote a tool here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1371770/tomb-raider-2013-benchmark-tool-with-frametime-and-fps-charts

 

[erocker]

This was being reported on before 1070ti was released. https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...1070-ti-overclocking-to-be-restricted.237830/

 

[EarthDog]

Yea, interesting thing is if you look at the card specs, it specifically says the boost is through software only, so there's something peculiar going on with that specific card I guess. The others say boost clocks on the order of 1771 out of the box, like the Aorus I've got.

Can't find any out of the box test for TR 2013, that sucks. Someone wrote a tool here: http://www.overclock.net/t/1371770/tomb-raider-2013-benchmark-tool-with-frametime-and-fps-charts

Pretty sure its going to boost like all other 1070Ti's once it is installed. Again, it is the base clocks which NVIDIA said not to alter. Boost will be boost and vary from card to card, even of the same brand/model.


Rise of the Tomb Raider has an integrated benchmark......... and isn't 5 years old either.

 

[Sasqui]

Rise of the Tomb Raider has an integrated benchmark

I'm ashamed to say I don't own it yet... still working on 2013.

Wow, it's been 20 years since playing the original on a Voodoo card, holy shit!