Post your gpu's ASIC quality

[arbiter]

I think ASIC needs some adjustment for 900 series cards cause gtx770 should be higher ASIC score then 970 or 980.

my evga gtx980 superclocked ACX2.0 is only 78.5%

 

[AphexDreamer]

Nothings changed in years, we just have a tool now to see it before our eyes, it's just down to the silicon at the end of the day (although there may be other factors that I am not aware of), it's like everything else in life, you manufacture several thousand units of something and they will never be all of identical quality or performance. Many manufacturers have often used the best for their OC models and as far as I know have always done so.

Well I think ASIC extends beyond just the quality of the silicon but I don't completely understand it yet.
How wide of an ASIC discrepancy can their possibly be physically and statistically?

Perhaps we can get people with the same model and brand of cards to post their ASIC so we can find out how much the ASIC varies.

 

[alwayssts]

Well I think ASIC extends beyond just the quality of the silicon but I don't completely understand it yet.
How wide of an ASIC discrepancy can their possibly be physically and statistically?

Perhaps we can get people with the same model and brand of cards to post their ASIC so we can find out how much the ASIC varies.

That indeed would be interesting.

My initial thought was (bear with me; convoluted) for the 970's it was something like 13/16 = 81.25% (somewhat similar to how nvidia does their sku chip branding visible on the heat spreader, ala 250/350/400 etc), and then from there something to do with voltage/leakage (81.25/x to meet stock requirements?), as that seems to fit with how mine performs relative to voltage, but to see all these 980s that are fairly low...I have no effing idea. Perhaps they simply have around 1/3 more leakage than an ideal chip at stock given that's roughly how much they overclock?

Fwiw, mine is 79.8. The stock clock of 970 1050n/1178. 100/79.8 = 1.25%...which would be somewhere around 1315n/1476b, which is roughly what mine will do at stock voltage. Raising the voltage helps sustain roughly 151x (haven't nailed down the last mhz/voltage yet), and can be done with a fairly small boost, but that's about all she wrote. I'd be curious how peoples' perform that are slightly lower...can they hit slightly higher (with slightly more voltage?)

I'm spitballing, to be sure, but it's an idea.

 

[hazuki_ryo]

hi Techpowerup folks !
stock stats i didnt oc yet.
gtx970 g1 gaming gigabyte rev1.1

I'm not rly into oc, do u think this card could go above 1600 1650+ gpu core clock ? seems to be a good card even with my poor knowledge
o/

 

[OneMoar]

1500-1600 on the core should be do-able

 

[fullinfusion]

Msi R9 290X gaming 4G TFIV

 

[stefanels]

 

[BUFDUP]

These are for my 2 MSI GTX 770 Lightnings

I know for my 2 x 980's they have low ASIC, both in the 50%-60% range its said if they are low, then they would benefit from water cooling which what i am going to do if i can be bothered to tear down my current loop

Edit: i've noticed a few 560ti's have over 90% ASIC... i have a Gigabyte SOC 560ti 1Ghz Core clock as stock... i'm curious if it has a really high one lol

 

[zmeul]

GigaByte GV-R928XOC-3GD Rev 2.0:

 

[Timmen]

Sapphire HD7870 can oc higher at about 1225/1535(6140) but i'm ok with this oc because i don't see any huge difference between this oc and my highest.
i see a huge difference between the stock 1000/1200(4800) and my current oc though.

 

[djthrottleboi]

before i blew a cap in my psu this bad baby hit 1488MHz core clock and i was going to take her higher but then a cap blew so now i need a new 1300w psu

 

[ChristTheGreat]

Gigabyte R9 290 WF OC. Stock voltage, 1100/1400, + 50% Power, but with +100mv, 1150/1500. Nt a very high clocker, but 1100/1400 is fine for me!

 

[Cartel]

 

[Nullifier]

Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming 74%

 

[johnerz]

EVGA GTX970 FTW+

 

[Ruru]

79.6%.. Asus GTX680 2slot, boosts at 1228MHz when overclocked.

 

[Icarus]

The ASIC on the two Zotac 970s I had were both in the mid 85+ ands they didn't overclock as well as the two stock PNY 970s I had that were in the late 60's, even with the crappy Zotac software being used. Same with the Asus Strix OC's I had were in the low 80's and did crappy (one was voltage locked even!) The GB 970's I have now did better too and they are only in the low and mid 70's... Didn't test the MSI 970 and 980 I had or the Zotac 780Ti's...

 

[BiggieShady]

Gainward GTX 970 Phantom, 80.2%

 

[givmedew]

I have owned way to many cards and checked the ASIC quality on all of them to listen to people try to say that it actually means ANYTHING at all for overclocking.

Maybe once upon a time there was a card that certain ASIC scores correlated to certain behaviors HOWEVER! That is not the case with the majority of cards today.

I have owned 2 or more of almost every card I have ever owned and ASIC has meant nothing!

Now I have (2) XFX R9 290X w/ Hynix Ram. They are water-cooled with XSPC blocks, under a GTX Extreme Gen 2 480 Radiator with 3300RPM fans. Temps are kept super low.

If I overclock these things at all the become unstable. Ram I can OC... actual clock speed I can not touch.

 

[Creaturestudios]

Gigabyte Windforce GTX 780- getting 102mhz OC on top of the GB Factory OC resulting in a turbo of 1201mhz without any overvolting- haven't tried pushing any further than this

 

[Carlitos714]

run this 7970 @ 1200/1700 no problem on a swiftech MCW82
ASIC 69.5%

 

[stefanels]

Club3D R9 290 RoyalAce 4Gb

 

[kilyan]

My gigabyte gtx 760 windforce 3x oc rev 2.0:

EDIT:if the asic is so good why the hell i can add only +79 core(1333 boost)?if i go past it in heaven benchmark i get pink artifacts

 

[MrGenius]

MSI 280X Gaming 3GB OC Edition

 

[IINexusII]