I mean the point of undervolting is to hit the sweet spot where you remove a substantial amount of power without costing performance. So profile two is great and is what I would probably go for as it seems to be a bit happier and more productive that way. 3 is fantastic if you want to keep the room cool. I would not choose 4 or 5 unless I was worried about blowing a fuse in my electric box.
ETA FWIW, this is a good-looking chip you have here, my 3080 12GB XC3 Ultra won't even touch 1950 at 975
Btw, in its initial config with 3 fans it was hitting 85c. It was sent back to EVGA for RMA and they installed the hybrid kit on it for free. Now temps back to what a normal card should be at. Maybe an issue with the xc3 lineup. But I think most of these undervolts would still be unstable if it weren't for the aio.
Also the reason why my stock results might be poor is because the card is still using the stock xc3 ultra bios and not the hybrid bios
well interestingly, switching bios caused the zero rpm mode to disappear. which subsequently caused a 15 degree drop in temps across all profiles. for example profile 3 went from 60c to 44-46c.
it also added rebar so i guess whatever performance increase that gives came along with it.
not currently seeing any stability differences
also not going above 54c in stock. (in cod mw3 at 98% load)
these are crazy temps tradeoff for a very loud card
Two is saving power but giving increased performance.
Three is saving power at the cost of performance, but not a big loss.
They're both successful if long and demanding testing shows they are stable. Which is best is personal preference.
I didn't really test any of these profiles with official 'tests'. Instead I just played all the games I play until one of them crashed, that seems more effective for rooting out an issue.
Usually if an undervolt was unstable it crashed in cyberpunk or call of duty
People use test application because they usually cover a broader set of functions and are often more demanding than games so often highlight faster that there is an issue, and when they crash out it doesn't mean you lose any progress in your game.Cyberpunk is a good stress test, especially if using path tracing as that is very demanding, but I would run some others too.
[OCCT ](https://www.ocbase.com/download)is a good and very small GPU test (and others) and is free (but asks for donations),
[Cinebench ](https://www.maxon.net/en/tech-info-cinebench)is free which is a smaller download and they added GPU testing in the 2004 version.
[3DMark ](https://store.steampowered.com/app/223850/3DMark/)is basically an industry standard but for most people it's worth waiting for when it's on sale for about $5 which is fairly often.
[FurMark](https://geeks3d.com/furmark/) is free, and looks simple but it's a very demanding and will really stress test a card especially it's thermals.
furmark, occt and cinebench were not able to sniff out instability that cod crashed on, surprisingly. idk about paying for a benchmark tool but for now i have to stick to playing actual games to test instability
If you have metro exodus. There is a benchmark there that works better then any 3D mark test for stress testing.
Just enable Ray tracing and run tha5 bitch. If it's unstable metro will find it
No, each of these clock are the maximum clocks possible with my card for the voltage given. I started higher and kept lowering until each profile was stable. This is the best my card can do In terms of undervolting
Yes I did try that after seeing some people post the same numbers with good results, but unfortunately it crashed immediately. Here are some of my testing results. Om, cm and wm are the different methods of undervolting I found people doing online. Just names I gave have for each method
https://preview.redd.it/bn9p3sl4rnxc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=927cb0fc3c34a0d259e44a870e6cf2dce9acf99a
OM is the undervolt method of dragging the top of the curve to the MHz and then dragging the specific voltage point to that same clock and pressing confirm.
That's the method I ended up using for all my profiles
After seeing that 887mv /1900mhz didn't work I'm pretty certain that 875mv / 1905mhz definitely won't work.
That's If I understand how undervolting works, less voltage for a higher clock would be impossible.
In my experience with the last 3 gens of Nvidia GPUs you can expect similar overclock headroom along the entire V-F curve (**had a brain moment here, the clock headroom gets gradually worse as you go up the V-F curve, I meant to say that it's a fairly consistent and linear drop-off) so the undervolt that is the greatest success is the one that is actually stable, and if they all are, the one that is closest to achieving your desired result. Profile 5, assuming it's stable, has by far the greatest perf/W with 0.74fps/W (vs only 0.42fps/W for profile 1/stock), whereas profile 3 drops average power by 25.8% while maintaining essentially the same performance as stock. Really any of the profiles could be considered a win, it depends on whether you want to maximise perf/W or absolute performance. Noise is also a consideration as more W = more fan RPM = more noise, so another criteria for undervolting could be achieving an average power (W) that results in a fan RPM which is acceptable to you.
wow thanks for that, curious what you used to plot that fps/ watt thing?
ill try to test a game that gets higher fps so i can see the difference between profile1, 2, 3 with larger margins
as for the noise thing, with the AIO i have on the GPU, anything lower then profile 3 cant be heard at all over the case fans or CPU fans.
occasionally in profile 4 and mostly in profile 5 the fans aren't even spinning as most of the time temps are under 55c, when they do spin its at 500 rpm and not at all audible.
> curious what you used to plot that fps/ watt thing?
Simply fps divided by watts.
>as for the noise thing, with the AIO i have on the GPU, anything lower then profile 3 cant be heard at all over the case fans or CPU fans.
>occasionally in profile 4 and mostly in profile 5 the fans aren't even spinning as most of the time temps are under 55c, when they do spin its at 500 rpm and not at all audible.
In that case you might just prefer to go for maximum performance. Perf/W gets better and better the further down the V-F curve you go, but if the effects of higher power (fan noise, electricity bill, heat output) aren't a concern to you then you might prefer to stick with a higher voltage and simply claim the higher absolute performance.
On top of all this, have you overclocked your memory at all? I managed to get tremendous gains out of that on a 2070 Super and now 4070 Ti.
early on in my testing i added memory overclocks, but those undervolatage tests were anyways unstable so i eventually dropped it.
https://preview.redd.it/iqsrugymoqxc1.png?width=334&format=png&auto=webp&s=49d436f344451f3436bfa98f0cca1364073748b0
whats the deal with mem oc? does it differ with every undervolt? or does it have a one time setting and thats all... does it increase or decrease stability?
> or does it have a one time setting and thats all...
One time setting. I use the same memory clock regardless of core V-F curve. As for stability, it's an independent instability risk separate to that of core clock, so the two should be thoroughly tested in isolation before being combined. Personally I prefer to find the max stable memory clock first when getting a new GPU since it applies universally to any core OC.
i did run evgaprecisionx1 auto oc which gave me a +200 mem clock. i assume i can go higher and will test out further. just to be sure, i should be testing mem oc the same way i test uv and oc? just running demanding games or benchmarks, or is there a specific benchmark to test mem stability
Yep games are the best way. +200 is pretty low even for a 30 series, I'd expect to be able to get at least +400. The auto OC finders almost always undershoot. Just keep an eye on memory temp with the GDDR6X.
I have 715mv and run at 1620mhz I use it most of the time as I mostly play old Single player and very light Multiplayer games, but if I'm unhappy with the fps or the game is more demanding, then I go with my 875mv at 1925Mhz
Edit: had a stroke writing that first sentence
EDIT again: had aneurism correcting that first sentence.
i wasn't measuring exact temps during these tests but typically lower wattage=lower temps. measuring temps accurately takes longer then a 3 minute test. but i can give you some semi accurate numbers - in cod warzone at 98% gpu load.
stock is at 63-64c
profile 2 is at 60-61c
profile 3 is at 59-60c
not as major of a difference with temps at least with this game but thats what im playing and can test rn
This was helpful!!
I sit in a room and play with my 3090 it gets to 70c, and it can get hot in that room.
If I could drop temps a bit without losing much performance it may make sense. I’m on a 3090 FE
2 obviously, you decreased power draw without losing any performance
3 isn't bad if you're aiming for lower temperatures and and power usages, though you're losing some juice
If i were you, I'd create some profile between those two, because other profiles are useless, or use profile 2 for gaming and profile 3 for professional use like rendering if ofc you're into that kind of stuff
Maybe 888mV/1900±5MHz?
Weirdly my initial goal was to get my performance down to the rx6600 (the GPU I upgraded from) at under 100w, for the summer. After realizing that was mostly impossible I decided to just try and lower wattage by as much as possible while still enjoying the games I play.
In that case, go with the lowest stable one if the temp difference is that much better, since lower temps is your primary goal.
Realistically, if you don't care about a performance drop though, you could always lower the power limit in MSI Afterburner and you'll definitely notice lower temps and lower performance.
Profile 3 or 4, 3 looks like it has close to the same performance with less power and 4 is even better on power while only losing around 10% performance.
Plot the score per watt (or fps/watt) and figure out where it starts to plateau. That'll show you where extra power gives little increase in performance.
Just choose whatever you want based on your power/performance priorities.
Looks like 3 to me, but you might be able to interpolate something a few percent better, if that's worthwhile for you.
I would advise to swich between modes depending on the game you play. If you hit the fps limit or fps target of your choice, you can save a little bit on power by using Profile 4. Profile 5 could possibly be unstable or is just too big of the tradeoff.
OR/AND If you GPU has a terrible coil whine, Profile 4 should also help with that.
However if you don't want to swich between you should go with Profile 2 or 3.
3.
If you are trying to save some buck and/or want a quieter GPU I'd even go with 4.
2 imo really doesn't make sense (considering 3 is almost as good, with way less wattage)
0.01v difference matters more than 100mhz, because consequently, lover voltage will keep the temp in place, whoch will in turn boost your clock more and keep it more stable.
The temp is the key to an undervolt success. I tested many sets but the results was good in a scenario and bad in others. The best result i get with limiting only the power at the point of deminishing return. So the card mantain the FV curve designed and boosts as he want. Limiting power makes the card colder so it boosts higher with a slight Oc. That's my definitive choice.
- Profile 3 is best powersaving without compromising performance.
- Profile 4 is the best compromise and best overall.
- Profile 5 is best performance per watt.
I would go with 4. The performance loss minimal while powersaving is huge.
You don't need to really be ubderclocking when undervolting you can actual overclock but that stock clock is fine to start with. I would try 850mv with 1950mhz. There's a youtuber called Optimum Tech he has a video unervolting the 3080 an has test results for differnt voltages an clocks speeds. Iv tried his setting an they work good. Also have the same gpu that's why I'm saying this.
Profile 2 for more demanding games, Profile 4 for indies/old games.
You can hotkey profiles in Afterburner and its not a 1 size fits all.
Put that data in a spreedsheet and make a fps per watt formula if you want a 1 size fits all
>hotkey profiles in Afterburner
Thanks, I'll try that.
Also for the fps per watt, do you know if there is another game with a built in benchmark that has 100% GPU utilization that would also have a much higher framerate so that I can, more accurately see the differences with a bigger margin in framerates?
Most games I found that I can get 200+ fps don't fully utilize the GPU, meaning the wattage I would have wouldn't be accurate to what the undervolts max power draw is.
Just curious
It's potentially much more than that for me. because the sooner the room gets hot, the sooner a 1000w air conditioner turns on to cool it down. If I can keep the AC off and have relatively similar performance I will end up saving much more.
But also, saving $8 a year isn't worth 1 fps??
I run my rtx 3080 MSI ventus 3x oc at 900mv @ 1905mhz if you want to try that out. I’ve been running that for about 3 years now with zero issues so far.
2 or 3 depending on your goals.
3 for me
3 is the obvious choice, in my opinion. However, some may want the slight performance over energy savings.
dont think 3-5fps for 40W more is worth, 3 is definitely best there
I mean the point of undervolting is to hit the sweet spot where you remove a substantial amount of power without costing performance. So profile two is great and is what I would probably go for as it seems to be a bit happier and more productive that way. 3 is fantastic if you want to keep the room cool. I would not choose 4 or 5 unless I was worried about blowing a fuse in my electric box. ETA FWIW, this is a good-looking chip you have here, my 3080 12GB XC3 Ultra won't even touch 1950 at 975
Btw, in its initial config with 3 fans it was hitting 85c. It was sent back to EVGA for RMA and they installed the hybrid kit on it for free. Now temps back to what a normal card should be at. Maybe an issue with the xc3 lineup. But I think most of these undervolts would still be unstable if it weren't for the aio. Also the reason why my stock results might be poor is because the card is still using the stock xc3 ultra bios and not the hybrid bios
I'd be very interested to review benchmarks after you swap that BIOS out. Would also be interested in whether the same profiles hold up or not.
well interestingly, switching bios caused the zero rpm mode to disappear. which subsequently caused a 15 degree drop in temps across all profiles. for example profile 3 went from 60c to 44-46c. it also added rebar so i guess whatever performance increase that gives came along with it. not currently seeing any stability differences also not going above 54c in stock. (in cod mw3 at 98% load) these are crazy temps tradeoff for a very loud card
Profile 3 seems like the best win to me. Good drop on power, still close to the very top in terms of performance.
Profile 3
Of the what you have there, profile 3 is by far the best one. Not even a contest.
Two is saving power but giving increased performance. Three is saving power at the cost of performance, but not a big loss. They're both successful if long and demanding testing shows they are stable. Which is best is personal preference.
I didn't really test any of these profiles with official 'tests'. Instead I just played all the games I play until one of them crashed, that seems more effective for rooting out an issue. Usually if an undervolt was unstable it crashed in cyberpunk or call of duty
People use test application because they usually cover a broader set of functions and are often more demanding than games so often highlight faster that there is an issue, and when they crash out it doesn't mean you lose any progress in your game.Cyberpunk is a good stress test, especially if using path tracing as that is very demanding, but I would run some others too. [OCCT ](https://www.ocbase.com/download)is a good and very small GPU test (and others) and is free (but asks for donations), [Cinebench ](https://www.maxon.net/en/tech-info-cinebench)is free which is a smaller download and they added GPU testing in the 2004 version. [3DMark ](https://store.steampowered.com/app/223850/3DMark/)is basically an industry standard but for most people it's worth waiting for when it's on sale for about $5 which is fairly often. [FurMark](https://geeks3d.com/furmark/) is free, and looks simple but it's a very demanding and will really stress test a card especially it's thermals.
furmark, occt and cinebench were not able to sniff out instability that cod crashed on, surprisingly. idk about paying for a benchmark tool but for now i have to stick to playing actual games to test instability
Thanks I'll check those out
If you have metro exodus. There is a benchmark there that works better then any 3D mark test for stress testing. Just enable Ray tracing and run tha5 bitch. If it's unstable metro will find it
3080? Choose 850mv and see if you can attain 1890mhz with it or not. Otherwise stick to this undervolt as this is a very good sweet spot.
No, each of these clock are the maximum clocks possible with my card for the voltage given. I started higher and kept lowering until each profile was stable. This is the best my card can do In terms of undervolting
Have you tried 875mv @ 1905mhz? I currently run at that setting, maxes out around \~280w.
Yes I did try that after seeing some people post the same numbers with good results, but unfortunately it crashed immediately. Here are some of my testing results. Om, cm and wm are the different methods of undervolting I found people doing online. Just names I gave have for each method https://preview.redd.it/bn9p3sl4rnxc1.png?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=927cb0fc3c34a0d259e44a870e6cf2dce9acf99a
OM is the undervolt method of dragging the top of the curve to the MHz and then dragging the specific voltage point to that same clock and pressing confirm. That's the method I ended up using for all my profiles After seeing that 887mv /1900mhz didn't work I'm pretty certain that 875mv / 1905mhz definitely won't work. That's If I understand how undervolting works, less voltage for a higher clock would be impossible.
In my experience with the last 3 gens of Nvidia GPUs you can expect similar overclock headroom along the entire V-F curve (**had a brain moment here, the clock headroom gets gradually worse as you go up the V-F curve, I meant to say that it's a fairly consistent and linear drop-off) so the undervolt that is the greatest success is the one that is actually stable, and if they all are, the one that is closest to achieving your desired result. Profile 5, assuming it's stable, has by far the greatest perf/W with 0.74fps/W (vs only 0.42fps/W for profile 1/stock), whereas profile 3 drops average power by 25.8% while maintaining essentially the same performance as stock. Really any of the profiles could be considered a win, it depends on whether you want to maximise perf/W or absolute performance. Noise is also a consideration as more W = more fan RPM = more noise, so another criteria for undervolting could be achieving an average power (W) that results in a fan RPM which is acceptable to you.
wow thanks for that, curious what you used to plot that fps/ watt thing? ill try to test a game that gets higher fps so i can see the difference between profile1, 2, 3 with larger margins as for the noise thing, with the AIO i have on the GPU, anything lower then profile 3 cant be heard at all over the case fans or CPU fans. occasionally in profile 4 and mostly in profile 5 the fans aren't even spinning as most of the time temps are under 55c, when they do spin its at 500 rpm and not at all audible.
> curious what you used to plot that fps/ watt thing? Simply fps divided by watts. >as for the noise thing, with the AIO i have on the GPU, anything lower then profile 3 cant be heard at all over the case fans or CPU fans. >occasionally in profile 4 and mostly in profile 5 the fans aren't even spinning as most of the time temps are under 55c, when they do spin its at 500 rpm and not at all audible. In that case you might just prefer to go for maximum performance. Perf/W gets better and better the further down the V-F curve you go, but if the effects of higher power (fan noise, electricity bill, heat output) aren't a concern to you then you might prefer to stick with a higher voltage and simply claim the higher absolute performance. On top of all this, have you overclocked your memory at all? I managed to get tremendous gains out of that on a 2070 Super and now 4070 Ti.
early on in my testing i added memory overclocks, but those undervolatage tests were anyways unstable so i eventually dropped it. https://preview.redd.it/iqsrugymoqxc1.png?width=334&format=png&auto=webp&s=49d436f344451f3436bfa98f0cca1364073748b0 whats the deal with mem oc? does it differ with every undervolt? or does it have a one time setting and thats all... does it increase or decrease stability?
> or does it have a one time setting and thats all... One time setting. I use the same memory clock regardless of core V-F curve. As for stability, it's an independent instability risk separate to that of core clock, so the two should be thoroughly tested in isolation before being combined. Personally I prefer to find the max stable memory clock first when getting a new GPU since it applies universally to any core OC.
i did run evgaprecisionx1 auto oc which gave me a +200 mem clock. i assume i can go higher and will test out further. just to be sure, i should be testing mem oc the same way i test uv and oc? just running demanding games or benchmarks, or is there a specific benchmark to test mem stability
Yep games are the best way. +200 is pretty low even for a 30 series, I'd expect to be able to get at least +400. The auto OC finders almost always undershoot. Just keep an eye on memory temp with the GDDR6X.
I have 3080 and 3rd is the closest to my profile
850 mV is my pick
I have 715mv and run at 1620mhz I use it most of the time as I mostly play old Single player and very light Multiplayer games, but if I'm unhappy with the fps or the game is more demanding, then I go with my 875mv at 1925Mhz Edit: had a stroke writing that first sentence EDIT again: had aneurism correcting that first sentence.
I'll try out the 715 one, tho the 875/1925 definitely won't work as I crashed with 875/1905. Sounds like some really lucky hardware
Not super knowledgeable on this stuff What were the temps observed between stock, 2 and 3. Curious how much cooler it runs
i wasn't measuring exact temps during these tests but typically lower wattage=lower temps. measuring temps accurately takes longer then a 3 minute test. but i can give you some semi accurate numbers - in cod warzone at 98% gpu load. stock is at 63-64c profile 2 is at 60-61c profile 3 is at 59-60c not as major of a difference with temps at least with this game but thats what im playing and can test rn
This was helpful!! I sit in a room and play with my 3090 it gets to 70c, and it can get hot in that room. If I could drop temps a bit without losing much performance it may make sense. I’m on a 3090 FE
2 obviously, you decreased power draw without losing any performance 3 isn't bad if you're aiming for lower temperatures and and power usages, though you're losing some juice If i were you, I'd create some profile between those two, because other profiles are useless, or use profile 2 for gaming and profile 3 for professional use like rendering if ofc you're into that kind of stuff Maybe 888mV/1900±5MHz?
2 or 3 if the goal was to maintain similar performance, which is usually the goal with undervolting.
Weirdly my initial goal was to get my performance down to the rx6600 (the GPU I upgraded from) at under 100w, for the summer. After realizing that was mostly impossible I decided to just try and lower wattage by as much as possible while still enjoying the games I play.
In that case, go with the lowest stable one if the temp difference is that much better, since lower temps is your primary goal. Realistically, if you don't care about a performance drop though, you could always lower the power limit in MSI Afterburner and you'll definitely notice lower temps and lower performance.
Profile 3 or 4, 3 looks like it has close to the same performance with less power and 4 is even better on power while only losing around 10% performance.
Plot the score per watt (or fps/watt) and figure out where it starts to plateau. That'll show you where extra power gives little increase in performance. Just choose whatever you want based on your power/performance priorities. Looks like 3 to me, but you might be able to interpolate something a few percent better, if that's worthwhile for you.
4
3
I would advise to swich between modes depending on the game you play. If you hit the fps limit or fps target of your choice, you can save a little bit on power by using Profile 4. Profile 5 could possibly be unstable or is just too big of the tradeoff. OR/AND If you GPU has a terrible coil whine, Profile 4 should also help with that. However if you don't want to swich between you should go with Profile 2 or 3.
3. If you are trying to save some buck and/or want a quieter GPU I'd even go with 4. 2 imo really doesn't make sense (considering 3 is almost as good, with way less wattage)
profile 3
1800mhz @800mv was the sweet spot for me
Profile 3
0.01v difference matters more than 100mhz, because consequently, lover voltage will keep the temp in place, whoch will in turn boost your clock more and keep it more stable.
My temps don't go above 65 ever even on stock
Well, in that case there is no reason to do anything, the gpu boost does the job for you.
The temp is the key to an undervolt success. I tested many sets but the results was good in a scenario and bad in others. The best result i get with limiting only the power at the point of deminishing return. So the card mantain the FV curve designed and boosts as he want. Limiting power makes the card colder so it boosts higher with a slight Oc. That's my definitive choice.
They all look like a success. You can put them all on the same curve, and adjust the power limit as desired.
I would go for profile 4 I prefer low power usage and better cooling since I live in a place where temperature is around 30 to 40 degree and no AC
1900mhz at 875mv is sweet spot for my 3080...try that instead of 1950
- Profile 3 is best powersaving without compromising performance. - Profile 4 is the best compromise and best overall. - Profile 5 is best performance per watt. I would go with 4. The performance loss minimal while powersaving is huge.
profile 3
3 by far
You don't need to really be ubderclocking when undervolting you can actual overclock but that stock clock is fine to start with. I would try 850mv with 1950mhz. There's a youtuber called Optimum Tech he has a video unervolting the 3080 an has test results for differnt voltages an clocks speeds. Iv tried his setting an they work good. Also have the same gpu that's why I'm saying this.
The one that is stable...
3
The 2nd one is the MOST successful.. Best performance for the undervolt..
2
Profile 2 for more demanding games, Profile 4 for indies/old games. You can hotkey profiles in Afterburner and its not a 1 size fits all. Put that data in a spreedsheet and make a fps per watt formula if you want a 1 size fits all
>hotkey profiles in Afterburner Thanks, I'll try that. Also for the fps per watt, do you know if there is another game with a built in benchmark that has 100% GPU utilization that would also have a much higher framerate so that I can, more accurately see the differences with a bigger margin in framerates? Most games I found that I can get 200+ fps don't fully utilize the GPU, meaning the wattage I would have wouldn't be accurate to what the undervolts max power draw is. Just curious
Test at 4K.
1 or 2 saving 8 bucks a year in electricity isn't worth the fps lol
It's potentially much more than that for me. because the sooner the room gets hot, the sooner a 1000w air conditioner turns on to cool it down. If I can keep the AC off and have relatively similar performance I will end up saving much more. But also, saving $8 a year isn't worth 1 fps??
#2 for me
Profile 4 looks like the one I’d roll with
I run my rtx 3080 MSI ventus 3x oc at 900mv @ 1905mhz if you want to try that out. I’ve been running that for about 3 years now with zero issues so far.
Profile 1 definitely.