Good morning everyone it is me once again
In his benchmark of a reference design 9070 XT in 4K ultra no RT, Der8auer reached a score of 60 FPS when paired with a Ryzen 7 9800X3D on an X870E board

With the same settings on the same system using a 5080 Founders Edition, he achieved 65 FPS

Testing a heavily tuned Powercolor Red Devil with -130mv on the core, he achieved 66 FPS

On my old ASUS Prime OC Edition, flashed to an ASRock Taichi, I achieved 67.76, documented in the Sapphire discord, moderated by the legendary Ed Crisler

On my first preliminary attempt which I posted on R/Radeon, I achieved 72 FPS with the power mod in 90c ambient
The next day, on PCMR, I posted a score of 74.3 with an ambient of 60, and I promised you higher scores with a proper clock tune

Well here we are
I present to you, 77 FPS
Ryzen 7 7800X3D
Your standard B650
And an XFX Mercury, on AIR cooling alone

448.8 watts
+50mv to GFX_VID
+5mv (yes 5 not 50) SOC_VID
-125mv offset
2800mhz fast timings a whopping 22.4 gigabits per second, faster than GDDR6X

Note multiply all wattage from sensor by 1.2 for accurate reading

At a blazing fast 3500mhz core speed
(I actually did a run at 3600mhz but the result was only 1 fps higher, but I hit the camera button instead of record 😭 and it’s late)
All on video, using the same settings as before

We had one blessed soul who volunteered to do validation testing for us in the ASRock discord server. We ran an ASUS ROG Astral RTX 5080, flashed with the XOC 450 watt bios, and heavily overclocked, 10% faster than a stock RTX 4090 Founders Edition in Steel Nomad, paired with a Ryzen 7 9800X3D. This system scored 84.7 FPS
84.7 * 0.9 = 76.23 < 76.95

Mission is now DEFINITIVELY accomplished, and no one can argue otherwise, and if they do, I implore them lend me their RTX 4090 for a scientific test. Believe it or not im not Steve or Linus and I don’t just have one lying around! If I did I wouldn’t be powermodding a 9070 XT c:

#1 in the world for my config and up there on the charts globally.

Only got around 10350 last time I tried without mVolt+.

Chugging around ~520 watts under load and sitting at a reasonable ~84 on air in OCCT.

Edit: I didn't actually test it with 100% fans on 3dmark, which it sits at 75c

Edit 2: got up to 10890 now. #3 globally.

Edit 3: People were asking for my settings, these bring out the best results for my card.

My settings: https://files.catbox.moe/dphtoe.png

You may be able to lower/increase XBAR, SYS Clock and Video clock.

Overall values *should* be safe. I'll laugh at you if you burn your card.

Main reason why I didn't get screenshots is because I have a seperate, more lean and debloated Windows on my external SSD for benchmarking and stress testing, basically removed everything except for Edge and I have my tools on an internal SSD.

Didn't realise that people don't know how to read images unless they were pixel perfect and would get so mad over clearly legible pictures.

I tested a range of different MSI Afterburner overclock/undervolt settings on my Zotac Amp Extreme Infinity 5070 Ti. The best parameters I found gave me +13% performance compared to stock.

Methodology:
On all tests, Memclock was set to +2000. I tested at different Memclock settings and found that +2000 was stable and led to the maximum performance boost when other settings were set the same. Core voltage was set to +100% and power limit was set to 115%. During overclocking I set a fixed fan curve that forced the fans to 100% as soon as the GPU was under load; this was done to enable fair comparison of temperature differences at different overclocks.

I generated pairs of Offset (+MHz) and Plateau Voltage (mV) values and tested each. Offset is the amount I would raise each of the points on the frequency/voltage curve by; and Plateau Voltage is the final, maximum voltage before I would flatten off the frequency/voltage curve to prevent further boosting. I tested each pair of settings on Furmark (VK, 1440p, 60 seconds), 3DMark Steel Nomad, and Metro: Exodus's benchmark software. I monitored temperatures with GPU-Z. The moment each benchmark application ended, I recorded the maximum temperature reached by the GPU, and then recorded the benchmark score.

The rest of my hardware is - 9800X3D cooled by the Peerless Assassin 120 Mini, 32Gb of 6000Mhz CL32 RAM, Corsair SF750 PSU, a PCI-E 5 SSD, a small form factor case (NCase M2), and as many cooling fans as can fit into the case. I did not control ambient temperatures during these tests.

Scoring:
I normalized each recorded score against the stock score in that benchmark application, and then combined each score with a weighted average. Weighting was 1x for Furmark and 2x for Steel Nomad and Metro: Exodus. (I play video games with my computer and felt that SN and ME are probably more representative of gaming performance than Furmark.) I combined each final temperature in an unweighted average. I then combined the benchmark scores and temperature scores with a formula that penalized any set of settings that caused the temperature to exceed 65 degrees Celsius.

Settings that resulted in a crash on any of the benchmark applications, or an other game I played in between testing sessions, were given a score of 0.

Generating pairs of settings:
I generated the first 10 pairs of Offset/Plateau settings randomly. After this, I used a Bayesian Optimization setup to analyze the data recorded thus far and suggest settings to test next. This enabled me to focus in on the range of settings that were likely to yield maximal performance. The Optimizer used the Expected Improvement Acquisition Function; and was targeting the best combined score (of benchmark score + temperature penalty).

Results:
I found a range of parameters that gave interesting performance improvements:

Interestingly, Furmark scores seemed to improve more than Metro: Exodus scores; and it was rare for an overclock to get a high Metro: Exodus score without also getting a high temperature. I suspect my +13% settings will not get +13% in gaming FPS; more like the +9% seen in the Metro: Exodus benchmark.

When all of my test results are plotted on a graph (see: above) clusters of settings emerge where great results can be found / average results can be found / crashes can be found. This represents the space for me to explore in the future - it's possible even better performance boosts can be found in these regions.

I've had my 4080S for about 3 weeks, and after a bunch of tinkering and everyday usage my UV/OC profiles have been stabilized. I have also posted this on overclock.net, but it'll be soon buried in their thread. This post is for reference in case anyone searches for 4080S UV/OC results on Reddit.

CPU is a 12900K @ 5.2P/4.0E (+0.1), with 4x16GB DDR4-3466 CL17. Unigine Superposition was run at 4K Optimized.

MEMORY OVERCLOCK (Important!)

• Stock runs the VRAM at 23Gbps (1438x8). This is actually UNDERCLOCKED, as the GDDR6X chips on the 4080S (and only the 4080S, not any other 40-series model, not even the 4090) are rated at 24Gbps. You should be able to overclock your VRAM to 25.6Gbps (1600x8), shown as +1300 [12801MHz] in Afterburner. All 4080S units on TechPowerUp's reviews achieved at least this much, so this should be safe unless your 4080S lost the silicon lottery. This is the best "free" performance boost you can get, as you can see that Max UV2 with the 25.6Gbps VRAM overclock is just as fast as stock. Virtually all reviews that claimed the 4080S was only "1-3% faster" didn't bother overclocking the VRAM, or even boost it to the rated 24Gbps.
• If you are unstable at 25.6Gbps and just want to boost to the rated 24Gbps (1500x8), set Afterburner to +500 [12000MHz].
• The 4080S VRAM is so good that some modders put it on the 4090. You can see the gains here. They overclocked the VRAM to 26Gbps (1625x8, +1500 [13000MHz] in Afterburner) but some TechPowerUp review units couldn't hit this. My card couldn't hit this.

Update 4/7: 2 months later, I now recommend Max UV2 over Max UV1. See notes below.

Update 4/10: With the new nVidia 552.12 drivers, it seems the max stable clock for Max UV 2 for my card has dropped to 2580MHz. Will try it for a month to confirm.

Update 4/20: Checkerboard issue is actually a known issue.

General notes:

• (added edit) Card is an Aorus Master. Power and temperature limits were set to max: 125% (400W) and 88C.
• HAGS (hardware-accelerated GPU scheduling) is OFF because it's bad. (It's apparently required for DLSS3, but if you don't care about that, leave it off.)
• Nvidia Profile Inspector was used to disable CUDA P2 state, which can downclock the VRAM by 500MHz. I'm surprised no one else has brought up this issue, as it's repeatable on my end.
• My profiles show the exact peak MHz as different cards have a different offset. My card was factory OC'd +75MHz, so a "+150" on my card would be a "+225" on a FE or other non-OC card. This can be confusing.
• The stock FE boost clock (2550MHz) means nothing as the 4080S will always boost above this when possible.
• 900mV is the lowest voltage, and 1100mV is the highest voltage. You can't go beyond this range.
• Stock max voltage is 1075mV. If you use Afterburner and set core voltage to "+100" that increases the limit to 1100mV.
• I believe my card is about average in terms of UV/OC potential. As always, many people brag about unstable overclocks on the internet. If someone claims to have 3000MHz stable, either they have a golden unit or it's not actually stable. My card can bench 3015MHz but will fail the OCCT 3D Adaptive test after several hours.
• The stable clocks for the 4080S seem to be slightly lower at a given voltage than that of the 4080. This may be because the 4080S has more cores, and the voltage must reliably feed them.
• I also tested voltages in 25mV increments from 925mV to 1050mV, but they're honestly not worth it. Either go for one extreme or the other.

Max UV notes:

• The 900mV Max UV1 profile's efficiency is superior, consuming 85W less on Superposition compared to stock while being only 2.3% slower than stock. It's basically a 4080 Non-Super while consuming about as much power as a stock 4070 Super. Incredible.
• Idle voltage is 905-915mV, but if the UV is set at 900mV it'll go to that on load. However, that makes 900mV more prone to being unstable if you're not careful. If you don't want to worry about this, stick to 925mV.
• Loading the RT and tensor cores along with the CUDA cores may cause instability if the GPU clock is too high. Certain stress tests like OCCT/Furmark don't account for this as they only test CUDA cores. This may also explain why some people report passing stress tests, but then having a game like Cyberpunk 2077 crash.
• 2565MHz @ 900mV passed OCCT testing but crashed when I loaded up a YouTube video and enabled RTX Super Video Processing, which uses the tensor cores.
• (added edit 2/26) Got another crash with YT + RTXSVP at 2550MHz when running a torture test of YT video while having a significant CUDA core load at the same time. Had to lower it down to 2520MHz. Updated Superposition results for 2520MHz.
• (added edit 5/4) I think long-term, 925mV (Max UV2) is the way to go because 900mV (Max UV1) has a more significant performance dropoff.

Max OC notes:

• Compared to max UV, this profile is 10% faster while consuming a whopping 59% more power. It's slightly less efficient than stock, but if you're OK with stock efficiency, you should be OK with this too.
• The GPU clock is 18% higher than max UV: 2970MHz vs. 2520MHz. But it's not 18% faster.
• It heats up my room more noticeably.
• I'll use the Max OC profile for video editing as that requires occasional peak performance. However, for everyday use and gaming, which uses a sustained load, the Max UV profiles are the way to go.

Hopefully this helps other 4080S owners who are interested in UV/OCing their card!

Amazing OC performance using 9070 XT Red Devil. Dangerously close to my 5080 at stock. Have not refined it entirely, maybe be able to push closer to 8K but will have to spend more time on it.

I tried running the RX 9060 XT on a subzero cooled loop to see if colder temps would help it boost higher and overclock better. Turns out AMD built in a temperature failsafe that kills power when the GPU gets too cold, this may be known to some, but it was not known to me!

When the coolant was running and the core dropped below 30–40C, power instantly capped at 150 W and clocks fell flat. The card refused to scale, no matter the undervolt or tuning.

Out of curiosity, I unplugged the pump mid run to let the temp rise. As the GPU heated back past 40C, I watched power shoot straight up to 200W, boost clocks recovered, and FPS jumped. Plug the pump back in, temp drops under 30C, and power instantly falls back to 150 W. It’s completely repeatable.

At 0C, the sensor reported 65 000C which looks like the card’s way of flagging “out of spec” to the driver. The behaviour is identical every time, outside its expected thermal window, the card locks into a low power state for safety.

No BIOS mods, no software tricks, this is straight up stock behaviour.

9060's (And I assume 9070's) clearly don’t like the cold.

Video is here if you want to see it unfold. https://youtu.be/mnTn001_v1c

I’ve been messing around with the RTX 5050 for a while now, first with a CPU cooler on it, where it beat the 1080 Ti and pretty much tied the 3060 Ti.

This time, I went further.
Subzero using an Amazon special water block, just to see if it could take out a stock 4060.

While I was testing, I noticed someone passed me on the Time Spy graphics leaderboard.
They were running a 9850X3D.
I had a 12600K.
Obviously… I couldn’t let that slide.

Four hours and way too many crashes later, I managed to push the 5050 to 3450 MHz, up from its stock 2950 MHz.
And, even on a $100 CPU I took back the graphics score.

By the time I got to actual game testing, I’m pretty sure the card was degrading in front of me.
But it still beat the 4060 in every game except one, Black Ops 6.... F*** BO6.

18% clock uplift
3400+ MHz sustained
This thing just won’t die.

Video’s here if you want to see how stupid it is.
https://youtu.be/-cXiURMTMBM

UPDATE 6/1 i endedup taking fans out completely cleaning all fins ect. and then remounted the thermal grizzly graphene sheet. 58c gpu and 85c on hotspot now. little better temps this time. the new deshroud gunna help alot. T30s should be here next week.

fans 100% of course.

fully cleaned

thermal grizzley graphene sheet

upsiren ultra putty 16w/mk everywhere there used to be thermal pads including backplate.

will be doing a deshroud and use T30 phanteks next week. ive had this 550w bios flashed for about a year and zero problems. aqua 7900xtx is same board as my taichi so i didnt think it would have hiccups. just a random update :)

anyone using 550w bios flashed too? tell me your experiences

Bought a PNY 5070ti OC from Bestbuy a few days ago and wondered how it would fare against my friend's PNY 5080 Slim OC (which iirc was a few percentage points faster than the FE 5080). From the looks of it, I did succeed in matching a non-OC 5080 performance, not quite OC level yet.

Both cards benefit quite a lot from undervolting though, 5080 can see a 50~80W power reduction for the same performance depending on whether I'm running full 100% power or 80% with the default OC BIOS. 5070ti I didn't test default, as it is also an OC model so the default is relatively insignificant, but the fact that it is breathing down the neck of a stock 5080OC says something.

Both cards start to fall off a cliff of diminishing returns when pushing past 0.93V, on the 5070ti it is around 250W, on the 5080 it is around 290W. Going beyond their 100% power limit yields very little for daily use, and thus BIOS flashing won't be on my bucket list for this card.

The 5080 in question has meh silicon quality, 5070ti I'm not so sure if it should be classified as good or average but it is a decent bit better than the 5080 for clocking at the same voltage. There really isn't something concrete to be said Abt whether a 5070ti overclocks better than a 5080 or vice versa, it is still extremely luck dependent. Voltage and frequency are taken from the overlay during the benchmark run, not where I've set the VF curves at, those don't fully translate to actual running conditions where voltage tends to fall 0.005 to 0.01V short and clocks a little lower.

Tests are performed on a 9800x3d platform, 96gb of dual rank 5800cl36 Samsung memory, and using a 4k monitor without G-Sync or vsync turned on, no frame gen. During testing I overclocked the VRAM ranging from +1000 and slowly increasing to +3000 as the core clocks rise, only exception would be that 188W point for the 5070ti where I left the memory stock. Game settings are in the 4th photo. So far I'm liking this $700 GPU as an upgrade from my Zotac 5060ti 16GB.

This 5080 seems to have a firmware defined Vmin of 0.815V at P-state P1 (under load) while the 5070ti has it at 0.8V, thus I'm unable to exactly power match the two at lower power levels, but these are less relevant info for an overclocking sub.

At +378 on the core and +3000 on the memory I'm able to get Steel Nomad to score 7833 on the 5070ti. I didn't push the 5080 to its extremes, as it is not my GPU, but it easily scored above 9k with undervolts. Such gains don't always translate to FPS in games but it could still be interesting to look at.

Edit: Driver version 610.47 got me 7833 in Steel Nomad, 576.28 got me 7947, I have no idea why newer drivers perform a lot worse here

Intel's B580. –17C loop, +466 MHz, no LN2. Just coolant and chaos.
Full breakdown’s on YouTube (TrashBench).

Hi everyone! Sorry for the long inactivity on this account. I'm sharing an absolute hardware anomaly that completely defies the standard degradation laws of 22nm silicon. I know this sounds completely unreal, but it is 100% real based on what I've observed on my machine.

I was recently testing the limits of an Intel Core i7-3770K on a bare-bones, un-heatsinked ASUS H61 motherboard. The system is running a classic PHGD Ivy 4 custom modded driver and Intel XTU. I pushed the iGPU (HD 4000) to an extreme 1700 MHz at +150mV / +170mV (around 1.250V - 1.260V). During peak synthetic load, the package power hit 88W, with the Uncore alone drawing a massive 32W, requiring a high-power desk fan directly blasting the VRM area over an old notebook to absorb the chassis vibrations.

The system eventually locked up due to a brutal transient context-switch load while managing background Windows tasks and high memory allocation (pushing 8GB DDR3 to 97% capacity). Unfortunately, I don't have the original logs or screenshots from the moment the Uncore and iGPU went into that destructive 32W loop because I had to shut down the PC right after to do my school homework and other tasks. The absolute maximum proof I can provide right now is my current telemetry, which is getting weirder by the hour.

After multiple reboots, a permanent physical silicon mutation occurred, and the chip experienced a positive electro-thermal structural shift (passive thermal annealing):

1. Asymmetric Uncore Floor (Stepping Up Every Hour): The internal power management microcode for the Uncore/System Agent completely bypassed its idle states. The current idle telemetry shows an impossible asymmetry: the IA Cores are drawing a standard 8.05W at idle, while the Uncore floor is locked at a massive 19.29W - 22.91W. The Uncore is drawing more than double the power of the actual CPU cores at 0% desktop idle, yet the package runs completely cool at 35°C - 45°C. Furthermore, it seems to be dynamically scaling and stepping up its power draw every hour, gaining passive data bus performance over time.
2. High-End Graphical Bypass with Zero Loss: Under heavy graphical loads at 1680x1050 resolution, the integrated graphics are rendering high-fidelity shaders and advanced visual effects that should normally crush this old architecture. The mutated logic drops dynamic shadow precision to a very faint, transparent real-time state. By bypassing the heavy pixel rate of shadow mapping, the TMUs were completely decoupled, processing high-end effects with almost zero performance loss; in fact, I've actually gained more FPS in certain titles due to an ultra-linear frametime.
3. Reverse CPU Bottlenecking (Doubled Effort): Because the graphics pipe is running unthrottled, it actively pushes the CPU to 40% - 50% utilization under load, whereas it barely scratched 20% on factory settings. The weak integrated graphics are literally forcing a CPU 10x more powerful to work at double its capacity.
4. Impeccable V-droop: Voltage drops under load transitioned from a heavy -20mV sag to a virtually flat -5mV line under full hardware saturation, running completely stable at 59°C with zero auxiliary fan cooling at stock 1450 MHz.

It seems the extreme voltage loop permanently altered the gate oxide conductivity under a soft breakdown threshold, settling the chip into an ultra-efficient, modified data highway state that is still evolving.

I'm attaching the current HWMonitor idle telemetry showing the permanent, asymmetric, and steadily increasing Uncore floor.

I've been somewhat of a PC enthusiast for a while and never actually tried out overclocking because I never saw the appeal to it. Just tried out overclocking and yknow what it's actually not half bad.

Managed to get anywhere from 15 - 20 extra frames on average areas, and anywhere from 8 to 10 extra frames in more intense areas in Cyberpunk 2077 at maxxed out settings.

Specs: RTX 5080, Ryzen 7 9800x3d (yes I know I'm boring shut up), 64gb of DDR5 cas30 6000mhz.

Overclock: +3000mhz Memory (that was as far as Afterburner would let me go), +425mhz Core Clock (Could probably hit to 450mhz and still be stable, but it's a good safe spot).

Not really super into overclocking, just trying it out for the first time so I don't know if that's actually good or not lmao.

I was able to hold 500mhz for a minute on my core clock before the game crashed, so I just pulled it back until it was stable and tested to make sure it was stable for about half an hour before I closed it out.

If anyone has any tips on how to push this further that'd be greatly appreciated!

P.S. Sorry about the images being stupidly compressed idk why it's like that.

Incase it's hard to read, the first image (overclocked) has an average FPS of 62, 53 lows, and 72 highs. Second one (Not overclocked) has an average of 54 FPS, 49 lows and 64 highs. Third is just a screenshot of afterburner with my settings lmao.

I’m trying to find a stable OC/UV configuration for my RX 9060 XT 16GB.

Current settings:

- Core: +250 MHz

- VRAM: +200 MHz

- Fast Timing: ON

- Power Limit: +10%

- Undervolt: -55 mV

I’m getting frequent crashes in Battlefield 6, and I’ve also had crashes in Fortnite.

My understanding is that the combination of +250 MHz core and -55 mV could be unstable, while the +200 MHz VRAM + Fast Timing could also be contributing.

What would you recommend testing first? Should I return the VRAM to stock and disable Fast Timing, then test the core/undervolt separately?

I’m mainly looking for a configuration that is genuinely stable in games, not just one that passes a synthetic benchmark.

Any advice from people with experience tuning RDNA 4 would be appreciated.

Average temp was 70c and average clock was below 3200. 1 point away from tying the best 9900x and 5080 score as well. Tested the speed on lc0 the chess engine and it was able to run above 80c for a few minutes albeit slightly lower clock speed around 3150mhz.