No improvement in frame rate when using my overclock settings.
No improvement in frame rate when using my overclock settings.
Additionally, GPU Z indicates that the overclocking is being implemented.
My GPU usage consistently stays between 90% and 100%. The card remains cool and never exceeds 60°C (I usually turn the fan up). Try various game titles and monitor your CPU usage as well; for overclocking, you should expect a 5 to 20 FPS increase in 1080 medium to high settings, depending on the game. In my experience with overclocking, the extra 10 FPS from overclocking in 1080 is only worth it to slightly improve an already around 60 FPS, or to push a card close to its target frame rate, considering the higher power consumption and heat generated.
Ideally you'd want minimal usage on both CPU and GPU while maintaining desired settings or FPS. Excessive usage indicates the card is being pushed to its limits, especially if you're at 100% usage, which means it's operating at full capacity for abilities. Even after adding overclocking (OC), achieving similar usage levels suggests the game settings are too aggressive, and your FPS won't improve much because the settings likely expect 120% usage, while your OC only provides about 110%. Reducing GPU-dependent parameters such as anti-aliasing will help boost FPS.
For example, with an i7-3770K and GTX970 playing Metal Gear Solid:V at 1080p, I get around 55-65% usage and approximately 90 FPS on average. Enabling 4K Dynamic Streaming in GeForce Experience lowers the max to 50-55 FPS while keeping CPU/GPU usage at 55/100. With the 970 at 124% OC, performance improves slightly in quality but overall speed and smoothness drop significantly due to the low FPS range.
Ideally you'd want minimal usage on both CPU and GPU while still achieving the desired settings and FPS. Using high percentages indicates the card is being pushed to its limits, and 100% usage usually means it's at full capacity for abilities. Even after adding overclocking (OC), if your settings are too aggressive, FPS won't improve much because they're likely expecting 120% usage, while your OC only provides about 110%. Reducing some GPU-dependent settings like AA can help boost FPS.
For example, with my i7-3770K and GTX970 playing Metal Gear Solid:V at 1080p, I get around 55-65% usage in Metal Gear Solid:V with 65% OC, achieving about 90 FPS on average. Enabling 4K DSR in GeForce Experience brings the usage down to 50-55 FPS and the CPU/GPU usage to 55/100. With 124% OC on the same card, performance is slightly better visually but overall speed and smoothness are still affected due to the low minimum and maximum FPS.
I also noticed that in GTA V, my usage drops significantly when I disable MSAA. So your suggestion to lower settings and check for improvements makes sense.
I've consistently been told to keep the GPU at full capacity. Is that accurate?
I checked the benchmarks at medium settings and noticed similar results. It’s confusing, though—everyone seems to be giving different feedback.
Consider two GPUs, like a 1050 and a 1070. When aiming for a steady 60fps at high settings, the 1050 runs at 90% usage, while the 1070 operates at just 40%. This shows a big difference in power—identical performance on the 1070 means you can push settings to ultra, the GPU has space for higher FPS, and you can still use a higher resolution monitor without issues.
Running either CPU or GPU at full capacity leaves no flexibility. In a first-person shooter, you’d hit around 55-65fps when maxed out, but in intense combat with bullet ricochets, the GPU would struggle, dropping to 45-55fps. When a tank appears and damages the environment, debris would cripple the GPU, causing FPS to plummet to 35-45. To counter this, you’d need to use a napalm bomb on the tank—expect FPS to drop even more. This highlights the problem: at high usage, there’s no room for extra features or improvements. If the 1070 ran at 40% instead, performance would be much better due to the GPU’s capacity.
Karadjgne:
Consider two GPUs, like a 1050 and a 1070. Picture this: to maintain a steady 60fps under heavy settings, the 1050 runs at 90% capacity. In contrast, the 1070 operates at just 40%. This shows the big difference in power—while the 1070 can push settings higher, the 1050 has more headroom for better performance. You could boost resolution or use a larger monitor without hitting limits.
Running either CPU or GPU at full capacity leaves no flexibility. For example, in a first-person shooter, you’d hit around 55-65fps. During intense action like a firefight, the GPU would struggle with every movement, dropping to 45-55fps. When a tank appears and damages the environment, debris would cripple performance further, likely bringing fps down to 35-45. To counter this, you’d need to use extreme measures like a napalm bomb. The result? FPS plummets to just 20.
This highlights the problem: high usage offers no room for extra features. If the 1070 ran at 40%, performance would still be strong enough to handle the workload, thanks to the CPU’s capacity. That’s why it makes perfect sense. Thanks!