F5F Stay Refreshed Power Users Overclocking The Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 LP shows no confidence in the MSI overclock scanner, yet performs adequately in games.

The Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 LP shows no confidence in the MSI overclock scanner, yet performs adequately in games.

The Zotac GeForce GTX 1650 LP shows no confidence in the MSI overclock scanner, yet performs adequately in games.

J
JairinWTF
Junior Member
44
08-17-2023, 09:49 AM
#1
played several hours of games without any stutters, lags, crashes, or artifacts. core runs at +250mhz overclock and memory at +900mhz overclock. boosted voltage was increased to +100mv but it didn’t have any noticeable effect. temperature limit was raised from 83°C to 90°C. (WHY DOES IT NOT REMOVE THE ITALICS?) My manual overclock makes MSI overclock scanner "test" show 0% confidence. Is this just a guess and not a definitive answer? The only crashes happened when I adjusted the space engine settings and changed my game resolution to around 10k for a screenshot. At that setting, it crashed without any overclocks either. So I’m not sure if the issue is related to overclocking.)
J
JairinWTF
08-17-2023, 09:49 AM #1

played several hours of games without any stutters, lags, crashes, or artifacts. core runs at +250mhz overclock and memory at +900mhz overclock. boosted voltage was increased to +100mv but it didn’t have any noticeable effect. temperature limit was raised from 83°C to 90°C. (WHY DOES IT NOT REMOVE THE ITALICS?) My manual overclock makes MSI overclock scanner "test" show 0% confidence. Is this just a guess and not a definitive answer? The only crashes happened when I adjusted the space engine settings and changed my game resolution to around 10k for a screenshot. At that setting, it crashed without any overclocks either. So I’m not sure if the issue is related to overclocking.)

P
Pasta63
Junior Member
42
08-20-2023, 08:56 AM
#2
I'm surprised you reached zero percent. I used it multiple times and it consistently returned 90% or more, though most results seemed misleading because they would crash during gameplay. It was too demanding on my GPU for a 1080Ti. Applying settings like 130-160 with 90% confidence passed the Asus Realbench 8-hour stress test. I experienced crashes within about 30 minutes in UE4 games. I stopped using it and began experimenting with stable overclocking across various titles, creating two profiles: one with voltage at 0 and core at +95, memory at +550; another with +100 voltage, core at +110, memory at +550. The second profile gives slightly better scores, but I'm still unsure if it's the best option. More testing is needed.
P
Pasta63
08-20-2023, 08:56 AM #2

I'm surprised you reached zero percent. I used it multiple times and it consistently returned 90% or more, though most results seemed misleading because they would crash during gameplay. It was too demanding on my GPU for a 1080Ti. Applying settings like 130-160 with 90% confidence passed the Asus Realbench 8-hour stress test. I experienced crashes within about 30 minutes in UE4 games. I stopped using it and began experimenting with stable overclocking across various titles, creating two profiles: one with voltage at 0 and core at +95, memory at +550; another with +100 voltage, core at +110, memory at +550. The second profile gives slightly better scores, but I'm still unsure if it's the best option. More testing is needed.

N
numblegs26
Member
197
08-28-2023, 03:52 AM
#3
Is anyone there? o.o The system held up well during multiple consecutive full Heaven benchmark runs, lasting over an hour.
N
numblegs26
08-28-2023, 03:52 AM #3

Is anyone there? o.o The system held up well during multiple consecutive full Heaven benchmark runs, lasting over an hour.

B
Batpod400
Junior Member
17
09-18-2023, 02:54 AM
#4
This indicates that the OC Scanner thinks your manual OC is extremely unstable. Also, an OC might work well in Heaven Benchmark, yet fail in real gameplay.
B
Batpod400
09-18-2023, 02:54 AM #4

This indicates that the OC Scanner thinks your manual OC is extremely unstable. Also, an OC might work well in Heaven Benchmark, yet fail in real gameplay.

O
OreoHer0
Member
226
09-18-2023, 04:41 AM
#5
I tried it in real games for a few hours, though. The overclock scanner looks unreliable now. Even the stock clocks show only 20% confidence, but I’m not experiencing any problems.
O
OreoHer0
09-18-2023, 04:41 AM #5

I tried it in real games for a few hours, though. The overclock scanner looks unreliable now. Even the stock clocks show only 20% confidence, but I’m not experiencing any problems.

N
Nicco1221
Junior Member
2
09-18-2023, 07:12 AM
#6
I'm surprised you reached zero percent. I used it multiple times and it consistently returned 90% or more, though most results seemed misleading because they would crash during gameplay. It was too demanding on my GPU for a 1080Ti. Applying settings like 130-160 with 90% confidence passed the Asus Realbench 8-hour stress test. I experienced crashes within about 30 minutes in UE4 games. I stopped using it and began experimenting with stable overclocking across various titles, creating two profiles: one with voltage at 0 and core at +95, memory at +550; another with +100 voltage, core at +110, memory at +550. The second profile gives slightly better scores, but I'm still unsure if it's the optimal setting. Further testing is needed.
N
Nicco1221
09-18-2023, 07:12 AM #6

I'm surprised you reached zero percent. I used it multiple times and it consistently returned 90% or more, though most results seemed misleading because they would crash during gameplay. It was too demanding on my GPU for a 1080Ti. Applying settings like 130-160 with 90% confidence passed the Asus Realbench 8-hour stress test. I experienced crashes within about 30 minutes in UE4 games. I stopped using it and began experimenting with stable overclocking across various titles, creating two profiles: one with voltage at 0 and core at +95, memory at +550; another with +100 voltage, core at +110, memory at +550. The second profile gives slightly better scores, but I'm still unsure if it's the optimal setting. Further testing is needed.

F
Froggy0225
Junior Member
21
09-27-2023, 03:06 AM
#7
I notice better consistency with manual curve tweaking. Keeping Ctrl pressed while dragging the far right control point up to around 325mhz gives more stable results. It now shows 90% confidence and is fully stable, with no artifacts in games. Previously I had some issues but not crashes when the GPU was partially loaded (around 50-70%). Now it feels rock solid. The lower clock speeds seem to improve stability as well.
F
Froggy0225
09-27-2023, 03:06 AM #7

I notice better consistency with manual curve tweaking. Keeping Ctrl pressed while dragging the far right control point up to around 325mhz gives more stable results. It now shows 90% confidence and is fully stable, with no artifacts in games. Previously I had some issues but not crashes when the GPU was partially loaded (around 50-70%). Now it feels rock solid. The lower clock speeds seem to improve stability as well.