trieuan10 wrote:
did you test it on playing games?whenever I put it to +500 mem, I always get crashes and black screen.
Ha Ha... Yeah with benchmarks maybe they don't test the VRAM that much? Furmark shows only mem load 11%.
With Hawken, playing last night, I had to set it to a more conservative 1085mhz core, 2700 mem. +250 mem causes crashes. So +200 mem is just nice.
On Windows 8 though, the driver just resets, and I can continue playing (have to run the nvinspector bat file to re-overclock after a crash). This is with Hawken.
Surprisingly, FurMark and so on are ok at 1200mhz core, ~3000mhz mem. I think because the VRAM is not tested much.
I think depending on the game I might put it at 1050mhz core, 2700mhz mem. My VRAM in games seems to be a little sensitive, but again I haven't tested it in any other games, just Hawken and Furmark, etc.
In any case +200mhz VRAM is a pretty good overclock. Might depend on ambient temperatures as well.
And core clock from 835mhz to 1085... 250mhz overclock on a laptop! That is still really amazing.
Maybe depending on the game the most stable setting is 100-200mhz more on the core and 100-200mhz more on the VRAM.
Also the CPU definitely works much more so you have lots more heat playing games than say Furmark.
When I run P95 as well as Furmark (yes hoping it doesn't blow up here :)) GPU goes from 70degC stable to now 79decC and rising slightly. CPU at 90degC temps.
So playing a game at these settings with GPU and CPU hitting 80-90degC temps is very, very aggressive. Let alone then seeing stability in games, drivers etc.
But of course for bragging rights saying you can run Furmark with +365mhz GPU core, +500mhz GPU MEM, +150mhz CPU core (3.2ghz max turbo to 3.35ghz) is... fun.
As some people have mentioned, if you take off the bottom cover and use a laptop cooler, keeping temps below 70degC, then it may be possible to have more stability.
It should be noted that ASUS already put in 2500mhz DDR5 VRAM which is much faster than the Nvidia-specified 2000mhz VRAM, so despite the 128-bit bus width, if you're running 2700mhz DDR5 VRAM, that's quite a lot of bandwidth, in fact, not that far behind the GTX 680M at 115.2GB/s ~ at 2700mhz the GTX 660M is doing 2*128*2700/8 = 86.4 GB/s and nicely ahead of Nvidia-spec'ed GTX 660M's 64.0 GB/s.
BTW. Hawken .INI tweaks... It looks AMAZING on GTX 660M overclocked. That 200 or so mhz does help. Will share this sometime on another thread.
