Overclocked Sapphire Toxic R9 280X

[TheSilentHorker]

So basically I got overclock hungry on my Toxic 280X card. There was not that much information on overclocking this card when I was looking for it so I thought I would add some to the collection. I wanted to share my results and post a few questions I have.
First off, my system specs:

CPU: FX 8300 @ 3.912GHz
Cooler: Enermax ETS-T40-BK
GPU: Sapphire Toxic Tri-X OC R9 280X
Mobo: Asus M5A97 R2.0
Ram: 8GB G. Skill RipjawsX 2133Mhz
PSU: Rosewill 80+ Gold 750W
Storage: 120GB Kingston SSD and 1TB Seagate Barracuda

This all started when I read the overclocking portion of AnandTech's review of the Toxic 280X (here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7406/the-sapphire-r9-280x-toxic-review/5). I thought about how they stated there was little overclocking headroom on these cards, and it made me wonder if this was really true. I tried increasing a mere 10Mhz (like they did in the review) and ended up getting a bunch of white lines vertically and freezing my PC. That was a month ago and today I decided to give it another go. I opened up Sapphire's Trixx software and this time I added more voltage. It worked. I am very new to overclocking and put my voltage to 1.299v. I know this is probably way too much and might damage my card but please inform me anyway. I used several different clocks and tested using FurMark with different amounts of RAM and CPU speed http://i.imgur.com/o4lDHop.png. No matter the clock it stayed at about 30C idle and never peaked past 67 load even though some of the tests say it did; trust me, it didn't. Also note the 800MHz CPU test did not really affect the performance when compared to the 3.9GHz CPU clock. Taking out a stick of RAM didn't change much either. I didn't know about the power limit slider in Trixx until after the fact and it was actually at 0 for most of the overclocks. http://i.imgur.com/WAEBycG.png Eventually I got to the absolute max OC of 1190MHz core clock and 1770 memory with 20% TDP and 1.299v. Anything higher would stutter in FurMark. Tell me what you think of these results, and my questions are:
1. Did AnandTech get a bad GPU or is mine just abnormally good?
2. How can I make my max OC more stable?
3. Which one of these settings would you recommend I use for everyday gaming?
4. Should I replace the thermal compound for better temps?
5. Will this permanently damage my card if I keep it at this stable OC?
Thank you for taking time to read this lengthy post, and I look forward to your replies.
PS: I don't know how to paragraph 😛

 

[damric]

1) They probably didn't know what they were doing.
2) More voltage.
3) Stock settings. Only use the OC for benchmarks.
4) No.
5) As long as you aren't doing high stress things constantly (like mining or benching) it will be fine. I would enable V-synch to take some stress off the card.

6) You need to worry more about overclocking that FX-8300.

 

[photonboy]

1. How is yours "abnormally good" when you got to 1190MHz and they got to 1150MHz?

That's not a huge difference considering GPU's all vary slightly due to manufacturing plus they might have not pushed it right to the edge like you did.

2. More stable?
Drop the GPU and Memory frequencies slightly. Dropping to 1150MHz is only just over 3% difference theoretically and likely less in a game so may mean 51FPS vs 53FPS for example or less.

Also, see what voltages are recommended.

3. I think I just answered this.
Keep in mind that GAMING isn't as demanding as Furmark. My advice is stay with 1150MHz, 1750MHz and the lowest voltage that is stable.

I NEVER recommend pushing right to the limit.

I disagree about using STOCK SETTINGS for gaming necessarily though if you can gain a few FPS boost with a relatively safe overclock. On the other hand FAN NOISE will increase slightly so it's your choice. It's the Voltage increase that affects power and thus fan noise more than the frequency change.

Having said this, I'd personally leave it at stock settings since a 2% to 6% increase in frame rate isn't as important to me as fan noise and stability. A 10% increase sure I'd be interested.

4. NO. Don't replace the compound as that voids the warranty.

5. Damage?
It can, but that's probably not likely. For one thing the cards are designed to throttle down if they overheat. All electronic chips lose performance slowly over time and it happens faster if they use more power. (another reason not to push right to the limit)

 

[TheSilentHorker]

1. How is yours "abnormally good" when you got to 1190MHz and they got to 1150MHz?

That's not a huge difference considering GPU's all vary slightly due to manufacturing plus they might have not pushed it right to the edge like you did.

2. More stable?
Drop the GPU and Memory frequencies slightly. Dropping to 1150MHz is only just over 3% difference theoretically and likely less in a game so may mean 51FPS vs 53FPS for example or less.

Also, see what voltages are recommended.

3. I think I just answered this.
Keep in mind that GAMING isn't as demanding as Furmark. My advice is stay with 1150MHz, 1750MHz and the lowest voltage that is stable.

I NEVER recommend pushing right to the limit.

I disagree about using STOCK SETTINGS for gaming necessarily though if you can gain a few FPS boost with a relatively safe overclock. On the other hand FAN NOISE will increase slightly so it's your choice. It's the Voltage increase that affects power and thus fan noise more than the frequency change.

Having said this, I'd personally leave it at stock settings since a 2% to 6% increase in frame rate isn't as important to me as fan noise and stability. A 10% increase sure I'd be interested.

4. NO. Don't replace the compound as that voids the warranty.

5. Damage?
It can, but that's probably not likely. For one thing the cards are designed to throttle down if they overheat. All electronic chips lose performance slowly over time and it happens faster if they use more power. (another reason not to push right to the limit)

The reason I said "abnormally good" was because the stock clock for mine was actually 1050MHz, not 1100 MHz as they wrote in their review. As for the stability issue I will probably just keep it stock until I get to a game that I really need or want performance for. That has yet to come and my GPU currently serves me as I require so I can't really complain.

 

[TheSilentHorker]

1) They probably didn't know what they were doing.
2) More voltage.
3) Stock settings. Only use the OC for benchmarks.
4) No.
5) As long as you aren't doing high stress things constantly (like mining or benching) it will be fine. I would enable V-synch to take some stress off the card.

6) You need to worry more about overclocking that FX-8300.

Currently my FX 8300 isn't really a drawback in games so I am fine with it as is. If I notice more of a need for CPU power I will definitely look into OC'ing it more. 3.9GHz isn't currently bottlenecking my GPU.

 

[damric]

You don't get minimum frame drops? Lucky you 😛