Originally Posted by iRandomize
It does indeed make very little sense. But... It is often the case, that you may sacrifice some memory overclock, if you go all-out on your core. Allowing more headroom on the core *might* have made him more stable on his core.
That being said, 259mhz more on the memory from a core overvolt is... well... not realistic.
I never saw this phenomen and I had a lot of different cards from both red and green camp
Usually core stability and memory stability are not related to each other...I am always getting same results when I try to overclock just one or both.
For example if cards crashes at 1200 its gonna crash at 1200 no metter what memory clock is.
Only thing which does metter when it comes to kepler card is of course power limit, if you gonna OC both memory and core you have to increase the power more.
In any case, like you said, its not going to make 259mhz difference.
Nothing has really changed, his memory is probably still unstable, he is just not aware of it
I think a lot of people dont test their overclocks properly, lets take my card for example :
Perfectly stable overclock is only +13Mhz core and +100 memory.
Far Cry 3 stable overclock is +25 Mhz core and +250 memory.
If I am playing Far Cry for only an hour or so, I can do +25 Mhz core and +300 memory
I can play rest of the games I tested at +50 core and +350 memory
I am sure most people here would choose last option, and run their cards at +50 core and +350 memory when in reality their card can only do +13 core and +100 memory
And then blame Ubisoft or Nvidia for "Far Cry 3 crashing problems" Edited by digiadventures - 3/13/13 at 4:13am