bruce wrote:
My personal theory is that NV's boost clocks constitutes their own versions of overclocking.
I think that goes without saying.
bruce wrote:
Stanford does not support overclocking.
.
.
If you do overclock, have you disabled the boost function?
Putting your statements together, it seems you are suggesting that a GPU used for folding should have any factory overclocking removed
and the boost function disabled. If that is not what you meant, perhaps you would like to clarify?
You also say:
bruce wrote:The OC rules have changed.
You are not, I trust, implying that PG's developers were unaware of this hence haven't taken it into account?
My GTX 980's are factory overclocked, and I apply further overclocking on top of that. I fully accept that any instability due to the latter is my responsibility completely. I do
not consider that that applies to the factory overclock, and even less to the boost.
I think it likely that most people buy a GPU primarily for gaming, and get the fastest one they can afford. (Maybe using other criteria, but speed is likely to be high on the list of priorities.) They expect it to work "out of the box", and in general (and for the intended purpose) it will. Not many will know about the fine detail of boost clocks, fan profiles, maximum power demand, thermal environments etc etc- it's just a consumer component of their computer that gives them a better gaming experience.
As these are the sort of people PG would like to attract to the folding project (and are signally failing to do so) it behoves them to look outside the cosy world of academia and make sure their software works
on the hardware that people actually buy.