MSI Afterburner fan speed adjusting=dangerous?

[AzeofSpadez]

I just bought my 560 ti Hawk and when i play games I almost don't hear my fan, not even at 100% :S It's mostly becuase i use the Steelseries Siberia V2 headset I think Anyway, is it dangerous to have the fans at 100% ALL of the time if the noise doesn't bother you? Becuase it lowers my temperatures alot

[Djinni]

Its generally more advisable to run them at 100% all the time, rather than at a lower speed.
Given the cost of a fan... I'd say its more preferable to replace your fans every 7 or 8 years after running them at full pelt all the time than every 10 years running at 50% all the time....

[DeltrusDisc]

Running a 560 Ti MSI TFII/III fan at 50% all of the time or just letting it do its own thing, is personally, the optimal choice. They WILL get loud at 100% speed and just because you're gaming doesn't mean you need to have the fans running at 100%, as games like WoW, SW:TOR, and many others don't even work the GPU that hard and thus won't even put it anywhere near dangerous temperatures. I have my MSI Afterburner set to make the fans be at 40% (they won't go lower) till it hits 41 Celsius, which is where it starts going up 1% speed per degree Celsius. So if the GPU is at 60 Celsius, the fans go at 60% and keep it perfectly stable.

Right now I'm not gaming but due to dual-monitors forcing my GPU to have the core speed at the high setting (880MHz in my case, I saw no reason for the OC anymore since SW:TOR is a cake walk for the 560 Ti at 1080p) the fan is at 40% and my GPU is at a cool 37 Celsius. If the monitors are off, like when I'm sleeping/away from my computer, the GPU drops all the way down to about 20-23 Celsius.

With an aftermarket cooling solution like the MSI TF II/III (Hawk is a designation for the OC on the card), Asus DCII, or Gigabyte's triple fan, you should never need to have the fans at 100%, it is a waste of the extra energy being used to power them, killing the fans sooner than prolonging their lives, and causing far more noise than most people would prefer to hear - and ultimately the reward of a few degrees lower from an already safe-zone anyways is just not worth it. Idk why Djinni said to run them at 100%, doesn't seem like him. :P

[Fuzzykins]

I leave mine on auto and only realize it's there when I play BF3... If it's not broken, don't fix it. -_-"

[AzeofSpadez]

When i run BF3 on auto-fan settings the highest i have seen so far is 68 degrees Celsius. My core clock speed is 950Mhz, I am thinking about overclocking it to 1000Mhz just to get through that "magical barrier" how much of a performance/heat increase would that mean? (And i still don't really get if it's good or bad to run the fans at 100%, im confused xD)

[DeltrusDisc]

When i run BF3 on auto-fan settings the highest i have seen so far is 68 degrees Celsius. My core clock speed is 950Mhz, I am thinking about overclocking it to 1000Mhz just to get through that "magical barrier" how much of a performance/heat increase would that mean? (And i still don't really get if it's good or bad to run the fans at 100%, im confused xD)

100% fan speed kills fans quicker, simple as that.

Onto the larger part of this quote: the OC. Well, you can look at it like percentages. You want to OC to 1000MHz from 950MHz, while your GPU could more than likely do it, (I got my 560 Ti TFII from an already OC'd to 880MHz factory OC to a beastly 985MHz and that was the best I could do without hitting 1.1v) is it worth it? In my opinion, it is not. You would likely see a 5% increase in performance for your fps, which I doubt you would notice. Then you would have the extra heat from more voltage being put through your card, and due to the very minimal increase in performance, I don't think it's worth it. Just leave your card as is and leave the fan speed on auto, 100% is pointless.

[AzeofSpadez]

100% fan speed kills fans quicker, simple as that.

Onto the larger part of this quote: the OC. Well, you can look at it like percentages. You want to OC to 1000MHz from 950MHz, while your GPU could more than likely do it, (I got my 560 Ti TFII from an already OC'd to 880MHz factory OC to a beastly 985MHz and that was the best I could do without hitting 1.1v) is it worth it? In my opinion, it is not. You would likely see a 5% increase in performance for your fps, which I doubt you would notice. Then you would have the extra heat from more voltage being put through your card, and due to the very minimal increase in performance, I don't think it's worth it. Just leave your card as is and leave the fan speed on auto, 100% is pointless.

Actually, the "FPS-limit" that my eyes can see is at 48-50 FPS and sometimes the FPS in BF3 drops to 45 or just below on High settings and full antisotropic/2xdeferred (or whatever it's called) so that little 5% could maybe improve my gaming experience a bit My card was factory-overclocked at 950 MHz when i got it so pushing it to 1000MHz is just something i can do straight away right? (I mean there is no big dangers for that small increase, right?)

[Deleted]

It just adjusts to the temp of your inside I'm assuming, only worry when it goes 10k rpm and starts flying, I've noticed my fans only tend to speed up if my room is heating up.

[DeltrusDisc]

Actually, the "FPS-limit" that my eyes can see is at 48-50 FPS and sometimes the FPS in BF3 drops to 45 or just below on High settings and full antisotropic/2xdeferred (or whatever it's called) so that little 5% could maybe improve my gaming experience a bit My card was factory-overclocked at 950 MHz when i got it so pushing it to 1000MHz is just something i can do straight away right? (I mean there is no big dangers for that small increase, right?)

5% of 45 is 2.25..... >_>

If you really must though, you should be able to OC without tweaking the voltage, but test the stability with something like Unigine Heaven 2.5. You may have to tweak the voltage, I suggest staying as much below 1.1v (1100mV) as possible.

[Fuzzykins]

Actually, the "FPS-limit" that my eyes can see is at 48-50 FPS and sometimes the FPS in BF3 drops to 45 or just below on High settings and full antisotropic/2xdeferred (or whatever it's called) so that little 5% could maybe improve my gaming experience a bit My card was factory-overclocked at 950 MHz when i got it so pushing it to 1000MHz is just something i can do straight away right? (I mean there is no big dangers for that small increase, right?)

None of this tomfoolery again. Everyone's eyes are different, despite what your science or anatomy teacher or whatever told you. While some may not be able to detect differences past a certain point, others will feel a more fluid experience at higher fps.

[AzeofSpadez]

None of this tomfoolery again. Everyone's eyes are different, despite what your science or anatomy teacher or whatever told you. While some may not be able to detect differences past a certain point, others will feel a more fluid experience at higher fps.

I know that, i just said "the FPS-limit MY eyes can see is 48-50 :P The scientific answer is 32 FPS I think.

[DeltrusDisc]

The scientific answer is 32 FPS I think.

Any scientist who says that is living in the 80s. Human eyes do not see in FPS, simple as that.

[AzeofSpadez]

Any scientist who says that is living in the 80s. Human eyes do not see in FPS, simple as that.

I think i saw it on a random website i found on google a week ago :P

[Milkshake86]

Its generally more advisable to run them at 100% all the time, rather than at a lower speed.
Given the cost of a fan... I'd say its more preferable to replace your fans every 7 or 8 years after running them at full pelt all the time than every 10 years running at 50% all the time....

WTF? Running 100% all the time would sound like a god damn helicopter passing through. It is also not advisable to run anything you ever own at 100% always. a modern GPU will do a fantastic job of adjusting to its own needs as stress fluctuates.

Any scientist who says that is living in the 80s. Human eyes do not see in FPS, simple as that.

This is technically true in that our eyes donot have accurately measurable intervals. The truth be told 30 frames per second is what we perceive as smooth, however the hiccups we begin to see below 30 is not our eyes only being capable of seeing 30 fps but the display being a still which is our eyes showing that we can detect motion stopping completely. Obviously at some point low fps can become actual still frames but were talking 20ish fps. Now the fact is 60 FPS is optimal in that its double of what we perceive as smooth meaning that when shit hits the fan it wont dump to 1 fps and begin crawling. Now people say that can see below 60 fps, in actuallity no you can't tell the difference w/o help, this can come in many forms other than just an fps counter. Let's begin w/ blurr effects in more modern games in which turning left or right fast will blurr the image at 60 fps that blurr looks different than 30 fps. However if you goto older shooter games w/o blurr you would not be able to tell at all. Now a few other things can alert your eyes color changes and other textures not loading. Now to be easier to understand do you see cartoons looking laggy? Do you remember VHS movies being laggy? None of those are at 60 fps.
In essence the difference in motion would be undetectable from 30-60fps proven that standard 30fps seems normal speed and of real time to our eyes meaning smooth motion.

[Sephiracle]

I think i saw it on a random website i found on google a week ago :P

And there's just as many websites out there that dispute that randomly obtained information.

[DeltrusDisc]

Simple proof that the "scientific fact" that the human eye can only see at 32 fps, or 24 fps, or w.e they have said in the past (for reasons of TV sales I think, lol) is incorrect, is the fact that I notice a severely better performance in games when I'm getting 60 fps instead of 32!

[AzeofSpadez]

Simple proof that the "scientific fact" that the human eye can only see at 32 fps, or 24 fps, or w.e they have said in the past (for reasons of TV sales I think, lol) is incorrect, is the fact that I notice a severely better performance in games when I'm getting 60 fps instead of 32!

Yeah i agree, if I play a game at 32 FPS i will simply not have a good time :S Some people can cope with it though.

[Milkshake86]

It is harder to stream live motion while holding a game world up. The concept is your visualizing blur textures and colors that may be shadowed or not reflective etc all these things take time and even tho your at smooth motion visually the stuff wont look 100% proper to your eye. 30 fps is smooth and perfect motion to our eyes, the difference between a games 30 and 60 is not factual or truthful to what our perception is that is what the pc is producing in motion of frame changes. When your going into the sub 60 area the game is not producing at the speed it would like and that is why performance seems different. The fact does remain that 30 frames perfectly synced will be 100% smooth and seemingly lifelike i.e movies television etc

[Djinni]

WTF? Running 100% all the time would sound like a god damn helicopter passing through. It is also not advisable to run anything you ever own at 100% always. a modern GPU will do a fantastic job of adjusting to its own needs as stress fluctuates.

Sure... if your bothered about the noise... run them lower... it has never been in-advisabl;e to run them at under 100% though.... Your average fan will LONG outlive the rest of your system.

P.S This is my fan profile:



Incedentally my GPU temp is rarely if ever above 60C

I Might have to replace my fan(s) a year or so sooner than you... but my CPU and GPU will last A LOT longer... Not to mention this argument is mute... since all the hardware will be replaced due to being out-of-date long before any of this happens.

[DeltrusDisc]

That is one ridiculous fan profile. =S

I thought you people in Europe and such weren't huge fans of high volumes! :P



Never seen mine go above 64 Celsius. (Not like even 70 Celsius is all that bad, I'd be worried if it was going 80+.)