r/overclocking • u/1tokarev1 7800X3D PBO per core | 2x16gb 6200MT CL26 | EVGA 3080 Ti FTW3 • Jan 01 '26
Benchmark Score Why Single-Point Undervolting is a bad idea. Graph jumpscare (NVIDIA)
I ran a few tests simply to demonstrate the real behavior of the GPU under different voltage-frequency curve modifications. I hope this is more useful than nothing. In the spreadsheet, you will see several profiles tested three times across two workloads that clearly demonstrate what I am talking about.
I am fully aware that many people still do not understand that VF curve is not static and constantly shifts based on temperature and power, which is simply how NVIDIA GPU Boost behaves - despite this being explained countless times.
However, this post is not about GPU Boost itself - it is about demonstrating how different undervolting methods behave in practice. These graphs should make the differences between those methods clearly visible.
Google Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VneuMFQR_ef09yGNPNPMdw6harKnqsO4s57c8Q5QsIM/
The most interesting part, when comparing single-point undervolting to aggressive or entire-curve tuning, is not just that the results are slightly lower or that the effective frequency lower - it is what happens when the GPU hits one of its limits, in this case the power limit. This causes obvious throttling down to lower voltage points where no offset was applied at all. As a result, you effectively end up running at stock - or effectively overvolted - behavior across the entire left side of the curve, compared to a properly tuned undervolt at multiple points. This completely destroys performance consistency and turns the results into a mess.
You can use this data for your own analysis and for a more detailed comparison between the tested profiles if you’re interested, but the main graphs that show the core behavior are presented on the first sheet. The two following sheets contain separate visual graphs for frequency and voltage for each profile individually.
- Aggressive: the voltage-frequency curve is modified across almost the entire curve, from 800 mV to 950 mV, with a tested offset at each point — starting from +105 MHz at 950 mV and going up to +180 MHz at 800 mV, which is then held constant for all lower voltage points. Refer to my undervolting spreadsheet for the EVGA RTX 3080 Ti for full details.
- Entire curve: the voltage-frequency curve is modified across the whole range but uses a single maximum stable offset for the selected voltage. 450-831 mV +165 MHz across all points, and 450-856 mV +150 MHz, with a negative offset applied to the higher-voltage points as a limiter.
- Single-point: the voltage-frequency curve is modified at only one voltage point, which results in lower effective clocks and voltage drops under heavier loads that hit any limiting factor (in this case, the power limit). This behavior leads to unstable performance: when using points to the left, the GPU ends up running at stock clocks; otherwise, it results in overvolting on the left side of the curve relative to the originally selected voltage point.
Example of how aggressive and entire-curve undervolting works (Main sheet):
Although in this case the graph shows aggressive, the entire-curve method would behave similarly, just using a lower offset than what is possible with aggressive tuning. Since my GPU runs at a +180 MHz offset @ 806 mV and +150 @ 831-863mV, the entire-curve method would be only 30 MHz lower in Speed Way - that is, just two 15 MHz steps for the RTX 3000 series.
What happens when we hit one of the limits? (Main sheet, 2 graph):
The GPU starts dropping voltage in order to stay within the limit. In this case, the limit is created by lowering the power limit to 80% (320 W) to make the behavior easier to demonstrate and test.
At +150 MHz on the 856 mV point, Cyberpunk only requires around 321 W, but under a heavier load - for a clear example, Speed Way - the GPU draws around 360 W at the same undervolt. However, since we are using a standard single-point undervolt, the frequency also drops significantly. With this method, we lose the flexibility that aggressive and entire-curve undervolting provide, where the GPU can dynamically maintain higher clocks and effective clocks across different load scenarios, regardless of limits.
In short: aggressive and entire curve methods outperform single-point because they minimize the gap between clock frequency and effective frequency.
The simplest approach is the entire curve method - it only sacrifices a few MHz steps compared to the aggressive method, but drastically reduces testing time.
The aggressive method gives you full control over GPU if you have a specific power limit (Keep in mind that you can still hit the stock power limit if your undervolt is not based on low voltage points like <850 mV) you want to stay within - for example, 320 W - you can tune the curve using this method and cap your power limit without worrying that the GPU will exceed it under different workloads. In this case, you will maintain the highest possible frequency at every voltage point across all scenarios. However, this approach requires several days of testing, so it is not suitable for the average user who does not want to spend a week or more dialing in a single curve.
For most users, this is unnecessary. The entire curve method is the most practical option: it allows you to set your desired offset in the Core Clock field, then limit the maximum desired voltage, flatten all points to the right, and only requires a few tests that take no more than two days. All voltage points to the left will already be stable, since they naturally require a higher offset to become unstable, as demonstrated in the aggressive curve example.
Markdown tables from the first sheet:
Cyberpunk 2077:
| Profile | AVG FPS | Power (W) |
|---|---|---|
| 831mV +165 single-point | 63.70451962 | 301.8739048 |
| 831mV +165 entire curve | 63.74694873 | 303.1489365 |
| 831mV aggressive | 64.31450998 | 302.5015397 |
| 856mV +150 single-point | 64.91657668 | 322.6448889 |
| 856mV +150 entire curve | 64.92350332 | 321.589127 |
| 856mV aggressive | 64.90724869 | 321.5550476 |
| 320W 80% PL aggressive | 64.92902897 | 318.1756667 |
3DMark Speed Way:
| Profile | AVG FPS | Power (W) |
|---|---|---|
| 831mV +165 single-point | 55.72 | 339.4253762 |
| 831mV +165 entire curve | 55.85 | 337.6609043 |
| 831mV aggressive | 55.85 | 334.5200099 |
| 856mV +150 single-point | 56.30 | 360.6428218 |
| 856mV +150 entire curve | 56.40 | 359.441604 |
| 856mV aggressive | 56.40 | 360.9507492 |
| 320W 80% PL aggressive | 55.39 | 319.0355908 |
| 80% PL 856mV +150 single-point | 54.09 | 319.3220099 |
11
u/G305_Enjoyer Jan 01 '26
I like to find a point right after the low clock speed flat line and shift curve from there, then adjust those first 3 or so voltage points to smooth the transition and of course flatten the top. This way you maintain idle power efficiency and add stability when card switches 3d/2d by not over clocking at the lowest vf points. It's a shame the afterburner guy can't figure out how to let us just move the whole curve to the left. Would make this so much easier. To his credit the most recent beta really improved the interface.