Nvidia's latest driver disables GTX 900M series GPU overclocks

Quote:

---

Some users are irritated by the update. Nvidia says overclockability was a bug.

---

Read more.

Great PR for Nvidia recently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raven1001

Great PR for Nvidia recently.

---

Yeah, they're really going to extreme lengths to please their customers. :)

Then again, the last thing I'd probably attempt would be to OC the GPU in a notebook. They're already pushing the thermal envelope as it is.

People know the risks of overclocking so the fact there saying they removed it because "a user risks serious damage to the system" is ridiculous. if they kept it i don't think it would reflect on Nvidia so badly.

They must have their reasons for this? Not that it affects me personally, 'cause I'd never even think about 'clocking the GPU in my notebook. That's what the desktop's for lol.

seems to me that this is the lesser of two evils, considering the bad press they would receive if people started damaging their laptops/themselves because of this 'bug'

After the drama a while ago about laptop GPUs, I guess they are erring on the side of caution.

Although I find all these nVidia announcements have started to come in just after all the AMD ones started tailing off.....coincidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boothy02

People know the risks of overclocking so the fact there saying they removed it because "a user risks serious damage to the system" is ridiculous. if they kept it i don't think it would reflect on Nvidia so badly.

---

It may not have reflected badly on Nvidia but would it have meant more people killing their laptop/notebook and higher returns ?
I'm not saying i agree with what they have done as i think it should be consumers choice, but how would you know if that choice resulted in a bricked laptop/notebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

After the drama a while ago about laptop GPUs, I guess they are erring on the side of caution.

Although I find all these nVidia announcements have started to come in just after all the AMD ones started tailing off.....coincidence?

---

Not sure what you're implying. Spell it out for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spl

Not sure what you're implying. Spell it out for us.

---

PR Bandwagoning!

I'm sure this is frustrating for people. But, isn't it a bit stupid to overclock a laptop anyway? Those things get hot enough as it is, especially when gaming. Why would you want to make those horrible little encousures get any hotter, just for a few extra fps? I can see why Nvidia would do this. They're protecting their business from idiots that will burn out their laptops super quick. But at the same time, I would want to be able to OC my laptop, if I was someone that liked to OC laptops..

Well, no mobile GPU is designed for OC, but some of them can be OCed and there is nothing wrong about it. If I remember correctly, GTX670M could be easily overclocked and noone whined about "wrong design" or "damaging the system", because, you know, overclockers usually know the risks. And I personally have a Samsung ultrabook with Radeon 8750M overclocked by 25% and it has been working perfectly for over a year.

If this was about a mid-class GPU put in ultrabooks and multimedia laptops, that would be understandable. But in case of high-end cards used in expensive notebooks, which are almost only used by wealthy gamers, telling them "we know what's good for you better than you do" is just not OK. If someone spends that much cash on a mobile gaming computer, he probably knows how things work and what to do with his gear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZaO

I'm sure this is frustrating for people. But, isn't it a bit stupid to overclock a laptop anyway? Those things get hot enough as it is, especially when gaming. Why would you want to make those horrible little encousures get any hotter, just for a few extra fps? I can see why Nvidia would do this. They're protecting their business from idiots that will burn out their laptops super quick. But at the same time, I would want to be able to OC my laptop, if I was someone that liked to OC laptops..

---

That is quite correct in some cases - but there are some notebooks with good cooling, that leave quite some place for overclocking. Not every mobile machine is already running on highest possible temperature.

I don't see why they don't just put a disclaimer for when you install mobile drivers that you accept the risks if you do overclock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jowsey

I don't see why they don't just put a disclaimer for when you install mobile drivers that you accept the risks if you do overclock.

---

Or even just no NVIDIA-supported overclocking, but you can use third-party software. That would completely separate NVIDIA from any sort of liability as long as they have a disclaimer.

But really. OC'ing a notebook GPU will only give you MAYBE 10% better FPS real-world. So that's not a huge deal, especially for those higher-end GPUS. To each their own, I guess.

Oc'ing mobile gpu is stupid enough, this will just give free fuel for internet warriors to say how bad nvidia is. Even if in real world it really doesn't matter what they have done.

After the 8600M cluster**** (at stock speed) I'm not surprised. That cost Nvidia an awful lot, both in terms of returns and PR, so if there's even the slightest chance a part could degrade in a similar way through overclocking, I can understand why it has been stopped.

There's nothing stopping users from reverting to older drivers, but really, if you buy a laptop, you're limiting yourself performance wise from the off - if those few FPS gained actually mattered, do it properly and game on a desktop (even a cube which can fit in a full-fat GTX 980 if you want home/uni portable performance).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marenghi

seems to me that this is the lesser of two evils, considering the bad press they would receive if people started damaging their laptops/themselves because of this 'bug'

---

Yes, however given the recent 970 debacle, Nvidia really doesn't need ANY evils right now, lesser or no. Again, this is an issue because as shown, Asus have actually marketed their systems as overclockable, which they now won't be. Consumers won't care whether the blame lies with Nvidia or Asus, but I would guess that anybody who wished to return their Asus notebook for a full refund using consumer protection on statement of goods and purpose would easily be able to do this and that isn't good business for Nvidia or Asus.

There's absolutely nothing to keep people from down versioning their drivers, and there's seldom any real benefit to keep jumping up to the next new thing. As for Asus selling something as being overclockable, that's on Asus. Let them develop a driver that's capable. Or any other OEM, for that matter. Or do we want to go back to the good old days where processors of all stripes were locked?

I think overclocking isn't the issue, it's the ability to underclock. I can see how it'd be a massive benefit, being able to get the GPU to run at the same speed but lower voltage. Less heat and thus quicker GPU boost.

New drivers carry optimisations, that paired with better clock speeds would offer really great performance.

Another "blunder" that got thru quality control or a feature that someone put in?

Just like their wonderful patch that prevents you from running physx on a card in a system that has an AMD card in it?

NV are idiots and this is a dick move. Your warrenty has always been void if you OC. This is just them being assholes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuidoLS

As for Asus selling something as being overclockable, that's on Asus.

---

Wouldn't they just say that you should be using the driver from their site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Corky34

Wouldn't they just say that you should be using the driver from their site.

---

If they want to be the ones to guarantee/warranty the product, as well as shoulder the consequences when some or all of the laptop dies/melts/self-destructs, then yes - that's exactly what they should be saying and doing. But it doesn't happen that way, and we all know it.

Was it a d*ck move, as some are claiming? No more so than them cutting off all driver support to anything under the Fermi range of cards - that doesn't mean there aren't EASY ways around either problem. But if cutting out the ability to OC their mobile products is a company policy designed to save a lot of headache for both the user and company, then no, I don't believe it is. Plain and simple - Nvidia cannot and should not be held liable for what their OEM's do. Seriously - if Dell/HP/pick a vendor makes a crap computer, is it Intel/AMD's fault? Or MSI/Asus/Gigabyte makes a crappy MB? Because for a lot of years, the only way to OC CPU's from either company required some actual physical modification - sometimes to the MB, always to the chip.

You can't shoehorn a 350 big block into an old VW bug, wrap it around a tree and then blame VW when you do. (that's a 5.7l v8 engine for all you whippersnappers) Can't blame GM either, because in neither case, neither was being used as intended.

The interesting thing will be if the ASUS laptops (sold with the OC Ability) - will now be valid for refund if they can no longer OC.
Its never great relying on the manufacturer (e.g. ASUS/DELL etc) for driver updates as they often do not support the full-lifetime of the Nvidia driver updates that would be issued.

A better way may be that Nivida leaves options to disable or keep OC function. Overclocking laptop could be fun for users who want to do.

they should allow under clocking as that can save power but there right over clocking a lap top can be very damaging as there no way to add the extra cooling required to over clock

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GuidoLS

If they want to be the ones to guarantee/warranty the product, as well as shoulder the consequences when some or all of the laptop dies/melts/self-destructs, then yes - that's exactly what they should be saying and doing. But it doesn't happen that way, and we all know it.

Was it a d*ck move, as some are claiming? No more so than them cutting off all driver support to anything under the Fermi range of cards - that doesn't mean there aren't EASY ways around either problem. But if cutting out the ability to OC their mobile products is a company policy designed to save a lot of headache for both the user and company, then no, I don't believe it is. Plain and simple - Nvidia cannot and should not be held liable for what their OEM's do. Seriously - if Dell/HP/pick a vendor makes a crap computer, is it Intel/AMD's fault? Or MSI/Asus/Gigabyte makes a crappy MB? Because for a lot of years, the only way to OC CPU's from either company required some actual physical modification - sometimes to the MB, always to the chip.

You can't shoehorn a 350 big block into an old VW bug, wrap it around a tree and then blame VW when you do. (that's a 5.7l v8 engine for all you whippersnappers) Can't blame GM either, because in neither case, neither was being used as intended.

---

I completely agree with the notion that you can't blame an apple tree for a bad apple pie if you put salt into it instead of sugar - but I think that your analogy is a slight oversimplification.

In order to fall back on the whole 'used as intended' argument, there must first be a clear statement of intended use set forth. The issue here appears to be the fact that this has changed somewhat between driver revisions. It is common industry practice to introduce new features with drivers. It is less common to remove features with new drivers. The issue here, unlike a car analogy, is common practice. Updating drivers on a notebook or laptop is a less common practice, but let us not forget that aside from features and optimisations, one of the main reasons for doing this would be fix bugs with certain games or programs at a driver-level.

When you consider this element, it's easy to say "Oh well, just use the old drivers then!" and that'll work perfectly fine until such a time that you run into a an issue with a game or program that is caused by a driver bug. Then you're faced with a decision to update the drivers to a version that fixes this, but in doing so you'll lose a feature of the product that could be important to you. If you're sold this feature of the product, why should the end user be faced with this decision and why should the 'you're not using it as intended' argument hold any water in such a case?