Attachment 124765
seems amd needs turbo feature either lol that turbo thing was smart idea and really made kepler look better than it really was
Printable View
Attachment 124765
seems amd needs turbo feature either lol that turbo thing was smart idea and really made kepler look better than it really was
^careful, those charts show % increase each card does over stock when overclocked. its not actually comparing vs each other, only relative to themselves
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
(http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/gra..._14.html#sect0)Quote:
Comparing the results of the overclocked cards in the diagrams below, you should keep it in mind that our AMD Radeon HD 7970 was overclocked by 24.3/27.3% (GPU/memory) whereas the GeForce GTX 680, by 17.3/18.6% (without dynamic overclocking).
Attachment 124769Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Attachment 124770
[Attachment 124771
well here you go oc comparison in action then
ps : something weird with 580 results though lol
eVGA overclock GTX 680 to 1848MHz
http://www.maximum-tech.net/evga-gtx...848-mhz-11099/
Hello processor bottleneck....how are you today? Messing with the Xbit results you say? Bad processor....BAD! ;) ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by eric66
Everyone should also be aware that the overclock speeds being bandied around will NOT be hit in ever game. An offset that gives you 1300MHz will allow you to only run that number in a few games, even with a Power Target of +35%. Most other games will likely run far below that.
I'm not understanding why some sites aren't understanding that distinction....
Any reviews with turbo 680 clocks and 7970 similar clocks?(1058)? I would like to see how both architectures compare.
It seems the 7970 is much less CPU dependent... x-bit have their CPU @ stock
Edit: 4.625GHz on the CPU
Edit2:
"The GeForce GTX 680 2GB overclocked to 1186/7128 MHz is an average 4-11% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB (overclocked to 1150/7000 MHz) in 1920x1080 and 1-9% ahead in 2560x1600." Xbit
Fairly close clocks - fairly close performance @ 25x16. I'd say 57x12 will be an absolute match on same clocks.
Strange that the nvidia cards seem to more rapidly lose their performance (compared to AMD) the higher the resolution, ever since the 8800... Or maybe it's just my illusion :D
The GTX 680's Boost clock is NOT constantly 1058MHz though. At default it fluctuates from 1006MHz to 1150MHz+ from one game to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by thematrixhazune
The only way to accurately measure clock for clock is to determine the clock speeds at which Boost runs within each game and then overclock the HD 7970 accordingly for each situation. That is a HUGE job.
did anyone compare overclocking just the core vs just the memory to see which one is more beneficial?
Can't you force the turbo off and dial in just a fix frequency?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
What are GTX 680 folding numbers like? Please tell me nvidia didnt gimp Keplers cgpu performance in order to beat ATI.
Nope. Base clock remains constant. Think of it as a floor that the card won't pass through. The GPU Boost clock should be thought of as a movable ceiling that can be modified via offset frequencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
Which is why I am wondering how so many sites can claim such high overclocks. I haven't seen one situation where an offset of 200MHz+ resulted in 1300MHz+ clock speeds across every game....at least under air cooling that is.
It doesn't fold....yet. Stanford hasn't released support for the new architecture. I'm told there will be a beta in place within a few weeks. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LiquidReactor
Thanks, maybe someone will come up with a bios to turn it off.
what happens if you tell the power target to go as low as possible. shouldnt it help cap at the 1006mhz in both directions?Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
that is exactly what came to my mind too... :) set the turbo limit to +0MHz
How do you thank in this forum??? :shrug:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
<<----Over here
its not a turbo limit, but offset clockrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran
if you set it to 50mhz, then it will range from 1050 to 1150, if you set it to 0 you just run it at stock and it can go as high as 1100mhz
what i suggested was tell it that the TDP is much lower and it may prevent it from overclocking at all.
and to help it out more, maybe you can force the fan speed lower so that it heats up, but not past its safe range where it likes to throttle.
but then you have to also warm up the gpu first before you benchmark
thats alot of work right there just to get a mhz vs mhz comparison. which honestly we cant use in real life because even if people set their 680 to 1100mhz, and someone else sets their 7970 to 1100mhz, the 680 will not stay at a static rate for them anyway.
i would just look at what people are getting in typical uses, or start up your own thread about max 24/7 clocks and make a spreadsheet.
from what ive seen a 7970 will need a high resolution and 50mhz lead over 680 to be equal. but only for a few games since some love one card vs another.
the thanks button is under my avitar
thanks!
I'm either blind or it is not there :D Attachment 124772
o its not there cause you need 100 posts first
otherwise we just make clones to pat ourselves on the back
Well, the power target can actually be set into negative territory in order to limit clock speeds and power consumption. However, no matter what you set it to, the Boost Clock is a constantly moving target since every game loads the GPU in a different way. Basically, the GPU will always try to find an optimal clock speed based upon situational conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
Setting the Power Target at 0% (which is the default by the way) won't allow you to overclock the Base Clock anyways since there is no actual option to change that value.
I am sure someone will come up with a modded BIOS in a short time. :)
Maybe, but none of the overclocking tools will allow for Base Clock adjustments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoran