# Does GPU overclocking make a noticeable difference to you.



## sn2x (Feb 25, 2019)

Of course the benchmark scores are higher, but when you're actually playing a game can you notice the difference between stock vs say a 5% overclock.

what about 10%.  15%?  At what point does it make a noticeable difference to you?

50 FPS + 5% = 52.5
50 FPS + 10% = 55
50 FPS + 15% = 57.5


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 25, 2019)

Now this is actually a really good question. I have asked it many times and my honest answer is: no.

I run my 570 at 1400 from 1284 and memory from 7000 to 8000 simply because it _feels _nice to have it giving a slightly higher FPS lol. But yeah I can run it stock no issue and not feel it. But then I am playing games where i am getting over 80FPS pretty much all the time.

I think if i was sub-60 it would make more difference. Anyway the last GPU i really owned that gained a huge amount from overclocking was the 980 Ti. Maxwell just OC'd like crazy. Still dont know if it was noticeable in gaming though XD


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

With my old 980 Ti, OC gave me ~20% on top of the ~20% (from ref to custom).

40% better perf is quite noticable, yep


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 25, 2019)

las said:


> With my old 980 Ti, OC gave me ~20% on top of the ~20% (from ref to custom).
> 
> 40% better perf is quite noticable, yep


Oh man i miss the 980 Ti. I had two reference blowers in SLI at one point, they would do 1150MHz each in SLI benching but I think I managed to get them to around 1550Mhz (hair dryer mode though) thats 34.7% increase in clocks alone, not even VRAM Oc so yeah the perf gain was enormous. 980 Ti was a champ _*nostalgia*_


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

In case fps is around 50, then yeah every single fps is nice. After all it's free performance.
If you're already at 180 fps, maybe going to 190-200 won't change much. Unless you're a 240 Hz gamer maybe  You'll typically be more CPU and memory bound here tho.

I always overclock my GPU's. I don't like the fact that I'm not getting full performance from the card 



ArbitraryAffection said:


> Oh man i miss the 980 Ti. I had two reference blowers in SLI at one point, they would do 1150MHz each in SLI benching but I think I managed to get them to around 1550Mhz (hair dryer mode though) thats 34.7% increase in clocks alone, not even VRAM Oc so yeah the perf gain was enormous. 980 Ti was a champ _*nostalgia*_



Yeah it's one of the best overclockers ever I think.
I still find it weird that Nvidia shipped the reference cards with those clocks.

Funny that it launched alongside Fury X, which Lisa Su claimed was an overclockers dream 

My 980 Ti ran 1500/8000.

With custom firmware, it did 1580 solid and benching at 1633, but it was not worth it for me on air. At 1500/2000 performance was good and noise levels were nice.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 25, 2019)

I would also answer with a big: *NO*.

In the age of FreeSync/GSync and power-limited GPUs (like Pascal, Turing), or clock limited (All new AMD ones), that extra 5-10% is irrelevant, as the sync-enabled display can simply take the 5% slower framerate and be fine with it and you won't notice any difference.

Overclocking somewhat mattered in the past when unable to maintain 60 fps which caused stutters (especially with VSync), and in the past 20% was possible, but now with "turbo" or "precision boost" the cards overclock themselves anyway to near the limit.

I only overclock my GPU for benchmarks, (personal) record breaking and that stuff.
All "factory" during gaming.


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Feb 25, 2019)

las said:


> Yeah it's one of the best overclockers ever I think.
> I still find it weird that Nvidia shipped the reference cards with those clocks.
> 
> Funny that it launched alongside Fury X, which Lisa Su claimed was an overclockers dream
> ...


Damn thats mental, 1633. And yeah but I guess they wanted to keep power in check, and tbh the competition wasn't you know, all that great. I had Fury X crossfire too also and it was a mess compared to 980 Tis. Fiji could barely add 100 mhz :/ and the 4 vs 6GB really made the difference. This was all back when i had inherited a large sum of money from a family member but then blew it all on PC parts. -_- Now it's all gone and im skint xD
 Worth it.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 25, 2019)

sn2x said:


> Of course the benchmark scores are higher, but when you're actually playing a game can you notice the difference between stock vs say a 5% overclock.
> 
> what about 10%.  15%?  At what point does it make a noticeable difference to you?
> 
> ...


No noticeable difference to me as you prove above.  Either you are struggling at 20fps and go up to 22 fps or you are humming along at 60 fps and go up to 66.  You really need 25%+ increase to see a noticeable difference and that pretty much means a different card.


----------



## agent_x007 (Feb 25, 2019)

Instead of pure perf. Pascal and Turing OC should focus on maintaining highest GPU clocks over long periods of time.
Less power/temp throttling = less stutters caused by GPU clock bouncing around.


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

ArbitraryAffection said:


> Damn thats mental, 1633. And yeah but I guess they wanted to keep power in check, and tbh the competition wasn't you know, all that great. I had Fury X crossfire too also and it was a mess compared to 980 Tis. Fiji could barely add 100 mhz :/ and the 4 vs 6GB really made the difference. This was all back when i had inherited a large sum of money from a family member but then blew it all on PC parts. -_- Now it's all gone and im skint xD
> Worth it.



It was with full power/voltages and not 100% stable in games (artifacts) but all benchmarks would run (and score better). 1580 MHz was 100% stable tho. Those 80 MHz probably added 10-15dB so I kept it at 1500/8000 

Yeah I agree. Those 2GB extra VRAM came in handy over time.



Wavetrex said:


> I would also answer with a big: *NO*.
> 
> In the age of FreeSync/GSync and power-limited GPUs (like Pascal, Turing), or clock limited (All new AMD ones), that extra 5-10% is irrelevant, as the sync-enabled display can simply take the 5% slower framerate and be fine with it and you won't notice any difference.
> 
> ...



Well, not everyone aims for 55-65 fps and most FreeSync/Gsync monitors are 100+ Hz anyway so you'll all the power you can get.

2060 with OC will pretty much match 2070.
2070 with OC will pretty much match 2080.

Free performance is always nice. So I'll keep OC'ing my cards.

Btw cards won't OC near the limit out of the box just because of turbo boost. They will be hold back by powerlimits.

With my 1080 Ti, the performance jumps 10-12% just from adjusting powerlimit to max and keep everything else at stock. It will boost much higher as a result.


----------



## Wavetrex (Feb 25, 2019)

las said:


> Free performance is always nice.


But it isn't really "free", isn't it ?
Power draw aside (which increases your electricity bill), it also stresses the components more and increases the chance of a failure.

Like you said "not everyone aims for", I could say "not everyone can afford buying new GPU every year or two".
Overclocking is and always will be a risk that one takes.

But of course, if you have a golden goose (or pigeon) or a river of money flowing through your bedroom, knock yourself out, POWER TO THE MAX !


----------



## SoNic67 (Feb 25, 2019)

Some cards, depending on their cooling setup, will "work" at the OC level only for a short time, a benchmark if you want. But sustaining that OC during a gaming session of one, two or more hours is something else. They will drop the OC frequency to cool off.


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> But it isn't really "free", isn't it ?
> Power draw aside (which increases your electricity bill), it also stresses the components more and increases the chance of a failure.
> 
> Like you said "not everyone aims for", I could say "not everyone can afford buying new GPU every year or two".
> ...



A few more watts costs a few cents a month, I have been overclocking GPU's for over 20 years now and never seen a dead chip from standard OC.

Overclocking can sometimes postpone a GPU upgrade, so I don't see your point.



SoNic67 said:


> Some cards, depending on their cooling setup, will "work" at the OC level only for a short time, a benchmark if you want. But sustaining that OC during a gaming session of one, two or more hours is something else. They will drop the OC frequency to cool off.



No they won't. Unless you gimp the fanspeed.

My 980 Ti did 1500 all day long, at auto fan.
My 1080 Ti does 2000+ forever.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 25, 2019)

playing farcry new dawn at 1440 i am running my 2080ti card underclcocked.. 75% max power with a 75 FPS frame rate cap..

trog

ps.. the real max power could be 125%..


----------



## las (Feb 25, 2019)

trog100 said:


> playing farcry new dawn at 1440 i am running my 2080ti card underclcocked.. 75% max power with a 75 FPS frame rate cap..
> 
> trog



ITX Build?


----------



## Shambles1980 (Feb 25, 2019)

depends on the card. your target fps and what you get at stock.
like my old 780 or my 970 getting the oc just right means the difference between a constant 75fps vs dips to mid 60's in some games and if thats your target then yes.
if you have a 2080ti and your target fps is 60fps i doubt you will notice the oc.

The 780 i had water cooled and i had to modify the bios to remove the tdp limit so it would sustain the speeds i had it doing. The 970 does the same performance with a standard oc no bios mods and stock cooling.
Mostly for me overclocking is just a numbers game. il happily edit in game settings to achieve the performance i want, but if a oc can let me play at slightly higer settings and achieve my target frame rate then im gonna be overclocking.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 25, 2019)

10% is usually where it makes a noticeable difference.  Anything below that no.  Still if you overclock your entire system the benefits add up... you can get +10% from GPU overclocking then +10% from CPU  and  tweaking ram and the end result is a 20% improvement over your baseline is kind of huge.

For example:  here is a far cry 5 1080P run on a 2080ti (i game on 1440P but they're very close)  on the left is a 9900k (the best gaming cpu @stock) on the right is my 7820x @ stock which sucks at gaming....





here is my overclocked 7820x system with an OC'd 1080ti:







So in my favorite title at 1440p and 1080P my 2 year old rig is able to run as if it was a brand new stock top of the line rig (i've compared benchmarks in this title and new dawn).  So overclocking does help quite a bit - and for me if i reverted all my clocks including GPU i would be 30% slower overall which is extremely noticeable.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

It depends... 5 fps (10% at 5p fps) can be a difference in settings and better IQ...




las said:


> Lisa Su claimed was an overclockers dream


You've repeated that falsehood more than one recently here...

I was at that press event in LA and for at least then umteenth time on TPU they were referring to the cooling. Look at a transcript. The most media didnt report it right, and forum lemmings followed. 

Also, it was Joe Macri who said it (first), not Lisa. He also clarified in our 1:1 interview that the cooling was beast and allowed for high overclocking.


----------



## 27MaD (Feb 25, 2019)

It used to make a huge difference back when i had a GeForce 210 , but now it's not noticeable with my GTX 750 TI.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 25, 2019)

A fully overclocked rig will put your system in "new card territory" so I would vote it's always worth.  Even if the GPU OC is only around 10% if you're an overclocker you usually overclock everything including household appliances.

A fully oc'd RTX 2060 rig could easily match/beat the same rig at stock with a 2070 base clocks in most titles - the same applies for a ton of cards out there and $150 of free performance is a pretty sweet deal.


----------



## Aaron_Henderson (Feb 25, 2019)

I definitely notice it, on some cards more than others...I specifically remember volt modding an 8600 GT to nearly 8800 GT levels back in the day...now on my current 290x, not quite as noticeable with a 17ish % overclock, but still very noticeable.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 25, 2019)

It depends of circumstances,but oc can not only be noticeable,it can be make or break.when I had r9 290 it made some games hit constant 60 fps instead of dropping to 52-53 frequently.
that said,on my current hardware it's hardly make or break anymore,though there are many cases when I do notice it.
I'd put +5% as hardly noticeable.
+10% as definitely noticeable unless you're at +130 fps. 50 to 55 or 90 to 100 are both an improvement to me.130 vs 145 I can't usually tell apart,though I can definitely tell apart 130 vs 160.
at +20% I usually consider upgrading if the cost can be kept reasonable but it's not enough if the cost is gonna be substantial.


----------



## kastriot (Feb 25, 2019)

Depends on gpu some brings 20-30% some 5-15% but in the end we overclock for performance every bit helps and about increased power usage and shorter lifespan who cares nothing lasts forever not even us eh.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 25, 2019)

kastriot said:


> who cares nothing lasts forever not even us



Leaked stories about Valve working on Half Life 3 will last forever....


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

as some noted...

it is no about OC. The card does that itself... it's about temps. I am using water cooling for past few gens... and it gives me the best boost I can have... as the card holds maxumim boost state all the time.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> as some noted...
> 
> it is no about OC. The card does that itself... it about temps. I am using water cooling for past few gens... and it gives me the best boost I can have... as the card holds maxumim boost state all the time.



Yeah but you can up your boost even more over baseline with OC - the best combo is water + power limit increase + base OC boost.

for the 2080 series the power limit is so crap that water isnt even worth it.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3367-rtx-2080-ti-hybrid-results-nvidia-power-limitations


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> Yeah but you can up your boost even more over baseline with OC - the best combo is water + power limit increase + base OC boost.
> 
> for the 2080 series the power limit is so crap that water isnt even worth it.
> 
> https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3367-rtx-2080-ti-hybrid-results-nvidia-power-limitations



I did hardware shunt mods for my cards mate...


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> I did hardware shunt mods for my cards mate...


So you watercooled and shunted your card and didn't OC it?  Im confused... your first post implied you didn't OC but cooled the card to get it to boost @ max....


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 25, 2019)

I wouldn't know. I haven't run a graphics cards without a max OC in the last 15+ years...or ever for that matter. Well...maybe a few times. Just to see if it works...before I OC the shit out of it.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Feb 25, 2019)

MrGenius said:


> I wouldn't know. I haven't run a graphics cards without a max OC in the last 15+ years...or ever for that matter. Well...maybe a few times. Just to see if it works...before I OC the shit out of it.


Exactly.I see no reason not to oc the crap out of them.
I even oc when the game has a 60 fps limit like ac black flag or nier automata. Take that !


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> So you watercooled and shunted your card and didn't OC it?  Im confused... your first post implied you didn't OC but cooled the card to get it to boost @ max....



First of all, that test at GN is not real life... it is an open stand. So air cooled cards throttle a lot faster, they do not maintain boost clocks. So we are talking about the temperature limit. W1z does a heavy burnup for cards for his own benches, these guys? Nope, I don't think so. Cards will start to throttle if the temps rise above 45C... that's a rule. That's how nvidia boost works.

So if the game is heavy and we are hitting the power limit. Eventually it will overwhelm the air cooler/case also and it will not work at maximum boost clock.

I am having more numbers like in this review. Compare water vs FE. It is the real boost you get. Nothing to scoff at. There are not many test having properly water-cooled vs air cooled card.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/asus-rog-poseidon-gtx-1080-ti-platinum,5151-5.html

So I call that GN test bonkers, they are becoming yellow press lately. The difference is there if we game longer... those are not benchmark sessions, but hours we often tend to do.

I did unlock the power limit before putting water block to my cards. It would be stupid if not, especially if I know what I am doing. And I am doing it still old school since I had Voodoo cards. 980ti had the pleasure of having a bios tool rising the power limit, now we have to use older methods again.

If I need more power, demanding game, put the limit even more in AB so my card runs at stable 2085MHz and doesn't move from that spot at all. I didn't remove the power limiter completely, I added additional ~80W + the software limits(depends on the card, I have a FE). So eventually I squeeze the maximum of the card, I don't care for the bios limits.

If not I don't open afterburner and leave it like stock. Still I am faster vs air unless you enable jet engine mode. I am looking at real life scenario. So if you really are into OC, you need still water and properly thinking head and a pair of working arms growing from the right location not the usual one.  That's the first step. On air? No use really anymore.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> Cards will start to throttle if the temps rise above 45C... that's a rule.


55C+.

Typically, anything air cooled takes around 15-30 minutes to saturate.. water needs longer. So temps after a constant load after that amount of time should really only be affected by environmental conditions.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> I did unlock the power limit before putting water block to my cards. It would be stupid if not



you are contradicting your point of "just water cool it, the card does it all"

additionally. my water cooled 780 Had to have a moded bios to remove the tdp limit. You could sit there at 36c on the card but it would throttle because of TDP limit.
so it really isnt "just water cool it the card does it all"
And you may be arguing, "just by pass the shunt resistor, and water cool it and then the card will do it all its self" But even that's not true. You can eek out more than that with manual tweaking And if you went to the trouble of bypassing the shunt and water cooling. whats 2 hours of tweaking to get the thing perfect gonna hurt.
and any way how can you argue bypassing the shunt = the card did it all its self.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> 55C+.
> 
> Typically, anything air cooled takes around 15-30 minutes to saturate.. water needs longer. So temps after a constant load after that amount of time should really only be affected by environmental conditions.



Sure, it depends on the card IMHO, @W1zzard could clarify... for some it will start even from 30C and up



Shambles1980 said:


> you are contradicting your point of "just water cool it, the card does it all"



I did even more... if it was needed, that's the answer to myself. To be more precise I evened out the AIB differences in between expensive cards that has natively higher limits(actually cheats). So quiting all the smart arse philosophy reading reviews, I did it myself and can compare, and left it.

Water cooling is the first step. It does what it says. Nvidia boost does the over clocking. Basically air cooling OC reviews should be taken with a bucket of salt.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 25, 2019)

sn2x said:


> Of course the benchmark scores are higher, but when you're actually playing a game can you notice the difference between stock vs say a 5% overclock.
> 
> what about 10%.  15%?  At what point does it make a noticeable difference to you?
> 
> ...



I get about 30% overclock, so very worth it, and one of the reasons I haven't upgraded, and it's something I look for in hardware, it's fun to tweak the BIOS, cooling, voltage, clocks, timings.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> Sure, it depends on the card IMHO


At least with all Turing cards in my hands (the full lineup) they start at 55C. 

I do not recall seeing ANY card drop bins lower than a typical idle temp... that doesn't make much sense... 30C... not in the least.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> At least with all Turing cards in my hands (the full lineup) they start at 55C.
> 
> I do not recall seeing ANY card drop bins lower than a typical idle temp... that doesn't make much sense... 30C... not in the least.



That's W1z's post for Lightning Z


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> First of all, that test at GN is not real life... it is an open stand. So air cooled cards throttle a lot faster, they do not maintain boost clocks. So we are talking about the temperature limit. W1z does a heavy burnup for cards for his own benches, these guys? Nope, I don't think so. Cards will start to throttle if the temps rise above 45C... that's a rule. That's how nvidia boost works.
> 
> So if the game is heavy and we are hitting the power limit. Eventually it will overwhelm the air cooler/case also and it will not work at maximum boost clock.
> 
> ...



That's a very long explanation for why you're running the same clocks as a software OC'd card on air (without jet engine mode).  My boost starts at 2100mhz and drops down to 1960's at lowest on sustained gaming loads with a max of 55% fan (quiet)...

But whatever, to each his own.  Enjoy your shorted, watercooled cards with their stock boost clocks...  if you OC'd your cards im sure you could be sitting at well over 2k the whole time.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> That's W1z's post for Lightning Z


That isn't 30C... but I see 45C there . Also, that could be a power limit bin drop as well... That said, which Lightning Z table is that? Because his 2080 Ti Lightning Z, I do not see that graph anywhere (also if that is from a review, why is it showing the underlying excel table???)... but do see this.......





It may depend on the cards... as all TUring cards I have, FEs, (did not confirm on 1660 Ti) start very close to 55C.


----------



## Vario (Feb 25, 2019)

I don't overclock graphics cards, generally I go 4-5 years before an upgrade so I don't want to risk premature death.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Vario said:


> I don't overclock graphics cards, generally I go 4-5 years before an upgrade so I don't want to risk premature death.


Paranoia will destroy ya!!! Your card will last that amount of time overclocking to its power limits etc...


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 25, 2019)

Vario said:


> I don't overclock graphics cards, generally I go 4-5 years before an upgrade so I don't want to risk premature death.


That's sad. You don't know what you're missing then. 4-5 years with a max OC is nothing for a graphics card.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 25, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Paranoia will destroy ya!!! Your card will last that amount of time overclocking to its power limits etc...



It is the Pascal. Said +45C from the start, look the post. From this graph it looks like even 40C. I have no experience with Turing, I am skipping this gen. I don't why you mentioned it first as I have a 1080Ti.  

Basically it depends on the card! Not only temperature, but ASIC + voltage is involved. The extreme cards(read extremely expensive), cheats like LN bios, can alter these these even faster to get steeper voltage ramp. 

It is tailored and depends on the gen, old cards had more freedom, albeit the boost tech wasn't advanced, you had to tinker more. Newer nvidia cards are less power hungry also, and you cannot compare so easily. I guess Turing squeezes on auto even more the maximum.

We are forgetting AMD people solving their problems actually undervolting cards, thus having more stable boost.


----------



## Steevo (Feb 25, 2019)

dirtyferret said:


> Leaked stories about Valve working on Half Life 3 will last forever....




Mentioning it delays it.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 25, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> It is the Pascal. Said +45C from the start, look the post. From this graph it looks like even 40C. I have no experience with Turing, I am skipping this gen. I don't why you mentioned it first as I have a 1080Ti.
> 
> Basically it depends on the card! Not only temperature, but ASIC + voltage is involved. The extreme cards(read extremely expensive), cheats like LN bios, can alter these these even faster to get steeper voltage ramp.
> 
> ...


Missed it.  But 30C is woefully off... that is below idle. 

I don't know why ASIC would matter much... you are more accurate saying by generation and card. Temps are temps no matter the asic quality or voltage. It is the card that matters. Apologies for jumping in on a different card. 

AMD and NVIDIA really don't have anything to do with this either... 

I think we should both stop while were are 'ahead'.


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 25, 2019)

In regards to the OP, yes, but it depends on the situation.

When I was new to the PC game, I had strict budgets, so overclocking older cards certainly had its merits.
For a while there, while still on 1080p screens, cards were more than enough to get it done, so I clocked for benches, then set defaults to game most of the time.
I then moved to a 4K monitor, and with a 980ti, again overclocking showed love, so it was worth it. Moving to the 1080ti, it was not longer needed as I could hit the 60hz the screen is displaying at. When I get my hands on a  2080ti, i will tinker with the clocks to see what she will do, but will likley run most of its life at default settings.


----------



## notb (Feb 25, 2019)

It's not even a question of fps and risk.
Most of us find it hard to squeeze few hours of gaming into normal day-to-day life. Do you really want to spend it watching 3DMark? 
So the answer would be: yes, it makes a difference. It wastes time.

Also, I wouldn't really put overclocking CPUs and GPUs in the same sentence like some people have in this thread.

In case of CPU you choose the cooler and the motherboard. You know your system a lot better than Intel or AMD.
They had to tune the CPUs safely - it had to work with components a lot cheaper than you can get. That's where the OC headroom comes from.

When you buy a graphic card, GPU is already overclocked by the OEM who knows the cooler and circuitry a lot better than you do. And it's in their best interest to make that card faster than the competition managedmanages using the same chip.
So it's really hard to assume that going beyond the factory OC is without consequences.


----------



## trog100 (Feb 25, 2019)

my 2080ti does an initial drop at about 45C.. its just a one off drop..

which means that for benching its best to start from cold.. for the 3Dmark stability test its best to warm the card up first..

apart from that it never comes close to temp throttling.. when the boost hits around 2050 it will (might) crash.. trip over it own feet so to speak..

raising the power setting allows the card to boost more it dosnt make it more stable..

trog



notb said:


> It's not even a question of fps and risk.
> Most of us find it hard to squeeze few hours of gaming into normal day-to-day life. Do you really want to spend it watching 3DMark?
> So the answer would be: yes, it makes a difference. It wastes time.
> 
> ...




no it isnt.. when something is mass produced to avoid too many comebacks it would carry a good 10% (stability) safety margin.. all so called over clocking is doing is using up some of this safety margin (headroom) on an individual basis.. .. 

but sometimes a product is deliberately "underclocked" just to fit in a certain price bracket.. this is where the real gains come from.. 

but if the manufacturers didnt want a user to alter settings they would not provide the software to do this.. 

trog


----------



## king of swag187 (Feb 25, 2019)

las said:


> In case fps is around 50, then yeah every single fps is nice. After all it's free performance.
> If you're already at 180 fps, maybe going to 190-200 won't change much. Unless you're a 240 Hz gamer maybe  You'll typically be more CPU and memory bound here tho.
> 
> I always overclock my GPU's. I don't like the fact that I'm not getting full performance from the card
> ...


My Fury X has trouble getting to 1150/560 at 1.2v lol


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 26, 2019)

Always, but sometimes for efficiency , sometimes for max performance depending on application..


----------



## Vario (Feb 26, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Paranoia will destroy ya!!! Your card will last that amount of time overclocking to its power limits etc...


Killed enough in the past to not bother.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 26, 2019)

sn2x said:


> Of course the benchmark scores are higher, but when you're actually playing a game can you notice the difference between stock vs say a 5% overclock.
> what about 10%. 15%? At what point does it make a noticeable difference to you?


My 2080 OC's decently well, but I've dropped it back down to stock. The reason is performance. I get 120FPS or better in most games. This is because I'm running 1440p displays and I turn off Anti-aliasing. If I were to turn AA on and get 2160p displays, the OC might help.

Whether or not an OC gives you a benefit depends highly on how much load you put on your GPU. If you're pushing it to it's limit, you'll get and feel a benefit from an OC.



sneekypeet said:


> I then moved to a 4K monitor, and with a 980ti, again overclocking showed love, so it was worth it. Moving to the 1080ti, it was not longer needed as I could hit the 60hz the screen is displaying at. When I get my hands on a 2080ti, i will tinker with the clocks to see what she will do, but will likely run most of its life at default settings.


May I be so bold as to recommend a 120HZ UHD display. You'll love it.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2019)

Vario said:


> Killed enough in the past to not bother.


The past is the past... thre are power and temperature limits in place etc.. not.overclocking is a choice..not overclocking for those reasons is a missed opportunity.


----------



## Distorted (Feb 26, 2019)

sn2x said:


> Of course the benchmark scores are higher, but when you're actually playing a game can you notice the difference between stock vs say a 5% overclock.
> 
> what about 10%.  15%?  At what point does it make a noticeable difference to you?
> 
> ...


Maybe 1-2 fps more.So no.No difference.


----------



## Shambles1980 (Feb 26, 2019)

last thing i killed with an oc was a 286. i put the board jumpers in the wrong place.. that was probably the worlds fastest 286 for the 10 mins it lasted. it literaly fried its self smoke and everything.
i killed a few motherboard vrms as well but the cpu's were fine.
but all of that was many moons ago.
hell you used to have a turbo button on the front of a case for 286's you could press.. fair enough it was to slow down the cpu for older games, but you could always hook it up in a way that provided faster speeds.

i think the fear of overclocking comes mostly from the 286 and 486 era. with some mb issues regarding vrms re-appearing during bulldozer c2q era. but those issues are long gone now.
you have to go above and beyond to put your hardware at risk these day (bios mods/shunt resistor bypasses/ect)

overclocking may not be for every one.
but i find more joy in tweeking things to 100% stable 24/7 max oc's than i do gaming. other people just want that max oc and they dont care if its 24/7 stable. so its horses for courses.

but like i said origionally, all depends on your hardware what your playing and what your target minimum fps is. If your like me and your minimum is 75 fps and you use a 970 then a decent oc can make that possible when at stock it wasnt. if you had a 1080ti and the same target.. you wouldnt notice the difference, and if you had a 750ti.. well you arent gonna hit the 75 target no matter the oc.
so what you do and what you have does matter when you ask "do you notice a difference if you oc"


p.s

i never think of a oc as a % i think of it as stable or not.
if its stable then thats good, if the game still is not performing as i want it to with my max stable oc well its time for an upgrade.
and then i overclock that to the max stable and thats where it will stay untill new games arent performing as i want them too.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> It depends... 5 fps (10% at 5p fps) can be a difference in settings and better IQ...
> 
> 
> You've repeated that falsehood more than one recently here...
> ...



Recently? Nope, because I have not been here for months 

I didn't watch the whole event. I clearly remember Lisa Su holding the card and calling it an overclockers dream tho.


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 26, 2019)

On low end cards, where the margin is a lot bigger, it helps a LOT. My HD7750 goes from 800/1125 to 920/1250, that really helps.
On mid/high end cards, most of the time is not worth it.


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> On low end cards, where the margin is a lot bigger, it helps a LOT. My HD7750 goes from 800/1125 to 920/1250, that really helps.
> On mid/high end cards, most of the time is not worth it.



Not really, since low end cards often are gimped by slow memory etc.
My 1080 Ti performs 20% better than Founders Edition post OC. My old 980 Ti performed 40% better compared to reference.

GPU OC is always worth it for me. Free performance. Unless you are playing around with custom firmwares and serious voltmods, it's without risk.

As a high refresh rate gamer, I want all the frames I can get. The higher the minimum fps, the better.


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 26, 2019)

las said:


> Not really, since low end cards often are gimped by slow memory etc.
> My 1080 Ti performs 20% better than Founders Edition post OC. My old 980 Ti performed 40% better compared to reference.
> 
> GPU OC is always worth it for me. Free performance. Unless you are playing around with custom firmwares and serious voltmods, it's without risk.
> ...


Any % gained is directly reflected on the FPS, because you are affecting the bottleneck directly on low end cards (you never reach a CPU bottleneck). I speak from experience here, having suffered a Geforce 6200 (20% oc), ATI HD3450 (35%), Geforce 7600GT (40%, glorious voltmod) and HD7750 (15-20%). There were some 7300GT that could reach over 100% on the GPU, and those old DX10 8500 and 9500 could squeeze some 50 to 70%, if they were DDR3 variants (over-bandwith for such a small GPU), that was a direct gain in FPS.
Now, nothing has such an impact as RAM OC on this 1st gen Ryzen, that helps a lot more than any GPU OC.

I agree with you, any % helps, specially for high refresh rates, and if you don't mess with raising voltages, it's a great way of improving efficiency too. But if the gain is only <5%, and you are risking instabilities...


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 26, 2019)

Given Pascal's behaviour, a completely stock card versus one with OC can be a significant boost, as in 10%. I definitely do notice this on my 1080, not a world shattering difference but its there. Usually the OC is enough to keep 60 FPS more reliably in heavier titles at max settings.

That said, the GPU is what determines how far your OC will go, not the amount of OC headroom it has. Meaning: if the card is lacking in one department, it will always lack there, regardless of the amount of OC you sprinkle on top. This is why well balanced GPUs, preferably a full die, are nice to have.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2019)

las said:


> Recently? Nope, because I have not been here for months
> 
> I didn't watch the whole event. I clearly remember Lisa Su holding the card and calling it an overclockers dream tho.


2x on 2/18...once yesterday 

https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/search/935224/?q=Overclockers+dream&c[users]=Las&o=date

Lol, months ago...how quickly we forget. 

EDIT: She may have said it, but it was after Joe Marci did... watch the presentation... Someone even mentioned what time it was said..


----------



## las (Feb 26, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> 2x on 2/18...once yesterday
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/search/935224/?q=Overclockers+dream&c[users]=Las&o=date
> 
> Lol, months ago...how quickly we forget.



I must have been hacked m8.


----------



## Kissamies (Feb 26, 2019)

Stock GTX 780 to ~1200/1750 gives a nice boost. Also no problems with temps with water.


----------



## r.h.p (Feb 26, 2019)

Answer = No 

I wish it did but after many years the thrill off of gaining 7fps has worn of . Also I get worried of damaging a $1000 awesome card


----------



## Vario (Feb 26, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The past is the past... thre are power and temperature limits in place etc.. not.overclocking is a choice..not overclocking for those reasons is a missed opportunity.


Well the thing sits at its max boost most of the time because it runs so cool with the Arctic Mono and a giant 140mm fan zip tied to it.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 26, 2019)

Vario said:


> it runs so cool with the Arctic Mono and a giant 140mm fan zip tied to it.


Even more reason TO overclock. 


The amount of paranoia over destroying these cards is disproportionate compared to the amount of safety measures and limitations in place on NVIDIA cards over the last few generations. To each their own of course, but do know that overclocking won't kill these cards. Its so easy, a caveman could do it (and not kill it).


----------



## sneekypeet (Feb 26, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> May I be so bold as to recommend a 120HZ UHD display. You'll love it.



Sure, find me an affordable 120Hz screen 43" or larger and I would be game for it


----------



## Kissamies (Feb 26, 2019)

r.h.p said:


> Answer = No
> 
> I wish it did but after many years the thrill off of gaining 7fps has worn of . Also I get worried of damaging a $1000 awesome card


If it's an AMD card, overclocking is safe as hell. Usually people undervolt those..


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 27, 2019)

sneekypeet said:


> Sure, find me an affordable 120Hz screen 43" or larger and I would be game for it


Depends on what you mean by affordable. Found a couple that I would consider affordable;
https://www.amazon.com/TCL-49S405-49-Inch-Ultra-Smart/dp/B01MYGISTO
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07987KQBN


----------



## overvolted (Feb 27, 2019)

No, Besides, if you really have to overclock a video card, you should have bought the next better model.


----------



## GoldenX (Feb 27, 2019)

overvolted said:


> No, Besides, if you really have to overclock a video card, you should have bought the next better model.


First World Comments.


----------



## Kissamies (Feb 27, 2019)

overvolted said:


> No, Besides, if you really have to overclock a video card, you should have bought the next better model.


But what if you overclock a Titan RTX or Radeon VII for more performance?  Overclocking a graphics card is just so damn easy (like overclocking a CPU, especially these days when there's so many unlocked SKUs) so why not get some free extra performance?


----------



## heky (Feb 27, 2019)

overvolted said:


> No, Besides, if you really have to overclock a video card, you should have bought the next better model.



What the hell? And you give yourself the nickname "overvolted"? LOL
Ofc overclocking MUST be done, its free performance! MOAR  POWAHHH!


----------



## E-Bear (Feb 27, 2019)

You know i'm not an expert but making comparaison with cars you could always boost an engine to make it go faster but every engine or gpu have each ones their limitations. In exemple you could win many races in straight lines with a hot rod or muscle car but could be less effective in a race track with curves or in a mud pit. Same thing with gpu some have lot power on memory but can lack power in shaders or something else so it's case by case.


----------



## las (Feb 27, 2019)

Chloe Price said:


> If it's an AMD card, overclocking is safe as hell. Usually people undervolt those..



Yeah it's safe because there's no headroom 

My last good AMD GPU overclocking-wise was 7970.
Did 1200/1600 at stock voltages. Benched at 1250 just fine.


----------



## overvolted (Feb 27, 2019)

heky said:


> What the hell? And you give yourself the nickname "overvolted"? LOL
> Ofc overclocking MUST be done, its free performance! MOAR  POWAHHH!



Yes, sometimes overclocking equates to free performance...other times not. Hell, sometimes it equates to a part you cant give away for free after you kill it. Ask me how I know.

I've been doing this now since it became a thing...probably when a lot of people on here were still putting out nothing more than shit diapers.
And now coming full circle, and seeing how little difference it makes in practical application, I spend a lot less time playing 3d-mark and a lot more time just enjoying games
and recording music on hardware that does things I never dreamed it would do back when I started...

Every year or so, when something comes out that appears to perform way better than I have, I buy that and I use it. But I no longer waste much time milking it for all I can get.

Besides, my video card overclocks itself, and my processor is 700mhz over where it came with just a few ticks of multiplier and no voltage increase...again something I never thought I'd see back when I started doing all this stuff...a lot of which did nothing but waste money and give me an expensive collection of paperweights. Keeping it simple is the smart way to go for me now.

Look at the responses to this thread... ^ there is a concensus here.  If there is no noticeable difference, then why bother?
Lastly, you don't have to spend hours trying to squeeze out another frame per second, to be a hardware enthusiast.
You can simply enjoy the step in performance each generation brings and leave it at that.

There is a big difference between enjoying what your hardware can do, and doing your hardware.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 27, 2019)

Hard to call someone an enthusiast if they aren't tweaking anything and simply using it. 

Seems like a PC user... like my mom. 

An 'enthusiast' is defined as 'highly interested in a particular activity/subject'... can one be "HIGHLY" interested in PCs yet not tweak and overclock? I suppose, but, many would just call them a regular PC user.


----------



## toyo (Feb 27, 2019)

Not really. 

My somewhat generic 3xWindforce 1070ti from Gigabyte is not a great overclocker to be honest. Above 2050 MHz it starts to get unstable and the VRAM is from Micron and is not reliable above 350MHz or so either.

What I did like is that the OC Scanner was able to create a curve that increased the frequency on the top end (where it maters) by 60-70MHz while also keeping within the original 180W TDP. Now that was pretty impressive IMO from a technical perspective. But yeah, it's not like the fps would change a lot. I did gain 10 fps or so in some games (for example 70 fps vs 60 fps in more demanding GTA5 areas), and it's still within original power limits, so it's cool.


----------



## Vayra86 (Feb 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Hard to call someone an enthusiast if they aren't tweaking anything and simply using it.
> 
> Seems like a PC user... like my mom.
> 
> An 'enthusiast' is defined as 'highly interested in a particular activity/subject'... can one be "HIGHLY" interested in PCs yet not tweak and overclock? I suppose, but, many would just call them a regular PC user.



In all fairness, todays' overclocking is so basic, especially on GPUs, that you can easily call it 'regular use'. Its covered in warranty, and meticulously prepared for commercial use.

So I think its safe to say we can cut back on our perceived number of enthusiasts here...


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 27, 2019)

I, personally, would say anyone who feels passionately towards PCs would be an enthusiast.  My wife can't make beef wellington but she is a cooking enthusiast (she watches food network, cooking channel, has subscriptions to their magazines).  I may not drive a Porsche but I can be a car enthusiast by reading all the car review magazine, watching car shows, going to racing schools, etc.,

I would say someone who builds PCs, works on PCs, stays up to date on the current software, hardware, trends, news, etc., would be a PC enthusiast even if they don't OC.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 27, 2019)

I digress as toxic/OT posts (mine)... but my post really was in jest... sorry! There are different levels of enthusiasts...


----------



## xkm1948 (Feb 27, 2019)

2D monitor gaming, no
VR gaming, hell yes.

On my old FuryX there were no Async Reprojection support and if the frame rate dips below 90FPS it will default back to 45FPS rendering. 45FPS in VR will induce puking. Just by overclocking the FuryX a bit more I was able to maintain a higher proportion of rendering time over 90FPS. I did experiments. Without OC I can play max 2hrs of Serious Sam VR due to about 5% of the time FPS drops to 45FPS. With OC I can play until the controller battery runs out (about 6 hrs) since now only 1~2% of my playtime FPS drops to 45FPS.

Of course if the GPU has Async Reprojection I would not have such problems in the first place. Still for a "Overclocker's Nightmare" GPU it was worth it in that specific application.


----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I digress as toxic/OT posts (mine)... but my post really was in jest... sorry! There are different levels of enthusiasts...


I think enthusiast is one of those words that can have multiple meanings to different people without there necessarily being a wrong definition .


----------



## notb (Feb 27, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Hard to call someone an enthusiast if they aren't tweaking anything and simply using it.
> 
> Seems like a PC user... like my mom.
> 
> An 'enthusiast' is defined as 'highly interested in a particular activity/subject'... can one be "HIGHLY" interested in PCs yet not tweak and overclock? I suppose, but, many would just call them a regular PC user.


When exactly has being a "PC enthusiast" started to mean "tweaking with hardware" exclusively? Oh man... seriously? :-/

I feel sorry for people who aren't interested in anything their PC can do other than setting custom CPU frequencies...


----------



## MrGenius (Feb 27, 2019)

las said:


> Yeah it's safe because there's no headroom


Funny? Maybe. But not very.

True? Not so much(see bottom of post).

The fact is, both AMD *and Nvidia* are being real dicks lately with restricting their cards as far as overclocking. With Nvidia being slightly more restrictive in actuality. With AMD you can still uncap power limits through software(or rather registry hacks). And you don't hear about shunt mods on AMD cards for a reason. They aren't required. As opposed to recent Nvidia cards, with which they are(to uncap the power limits). You can also still do software volt mods(registry hack) with AMD cards. Not so with Nvidia(well...maybe with Afterburner...if the voltage regulator is supported). However, both AMD *and Nvidia *are getting real clever at making sure that there's really not very much(practically nothing in some cases) that you can do to bypass any of their performance restrictions. Even with hardware mods.

Which isn't REALLY as bad as it all sounds. Since, for the most part, what's going on is they're(AMD *and Nvidia*) releasing cards these days that are pushed much closer to their limits right out of the box. Which then ends up looking like they have no(or very little) OC headroom. More or less so depending on the card.

BTW, did you know Radeon VII is capable of 2000MHz+ on the stock cooler(and a repaste)? That's a healthy +250MHz OC. If that's not headroom...I don't know what is.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 27, 2019)

overvolted said:


> No, Besides, if you really have to overclock a video card, you should have bought the next better model.


You see for me, I see it different, whilst I agree with your comment (to a certain degree), I have to, it's a must for me, even if I don't need to for a specific game, I just like the idea of getting more, not just more but _free_ performance, I also like the idea that with the right card you can sometimes (but I acknowledge it's becoming rarer) get close to the next highest card model for that lower price, something that gives me just a little pleasure knowing that I am near in performance for a fair bit less and all those millions of people out there who do not overclock and may have paid a fair bit more for the higher specced card in order to, like me play a particular game with a smooth framerate...… and yes I know I am shallow and perhaps in an odd minority these days.


----------



## robot zombie (Feb 27, 2019)

GPU overclocking is boring to me with all of its power limits and what not. I'll probably never leave my CPU's and RAM alone, but I tend to pass on GPU overclocking unless some game is getting a little hitchy and I feel like the slight boost I'll see and maybe a small setting tweak can fix it. With the Strix 2060 I have now, it truly is pointless as right out of the box it boosts to 2ghz+ and goes right up to the power limit. And I mean, at that point it's already creeping up on a 2070... I could try to push it up maybe another 50-100mhz I suppose. But that's not very fun or meaningful!

I just keep running into two scenarios with GPU's. Either they're top-shelf models that boost all the way up to what the GPU's can do without mods, or they're lower/mid level models with much lower boost clocks, but no worthy cooler to speak of, so they throttle easily when pushed. And even though overclocking below the throttle point can lead to some decent gains, they're still pretty loud as room heaters. Obviously liquid cooling is always an option, but that's throwing the value side of OCing a value card out the window.

In some ways, it feels like they're phasing out overclocking and forcing you into buying the bells/whistles models to get the best performance. But on the other hand, when you buy one of those cards you are getting the absolute best performance _guaranteed,_ no luck or trial and error involved. The value of that for someone who's versed is debatable. I could go either way with it.

Personally I think I'd prefer a more overclockable card but at this point its becoming neither here nor there. As much as I enjoy tinkering and overclocking, I've always found it strange that so many parts out there do not run at their full potential out of the box. You could take the whole concept of overclocking and flip it over to say that most things you buy are actually underclocked from factory. Obviously that's not entirely accurate. But it highlights this whole idea of working to get value that could've just been there from the start. Right or wrong, GPU's are working from that angle now, probably because higher advertised performance comes at a higher price point. Though to be fair, if they did it any other way, all of the partners would phase out their lower price point models. The factory overclocked model has to cost more to make sense. It's just unfortunate that this leaves us with few cards that can REALLY overclock, in any tier. Though I guess that nice, OC-friendly cooler has almost always made it cost more. I guess at the end of the day it amounts to a way of simplifying things. What you see is now what you get, with none of those sleeper value OC beasts of yesteryear. Bound to happen as a market becomes more mainstream and the less informed of that now much more visible market demand clearer options. 

What that really means for enthusiasts truly is up for debate. I don't always know how I feel about it myself. I just look at the reality of it and choose the road that makes the most sense to me. I bought a badass factory OC'd card like a filthy casual. And I think it's great. Fortunately, overclocking isn't all there is to be a PC enthusiast. A big part of it is just being aware of the markets and knowing enough about what you're buying and what's available to build a better machine. I like to think that if you're doing it right, the machines you build are already better than what's typically available before tuning, and the tuning really just makes it that much better. Of course saving money on a good overclocker is part of that... I won't argue there. I'm more just suggesting that for an enthusiast, an overclock should not be the only thing elevating your build above the common standard. Picking parts that work well together to begin with is a real challenge, and that big picture sense of what a build is for and how everything can work together to make it better do that is something that not everybody has - it is rather something we cultivate through our longstanding, maintained interest in and dedication to PC building. Overclocking has little to do with that. Any fool can buy a CPU with a nice cooler, overclock it, and call themselves and enthusiast. But that doesn't make it so.



Tatty_One said:


> You see for me, I see it different, whilst I agree with your comment (to a certain degree), I have to, it's a must for me, even if I don't need to for a specific game, I just like the idea of getting more, not just more but _free_ performance, I also like the idea that with the right card you can sometimes (but I acknowledge it's becoming rarer) get close to the next highest card model for that lower price, something that gives me just a little pleasure knowing that I am near in performance for a fair bit less and all those millions of people out there who do not overclock and may have paid a fair bit more for the higher specced card in order to, like me play a particular game with a smooth framerate...… and yes I know I am shallow and perhaps in an odd minority these days.


No, I think that is a very common sentiment among enthusiasts. The whole idea that our computers are better than your computer or your big brother's computer, even having the same parts, because we have the knowledge and skill to see the potential in them and pull it out.


----------



## overvolted (Feb 27, 2019)

Vario said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman





Tatty_One said:


> You see for me, I see it different, whilst I agree with your comment (to a certain degree), I have to, it's a must for me, even if I don't need to for a specific game, I just like the idea of getting more, not just more but _free_ performance, I also like the idea that with the right card you can sometimes (but I acknowledge it's becoming rarer) get close to the next highest card model for that lower price, something that gives me just a little pleasure knowing that I am near in performance for a fair bit less and all those millions of people out there who do not overclock and may have paid a fair bit more for the higher specced card in order to, like me play a particular game with a smooth framerate...… and yes I know I am shallow and perhaps in an odd minority these days.



Don't take me as some "elitist" or something. I own an ASUS strix RTX 2060 that I bought open box for 320 bucks.
But I bought it because my 1060 3gb was a piece of crap overclocked or not and couldnt play my games in a decent manner on my 34 inch 2560x1080 monitor The 2060 great without touching it.
Thing overclocks itself. But overclocked or not, it makes little difference. It's just perfect for my application.

Next year, when some game I like plays like crap on my 2060, I'll upgrade...from my own experience, overclocking a video card yields very little in practice.
Usually it causes it to degrade.


----------



## EarthDog (Feb 27, 2019)

overvolted said:


> Usually it causes it to degrade.


Not really. With today's limitations in place from both companies, there is little reason not to overclock to stable limits. The card will last through it's useful lifespan. These cards are pretty handcuffed, sadly.


----------



## phanbuey (Feb 28, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Not really. With today's limitations in place from both companies, there is little reason not to overclock to stable limits. The card will last through it's useful lifespan. These cards are pretty handcuffed, sadly.



Overclocking in the last 20 years of my PC experience building has always increased the useful span of the components my friends or I have used - while allegedly 'decreasing' the theoretical max life of components.  I've never had a component fail because of overclocking; and my overclock are always in the 'yolo' category (as high as it can physically go without exotic cooling).

I've even sold/given handmedown rigs to friends and family and those are still going.  I had a q6600 rig that was OC'd as high as it could go, gave it to my family and they just a year ago retired it. That chip ran OC'd to 3.6Ghz @ 1.52v for 11 years...

I get that it's an anecdotal example, and that degradation does occur, but I honestly would expect to see more hardware deaths in practice if degradation was as real of a risk as some people claim it is.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Feb 28, 2019)

robot zombie said:


> I could try to push it up maybe another 50-100mhz I suppose. But that's not very fun or meaningful!


I'm with you there, it's not like 10-15 years ago when GPU's could easily hit a 30% OC and sometimes even 50%+. Now it's generally impossible to OC to 30% unless you severely modify your card, which has it's risks.



phanbuey said:


> that degradation does occur, but I honestly would expect to see more hardware deaths in practice if degradation was as real of a risk as some people claim it is.


It is exaggerated. Electron migration and migation is still a thing, but not nearly like it used to be. Everyone who makes IC's have engineered that problem out of the design of processors of all types.


----------



## las (Feb 28, 2019)

MrGenius said:


> Funny? Maybe. But not very.
> 
> True? Not so much(see bottom of post).
> 
> ...



Yes I know - I also know that the card is hitting almost 50dB stock, with 3000+ RPM on all 3 fans. I've tried one. Reminded me of 290X reference, in terms of noise.

With watercooling, Radeon VII is probably nice. Still hoping for custom cards.

I was mainly speaking about Fury X and Vega 64 tho. Pretty much zero headroom and watt usage went up like crazy for 1-2 more fps.


----------



## SoNic67 (Feb 28, 2019)

My RX 580 accepted 5% of OC on GPU and 10% on memories. My GTX1080 accepted 6% on GPU and 10% on memories. This being absolutely stable and not crazy loud/hot.
Now, did they make a difference? Sure... 5% more FPS 
Do I "feel" that? Absolutely not.

In fairness, both cards are already OC from factory.


----------



## John Naylor (Feb 28, 2019)

When we talk about GPU OCing, have to make sure what we are talking about .... 

A.  When we say "I overclocked my core 20% and memory 10%", that might mean and fps increase of just 10%

B.  When we say "I overclocked my core 20% and memory 10%", that's gong to mean very different things with a reference card, what level of AIB card or is this a tricked out card (Lightning, Classified or Matrix) ?

So for the sake of discussion, and kudos to the OP, it's always best to talk about % increase in fps ... and furthermore, if comparing models and manufacturers, % incrase over the reference card.  TPUs charts just have reference cards for all but the card under review.  

The discussion also will depend on what series and what manufacturer.... everything was pretty much comparable till the nVida 7xx / AMD 7xxx series.  Then when AMD went to 2xx, everything chnaged; the cards were very aggressively OC'd in the box ... so when the 290x went up in single digits, the 780 would do up almost 30%.  TPUs charts gave the 290x the win, but when both cards were at max OC, the 780 dominated across the board.  We saw that again with the 9xx series ... with the 980 Ti, + 32% fps was attainable without difficulty where is the Fury X was mired in single digits.

With the 10xx series and Boost 3, things got more quirky and with 20xx, it seems nVidia seeking to negate the hit of RT, has gotten more aggressive in the "in the box" clocking.   Right now most of the 20xx series is not all that impressive in this respect.  The increase in fps from on the AIB 2080 Ti's in TPUs OC test ranged from 12% (over the reference) on the EVGA X Ultra to 22% for the MSI Lightning

And also... what is the overclock measurement  ?  Are we talking stock reference model.... vendor OC in the box or manual OC ?  The 980 Ti reference hit 102 fps in TPUs OC test, some models were a hair under 140 fps.  That's only an 11% OC when the AIB vendor is done with his factory OC but  is 37% over reference.  This has to be taken into account when one manufacturer's AIB partners are putting on 20+% Ocs in the box and the other is doing mostly single digits.

And yes, 30% is noticeable, more so than the difference in fps in and of itself. .... with say 70 fps avg, I might be inclined to leave G-Sync on ... but with ya average up 30% near 90 fps, I would definitely be turning G-Sync OFF and using ULMB.

With the 20xx series however, we are seeing much more modest OCs, with OCs ranging (over reference) from ...

2080 - 9% with the FE to 16% on the MSI Gaming X Trio
2080 Ti -11% with the FE to 17% on the MSI Gaming X Trio (22% w/ the $$$$$ Lightning)

In most cases that's going to be hard to detect at the low end and sometimes detectable, mostly when ya pass certain thresholds, at the high end. 

Note that all these numbers are based upon % increases in FPS .... this is a fraction of what we are seeing in core / memory speeds

The default Boost Clock for the 2080Ti is 1545 MHz and the default memory speed is 1750 MHz  .  In TPUs OC test on the highest clocked AIB card ( MSI Gaming X Trio)  that wasn't (Matrix, Lightning,  Classified level of being tricked out) they managed a 2,085 boost clock, (+ 35 %) OC and a 2005 memory OC (+ 15 %) which netted only a 17% increase in fps.  It also is important to note that the highest core / memory OC's never corresponss to the highest fps.   The Trio's core OC was in 5th place among the 7 cards in the roup ... memory OC was a tied for 3rd place finish.  The highest core OC (Zotac Amp 2,145) was a 4th place finish in fps; the highest memory OC (Asus Strix) was a 3rd place finish in fps.


----------



## Mr_Headshot (Mar 10, 2019)

Since I have the Asus Strix GTX 1080 Ti OC edition, there's not much headroom for me to OC. I've successfully OC'd the card from its factory 1708mhz to 1747mhz and the memory from 11100 to 11135. Not much difference in this particular card. However, I always OC my graphics cards and watch the temperature closely. Because I use headphones I crank up the GPU fans to 100%, everything maxed out on Apex Legends and Blackout and highest temperature I've recorded is 63C. So to answer your question, OC ing a GPU can improve performance but you void the warranty and must watch temperature closely.


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Mar 10, 2019)

I remember my old 6600, overlcocked from 300/550 to 510/615, that was a really nice OC 

I would say my last card I had with a big OC that I was seeing a difference, was my 7950 and my 7970.

My R9 290, RX 570, GTX 1060, GTX 1070, I don't see that mmuch difference, because of the boost clock


----------



## ArbitraryAffection (Mar 10, 2019)

I am extremely enthusiastic about PC hardware. I love the Processors. The CPUs and the GPUs, the logic and circuitry and I love to understand how all the billions of transistors switching on and off, taking those 0's and 1's togetther and giving us beautiful game worlds we can be immersed and lost in. That is my passion really.^^

I overclock a lot, but mainly to push the highest Scoar in benchmarks  In gaming, i used to, until i realised the extra heat isnt really worth it, its not making a noticeable difference to games i am playing. But for benches?? Hell yeah I overclock the crap out of everything/ Every MHz counts

Now that I am crunching I have dropped CPU overclockign entirely, (again aside from benching). But with my 2700X it is so good at stock with PBO that manual OC on my cooler at least, is pointless.^-^

I love to think of myself as an enthusiast, but in my eyes the best way to get more FPS with a meaningful amount in gaming is to buy a better graphics card At least with the cards i am using. GTX 980 Ti is a huuuge exception to the rule for me, as this beast is 25%+ faster with OC. sometimes more, you can _feel _that. I have owned 5 GTX 980 Tis in my time. I am not kidding. Two ref, one Palit, one Giga, and one Zotac AMP Ex. the best was the Giga. She was a Windforce and I took her to 1560 Mhz rock solid in games. Over a stock 980 Ti boost average once heated of 1150 Mhz, this is a 35% increase in clock rate alone. Taking into consideration she also took her memory to 8000Gbps that is another 14% increase in bandwidht. over reference this card is ~35-40% faster. That is truly remarkable and I think 980 ti deserves title as the best overclocking GPU of all time

Sorry i loved my Giga windforce 980Ti. one of the best cards i owned. Up there with my Sapphire Nitro R9 390. I had to sell her though  R.I.P my dear. i hope you are out there being run at 1560mhz in someone's rig~ you made me proud *cries tear of nostalgia*

Btw 980 Ti was objectively a superior card in every single respect to R9 Fury X. I think even if the cooling is TOP NOTCH, it was not accurate to call fury X an "overclocker's dream", because the core overclocekd like pants. I mean 50-100Mhz tops without serious voltage increase and instability.

It's like saying "this is the fastest car in the world, because it has the tyres to go super fast. But it's got a 1.4L fiat panda engine..." Well not quite. But you get the idea.

Fury X needed Ln2 to match overclocked best water 980 Ti results. This is hilarious honestly, and that is 1400mhz ln2 fury X vs 1600Mhz 980 Ti on water loop, i think even some cards did this on AIR,  (980Ti can easily match GTX 1080 once OC, wish i kept mine).



Sorry for long post^^


----------



## John Naylor (Mar 10, 2019)

ChristTheGreat said:


> I would say my last card I had with a big OC that I was seeing a difference, was my 7950 and my 7970.
> 
> My R9 290, RX 570, GTX 1060, GTX 1070, I don't see that mmuch difference, because of the boost clock



The 980 Ti did 32% ...that was quite a big deal ... and that was fps not clocks. ... the 780s and 560 Tis also did 27-28% in FPS when overclocked.

Starting the the 290 series, AMD started very agressively overclcoking their cards in the box so couldn't do much manually.   Never understood why nVidia didn't follow suit other then with higher in Box Ocs, more RMAs.    However with the 20xx series cards 1.   nVidias OCs are not all that impressive. ... and certainly, 2. the increase in fps is far less then the OC on the cards and 3. highest clocks does not - highest fps.


----------

