Why overclock a graphics card these days?

[gpuerrilla]

I see the value in the OP question tbf.

From memory a long time ago shortly after the voodoo series (which was my first gpu) there weren't really binned flavours and certainly no 'boost' feature.

You had to push via trial and error and hope for that stable % increase. Software has become better over time, so like these forums are named - generally people will want to dabble on here to get more out of hardware.

Modern times see the vendors stating the clock speeds with boost mode and in a diluted sense this is what comes out of the box and pushes the card for you when required. Not sure if its to compliment energy saving reasons or to state that you are getting this speed guaranteed without having to do anything.

 

[Sweetloaf]

I am understanding that

a) Overclocking is an easy few button clicks.

b) It's free extra performance...in theory.

But, I've just tried Metro again with stock card settings (High settings in Metro) and watched my core speed, at times it actually hit 2000Mhz. I've run Afterburner and applied the OC, played metro again and it occasionally hit 2050Mhz (again High settings in Metro) pretty much same performance from what I can tell. Then tried ultra settings in Metro and the core never went above 1950Mhz and obviously at ultra settings performance was worse...surely in this case the core should be at it's highest achievable clock speed to get better performance when needed?

So when overclocking my particular card there are no real benefits and when I needed extra performance the card was running slower than when I was at high settings. hit 73 degrees both times cause the cooling on this thing is naff but that's still not an emergency temp and temps were the same at high and ultra settings.

 

[Radox-0]

I am understanding that

a) Overclocking is an easy few button clicks.

b) It's free extra performance...in theory.

But, I've just tried Metro again with stock card settings (High settings in Metro) and watched my core speed, at times it actually hit 2000Mhz. I've run Afterburner and applied the OC, played metro again and it occasionally hit 2050Mhz (again High settings in Metro) pretty much same performance from what I can tell. Then tried ultra settings in Metro and the core never went above 1950Mhz and obviously at ultra settings performance was worse...surely in this case the core should be at it's highest achievable clock speed to get better performance when needed?

So when overclocking my particular card there are no real benefits and when I needed extra performance the card was running slower than when I was at high settings. hit 73 degrees both times cause the cooling on this thing is naff but that's still not an emergency temp and temps were the same at high and ultra settings.

A heavier load can reduce clock speed. I can for example have the primary GPU in the rig I am typing this on hit low 2138 Mhz in the GPU-Z test. I can clearly see however its not stressing the card all that much in reality as power consumption is only around 70% or so. However run a heavy game like Assasins creed odyssy or something and those sorts of clocks are out the question, it will usually be mid to high 2000 numbers I see with similar offset and temps within same ballpark.

In regards to temperatures, there are actually multiple throttle points on these cards well before the thermal target which is usually around mid 80's for most these Nvidia GPU's. Here is a good thread showing some example of throttle points on the 1080Ti, but does exist for other cards which do boost (though likely at varying temps) https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...post-your-max-core-clock-1000mv-60c.18800040/ not an issue in your case as your comparing similar temps, but interesting and partly why the same card under water can usually maintain a bin or two higher.

From your post, it sounds like boost however is doing all the work for you and a manual overclock does not help things, not a bad thing really, would be happy without needing another bit of software myself . Just one of those things, others' do not boost to the max performance so can add a reasonable offset.

 

[chrcoluk]

Here is a thought guys, it originally came when a reviewer mentioned it, and is especially apparent on gigabyte with their long warranties. This reviewer basically advised users with factory unstable clocks, to just underclock and RMA it when warranty about to run out for free generational upgrade.

Which situation would you rather have?

A poor overclocker where you lose perhaps 50-80mhz which is not even 5% performance. But the poor chip is enough to not be stable at manufacturer shipped spec e.g. gigabyte OC mode. But doesnt prevent you from using the card albeit slightly slower. This could allow you to wait say 3 years, then RMA the card and manufacturer sends you newer generation card so e.g. free way to upgrade to RT capable card.
Or
That extra sub 5% performance from day 1, but come day of upgrade you pay for it, and given the rampant inflation between GPU generations would likely not be cheap.

I personally believe the AIB's dont bin the chips. So e.g. the difference between a gigabyte OC and auros 1080ti extreme is you paying for a more aggressive factory configured voltage/clock curve, and that curve is basically guaranteed by the AIB so if it isnt stable you get another roll of the silicon lottery, whilst on the cheaper card you have the same chance of getting a good chip, but you need to manually dial it in on afterburner and if you get a silicon loser it will probably still be stable at the more passive factory curve so you have to accept it.

Water cooling seems to buy you about 12-50mhz depending on the extremity of the gains from it based on how gpu boost 3.0 works with its intermediate throttle points.

 

[Sweetloaf]

Personally, if I've paid for something that doesn't work as advertised I'll exchange or get a refund. If it works then I've got what I paid for so all's fair.

If however a company let's me clock the nads off something at the risk of breaking it...I'll give it a go and see what happens

 

[DragonQ]

While I agree with you that manufacturers have looked closely at how auto-overclocking of their products can provide inbuilt gains, I don't agree with the comparison to the i7-920, and this is speaking as someone who had one (and also had the Pentium 4 Northwoods that overclocked like crazy). At present I'm running a 7980XE that I keep on 4.7Ghz all-core 24/7. The stock all-core Turbo is a matter of some debate on sites but I was getting 3.3Ghz all core at stock.

i7-920: 2.66 -> 4.0 Ghz 50% overclock
7980XE: 3.3 -> 4.7 Ghz 42% overclock

So technically, yes, the i7-920 had a slightly higher margin, although if I turned up the chiller I could probably get close to that overclock delta.

Interesting point but you are comparing a $1999 CPU to a $284 one. It's not exactly the same as nabbing a bargain through overclocking, is it?

 

[DarrenM343]

I can't be bothered overclocking GPU's and just let the auto-boost do its thing. Never really bothered anyway to be honest but bought a few factory OC'd GPU's in the past. No hassle, no fiddling, not been bothered about a few quid extra.
CPU's, similar too. I've overclocked them in the past but not sure I'd bother with the latest generations. Using a 6700K at present at 4.5Ghz but Ryzen 3000 series I wouldn't bother. So many cores now I'd rather let the boost technology do its thing .

 

[Maldoror]

Interesting point but you are comparing a $1999 CPU to a $284 one. It's not exactly the same as nabbing a bargain through overclocking, is it?

Definitely not the same kind of bargain, no. As I mentioned later in that post, I think the overall overclocking delta is the same (and so are the gains) but what we've lost are the amazing low/mid-end overclocking opportunities. They still exist but generally manufacturers have become far better at locking down their products and forcing enthusiasts to pay high-end prices.

But perhaps this was always going to happen - in the early 2000s (or let's say, 1999-2003ish), when I was first on ocuk (different, lost account), overclocking was still something of a dark art with a lot less software support, guides and mainstream consciousness. There were plenty of opportunities to flash a lower end gpu to a higher end one or find top-end products that were simply re-badged to fill mid-end roles. Sometimes 'pixel pipelines' on gpus were simply disabled rather than missing or cut in hardware. That sort of thing.

It's probably inevitable that the companies would eventually catch up to all that. There are still often good deals to be had (Vega56 is a good example of a low/mid-end overclocking beast) but I think gone are the days you could tune up a bargain rig to the 3dmark Hall of Fame and essentially transform the hardware into things five times as expensive.

 

[ScottMC7000]

My overclock is buying a new graphics card after 9 years. This way, I get maximum performance I can see and make use of, for the minimum of outlay.

 

[MartinPrince]

I was a volt modding GPU overclocker back in the day but nowadays I tend to run it at stock for the first year or so, only after when I see new GPU's released do I bump it up by ~10% and then it's only using something like NVInspector. which I find a breeze.

 

[Kirby Wurm]

Overclocking it still a worthwhile exercise. With my last few cards (970, 980 Ti and 1080Ti) I've been able to add around 8-10% performance with a little tweaking and patience. If you have a good chip/cooling you can get more than that but even so while it won't massively improve your gaming experience it's free and pretty easy.

I currently have two profiles for my 1080 Ti, one running 1911MHz at 1v for most usage and another at 2012MHz and 1.043v when I want just a little more performance. It can go higher (around 2060 with fans at 100%) but the noise/temps aren't worth it aside from brief benchmark runs.

 

[Poneros]

I didn't realise I was getting even more of a boost than I remembered. Mind you this is on already the best V64 air card (Nitro+):

The Division 1 (Stock, Balanced profile) - 41.8 fps
My OC (1683 P7, 1050 HBM, stock fan profile): 50.9 fps

That's more than 20% improvement...

Synthetic (Time Spy Extreme w/ 16x AF):

Profile: OC1
3595
Graphics Test 1 25.51
Graphics Test 2 19.24

OC2
3696
26.06
19.88

Balanced
3160
22.02
17.15

Imagine leaving 20% performance on the table for absolutely no reason!