AMD Polaris architecture – GCN 4.0

[Geeman1979]

Not quite right here.

My Fury X can manage a bigger overclock than my Kingpin GTX 980 Ti's.

The real problem for the Fury X is not the overclocking headroom but it's base performance compared to the GTX 980 Ti before overclocking is introduced.

The Fury X is actually one of the better overclocking cards you can get for example mine can go from 1050mhz stock to 1190mhz OC an increase of 140mhz or 13.3%.

Those clocks are still weak, highlighted even further considering your cards are fully blocked up and water cooled. The Fury range are poor overclockers, period.

 

[andybird123]

.

My Fury X can manage a bigger overclock than my Kingpin GTX 980 Ti's.

Are you using a reference 980ti as the baseline, or the kingpins default clocks?
The kingpin is already a massively overclocked card, so its understandable it wont overclock by as much

If you are getting 1500+, that's over 300 higher than a standard 980ti, so how is that not better than the %13 you get from the furyx?

 

[humbug]

Those clocks are still weak, highlighted even further considering your cards are fully blocked up and water cooled. The Fury range are poor overclockers, period.

That depends, the official clocks on maxwell are meaningless. The 970 is 1178 apparently and yet a lot of them boost way over that.

Nothing special about mine, out of the box not a day goes by when it's not running at 100 mhz over it's official clocks, 1253mhz but actually 1354mhz, take that into account when reading benchmarks, it's less overclocking headroom than appears, I run it at 1500mhz, not by any stretch a low clock even for maxwell, a 390 will do 10% and more all day
The maxwell overclocking wonder is just as much a falsehood as Fiji.

 

[andybird123]

That depends, the official clocks on maxwell are meaningless. The 970 is 1178 apparently and yet a lot of them boost way over that.

Nothing special about mine, out of the box not a day goes by when it's not running at 100 mhz over it's official clocks, 1253mhz but actually 1354mhz, take that into account when reading benchmarks, it's less overclocking headroom than appears, I run it at 1500mhz, not by any stretch a low clock even for maxwell, a 390 will do 10% and more all day
The maxwell overclocking wonder is just as much a falsehood as Fiji.

the "rated" boost clock on the 980ti is 1075... it actually tends to run at 1200 - I use the 1200 as the base line when I make comparisons - most 980ti's will do 1450-1500 - mine do a bit over 1500 which (even using the higher figure as the baseline) is still a 25% overclock compared with reviews that use the reference card

 

[ICDP]

Are you using a reference 980ti as the baseline, or the kingpins default clocks?
The kingpin is already a massively overclocked card, so its understandable it wont overclock by as much

If you are getting 1500+, that's over 300 higher than a standard 980ti, so how is that not better than the %13 you get from the furyx?

While I agree the 980Ti is a far superior overclocker to Fury X you need to get your numbers right. A standard 980Ti will have default boost clocks of ~1275-1300 out of the box so an overclock to 1500+ is ~15%-20%. The true benefit of custom cooled 980Ti cards is the boost clocks don't drop as much compared to stock cooled versions.

My 980Ti ACX 2.0 reports max boost clocks of 1190MHz according to specs but will boost to 1304 stock. Max stable OC was 1520 with voltage which is ~16.5% overclock.

The real problem for Fury X is that 1190 is a best case scenario with ~1150 being more realistic.

 

[Geeman1979]

That depends, the official clocks on maxwell are meaningless. The 970 is 1178 apparently and yet a lot of them boost way over that.

Nothing special about mine, out of the box not a day goes by when it's not running at 100 mhz over it's official clocks, 1253mhz but actually 1354mhz, take that into account when reading benchmarks, it's less overclocking headroom than appears, I run it at 1500mhz, not by any stretch a low clock even for maxwell, a 390 will do 10% and more all day
The maxwell overclocking wonder is just as much a falsehood as Fiji.

I use previous AMD/Nvidia cards I've run as a comparison. 7970's/290X's/780s/Titans have all clocked in excess of 150MHz and that's on Air. The Furry range are lucky to get 75MHz plus on average. The Furry EEEEEE's are weak in comparison to the last round of cards from either vendor.

 

[humbug]

I think Kaap should comment here but I don't think 1500mhz is the standard for out of the box AIB 980ti,
A 970 yes, a 980ti is twice the size with much greater power requirements.

 

[Geeman1979]

No it won't be as you'll always get the odd bad egg, but nor is 1190mhz for a Furry.

 

[andybird123]

While I agree the 980Ti is a far superior overclocker to Fury X you need to get your numbers right. A standard 980Ti will have default boost clocks of ~1275-1300 out of the box so an overclock to 1500+ is ~15%-20%. The true benefit of custom cooled 980Ti cards is the boost clocks don't drop as much compared to stock cooled versions.

My 980Ti ACX 2.0 reports max boost clocks of 1190MHz according to specs but will boost to 1304 stock. Max stable OC was 1520 with voltage which is ~16.5% overclock.

The real problem for Fury X is that 1190 is a best case scenario with ~1150 being more realistic.

ACX2.0 isn't a reference card
I'm going off all of the reviews of the reference cards which are then the same ones used by the reviewers when they later repeat other tests in other benchmarks and reviews, they stated their cards were boosting to around 1200, not 1300... come on, its even right there in your specs - the ACX2.0 has default clocks of 1190 but boosts to 1300 (+110), the reference card has default clocks of 1075 and boosts to near 1200 (+125)

So your ACX2.0 overclocks by 16% compared with itself, but it overclocks by 26% compared with the reference model USED IN REVIEWS

Humbug: no one is saying 1500 is the standard for "out of the box", 1500 is a fairly common OVERCLOCKED setting people are getting

 

[humbug]

No it won't be as you'll always get the odd bad egg, but nor is 1190mhz for a Furry.

Agreed but when you look at it objectively there isn't that much difference in overclocking ability. 150mhz looks more impressive than 75mhz but in terms of actual gain from baseline percentage for each card it's not all that different.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm not excusing the comment, but blown out of proportion, I mean Nv endorsed their high /ultra end mgpu dream overclocking laptops with a driver that disabled overclocking, that didn't even bat an eyelid did it?

Agreed.

 

[andybird123]

Agreed but when you look at it objectively there isn't that much difference in overclocking ability. 150mhz looks more impressive than 75mhz but in terms of actual gain from baseline percentage for each card it's not all that different.

so you're saying that most 980ti's only overclock to 1350 compared with reference models at 1200?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

stuff

Meh,I have switched between Nvidia and AMD for the last 12 years. The grass has always been greener on the other side,whether you have started with AMD or Nvidia. Its all a load of bull,since the moment you have another HL2 moment(Nvidia sucked for it) or R300/5800 moment or another HD5000 or Fermi moment you will be back the other way. Then comes another Crysis/G92/HD2000 moment(Nvidia far better than ATI at the time) and you will go back to Nvidia.

The same goes with sponsorship. HL2,a huge releases,was an ATI sponsored game,Crysis was Nvidia sponsored. Then about two or three years ago you had loads of big titles like Bioshock:Infinite being AMD sponsored and now this year,its the other way.

You are acting like both companies don't go through bad and good phases longterm. It happens and its not a big deal.

Half the time I would not even know what brand I would have if someone switched out the card in my rig,and hardware enthusiasts get so worked up about brands.

What you are describing is not biggy,especially if you flip-flop between brands depending what might be better value/performance at any one time.

Plus,all the people flip-flopping between similar performance cards are just ****ing their own money away.

Known mates with higher end cards GTX970,GTX980,GTX780,R9 290 and R9 390 who tend to be more gamers than hardware enthusiasts and just stuck with what card they have bought first,and if required actually knocked a setting down.

I am the same too.

I don't know a single one who has side-graded at all.

Oh noes! One setting is at high instead of Ultras! Its da end!
Oh noes! Its 50FPS instead of 60FPS! Its da end!

Meh. Still all better looking than most console versions anyway.

Lots of us are not even running cards like R9 290/GTX970 anyway - the sub £200 cards are all going to have less performance in a game than an R9 290/GTX970 even if it runs on Nvidia or AMD better. All the GTX750TI,GTX660,GTX960,HD7870,etc owners.

Even Fallout 4 which AMD was criticised for subpar performance at launch,still had the R9 290 and R9 390 owners having better performance than I was getting with a midrange Nvidia card:

http://gamegpu.ru/images/remote/htt...tories-Test_GPU-RPG-Fallout_4-test-1920_2.jpg

Yet,still running most of the games you lot play,even if its with a few settings less.

If I had a R9 290/GTX970/GTX780 I think I would not be interested in upgrading for a while,unless it was something like a GTX980TI.

Even then you are still paying for that performance increase since the GTX980TI is £500 and the others had settled down to £250 to £350 ages ago.

 

[humbug]

so you're saying that most 980ti's only overclock to 1350 compared with reference models at 1200?

I'm saying that on average AMD cards overclock about 10 to 15% while Nvidia about 15 to 20%, ie it's not the massive difference some people think or claim it is.

 

[andybird123]

I'm saying that on average AMD cards overclock about 10 to 15% while Nvidia about 15 to 20%, ie it's not the massive difference some people think or claim it is.

ok, I'll try this again only slowly

a stock reference model FuryX comes at 1050mhz, and doesn't boost, and even a really good OC like Kaap's is 13% OC

a stock reference 980ti comes at 1075 and boosts to 1200... most people on here with aftermarket 980ti's are getting 1450+, looking at the bench threads on here, over 50% are getting 1500+ and even a couple at 1600, thats 20 to 33%, with most around 25%

I would say that a 25% average overclock is quite a bit better than an average 10% OC, compared with reference

 

[Gregster]

I'm not excusing the comment, but blown out of proportion, I mean Nv endorsed their high /ultra end mgpu dream overclocking laptops with a driver that disabled overclocking, that didn't even bat an eyelid did it?

Well I actually bought a Fury X and didn't buy a nVidia laptop, my AMD laptop does a good enough job for what I need and handles some light gaming just fine. And wasn't overclocking disabled but then re-enabled on laptops? Not that I care and being selfish, I only care about what I buy generally.

Polaris and Pascal both interest me, so I am keeping an eye on what is what and will probably go with the first fastest card, so I really don't care for who has shown what and who has said what but the proof will be in the pudding and I hope they have a real beast.

 

[Geeman1979]

I'm saying that on average AMD cards overclock about 10 to 15% while Nvidia about 15 to 20%, ie it's not the massive difference some people think or claim it is.

The Furry was described as an Overclockers Dream, which clearly it isn't is what people have the issue with, that's the point and the only point that actually matters.

 

[ICDP]

so you're saying that most 980ti's only overclock to 1350 compared with reference models at 1200?

It's like you deliberately ignore facts to suit an agenda. 980Ti reference cards do not run at 1200MHz stock, they are getting ~1275 - 1300+ actual boost overclocks. I think you know this but are deliberately attempting to overstate how good 980Ti actually overclocks by taking an unrealistic low number and comparing to best case scenario OC.

 

[andybird123]

It's like you deliberately ignore facts to suit an agenda. 980Ti reference cards do not run at 1200MHz stock, they are getting ~1275 - 1300+ actual boost overclocks. I think you know this but are deliberately attempting to overstate how good 980Ti actually overclocks by taking an unrealistic low number and comparing to best case scenario OC.

everyone I've seen or heard of with a reference card has said it boosts to around 1200 out of the box - in particular the few reviewers who stated the actual boost clocks they got

your card isn't reference, its an ACX2.0, I've already highlighted the difference between 1189 > 1304 and 1075 > 1200 it should be pretty obvious that your card isn't going to stick to 1200 when its a factory OC model

 

[ICDP]

The Furry was described as an Overclockers Dream, which clearly it isn't is what people have the issue with, that's the point and the only point that actually matters.

Exactly my issue with AMDs statement. It was a lie and many people assumed it was true and purchased Fury X cards on the strength of that.

While the actual OC for a 980Ti is not as great as people make out ~15-20% after ACTUAL boost clocks not advertised boost clocks. It is at least measurably superior to the "overclockers dreamnightmare" that Fiji ended up.