[H] HD 7970 Dual-X Review

[Keysplayr]

From the review I linked:

"GPU Boost is guaranteed to hit 1058MHz in most games. Typically, the GPU will be going much higher. We experienced clock speeds in demo sessions that would raise to 1.150GHz and even 1.2GHz in such games as Battlefield 3. With a GPU frequency increase of that much over base clock you can rest assured it will be a noticeable performance difference." :hmm:

Well, we can ask our Battlefield 3 680 owners here to try just that. If it does reach 1.2GHz, I would think it does it for only brief moments, instantaneously.
I have the 680 but not BF3. Anyone here care to try? Not you xoleras, I mean cookies, doh!! blackened. Sorry, cant keep track!
J/K. knock yourself out.

Please remember that what happens in <forum that isn't AT> stays in <forum that isn't AT>
-ViRGE

 

[SlowSpyder]

Saw the title, came in, checked out what's going on... heading back to Off Topic for a bit.

 

[Ferzerp]

From the review I linked:

"GPU Boost is guaranteed to hit 1058MHz in most games. Typically, the GPU will be going much higher. We experienced clock speeds in demo sessions that would raise to 1.150GHz and even 1.2GHz in such games as Battlefield 3. With a GPU frequency increase of that much over base clock you can rest assured it will be a noticeable performance difference." :hmm:

I looked for 1200 That's why I didn't find it. Let me do some testing on mine to make sure, but I don't get anything like 1200Mhz unless I raise the boost clock, then I do sit at 1215Mhz.

Just ran some quick tests. It won't (at least not the EVGA card) raise its clocks to arbitrary clocks until you raise the boost offset. If everything is set default, it appears that the max boost is up to 1097 (which is slightly higher than the published number). If you up the power limit, it still will not pass 1097 in any situation. Once you up the boost offset, it raises the max boost clock. The behavior that they're describing is not happening on the retail parts (at least not the EVGA, or at least not on the one in my pc) until you rase boost clock offset by over 100Mhz. At the default settings, 1097 is the max it will go, light, heavy, medium workload, doesn't matter (actually, any time the card was stressed, the clock raised to 1097 and sat there). 1215 is near the limit for my card, and with a 130Mhz offset, it will do 1228 in rare cases (which would be the 1097 +130, well, 131, but with room for rounding errors in the software), but sits at 1215 most of the time. And if I set it too high above +130, when it tries to clock itself to max, it just crashes.

Now, once you raise the boost offset high enough, it acts exactly as they're describing.

I'd test with BF3, but I won't buy anything off Origin, so I don't have it.

 

[chimaxi83]

Stock clocks, BF3 boost is max of 1110MHz.

 

[Ferzerp]

Stock clocks, BF3 boost is max of 1110MHz.

And when you overclock it by raising the boost offset, it goes higher, does it not? Also, which model are you using?

 

[chimaxi83]

Yes sir, I use +125 for gaming, and that pushes max boost to 1235MHz. I have the Gigabyte reference card.

 

[Ferzerp]

So, there's a little leeway in the base limits, but by no means does it "overclock itself" you have to raise the boost limit for a true OC.

I wonder if each vendor has set a max default boost separately. Mine is obviously 1097/1098Mhz. Will yours go above 1110Mhz in any scenario with the default settings?

 

[blackened23]

Each card has a different boost max I think, although they're typically very close. Using GTX 680 sli, my GPU 1 (upper card) reached 1258mhz or thereabouts with an overclock while GPU 2 (lower card) reached 1240-1245 (overclocked). It didn't hamper performance at all, it was just odd.

I think ASIC quality affects the quality of gpu boost, albeit slightly, or maybe there were differences between the 680s.

 

[Ferzerp]

What do yours do if you leave everything at the stock settings though? Is there an obvious ceiling that it won't pass?

Looks like most of these will OC to somewhere between 1200 and 1280Mhz when you up the boost offset though.

 

[Elfear]

So, there's a little leeway in the base limits, but by no means does it "overclock itself" you have to raise the boost limit for a true OC.

I wonder if each vendor has set a max default boost separately. Mine is obviously 1097/1098Mhz. Will yours go above 1110Mhz in any scenario with the default settings?

It depends on the ASIC quality as blackened23 mentioned. Some cards are obviously better than others. [H]'s card looks to be a very good one since I would call 1200Mhz a "true OC".

 

[Ferzerp]

It depends on the ASIC quality as blackened23 mentioned. Some cards are obviously better than others. [H]'s card looks to be a very good one since I would call 1200Mhz a "true OC".

They can go higher if they raise the boost clock though. They don't peak out by default.

 

[Tempered81]

This is from Elfear's link:

GTX 680 is able to raise the GPU frequency to give you better performance until it reaches TDP. This means the GPU clock speed could increase from 1006MHz to 1.1GHz or 1.2GHz or potentially even higher. (Kyle saw a GTX 680 sample card reach over 1300MHz running live demos but it could not sustain this clock.) The actual limit of the GPU clock is unknown. As each video card is different, and with the addition of custom cooling, your maximum GPU Boost clock speed could be anything&#8230;within reason. This is going to make overclocking, and finding the maximum overclock a bit harder.

 

[thilanliyan]

Yeah a 50MHz OC is not going to "crush" a GTX680. I thought this would be one of those supposed 1100MHz+ 7970s going by the title of this thread.

 

[Ferzerp]

This is from Elfear's link:

And in practice, they have limits that they will not go above that are far below their true overclock limit.

This link belies your claim that the cards magically reach their peak all by themselves. In fact, manual overclock improved their performance by around 15% over the stock settings.

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/4

 

[blackened23]

What do yours do if you leave everything at the stock settings though? Is there an obvious ceiling that it won't pass?

Looks like most of these will OC to somewhere between 1200 and 1280Mhz when you up the boost offset though.

Honestly, i'm not even sure. I overclocked it from hour 0, i'll give that a try though :$

 

[chimaxi83]

What do yours do if you leave everything at the stock settings though? Is there an obvious ceiling that it won't pass?

Looks like most of these will OC to somewhere between 1200 and 1280Mhz when you up the boost offset though.

Stock settings, max boost is 1110MHz regardless of what I'm doing with it. GPU-Z shows stock clock of 1006MHz and boost of 1059MHz. If I was hitting TDP limit, boost would only go to 1059, but since I'm always under it, I get about 50MHz extra. How it calculates that, I don't know.

Going with offset though, +125 that I use for gaming gets me 1235MHz max boost, and it will stay pegged there. GPU-Z reports OC default of 1131MHz and boost of 1184MHz. Since I've put the card under water, it rarely passes 100% power usage anymore, so it doesn't reach the 132% limit and downclock itself.

My max stable offset for benching is +157, which gets me a max of 1267MHz, which will also stay pegged with power usage hovering around 98%. Despite load temps of 35C, that's as far as my card will go unfortunately. If only I could adjust voltage

 

[Tempered81]

Tempered1, why would you even consider a thread title such as this? I mean, considering the content?

Yes exactly, because of the content. Regrettably, the title was a sight for sore eyes for Nvidia Focus Group members. The overclocked HD7970 Dual-X OC is crushing the stock GTX680 in all the benchmarks excluding Power draw. The stock GTX680 overclocks itself as high as possible depending on each asic's binning, therefore this is an overclocked versus overclocked review. The difference being the HD7970's OC is maximum sustained, while the GTX680's OC is variable, blurring the lines between historical definitions of "stock" and "overclocked". Keysplayr, regarding the "Crushing" terminology which caused some complaints: No worries mate, these complaints reached Virge and the title has been changed from "[H] HD 7970 Dual-X Review: Crushing the GTX 680" to "[H] HD 7970 Dual-X Review".

HardOCP published a GTX680OC versus HD7970OC review where GTX680's 'Baseclock' is increased. Check Ferzerp's link a few posts up to read this review. The GTX680 is incapable of handling the level of power that the HD7970 handles with ease. If that sounds biased, read "GTX680 uses less power than HD7970". Kepler is more efficient than GCN/Tahiti, and the GK104 is more efficient than Tahiti XT. The GTX680 PCB is limited in the voltage it can sustain, consequentially limiting the amperage GTX680 power-users can deliver to the GK104 core. Testing GTX 680 at >1200mv is a daunting task. In Monstru's Lab501 review, an Air-cooled GK104 maintained 1400 ~1500mhz core with added voltage, while the world witnessed K|ngP|n take GK104 over 1950 (albeit sub-zero). GK104 has much potential, however, GTX680 - not so much. The voltage constrained GTX680 PCB neglecting GK104's potential is one reason why this overclocked HD7970 is annihilating the stock GTX680 in each and every single benchmark.

In retrospect, 'crushing' was the wrong word to use, my apologies. Perhaps a friendlier title might have read: "Overclocked HD7970 taps stock GTX680 on the shoulder saying, 'Excuse me, please.' as it surpasses said GTX680 in several framerate benchmarks". This would have been simultaneously accurate and less offensive. Crushing, Smashing, Beating, & Winning sound so much sweeter. However, the friendly moderator edit reminded me that "Crushing" doesn't accurately describe the overclocked HD 7970's 5-20% lead over the GTX680, and rightfully doesn't belong anywhere in the title.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Edit this tomfoolery of a title.

Edit: oops nvm, you did.

 

[Ferzerp]

The stock GTX680 overclocks itself as high as possible depending on each asic's binning, therefore this is an overclocked versus overclocked review.

You are patently incorrect. In fact in the same site that you're linking, they cite a 15% increase with manual overclocking on the 680 as opposed to non overclocked (or what you really, really badly wish to claim is overclocked).

 

[Tempered81]

You are patently incorrect.

I bet your accusatory "belies your claim" quotes and references to Newegg specifications will surely correct me then. Care to elaborate?

 

[Ferzerp]

I bet your accusatory "belies your claim" quotes and references to Newegg specifications will surely correct me then. Care to elaborate?

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/4

 

[Tempered81]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2012/04/04/nvidia_kepler_geforce_gtx_680_overclocking_review/4

Not sure what this link is saying. Would it be comparable to posting this link?

http://hwbot.org/image/709466.jpg

 

[Ferzerp]

Now you're just being purposefully obtuse.

You claimed it auto overclocks to max.
You like posting hardocp links.
This is the hardocp link about manually overclocking the 680 showing a performance improvement (because it does not overclock itself, but only goes within a strict clock range)

If you can't read the link and understand it, I can't help you.

 

[notty22]

It's not a overclock to overclock review.
The stock behavior of the gtx 680 is being referred to as a auto-clocking feature.
It's automatic and does not require msi afterburner or EVGA precision for it to function.
It's stock behavior is 1006, and a limited amount of clock adjust. They all get some.

You can then choose to o/c, by using those utilities, raising the tdp % or lower it. And adjust clock offsets. This is it's o/c where YMMV.

When custom models come out with higher base clocks, just like other factory o/c models. The stock clocks will be higher and again have that limited guaranteed boost.

With those models , the user will then be able able to attempt a o/c , further, using the same utilities with different parameters. Again above the factory clocks and limited clock offset, YMMV.

 

[Tempered81]

And you're being acutely naive.

No need, I understand it perfectly. My link was the world record. "If you can't understand a world record, I can't help you."