After reading Anandtechs article and VIAN's comments, such as "nVidia overclock better", I was wondering if they do really (as a %, not in pure MHz).
MHz are all well and good, but not ALL. Personally I think a 100MHz increase on an ATi 9800 is better than a 100MHz increase on a GF FX 5900 (since they are similar speeds, and the Radeon 9800 overclock is a greater %).
But anyway, what numbers have people got on their cards, as a % increase from overclocking?
My numbers: Radeon 9800 non-pro. 325MHz -> 435MHz. 34% increase in core clock speed.
290MHz -> 330MHz 14% increase on the RAM.
MHz are all well and good, but not ALL. Personally I think a 100MHz increase on an ATi 9800 is better than a 100MHz increase on a GF FX 5900 (since they are similar speeds, and the Radeon 9800 overclock is a greater %).
But anyway, what numbers have people got on their cards, as a % increase from overclocking?
My numbers: Radeon 9800 non-pro. 325MHz -> 435MHz. 34% increase in core clock speed.
290MHz -> 330MHz 14% increase on the RAM.