What kind of overclock the 7900GT is able to reach (with a good cooler)?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

Madellga

Senior member
Sep 9, 2004
713
0
0
I guess the memory is rated lower than the GTX, but what about the GPU?

If the original coooler is replaced with a decent one, can the GT close into the GTX speed?

Any reviews or threads around? I looked here and other forums, couldn't find a post about it.

I am considering selling my 7800GTs (SLI setup), I can get a good price for them. With very little money, I can get them replaced by 7900GT - but only willing to do so if the overclock potential is worth.

I might as well dump SLI and go for the 7900GTX or ATIX1900, as I had some issues with SLI recently (random BSOD caused by the nvidia driver). My 7800GTs were never overclocked.

I do need the performance, as running 1920x1200 is not easy on modern games for the GPUs.
 
E

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
I'm not sure how high the core will go, but even on stock cooling the memory will overclock to above GTX speeds (1600 MHz). The XFX "XXX" version is clocked @ 560/1650 and thats on stock cooling, with a good cooler I'm betting you could get it to 600MHz on the core and at least 1700-1750 MHz on the memory, and GTX speeds might be possible.
 
M

Madellga

Senior member
Sep 9, 2004
713
0
0
If that's the case, a 7900GT SLI system would bring an awesome performance for this price range!!

Are there any reviews with overclocking around the web?
 
thecoolnessrune

thecoolnessrune

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
9,673
583
126
I think it is kind of funny that althouth the GTX as an air conditioner on it, a slightly lower clocked GT as one of the smallest coolers i have ever seen for a card of this caliber :confused:
 
Praxis1452

Praxis1452

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2006
2,197
0
0
they really have just put the Quadro cooler on this card too! I really don't trust that cooler. And it's loud.
 
C

Crescent13

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
4,793
1
0
hmm, makes me consider selling my 7800GT and getting 2 7900GT's and overclocking madly on the new zalman VF900Cu coolers.
 
G

gaiazov

Junior Member
Oct 26, 2005
4
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron
I'm not sure how high the core will go, but even on stock cooling the memory will overclock to above GTX speeds (1600 MHz). The XFX "XXX" version is clocked @ 560/1650 and thats on stock cooling, with a good cooler I'm betting you could get it to 600MHz on the core and at least 1700-1750 MHz on the memory, and GTX speeds might be possible.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. Maximum you can get on stock volts is about 600/1800. However, there is a lot of suspicion that you raising the vcore to 1.4 (GTX vcore) will make it possible to reach 650+, i.e. GTX speeds
 
M

Madellga

Senior member
Sep 9, 2004
713
0
0
How do you do that? Software (like ATI X1900) or Hardware (V mod)?

Vmod voids the warranty and it is something most "normal" guys are not willing to do (myself included).

I don't like risky tweaks. If it is easy and safe, I will do. Otherwise I prefer paying a bit more.

I'd never forgive myself for burning a 300+ card....
 
G

gi0rgi0

Golden Member
Dec 5, 2004
1,240
0
0
What are the xfx xxx and evga superclock stock volts ? Are they already higher to attain such high oc or are they at the same voltage as a regular 7900gt ?
 
F

firewolfsm

Golden Member
Oct 16, 2005
1,848
29
91
the GT and GTX are the same card so with the same cooling, it should get to GTX speeds (you would have to volt mod though.
 
M

mrkun

Platinum Member
Jul 17, 2005
2,177
0
0
Does anyone else suspect that they may have put better memory on these higher clocked GT models?
 
Y

yacoub

Golden Member
May 24, 2005
1,991
14
81
Originally posted by: firewolfsm
the GT and GTX are the same card so with the same cooling, it should get to GTX speeds (you would have to volt mod though.
Click to expand...

speed binning aside, yes.
 
G

gaiazov

Junior Member
Oct 26, 2005
4
0
0
Originally posted by: gi0rgi0
What are the xfx xxx and evga superclock stock volts ? Are they already higher to attain such high oc or are they at the same voltage as a regular 7900gt ?
Click to expand...

Measured with a volt meter, 1.196 vcore and 1.99 vmem for my XFX Extreme 7900GT 550/1630. According to vr-mods, reference cards run at 1.2 vcore and 2.02 vmem. So yes they are stock volts.

Originally posted by: mrkun
Does anyone else suspect that they may have put better memory on these higher clocked GT models?
Click to expand...

1.4ns ram on my XFX, and the someone here confirmed that his eVGA superclocked has 1.4ns as well. So no special memory here, 1.4ns is what reference cards have.
 
E

Effect

Member
Jan 31, 2006
185
0
0
I wouldn't mind checking out some o/c results (and benchmarks) as well, getting near to 7900gtx speeds for around half the price, count me in.
 
M

Madellga

Senior member
Sep 9, 2004
713
0
0
True. It shows where the memory starts to make the difference.

Besides that, a Dell 2405FPW runs at 1920x1200, this is good information for people using it. And that's the trend for new games coming, it could be a decision maker in this case.
 
D

deadseasquirrel

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2001
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: Extelleron
Originally posted by: Madellga
Still, there is the memory size difference.....512 x 256 MB.

Check this

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=33&page=1
Click to expand...

Even in those tests, the only settings that showed much difference were extreme settings that people who were buying a *budget* GPU like the 7900GT wouldnt play at........ 2048x1536 4xAA/8xAF?
Click to expand...

While, yes, according to the benchmark run, that's pretty much the only resolution where the numbers show a difference. What makes me go "hmmm" is this part: (the reviewer is referring to playing FEAR at 1600x1200, max settings, 4xAA 8xAF)
With 256Mb it was absolutely unplayable with stuttering at every turn, sometimes the screen would not refresh for half a second. This was blatant cache thrashing in action. In comparison the 512Mb card was behaving as it should, no stuttering at all. The average frame rate was low and it wasn?t very enjoyable, but it was a thousand times better than with the 256Mb card.
Click to expand...
So, while benchmarks don't show the difference, gameplay might. And I know that this is incredibly hard to "measure", so we're forced to take reviewers for their word. But I've seen similar things happen with other components-- namely BF2 when I upgraded to 2GB of ram. I play at 16x12 4xAA 8xAF and with 1GB, stuttering at the beginning of a level was terrible, but with 2GB it was gone. Many others got no such stuttering ever, even with 1GB.

I just want to make sure we all remember that while we may cling to benchmarks as proof, they are not perfect and sometimes don't tell the whole story. I know I do it too... often recommending against spending extra for dual-core gaming since benchmarks show no gain (yet many users say they "feel" the difference).
 
I

imported_Crusader

Senior member
Feb 12, 2006
899
0
0
Couple comments.

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
So, while benchmarks don't show the difference, gameplay might. And I know that this is incredibly hard to "measure", so we're forced to take reviewers for their word. But I've seen similar things happen with other components-- namely BF2 when I upgraded to 2GB of ram. I play at 16x12 4xAA 8xAF and with 1GB, stuttering at the beginning of a level was terrible, but with 2GB it was gone. Many others got no such stuttering ever, even with 1GB.
Click to expand...
I have 1GB, play BF2 and never notice any stuttering. Obviously load times suck.. but my RAID array helps with that to a point. I think 2GB in BF2 mainly helps with the level loading. Supposedly some of the BF2 patches helped eliminate the stuttering in-game with 1GB.

My personal opinion is that if they cant make a game look and run great on 1GB of ram they need to start coding more of the game in assembly or something because thats ridiculous.

Originally posted by: deadseasquirrel
I just want to make sure we all remember that while we may cling to benchmarks as proof, they are not perfect and sometimes don't tell the whole story. I know I do it too... often recommending against spending extra for dual-core gaming since benchmarks show no gain (yet many users say they "feel" the difference).
Click to expand...

According to OCPs recent article, dual core wont give you a better feel by any means-

Originally posted by: Brent Justice
Dual Core Problems


In our gameplay we did come across some problems that we believe are associated with dual core CPUs, games and possibly drivers. There were times in some games, such as F.E.A.R. that we would ?feel? a slowdown in the framerate. It was as if we were moving along smoothly and then out of no where, unexpectedly in situations not typical of bringing the framerate down we would feel a change in the framerate. Now, it wasn?t enough of a drop to bring us below 30 FPS or cause the game to not be playable. It was however a slight annoyance because when you are at a high framerate and the framerate drops, let?s say for example from 80 FPS to 50 or 40 FPS you feel that change in the framerate and it may bother you.


We feel this is a problem with dual core CPUs because we did not experience this problem with the single core 2.8 GHz Prescott or our regular single core FX-55 we test with on a regular basis. This was only felt on the dual core CPUs. We aren?t sure if this is a game problem with the way it interacts with the CPUs or if it is a driver problem as well, all we know is that it happened with the dual core CPUs and it didn?t happen with the single core CPUs.


Another issue which really isn?t a problem is some weird framerate capping in World of Warcraft with dual core CPUs. Head back to page 6 of this evaluation and look at the World of Warcraft graphs. Look at the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz Prescott single core CPU graphs. You can see that the framerate has a maximum that goes well up to 100 FPS. Now look at the dual core CPU graphs. It seems the framerate is being capped at around 65 FPS. This is extremely odd, we verified VSYNC was off, our monitor was at 75 Hz anyways at 1600x1200, yet the framerate seemed to be capped at 65 FPS. This only occurred with the dual core CPUs. It is a weird issue but one that wasn?t detrimental to gameplay since 65 FPS is plenty of performance for smooth gameplay. It was just worth noting because there does seem to be something different going on in World of Warcraft between single and dual core CPUs.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a 3800+ is all anyone needs for the foreseeable future. Dual core for those with specific uses like Maya or similar.
For everyone else, including those of us that program/game/or pretty much do anything/everything besides media encoding while gaming at the same time.. are best off with a 3800+ or better and to not waste your money on dual core yet.

There are benefits there, but seem relegated to a very small niche of professional users.. those who demand the 'latest and greatest' need apply.
 
1

1Dark1Sharigan1

Golden Member
Oct 5, 2005
1,466
0
0
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom