OC editions "significant" in terms of performance?

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

Hi friends of TPU! today i got a question for ya

is and "OC Edition" card, relevant and significant in terms of performance? i know theres a LOT of OC editions out there and depending on the GPU you wanna get, but i got an Example, that maybe satisfy my answer.

1. The GIGABYTE R9 380X G1 Windforce OC edition (Normal core on this thing 970 Mhz --- OC: 980Mhz) yeah 10 mhz OC. WTF.

2. Sapphire R9 380X NITRO OC Edition (Normal Core 970 - 1040Mhz OC) now, a more decent Overclock over basic clock.

if you had to choose between this 2 cards, do you think this lower Mhz overclocks are going to get you significant differences in games? significant differences in both cards, or "Oc Editions" is an overrated marketing words to sell more?

Thanks for your answers, and have a nice week!

 

[GhostRyder]

Hi friends of TPU! today i got a question for ya

is and "OC Edition" card, relevant and significant in terms of performance? i know theres a LOT of OC editions out there and depending on the GPU you wanna get, but i got an Example, that maybe satisfy my answer.

1. The GIGABYTE R9 380X G1 Windforce OC edition (Normal core on this thing 970 Mhz --- OC: 980Mhz) yeah 10 mhz OC. WTF.

2. Sapphire R9 380X NITRO OC Edition (Normal Core 970 - 1040Mhz OC) now, a more decent Overclock over basic clock.

if you had to choose between this 2 cards, do you think this lower Mhz overclocks are going to get you significant differences in games? significant differences in both cards, or "Oc Editions" is an overrated marketing words to sell more?

Thanks for your answers, and have a nice week!

OC can return nice performance gains on many cards and that one does show decent improvements when overclocking. Many people view it differently in this day and age because OC models do not always mean better binned meaning you can set the OC your self and save a couple of bucks.

My advice, if the price increase is minimal and you do not like overclocking then get the OC model. If you do not mind playing with it and doing the overclocks yourself, get the regular (Or cheaper) of the two.

 

[chuck216]

With as small an OC factory OC editions have there really isn't much of a a performance difference at "stock" clocks. However the reason most, myself included buy OC editions is that the cooling solutions used on the OC cards are often better than the reference coolers on stock clocked cards.

 

[SUPERREDDEVIL]

With as small an OC factory OC editions have there really isn't much of a a performance difference at "stock" clocks. However the reason most, myself included buy OC editions is that the cooling solutions used on the OC cards are often better than the reference coolers on stock clocked cards.

thats and A-plus!

 

[arbiter]

With as small an OC factory OC editions have there really isn't much of a a performance difference at "stock" clocks. However the reason most, myself included buy OC editions is that the cooling solutions used on the OC cards are often better than the reference coolers on stock clocked cards.

That and some OC cards they beef up things like VRM's to make card even more stable.

 

[overclocking101]

there are reports of the gigabyte card not going into power states correctly due to insufficient power thats why I got the sapphire card and the sapphire card runs perfectly for me

 

[Ferrum Master]

Dont take the GB one. The VRM sucks on those.

Sapphire is usually better.

 

[Mussels]

In my experience, non reference "OC" editions have more problems worse GPU cooling, worse VRM cooling, worse features (10Mhz OC, lose voltage control) or just outright problems (gigabyte 280x i'm looking at you), and die a lot sooner.

 

[micropage7]

i think for lower OC i prefer pushing through software, and yep OC version may offer you more like better cooling performance etc etc
so back you you whats your point? since OC version tagged higher than normal version

 

[vega22]

In my experience, non reference "OC" editions have more problems worse GPU cooling, worse VRM cooling, worse features (10Mhz OC, lose voltage control) or just outright problems (gigabyte 280x i'm looking at you), and die a lot sooner.

giga have never really done great amd cards, always favoured the green team it seems to me.

you want sapphire if you want amd gpu imo.

my msi 290x oc 4g is all the things which you said have problems and it is is still beasting games. it has never caused me issues, even if i blamed it for a failing dvi cable for a little while xD

real question you have to ask your self is if the difference is worth the cost to you. nobody else's opinion matter at the end of the day. for me this oc, out the box, has it running 390x clocks and has been giving me that level of performance for years. it has uprated cooling on the core and vrm. back and front plates which stop sag....for the price i paid it was a no brainer imo to get this over a ref card. for the same price i could have this or an amd leafblower....

is now wet too so

 

[chuck216]

In my experience, non reference "OC" editions have more problems worse GPU cooling, worse VRM cooling, worse features (10Mhz OC, lose voltage control) or just outright problems (gigabyte 280x i'm looking at you), and die a lot sooner.

I've owned a few OC editions an MSI R9 270X Gaming and my current Asus R9 390 Strix DCU3 8gGb. the MSI was a great performer for what I paid for it. unfortunately it developed a problem. one of the 2 fans went dead and I RMA'd it, instead of repairing it they sent me a R9 380 x2 Armor 2Gb OC edition. That one actually has a rather flimsy cooler compared to the Gaming ones, but it was a free upgrade.

My current card is the result of 2 things, Money to burn from a tax refund, needing (wanting) a 1440p monitor to replace my aging 1680x1050 22" old monitor. Spent the money and bought my current monitor on sale, got it and when using it realized that the 2gb of VRam wasn't quite up to snuff when it came to running the settings I like @1440. so I went shopping for either a R9 390 or 390x. I purposefully looked at potential performance per dollar, looking at the clocks of various cards compared to the price. and honestly the reason I bought the Asus was because it was on sale at the time.

There is one bad thing about the Asus Strix and from what I hear even other brands of the 390(x) and that's a lousy default fan profile. Mine personally doesn't spin up until it reaches 65c 25% fan and tops out around 90c at 50% fan. something I'm uncomfortable with and I'm not a stickler for noise so I just set the fans manually in CCC oops.. Crimson to 100% (louder than default but not as loud as you'd think) for nice cool 30c idle temps and a ~65c load temp.

 

[RejZoR]

Most overclocks these days are just a gimmick to separate the on benchmark graphs from the stock by 2 millimeters. In real world, there is no difference. There are not many OC brands that actuall ymake sick overclocks. Which is a bit of a shame.

 

[chuck216]

Like I said I bought my OC edition because it was on sale at the time it was either an OC Asus or a stock Powercolor for the exact same cost... which would you choose?

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

My Superclocked GTX 680 is about 5 % "better" than the regular one.
http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/b154/evga-gtx-680-superclocked.html


It would make a difference for folding but i game on my card and i doubt whether my eye notices the boost at all.

 

[Steevo]

If the cooler is better, and some additional features are worth the price premium usually charged the "OC" variant is worth it. If its a stock to stock comparison, get the cheapest.

Very few cards feature much of an overclock worth the money charged however.

 

[RejZoR]

Most OC editions are worthy because of better cooler, not because of higher factory clocks.

 

[the54thvoid]

If you really want proper OC that affects game performance (20% or more) you really kinda need water cooling and a very strong will. Older AMD cards (Tahiti variants like the awesome HD7970) could ramp it right up. Current Maxwell cards from Nvidia are also very good (not so great with Kepler).

Palit Jetsream variety for Nvidia do very well and so do the Sapphire tri-X cards (as mentioned) for AMD, in terms of cooling at least.

 

[neatfeatguy]

Most OC editions are worthy because of better cooler, not because of higher factory clocks.

That was the main reason I grabbed the Zotac 980 Ti AMP! Omega - it had a better OC out of the box than most other cards at the time in the same price range, but the cooler....she's a beast and I've never had the card go over 70C (normally runs 62-68C) when running gaming.

 

[qubit]

It all depends on the particular card. Some are next to nothing while others are very noticeable. This goes for both NVIDIA and AMD.

My old factory overclocked GTX 580 was something like 3% faster in reviews and I didn't notice it at all. Could barely tell even compared directly to a stock one. At least I didn't pay any extra for the overclock and it would SLI with a stock card just fine.

 

[EarthDog]

If you really want proper OC that affects game performance (20% or more) you really kinda need water cooling and a very strong will. Older AMD cards (Tahiti variants like the awesome HD7970) could ramp it right up. Current Maxwell cards from Nvidia are also very good (not so great with Kepler).

Palit Jetsream variety for Nvidia do very well and so do the Sapphire tri-X cards (as mentioned) for AMD, in terms of cooling at least.

NVIDIA overclocking has been neutered for quite some time... that is, with the factory BIOS. Remember the power limits? That usually doesn't translate to a ton more headroom... depending on the card.

Now, if you are willing to BIOS mod, then you can get more out of it and going water would be worth it (outside of quiet).

 

[qubit]

NVIDIA overclocking has been neutered for quite some time... that is, with the factory BIOS. Remember the power limits? That usually doesn't translate to a ton more headroom... depending on the card.

Now, if you are willing to BIOS mod, then you can get more out of it and going water would be worth it (outside of quiet).

Yup, they even throttle at stock speeds and great coolers (eg my GTX 780 Ti Gaming) when pushed hard, so what's the point of overclocking them without BIOS mods? It will simply ramp down just when you need the performance most.

Personally, I'm too scared to push a £500+ card with warranty-voiding mods for 15-20% extra performance, so I'm very boring and just run all my cards at stock. The CPU on the other hand...

 

[EarthDog]

If it throttled at stock speeds, your card needed an RMA. Most have some headroom without touching the power limit (albeit not much). Then you can raise the power limit (varies from 106%- to 120% by card). If you know what you are doing, you can get a decent overclock out of them at stock. Gone are the days of pouring on voltage and seeing where it tops out. It is actually quite the opposite... you want to push as high as you can WITHOUT touching the voltage and see where you land. If you have power limit and temperature headroom, THEN increase voltage and keep going.

15-20% extra performance ehh? That must be a MONSTER overclock.......................

 

[qubit]

Well, it does mainly throttle severely with Furmark, but we know what a graphics card killer that would be otherwise, lol. Thing is, the temperature stays at something like 65-70c so it's not heat stress that's doing it, must be the power usage. Rendering is still nice and smooth though.

I have also seen it in other situations though (much smaller throttle) while rendering some intensive graphics in Unigine Heaven and some games. Both 780 Ti's do it and it's obvious from monitoring them that it's by design rather than a technical issue. Ventilation isn't an issue either as the PCs side panel is permanently off and the temps never go especially high.

In my opinion, the only reason we're seeing this behaviour out of our top end GPUs nowadays is to keep overall power use and board design costs down. I don't doubt that the top NVIDIA and AMD GPUs could be run flat out at full clock speeds while rendering intensive graphics, but they would probably consume 400W or so and need a monster graphics motherboard and cooler to deal with it, pushing the card well out of a practical price range (and doubling up as an excellent room heater).

 

[EarthDog]

LOL, Furmark........ come on! Clearly its power limit is being hit... its a power virus application you are testing it against!

You really need to look at the Perf Cap reason in GPUz/MSI AB to see why its throttling. I haven't seen any throttling of GPUs at stock with Heaven or Valley.

They can run their full boost at their rated TDP. It doens't take 400W to do so. The TDP is based off the max boost bins. This is also why most cards have headroom at stock speeds.

Note in GPUz... the boost clock it lists there. That is the MINIMUM boost you should get saying a PerfCap reason was not tripped. Anything above that is gravy.

 

[qubit]

LOL, Furmark........ come on! Clearly its power limit is being hit... its a power virus application you are testing it against!

You really need to look at the Perf Cap reason in GPUz/MSI AB to see why its throttling. I haven't seen any throttling of GPUs at stock with Heaven or Valley.

They can run their full boost at their rated TDP. It doens't take 400W to do so. The TDP is based off the max boost bins. This is also why most cards have headroom at stock speeds.

Note in GPUz... the boost clock it lists there. That is the MINIMUM boost you should get saying a PerfCap reason was not tripped. Anything above that is gravy.

I'll check it out again at some point, but I think it's likely just hitting the power limit. I might start a thread about it when I get a chance and then we can have a proper discussion on why it behaves the way it does.

Yeah, I know about Furmark as I said above. I just like to see how they cope with it and it's sort of a right of passage now with any new card that it suffers this at least once in its life. Some of the animations are also rather good at inducing motion sickness lol.