The Official OC (OverClocking) Thread!

I don't claim to know anything about GPU folding, but I've yet to see ANY benchmark out of several (at least half a dozen) that puts the HD3870 in a favourable light compared to the 9600GT. Seriously, I didn't just make that comparison table for future reference and due to boredom, it has bettered my understanding of how different GPUs compare. I was surprised to see that there was very little real world difference between the 3870 and 8800GT. However, I knew all along the 9600GT, 8800GS and 9600GSO were rough equals to the 3870, and this confirmed it. The HD4670 is also along the same lines, and is a card I have often recommended to budget gamers. None of these are too far behind the 8800GT (in a lot cases hardly any noticeable real world difference), and there is no disputing the 8800GT is a credible gaming card. Granted, it won't run Crysis on High at any considerable resolution, but all other games it will. Bear in mind the chart I produced is always for absolute maximum detail unless otherwise stated (solely for Crysis at present). The requirement to play modern games like GRiD, Half Life 2 Episode Two and Call of Duty 4 at 1680x1050, a reasonable and typical gaming resolution, and never dip below 30fps (which for at least the first two is absolutely playable conditions, for the latter, certainly liveable) is, only an 8800GS or 9600GSO. So you're saying maxing out A-list games produced in the last year or so at the resolution most gamers use isn't what you'd want to game with?

This guy has a 6800GT, it's miles behind even an 8600GT, let alone a 9600GT. I have no problem with you buying stacks of graphics cards, as you are in the financial position to play around with different stuff, I'd love to be able to do that, but right now you're forcing people to spend 100+ bucks on graphics cards when it really isn't necessary. The only thing I do agree with you on here is that the HD4830 is an excellent value product.

Oh, and spamual? 680/750/780i? Yuck.




and lastly, this:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2008/02/21/g94_nvidia_geforce_9600_gt_graphics_card/10

 

Shaff,
If Sophocles is right about the $499 pricetag for the GTX295, then it will be slightly cheaper than the 4870x2! Certainly in the ballpark!

Russ

 

As far as I'm aware, the MSRP for the 4870X2 is $499 as well.

 

About AMD/ATI, here is my story:
I had a GeForce 5500GT in a 2.93 Celeron. Card sucked. I got a ATI 9800 Pro from a friend for free and all I could say was holy shit, that blew the 5500 out of the water. It performed as well as the 6800GT. I ran Guitar Hero 3 on that Celeron without lag, way under the system requirements! So I switched over to ATI then loving their cards. Later for my new built quad I bought a ATI x1650 512MB. Some users here on AD said that it would outperform my 6800GT. I got it, installed it and was very disappointed by the results. The 9800 Pro performed better in NFSU2. Thats when I switched cards with my dad and took the x1650. Right now I can probably say that it is running a little better than the 9800 Pro but the 6800GT still beats it.

Because of this, I'd prefer Nvidia but if ATI gets me quality like the 9800 pro, which I know it will, I don't mind going for a ATI.

Now for the hard part. Can I get anything good, ATI or Nvidia, for $50-75? If you need you can go $100 max and then lower. I don't care about rebates and shipping costs don't apply to the price range.

 

You bought a very cheap Radeon card. The X1650 series was never intended to beat the 6800 or X800. By far the best card you can buy for that price is a Radeon HD4670.

 

Yeah, I checked on Newegg and they range in price from $500 to $560 with the on sale low of $470 (Diamond). I was also going by the price you quoted in Pounds which was about 15 Pounds less for the GTX295 at 335 Pounds.

Russ

 

I'll look into it. Christmas is coming and I'm debating against money towards a modded 360 or a video card for my computer. What do you guys think?

 

Russ, you can't take the raw exchange rate. We have a 15% VAT here applied to all PC parts. $500 literally is £385.
core2kid, I have added the HD4670 to my chart at the graphics card thread. The X1650XT scores 1093.2, the HD4670 scores 2948.0, so the HD4670 is a little under triple the performance of the X1650XT, if that's the version you had, it would be even better compared to the X1650 Pro.

 

Sam, I've already said that ATI cards suck at folding and I don't have high praises for the HD 3870 it's history. Mine is in my parts collection and not even installed.

The 8800GT has 112 stream processors and will also surpass the 9600GT because it has almost twice as many stream processors.

The 9600GSO and 8800GS are because they are both faster cards than the 9600GT which is not equal.

I will admit to playing at a higher resolution that most players use but when I recommend I am also thinking about a year from now.

I recently went to the house of an individual who was playing oblivion on an 8800GSO and he thought that it looked great and played great. The game was playing at less than 30 fps and the graphics settings were really low. To him it looked great and I suppose if one is used to consoles then it probably did, but he didn't even notice the jerkiness in the game play.

Games that were hard to play such as Oblivion and The Witcher (I play both) didn't do well with the lower level cards at all in fact they just barely got by on the HD 3870. I didn't buy the HD 3870 to game I bought it for HD acceleration which ATI does better than Nvidia cards hands down. BTW, Donald purchased an HD 4830 for his HTPC which I think is an excellent choice.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I am making a recommendation that is perhaps $30 more than they were looking at in the beginning for a much greater gain, and longer life. It was Russ that recommended a $100 more at $159 after a $20 rebate.

All that I'm advocating is if you play games and use Nvidia cards then the easiest way to judge their service is by counting the number of stream processors and memory size. The more of either the better because all of the 9600 cards are based on the G92 processor and can therefore be almost equally matched in clock speed.

If they look around a bit the can often get an even better price. I paid $59.99 for my 8800GS with 96 stream processors which is less than the price of the 9600GT with only 64 stream processors. I paid only $24 more each for my 8800GTS (G92) cards which we know are really just first release of the 9800GTX cards than the 9600GT is going for. So who's wasting the OP's money?

 

- wrong way round actually, the 9600GSO and 8800GS are the slower cards. The 9600GT is the closest performer to the 8800GT. As for the 9600 being surpassed by the 8800, yes it is, but not by much - look at the graphs I posted above.
Judging by the real world results observed versus how you recall them performing, counting the stream processors doesn't seem to work, you say the 8800GT has nearly twice as many stream processors, I haven't looked it up as I ignore most physical specifications of graphics cards outside memory size, but if you're right, then the sub 10% performance differece between the two cards is at odds with your hypothesis.

As I'm pretty sure he stated earlier, the OP is on a budget well below $100, and right now the HD4670 is his best buy. Sure, the HD4830 may last him a bit longer in the end, but at 50% extra cost, that's no small upgrade. The Geforce discussion now is irrelevant as the 8800GS, 9600GT and 9600GSO cards are rendered pretty much obsolete by cards like the HD4670.

 

It's doesn't really matter. I know you pay more because of VAT, but it works the same for all Computer Parts, unless you've already added the VAT! Also almost every State here has a Sales Tax on everything but most consumables and necessity items, only the rate varies from state to state, but average about half of your VAT. 5 States have no Sales Tax, but in 2 of them Local Municipalities have their own Sales Tax. That "Itchy" feeling on your butt is the Government picking your pocket, same as ours! LOL!!

Here, the work force used to get 11 paid Holidays a year. The Government Legislated it down to 6. Care to guess who still gets all the Holidays? Why the Government does, of course. They are closed on all of them! I think that comes under the heading of the screwing you get! ROFLMAO!!

Russ

 

Yes, but the exchange between the US and UK is different for nvidia than for ATI. In the past, a $250 nvidia card cost £230, when a $270 ATI card cost £190.

 

Which should not be! In effect, your Government is Favoring Ati at the expense of nVidia! Your Crooks must have been talking to our Crooks, swapping tips!

Russ

 

I don't think it's that, I think it's nvidia setting a different MSRP for different markets. Why it's done, I'm not sure.

 

The 9600GSO and the 9600GT have the same processing unit's but the 9600GSO (although 192 bit) has 96 Stream processors versus the 9600GT's 64 stream processors (256 bit), and the GSO is also intentionally underclocked (550 Mhz vs 650 MHz for the GT), but it has the same clock speed limit. Which means that one overclocks to the same maximum as the other. So no big deal get one and clock it to the same speed as the GT and the GT is dead in the water. The problem is that the best way to get more power out of the Nvidia cards is to overclock them and they overclock well, but the points don't come from just the GPU. Overclocking the stream processors (shaders) nets more gain than over clocking the GPU or memory of which both can also be overclocked. The 9600GSO and the 8800GS are the exact same card and both are purposely underclocked.


The 8800GT is faster than both of them because it not only has 112 stream processors but it is also 256bit, and can also be overclocked to the same limit. The GT designation doesn't mean much with Nvidia. The 9600GSO is a better buy than the 9600GT and it is also a popular card for softmoding. Some say that it can be easily softemoded to a 8800GTS 512 but I haven't done much research on it but I do know that the 8800GS and the 9600GSO folds circles around the 9600GT better than a 25% gain.

 

in games the GT is better, stream proccessors dont mean everything, the G94 core is better, the 9600GSO is still G92, cut down)

yes for folding its better, and in the UK IICR the 9600GSO is about £70, and £ for PPD is the best.

but for gaming, the 9600GT is better.

 

spam

If you are talking leaving the cards at stock then you are right but since this is the official overclocking thread that doesn't hold. The 9600GSO is seriously underclocked to keep its price point but it has more room for overclocking. Pixel shaders are becoming increasingly important to game development and as the requirement for them increase a card with more of them is going to do better. In the hands of a knowledgeable overclocker the 9600GSO holds more promise and future proofing. I however would never own either since even 96 stream processors are too few for me. I've just acquired a GTX260 (192 stream processor version)and that's my new minimum. If I weren't folding I would of course gone with an ATI solution instead.

The G94 chip is just a stripped down baby brother of the G92 chip. There's a reason why the 9800GTX is G92 card.

 

yeah i know that but then why is an only 64 proccessor core (as nvidia calls them now) better than a 92?

why didnt you get the 216 core GTX260?

 

It isn't better than a 92. It all depends on how it's implemented in the card design. As you know card makers often make a single card that fits several different models and then the either laser cut the card to make lower end parts or they flash it with a different bios. Sometimes the laser cutting and bios flashing can be undone to render a higher car out of a lower one.

I got a really good price on the 192 stream card and I saw no reason for me to spend an extra $60 to $70 dollars for one, and beside when you go that high then you start getting closer to a GTX280. Then someone will come along and ask me why I didn't go that route.

A small bit on folding since there seems to a be a little misunderstanding about what it is. The reason that a graphics card is so much better at folding than a fast GPU is because folding is working an image in much the same way that a game does. In fact one can actually view the image that they're folding but few do since the actual rendering slows points. Folding is a pattern of reshaping of proteins as a means to discover how some proteins become diseased. The folded images makes excellent use of shaders and hence stream processors. What works for folding will eventually work for games as shader requirements in them increase.

 

Well I at least know what card I'm thinking about with the last 2 pages or so of "talk" about gfx cards.. I thought we had a thread dedicated to that for that... ROFL.

Anyway addressing CPU OC'ing. Do any of you think that running a OC'd cpu and gfx card at close to max will be unnecessarily detrimental to either one of them? I'm running my cpu at about 18% OC (E6850) and the gfx card at maybe 10% (8800 GTS). btw I'm not real impressed with the 8800GTS but it's miles ahead of the 8400GS in the AMD machine.... hehehe.

I'm very impressed with the 4000 series cards and I've talked briefly with Sammy about a 3000 series card he has, of course assuming it's still in his possession. IF a guy can get a 3000 series card pretty cheap would it be a good choice over a lower end 4000 series card? If need be we can jump to the gfx thread... and I encourage that btw.

...gm