ASIC quality doesn't mean much, mine was 100 and it wasn't a good clocker. GPU-Z also doesn't state that, don't know who came up with that.
Mine will not hit 1200MHz period. It is unstable at 1150 with the voltage unlocked and pushed all the way up. Without this voltage unlock the card was only geting to the 1050 and even then was somewhat problematic.
95MHz would be a nice increase for just +37mV, it still would be a very, very bad card though. I somehow doubt that's correct.
Also I have to increase the clock by 100 to get to 1145MHz boost clock which doesn't seem right because on Precision X it showed that it would have hit 1200MHz boost clock with out any +
How should Precision X show what you would have hit? Are you mixing up boost clock and "kepler boost"?
What sucks even more is that because of all the people saying these things where as fast as a GTX680 I returned my 1280MHz capable EVGA Sig2 to get this. I am happy with the silent fan but the EVGA card spanked this card and got 20% more frames in everything.
Of course only a decent clocking GTX 670 can be faster than a GTX 680 at stock speeds (whatever that means for that specific GTX 680).
Would this card do a lot better under water cooling? I was really expecting TOP performance and would have bought the TOP but cant find one.
Several people including me (EVGA GTX 670 FTW with aquagrafx block) reported that watercooling doesn't influence the clocks by a single MHz, except your card is running hotter than 70 degrees and starts to throttle.