According to Mad Tse, the 8-pin power connector design on reference design is not really a limitation for overclocking. The reference board is using different components than custom designs. MAD points out that reference cards are most likely using locked BIOS. He also mentions that his card was using increased voltage up to 1.3V, which is not possible on reference cards.
While the 2.5 GHz clock he achieved using LN2 cooling is already impressive, it's not really as important as the clock achieved using air-cooling only. GALAX HOF GTX 1080 is supposedly able to overclock up to 2.2 GHz, without any extreme modifications.
However it is uncertain if NVIDIA approved this card design and its unlocked BIOS, so we don't know if retail cards will be able to achieve similar frequencies.
Other people are claiming around around 2.1Ghz on the founders edition card too. Hitting 2.1Ghz doesn't seem to be that rare at least among review samples. What we does seem to be true at the moment however is that people aren't getting much more that ever, regardless of the fancy aftermarket boards being used.Originally Posted by Asus11
now its a big ordeal to just hit 2.2k lmao
pascal is pretty funny
Nvidia casually show 2.1k on a FE saying yeh well we just picked a random card and overclocked it for 10 mins
here you go guys! 2 x faster
this time round has shown Nvidia being very sleazy and deceiving
now people are getting hyped for 2.2k?
- NVIDIA overclocks the card for you to near max
- call reference card founders charge $100 extra
- aftermarket cards start at $599 but Nvidia has already the price @ 699
- bios hardware locked
- most cards not getting waterblocks, more restrictions
- new sli bridge not compatible with EK blocks
- use only a 8 pin on FE forces ppl to buy aftermarket close to the FE price but no waterblock support
- weaker cores, not much increase when overclocking
am I the only one seeing this
Gtx 470 overclocked from 600 to 700+ and gtx 460 could easily go from 600 to 800 Mhz from what i remember, 260 also had some overclocking potential from what i remember.Originally Posted by mothergoose729
You guys have short memories. Before gtx 9 series an 11% overclocks on a GPU was considered very good. I can't remember a radeon graphics card, except perhaps a souped up 4890, that saw much more than 15% overclocking. On the green team, you have to go back to the 8800GTX days to find something comparable to the 980ti. The GTX 4 and 5 series in particular ran hot and didn't see much extra on the top end.
It's a good 25% faster than the 980ti and it is obvious that a TI addition with more cores and faster memory will come out eventually. I would say enthusiasts are doing pretty good so far
What! The 7970/50 (I think +250-300Mhz) overclocked like a beast, and its why the 7970 ghz edition came out. The 7870/50 was a beast too (I think +300Mhz) and it also had the Ghz edition come out later.Originally Posted by mothergoose729
You guys have short memories. Before gtx 9 series an 11% overclocks on a GPU was considered very good. I can't remember a radeon graphics card, except perhaps a souped up 4890, that saw much more than 15% overclocking. On the green team, you have to go back to the 8800GTX days to find something comparable to the 980ti. The GTX 4 and 5 series in particular ran hot and didn't see much extra on the top end.
It's a good 25% faster than the 980ti and it is obvious that a TI addition with more cores and faster memory will come out eventually. I would say enthusiasts are doing pretty good so far
true but most of the 4xx cards were downclocked due to power and heat use .
My GTX 560 Ti 448 was clocked @ 900mhz that's a 20% OC i think.Originally Posted by mothergoose729
You guys have short memories. Before gtx 9 series an 11% overclocks on a GPU was considered very good. I can't remember a radeon graphics card, except perhaps a souped up 4890, that saw much more than 15% overclocking. On the green team, you have to go back to the 8800GTX days to find something comparable to the 980ti. The GTX 4 and 5 series in particular ran hot and didn't see much extra on the top end.
It's a good 25% faster than the 980ti and it is obvious that a TI addition with more cores and faster memory will come out eventually. I would say enthusiasts are doing pretty good so far
? .. Who has the short memories again?Originally Posted by mothergoose729
You guys have short memories. Before gtx 9 series an 11% overclocks on a GPU was considered very good. I can't remember a radeon graphics card, except perhaps a souped up 4890, that saw much more than 15% overclocking. On the green team, you have to go back to the 8800GTX days to find something comparable to the 980ti. The GTX 4 and 5 series in particular ran hot and didn't see much extra on the top end.
It's a good 25% faster than the 980ti and it is obvious that a TI addition with more cores and faster memory will come out eventually. I would say enthusiasts are doing pretty good so far
um...no thats actually really bad on Ln2. it should be like 8ghz on Ln2. that means Pascal is basically maxed OC already and its got a hard heat/frequency wall (not like a normal exponential curved wall).While the 2.5 GHz clock he achieved using LN2 cooling is already impressive
Clock for clock is irrelevant here. I'd love to see any Maxwell card hit 2GHz on air. Get outta here with that "argument", lol. Clock for clock is only relevant with Intel CPUs because from Sandy Bridge to Skylake, they all can hit the same frequencies.
Case in pointOriginally Posted by ikjadoon
Quote:
Clock for clock is irrelevant here. I'd love to see any Maxwell card hit 2GHz on air. Get outta here with that "argument", lol. Clock for clock is only relevant with Intel CPUs because from Sandy Bridge to Skylake, they all can hit the same frequencies.
I have absolutely ZERO idea why "clock for clock" is at all relevant comparing between GPU generations.
--
However, I agree that architecturally, NVIDIA did very little with Pascal. But, I'm buying frames, not architectures, lol.
Had three 470's and all of them could hit 800MHz with a touch of voltage, one of them stock voltaged 800 which I benched at 850 without too much of a voltage bump. That card could had done 900+ which wasn't really uncommon either. 607 to 900 on the rarer side but 800 was very common.
Because the Flextronics boards have poor power delivery. It's of no real consequence to me personally. I'm happy with 2Ghz on my 'FE'.
Not sure where you saw most cards not getting blocksOriginally Posted by Asus11
now its a big ordeal to just hit 2.2k lmao
pascal is pretty funny
Nvidia casually show 2.1k on a FE saying yeh well we just picked a random card and overclocked it for 10 mins
here you go guys! 2 x faster
this time round has shown Nvidia being very sleazy and deceiving
now people are getting hyped for 2.2k?
- NVIDIA overclocks the card for you to near max
- call reference card founders charge $100 extra
- aftermarket cards start at $599 but Nvidia has already the price @ 699
- bios hardware locked
- most cards not getting waterblocks, more restrictions
- new sli bridge not compatible with EK blocks
- use only a 8 pin on FE forces ppl to buy aftermarket close to the FE price but no waterblock support
- weaker cores, not much increase when overclocking
am I the only one seeing this
Quote:Originally Posted by EK_tiborrr
Guys, relax, all other regular top brands will get their water blocks, like always
Quote:
100% + 1%
EVGA FTW and classy won't due to not selling blocks well in the past and EVGA going elsewhere for blocks for the hydrocopper but all others should have blocks.Originally Posted by Bogga
Quote:
If you try the configurator you'll see that it says "Coming soon"...