Originally Posted by tps3443
Thats not what I meant, I mean that overclocked RX480 is not on par with that overclocked gtx1060 in GENERAL. The RX480 is clearly getting beat by the gtx1060.
1,400 mhz is is in the top 90% of overclocking a RX480 on air.
AMD cards are all pre overclocked lol, even reference. Theres hardly any room left.
I had a gtx 660 OEM it ran at 864Mhz core, I overclocked it to 1635Mhz on air and its still the record in firestrike for a gtx660. It was beating gtx770's lol!
I also had a AMD 7950 it overclocked about 80Mhz! Terrible!
Ive been building computers for 13 years, those cards listed above were listed as, one of the best overclocking, and one of the worst! Obviously you see which brand did the best!
Im not a fanboy, and if AMD releases something that handles 4K better than my current solution for the same, or less money. I might just jump ship, depending on how big that boost is.
Another person claiming AMD cards don't overclock...sigh...because they had one card that didn't overclock and another that was awesome. I can do the same thing, watch:
I had a GTX 670 that was a total turd, it didn't even overclock 1MHz on the core or RAM...it died shortly after I purchased it. Compare that to my reference R9 290 that clocks over 1300/1700 when the base clocks are 947/1250; that's a 37% core overclock. The obvious conclusion from this isolated scenario is: ALL NVIDIA CARDS DON'T OVERCLOCK!
You do realize that when Nvidia lists a boost clock, that is the frequency you need to compare your overclock frequency to, yes? Just because the base clock is drastically lower, doesn't mean your overclock is enormous.
It looks to me like an OEM GTX 660 had a base clock of 980 and factory boost clock of 1084... http://www.anandtech.com/show/6276/nvidia-geforce-gtx-660-review-gk106-rounds-out-the-kepler-family/17
Hitting 1635 MHz core clock sounds a bit far fetched when the factory boost clock is ~1.1GHz; which would make for a ~50% overclock. I'm not saying it isn't possible because I know jack & squat collectively about GTX 660 cards....but if it is possible you probably didn't do it with air cooling. From the looks of most review sites for GTX 660's, they peaked at around 1200. Now I'm sure with some BIOS editing and a fantastic card you might be able to get to 13, maybe 1400...but 1600 I would have to see proof.
Now let's see how Pascal overclocks:
GTX 1060 Reference 10% Overclock | Max Boost 2101: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1060/29.html
GTX 1060 MSI Gaming X 8% Overlcock | Max Boost 2139: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_Gaming_X/27.html
GTX 1060 MSI GT 9% Overclock | Max Boost 2114: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/GTX_1060_OC/26.html
GTX 1060 ASUS Strix OC 8% Overclock | Max Boost 2188: https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ASUS/GTX_1060_STRIX_OC/29.html
Are you seeing a trend here? And if you look at all the variants of the GTX 1060's in the "Maximum Overclock Comparison" Chart in the Strix review, there isn't even 100MHz separating the FE from the best AIB card. The gains range from 13-87 additional MHz on the AIB cards comapred to FE. I know that TPU isn't the be all end all source, and there are obviously good and bad cards...but this paints a pretty clear picture.
Where do you get your figures from? 1400 MHz is in the top 90% of 480 overclocks? That doesn't seem to be the case from what I have experienced myself, have seen here, and viewed in the 3DMark logs/HoF. My reference 480 stock boost clock is 1266 and it runs at 1400 MHz; 10% overclock. Most everyone I've seen in the forums is hitting similar speeds with various forms of cooling. Let's do the math for 8% and 9% to compare to the custom GTX 1060's. These similar speeds would be 1367 and 1380 core clocks, respectively from 1266, on a 480 which are very likely attainable on a card with any form of proper cooling.
All RX 480s aren't overclocked...that's why there are reference cards. Or if you want to feel special, you can pay EXTRA money for a blower cooler and get a Founder's Edition card
Yes, RX 480 AIB cards come with stock boost clocks in the low-mid 1300's and therefore have less headroom...BUT if you end up at the same final speed/performance what is the difference? There isn't much of a difference for raw performance in either camp since you're in the same ballpark for the end result. Nvidia just happens to do a better job of making you feel warm and fuzzy because you seemingly 'pushed' your hardware. The biggest perk is the amount of noise the cards are going to generate doing so with the better coolers.
Seems to me, when you compare actual facts and figures, the overclocking abilities of this gen of mid-range GPUs is pretty equal.
Overall performance is a more complex story...possibly a split depending on the title in question...DX11 likely for Nvidia and DX12/Vulkan for AMD.
Originally Posted by Hellie112
I thought this was the rx480 overclock topic...
Does anyone know a reliable memory test ?
It's supposed to be, but some people here are more concerned with babbling about how superior the 1060 is..it gets old quickly. Try the RX 480/470/460 owner's thread.
Run your benchmark of choice and use HWInfo. It has a readout under the GPU section labeled 'GPU Memory Errors'.
Edited by Roboyto - 9/30/16 at 4:30pm