Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric
If OCing was always simply 1:1 ratio of performance to MHz then Pascal cards would be getting a hell of a lot more performance out of their 2000+MHz clocks...
I think you have the numbers mixed up.
Asus is claiming a 19% performance increase
for a 5% OC
(or 10.8% OC if we use 1200 as the baseline). That simply just isn't possible, unless of course the reference card was underclocked, while the AIB card was overclocked to its breaking limit.
Originally Posted by Slomo4shO
We already know that simply lowering the stock voltage can net 5-8% extra performance compared to stock settings on reference cards...
That's because it helps the card not constantly bounce against the power limit right? Either way, I'd be a lot more charitable about this if not for the following:
Originally Posted by magnek
You're right, and if I was a discerning buyer, I'd be very suspect
of Asus right now:
)Somehow, the reference RX 480 in Asus's hands magically lost 11.8% performance.
If we ignore whatever deception
marketing trick Asus pulled (out of their ass), then the 480 Strix is really only 2.9% faster than the reference in FSE.
So as Forceman said, the whole "AIB 480s will be 20% faster" will almost certainly end in tears and resentment.
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Looking at the performance, what Asus likely did was downclock the card to base clock and use that as the baseline speed for the card. I.e 1120mhz.
If the asus card is clocked at 1331mhz, this would result in a frequency difference of 18.1%. This is likely what they did in the name of marketing.
Given what I pointed out above, yeah you're probably right. 1330 is a 18.8% OC over 1120, and we know that RX 480 does scale pretty much 1:1 if you OC the memory as well.Edited by magnek - 7/19/16 at 8:20pm