The benchmark numbers may be 'better', but is the actual in game performance better?Manual oc could still clock higher than boost so...?
AMD cards are slightly better in comparison to the 'overclocking on rails' you've got with NVIDIA's GPU Boost.Gpu Boost 3.0 on Nvidia gpus has been the biggest roadblock for manual overclocking.
It's part of the card's design - you can't get rid of it.
It does the bulk of the overclocking for the user already, so there isn't much left to actually squeeze out of it, without going the extreme LN2 route or modding.
The cards have several boost curves, and they are influenced by temperatures and power consumption. You get the best curves by keeping it as cool as possible, and running into power limits less frequently.
Overclocking works against both of these.
Gpu Boost is dynamic, so one can really prove their overclocks are actually stable if the clock speed can't be kept static in all situations.
Can't speak for the AMD Radeon cards, but I figure they have something similar going on.
Yeah, but after having done a little gpu liquid cooling, IMO, doing liquid cooling on that part is far more effective than giving the cpu the liquid cooling treatment first. It looks backwards now.Unless you're willing to tear apart your very expensive GPU to add an aftermarket cooler, the potential performance gain isn't enough to justify the extra cost for the cooler, the extra heat, the very real possibility that you can't overclock it more anyway, and the potential to damage or limit the life of your GPU.
At least on modern Geforce cards, assuming they stay below 83C even on a warmer day than usual, it's not that much - like 15-30mhz.I think many cards are thermally constrained so they'll start dropping clocks as they get hot even at stock settings.