Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 24 August 2012 20:55

Point of View/TGT GTX 680 4GB Beast Watercooled reviewed - GPU Boost & Overclocking

Written by Sanjin Rados


thumbrecommended08 75

Review: The Beast is back

We had two GTX 680 4GB Beast cards on our test. We overclocked each of the cards individually and then in SLI.

Firstly, we noticed that although the cards are the same, they don’t have the same Boost potential. This clearly shows that two identical GK104 don’t have to overclock the same, despite working in the same environment. One GPU ended up auto-overclocked some 45MHz higher than the other. The difference is so drastic that we occasionally recorded as much as 2 percent performance difference.

ref clock card brza crysis test
GPU 1

ref clock card sporija crysis test
GPU 2

Overclocking was good but we must say we expected more from watercooled GTX 680 cards. We think that GPU voltage turned out to be the limiting factor, since we couldn’t increase it beyond 1.1750V. Both cards’ GPUs ran stable at beyond 1320MHz (Base clock 1217MHz). The memory handled a 400MHz overclock but the GPU refused to budge further without voltage changes, despite the low temperatures.  Memory overclock didn't lag behind either and we managed to squeeze out another 200MHz (800MHz efectively) from it.

gpuz oc


(Page 9 of 11)
Last modified on Friday, 24 August 2012 22:12
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments