how far can I overclock stock FX 6800 GT OC?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

This card came overclocked to 370 out of the box (from stock 350).

A buddy of mine tells me the only difference between the GT and the Ultra is
clock speeds, two power inputs vs. one, and the cooling solution. I'm
wondering what would happen if I overclocked my GT OC to the same speeds as
a stock Ultra?
I'm assuming BFG put a beefier cooling solution on this card than a typical
GT has.

Three questions:

(a) Is this cooling solution (on my BFG 6800 GT OC) at least equal to the
one one a stock Ultra?

(b) How does the extra power connector come into play? To obtain
400/1100mhz, do I NEED that extra power connector the GT OC does not come
with?

(c) Finally, have any of you out there pushed your GT OC (with the cooling
solution it comes with) to 400/1100? To what effect?

(d) Are there better (cooler AND equal/less noise) aftermarket cooling
solutions for my card?

Thanks!
--
Scotter
3 answers Last reply
More about overclock stock 6800
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    Answers from a friend:

    (a) No, the BFG cooler we have isn't quite as good as the Ultra
    coolers. The ultra coolers are twice the size of ours and take
    up 2 slots in your case.

    (b) To hit Ultra speeds, our one connector is fine. The extra Molex
    plug is for overclocks over 430 on the core.* As you approach
    that speed it draws more power than one molex can deliver.

    (c) I've taken my card to 420 mhz core and 1140 memory before just
    to test out performance gains. Running at those speeds for long
    will eat into the life expectancy you will get from the card though
    do to the extreme heat it's generating.

    (d) There are already a few aftermarket cooling solutions available
    that do a good job and are quiet. The most popular one I've
    seen is the NV Silencer 5. If your interested in checking it
    out...
    http://www.frozencpu.com/cgi-bin/frozencpu/vid-43.html?id=qPcmSL2n

    Some notes you may not be aware of:

    1) Our cards run at different voltages depending on if we're working
    in 2D or 3D apps. The GT's use 1.3v for 2D and 1.4v for 3D.
    The ultra's run at 1.4v for 2D and 1.5v for 3D. So, this tells me
    that running at higher than Ultra speeds is probably not a good
    idea unless you plan on upping the cooling solution and flashing
    your bios to another one that uses the higher voltages. There are
    guides all over the video card forums that tell you how to flash
    GT cards into Ultra cards.... and the potential dangers of doing so.

    2) Not all GTs are created equal. Just like any other chip, your
    overclocking potential is entirely on a chip by chip basis. Just
    because I can hit pretty decent overclocks doesn't mean you will.
    Conversely, you may be able to hit ungodly speeds mine would
    burn up at. It's all chance when it comes to that.

    3) BFG cards come with a lifetime warrenty for card replacement.
    Things that kill that warrenty include adding an aftermarket cooling
    solution or using an updated BIOS that isn't supplied by them.

    Frankly, from what I've seen, the difference in the GT and the Ultra in
    standard gaming (not in artificial benchmarks like 3dmark) isn't very much.
    Benchmarks like 3DMark only test your video card. None of the other
    system performance issues like CPU, Sound, Memory or Hard Drives
    are tested. In real world gaming, the difference between the GT's and
    Ultras are only in the 5% to 10% range. Not the 20% ranges you see
    in 3DMark.

    Hope that helps... Greg
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:01:32 GMT, "Scotter" <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    >Answers from a friend:
    >
    >(a) No, the BFG cooler we have isn't quite as good as the Ultra
    > coolers. The ultra coolers are twice the size of ours and take
    > up 2 slots in your case.
    >
    >(b) To hit Ultra speeds, our one connector is fine. The extra Molex
    > plug is for overclocks over 430 on the core.* As you approach
    > that speed it draws more power than one molex can deliver.
    >
    >(c) I've taken my card to 420 mhz core and 1140 memory before just
    > to test out performance gains. Running at those speeds for long
    > will eat into the life expectancy you will get from the card though
    > do to the extreme heat it's generating.
    >
    >(d) There are already a few aftermarket cooling solutions available
    > that do a good job and are quiet. The most popular one I've
    > seen is the NV Silencer 5. If your interested in checking it
    >out...
    >http://www.frozencpu.com/cgi-bin/frozencpu/vid-43.html?id=qPcmSL2n
    >
    >Some notes you may not be aware of:
    >
    >1) Our cards run at different voltages depending on if we're working
    > in 2D or 3D apps. The GT's use 1.3v for 2D and 1.4v for 3D.
    > The ultra's run at 1.4v for 2D and 1.5v for 3D. So, this tells me
    > that running at higher than Ultra speeds is probably not a good
    > idea unless you plan on upping the cooling solution and flashing
    > your bios to another one that uses the higher voltages. There are
    > guides all over the video card forums that tell you how to flash
    > GT cards into Ultra cards.... and the potential dangers of doing so.
    >
    >2) Not all GTs are created equal. Just like any other chip, your
    > overclocking potential is entirely on a chip by chip basis. Just
    > because I can hit pretty decent overclocks doesn't mean you will.
    > Conversely, you may be able to hit ungodly speeds mine would
    > burn up at. It's all chance when it comes to that.
    >
    >3) BFG cards come with a lifetime warrenty for card replacement.
    > Things that kill that warrenty include adding an aftermarket cooling
    > solution or using an updated BIOS that isn't supplied by them.
    >
    >Frankly, from what I've seen, the difference in the GT and the Ultra in
    >standard gaming (not in artificial benchmarks like 3dmark) isn't very much.
    >Benchmarks like 3DMark only test your video card. None of the other
    >system performance issues like CPU, Sound, Memory or Hard Drives
    >are tested. In real world gaming, the difference between the GT's and
    >Ultras are only in the 5% to 10% range. Not the 20% ranges you see
    >in 3DMark.
    >
    >Hope that helps... Greg
    >

    Very Cool post, thanks for the info :)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

    I run my BFG 6800GT at Ultra speeds (400 + 1.1) and all is happy. I figure
    it is pretty good to get those speeds with the GT, plus it is $100.00
    cheaper than the Ultra, and only takes up one slot.


    "Scotter" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:8Qbed.10$p87.9@fe2.texas.rr.com...
    > This card came overclocked to 370 out of the box (from stock 350).
    >
    > A buddy of mine tells me the only difference between the GT and the Ultra
    > is clock speeds, two power inputs vs. one, and the cooling solution. I'm
    > wondering what would happen if I overclocked my GT OC to the same speeds
    > as a stock Ultra?
    > I'm assuming BFG put a beefier cooling solution on this card than a
    > typical GT has.
    >
    > Three questions:
    >
    > (a) Is this cooling solution (on my BFG 6800 GT OC) at least equal to the
    > one one a stock Ultra?
    >
    > (b) How does the extra power connector come into play? To obtain
    > 400/1100mhz, do I NEED that extra power connector the GT OC does not come
    > with?
    >
    > (c) Finally, have any of you out there pushed your GT OC (with the cooling
    > solution it comes with) to 400/1100? To what effect?
    >
    > (d) Are there better (cooler AND equal/less noise) aftermarket cooling
    > solutions for my card?
    >
    > Thanks!
    > --
    > Scotter
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Nvidia Overclocking Cooling Power Graphics