Whats a safe 8800GTX OC - SLI

I use Rivatuner and have them set to 650GPU 2026Mem. Fans manual set to 100%.

The cards appear to not be effected in any way by the speed bump and all games run smoothly.

What is the highest safe OC for these cards? realistically of course.

One idles 54-56C, the other 55-59C, load one is 63-68C the other 64-69C.

The highest 3Dmark06 I have gotten is 15,764. That was with the CPU at 3.7Ghz but I normally run it at 3.6Ghz. It passes Orthos at that speed but glitches after awhile at 3.7.
11 answers Last reply
More about whats safe 8800gtx
  1. 650/2026 is very good/above average overclock. Usually, a strong stock cooled overclock is considered roughly 626/2010.
  2. Quote:
    650/2026 is very good/above average overclock. Usually, a strong stock cooled overclock is considered roughly 626/2010.


    hmm, I guess I may have already reached a good "safe" speed. I wonder if anyone else has done similar or higher.
  3. Yea, 650/2026 is excellent and probably about topped-out on the core (but wouldn't hurt to try higher :twisted:). You may be able to push the mem a bit higher if you have good chips.

    Your temps are also very good at that OC. Mine idle at 64-67 and load at 73-76 at 635/2000. I can push them to 648/2100, but I usually like to run a bit cooler/slower for safety.
  4. Quote:
    Yea, 650/2026 is excellent and probably about topped-out on the core (but wouldn't hurt to try higher :twisted:). You may be able to push the mem a bit higher if you have good chips.

    Your temps are also very good at that OC. Mine idle at 64-67 and load at 73-76 at 635/2000. I can push them to 648/2100, but I usually like to run a bit cooler/slower for safety.


    Ha!, yea thats the evil in my thinking of pushing them higher also :twisted: but at more than $1200 a set, I'm scared 8O

    What got me thinking about higher was that the "new" 8600 - 8500 models are way clocked up like to 675GPU and 700 on the OC models because they have less stream processores. From what I hear their temps are way up also. They are essentially the same G80 type core.

    I was thinking my temps are good why can't I ratchet mine UP. I was just wondering if anyone else has done that? Better to learn from some else's experience than my mistakes.....
  5. Here is a good article which shows how different speed settings will actually result in different actual speeds. Looking at their bench results it also explains why the ultra was clocked at 612.
    As far as using the 8500/8600 as a guideline keep in mind they are 289m transistors at 80nm vs 681m at 90nm.

    Quote:
    from 554 to 571 = 567
    from 572 to 584 = 576
    from 585 to 603 = 594
    from 604 to 616 = 612
    from 617 to 634 = 621
    from 635 to 661 = 648
    from 662 to ??? = 675

    565=1350
    589=1404
    611=1458
    634=1512
    657=1566
    681=1620

    The same principle also applies when clocking the memory:
    from 897 to 908 = 900
    from 909 to 927 = 918
    from 928 to 940 = 936
    from 941 to 958 =945
    from 959 to 985 = 972
    from 986 to 1003 = 999
    from 1004 to 1116 =1008
    from 1117 to 1035 = 1026
    from 1036 to 1048 = 1044
    from 1049 to 1066 =1053
    from 1067 to 1101 = 1080
    from 1102 to 1110 = 1107
  6. Quote:
    Here is a good article which shows how different speed settings will actually result in different actual speeds. Looking at their bench results it also explains why the ultra was clocked at 612.
    As far as using the 8500/8600 as a guideline keep in mind they are 289m transistors at 80nm vs 681m at 90nm.

    from 554 to 571 = 567
    from 572 to 584 = 576
    from 585 to 603 = 594
    from 604 to 616 = 612
    from 617 to 634 = 621
    from 635 to 661 = 648
    from 662 to ??? = 675

    565=1350
    589=1404
    611=1458
    634=1512
    657=1566
    681=1620

    The same principle also applies when clocking the memory:
    from 897 to 908 = 900
    from 909 to 927 = 918
    from 928 to 940 = 936
    from 941 to 958 =945
    from 959 to 985 = 972
    from 986 to 1003 = 999
    from 1004 to 1116 =1008
    from 1117 to 1035 = 1026
    from 1036 to 1048 = 1044
    from 1049 to 1066 =1053
    from 1067 to 1101 = 1080
    from 1102 to 1110 = 1107


    very nice, I'm gonna print that out...
  7. Sounds like 611/986 looks pretty safe, which if im reading this right actually yeilds 612/999/1458 ??? Am I reading it right? Are those numbers the same for people who have BFG 8800gtx OC (different bios by bfg?).
  8. Will no guarantee of safe but it looks like a low risk good return overclock.

    I tried it out myself and have saved 612/1000 as a profile in ati tool. I let it run scanning for artifacts and have run through 3dmark06 at those settings. I've had no problems and the temps were the same as at stock settings.
  9. Quote:
    from 554 to 571 = 567
    from 572 to 584 = 576
    from 585 to 603 = 594
    from 604 to 616 = 612
    from 617 to 634 = 621
    from 635 to 661 = 648
    from 662 to ??? = 675

    565=1350
    589=1404
    611=1458
    634=1512
    657=1566
    681=1620

    The same principle also applies when clocking the memory:
    from 897 to 908 = 900
    from 909 to 927 = 918
    from 928 to 940 = 936
    from 941 to 958 =945
    from 959 to 985 = 972
    from 986 to 1003 = 999
    from 1004 to 1116 =1008
    from 1117 to 1035 = 1026
    from 1036 to 1048 = 1044
    from 1049 to 1066 =1053
    from 1067 to 1101 = 1080
    from 1102 to 1110 = 1107


    So what that says is that theres no point to set the core anywhere between, 618-634. Basically saying, either set your core to 617, OR 635, any thing else in between is useless. Strange thing is, most manufacturers who OC the 8800gtx, are between 626-630. Do they know something we dont, or do we know something they dont? Maybe having 630 on the box sells more cards? Cause by the looks of this... BFG OC2, eVGA superclock/ACS3, XFX XXX, all have the same effective specs, 621/1453/1998, just not advertised as such?

    I checked the chart out using everest and its 99% accurate. The cards really do jump like that.
  10. I agree with you're reasoning. Advertising a higher speed is all bragging rights. So if a company advertises an overclocked card hopefully their legal dept. suggested the wording as "clocked at xxx", not "running at xxx".
  11. Quote:
    from 554 to 571 = 567
    from 572 to 584 = 576
    from 585 to 603 = 594
    from 604 to 616 = 612
    from 617 to 634 = 621
    from 635 to 661 = 648
    from 662 to ??? = 675

    565=1350
    589=1404
    611=1458
    634=1512
    657=1566
    681=1620

    The same principle also applies when clocking the memory:
    from 897 to 908 = 900
    from 909 to 927 = 918
    from 928 to 940 = 936
    from 941 to 958 =945
    from 959 to 985 = 972
    from 986 to 1003 = 999
    from 1004 to 1116 =1008
    from 1117 to 1035 = 1026
    from 1036 to 1048 = 1044
    from 1049 to 1066 =1053
    from 1067 to 1101 = 1080
    from 1102 to 1110 = 1107


    So what that says is that theres no point to set the core anywhere between, 618-634. Basically saying, either set your core to 617, OR 635, any thing else in between is useless. Strange thing is, most manufacturers who OC the 8800gtx, are between 626-630. Do they know something we dont, or do we know something they dont? Maybe having 630 on the box sells more cards? Cause by the looks of this... BFG OC2, eVGA superclock/ACS3, XFX XXX, all have the same effective specs, 621/1453/1998, just not advertised as such?

    I checked the chart out using everest and its 99% accurate. The cards really do jump like that.Well, that's how the shader cores are effected; the TMUs, ROPs, and the rest of the core run at the lower clockspeed.
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards SLI Overclocking