Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 Overclocking with Voltage adjustments

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 18, 2010 6:25:14 PM

H.a.w.x surprises me because it is an Ati game.

But I am extremely impressed by it's oc. For a single gpu it has a ton of potential. If it didn't blast so much heat, I would buy 3 rightnow lol.

It's AA ability is very good, Ati use to own AA but it seems that nvidia took it...but at a cost...literally:) 

P.S got my ac in ;)  lol
m
0
l
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 18, 2010 6:28:16 PM

Yes HawX is giving some WTF results , look at the GTX 470 #'s, the non o/c 480 turns in 50%+ fps ?
m
0
l
April 18, 2010 6:39:10 PM

I think they turned off hyperthreading during the vantage run...CPU z shows only 6 threads for the 6 core i7
m
0
l
April 18, 2010 6:59:55 PM

Ur sacrificing every other thing for FPS here, which absurd anyways cauz human eye cant detect much difference after 30 fps and displays cant display more than 60 fps as a standard. Waste of energy. TOO LOUD; TOO EXPENSIVE AND TOO MUCH OVERKILL
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 18, 2010 7:09:20 PM

Your not playing a movie, when your gaming. Your reacting to what you see on screen. And what is important is how fast the game can react to user input. FPS is indicative of this. Its like telling a fighter pilot he does not need fast reflexes.
So your fanboy mantra is senseless. edit :)  IMO.

m
0
l
April 18, 2010 7:51:19 PM

Words right out of my mouth. I need 60 fps in racing and shooting games (action games as well, which DO generally have high graphics)

Games that I don't need 60 fps are RTS, RPGs etc.

The human eye can not notice anything after 30 fps in movies maybe because in games when u drop from 60 to 30 U WILL see it.

Just like progressive scan isn't as important in movies vs games so goes this.

If ucant appreciate the technical acheivement of this article then I don't know what to say. I'm not here to debate business and consumers I'm here to talk about tech. W.e company comes out with something knew to me it's always exciting and interesting to see.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 18, 2010 8:51:41 PM

He only achieved those temps with an (82dB) 100% fan, an I don't even want to know what cooling he had.
m
0
l
April 18, 2010 8:56:34 PM

Yes, using reference cooler
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 18, 2010 10:37:48 PM

Let's see them use an OCed 5870 or even better, an OCed 5970 - then it'll be a real fight... :D 
m
0
l
a c 225 U Graphics card
a c 145 K Overclocking
a c 75 Î Nvidia
April 18, 2010 11:27:06 PM

shadow187 said:
He only achieved those temps with an (82dB) 100% fan, an I don't even want to know what cooling he had.


Holy crap .... I really don't understand their logic in placing the sound meter 2cm away from the fan ..... I rarely play games that way. I would find 60 db unacceptable which is the average of most of the cards in the test (excluding the 4xx series). 60 is normal conversation, 80 is a vacuum cleaner....though it's prolly about the same as a CPU Heat Sink w/ two 2000 rpm fans in push - pull config.
m
0
l
April 18, 2010 11:33:05 PM

82Db on 100% fan, ahahah and some people said its tolerable. IF YOU ARE DEAF

nice 20% oveclock though so it seems 400 series overclock pretty similar to 5000 ati series.

Look at the wattage -

5870 - 182/325
480 - 274/448
480OC - 278/519

100W more on IDLE :o  - and more .... 123W more on load. (NOT OCED)

Now how can someone explain me the 123W more on load and still nVidia claiming 250W

5870 stated as 188W + 123 = 301W :o 

Lets assume cards are not using full potential in this test, this means nVidia cards can go over 300 on some special occasions

another thing to mention - 448 W on load, and they said its pretty slim config , no DVD, 1 drive, no external usb gadgets , probably no case fans,

I am not sure you are going to be ok with a 600W power supply

You will be pushing it too much while you game, not to mention if you want to OC

Safe bet for 1 480 probably must be at least 700-750 and for sli - 1000W :o 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 18, 2010 11:50:23 PM

Ok, explain to me what I am missing on the power results. My full system uses 70-80W at idle with all power saving on. So do they have all power saving features forced off?
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 12:28:11 AM

I'm a muscle car guy. The 480 seems like the gfx equivalent of a 426 hemi. Too powerful for its own good, but that doesn't make it bad in any way. It's just particular. And loud doesn't bother me. Can you say small block with glasspacks?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 12:49:38 AM

ScoobyJooby-Jew said:
I'm a muscle car guy. The 480 seems like the gfx equivalent of a 426 hemi. Too powerful for its own good, but that doesn't make it bad in any way. It's just particular. And loud doesn't bother me. Can you say small block with glasspacks?


So am I, and there are great analogies here. You have a big block chevy that you build to race down the quarter mile. But you also have to drive it on the street. So you need to get somewhat reasonable gas mileage and control the heat so if you get stuck in traffic. But your main goal is to go fast ! Just like gaming, the same tradeoffs heat and power exist for the 5870 as Fermi, its just the new faster card IS louder and uses MORE power. The 5870 according to Anands review was the loudest card until Fermi came along.
Quote:
At load, the picture changes entirely. The more powerful the card the louder it tends to get, and the 5870 is no exception. At 64 dB it’s louder than everything other than the GTX 295 and a pair of 5870s. Hopefully this is something that the card manufacturers can improve on later on with custom coolers, as while 64 dB at 6" is not egregious it’s still an unwelcome increase in fan noise. http://www.anandtech.com/show/2841/26


At the end of the 1/4 mile the loser usually doesn't yell, Hey how much gas YOU got left , lol :) 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 1:40:43 AM

Yep, which is why its really disappointing when someone (in another thread) who is set on a 470/480 gets blasted with "you should have bought..." comments. I've used very hot cards before, and although they can be a minor pain to deal with at times, they certainly aren't a deal breaker.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 3:31:27 AM

Honestly why don't people ever compare overclocked cards with overclocked cards. I hate it when im looking at overclocking performance and they don't overclock the competition. God dammit.

Also I can't help to notice all the titles Fermi does good in. Where is crysis, where is bad company 2, where are the games I actually play.

Anyway, those are some great clocks. Definitely some good performance there but only with a waterblock. Hot cards aren't a deal breaker for me but loud cards definitely breaks the deal.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 3:47:54 AM

notty22 said:
Your not playing a movie, when your gaming. Your reacting to what you see on screen. And what is important is how fast the game can react to user input. FPS is indicative of this. Its like telling a fighter pilot he does not need fast reflexes.
So your fanboy mantra is senseless. edit :)  IMO.


this.

don't know how many times ive had to explain to newbies that the difference between 30fps and 60 is massive. it may LOOK the same, but we don't just watch video games do we.

looks like some good results though. the more benchmarks of fermi i see, the less its looking like the waste of cash i was expecting. i still think it could use a 50 dollar price drop to be truly competitive though. right now i would still rather have a 5 series card.

i want to see some decent benches comparing a max OC 5870/5970 to GTX 480. they seem to love showing one card overclocked compared to one at stock.
i can easily hit 1000mhz on the core of my 5870 at 1250mv. and im sure it has plenty more headroom.
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 4:29:50 AM

Remember the reason the cards are soo hyped for OC, is that initially the Fermi was supposed to run faster, and faster clocks...but due to TDP they had to be downsized.

with out playing wiht Volts my 5870 couldn't make it to 925 though:(  920 mhz otherwise it would freeze and say drivers failed. :( 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 4:34:57 AM

L1qu1d said:
Remember the reason the cards are soo hyped for OC, is that initially the Fermi was supposed to run faster, and faster clocks...but due to TDP they had to be downsized.

with out playing wiht Volts my 5870 couldn't make it to 925 though:(  920 mhz otherwise it would freeze and say drivers failed. :( 


which is even more true of the 5970. this is why i would like to see them comparing cards either at stock, or both at maximum stable OC. not one OCd and the other stock.

i hit 900mhz without volt modding my 5870, and can do 1000mhz at 1.25v. which is a pretty modest voltage increase, the thing still runs dead cool (about 50-60 degrees).

m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 4:39:18 AM

30fps - 60fps is massive. Even 60fps to 120fps is noticable but not massive at that point.

You may think TV only displays at 24FPS so 60 must be redundant. Well TV has motion blur to make motion look fluid. However motion isn't fluid at all. You also have no control over when things move. Nor would anything TV show involve your eyes tracking very fast moving objects.

Now people say 120FPS doesn't make any difference because your eyes can't notice it. Well that is partially true. If you stare at one point and have an object pass by, your eye wouldn't notice any difference because you would start to see motion blur really quickly. Concentrate at one point and move your hand accross your field of vision and its gets blurry very quickly. However in shooters you would most likely be tracking the object with your eyes. Now this closes the difference a lot. Tracking object with your eyes calls in the need for more FPS. Still an object has to be going pretty fast to look choppy on 60FPS. Most things in shooters don't go near that fast.

Remember any game under 30FPS is considered unplayable.

30FPS is borderline playable

45 FPS is considered very smooth

60FPS is considered butter smooth

120FPS if you have is where things start to get redundant but has an effect (assuming you GFX card can even handle 120FPS)
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 4:45:27 AM

rofl_my_waffle said:
30fps - 60fps is massive. Even 60fps to 120fps is noticable but not massive at that point.

You may think TV only displays at 24FPS so 60 must be redundant. Well TV has motion blur to make motion look fluid. However motion isn't fluid at all. You also have no control over when things move. Nor would anything TV show involve your eyes tracking very fast moving objects.

Now people say 120FPS doesn't make any difference because your eyes can't notice it. Well that is partially true. If you stare at one point and have an object pass by, your eye wouldn't notice any difference because you would start to see motion blur really quickly. Concentrate at one point and move your hand accross your field of vision and its gets blurry very quickly. However in shooters you would most likely be tracking the object with your eyes. Now this closes the difference a lot. Tracking object with your eyes calls in the need for more FPS. Still an object has to be going pretty fast to look choppy on 60FPS. Most things in shooters don't go near that fast.

Remember any game under 30FPS is considered unplayable.

30FPS is borderline playable

45 FPS is considered very smooth

60FPS is considered butter smooth

120FPS if you have is where things start to get redundant but has an effect (assuming you GFX card can even handle 120FPS)


pretty much. as someone who plays games competetively alot, i can say for sure that 100fps is MUCH better than 60fps. its really noticeable when playing something fast paced like COD4 or UT3.
i usually take my own rig to gaming sessions, but recently had to use a friends spare system to play COD4, getting around 50fps and it felt awful compared to normal. i still played very well (better than anyone else there at least :p ) but it was very obvious i had less contorl than i was used to.
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 9:13:05 AM

L1qu1d said:
Remember the reason the cards are soo hyped for OC, is that initially the Fermi was supposed to run faster, and faster clocks...but due to TDP they had to be downsized.

with out playing wiht Volts my 5870 couldn't make it to 925 though:(  920 mhz otherwise it would freeze and say drivers failed. :( 



Thats strange i got my XFX 5870 to 950/1220 on stock volts.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 9:23:55 AM

I was under the impression anything over 60FPS is wasted.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 9:27:37 AM

shadow187 said:
I was under the impression anything over 60FPS is wasted.


no, this is something that gets brought up repeatedly.

the human eye is unliekly to be able to tell the difference between 60 or 100 fps. but the human BRAIN can.

the movement may look smooth, but when controlling the motion yourself, higher framerates are noticeably better.

watching a video at 60 or 100 is pretty much the same. but controlling a game, especially something fast paced, is much better at 100fps. you have greater control and can react much faster. given that reaction times can be well above a 60th of a second, every extra frame can help.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 9:44:47 AM

Monitors can't display over 60FPS due to refresh rate..?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 9:47:18 AM

shadow187 said:
Monitors can't display over 60FPS due to refresh rate..?


again, we are talking about the input and reaction speed. the more frames being rendered, the smoother input and reaction is. its not about how it looks, but how it feels.
m
0
l
a c 130 U Graphics card
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 10:02:41 AM

We're not talking about some psychological brain thing...monitor can't physically output more than 60FPS. There should be no difference between 60FPS and 1000FPS if the monitor has a 60mhz refresh rate..?
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 10:06:48 AM

shadow187 said:
We're not talking about some psychological brain thing...monitor can't physically output more than 60FPS. There should be no difference between 60FPS and 1000FPS if the monitor has a 60mhz refresh rate..?


yes, it would look exactly the same.

but the mouse, and keyboard as well as your brain, are not restricted to the refresh rate of the monitor.

the more frames being rendered, the smoother the gameplay expereince is. just because you cant SEE the frames being renderd, doesn;t mean they aren't there.

think about it, 60fps means you have 60 updates a second. 100 means 100 updates a second. you cant see any difference due to the refresh limit, but the mouse can still be controled, the cursor still moved. and extra 40th of a second can make all the difference in a video game.
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 10:35:18 AM

you dont even know what you are talking about :D 
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 10:43:44 AM

rawsteel said:
you dont even know what you are talking about :D 


whatever you say.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 12:07:14 PM

If your monitor has a higher refresh rate (120, 240Hz) then it can output greater than 60FPS.
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 12:10:59 PM

OMFG, What kind of super eyes do you have?
m
0
l
April 19, 2010 12:12:33 PM

BTW, 82Db I can barely tolerate my 5850 TOXIC.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 19, 2010 12:30:22 PM

It also depends on the response time too. 120hz would require very high response time. 2ms is desireable but that only available on TN panel.. sad

If they only made 2560x1600 with 120hz and IPS panel. OMG that would be amazing, but not even close.

Its not like graphics card can even display that many frames at 2560x1600.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 19, 2010 12:40:12 PM

In any driving game I can tell the difference between 40+60 and also 60+80. Just like in a real car (when you leave your house) if you jiggle the steering wheel back and forth. IF your fps is low, you now start steering with a delay. At the same time the gpu and the game engine can draw a new frame it accepts a input from your controller/keyboard or mouse. What don't you people grasp about this ?


edit: Everyone is aware about response time in monitors , 2ms vs 5ms vs 8ms ? Well there are 1000 milliseconds in a second. Its the same principle , response time is lessened in gaming (controlling your car,gun,3rdperson) with higher fps.

I also will change view in driving games , that give me the quickest steering response, and that usually is the view that delivers the fastest fps because of graphics being drawn.

IMO, this is another factor in the balance between IQ and fps. And the reason why we need more powerful gpu cards. Some people want it all.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
April 20, 2010 3:27:21 AM

notty22 said:
In any driving game I can tell the difference between 40+60 and also 60+80. Just like in a real car (when you leave your house) if you jiggle the steering wheel back and forth. IF your fps is low, you now start steering with a delay. At the same time the gpu and the game engine can draw a new frame it accepts a input from your controller/keyboard or mouse. What don't you people grasp about this ?


edit: Everyone is aware about response time in monitors , 2ms vs 5ms vs 8ms ? Well there are 1000 milliseconds in a second. Its the same principle , response time is lessened in gaming (controlling your car,gun,3rdperson) with higher fps.

I also will change view in driving games , that give me the quickest steering response, and that usually is the view that delivers the fastest fps because of graphics being drawn.

IMO, this is another factor in the balance between IQ and fps. And the reason why we need more powerful gpu cards. Some people want it all.


thanks notty, glad to know there is someone else here who actually gets how pc games work.
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
April 20, 2010 3:58:16 AM

As I play more RTS games on my PC, I could see why higher frames are necessary...

Imagine a massive fight on one corner of the map and then having to scroll between home and the fight...

The life of your troops (CoH) lies in how fast you can get to them to give orders. 30 or 60 FPS... pick one...
m
0
l
a b U Graphics card
a b K Overclocking
a b Î Nvidia
April 20, 2010 12:53:32 PM

Most of the RTSes I play seem to hit a CPU limit first, though I completely agree with you. It gets annoying to keep pausing (if you even can) to issue orders.
m
0
l
!