Overclocking
Overclocking is a valuable tool when looking to get the most out of your graphics solution. Many card manufacturers sell overclocked versions of their cards, often with positive results. A few of the cards we have come with their own factory overclock, but we make a habit of doing our own user-overclocking whenever we can and this review is no exception.
We were able to overclock these cards using Coolbits for the NVIDIA cards, and a handy program called ATI Tool for the ATI cards. ATI tool has a built in 3D view of a rotating fuzzy cube to test the stability of the card while overclocking on the fly. We use this to get our initial overclocks, and then follow this test up with repeated game benchmarks to ensure that the card runs stably (i.e. without any graphical tearing or artifacts). Below is a list of the cards and the overclocks we achieved, as well as their factory clock speeds.
Heat is always an issue when overclocking, and because we are dealing with silent graphics cards, we took extra care when boosting the clock speeds for these cards. Interestingly, all of these cards were able to be overclocked to some degree and saw a degree of performance increase. Of course some overclocked more than others, and there were a few cards that did notably well for us, as our table shows. In particular, the Gigabyte X1300 got a 160 MHz boost in the core clock resulting in about a 23% boost in Battlefield 2 at 1024x768, making the game much more playable at this resolution. The MSI NX7300 GT also got a high overclock in both the core and memory clock. It appears that in general some of the slower cards like the X1300s and 7300s overclock better than the faster ones, which is ultimately good news for those who are limited to the slower cards because of price.
Once we achieved our overclocks for these cards, we again tested performance in Battlefield 2 and Oblivion to get a general idea of the increase in performance with the new clock speeds. As these are two of the most graphically demanding (and popular) games in our testing, their benchmarks are particularly useful to see how well these cards overclock. Keep in mind, however, that how well a card overclocks will vary even between two cards of the same model and manufacturer, so the clock speeds we achieved with our Gigabyte 7600 GS won't necessarily be what you will see with your Gigabyte 7600 GS.
Now that we have our overclocked performance numbers along side of our factory clocked ones, we can see how well these cards perform overclocked relative to each other. In Battlefield 2, we can see how certain cards that only got borderline-playable framerates at 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 with their factory clock speeds became playable at these resolutions with a bit of overclocking. The MSI NX7300 GT in particular at 1600x1200 gets a 35% increase in frame rate going from 21.7 fps to 29.3 fps. Also, the Gigabyte 7600 GS benefits the most from its overclock to 549 and 890 MHz at 1600x1200 resolution, getting almost a 17% increase in framerate.
In Oblivion, the increases in framerates seem a little more dramatic in the more graphically intensive "Oblivion Gate" benchmark, but we again see a few marked improvements in performance in each benchmark. Again the MSI NX7300 GT and Gigabyte 7600 GS stand out with their performance increases. In this roundup, the Gigabyte 7600 GS sets itself apart from the other three 7600 GS cards (the MSI NX 7600 GS, EVGA e-GeForce 7600 GS, and the ASUS EN7600 GS Silent). Not only is it the only 7600 GS that comes with a factory overclock, but it also manages to achieve the highest user overclock of the four resulting in slightly better overall performance.
Overclocking is a valuable tool when looking to get the most out of your graphics solution. Many card manufacturers sell overclocked versions of their cards, often with positive results. A few of the cards we have come with their own factory overclock, but we make a habit of doing our own user-overclocking whenever we can and this review is no exception.
We were able to overclock these cards using Coolbits for the NVIDIA cards, and a handy program called ATI Tool for the ATI cards. ATI tool has a built in 3D view of a rotating fuzzy cube to test the stability of the card while overclocking on the fly. We use this to get our initial overclocks, and then follow this test up with repeated game benchmarks to ensure that the card runs stably (i.e. without any graphical tearing or artifacts). Below is a list of the cards and the overclocks we achieved, as well as their factory clock speeds.
| GPU Overclocking | ||
| Factory Clock | User Overclock | |
| ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT | 420/1240 | 481/1290 |
| ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS 512 | 400/540 | 483/596 |
| ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS | 400/800 | 442/874 |
| ASUS NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT | 500/1000 | 561/1070 |
| ASUS ATI Radeon X1600 XT | 590/690 | 624/751 |
| GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT | 560/700 | 608/734 |
| GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS | 450/800 | 549/890 |
| GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT | 450/800 | 474/858 |
| GIGABYTE NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS | 550/800 | 644/851 |
| GIGABYTE ATI Radeon X1600 PRO | 500/400 | 580/432 |
| GIGABYTE ATI Radeon X1600 XT | 590/690 | 621/706 |
| GIGABYTE ATI Radeon X1300 PRO | 600/400 | 650/409 |
| GIGABYTE ATI Radeon X1300 | 450/350 | 610/405 |
| EVGA NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS | 400/800 | 445/875 |
| Sparkle NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GS | 550/532 | 611/700 |
| Albatron NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT | 400/800 | 502/884 |
| HIS ATI Radeon X1600 PRO | 500/400 | 597/441 |
| HIS ATI Radeon X1300 PRO | 600/400 | 640/445 |
| MSI NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GS | 400/800 | 441/875 |
| MSI NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT | 350/667 | 486/830 |
Heat is always an issue when overclocking, and because we are dealing with silent graphics cards, we took extra care when boosting the clock speeds for these cards. Interestingly, all of these cards were able to be overclocked to some degree and saw a degree of performance increase. Of course some overclocked more than others, and there were a few cards that did notably well for us, as our table shows. In particular, the Gigabyte X1300 got a 160 MHz boost in the core clock resulting in about a 23% boost in Battlefield 2 at 1024x768, making the game much more playable at this resolution. The MSI NX7300 GT also got a high overclock in both the core and memory clock. It appears that in general some of the slower cards like the X1300s and 7300s overclock better than the faster ones, which is ultimately good news for those who are limited to the slower cards because of price.
Once we achieved our overclocks for these cards, we again tested performance in Battlefield 2 and Oblivion to get a general idea of the increase in performance with the new clock speeds. As these are two of the most graphically demanding (and popular) games in our testing, their benchmarks are particularly useful to see how well these cards overclock. Keep in mind, however, that how well a card overclocks will vary even between two cards of the same model and manufacturer, so the clock speeds we achieved with our Gigabyte 7600 GS won't necessarily be what you will see with your Gigabyte 7600 GS.
| Battlefield 2 v1.22 Overclocked | |||||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 | Avg. Increase | |
| ASUS 7800 GT Top Silent (481/1290) | 60.2 | 59 | 58.7 | 57.5 | 1.85% |
| ASUS 7600 GS Silent 512 (483/596) | 61.7 | 56.6 | 43.8 | 32.6 | 11.01% |
| ASUS 7600 GS Silent (442/874) | 60.7 | 57.9 | 47.5 | 36.3 | 5.33% |
| ASUS 6600 GT Silencer (561/1070) | 59.1 | 51.4 | 38.8 | 30.3 | 8.66% |
| ASUS EAX1600 XT Silent (624/751) | 61.7 | 55.3 | 39.9 | 29.2 | 4.96% |
| GIGABYTE 7600 GT (608/734) | 59.7 | 58.2 | 57.5 | 51.1 | 1.44% |
| GIGABYTE 7600 GS (549/890) | 60.6 | 56.6 | 53.4 | 41.7 | 7.64% |
| GIGABYTE 7300 GT (474/858) | 67.3 | 61.2 | 38.3 | 28.9 | 12.60% |
| GIGABYTE 7300 GS (644/851) | 45.3 | 62.2 | 23.4 | 17.1 | 47.40% |
| GIGABYTE X1600 PRO (580/432) | 61.2 | 63.2 | 35.3 | 25.7 | 2.28% |
| GIGABYTE X1600 XT (621/706) | 62.2 | 64.2 | 39.5 | 27.7 | 25.38% |
| GIGABYTE X1300 PRO (650/409) | 47.8 | 65.2 | 23.2 | 16.5 | 30.95% |
| GIGABYTE X1300 (610/405) | 37.6 | 66.2 | 18 | 12.4 | 82.61% |
| EVGA e-GeForce 7600 GS (445/875) | 60.7 | 57.9 | 47.5 | 36.3 | 5.33% |
| Sparkle 7300 GS Ultra 2 (611/700) | 42.3 | 31.8 | 21.9 | N/A | 24.28% |
| Albatron 7300 GT (488/860) | 70.4 | 55.2 | 40.2 | 30.3 | 22.86% |
| HIS X1600 PRO (597/441) | 61.6 | 51.2 | 36.3 | 26.4 | 13.79% |
| HIS X1300 PRO (640/445) | 48.1 | 35.7 | 23.5 | 16.8 | 9.40% |
| MSI 7600 GS (441/875) | 60.6 | 57.8 | 47.5 | 36.3 | 5.25% |
| MSI 7300 GT (486/830) | 68.4 | 53.4 | 39 | 29.3 | 34.63% |
| Oblivion Gate Overclocked | |||||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1280x1024 | 1600x1200 | Avg. Increase | |
| ASUS 7800 GT Top Silent (481/1290) | 59.7 | 56.9 | 47.2 | 37.5 | 4.00% |
| ASUS 7600 GS Silent 512 (483/596) | 42.1 | 32 | 21.7 | 16.3 | 13.32% |
| ASUS 7600 GS Silent (442/874) | 50.7 | 35.6 | 25.4 | 18.5 | 12.29% |
| ASUS 6600 GT Silencer (561/1070) | 40.6 | 27.8 | 19.6 | 14.9 | 16.19% |
| ASUS EAX1600 XT Silent (624/751) | 40.2 | 29.4 | 20.2 | 15.5 | 7.51% |
| GIGABYTE 7600 GT (608/734) | 61.5 | 53.9 | 38 | 27.6 | 8.83% |
| GIGABYTE 7600 GS (549/890) | 52.4 | 42.2 | 28.1 | 21.8 | 14.57% |
| GIGABYTE 7300 GT (474/858) | 38.9 | 29.7 | 20 | 14.9 | 6.79% |
| GIGABYTE 7300 GS (644/851) | 21 | 16.1 | 10.7 | 7 | 18.06% |
| GIGABYTE X1600 PRO (580/432) | 32.4 | 25.2 | 17.4 | 13.5 | 10.61% |
| GIGABYTE X1600 XT (621/706) | 38.7 | 27.7 | 20.9 | 15.7 | 6.11% |
| GIGABYTE X1300 PRO (650/409) | 28 | 19.2 | 12.9 | 9.5 | 11.53% |
| GIGABYTE X1300 (610/405) | 22.4 | 16.3 | 11.2 | N/A | 34.35% |
| EVGA e-GeForce 7600 GS (445/875) | 50.8 | 35.7 | 25.5 | 18.5 | 12.54% |
| Sparkle 7300 GS Ultra 2 (611/700) | 19.6 | 14.5 | 9.7 | N/A | 26.05% |
| Albatron 7300 GT (488/860) | 41.2 | 29.9 | 22 | 15.9 | 19.69% |
| HIS X1600 PRO (597/441) | 35.7 | 27.1 | 19.1 | 13.2 | 17.44% |
| HIS X1300 PRO (640/445) | 26.5 | 18.9 | 13.1 | 8.5 | 6.95% |
| MSI 7600 GS (441/875) | 50.6 | 35.6 | 25.4 | 18.5 | 12.23% |
| MSI 7300 GT (486/830) | 41 | 30.5 | 20.4 | 15.7 | 37.47% |
Now that we have our overclocked performance numbers along side of our factory clocked ones, we can see how well these cards perform overclocked relative to each other. In Battlefield 2, we can see how certain cards that only got borderline-playable framerates at 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 with their factory clock speeds became playable at these resolutions with a bit of overclocking. The MSI NX7300 GT in particular at 1600x1200 gets a 35% increase in frame rate going from 21.7 fps to 29.3 fps. Also, the Gigabyte 7600 GS benefits the most from its overclock to 549 and 890 MHz at 1600x1200 resolution, getting almost a 17% increase in framerate.
In Oblivion, the increases in framerates seem a little more dramatic in the more graphically intensive "Oblivion Gate" benchmark, but we again see a few marked improvements in performance in each benchmark. Again the MSI NX7300 GT and Gigabyte 7600 GS stand out with their performance increases. In this roundup, the Gigabyte 7600 GS sets itself apart from the other three 7600 GS cards (the MSI NX 7600 GS, EVGA e-GeForce 7600 GS, and the ASUS EN7600 GS Silent). Not only is it the only 7600 GS that comes with a factory overclock, but it also manages to achieve the highest user overclock of the four resulting in slightly better overall performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
49 Comments
View All Comments
yyrkoon - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
If its silly, why even bother replying . . . No need to go out of your way to be a jerk.nullpointerus - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
Jerks don't take the time to apologize. As for why I apologized, I felt badly for responding in kind. I was belittling people who felt the need to belittle the site without taking the trouble to think their arguments through. Apparently that put some kind of chip on your shoulder such that you felt the need to attack me after I'd already apologized.DerekWilson - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
maybe we can take a different angle as the standard reasoning has been rolled out already ...if we decide to test with a system that "matches" the graphics card, we are making a decision about what is reasonable for either a specific level of performance or price point. By making such a decision, we limit ourselves -- for instance, in this review we may have chosen a system to match a 7600 GS. But maybe it's too under powered for a 7600 GT, or perhaps its too overpriced for a 7300 GS.
we absolutely can't test every card with every processor and every memory configuration on every chipset for every review.
en lieu of choosing one system that is supposed to be a "one size fits all", we can remove the system from consideration by choosing the highest end configuration possible.
when a graphics card peforms better in our system, we know it is capable of better performance in any system. this is true in almost every case.
this does put a burden on the reader to understand the limitations of his or her own system -- i.e., will the fact that the 7600 GT performs higher than 7600 GS expose a CPU limitation on the system the reader is building/upgrading.
this question can be answered in a couple ways.
with game tests, if you can borrow a high end graphics card and see where the cpu limitation falls at something like 800x600 without aa and af, you'll know where the upper limit on framerate is based on the CPU. thus a decision can be made about the best fit for a card.
if you can't borrow a higher end card, you can turn all the graphics settings down as far as possible and run at 640x480 or lower if possible (does anything aside from the chronicles of riddick still support 320x240?). this isn't ideal, but even on a low end card you can get a pretty good idea of whether or not there will be a cpu limitation entering into the mix.
when you know what the cpu limit of your system is, pick the resolution you want to run, and find a card that gives you a number just over this limit. this card is the ideal fit for your system at your resolution. it will deliver the performance your cpu will ask for.
I know its complicated, but its much better than the can of worms we'd open if we went in another direction.
In GPU reviews meant to demonstrate the capabilities of a graphics card, we will not add unnecessary bottlenecks to the system.
nullpointerus - Friday, September 1, 2006 - link
You need a form letter, or something. Maybe you could put up a short page entitled Why We Test this Way and link to it on the front page of each article.nullpointerus - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Hmm...that last paragraph came out a little too harsh. I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone. I still think the points are valid, though.JarredWalton - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
If you look at the performance difference between an E6400 stock and 3.0 GHz OC in our http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=28...">PC Club system review, you will see that it makes virtually no difference in performance even with a 7900 GT. All of these GPUs are the bottleneck in gaming, but we use a higher-end (relatively speaking) CPU just to make sure.imaheadcase - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
I disagree 800x600 is great for sniping, i play on a 9700 Pro and normally switch between 800x600 and 1024x768 and like 800x600 better on large maps. It brings the objects "bigger" to me and lets me get better accuracy.Even if i had a 7900GT i would prob not go higher than 1024x768. Don't know why people play at higher rez, makes everything so tiny. Squinting to play a game is annoying and distracting from gameplay :D
Josh7289 - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
People who have larger monitors have to use higher resolutions to keep things from getting too large, and to make good use of all that real estate, especially when it's an LCD (native resolution).For example, a 17" CRT is best run at 1024 x 768 for games, while a 21" or so LCD is best run at 1600 x 1200 or 1680 x 1050, depending on its native resolution.
Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
What do you mean with 'too large'?In games it's not like in Windows where objects get smaller if you increase the resolution.
DerekWilson - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
this is correct (except with user interfaces for some reason -- and there the exception is warcraft 3). thanks Olaf.lower resolution will give you much less accuracy -- larger pixels in the same screen area decrease detail.
the extreme example is if you have a 4x3 grid and you need to snipe someone -- his head has to be in the center of one of the 12 blocks you have to aim through to even be able to hit him. The smaller these blocks are, the more pixels fit into the head, the more capable you will be of sniping.