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
Leo V - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
...I can buy a high-end 7800GT substantially cheaper, buy a quiet Zalman 80mm low-rpm GPU cooler and run it undervolted at 7V. (In fact, I have done exactly that.) It will be cheaper, run WAY cooler, and be quieter, because I can get rid of a case fan that I would need with a "silent" card anyway.The idea of running a 50-100watt GPU with a silent cooler is dubious -- you still need a fan somewhere in your system, and the best place is closest to the hottest parts. Those parts are naturally the CPU and GPU.
Instead of "silent" (but not really) high-end cards, give us cards with heatpipes + large, slow quiet fans that can be undervolted.
Most importantly, ATI and NVIDIA please stop making 100watt monsters and follow Intel's and AMD's lead in improving power efficiency.
yyrkoon - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Sorry, I cant say I would agree that a fan would be quieter than a passive solution, I dont care if you could run it at 1V, and did :)Leo V - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
e.g. substantially cheaper than the holy grail "silent" version of the 7800GT.
And Kudos to the companies for the inventive products and to Anandtech for covering them.
hkBst - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
I've been waiting for a review of the passively cooled 7900GT from MSI for a while and I was expecting it to be in here. How can it not be?Look here: http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro...">http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/vga/vga/pro...
DerekWilson - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
We sent multiple requests for cards out to 16 different graphics card manufacturers. I'd say we did pretty well with more than half of those responding.We also requested that each manufacturer send us all their passively cooled cards. If something was left out it was either because the manufacturer decided not to send it, or we weren't able to get ahold of it before our submission deadline. We tested a lot of cards and have been working on this for quite some time, so silent cards that have come out recently or were not widely available until recently will not have been included.
JarredWalton - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Also, the MSI 7900GT Silent card is only available in Europe, and we did mention this in the review.haris - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Any chance you could retest the cards using a mid range system. It seems kind of silly to test an FX-55 with a $50-100 video card.nullpointerus - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Yet Another Silly Performance Retest Request (YAMPRR)Testing an FX-55 with a $50-100 video card is not silly; testing graphics cards' performance relative to each other requires removing all other factors including the CPU and RAM. Not everyone has a "mid-range" system, and those who do not have a "mid-range" system do not want the results skewed just to make your life easier. If you want specific performance advice for your particular system and games, why do you not join and post in the forums?
ss284 - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Well considering the majority of people who are looking for midrange graphics cards have a midrange system, his request is a perfectly good one. Unless Anandtech enjoys targeting the minority of its readers it should be doing more applicable performance testing. Then again, the FX-55 isnt exactly a cutting edge processor anymore. Just scale everything back 10% and you will have a rough estimate of what performance would be like on a mid range system.nullpointerus - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Yet Another Defense of a YAMPRR (YADY). *yawn*Well considering the majority of people who are looking for midrange graphics cards have a midrange system, his request is a perfectly good one.
No, it's a silly one. The point of the article is to compare graphics cards, not to make life easier for a certain group of people. People who follow this esoteric stuff religiously tend to distill the information into a more practical form. And as I said, the information he wanted is readily available in the forums. A couple of mouse clicks and a bit of typing is better than ignorantly saying the video card article is silly for not providing framerates similar to some mythical ideal of a mid-range system.
Unless Anandtech enjoys targeting the minority of its readers it should be doing more applicable performance testing.
How about you go where the information is normally provided instead of trying to turn all the front page articles into your personal system upgrade newsfeeds?
Could we just skip ahead to where everyone chimes in with their own ideas of what a mid-range system is. Does it use AMD or Intel? Single or multi-core? How much RAM? Which timings? Which system boards? Which components are overclocked?
I'll make a deal with you: get together a mid-range system that everyone will agree on, and then I will agree with you that we should conflate graphics cards testing with mid-range system testing. You see, ridding the comments section of silly YAMPRR and YADY posts will not benefit anyone if we still have to deal with all the senseless bickering about little details such as chipset revisions, features, and all the other inane griping I have seen posted when Anandtech picks out a CPU, overclocking, or RAM configuration as representative of X-range systems.