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
Josh Venning - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
I also forgot to mention that some people use their pcs in home theater systems as well. This would be another case when you want as little noise from your computer as possible.imaheadcase - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
That was not always the case, my 9700 Pro i still use when fan went out a year ago, works like a charm without it on. It was in its time the high end card, lets hope those days come buy again :Deckre - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
What a great review, when tom did their silent VC review, they included a grand total of three cards...pfft. nice job anand.I have the 7600GT, very sweet and 0dB is oh so nice.
Josh Venning - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
We just wanted to say thanks all for your comments and we are still trying to make sure we've caught any errors. (there are actually only 20 cards in the roundup and not 21) As Derek said, these cards were included in the article because we requested any and all silent cards that any of the manufacturers were willing to give us to review. That's also why we have more cards from ASUS and Gigabyte than the others.Olaf van der Spek - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
Because the videocard industry hasn't introduced such a bad design as the netburst architecture.
epsilonparadox - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
No they've introduced worse. When they recommend a second PS just for grafx or even a 1Kw single PS, they've taken intel's lack of thermal control to a whole new level.DerekWilson - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
graphics cards use much much less power in 2d mode than in 3d mode -- and even their 3d power saving capabilities are really good.this is especially true when you consider the ammount of processing power a GPU delivers compared to a CPU.
Theoretical peak performance of a current desktop CPU is in the 10-15 GFLOPS range at best. For a GPU, theoretical peak performance is at least one order of magnitude larger reaching up over 200 GFLOPS in high end cases.
I'm not saying we can reach these theoretical peak rates on either a CPU or a GPU, but a GPU is doing much much more work under load than a CPU possibly could.
Keep in mind we aren't even up to GHz on GPU cores. On the CPU front, Intel just shortened the pipeline and decreased clock speeds to save power -- doing more work in one cycle. This is absolutely what a GPU does.
And the icing on the cake is the sheer options on the silent GPU front. Neither AMD nor Intel make a fast desktop CPU that can be (easily) passively cooled. These parts are a testiment to the efficiency of the GPU.
On the flip side, ATI and NVIDIA push their high end parts way up in clock speed and power consumption trying as hard as possible to gain the performance crown.
There are plenty of reasons GPUs draw more power than a CPU under load, but a lack of thermal control or inefficient desing is not one of them. It's about die size, transistor count, and total ammount of work being done.
JarredWalton - Saturday, September 2, 2006 - link
I disagree with Derek, at least in some regards. The budget and midrange GPUs generally do a good job at throttling down power requirements in 2D mode. The high-end parts fail miserably in my experience. Sure, they consume a lot less power than they do in 3D mode, but all you have to do is look at the difference between using a Radeon Mobility X1400 and a GeForce Go 7800 in the Dell laptops to http://www.anandtech.com/mobile/showdoc.aspx?i=276...">see the difference in battery life.In 2D mode, graphics chips still consume a ton of power relatively speaking -- probably a lot of that going to the memory as well. A lot of this can be blamed on transistor counts and die size, but I certainly think that NVIDIA and ATI could reduce power more. The problem right now is that power use is a secondary consideration, and ATI and NVIDIA both need to have a paradigm shift similar to what Intel had with the Pentium M. If they could put a lot of resources into designing a fast but much less power-hungry GPU, I'm sure they could cut power draw quite a bit in both idle and load situations.
That's really the crux of the problem though: resources. Neither company has anywhere near the resources that AMD has, let alone the resources that Intel has. Process technology is at least a year behind Intel if not more, chip layouts are mostly computer generated as opposed to being tweaked manually (I think), and none of the companies have really started at square one trying to create a power efficient design; that always seems to be tacked on after-the-fact.
GPUs definitely do a lot of work, although GFLOPS is a terrible measure performance. The highly parallel nature of 3D rendering does allow you to scale performance very easily, but power requirements also scale almost linearly with performance when using the same architecture. It would be nice to see some balance between performance scaling and power requirements... I am gravely concerned about what Windows Vista is going to do for battery life on laptops, at least if you enable the Aero Glass interface. Faster switching to low-power states (for both memory and GPU) ought to be high on the list for next-generation GPUs.
DaveLessnau - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
I'm wondering why Anandtech tested Asus' EN7800 GT card instead of their EN7600 GT. That card would be more in line with Gigabyte's 7600 GT version and, I believe, is more available than the 7800 version. In the near future, I'd like to buy one of these silent 7600GTs and was hoping this review would help. Oh, well.DerekWilson - Thursday, August 31, 2006 - link
you can get a really good idea of how it would perform by looking at Gigabyte's card.as I mentioned elsewhere in the comments, we requested all the silent cards manufacturers could provide. if we don't have it, it is likely because they were unable to get us the card in time for inclusion in this review.