londiste AMD cards are much more overclock friendly than Nvidia cards, there are simply far less limits. Any Turing or Pascal card has a rather limited Power Limit range and basically a hardcoded Voltage limit around 1.09V. This will not get you far and subverting this is not trivial.

In what respect ? What I mean is, are we taking core and memory clocks or are we talking results in fps ? From what I gave seen in TPus testing, of seven "gamer model" 2080 Tis, the highest core or highest memory clocks do not correlate with the highest fps . And if that correlation isn't there, then what conclusions can be drawn from greater core / memory OC ability ?The reason I asked is that there's one significant story that I haven't seen in print as yet regarding what we are seeing these days regarding the fps gains obtained in overclocking GFX cards. Starting with the 2xx series, AMD stared aggressively overclocking their cards in the box. When the 290x came out, it was designated the new king ... it lost the throne to the 780 Ti a week later. However, when both cards were manually overclocked, the 780 retained 2nd place and the 290x slipped to third. With the 980 Ti and Fury X looked competitive outta the box, but the 980 Ti OC'd 27-30% fps improvements above reference and the Fury X was in single digits. The 10xx series wasn't quite as OC friendly but still a large gap between the two camps.With the AIB 2xxx series cards, we are seeing much lower OCs both in how much more we get outta the box and how much more we get above reference. The factory OC'd cards are gaining around 8% above their "in the box" condition, same as the Radeon VII. We are also seeing the FE "A series" GPUs being used as the new "reference". Compared to **that** reference, the AIB's typical gamer cards have ranged from 112.1% OC (EVGA X Ultra) to 116.5% (MSI Gaming X Trio). I couldn't help wondering whether with 2xxx, they mighta tweaked up the OCs a bit more than in the past given that the 1xxx to 2xxx improvements generation to generation were less impressive,Another thing that I found intersting was that in the OC test, the 8 cards tested, 7 fell into vendor's gamer line and 1 in the premium, "bawlz to the wall" card. The 7 ranged rather tightly, from 218.0 fps OCd to 226.6 .... however the premium card (Lightning Z) jumped to 236.7. I'm curious as to what's happening here, recent iterations of the Lightening, Classified and Matrix had fallen well short of expectations and Im curious as to what improvement(s) gets credit for that jump. It is wporth noting that all 7 "gamer' cards tested has Micron Memory (T61K256M32JE-14:A) which ranged from 2005 to 2065 OC'd (EVGA was only 1960) and the Lightnng has Samsung (K4Z80325BC-HC14) which hit 2090. The Lightning had an OC'd core tho of only 2100, Only 2 cards were lowewr. The MSI Trio was 2085 and outside the Lightning had the highest OC'd fps; The EVGA X Utra was 1960 and finished last other than the FE .