Overclocker pushes Radeon RX 6900 XT to world record 3.22 GHz

nanoguy

Posts: 794   +12
Staff member
What just happened? AMD's Radeon RX 6000 series graphics cards have been out for several months now, and while they've been very hard to get a hold of, some of the lucky few have looked into testing their overclocking potential. One popular overclocker managed to get the Radeon RX 6900 XT to run at a record 3,225 MHz, more than Nvidia's flagship Ampere card.

Whether you're an enthusiast that can name a couple of the most memorable overclocking-friendly CPUs or one competing for a high spot on the 3DMark Time Spy Extreme Hall of Fame, there are some professionals who just like to push modern silicon to its absolute limits to see how far it will go. Sometimes it even borders on the practical, such as proving that Doom Eternal can run at a demonic 1,000 frames per second.

Last year, we saw an overclocker pushing a rusty Intel Celeron D 347 CPU to 8.36 GHz, while another drove a relatively modern Intel Core i9-10900K to 7.7 GHz. Earlier this month, a Chinese overclocker also proved that DDR4 RAM could hit an impressive 3,578 MHz (DDR4-7004). It turns out it was only a matter of time before someone would try a new GPU overclock record.

Popular overclocker and YouTuber Der8auer (Roman Hartung) set a new GPU core frequency record using PowerColor's Liquid Devil Radeon RX 6900 XT Ultimate with liquid nitrogen cooling. The reason for this choice is that it features a binned chip (Navi 21 XTXH) with a 4 GHz clock limit, whereas most RX 6900 XT cards have a 3 GHz limit. The best clock obtained in testing is far below the theoretical 4 GHz limit but still an impressive 3,225 MHz, a new world record.

It's not the first time someone pushed a GPU past 3 GHz—the Nvidia GeForce GTX 1080 Ti was previously the undisputed champion with a 3,024 MHz result, but this was only possible by modding the printed circuit board to bypass its voltage locks. The RTX 3090, by comparison, was only able to climb up to 3,015 MHz, but then again, you can install Crysis 3 on its VRAM and still have enough of it left to run the actual game.

Further reading: CPU and GPU Availability and Pricing Update: April 2021

Running a GPU this hot is by no means practical for gamers looking to squeeze extra performance out of their graphics card. However, it's good to know that AMD is giving AIB partners like PowerColor and ASRock better chips that can boost up to 2.4 and 2.5 GHz on air and liquid cooling, respectively—all of it out of the box. It certainly leaves some room for further gains, depending on your luck on the silicon lottery.

Permalink to story.

 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 5,009   +5,620
I honestly see no need for overclocking.

Unless you're trying to make a 3070 perform like a 3090 because the stock of 3090 is impossible to get?
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 368   +299
I honestly see no need for overclocking.

Unless you're trying to make a 3070 perform like a 3090 because the stock of 3090 is impossible to get?


every couple of months I check down the couch and under my drivers seat - for coins the slip out of sports shorts ( why nike, adidas etc are your materials so slippery? ) - then I pop down to my local PC shop and buy the biggest and baddest GPU - why because I can and obviously that's money I didn't need to put food on the table and heat my house
 

maxxcool7421

Posts: 24   +51
every couple of months I check down the couch and under my drivers seat - for coins the slip out of sports shorts ( why nike, adidas etc are your materials so slippery? ) - then I pop down to my local PC shop and buy the biggest and baddest GPU - why because I can and obviously that's money I didn't need to put food on the table and heat my house

But at 300+ watts you CAN heat your house with a 3080/3090
 

Tom Yum

Posts: 100   +232
I honestly see no need for overclocking.

Unless you're trying to make a 3070 perform like a 3090 because the stock of 3090 is impossible to get?
To me (and this is just my view), overclocking made sense up until the mid 2010's. It used to be 1) an overclock of >20% was the norm, and 2) overclocking made a noticeable difference to computing outside of benchmarks. I remember overclocking my 486DX2-66 to 100, and it allowed me to decode mp3's at 128kbps and 16bit stereo, whereas before I could either do 128kbps 16 bit mono, or 64kbps stereo. It was a noticeable improvement.

These days, overclocking means getting maybe 5-10% more frames in a game that already runs >60fps, or being able to go up to the next visual fidelity setting that truth be told is difficult to discern. No overclock allows you to do something you couldn't do before, because computing is so powerful and the OC gains so small. Overclocking has never been easier, but never more pointless either. IMHO, of course.
 

Thunder6230

Posts: 61   +39
I remember back my first core2duo e6420 it had 2.14gh and I ran it on 3,2ghz+ the next step was 7400 from the base 2,8 ghz jt was around 4ghz with air cooling but not factorial. It helped always a lot. But that was my last config on pc I don't know how it is today. If once I reach to a PC again I definitely try to squeeze out some more. :D
 

Watzupken

Posts: 241   +225
To me (and this is just my view), overclocking made sense up until the mid 2010's. It used to be 1) an overclock of >20% was the norm, and 2) overclocking made a noticeable difference to computing outside of benchmarks. I remember overclocking my 486DX2-66 to 100, and it allowed me to decode mp3's at 128kbps and 16bit stereo, whereas before I could either do 128kbps 16 bit mono, or 64kbps stereo. It was a noticeable improvement.

These days, overclocking means getting maybe 5-10% more frames in a game that already runs >60fps, or being able to go up to the next visual fidelity setting that truth be told is difficult to discern. No overclock allows you to do something you couldn't do before, because computing is so powerful and the OC gains so small. Overclocking has never been easier, but never more pointless either. IMHO, of course.
This is true. In fact, if you consider overclocking on air, I think the most you will see is a couple of %, and nowhere near to double digit gains.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,137   +3,015
Overclockers are doing it for the sport, they're not planning on running it stable like that obviously. It's a penis measuring contest, that's all.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,461   +1,642
TechSpot Elite
every couple of months I check down the couch and under my drivers seat - for coins the slip out of sports shorts ( why nike, adidas etc are your materials so slippery? ) - then I pop down to my local PC shop and buy the biggest and baddest GPU - why because I can and obviously that's money I didn't need to put food on the table and heat my house
I see what you did there! 🤣 Nobody else seems to have though. 🤔
If ya can't get one why does it matter?
I don't think that this would matter even if you could.
To me (and this is just my view), overclocking made sense up until the mid 2010's.
I tend to overclock at the end of my CPU's usable life to give it an extra six months to get a replacement. What I don't understand is people who buy a CPU and OC the hell out it immediately. If you want a faster CPU, buy a faster CPU. It's much less stressful on your mobo's power delivery circuits.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,741   +756
Overclocking has always been an EOL option prior to an upgrade for me. Overclocking degrades your hardware faster, although not as much in the last few years.