HeavyHemi

Kanashi_Ningen
I have the GTX 1060 SC. I could push it above 600 MHz+ for the memory clock and the performance boost is quite substantial. I've seen comment sections where people happily boost their clocks (over 10%), yet there is ever any explanation about core vs. clock regarding temperatures. Is it safe? Is the GPU temperature dependable, or does memory clock heat not get picked up well enough by the card's sensors?
 
 
My temperatures with demanding games stays at about 71-73 C in an ITX case. 
 
*BTW, with regards to the title, I've only seen the Asus GTX 1060 get a memory overclock, a very conservative +100 Mhz. Unlike the GTX 1060 SC, it seems to have memory heat-sinks. 
 

Why? Because it's not worth the extra effort to ensure reliability. It's more cost effective to boost the GPU core, which gains more performance than over clocking the memory. I've not seen any examples where simply increasing the memory clock made a "substantial" difference in typical usage. Sure, if you were benching for scores, every bit helps (along with a modified BIOS). GPU memory temps are not sensed by the GPU. Another issues is memory power draw is taken into account for GPU boost which can limit your GPU core boost due to power draw.

+1
 
If its Not stable its Not Running

When I was running my EVGA SC ACX 2.0 970, The GPU could OC to around 140mhz (on Air), with a memory overclock of 520 mhz using heaven benchmark tried and tested with added volts for many hours untill I was convinced it was stable (it didnt seem to like having extras volts at all, in fact making it more unstable, even with heat not an issue hanging around 63c-65c either way, so I tried to find something that was happy without it)  I understood that the heaven benchmmark isnt represenative of real world applications so I spent a few weeks gaming etc.
 
It soon became very apparent that it was unstable, drivers failing, black screens and the like so I slowly, methodically lowered the overclocks in increments and finally landed on +100mhz gpu and a +300 mem overclocks which seemed quite stable in most of the games I was using. I suppose my question would have been at the time, would I have been better off leaving the GPU overclock at 140+ with no memory OC or a balance? The Heaven benchmarks seemed to favour a balance /shrug.
 
I am by no means an expert and have just received my new love, EVGA 1080 FTW (wife is back down to number 2 again on the list) which boosts to 2025 out of the box so pretty happy right now, the OC itch wanted scratching though so I had a little go and found a similar experience to the above. Initially, seems happy to have a high GPU overclock but when addding memory OC it complains, this was only the case over an hour or so, by no means a proper testing at all.
 
So when all is said and done, is a higher GPU OC with no memory OC more favourable than a mixture of both the GPU and Memory? even if it means lowering the GPU slightly to achieve a bigger overclock on memory?
 
*btw, long time lurker, hello all!

:)