You're delusional if you think that the clock would only drop by 90mhz when at 86c. Before I replaced the aio my card would drop to the low 1900s as it approached 60c.

The performance loss is nowhere near a 1:1. The word "performance" is not a replacement for "frames." The performance of a high end game reduces significantly at an almost exponential rate per frame loss. Especially when it's only running 10-20 frames above 60fps. Losing those frames can be very noticable, and cause lag spikes that affect gameplay. But if you're playing something optimized for speed, such as a first person shooter, then you're liking to be running it at 100+ frames already, and those loses won't be as noticable.

When it comes to my card's performance I do not rely on scores from benchmarks. The entire makeup of you're system will have am impact on the score you get, and temperature is a HUGE factor in scores. I don't know how you've been convinced otherwise. Overclockers are well known for doing anything they can to reduce temps and squeeze out every last bit from the card. It is even commonplace for them to use liquid nitro.

I only compare raw numbers from the system itself. Such as clocks and temps and volts. But just as an FYI, my scores in benches are also lower on average than what I see being recorded by others. Far more akin to normal ti than a hybrid.

Jiberish001
You're delusional if you think that the clock would only drop by 90mhz when at 86c. Before I replaced the aio my card would drop to the low 1900s as it approached 60c.

Well, but thats how that boots working. Only 15mhz per "step", and steps are somewhere near 40C, 48C, 54C, 60C, 65C etc.
Low 1900ihs for card with no overclock is pretty normal though. I had ~1950 at 86C on rog stirx that lost silicone lottery completely (lost stability after 1980 mhz, no chances to get past 2000)
 
 

Jiberish001
The entire makeup of you're system will have am impact on the score you get, and temperature is a HUGE factor in scores. I don't know how you've been convinced otherwise. Overclockers are well known for doing anything they can to reduce temps and squeeze out every last bit from the card. It is even commonplace for them to use liquid nitro.

If we are talking about getting #1 world result - yes, temperature is a huge factor. If we are talking about regular gaming - temperature is not a factor at all.
I don't see any differences between my "coldest" setup with full fans and low room temperature involved and "hottest" setup with silent profile and water temperatures up to 55C. Even switching from aircooled rog strix to ftw3 hybrid didn't bring much additional performance - it was about ~10% and mostly due to much better chip (OC up to 2100 instread of 1980) and huge powerlimit (330w vs 375w), but not temperatures (86C vs 60C). Noise level is another story though.
 

Jiberish001
The performance loss is nowhere near a 1:1. The word "performance" is not a replacement for "frames." The performance of a high end game reduces significantly at an almost exponential rate per frame loss. Especially when it's only running 10-20 frames above 60fps. Losing those frames can be very noticable, and cause lag spikes that affect gameplay. But if you're playing something optimized for speed, such as a first person shooter, then you're liking to be running it at 100+ frames already, and those loses won't be as noticable.

Well, in temrs of physics performance is either fps (how much frames rendered per second) or frame time (how fast is frame rendering), and nothing more. What you are talking about is how you feeling fps changes and drops ;)
As for me - I preffer 80-120 range, because yes, when frames drops to 60-70 - it is not comfortable to play. So I adjust settings to get that results. But not setting my room temperature to 18C and running fans at full speed: that will give me 62fps instead of 60fps on ultra settings in rdr2 for example, but not 80-100 range that I want at minimum.

You keep sounding more and more like you're trying to convince yourself of something, rather than me. You keep speaking as if you're working with information I've not yet given you. The hybrid come pre-overclocked, and with the stock aio it would approach 60c and reduce clocks to the low 1900s even an extra boost from me. I'm not talking about 1900s of normal clocking.

Clock steps are not purely temperature based, but rather volt based, and the card determines how many volts it can handle based mostly on temps, but you can alter those steps to an extent. There are a few ways in which you can allow more volt usage, and so long as the card is stable and cool enough it will make use of those volts to push the clock. The steps themselves are not a real consistent linear stepping, but rather are curve that can change in curve rate at different points. At higher volts the curve is shallow and step further apart. But at lower volts the curve become steeper and step more frequent.

Temperature is most definitely a huge favor even in regular gaming. Your better OC and better power limit is only made possible by the lower temps. Volts give you clocks, but they are also the source for heat.

A 10 percent performance in high-end games is a big deal. This isn't about how I feel. We're talking about actual changes in all performance factors. Mere fps is just one of those factors, but indicative of having other performance issues, such as frame time and spikes. A low fps is sure to come with more issues than a higher fps.

My rdr2 can only run at around 75-80 fps with mixed settings wherein only a couple are maxed. During initial playtime temps will begin around 40, and raise up to 50-55, but the clock will never drop below 2010 because I've allowed the card to use more volts at higher temps. But even still in dense areas the frames can drop really close to that uncomfortable area. Not because of how I feel but of what I see, which is a real tangle change in visuals. Not a philosophical feeling. I could never dream of reaching 100fps. Even when I reduce settings to mediums and lows I can only achieve frames around 90.

And before you go assuming... I currently run my 9900k at 4.7, even though it can run stable at 5.1, and I do this for the temps because I saw no increase in performance for any of my games when running at 5.1. Even the games that are heavily CPU dependant didn't make much use of the extra.

Jiberish001
Clock steps are not purely temperature based, but rather volt based, and the card determines how many volts it can handle based mostly on temps, but you can alter those steps to an extent. There are a few ways in which you can allow more volt usage, and so long as the card is stable and cool enough it will make use of those volts to push the clock. The steps themselves are not a real consistent linear stepping, but rather are curve that can change in curve rate at different points. At higher volts the curve is shallow and step further apart. But at lower volts the curve become steeper and step more frequent.

They are.
Point is voltage stays the same (1.05-1.09 range) - clocks rise a bit, 15 mhz per step.
You don't know how this boost is working but making such statements...
 

Jiberish001
Temperature is most definitely a huge favor even in regular gaming. Your better OC and better power limit is only made possible by the lower temps. Volts give you clocks, but they are also the source for heat.
A 10 percent performance in high-end games is a big deal. This isn't about how I feel.

Well, just run some test and see by yourself ;) Try to find any differences in fps or frame times (which could help you find freezes) between hot and cold card.
 
Once again: voltage is the same if you don't hit powerlimit - it always limited to maximum voltage, which in range 1.05-1.07v (1.093 max) and not depend on gpu temperature; clocks depend on temperature: at same voltage (say, 1.06v) you can get higher frequency if you cool down your gpu, but actual benefit from this is quite low. Frequency depends on voltage in case you are hitting power limit: in that case voltage will be lower, but even in this conditions thermal boost is working, but still giving a very little result.
 
In my oppinion 10% is not a big deal (60fps vs 66fps in rdr2, yeah), but this 10% is result of actually changing gpu for better (much better) one with much higher clocks, better overclock and higher powerlimit.
I just telling you that this thermal boost is not a big deal and you should not worry about that, cooling card down to 40c will not give you much performance boost.
 

Jiberish001
My rdr2 can only run at around 75-80 fps with mixed settings wherein only a couple are maxed. During initial playtime temps will begin around 40, and raise up to 50-55, but the clock will never drop below 2010 because I've allowed the card to use more volts at higher temps. But even still in dense areas the frames can drop really close to that uncomfortable area. Not because of how I feel but of what I see, which is a real tangle change in visuals. Not a philosophical feeling. I could never dream of reaching 100fps. Even when I reduce settings to mediums and lows I can only achieve frames around 90.

There is some settings that has strong negative affection on performance, you could try to search them on google and tune them. For example, tree tesselation, volumetric lighting and other stuff.
I can give you my settings if you want to. I am running game at 1440p (21:9) and with my settings I have 80-90ish in Saint Denis. To achieve these settings I also googled something like "rdr2 graphic settings guide" and runned ingame benchmark with different settings to see how fps is changing in different scenes and overal results.
 
As for boost - the point is not to see, that "frequency doesn't drop below 2010mhz" - but to see steps in frequency while card is heating up and cooling down:

That how this boost working, it is not about frequency as funcion of voltage, but frequency as function of temperature (more complicated, but if you lock your voltage on maximum and don't hit powerlimit - it is). 
 

Let me first make it clear... I'm not new at this. I've spent dozens of hours on rdr2 optimizations. I've even guided people on what settings synergize with others. The 75-80 frames I get now comes from a lot of hard work because that game is so poorly optimized. I also know all about power limits and voltage. I've tested many different variations and curves, and I've found a good place of optimal volt use that doesn't go to waste, while keeping temps down.

You are misleading yourself with that fixed voltage. Your card is having to artificially throttle itself because those constant volts are heating the card but not being used. The decrease in temps and subsequent increase in clock, with regards to you keeping the volts constant, is happening because your card is ramping up it's cooling. You are potentially doing yourself a disservice by not allowing the card to lower the volts it doesn't need, thus mitigating the temp increase.

Frequency accounts for virtually none of the heat. It's a controversial topic, but what is known is that volts=heat. Energy in (volts) - Energy out (heat). Anything not actually being used to drive the clock is lost as heat. It's basic physics. My volts never drop below 1.05 under load, if I've set the game to use max power in control panel, but don't hardly need the full 1.09 to maintain reasonable frames. When idle or not gaming very little voltage is needed. Even when a card is supplied the maximum volts its allowed to use that doesn't mean it can use it, and use it properly. BUT if the clock can raise it must do so by using volts. The extra frequency does not magically appear. So if you're seeing your clock go up at any point, when your volts are fixed, that means you were wasting those volts before and causing more heat than necessary.

When I tested fixed volts on my card I found a drop in performance, because the card would raise the clock into unstable steps and lower performance. So once I found how high the chip could go in frequency and be stable, I then unfixed the volts. It was a back and forth process to a point when I found the card pulling almost the max volts when it was hammered, but just shy of that when it could relax. This allows the card to breath and keep temps down so that it doesn't have to slow itself down so much and so often, causing spikes.

Well, voltage wasn't "fixed", just get a point on curve on flat 1.05-1.09 region, so boost jumping at that point, but of course it can go down.
You a "misleading yourself" by making guesses how thermal boost working instead just reading about it.
 
Whole point of thermal boost is not "if your gpu could you can pump more voltage in it!" - but "if silicone die is cold - it requires less voltage for that particular frequency": so you either can drop voltage (or you need to increase voltage if silicon getting hotter):

or increase frequency at the same voltage:

 
And thats all, no "magic" here. 
 

Jiberish001
Let me first make it clear... I'm not new at this. I've spent dozens of hours on rdr2 optimizations. I've even guided people on what settings synergize with others. The 75-80 frames I get now comes from a lot of hard work because that game is so poorly optimized. 

Well, if you happy with that 75-80 - "so be it", if not - you are doing something wrong.
As for game engine optimisation - I don't think it is bad. It require hell of performance for ultra, yeah (even though 60fps on 3440*1440 on a single gpu is not that bad, just not work for shooter, if you want bad optimisation - check detroit became human ;) ) - but low settings gives normal results like 200fps or so, that was first thing I checked after got low result on ultra: is it really worth to try tune graphics. The answer is yep, it is.

I'm not guessing here. My understanding of how this works accounts for the temps. Lower temps does not magically generate more Hertz for the same volts. Energy is not free. You only think it's using the same volts because it was pulling more than it needs, and then losing the UNUSED volts as heat. When you lower the temp with a cooling unit you're freeing up some thermal headway so that more of the volts get used instead of wasted. This is why there is a hard limit to overclocking a card unless you mod it to allow more energy into the system. A clocks speed, or frequency is a mechanical function that requires energy. You cannot simply lower the temp and get free energy.

Its not "free energy".
First of all "job" is done by current, not voltage. So it depend on resistance that is higher if temperature rises. 2nd of all there is leakage currents that get worse if silicone get hotter.
So lower temperatures results in lower resistance and less leaks inside silicon. And that is also not "magic", but physics. 
 
And thats all you can read about if you google what thermal boost is. Instead of guessing and personal "understanding". Because your understanding is wrong. It is thermal boost. It is not thermal throttling. It is not "pumping more voltage in die". It is not "unused voltage".

We are saying the same thing, you just keep missing it.

I UNSERSTAND what I've learned. I did not imagine or guess at this and then come to an understanding of my own creation.

When I talk of making use of the volts, and wasted volts as heat, I am referencing that same "job" and resistance. Heat does cause more resistance, but resistance also causes more heat. Resistance is also caused by silicon quality and the chip architecture. Instability of a frequency will be met with resistance, causing heat, causing more resistance. Removal of the heat can only get you so far, and the addition of energy (volts) will only help if the chip capable of making use of that energy regardless of how cold, because the current is dependent on the quality of the resistors themselves, and not just the resistance between them.

It doesn't matter where you move the goal post. More work is not being done with the same energy. It's an illusion. It's just more of that energy is being used instead of wasted, as resistance. When you lower the temp and thus lower resistance, more energy is being put to work.

Just imagine if one installed a full water block and that temp issue went away! What would you do with all that extra free time?

32-34c max temp.. crap.