Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

overclocking gfx

Options
  • 25-08-2003 10:35pm
    #1
    KilOit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,994 ✭✭✭


    tried overclocking my ti4200 using powerstrip but i got no increase in graphics any orther programs available to use
    i actually got lower fps. why?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    jow
    Registered Users Posts: 177 ✭✭jow


    Originally posted by KilOit
    tried overclocking my ti4200 using powerstrip but i got no increase in graphics any orther programs available to use
    i actually got lower fps. why?
    Hi,

    I use Rivatuner.
    http://www.guru3d.com/rivatuner/

    I get quite impressive results with it (in combination with my watercooling).
    I can run the core with 310 and the memory with 615 mhz which are nearly the 4600 settings if I am not wrong.

    regards,

    jow


  • Options
    #3
    EyesOnly
    Registered Users Posts: 747 ✭✭✭EyesOnly


    Yeah i agree Rivatuner is the best i got my Ti4200 to core 304 and the memory to 610


  • Options
    #4
    KilOit
    Registered Users Posts: 2,994 ✭✭✭KilOit


    yip did that should i notice a much of a change
    i use 3dmark03 and still get roughly same reults


  • Options
    #5
    Ryo Hazuki
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Ryo Hazuki


    Speaking of Rivatuner...

    Does it usually show the actual clock rate of DDR Ram or, the Effective clock rate? Just wondering.


  • Options
    #6
    Digi_Tilmitt
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Digi_Tilmitt


    3dmark 2003 is the problem, its a CRAP benchmark. It actually takes no real account of the CPU's input despite what you might think (cpu tests) and it greatly underscores non DX9 hardware. My advice to you is to use 2001SE and you'll see the proper performance change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Ryo Hazuki
    Registered Users Posts: 1,348 ✭✭✭Ryo Hazuki


    It actually takes no real account of the CPU's input despite what you might think

    I think it does! Ive a 9800 Pro, and my CPU is the bottleneck (1800+) It scores a lot less than other benchmarks on better CPU's
    Possibly because of sofware particle effects.

    Im thinkin of gettin a 2600+ (Barton)

    Im hopin it will take full advantage of the Card.

    Opinions?


  • Options
    #8
    Digi_Tilmitt
    Registered Users Posts: 423 ✭✭Digi_Tilmitt


    With a 2200+ i got 1000, with a 2800+ i got 1020. In one review a 350Mhz Pentium 2 with a 9800Pro scored higher than a 2.4Ghz Pentium4 with a 9600Pro in 3dmark 2003.


  • Options
    #9
    CombatCow
    Registered Users Posts: 4,317 ✭✭✭CombatCow


    I think the answer of your original question KilOit is that,your overclocking it too much and the card is reverting back to a more normal speed,try clocking it in small ammounts first.And yes 3DMark2003 is totally bias towards ATI cards due to nvidia pulling out of testing with futuremark, as Digi_Tilmitt said 2001se is good.

    CombatCow


  • Options
    #10
    netman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,201 ✭✭✭netman


    just use a real game instead of the syntethic benchmark. use whatever game you like playing, and if needs be google for a way to show fps.


Advertisement