Radeon 9600 PRO Overclocking

[Dave Baumann]

Evil: Ti4200's are based on chips that were designed to operate at at least 300MHz, these are the ones that just get pushed to a lower end product for one reason or another. The top end RV350 is designed to operate at 400MHz, but still scales up to and beyond 530MHz in these samples, 130MHz beyond the highest specification that chip is to be released at. The equivelent of your case is taking the 325MHz 9600 boards and clocking them up to 530MHz, which would be an impressive overclock

 

[Evildeus]

I do understand that Dave, but i will need to see 9600 np OC @ 500+MHz. Then, sure it's cool, but it still the same relative OCing...

 

[Dio]

Well, how do Ti4600 boards overclock? Surely that's more like an apples-to-apples comparison?

 

[RussSchultz]

Well, how do Ti4600 boards overclock? Surely that's more like an apples-to-apples comparison?

Eh? Why? Ti4600 were .15u...

 

[Dio]

It was meant in the context that 9600 vs 9600 Pro is the same as 4200 vs 4600 - in that both are the same chip just at different clock speeds.

 

[martrox]

I was looking @ the OC of 9500 pro cards, and finally i don't find the OC 9600 pro really impressive . Sure it's over 500 MHz, but 9500 pro can do as much as 50% more on the clock rate, so....

They are both better than anything nVidia makes......

Sorry but i don't think so. The card is OC by 30% on B3D or HFR, 40% by [H], and i can find plenty of GF4 Ti 4200 with 25-35% OC. So what's so impressive? Some figures:

http://www.hardware.fr/news/lire/17-04-2003/

Tonight with a bit of luck Dave will give us some 5600 U OCing.

I wasn't talking about just their ability to overclock..... they are plain out just better videocards. Please see almost all of the reviews to do comparisons(I'm sure there are a few that use nVidia's recomendations!)

 

[Hellbinder]

I do understand that Dave, but i will need to see 9600 np OC @ 500+MHz. Then, sure it's cool, but it still the same relative OCing...

riiight

So in your mind.. because the % is close to the same... A core that overclocks 40mhz is more impressive than a core that overclocks 167mhz..

Edited JRR: Tone it down a little, tiger.

 

[RussSchultz]

]

I do understand that Dave, but i will need to see 9600 np OC @ 500+MHz. Then, sure it's cool, but it still the same relative OCing...

riiight

So in your mind.. because the % is close to the same... A core that overclocks 40mhz is more impressive than a core that overclocks 167mhz..

Very interesting. I guess I need that special pair of Green Tinted Glasses to get a clear understanding like you have..

People can get a P4-Celeron to overclock by 800mhz. Does that make it uber cool? How does it compare to 486/25 that ran at 33?

(The point being, relative numbers are what's interesting, not necessarily raw MHz.)

 

[Evildeus]

The point being, relative numbers are what's interesting, not necessarily raw MHz.

That's right, absolute numbers never gives us some information, relative does.

Hellbinder, yes between a card that goes from 200 to 260 and another card that goes 500 to 600, the first has the best OC abilities, even if one gains only 60 and the other 100. Sorry if you can't understand that.

 

[martrox]

Evildeus, isn't there a straw you won't grasp at?

 

[Evildeus]

Evildeus, isn't there a straw you won't grasp at?

No 8)

 

[nelg]

Maybe, just maybe some future driver will dynamically overclock this card (overdrive) .

 

[jb]

The point being, relative numbers are what's interesting, not necessarily raw MHz.

That's right, absolute numbers never gives us some information, relative does.

Sorry to double quote but there is a problem. With out a baseline then Relative numbers tell you almost nothing. For use gamers then relative numbers are almost useless. If card A was 100% faster then card B does it mean that card A will give you enjoyable frame rates? What about if card B got 1 fps thus card A has 2 fps but both are very un-playable. Does telling you a card is 20% faster with AA mean you can use it in a game a get over 60 fps? I think togther both are usefull.

 

[Hellbinder]

Edited JRR: Tone it down a little, tiger.

uh oh.. i been spanked with a Hickory Switch..

My bad..

The point being. as the Numbers go up the Exact percentages mean less. Even if the chip was 900mhz generally speaking a 50mhz OC is a big deal. When you start talking almost a 200mhz overclock with a dinky stock cooler... [H]

That is right past impressive and on into unpresidented.

 

[Evildeus]

Sorry to double quote but there is a problem. With out a baseline then Relative numbers tell you almost nothing. For use gamers then relative numbers are almost useless. If card A was 100% faster then card B does it mean that card A will give you enjoyable frame rates? What about if card B got 1 fps thus card A has 2 fps but both are very un-playable. Does telling you a card is 20% faster with AA mean you can use it in a game a get over 60 fps? I think togther both are usefull.

Of course, the initial number is required if you want to know if it's playable. But the absolute number is the difference between the initial number and the final, i.e. 1 FPS in your exemple. As you can see it's the relative number which is important +100%. If you have just the absolute number you can't say anything on the value of that number (1FPS is meaningless if the baseline is 10000000 FPS ), but if you have the relative number you can say which is faster and by what percentage that's the important thing.

 

[Star_Hunter]

Doesn't the 5600 Ultra use 400 MHz DDR? I heard that on a few reviews depending on how high the core goes it could be better since it will have the bandwith

 

[Johnny Rotten]

Uh Hellbinder, relative numbers are far more meaningful than absolute numbers when comparing overclocks and the performance to be gained from them. Whats the more impressive performance gain, a Celeron 300 that that overclocks to 450 mhz (a ~50% performance gain) or a 2ghz P4 that overclocks to 2.15ghz (for a whopping 7% increase)?

 

[John Reynolds]

]uh oh.. i been spanked with a Hickory Switch..

My bad..

Considering the only thing you bring to this board is an endless litany of knee-jerk f@nboy rants, don't push your luck.

 

[SirPauly]

People can get a P4-Celeron to overclock by 800mhz. Does that make it uber cool?

Depends on how the information is formulated by the end-user. Some may think the 9600's ability to over-clock is indeed uber cool and some may not. Certainly doesn't hurt anyone knowing in some respects that the 9600 may over-clock well, imho. Quite impressive, imho

My armchair view is very similar to this though:

The point being, relative numbers are what's interesting, not necessarily raw MHz.

 

[Hellbinder]

Considering the only thing you bring to this board is an endless litany of knee-jerk f@nboy rants, don't push your luck.

I was trying to be funny, I guess I should have dropped in a funny face..

That is hardly all I bring to this board. That was pretty harsh dude. You do what you feel you need to though.

Uh Hellbinder, relative numbers are far more meaningful than absolute numbers when comparing overclocks and the performance to be gained from them. Whats the more impressive performance gain, a Celeron 300 that that overclocks to 450 mhz (a ~50% performance gain) or a 2ghz P4 that overclocks to 2.15ghz (for a whopping 7% increase)?

Thats an interesting point. However i think that history shows that GPU's and CPU trends cannot be compared to each other.