Radeon 9600 PRO Overclocking

Demalion, i'm speaking of 2 diferent things ;)

1st, the OCed 9600 pro is even with a 9500 pro non OCed

2nd, i was first under the impression that the OCing was really impressive. Then after looking @ some datas, i did found that other cards (9500 pro/ TI 4200) can do as par or even better. So, yes i continue to say that the OCing abilities of the 9600 pro on a 0.13 process is not impressive as other cards can do as well. That doesn't mean that it's not great to find a card that can OCed by 25-40%. I don't understand where you find out i think that? :?

What i'm saying is that a celeron 300@450 has greater abilities to be OCed than a P IV 3000@3600, but that doesn't mean that i don't prefer the P IV :!:
 
If you are into the "overclock" only, theres no way you can equate the 9500Pros ability to overclock (50 to 75)versus the 9600(150+). Same goes for the GF4 4200. However, if you are looking at what those overclocks get you in terms of performance, then that's another ballgame.

As far as looking at the 9500 or 4200 from the basis of what clock the chip was designed at (as opposed to it being downclocked) then both the 9500 and the 4200 are no longer that impressive, at all. And, if you want to try that, then just consider just what the overclock will be on a 9600 nonpro with added cooling.... now that could be impressive!

And, for those that are dissappointed in the 9600Pro because of comparisions to the 9500Pro.... well, most of us here could see the writing on the wall long before these previews. In fact, it's pretty impressive what ATI has done with the 9600Pro, everything considered. It still looks like a superior solution compared to the 5600Ultra! So, if you are disappointed in the performance of the 9600Pro, you should be downright discussted with the 5600Ultra! :rolleyes:

The bottom line is that the 9500Pro was the blip! It offers (offered?) far better performance than a $200.00 card should have..... because it isn't a $200.00 card - I'm sure ATI made very little on it, if any at all ( but they made more that nVidia's making on any 5800!). Both the 9600Pro and the 5600Ultra are going to be fine $200.00 cards, but neither will ever be a truly competitive with the 9500Pro. (at non overclocked speeds!)
 
From Ati's web site (re M10) :

Overdrive : On-chip thermal sensor enables performance to scale up dependent on notebook thermal environment.

Does any one think that we will see this on a the desktop RV350. :)
I would love to see it. Just think, ATI could have a card that dynamically scales up performance while Nvidia's NV30 does the opposite.
 
You know, it's all about marketing. ATI has a card with a baseline mhz rating and an "overdrive" technology that lets it exceed it, (sounds great to the consumer) while nvidia's got a redline mhz setting, and a technology that slows it down if it's getting too hot. It's basically the same idea, but ATI's sounds so much better. At the same time though, ATI takes a marketing hit for having a slower mhz chip. I wonder which will be the more effective strategy?

Nite_Hawk
 
Nite_Hawk said:
At the same time though, ATI takes a marketing hit for having a slower mhz chip. I wonder which will be the more effective strategy?
Click to expand...

I fail to see your point. Based on previews, the R9600Pro still maintains a lead over its competitor (5600 Ultra) at that baseline mhz. The overclocking is just gravy.
 
tam: sure, I'm not faulting the 9600pro at all. I'm making the observation that with an "overdrive" feature, ATI is basically doing the same thing nvidia is, but with a different marketing slant. They have a lower baseline mhz, but then offer better performance if the system is running cool by overclocking. Nvidia basically does the opposite. They set the baseline mhz much higher, and then underclock (well, revert to normal) if the system is running too hot. The concept is the same, it's all about how you market it.

Nvidia's pros/cons:
+ Higher baseline mhz (good for advertising)
- underclocks if too hot (mostly bad for advertising)

ATI's pros/cons:
- lower baseline mhz (bad if lower than the competition)
+ overdrive feature kicks in if system can handle it (good for advertising)


I'm curious as to which is the better marketing strategy, to clock the default speed high, and downclock if running too hot, or to clock the default speed low, and overclock if the system is running cool.

Nite_Hawk
 
I don't think the analogy is quite correct since overdrive is specifically for the mobile environment. NVIDIA's system has it clocked high because its in a static environment, and heat can be controlled. A laptop part is often clocked lower than an equivelent desktop part because the thermal environement of the laptop is much more critical - all overdrive is doing is increasing the speed closer to a desktop 9600 if the heat of the chip is still withing the notebook manufacturers tolerances (i.e. take it into a cool room, get more performance).

In otherwords, laptop parts are inherantly clocked lower, Overdrive just means you can get closer to equivelent desktop speeds it the heat is right!
 
Dave:

Ah, I see... I thought the laptop 9600 was clocked the same speed as the desktop 9600 (non-pro). I probably missed it somewhere being lazy. :)

I wonder if we'll see something similar for low profile desktop systems as they seem to be becoming more popular...

Nite_Hawk
 
Well some one has to warranty these cards so I think the overdrive idea in a desktop setting would be better. I don't know if chips are like car's insofar as that while they maybe able to redline it is not healthy to drive like that all the time.
 
I take it Overdrive only kicks in if you're plugged in to the mains? I know nothing about laptop power consumption, but it sounds to me that you wouldn't want the 9600 running close to it's full desktop clock if you're running on batteries. Anyone know ? (sorry, going real OT here)
 
I believe it will be up to the manufacturer of the laptop whether they want it enabled in the first place and then it will be up to the user if they want to turn it on.
 
hi guys, im new here and i dont know anything about the technical side of computers, i just know how to use them. my system is a 1.2mhz duron with 512 RAM and a sucky ancient nvidea riva tnt. i need a new card for the upcoming half life 2, doom3 and rome total war, next gen. games n stuff. ive been doing research on graphics cards for 2 days now and have narrowed it down to a ati 9500 pro or a ati 9600 pro, (i think 9800 is out because its so expensive and my pc is old now, so the performance will probably bottleneck from the 1.2hmz processor.. making it a very expensive 9500 pro). can you guys PLEASE help me??? someone told me to get a 9600 pro cuz its fully directX9, and apparently the 9500 pro isnt DX9 with its hardware or sumin? but i saw online that the 9500 Pro beats the 9600 pro in most performances!! is that just for now and the 9600 pro will get better with new DX9 games or will it always be the loser? i was now thinking about getting a 9600 Pro and then just overclocking it... but i dont know how hard that is... ive never done it.. im a total newb here, is it even legal?? will i need more cooling? power? i dont know. tell me what i should get... 9500 pro or a 9600 pro and over clock it or something? thank you so much for your help! please speak in english too ;) not up on my DIMMs and AGPs ;). ~ Phil
 
Trawler said:
I take it Overdrive only kicks in if you're plugged in to the mains? I know nothing about laptop power consumption, but it sounds to me that you wouldn't want the 9600 running close to it's full desktop clock if you're running on batteries. Anyone know ? (sorry, going real OT here)
Click to expand...

As a feature available only in mobile configurations, I would agree this is a feature designed to minimize power consumption. I would think that the lower the clock (just as with cpus) the lower the power consumption.
 
thanks wavey dave.. but if thats true... then what in gods name is the point in the 9600?? lol. should i snap up a 9500 as fast as i can before they become extinct? does 9500 have AA and all that new stuff?
 
00fil00 said:
thanks wavey dave.. but if thats true... then what in gods name is the point in the 9600?? lol. should i snap up a 9500 as fast as i can before they become extinct? does 9500 have AA and all that new stuff?
Click to expand...
this is an old question. The 9500 non-pro uses the same chip as the 9700, but with half the pixel pipelines disabled (if you're lucky you can reenable them). The 9500pro has all 8 pixel pipelines, but only a 128bit memory bus. Thus, it's an expensive chip, it draws a lot of power etc. The 9600 is much cheaper for ATI to produce (as it doesn't have the extra pipelines). If you're comparing the 9600 non-pro to the 9500 non-pro (though there are two 9500 non-pro, some with 128bit memory, some with 256bit), they are very similar in performance, and unless you're a modder I'd recommend the 9600 (draws less power, nice passive heatsink). If you're comparing the 9600pro with the 9500pro, then the 9500pro will be faster for almost anything (this includes overclocked scores). Still, the 9600pro draws less power, is thus a better fit for silent pcs and I believe also less expensive.
 
im sorry its an old question, i thought it would be but its very hard to find what you want in this forum.
so if you take a 9500 pro and over clock it.. and take a 9600 pro and overclock it.. 9500 pro wins still? i saw a graph that shows the 9600pro beating the 9500pro, both were OCed. how hard is it to overclock? i heard 9500pros were locked.. i know 0 about overclocking.. would i risk breaking my card? and if its overclocked does it need more cooling and power? thanks for the help guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
A17 Pro interview
Replies
17
Views
4K
Chiimaero
C
W
Apple Vision Pro
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
16K
xz321zx
X
I
Apple M2, M2 Pro, and M2 Max SoCs
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
37K
Wesker
W
W
Radeon software, legacy and current product together?
Replies
10
Views
2K
WhiningKhan
W
I
Apple A16 SoC
Replies
1
Views
3K
Entropy
E
Back
Top