Video cards nvidia FX VS Radeon ATI

Superchunk - I'd like to have a run-down on overclocking. I've never actually learnt how to do it. Heard about it, read about it, never done it.

It would be appreciated by me, if by no-one else.

Do you need machine specs or anything like that?

I totally agree with Superchunk. I would pick up a CRT monitor and spend the remaining money on a good graphics card anyday over getting an LCD if you're building a gaming system.

O/Cing is very easy. Just download a utility to do it. With the Ati cards I use "Radclocker" which is just a little utility that's integrated in the ATI Tabs in your display properties. You have two sliders: Core and Memory and their values.
The default values for my graphics card was: 275/270 (core/memory). The core is your graphics chip core (ie. R300 core for Radeon 9500-9700, NV25 for the Geforce4 cores, etc), while the memory are the DDR or normal SDram that your graphics card comes with. So all you do is move the little sliders up and push it as far as you can until your card becomes unstable. Run a few games and see if you see artifacts. If you do, then just ease up on it a bit and lower both your core and memory. When you find a stable state then you could try pushing either the core or memory one at a time and seeing where the max is. For my 9500pro it's 330/297 rock solid (20% core overclock and a measly 10% memory overclock).

Keep in mind that you will need a good heatsink/fan combo on your card in order to push it a good distance because your card will invariably be running hotter than usual. When you see the artifacts stop what your'e doing and lower the speeds or you really might kill something on it.
Another thing you could do is look at your memory chips on the actual card in order to get a general range how far your mem chips can go. Usually there are markings on it denoting the speed of your memory. Mine are rated at 3.3ns by looking at the little numbers printed on the memory chips so therefore, the theoretical maximum my chips are rated for is: 303mhz (1000/3.3 = 303). Knowing this value, it's safe to assume that it won't go too much further than this (although some ppl make it at least 20-30mhz over this theoretical rating--very lucky). You may wonder why I left my memory at 297 instead of 303. This is cuz my card has cheap infineon ram and the moment i go past 300mhz on it, i start to see artifacts in all my games

Which graphics card do you have Forky?

The very same one as Jase has purchased. It's great. No slow down on anything as yet (mind you, it's a 3gig machine).

I'll upgrade when DirectX 9 is a 'needed' feature for about 33% of graphical effects present on games. A little while yet. Some of those pipeline and other specs on the new cards give me goosebumps. Not really, but they're damn powerful. 125 million transistors on a 3D card is droolworthy.

Thanks very much for the info. You teachheads are great. Any idea where I can get a mailwash program to get rid of some the breast enlargement and septic tank cleaning emails I've been recieving on my free yahoo account?

No probs Forky. Happy to help!

And yeah I think at this point it's a good idea to wait if you're in the market for only a new graphics card. The dx9 cards out right now (including the new Radeon 9800XT) while fast, are NOT as fast as they would need to be in order to get the framerates needed to play the new Dx9 games at 60fps+. They play all the semi-new directx8.1 games perfectly, but I've seen them struggle on a few dx9 games.
Right now I think we're at the junction where the new cards are coming out very soon (the ATI R420 core and the new Nvidia NV40) which are suppozedly gonna double the performance of a Radeon 9800pro. It won't be until then that dx9 games will REALLY be playable with all the eye candy on. I'm waiting till at least next summer before I completely overhaul my system (that's only 1.5 years old ).

As for the spam mail stopper, I need one too! Maybe Superchunk or endofanera can recommend one!

Don't get me wrong, advertisements for breast enlargement are useful and all, how else am I supposed to know when there is a good deal happening?

It's just that I don't think that my wife would find the enlargements all that attractive (or necessary).

FYI the human eye doesn't notice any difference in frame rate above 60 fps..........................

FYI the human eye doesn't notice any difference in frame rate above 60 fps..........................

Yes it can and it does. It varies from person to person so maybe you can't.
Easy test: set your monitor on a refresh rate of 60hz and look away from the screen while using your peripheral vision to see the screen. If you see it flicker it shows you can see more than 60fps and is one of the reasons why ppl set refresh rates above 60hz: to reduce eye strain from non-fluid imagery.

If you had said 85fps I would believe you more. The diff between 60 and 85 is smaller than the diff between 35 and 60, but rest assured there is a difference. I do agree if what you're implying is that 60fps is good enough for most ppl.

Good read:
http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/misc/fps/

Last edited by bishibashiboy on Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Re: Overclocking, I will just say that I have really enjoyed using Powerstrip http://66.227.107.157/ps.htm and I think it is the best out there. I actually get a higher overclock with this program than with others.

I would make two suggestions, bishib went over most of it. I just want to point out to only bump a little at a time. It takes a while to get the most out of your system, but it can be fun to do. Same principle applies to cpu overclocking. Bump it up 5 points, and get lower as you go up, 3, 2, 1 until you no longer see any artifacts.

I use 3DMark to benchmark and artifact hunt between each increase. I don't care much about benchmarks, but the nice thing about using 3Dmark is that you will often see artifacts in the same place, and therfore you know exactly what you are looking for and when. It also pushes the card pretty hard, so if you are going to get a crash it is likely to be in that program.

Be careful with overclocking, not about ruining your hardware as it really rarely happens, but about becoming obsessed with it and doing things like spending $350 on a computer case just to get better cooling like I just did

Don't get me wrong, advertisements for breast enlargement are useful and all, how else am I supposed to know when there is a good deal happening?

It's just that I don't think that my wife would find the enlargements all that attractive (or necessary).

Actually I find breast augmentation disgusting, and I think it looks quite fake. I must be the only guy in the world that thinks so.

Anyways one more thing about overclocking. While I'm guilty of doing this as well, IMHO the difference is not all too great and is probably not worth it if you can't get much out of it. The difference before and after I overclock is very small, in the order of 5-8fps max in most games. True I'm not doing it religiously like some ppl that go 100mhz over stock, but if it's trouble-some and causes problems just leave it be. It's such a shame to kill it when it works well already.

Hello, guys. I've been following the thread, especially regarding the video cards. Bishi, Fork, & the rest... here're my comments regarding my brand new GeForce FX5600: I've been playing NBA Live 2003 for a few weeks now and it sucks!!!

I can't play it in maximum settings. I haven't downloaded FRAPS yet but I bet it would play only around 20+ to 30 frames / second on maximum settings.

Additional tidbit, I've downloaded the latest drivers (as I always do). Used the latest DirectX9. Installed the latest motherboard drivers. Here're my specs:
-Athlon XP+2200 (1.8GHz)
-256Mb DDR400 (I've tried 512Mb DDR400 to no avail. I will try 512Mb DDR266 soon since I'm using a FSB of 266MHz only to synchronize my timings.)
-40GB 7200rpm Maxtor
-GeForce FX5600 128Mb DDR
-MSI KT4AV

I'm just wondering... if these specs don't cut it, what more if I play it on NBA Live 2004. Question: Will NBA04 use DirectX9.0b?

hey celticslegend33,

ok..the GeforceFX5600, is not a fast card unless you have the ULTRA version. So that's one problem I can see.
With that being said, have you tried other games with the card? I'm sure it's not as bad as it is in Live 2003 with other games. Live 2003 is just terribly coded and just does not run on many systems too well and in brutal honesty it should run fine with your card. It's just a bad port from the console versions and EA didn't spend time optimizing it. If you really want to get it to run well I can give you a few pointers. But just for comparisons sake, my computer normally runs all my games fine on max settings, but not Live. I get around 30-35fps on max as well which is unplayable for this game.

Another thing you can do is wait for the new Nvidia drivers 52.14 I think. Those really help the FX series (mostly in dx9 games) but may provide a pleasant surprise for older games.

Overall I think your system is alright. You should try to double your ram as 256 is not cutting it anymore. Also DDR266, DDR400 makes no difference in your case since your system's bus is running at 266mhz anyways. Putting in DDR400 will automatically downgrade it to run at DDR266 so you shouldn't have any synchrony problems.

Personally, I won't expect either of our systems to handle Live 2004 at max settings. Not because they're incapable, but simply cuz the Live division does not optimize anymore. That's the real reason we're getting shit framerates (although a faster cpu/mobo/graphics card couldn't hurt ). I'll honestly be pleasantly surprised if it runs on max settings on mine and I'll be the first to commend EA for actually optimizing.

Last note, my guess is Dx9.0b will probably be required and will be part of installation. I highly doubt that they'll be using any dx9 effects (eg. Pixel Shader 2.0) however, so I wouldn't worry. The X-box is only capable of PS1.1-1.3 (roughly) and since this is a port....do YOU think they'll spend more time making the graphics look better? Didn't think so.

Bishi,

Thought so. I've always tried to upgrade my system (without cleaning my bank account) just so I could play NBA Live with near-maxxed settings. Unfortunately, I've never been able to do that.

Since you've been discussing with Forky about flashing video cards, is it possible to flash my FX5600 to an FX5600 Ultra? Your conversation has got me wondering.

I will be getting the 512Mb DDR266 this weekend. There's not much difference between a DDR266 and a DDR400 anyways (as with the price here in the Philippines). That'll help, sure.

Anyways, looks like I'm stuck with my FX5600. Unless I get to trade with someone who has a Ti4400, Ti4600, or a Ti4800SE 8x.

I think the best way to get Live 2003 to run at max settings is literally get the fastest cpu you can get your hands on. The game is quite cpu bound. I o/c'd my Radeon by quite a bit and gained at most 5-7fps. Overclocking my cpu by 60mhz on the other hand produced around 15fps more on avg. My brother's computer is another example. He has a 2400+ with a Radeon 9100 while I have an XP1800+ and a 9500pro. He gets ALMOST the same framerates as me which is surprising considering my card beats the hell out of the 9100 by quite a margin in most games.

You might be able to overclock your graphics card to ULTRA levels. I can't find much info on the 5600non-ultra but my general consensus was that it's just a lower clocked model with slower memory. If this is true, you could just use Powerstrip and overclock it as far as you can near ULTRA speeds. You don't need to flash your bios.

Hmm..you might want to consider getting DDR400 instead if the price is about the same. That way, in case you DO upgrade your motherboard you won't be stuck with DDR266 memory.

hehe trade with cocobee!

I've read in Tom's Hardware Guide it's better to have a lower DDR frequency so the timings are the same. It may, at times, prove to be a drawback using a DDR400 instead of DDR266. That's why I'm considering downgrading to a DDR400. You can try searching for the article in Tom's Hardware, memory section.

In case I do upgrade, it'll probably take a while before I upgrade my processor alone. (try FSB333MHz, I'm still in 266MHz and it's brand new!)

Price difference between a DDR400 & a DDR266 is around Php500. Php55 = $1. You do the math!

As for overclocking, are you sure it's harmless? I mean, overclock it to ULTRA levels is pretty far out for my FX5600, don't you think? Hmmm.. maybe after I've tried playing Live '04.

I'll have to check the thing out about the memory. Maybe someone else can help with this. Personally, I dont' think it makes that big a diff. In my own computer, I overclock my FSB to 140 (effectively 280) while my memory is still at 266. The sync is not a problem and my overall computer is faster than having my FSB at 266, so IMHO any penalty you pay for having an un-synched FSB/memory is not too great for systems based on a DDR266 board. I DO know in P4 systems, it would make a large difference if you unsynched it enough.
The only other time where I think it's important to have your memory synched with your fsb is when you're running dual channel mode (on P4's), but since your FSB running at 266 anyways, I don't think that's an option.

I still think it's worth it to buy DDR400 over DDR266 at this point even if your comp's FSB is at 266. But it's up to you!

Well you shouldn't over-do the overclocking if that's what you're saying. You should only go as far as your conditions can handle (ie. case temperature, card temperature, the FX's memory, adequate fan, etc.). Overclocking IS safe, as long as you know what you're doing and don't push it too far (ie. when you see artifacts stop).
From what I've heard, it's very hard to reach Ultra levels with a non-ultra card simply cuz the memory is much slower on the non-ultras.

Bashi is right. Go for the DDR400. However, he is only technically right.

Here I go again, bashing Bishi's tech-head tendancies.

The difference that DDR400 will make over DDR266 is negligable with a FSB that only runs at 266. There might be a few micro-seconds here and there, but I doubt heavily that you will notice. However, upgrade your FSB to the 800 and you'll be laughing. However, you may also be crying because your bank balance has in fact been cleaned right out!

Hey, Bishi - while we're here and talking specs (as we have been doing for the last 2 weeks) what can you tell me about this latest HT technology from Intel (I believe that HT stands for Hyper Threading and I have a vague idea about it). I mean I can look at the intel site for info but what I'm after is a third party review and investigation. You're in the know - any help?

The reason I ask is I've just bought a new system with the HT chipset. Here are the specs (in case you were wondering):

Intel P4 2.8gig HT
512 DDR333 RAM
ATI Radeon 9200 128MB (kept this from last machine)
80 gig 7200rpm HD
800FSB

(basic specs - can give more but I they're irrelevent)

Oh, and where are my manners?!?!

Thanks in advance, Bashi.

Hey Forky, no need to thank!

Yep totally agree with what you said. He would have to basically switch to Intel or buy the new nvidia nforce3 chipset. In both cases there's nothing left to do but cry

As for your question, I don't use a P4 with HT technology myself so take my comments with a grain of salt. The computer I helped assemble for my dad is actually using the same P4 2.8 as you have. Basically, I think the technology is a gimmick, something to brag about but not something to likely double your overall performance in everything by any means. Here's a VERY brief rundown of what it does. Basically, when your computer needs to do something a thread is issued to it. The cpu normally can only carry out one thread at a time. With hyperthreading multiple threads are received and they thus the cpu can perform them simultaneously. I think the problem is that you're taxing the cpu more since it's receiving more threads, therefore there's a possibility of slowdown as well.
Overall though, from everything I've read (very briefly might I add), it DOES improve performance quite a bit in certain apps (encoding), while decreasing performance only very rarely. I know that doesn't really help what you're asking but that's the best answer I can give. You'd probably be better off reading this to get a better idea:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1746&p=3

It's a lil on the wordy side, but it's better than anything else I can tell you and is also probably better than going to intel's website since they have a biased opinion to their tech obviously. Honestly I don't think it helps gamers that much.

Hey just wondering, what motherboard do you have? How come you're only using DDR333?

Bishi and Forky,

Referring to FSB:RAM ratio or relationship:

"Now all these subsystems running at different speeds have to do is work together. When we used the 333-MHz FSB clock speed for the Athlon XP 3000+ with DDR333 memory in the test, we discovered that data can be exchanged one-to-one between the processor and RAM every clock cycle. If you use DDR266 or DDR400, however, the FSB and main memory no longer run synchronously. So combining fast FSB with slower RAM, or vice versa, will increase the amount of management to be done and create wait states. We call this relationship the FSB:RAM ratio. Recent experience has shown time and again that this ratio is a big factor in overall performance, since only rarely does a faster clocked RAM improve performance."

- Tom's Hardware Guide, http://www6.tomshardware.com/motherboar ... 66-01.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was talking about earlier.
Maybe my English isn't good enough.

HyperThreading, contrary to what Bishi just said, it does help out in games just as much. I'm not going to any technicals regarding this one. Instead, I'll try to explain what I have recalled in an article in Tom's Hardware Guide as best as I can.

Normally, like what Bishi just told you, an ordinary CPU can only carry a single thread to perform its tasks. In HyperThreading, the system is 'tricked' into having two CPUs (much like dual processors) operating under (ie.) Windows XP. Now, imagine yourself playing a game with multiple 'bots'. And having HT is like having two brains inside your computer. Obviously, more brains in your computer = more thinking bots in your game. Somehow, or somewhere, along the line, computer AI can be improved vastly through better coding from game developers. This results in better AI response in your game.

Ever tried playing against bots in Half-Life/Counterstrike and notice how stupid bots are?

I'm an avid fan of Athlon. If I were to jump from AMD to Intel, I'd guess it'd be because of Intel's HyperThreading feature. I hope I made sense.

Hey celticslegend

ok I think I know what you're getting at. I'm not sure if Tomshardware is telling everything though. I think in their example they're intentionally leaving the FSB unsynched from the mem but in practice, I think it's possible to sync it. From my experience by putting DDR400 (200mhz) into your machine that's only capable of running the FSB at 266 (133mhz), the motherboard will automatically adjust the ddr ram speed (or you could do so yourself) so that it's running at 133mhz (DDr266) rather than 200mhz (DDr400). Therefore, in effect you ARE running synchronously by putting DDR400 into a motherboard running at an FSB of 266mhz because you (or the bios) will automatically select 266mhz for the DDR400 mem. DDR333 and DDR400 is backwards compatible with DDR266 in this way, therefore, there is no penalty in putting faster ram into your computer if configured properly. The ONLY drawback is if the DDR400 ram has a latency of Cas2.5 or Cas3 while the ddr266 ram is Cas2. In this case the ddr266 will definitely be faster.
If you intend on running your FSB at 333mhz (166 internally) and using DDR400 memory (200mhz internally), then yes you are introducing wait states. Just make sure you configure the ram properly and you would have no problem.

Now using my own computer as an example. My computer is an Athlon XP 1800+ and by default the settings are: 133mhz(266fsb)x11.5 = 1.53Ghz. When I overclock, I set my FSB at 140mhz (280fsb) while my mem still runs at 133mhz (DDr266 speeds). This is unsynched, but the overall clock speed gain (1.53Ghz --> 1.61Ghz) is enough to overcome the fact that my memory is unsynched from my FSB. Everything: benchmarks, games, blah blah blah is faster in the end. Whatever performance i lose as a result of memory latencies is made up for in raw clock speed. This is why I say it varies from situation to situation. In general yes unsynched is not good, but it's up for you to play around with it to find out.

Correct me if i'm wrong please someone, but I'm QUITE sure that there is no performance penalty of buying DDR400 and putting it in a 266mhz FSB motherboard PROVIDED you adjust your ddr speed down to 266mhz.

As far as hyperthreading and games go, I have yet to see a game really benefit from it. Theoretically a game on a P4 should blow away the same game on an Athlon XP of comparable speed. This is NOT the case though. That's why I say HT is useless in games (as of right now). True, maybe the games don't support it yet, but remember, AMD has something similar too called Hyper Transport so it evens out.

Actually I thought about it again and it makes more sense if I give a better example. Assuming we have your system (FSB 266) and we buy DDR400 memory. On your motherboard you have different dividers (3:2, 1:1, 5:4, etc.). If you buy DDR400 ram this is what you would do:
Leave your FSB at 266mhz
Put in your DDR400 ram in
Go into your bios and adjust your dividers to 3:2
Therefore, effectively your DDR400 will run at 133mhz due to the divider (200/3 x 2) = 133 mhz = DDR266.
This means you will be running synchronously now.

I hope this clears it up for you!

Bishi,

Now I know what you mean. You're saying I have configure it through BIOS settings so I'll be able to use my DDR400 down to DDR266, right? Unfortunately for my DDR, it only has a CAS latency of 3. My previous Kingmax 512Mb DDR400 only has a CAS3. I've tried pulling it down to CAS2 only to end up with a dead board (I short-circuited my BIOS already). I think it can only handle CAS2.5.

Funny now that we're talking about memory settings. I doubt if it would help us much in NBA Live 2004. Moreover, you overclocking your FSB has got me curious if I should overclock my FSB as well. I'm not sure if my processor & motherboard (Athlon XP+2200 & MSI KT4AV) can handle it. I'm only using a standard heat sink plus two in&out fans. Sometimes I leave my ATX casing open.

As for HyperThreading, so far I haven't seen any games designed for it. But based from the pictures I saw in Tom's Hardware (or at least through their 'unbiased' research), there's a slight improvement using HT (graphic-wise). I can't recall what games they were using. I think it's UT2003. I'm not sure if those developers would add HT codes in their games still. Future games should.

I'm not familiar with HyperTransport. What does it do? So far, the newest Athlon I've heard is Athlon 64.

Actually I thought about it again and it makes more sense if I give a better example. Assuming we have your system (FSB 266) and we buy DDR400 memory. On your motherboard you have different dividers (3:2, 1:1, 5:4, etc.). If you buy DDR400 ram this is what you would do:
Leave your FSB at 266mhz
Put in your DDR400 ram in
Go into your bios and adjust your dividers to 3:2
Therefore, effectively your DDR400 will run at 133mhz due to the divider (200/3 x 2) = 133 mhz = DDR266.
This means you will be running synchronously now.

I hope this clears it up for you!

I got it. Strange, how come I haven't thought of this before? I mean, I've tried tinking with CAS latency, etc., etc... but haven't tried 'downgrading' my DDR400.

Still, having only CAS3 is bothersome for me. I can't seem to find myself a CAS2 DDR! (I'm scared of overclocking my FSB & video card and risk losing my warranty! )

Yup I'm pretty sure by 'downgrading' your memory it will work fine. I'm not sure if your motherboard supports this so maybe you should check it (i know mine has no dividers for FSB:DDR). Failing that, then just do what you intended to do to begin with and just buy DDR266, less hassle.

Actually, ppl normally overclock by upping their FSB, simply cuz that's the easiest way if you don't have a motherboard that unlocks the multipliers. I use my stock HSF simply cuz I'm too lazy to replace the HSF with a better one since my cpu won't o/c very far at all. You could try using yours the way it is as well. Just don't over-do it!

Hmm...is Cas2.5 rare where you live? Because it's pretty much mainstream where i am, while Cas2 is more rare and has a price premium.

As far as 'HyperTransport' I don't know the details. I skimmed thru it a long time ago, and my general impression is that it's on the Athlon 64 and that it's similar to HyperThreading (only AMD style!).

By default, it's in 100MHz. The board will automatically detect it as XP1600 (I think) at 100MHz. Right now, it's set in 133MHz, which will make it XP2200 and DDR400. I forgot what DDR the BIOS displays when set at 100MHz (DDR266, DDR333?).

How do I know when is enough? How about I try setting it at 166MHz right away?

Here in the Philippines, either I don't look enough or there aren't many here with CAS2.5. So far, the only CAS2 & CAS2.5 I've been seeing are bought from the US (or other countries).