NVidia O/C

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi,

I have overclocked my NVidia GF FX5950 Ultra graphics card using the
coolbits reg trick but randomly the memory clock frequency reverts back to
its default setting. The "Apply these settings at startup" box is ticked and
I allow NvCpDaemon, nwiz and NVIDIA Display Driver Service to run at
startup.

cheers

Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Andrew Bailey wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have overclocked my NVidia GF FX5950 Ultra graphics card using the
> coolbits reg trick but randomly the memory clock frequency reverts back to
> its default setting. The "Apply these settings at startup" box is ticked and
> I allow NvCpDaemon, nwiz and NVIDIA Display Driver Service to run at
> startup.
>
> cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>

The Nvidia Display driver service has overclocking ability. If it's set
inactive, it usually has the "no overclocking" option set, along with
"apply these setting at startup". Unfortunately, your coolbits are being
executed first, then the ndds which reverts it back to stock. Either
remove coolbits and o/c your card through
properties/settings/advanced/Geforce/Clock Settings, or set the ndds to
not run after startup, or at bare minimum, not to change clock frequencies.

Hope it helps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Hi Joe,

Thanks for replying but the coolbits reg hack unlocks the overclock panel in
the nvidia properies pane, nothing else.
So I am using the method you describe... what gets me is sometimes the
overclock survives a reboot/shutdown/overnightoff and somesomes it
doesn't... don't you just love the built in "randomness" of windows?

Andy


"Browser Joe" <wrong@nada.com> wrote in message
news:MZ5Kd.8166$mA5.570859@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Andrew Bailey wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have overclocked my NVidia GF FX5950 Ultra graphics card using the
> > coolbits reg trick but randomly the memory clock frequency reverts back
to
> > its default setting. The "Apply these settings at startup" box is ticked
and
> > I allow NvCpDaemon, nwiz and NVIDIA Display Driver Service to run at
> > startup.
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> >
>
> The Nvidia Display driver service has overclocking ability. If it's set
> inactive, it usually has the "no overclocking" option set, along with
> "apply these setting at startup". Unfortunately, your coolbits are being
> executed first, then the ndds which reverts it back to stock. Either
> remove coolbits and o/c your card through
> properties/settings/advanced/Geforce/Clock Settings, or set the ndds to
> not run after startup, or at bare minimum, not to change clock
frequencies.
>
> Hope it helps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Andrew Bailey wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Thanks for replying but the coolbits reg hack unlocks the overclock panel in
> the nvidia properies pane, nothing else.
> So I am using the method you describe... what gets me is sometimes the
> overclock survives a reboot/shutdown/overnightoff and somesomes it
> doesn't... don't you just love the built in "randomness" of windows?
>
> Andy
>
>

That's why I switched to Linux

FWIW, you didn't have to install coolbits to unlock the panel, you could
have downloaded riva tuner. I liked that route better as you can tweak
just about everything on the card.

It's also it's own program, so you don't even need to have the nvidia
display manager load on startup. Which might kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Use Rivatuner, which can do "low-level" overclocking that'll survive crashes
and reboots. The program is also a tweaker, far more intuitive (w/ less
bullshit) than the nVidia control panels. You can even increase the
*precision* of the overclock increments at the cost of stability.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"Andrew Bailey" <andy.j.bailey@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%p2Kd.130$AI.60@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> Hi,
>
> I have overclocked my NVidia GF FX5950 Ultra graphics card using the
> coolbits reg trick but randomly the memory clock frequency reverts back to
> its default setting. The "Apply these settings at startup" box is ticked
and
> I allow NvCpDaemon, nwiz and NVIDIA Display Driver Service to run at
> startup.
>
> cheers
>
> Andy
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

First of One wrote:
> Use Rivatuner, which can do "low-level" overclocking that'll survive crashes
> and reboots. The program is also a tweaker, far more intuitive (w/ less
> bullshit) than the nVidia control panels. You can even increase the
> *precision* of the overclock increments at the cost of stability.
>

I suggested this to him already, he didn't post any results as to wether
it worked or not? Or so to speak, worked well.
Oh well...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Apologies for not getting back sooner, I've been very busy developing my own
company.

I tried the rivatuner but although it would maintain the memory o/c it
wouldn't retain the core o/c so I would have to use the nvidia control panel
and the rivatuner and seeing as I'm the sort of guy that hates excessive
startup programs and have a lot of faith in the nvidia driver programmers I
stopped using it.

The good news is that as of the nvidia 71.84 drivers the issue has been
solved

Andy


"Browser Joe" <haha@no.way> wrote in message
news:xGULd.1811$lw4.475459@news20.bellglobal.com...
> First of One wrote:
>> Use Rivatuner, which can do "low-level" overclocking that'll survive
>> crashes
>> and reboots. The program is also a tweaker, far more intuitive (w/ less
>> bullshit) than the nVidia control panels. You can even increase the
>> *precision* of the overclock increments at the cost of stability.
>>
>
> I suggested this to him already, he didn't post any results as to wether
> it worked or not? Or so to speak, worked well.
> Oh well...
>