Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz?

Tags:
  • Hardware
  • Radeon
  • ATI
  • Overclocking
Last response: in Overclocking
Share
April 1, 2005 2:30:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Just wondering if any hardware gurus have ever tried making an
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro stable at overclocked AGP speeds? I
have a BX-133MHz system and the 9700 croaks at much over
66MHz.

Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
to an Nvidia card?

More about : ati radeon 9700 pro make stable 89mhz

April 1, 2005 9:41:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Rick wrote:
> Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
> to an Nvidia card?
>
>

No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.

--
Glitches are BAD...
....Get Firefox!
www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

ICQ:275699535
April 1, 2005 10:26:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Glitch" <Glitch_120@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:D 2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> Rick wrote:
> > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
> > to an Nvidia card?
> >
> >
>
> No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
> has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
> nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.

Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.

Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 1, 2005 11:22:01 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Rick wrote:
> "Glitch" <Glitch_120@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:D 2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>>Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
>>>to an Nvidia card?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
>>has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
>>nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
>
>
> Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
> at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
> GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.

IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them
faster on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops out around
92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.

P2B

> Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
> appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 1, 2005 11:58:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Glitch" <Glitch_120@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:D 2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> > Rick wrote:
> > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
> > > to an Nvidia card?
> > >
> > >
> >
> > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
> > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
> > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
>
> Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
> at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
> GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
>
> Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
> appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
>
>
>
>

the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card. i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.

dr ratt
April 2, 2005 12:35:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424d99f4$0$29905$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "Glitch" <Glitch_120@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:D 2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> > > Rick wrote:
> > > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
> > > > to an Nvidia card?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
> > > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
> > > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
> >
> > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
> > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
> > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
> >
> > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
> > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card.

No it isn't:
http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro...

> i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
> or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.

Either you have an OEM card (some don't support 2X) or
something is wrong with your system/AGP driver.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 2:35:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2gi3e.1824$EE2.1714@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424d99f4$0$29905$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >
> > "Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > "Glitch" <Glitch_120@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:D 2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
> > > > Rick wrote:
> > > > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
> > > > > to an Nvidia card?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no
card
> > > > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
> > > > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
> > >
> > > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
> > > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
> > > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
> > >
> > > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
> > > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card.
>
> No it isn't:
> http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro...
>
> > i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
> > or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.
>
> Either you have an OEM card (some don't support 2X) or
> something is wrong with your system/AGP driver.
>
>

no on all counts.
its a genuine ati card.
system is purring. fresh install 3 weeks ago. i clock around 16k5 on
3dmarl01se, 5k2 on 3d03 and 2k3 on 3d05; call of duty, far cry, doom 3 &
hl2/cs.s all run perfectly well in 1280x1024 [lcd monitor], thank you. rest
of system = xp3000, abit nf7 sg2, 512 dc corsair value kit, terratec aureon
5.1. xpprosp1+updates, dx9.0c, cat5.2. stock speeds, zalman copper flower +
big fan at <=1500 rpm, temps all around 32 idle, 36ish after 6hrs cs.s. oh,
arctic cooler on 9700pro, running low speed.
everything rosie in device manager.
considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
a machine as you describe?
incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
envelope, then tough.

dr ratt
April 2, 2005 2:35:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
> would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
> a machine as you describe?

Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.

Damned right ATI should have made it work.

> incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
> that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
> bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
> envelope, then tough.

In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
Nvidia.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 2:35:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Rick wrote:

> "dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
>>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
>>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
>>a machine as you describe?
>
>
> Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
> was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
> Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
> earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.

There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
BX chipsets.


> Damned right ATI should have made it work.

AGP specification is 66.6 MHz. It *does* work when the motherboard provides
a proper AGP port.


>>incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
>>that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
>>bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
>>envelope, then tough.
>
>
> In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
> still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
> Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
> 9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
> Nvidia.
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EBj3e.3408$x4.1037@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> > considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
> > would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so
pitiful
> > a machine as you describe?
>
> Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
> was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
> Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
> earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
>
> Damned right ATI should have made it work.
>
> > incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in,
but
> > that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
> > bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
> > envelope, then tough.
>
> In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
> still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
> Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
> 9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
> Nvidia.
>
>

sorry to burst your bubble but new gfx/sound/whatever cards [regardless of
manufacturer] are aimed at new chipsets, not what's current but surpassed,
that's just the computer business.
if you're happier running an nvidia that's your business & prerogative. my
experience is that the 9700pro is the ONLY gfx card i haven't had a problem
with since voodoo 3 [i'm not counting that it should've been full 32bit
colour, it performed to spec perfectly]. driver support is {&was for v3}
excellent and reliable; ie new drivers work & aren't a waste of download
bandwidth.
from v3, i went to tnt2, gf2, then gf3, then gf4 then the ati. in essence i
went from upgrading video roughly every year [with nvidia]to, well, i've
been on this 9700pro about 2.5 years now.
fx5900 =150% of 9700 performance, only on your rig, m8. put it in a real
board & post the results [3d01/03/05] at standard settings. [refresh my
memory - the gf5 series cards aren't dx9, yes/no?]
even though i feel like i want a new game rig right now [bugger drops below
30fps if i want more than 7 bots on cs.s], i'm waiting for ati's mvp for
amd64 rather than spend my money now on an nf4-sli & 2xgf6800ultra system,
that's how happy i am with ati.
also, as someone else said, i'll pay you postage for that trash.
i'll put money where my mouth is, how about you put a gfx card where yours
is?

dr ratt
April 2, 2005 4:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
> Rick wrote:
>
> > "dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >
> >>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
> >>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
> >>a machine as you describe?
> >
> >
> > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
> > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
> > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
> > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
>
> There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
> was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
> a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
> That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
> may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
> BX chipsets.

I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems. Used P3/100FSB
CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.

As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:39:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Rick wrote:

> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
>>>>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
>>>>a machine as you describe?
>>>
>>>
>>>Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
>>>was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
>>>Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
>>>earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
>>
>>There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
>>was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
>>a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
>>That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
>>may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
>>BX chipsets.
>
>
> I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
> still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems.

I've done so myself. But it isn't "fully supported" because it can't be.

> Used P3/100FSB
> CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
> GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
> run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
> My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.
>
> As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
> zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
> series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
> shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.

A card is not required to operate on anything other than a proper AGP port
so it's a bit disingenuous to claim 'cut corners' when the card fails to
operate 35% faster, if that's really the problem, than what it's intended for.

However, it's not uncommon for cards to operate at 'higher' frequencies
especially when you're running a card with a higher AGP rating than the
motherboard. I.E. a 4x card on a 2x AGP port, like a BX chipset, because
the card is designed to tighter timings, for the 4x capability, that
compensate for the higher clock speed at the *lower* x rating.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:48:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"dr ratt" wrote in part:
"Damned right ATI should have made it work."...
and
"ATI obviously cut corners where they shouldn't have."

And if wishes were horses...

Phil Weldon



"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IQl3e.1918$EE2.101@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>> > <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> >
>> >>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati
>> >>engineer
>> >>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so
>> >>pitiful
>> >>a machine as you describe?
>> >
>> >
>> > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
>> > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
>> > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
>> > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
>>
>> There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say
>> it
>> was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not
>> support
>> a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
>> That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board
>> manufacturer
>> may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB"
>> Intel
>> BX chipsets.
>
> I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
> still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems. Used P3/100FSB
> CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
> GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
> run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
> My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.
>
> As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
> zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
> series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
> shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 6:21:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
news:7Zl3e.2080$44.487@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "dr ratt" wrote in part:
> "Damned right ATI should have made it work."...
> and
> "ATI obviously cut corners where they shouldn't have."
>
> And if wishes were horses...
>
> Phil Weldon
>

i never said that

dr ratt
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 6:37:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"dr ratt" wrote in part:
" i never said that"
and he's right.

"Rick" wrote that.

My appologies to "dr. ratt".



"dr ratt" <spamsum1else@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424df3a8$0$5481$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
> news:7Zl3e.2080$44.487@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "dr ratt" wrote in part:
>> "Damned right ATI should have made it work."...
>> and
>> "ATI obviously cut corners where they shouldn't have."
>>
>> And if wishes were horses...
>>
>> Phil Weldon
>>
>
> i never said that
>
> dr ratt
>
>
April 2, 2005 2:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message news:114skpk9qsvar8d@corp.supernews.com...
> Did you do any research on the card to see how likely it was to operate in
> whatever non-normal manner you were going to try?

No, and that was my fault. Since 1999 I've had such consistent
success running AGP cards at 89Mhz, everything from a Matrox
G400 Max to a G450 to a GeForce 1-DDR, GF2, GF3, GF4
and a few others I can't recall offhand, that I just assumed a
$350 ATI card would run as well. My mistake.

Anyway AFAIC the issue is resolved. Not only is this FX 5900
Ultra faster than the 9700 Pro, it's running perfectly at 89Mhz.
I even tried 100Mhz (1/1 AGP on a P3-100FSB system),
*still* no hangs. Gotta love it. And 2D image quality is better.
Not to mention the driver features.. e.g. display calibration,
custom resolutions/refresh rates etc, none of which are even
available in ATI's driver.

I'm a happy camper, and learned my lesson (yet again) about
ATI.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:39:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Rick" <nospam@earthlink.net> wrote in message...
> No, and that was my fault.

Yes.

> Since 1999 I've had such consistent success running AGP cards at
> 89Mhz, everything from a Matrox G400 Max to a G450 to a
> GeForce 1-DDR, GF2, GF3, GF4 and a few others I can't recall
> offhand, that I just assumed a $350 ATI card would run as well.

Remember, assumption is the mother of all f**k-up's.

> My mistake.

Indeed it is. As others have said, there's nothing guaranteed in the world
of overclocking. Just because all those other cards you tried happened to
run successfully on overclocked AGP buses does not automatically imply that
any card you buy next will.

BTW, the way you splurted out the "fully supported at 133FSB" BX board
comment, and then tried to run away from it, was disengenuous, at the very
least. ;) 

> I'm a happy camper, and learned my lesson (yet again) about
> ATI.

Erm, no. That's the wrong lesson completely. Try again.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:43:30 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"P2B" <p2b@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:JAl3e.5987$x8.1053268@news20.bellglobal.com...
> IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them faster
> on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops
> out around 92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.

Ah, those were the days! FWIW, the Matrox G400 Max I'm still running on my
trusty old BE6-II 2.0 system will happily handle AGP speeds in excess of
111MHz. Don't know what it's limit is as I never got round to running the
bus at 1/1 and checking what speed it croaked. :) 
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace nospam with pipex in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 4:43:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Richard Hopkins wrote:

> "P2B" <p2b@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:JAl3e.5987$x8.1053268@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>> IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them
>> faster on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops
>> out around 92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.
>
>
> Ah, those were the days! FWIW, the Matrox G400 Max I'm still running on
> my trusty old BE6-II 2.0 system will happily handle AGP speeds in excess
> of 111MHz. Don't know what it's limit is as I never got round to running
> the bus at 1/1 and checking what speed it croaked. :) 

Interesting. My P2B-DS has a G400 DualHead which runs perfectly at
89Mhz, but I get occasional artifacts and rare freezes if I push it to
94Mhz.

P2B
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 2, 2005 10:25:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Am I correct in assuming that, if anything, an AGP adapter would run more
slowly if the AGP bus is overclocked, since the AGP clock has no effect on
the GPU or on board memory?

Phil Weldon

"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:424e851c$0$302$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "P2B" <p2b@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:JAl3e.5987$x8.1053268@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them faster
>> on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops
>> out around 92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.
>
> Ah, those were the days! FWIW, the Matrox G400 Max I'm still running on my
> trusty old BE6-II 2.0 system will happily handle AGP speeds in excess of
> 111MHz. Don't know what it's limit is as I never got round to running the
> bus at 1/1 and checking what speed it croaked. :) 
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace nospam with pipex in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
April 3, 2005 6:08:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
news:8An3e.10300$z.7302@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "dr ratt" wrote in part:
> " i never said that"
> and he's right.
>
> "Rick" wrote that.
>
> My appologies to "dr. ratt".

thank you

dr ratt
December 25, 2005 6:49:02 PM

Wow i've never seen such moronic posts.

The card is spec to run at 66mhz AGP, you are faulting ati cause u can't run it out of spec.

And show me some benchmarks of a 5900 beating a 9700pro.
December 25, 2005 7:47:42 PM

Overclocking a 9700 pro is a bad idea anyway as they are prone to failure. Myself and all my friends that had 9700 pro's all had to have them relpaced on warrenty. They could overclock a bunch but overheat easy.
!