I have the same results as Mr K6. I've tried 2 or 3 times with the same results:
- no difference in max stable OC
- no difference in Vcore (DMM)
:shrug:
Printable View
I have the same results as Mr K6. I've tried 2 or 3 times with the same results:
- no difference in max stable OC
- no difference in Vcore (DMM)
:shrug:
Our poor that the Diamond, who promised a Graphics Card runing the 800/4400Mhz, for the most unfortunate of all artifacts it after 1hr in ATiTool or simply disconnected with 20 ~ + / - FurMark minutes of the Diamond erred ugly this time.
Some cases the owners of 4870 managed to 815/4400Mhz (which was not my case) with a graphics card in Stock Voltages.
Oh I ask myself:
How to set up a graphics card that without even before launching test the stability of it?
-
Some Pencil Mod for the memory could make it runing the 4400 +?
(Sorry for my Bad English :D)
The other odd thing is my voltages don't vary nearly that much between idle and load; usually I'm at ~1.259V at idle and ~1.265V at load. Also, my voltages aren't that high at load or idle, they in the card's stock 1.263V range. I'm definitely flashing correctly, I've flashed a lot of cards before. I boot into DOS and use ATIFlash, and I have to force it or it will give an error. The card is definitely flashed as the clocks change in the CCC as well as in the BIOS download.Quote:
Originally Posted by LuxZg
I am starting to think there really are significant build differences between these cards...manufacturer to manufacturer the results seem to be different with the same BIOS even if the cards are reference design (therefore same hardware)
I've got one person getting higher memory clocks, but not GPU. So I'd agree with dejanh, seems that there are some differences in cards after all. Ok, my 1,3V+ measurements could be due to badly calibrated multimeter, but I still get always the same range with one BIOS and +0,02V with this new XOC.
Also, don't bother with Everest/GPUZ readings, they always display fixed value, even when I'm on 1,083V (with other BIOS). You can check amps in 2D, they should increase if voltage is higher, but it also depends on the 2D clocks as well..
I'm not sure about this thing, but I know for certain that I did measure higher GPU voltage..
Rename FurMark.exe to something like test.exe and run it then, you'll be pleasantly supriced. :) I get 82A and rock solid instability after that. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
CraptacularOne
You Volt Moded 4870 ?
If you look at the fps there genius, you'll see that the card is not throttling down. When the exe is named "furmark.exe" the fps drop significantly from the displayed numbers. Which can only mean one thing: I obviously already knew this and renamed the .exe :slap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirton
LOL, if you are so bright than why do I get average 335fps with 735/1150 clocks and you get 184fps with 900/1250 on the same resolution? pwnd!
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7...1150ax4.th.jpg
Ok, I rename exe to furmark and instantly get 155fps and stability up to 895MHz. :D
@Dirton - you are beating a dead horse man...his clocks have already been debunked. Everyone here called for him to give proof. None came...
I guess this just added insult to injury though lol :p:
Let him be...
"Pwnd", "debunked"? Hardly, it's called not lowering myself to a trolls level and continuing to argue with you idiots. And for what it's worth, your resolution is not the same as what I was using. And I too can boost the fps by lowering the IQ settings in the control panel. And if you had any clue, you'd see that my minumum fps are much higher than yours. Also you do not disclose your CPU speed, what drivers nothing. But I'm "pwnd"? No, you sir are an ignorant troll just like the other one.
And the reason I am no longer willing to help here is because of this. You two are such pieces of forum trash, that I do not care to help you any further by posting any information about my card. There are people in this very thread that are seeing 895Mhz core, I guess he is "pwnd" as well....
ORLY? I'm looking on both screenshots and it surly looks like you were running 640x480. Correct me if I’m wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
For starters it’s called AI, mipmap detail setting…, but not IQ. ;) I'm, for instance, using default Catalyst settings, and even if I try making everything as high as possible it still won't even come near as low as 150fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
It doesn't mean anything, the minimums FPS can be a result of anything but not video adapter. When I was running the test two incenses of uttorent were trashing my hard drive and Kaspersky antivirus was also running in memory. If I close all of them the minimum FPS jumps up to 260. Hope there is no need in posting second screenshot because it's obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
If you are to run FurMark and get results closer to normal and not "throttled ones" that would be reason to believe, for now your 100% stable 900MHz OC does seem to look like fake. I know some people with 4870 and all of them had OC results with stock cooling and default core voltage 845+-10MHz and also had FurMark with results real close to one I posted above. And now you are saying you have 900MHz, well, at least we need a proof to believe that. And the furmark run you posted definitely looks like a throttled one.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraptacularOne
How come you, sir, are called “Xtreme Enthusiast”? You can’t even argument your negotiation to the strong fact properly and instead you tend to insult other members of this community. “Xtremely in kinder garden”
note example here (taken from his original SS)Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1...0ls3am0.th.jpg
^^^640x480
Again, I bet Mr. CraptacularOne was talking about the other guy in post here, he's most likely running 1440x800. Unfortunately I can't set resolution like that, but 1280x1024 by pixel count is even higher and I also get 110 average instead of 58. Well, to be honest, ATI driver team is more to be blamed for all of this.
If I don't rename the exe my fps are a lot lower than what I was getting and test stutters. The fps are much higher when I named the exe to blah.exe. If you trolls don't believe me I honestly don't care. I ask you again: What would I possibly stand to gain by making it up? Nothing that's what.
Guys, would you all just chill out a bit. If you can't agree on something, just leave it alone.
I modded my Powercolor HD4870´s bios to 850mhz core and 1100mhz mem. It works like a charm. Had a crash at 890mhz. Could not complete 3Dmark06 at 870/1100. 860/1100mhz was the most stable clock i could run 3Dmark06. So my question is how high can one push the core. My HD 4870 is under water and is running at 35~36°c idle 45~50°c load. I want to push it higher but i guess the voltage is holding me back. I need help on how to add more volts to this card. Or is the 990mhz core just totally impossible with these cards.
It's possible, but you'll need a volt mod and some great cooling (great water cooling at the least).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shocker003
Also, to all those who think they have their cards clocked so high at 880+, try running an application that's actually intense, like Crysis or something. There's a reason I'm staying at 840 for my max clock - it's actually is stable :).
Hi guys!
I have a question. I have to bench with sapphire 4870 v-modded and i would like to know if there is a performance difference with original sapphire bios or diamond bios (not only gpu&memory frequenze). I will put my 4870 under LN2 :D
/sorry for my bad english :)
Am watercooling mine and it idles at 30~31°c with room temp @19°c.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. K6
I assume you are right cos i found out that At core-850/mem-1100 and 840~850/1000, i had artifacts while testing these speed with ATItool. At 860/1100, could pull 16k+ in 3Dmark06 and i never had a crash while playing crysis, but atimes i had winter under the water:shocked: Well am currently running at 820/1000mhz as i don´t intend volt modding and it is free from artifacts.
Does anyone know if I can flash this onto a Palit 4870 sonic?
I would not recommend it personally. I did not try it myself as the different design of that card may not like the XOC/TOP BIOS.Quote:
Originally Posted by riverred
is there any bios version that increases the vGPU?
damn im having problems with my sappphire cant even clock it 25mhz:P
is it the diamond xoc be card or asus top?Quote:
Originally Posted by I34z1k
ANYONE CAN UPLOAD THIS FILE ? PLEAZEE, i cannot download it from my home ...THANX ALOTQuote:
Originally Posted by IRONBMAN
and it is work for sapphire vapor-X 1 GB ???? thats mine
Q 66 @ 3.8 GH df vgpu,def cooler 4870 1 GB sapphire vapor - X ( 800/1100 )
http://i29.tinypic.com/zir21d.jpg