well I'd say I get around 45fps avrege at 2560*1600 all max, no aa with the occasional dip to 30fps and above avrege to 60fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
Printable View
well I'd say I get around 45fps avrege at 2560*1600 all max, no aa with the occasional dip to 30fps and above avrege to 60fps.Quote:
Originally Posted by B.E.E.F.
:D say hello to my new friend
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/995/111kb6.gif
Seems like cats 8.9 broke GPUz clock readings. The main page shows the weird clocks but sensor tab shows the correct clocks.
someone at techpowerup needs to run the debugger on their code :fact: :DQuote:
Originally Posted by NapalmV5
modded BIOS? i get the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by SNiiPE_DoGG
btw, have any good MANUFACTURER BIOSes been released with a better fan profile? i'd really like to go back to an official BIOS instead of an RBE-modded BIOS because i think my RBE BIOSes are causing problems. i don't want to use the Asus Top BIOS because i'm unstable at 815 core :shakes:
Nope, I'm not 100% sure I checked if it worked in cats 8.7 but it sure worked fine with the 8.6s installedQuote:
Originally Posted by xMrBunglex
post vcore mod/stock cooling
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...4&postcount=63
rock stable @ 900/950 vcore mod/stock cooling
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6883/900te0.gifhttp://img71.imageshack.us/img71/992/901zf0.gif
edit: soldered 2 x 4.7k fixed @ mvvdc/mvvdq
now memory stable/comfortably @ 950
I am using a 4850, just thought I would mention that gpuz didn't give me those messed up mhz readings until I pencil modded. I think it might have to do with the vmod, not the drivers.
Hey,
ive just fitted an EK full cover block to a powercolor PCS+ 512 card.
all 4 vrms show up in gpu-z.
idle gpu is 31. and idle vrms are 44 to 47.
under gaming load GPU temps are less than 40. vrms under load ( playing crysis ) they are in the early sixties.
the Benchmark_GPU.bat in crysis gets to 44-48 and the vrms 68-76.
gonna get some thermal epoxy and add some extra cooling to the vrm side of the cooler. il post the results if its successful.
P
This is what I've got going for now. This is the first OC I tried right off the bat. More will come later when I receive my XSPC Razer full cover block and I start messing with the bios. ;)
For know I'm cooling my card with the MCW60 and the stock heatsink's metal back plate for memory and VRMs (not using stock fan, though). OCed with AMD GPU Clock Tool, all stock voltages.
Furmark + ATI Tools to check stability. :D
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g3...B/bf4e28d2.jpg
You need to rename furmark to be able to run it properly. ATI crippled it since 8.8. As it is now this does not give you a complete picture of stability unfortunately, though ATITool being artifact free bods well :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Makubex_GB
Edit: Apparently the reason for renaming it is because "Catalyst 8.8 have been optimized to detect FurMark and downclock the frequencies of a Radeon HD 4850/4870 to avoid to burn the GPU". But as you can see AMD GPU Clock Tool seems to overwrite that problem since my clocks didn't go down.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
No it does not downclock the card, it just cripples the program. That description is incorrect. Rename it and run at 1280x1024 as a minimum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Makubex_GB
I did renamed it and FPS was the same. And please, describe how does it "cripple" it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
It doesn't need to be 1280x1024 minimum. What makes you think that? How is that a requirement?
I'm running two programs stressing the GPU quite a lot, Furmark at 640x480 + ATI Tools is enough to test stability and is more that what most people do to test it. No need for 1280x1024, even if I did change the res the result is the same, just lower fps.
Driver limits the FPS. For specifics ask ATI, not me. One thing it can do is simply force the GPU to render every second frame only and that cuts the FPS in half and the load by 50% :) In terms of resolution not mattering, you have got some major stuff to relearn about graphics it seems. By your logic running games at 640x480 vs. 1280x1024 would be the same. Think about it ;) Anyway, if you got off on the wrong foot this morning don't take it out here or on me. I simply pointed out a test for you that will really push the limits of that OC. If you do not care to try it, don't, I got nothing to lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Makubex_GB
Also, if you are running Vista that explains the FPS not changing. On my system in Vista 64 FurMark runs bad. FPS are always low so they seemingly stay the same all the time, no matter what res you are running. In XP it is very different, resolution to resolution.
Again, try it or don't, I really do not care. I was simply trying to make a suggestion on how to test.
I'm not saying that in games running a lower res is the same as a higher res, I'm saying that in this case, I am already running two GPU intensive programs at the same time, hence the low res is fine. I'm not taking anything out on you, I'm just asking where do you come up with stuff like "1280x1024 minimum", as if there was some sort of rule. If I was running Furmark alone, then I would understand, but you still don't seem to get that I'm running Furmark and ATI Tools at the same time. I don't need to run it at at high res because I'm already getting a high enough load on the GPU. If I go by what you're saying then what the hell I could just come off and say, no it's 1600x1200 minimum, where did I get that? It's a rule I just made up. Furmark at that 640x480 + ATI Tools is good enough, no game is going to stress it constantly so much and like I said before, most people don't even stress test their GPUz that much and call it stable. I'm running XP and I admit that FPS went up, at first I thought it didn't because it looked the same, but then I discovered it was because I was opening GPUZ and while GPUZ opens, it makes the FPS go down. Still even after renaming furmark and upping the res, the load on the GPU shows to be the same on GPUZ, and results are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
Just because I didn't set the highest possible stress test you can think off on the card doesn't mean it's not good enough to test stability. I could set Furmark at 1600x1200 and run ATI Tools and then someone could come and say, hey but why not run a second instance of Furmark to really stress stability, but that doesn't mean that the way it was previously being tested wasn't good enough. That's all I'm trying to say.
Dejanh was just trying to help. ATI made a profile for Furmark starting with the 8.8 driver to slow it down because people were overheating their 4870's.
Yes I understand, I thanked him for letting me know about Furmark, what I am questioning mainly is the "1280x1024 minimum".Quote:
Originally Posted by xMrBunglex
The way I came up with the 1280x1024 minimum is that I found on my 4870 that it did not overheat or crash if I ran FurMark at anything less than 1280x1024 in the stability test. 1280x1024 or higher would cause the temps on the VRM to skyrocket and the card to crash. I guess it is a personal experience only...I just went by it anyways. I do agree though that if your GPU load while running ATITool and FurMark in your setup is at or very near 100% for the whole duration that is then good enough.
Thanks for explaining. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by dejanh
I just put the FC Koolance block on my 4870 over the weekend, and my VDDC temps are in the 80s while gaming and in the mid 90s while run GPU folding client. The GPU itself is in the mid 40s though. I put a dual slot fan right under the card too running about 80%. I'm wondering if running them all day in the mid 90s will kill it or not. Looking at temps in gpuz 0.2.7
I did run furmark and stopped it when they went over 105C
Thermal maximum for the DVRMs used on the reference 4870 is 125C. Therefore, you are likely fine but if your temps are getting over 110C I recommend you look at some additional cooling.Quote:
Originally Posted by skindogg
If Im right in considering a Full Cover block covers all thermal point such as ram, voltage regulators and gpu core. He must have mounted it improperly if he's reaching over 100c on the vreg's with it or the block is rubbish.