x1600xt Out now! any one OC it?

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

12-21-2005, 03:50 PM
Unoid

I just scored 6335 3dmark05 with my 2.45ghz athlon xp mobile, with my x800xt AIW at 550/580

so this overclocked x1600xt is pretty darn close
12-21-2005, 03:51 PM
althes

Wow the x1600xt looks like a card that can hang with the boys
12-21-2005, 04:23 PM
Cybercat

Quote:

Originally Posted by althes

Wow the x1600xt looks like a card that can hang with the boys

does that make it a pedophile?
12-21-2005, 04:45 PM
Welz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

does that make it a pedophile?

:p:
;)
12-21-2005, 06:03 PM
Welz

saaaaaya where you at homie ? :slap:
12-21-2005, 06:12 PM
althes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

does that make it a pedophile?

That statement is just so wrong:D
12-21-2005, 06:51 PM
perkam

Lets keep away from those type of comments ;) But yea, I'm as interested as any on how to increase volts on these. Its a feature that was guaranteed as a part of the architecture...

Everyone with any type of x1600 seriously needs to follow x1800 ocing rituals to get results imo.

Perkam
12-21-2005, 07:08 PM
althes

What are they pray tell
12-21-2005, 07:44 PM
Welz

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102656

is that really what i think it is?
12-21-2005, 07:53 PM
Cybercat

that's totally the wrong set of pictures.
12-21-2005, 08:24 PM
Welz

where is saaya? must be having one hell of a time with those x1600xt's ;)
12-21-2005, 09:13 PM
boostedevo

Word around the Net is that any x1600 will work in CF without having a CF Edition master card. That much I've confirmed, but I was curious if anyone knew if that was limited only to the ATI chipset mobos or if that goes for the 955X as well?

I am trying to decide between x1600XTs in CF or a single x1800XL. The 1800 seems to be winning the toss up anyway, but if the 1600s in CF require a new mobo, that will just seal the deal.

Any info is appreciated!!
12-21-2005, 09:43 PM
StixxX

yup you need a CF mobo but Inqurier tested two X1600XT and passed a X1800XT by a lil bit.Well I am in Canada and one X1600XT is $195x2=$390 and a ASUS A8R-MVP(best CF board availabe) $125 so a grand total of $515. The cheapest X1800XT is $649 so CF is a nice soultion :D
12-21-2005, 10:24 PM
perkam

Nice Find...though those may be the wrong pictures, whoever is looking forward to a CF X1600XT solution should grab one of those for higher performance than with two regular XTs.

Perkam
12-21-2005, 10:32 PM
Cybercat

I figured that was just a gimmick to make it sound more appealing. X1600 series don't need master cards last I heard. Notice it says "Crossfire supported", not Crossfire Edition. In fact every one of Sapphire's X1600XT cards say that.
12-21-2005, 10:46 PM
Welz

i guess saaya did not get his card today? hopeing to see some results soon :D
12-22-2005, 12:04 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

what it is is the four in 4x3 is the four fragment pipes in each quad. There are three of them.

I think everyone took the claims from ATI that each pipe is three times as efficient, in tandem with the confusion about TMUs versus pipelines, to mean that each fragment is somehow really three fragments, or some messed up explaination like that. It's a big mess, and not a lot of people seem to really get it straight. You can't have 16 fragments in a single quad, since obviously a quad implies only four.

Let me try to clear this up right now. It's 12 shader fragments, or three quads, four texture mapping units, four ROPs. The texture units in the RV530 are sort of enhanced from those in the R520. Each texture mapping unit can serve three fragments at once. So it only takes four to handle all shader units in the RV530. Beyond3D talks about this as well.

For the R580, there are 48 shader fragments, or 12 quads, 16 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. Again, each texture mapping unit can address up to three fragments at once, so 16 covers all 48 shader units.

For the rumored RV560's configuration, there 24 shader fragments, which means there must be 8 TMUs to cover them all. The number of ROPs doesn't matter, since there's traditionally a crossbar between them all, but assumably they also work in quads, just like the shader units.

hmmmm this makes sense, but its confusing me as what i heard and read before was totally different... what about pixelprocessor?
what i heard was that each pixelpileline not contains 3 pixel processors, so its like a tripply pipeline. is this what people misunderstood and ati actually only said the pixel pileines are 3x as efficient?

the thing about the texture units covering all the pixe pipelines is what ati claims though, and if you ask me, and if you ask the reviewers and look at the benchmarks, it doesnt look like they are as efficient as ati claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StixxX

yup you need a CF mobo but Inqurier tested two X1600XT and passed a X1800XT by a lil bit.Well I am in Canada and one X1600XT is $195x2=$390 and a ASUS A8R-MVP(best CF board availabe) $125 so a grand total of $515. The cheapest X1800XT is $649 so CF is a nice soultion :D

no offense, but theinq knows sht about benchmarking :D
two 1600xts beat a 1800xl in crossfire, but only in 2k3 and 2k5, in games its a totally different picture!
the 1800xl will kill the 1600xts in crossfire if you ask me... we havent seen any benches yet so who knows... but from what ive seen from 1800s and 2850s in crossfire they scale only 10-25% in games over a single card, its only in 2k3 and 2k5 where they scale 40% and higher.

so DONT get 1600 in crossfire, or wait and see what everybody can get out of those cards in cf :D
in a few days you will know :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welz

i guess saaya did not get his card today? hopeing to see some results soon :D

still didnt get it! :mad:

oh and that card opn newegg... if the pics are not a mix up it looksd like sapphire put 1600s on 1800 pcbs :slobber: those would be very nice cards, should oc really nice!
somebody call newegg and check if the pics are correct!
165$ damn... i wish 1600xt cards would be that cheap over here... they cost almost 25% more over here
12-22-2005, 12:24 AM
Cybercat

saaya, your top quote is all messed up. :p:

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

hmmmm this makes sense, but its confusing me as what i heard and read before was totally different... what about pixelprocessor?
what i heard was that each pixelpileline not contains 3 pixel processors, so its like a tripply pipeline. is this what people misunderstood and ati actually only said the pixel pileines are 3x as efficient?

I've never heard of a modern shader architecture from NVIDIA or ATI yet using pipelines in sets of three.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

the thing about the texture units covering all the pixe pipelines is what ati claims though, and if you ask me, and if you ask the reviewers and look at the benchmarks, it doesnt look like they are as efficient as ati claims.

Well, you're right. Having four texture units means it has the texturing fillrate of only four units, no better than an X1300, and MUCH less than the X700 or mainstream X800 cards. ATI was right to make the call that games demand more shader power than texturing power, as that's certainly where we're going now, but four simply isn't enough. The "enhanced" part of their new TMUs simply means that they're, I guess you could say, multithreaded, to accept more than one pipe. However, just because they can accept them doesn't mean they're as fast as 12 true texture units. Their capacity increased, but not their performance. Hope that makes sense.
12-22-2005, 12:30 AM
boostedevo

Quote:

yup you need a CF mobo but Inqurier tested two X1600XT and passed a X1800XT by a lil bit.Well I am in Canada and one X1600XT is $195x2=$390 and a ASUS A8R-MVP(best CF board availabe) $125 so a grand total of $515. The cheapest X1800XT is $649 so CF is a nice soultion

Dang, I was hoping it would just beat an 1800XL let alone an 1800XT. Rats that I'd need an ATI mobo to do it :( The 955 chipset supports CF, but I guess that the CF 1600XTs won't work without a master card in that case...damn. Thanks for the info tho!
12-22-2005, 12:48 AM
DrJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

saaya, your top quote is all messed up. :p:

EDIT:

I've never heard of a modern shader architecture from NVIDIA or ATI yet using pipelines in sets of three.

Well, you're right. Having four texture units means it has the texturing fillrate of only four units, no better than an X1300, and MUCH less than the X700 or mainstream X800 cards. ATI was right to make the call that games demand more shader power than texturing power, as that's certainly where we're going now, but four simply isn't enough. The "enhanced" part of their new TMUs simply means that they're, I guess you could say, multithreaded, to accept more than one pipe. However, just because they can accept them doesn't mean they're as fast as 12 true texture units. Their capacity increased, but not their performance. Hope that makes sense.

Good info.
12-22-2005, 01:16 AM
Lightman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

saaya, your top quote is all messed up. :p:

EDIT:

I've never heard of a modern shader architecture from NVIDIA or ATI yet using pipelines in sets of three.

Well, you're right. Having four texture units means it has the texturing fillrate of only four units, no better than an X1300, and MUCH less than the X700 or mainstream X800 cards. ATI was right to make the call that games demand more shader power than texturing power, as that's certainly where we're going now, but four simply isn't enough. The "enhanced" part of their new TMUs simply means that they're, I guess you could say, multithreaded, to accept more than one pipe. However, just because they can accept them doesn't mean they're as fast as 12 true texture units. Their capacity increased, but not their performance. Hope that makes sense.

best way to check this is to bench both cards (x1300/x1600) at same freq in shadermark2.0:stick:

i can test x1300 let say at 600/400 and cpu rig set to 2400mhz
and someone with x1600 will provide scores from close to this system

then we will see what is worth ati 12 shader 4 pixel architecture

anyone ready to test this theory??
12-22-2005, 01:32 AM
Cybercat

You know what to expect. The X1600 will perform better in a shader benchmark. Afterall it has theoretically three times the shader hardware available than the X1300.

If you really want to test my statement, actually use a benchmark that tests the area of which I'm talking about: texturing. Check the texture fillrates with 3DMark01, for example. That will prove what I, ATI, and any other website that's reviewed and analyzed the two cards have been saying: they both have the same amount of texture units.
12-22-2005, 07:55 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

saaya, your top quote is all messed up. :p:

yeah sorry, fixed it :)

btw cards still didnt arrive :upset:

Cybercat, what i heard was that there are 4 pixel pipelines, a quad, but each pipeline has 3 pixel processors. pretty much like a tripple pipeline or something like that. you know g7x have 2 pixel processors in their pipeline. well i dont think you call them pixel processors, but you know what i mean.. i hope :D
they have two parts in the pipeline to process shader code, thats at least the way i remember it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

Well, you're right. Having four texture units means it has the texturing fillrate of only four units, no better than an X1300, and MUCH less than the X700 or mainstream X800 cards. ATI was right to make the call that games demand more shader power than texturing power, as that's certainly where we're going now, but four simply isn't enough. The "enhanced" part of their new TMUs simply means that they're, I guess you could say, multithreaded, to accept more than one pipe. However, just because they can accept them doesn't mean they're as fast as 12 true texture units. Their capacity increased, but not their performance. Hope that makes sense.

i get what you mean, but i dont agree... shader power is more important, but they cut off too much textureing power if you ask me... do the tmus also affect bump mapping and "normal maps" or however they were called?

Quote:

Originally Posted by boostedevo

Dang, I was hoping it would just beat an 1800XL let alone an 1800XT. Rats that I'd need an ATI mobo to do it :( The 955 chipset supports CF, but I guess that the CF 1600XTs won't work without a master card in that case...damn. Thanks for the info tho!

cf will work without a mastercard in the 955x chipset as well... there are no 1600 and 1300 master cards...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lightman

best way to check this is to bench both cards (x1300/x1600) at same freq in shadermark2.0:stick:

i can test x1300 let say at 600/400 and cpu rig set to 2400mhz
and someone with x1600 will provide scores from close to this system

then we will see what is worth ati 12 shader 4 pixel architecture

anyone ready to test this theory??

if i had my 1600s id do it... hope i finally get them tomorrow... :/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cybercat

You know what to expect. The X1600 will perform better in a shader benchmark. Afterall it has theoretically three times the shader hardware available than the X1300.

If you really want to test my statement, actually use a benchmark that tests the area of which I'm talking about: texturing. Check the texture fillrates with 3DMark01, for example. That will prove what I, ATI, and any other website that's reviewed and analyzed the two cards have been saying: they both have the same amount of texture units.

yeah, but would be really interesting to compare the 1300 and 1600 architecture at the same clocks... i wish i had my 1600s :(
12-22-2005, 09:14 AM
althes

I will dl shadermark 2.1 and test the x1600 in xfire an single card
12-22-2005, 10:22 AM
sabrewolf732

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

no offense, but theinq knows sht about benchmarking :D
two 1600xts beat a 1800xl in crossfire, but only in 2k3 and 2k5, in games its a totally different picture!
the 1800xl will kill the 1600xts in crossfire if you ask me... we havent seen any benches yet so who knows... but from what ive seen from 1800s and 2850s in crossfire they scale only 10-25% in games over a single card, its only in 2k3 and 2k5 where they scale 40% and higher.

so DONT get 1600 in crossfire, or wait and see what everybody can get out of those cards in cf :D
in a few days you will know :)

still didnt get it! :mad:

oh and that card opn newegg... if the pics are not a mix up it looksd like sapphire put 1600s on 1800 pcbs :slobber: those would be very nice cards, should oc really nice!
somebody call newegg and check if the pics are correct!
165$ damn... i wish 1600xt cards would be that cheap over here... they cost almost 25% more over here

you've seen quite wrong then, as another forum member said the exact same thing yesterday. I showed him benchmarks of bf2, fear, quake 4 and other games where the game was more to the effect of 70%, sometimes close to 100.
12-22-2005, 11:41 AM
saaya

Quote:

Originally Posted by sabrewolf732

you've seen quite wrong then, as another forum member said the exact same thing yesterday. I showed him benchmarks of bf2, fear, quake 4 and other games where the game was more to the effect of 70%, sometimes close to 100.

why didnt you post a link?
12-22-2005, 12:00 PM
Dillusion

I need to figure out how to raise the GPU voltage. ANy ideas? saaya? Althes?
12-22-2005, 12:06 PM
saaya

youve been linked to the mod already... :D
chec the 1300 gpu mod thread in this section. you can even pencil mod it so no need to solder...
12-22-2005, 12:18 PM
althes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillusion

I need to figure out how to raise the GPU voltage. ANy ideas? saaya? Althes?

Checking on that now.
12-22-2005, 12:21 PM
boostedevo

Quote:

cf will work without a mastercard in the 955x chipset as well... there are no 1600 and 1300 master cards...

I thought maybe they just hadn't been released yet or something. What mobo are you putting yours in when you finally get them? If what you say is true, I'll be ordering a pair of 1600XTs on Monday :)
12-22-2005, 01:23 PM
sabrewolf732

Quote:

Originally Posted by saaya

why didnt you post a link?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/..._xt_crossfire/

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ages/c1600.gif

59%

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...es/bf21600.gif
97.4%

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ges/d31600.gif
62%
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ges/pf1600.gif
74%
12-22-2005, 01:41 PM
SnipingWaste

This is strange. Newegg has a X1600XT duel slot cooler. It looks like the same PCB as the R520 Xfire. Its cost $165.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102656
http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggIma...102-656-02.JPG
12-22-2005, 01:47 PM
Welz

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnipingWaste

This is strange. Newegg has a X1600XT duel slot cooler. It looks like the same PCB as the R520 Xfire. Its cost $165.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102656
http://images10.newegg.com/NeweggIma...102-656-02.JPG

ive seen this also, that is a X1800XT pictured, and theres no way there gonna send us one for $165...

They will send you a OEM version of saphires X1600XT... PICS are wrong

newegg :slapass: :slapass: :slapass:
12-22-2005, 01:57 PM
sabrewolf732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Welz

ive seen this also, that is a X1800XT pictured, and theres no way there gonna send us one for $165...

They will send you a OEM version of saphires X1600XT... PICS are wrong

newegg :slapass: :slapass: :slapass:

awww, was gonna order :stick:
12-22-2005, 01:57 PM
jrw

Its the wrong picture, as discussed earlier in this thread.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...&postcount=210
12-23-2005, 11:28 AM
Welz

heres a goodie from HIS, unfortunately for the price you could buy a Saphire and a zalman to go with it :nono:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814161160
12-23-2005, 11:59 AM
perkam

Very nice find Welz...it seems Newegg search is still screwed up...searching for x1600xt or x1600 does not bring up that card (have to go video card->GPU->X1600XT)

Though i dont know if its at all necessary to have that at such a high price...considering a Powercolor X1600XT + VF700 like $5 more...

Perkam
12-23-2005, 01:41 PM
althes

Come on now that is just price gouging, 196 man thats too much
12-23-2005, 01:44 PM
Welz

Quote:

Originally Posted by althes

Come on now that is just price gouging, 196 man thats too much

the powercolor also went up :(
12-23-2005, 01:55 PM
perkam

Tis the season to be gouging, fala lala la, lala la la :lol:

Perkam
12-25-2005, 06:01 AM
althes

Has anyone tried the mod for the x1600xt
02-09-2006, 10:15 AM
mefistofelis

I ve tried with 615-801 and my 3dmark 05 results is 5553.I cant seem to raise the core over 620 cos i see occasionaly litle black areas on 3dmark?I am on stock cooling(ive added ac5 on the core) and also a 12cm fan to blow the card opposite from the stock one!
02-09-2006, 11:02 AM
althes

you need to raise the voltage on the cards, right its just better to stay away from them.
02-09-2006, 12:44 PM
mefistofelis

@athles:What is your overclocking status?
02-09-2006, 01:42 PM
perkam

Why doesn't anyone invest in the X1600XT 128MB 1.4ns GDDR3 ??

It's at Newegg for $111.

Same performance in 3dmark (all) and games (all) as the 256MB X1600XT.

Perkam
02-09-2006, 02:11 PM
boostedevo

I tried the x1600XT 256MBs in CF. They were OK, but those cores OC like crapola and a sinlge card was barely better than my old x700 Pro OCed. I was going to try x1700s, which I assumed would be released with x1400s around the same time as x1900s but the last ATI roadmap I saw didn't have 1700s at all?
02-09-2006, 02:31 PM
perkam

X1700 = RV535 on 80NM, Coming March (along with the 7600 release in March)

The X1600 Crossfire gave limited results due to lack of crossfire edition cards from ATI. The compositing was happening in crossfire, but not at the same efficiency as X18 or X19 crossfire configurations. (hence miniscule difference in 03 scores from single to cf)

Hopefully there will be a X1700 CF Card...otherwise leave it to ATI to leave the mainstream user hanging :rolleyes:

Perkam
02-09-2006, 02:57 PM
boostedevo

Thanks for the info on the 1700. I have a x1900XT holding me over, but yeah, that's exactly what happened in 03. 05 was a nice diff with them in CF. Yeah, I was thinking maybe the 8x+8x mobos would help the 1600s CF because they use nothing but the PCIe bus to talk, but I hope the 1700s have a CF card because I just won't do $500+ x2 for x1900 CF, not to mention all the power/heat issues that go along with them :)
02-09-2006, 03:27 PM
sabrewolf732

Quote:

Originally Posted by perkam

X1700 = RV535 on 80NM, Coming March (along with the 7600 release in March)

The X1600 Crossfire gave limited results due to lack of crossfire edition cards from ATI. The compositing was happening in crossfire, but not at the same efficiency as X18 or X19 crossfire configurations. (hence miniscule difference in 03 scores from single to cf)

Hopefully there will be a X1700 CF Card...otherwise leave it to ATI to leave the mainstream user hanging :rolleyes:

Perkam

would be pretty awesome if the 1700 was 12x3, any info on the 1700 perk? Like price? Specs? 256bit mem or 128?
02-09-2006, 03:30 PM
boostedevo

That would be VERY awesome instead of the 4x3 1600s that they call 12 pipes :rolleyes:
02-10-2006, 11:47 AM
perkam

We will need somone with two X1600XTs to try out dual slave cf on an RD580 to see if performance increases with more pci-e lanes.

Perkam
02-10-2006, 03:41 PM
sabrewolf732

where's the $110 x1600xt? :confused:
02-10-2006, 04:19 PM
perkam

X1600XT 128MB GDDR3 5k 3dmark05: $110

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16814102667

Perkam
02-10-2006, 04:51 PM
boostedevo

Good score if that's the score for it, but that's an x1600 PRO.
02-10-2006, 05:01 PM
sabrewolf732

yeah dont see 5k anywhere for it :( think ddr3 might be a typo since the mem is running 780..
02-10-2006, 06:59 PM
perkam

LOL Hopefully Newegg won't catch on just like everyone else :rolleyes:

http://www.sapphiretech.com/en/produ...s.php?gpid=133

All 128MB X1600 PROs are 1.4ns GDDR3. Since the only difference between an XT and a PRO is the difference in the memory bandwith arising from the DDR2 in the PRO and the GDDR3 in the XT, this is by all means an XT with 128MB...disguised as a PRO ;)

Perkam
02-11-2006, 09:29 AM
sabrewolf732

perkam if I buy one and it's not gddr3 I'm suing you :slap: :p:
02-11-2006, 04:47 PM
leo5111

anyone tryin to overclock their 1600xt this site http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/835/ if you look at bottom they have a link to what they used to overclock it if link disappear or doesnt work pm me....
02-11-2006, 05:01 PM
STEvil

wow I wish my x1600xt clocked like that.

600/700 is pushing it, or seems.. atitool 0.25 beta 13.
02-11-2006, 05:28 PM
STEvil

that overclocker thing just made me crash...
02-11-2006, 08:52 PM
leo5111

i dont know works on my saphire x1600xt :confused:
02-12-2006, 07:41 AM
Marioace

i just pushed the X1600XT to 631/805 I think that is low.

I used the Overclocker Tool
02-12-2006, 08:04 AM
sabrewolf732

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willis

just wrapped away teh stock cooler and saw that my xt uses also gddr3 1.4ns from infinion :)
good or bad thing ?don't know didn't push it yet :)

they're supposed to...
02-12-2006, 08:13 AM
trans am

i have a x1600 pro saphire to test
02-12-2006, 02:59 PM
STEvil

i cant get mine to clock AT ALL...
02-12-2006, 04:18 PM
althes

Yeah I was able to get mine to 630/970 but the core wont go over that so it was of no use
02-12-2006, 07:00 PM
STEvil

i mean if I set 600/700 freelancer will crash....
02-12-2006, 09:59 PM
sabrewolf732

was gonna buy the x1600pro 128, but got 2GB ram for 100 and I need a new hd :p:
02-13-2006, 01:30 AM
mefistofelis

@marioace:Can u give me a link to the overclocker tool you used?
Why is it that i can get mine to work more than 615 mhz in the core?
It crashes in the second test in 3dmark 05.
02-14-2006, 01:55 AM
mefistofelis

Can i use the overclocker tool to raise thr voltage?or it wont work?
02-16-2006, 05:52 AM
S_A_V

6k done with $125 card !!! :banana:

Palit X1600Pro @ 752x1251 (Vgpu=1.76V) 128Mb DDR3 (Samsung 2.0ns)
Opteron 148 @ 2947MHz, 2*256 BH-5 @ 268MHz
Win2k SP4, Catalyst 6.2, DirectX 9.0c (Feb-2006)
Warm water @ CPU/GPU

2005=6067 3D Marks

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/5...251opteron.png

EDIT:
2001=29552 3D Marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8899736
2003=10560 3D Marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4625261

Just first test more results soon...
02-16-2006, 07:27 AM
mefistofelis

Congrats man.My best so far is 5840 but with 615 core and 801 mem.
How did u raise the voltage of the core?Software or hardware mod?
Keep Going Man!:banana:
02-16-2006, 08:16 AM
S_A_V

Quote:

How did u raise the voltage of the core?Software or hardware mod?

Pencil voltmod: http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=3092&s=9
Palit X1600Pro no-Golden PCB looks a bit different than Palit X1600Pro Golden, but the same voltage controllers used.
02-16-2006, 11:25 AM
perkam

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_A_V

6k done with $125 card !!! :banana:

Palit X1600Pro @ 752x1251 (Vgpu=1.76V) 128Mb DDR3 (Samsung 2.0ns)
Opteron 148 @ 2947MHz, 2*256 BH-5 @ 268MHz
Win2k SP4, Catalyst 6.2, DirectX 9.0c (Feb-2006)
Warm water @ CPU/GPU

2005=6067 3D Marks

http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/5...251opteron.png

EDIT:
2001=29552 3D Marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8899736
2003=10560 3D Marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4625261

Just first test more results soon...

Told you guys the 128mb x1600Pro's are XTs in disguise ;)

Awesome results, SAV :up:

Perkam
02-16-2006, 03:47 PM
S_A_V

10560 in '03 was at 685x1242 clocks...

New results with Vmem(Vdd) mod + more Vgpu:

2001: 30164 3dmarks, 752x1323 (Vgpu=1.81V, Vmem=2.04V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8900200

2003: 11238 3dmarks, 752x1305 (Vgpu=1.81V, Vmem=2.04V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4626155

2005: 6222 3dmarks, 783x1278 (Vgpu=1.84V, Vmem=2.05V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1810698

2006: not tested yet

Hope GPU will be benchable at 800MHz with cold water, I check it tomorrow...
With warm water GPU falls to blackscreen at 1.87V and 2d-unstable at 1.90V, but runs ok with 1.81V. Memory unlike voltage higher than 2.05... more voltage - more artifacts.

Palit made very nice card for that low price :)
02-16-2006, 04:24 PM
sabrewolf732

wow 1.84v =O
02-16-2006, 04:36 PM
althes

The card is ready is die
02-16-2006, 10:31 PM
STEvil

what program are you using for overclocking, SAV? If its ATI Tool, what exact version? Maybe its just 0.25-13 thats no good..
02-16-2006, 11:54 PM
DrJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_A_V

10560 in '03 was at 685x1242 clocks...

New results with Vmem(Vdd) mod + more Vgpu:

2001: 30164 3dmarks, 752x1323 (Vgpu=1.81V, Vmem=2.04V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8900200

2003: 11238 3dmarks, 752x1305 (Vgpu=1.81V, Vmem=2.04V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4626155

2005: 6222 3dmarks, 783x1278 (Vgpu=1.84V, Vmem=2.05V)
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1810698

2006: not tested yet

Good jod S_A_V! :toast:
You've still got a ways to go to catch me in '01 though.;)
Getting close in '03. Ya got me in '05....I have an unpublished 6100 from about 4-5 weeks ago.
I ran some tests in '01 at 756Mhz with only 1.58 Vgpu, so hopefully I can get a little more speed outta this card in the near future.
02-17-2006, 12:00 AM
DrJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEvil

what program are you using for overclocking, SAV? If its ATI Tool, what exact version? Maybe its just 0.25-13 thats no good..

ATi tool won't work for the memory. Even just uusing it for the gpu I get random lockups when benching. Try the OC tool, it can be a pain in the @rse but it works.
02-17-2006, 01:56 AM
mefistofelis

Quote:

Told you guys the 128mb x1600Pro's are XTs in disguise

Awesome results, SAV

Why cant the 256 reach the same speeds?
02-17-2006, 02:06 AM
DrJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mefistofelis

Why cant the 256 reach the same speeds?

Most 256mb PROs (most all PROs, really) have 2.5ns DDR2.
02-17-2006, 06:19 AM
S_A_V

Quote:

what program are you using for overclocking, SAV?

I use RivaTuner 2.0 RC 15.8.
Tried OC tool (Overclocker-x1k), but got poor memory overclock with it (~1200MHz vs ~1300MHz with RivaTuner)... OC tool changes memory clock+timings. RivaTuner do not touch the timings.
02-17-2006, 10:09 AM
mefistofelis

Quote:

Most 256mb PROs (most all PROs, really) have 2.5ns DDR2.

No mine has ddr3
02-17-2006, 06:00 PM
STEvil

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrJay

ATi tool won't work for the memory. Even just uusing it for the gpu I get random lockups when benching. Try the OC tool, it can be a pain in the @rse but it works.

OC Tool locks me up. Thanks for info on atitool though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_A_V

I use RivaTuner 2.0 RC 15.8.
Tried OC tool (Overclocker-x1k), but got poor memory overclock with it (~1200MHz vs ~1300MHz with RivaTuner)... OC tool changes memory clock+timings. RivaTuner do not touch the timings.

Will give it a go, thx!

Need some upgraded cooling on it too lol.. all stock still ;)
02-18-2006, 03:22 AM
S_A_V

lol, palit X1600Pro 128Mb 2.0ns - #1 1600-series single-card !!! :woot:

'01 31364 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8901623

'03 11917 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4628981
http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/3...4opteron14.png

'05 6601 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1814355
http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?i...opteron148.png

'06 2450 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=136263
Poor result in '06 - just not enough memory... textures swapping from 128Mb vram to 512Mb ram, and then from ram to hdd. May be I'll re-run '06 with 2*512 later.
02-18-2006, 03:42 AM
GOESA

Wow nice S_A_V amazing done!

/Grau
02-18-2006, 07:53 AM
Shinuza

Anyone tested this with cold? :)
02-18-2006, 08:03 AM
sabrewolf732

ahahah your sig is funny! :toast:
02-18-2006, 08:07 AM
caater

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_A_V

'06 2450 http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=136263
Poor result in '06 - just not enough memory... textures swapping from 128Mb vram to 512Mb ram, and then from ram to hdd. May be I'll re-run '06 with 2*512 later.

i got slightly better 06 score with x1600pro 256M than that palit x1600 128M..
so 06 needs vram.. and lots of it..
02-18-2006, 02:08 PM
perkam

06 is cpu dependent...I'm sure if you compare sm2 and sm3 scores it scores higher...

Perkam
02-18-2006, 02:27 PM
DrJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by S_A_V

lol, palit X1300Pro 128Mb 2.0ns - #1 1600-series single-card !!! :woot:

WAS #1......new #1: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8902453

783Mhz @ 1.6 Vgpu

EDIT: palit X1300Pro?? That'll be #1 forever!!!!
02-18-2006, 03:12 PM
S_A_V

Quote:

WAS #1......new #1: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8902453

Good fps in nature!
I have 196.5 at 800/1323 and other tests runs at 830, but nature freeze at 45-46 sec if gpu clock > 800MHz :(

Quote:

EDIT: palit X1300Pro?? That'll be #1 forever!!!!

oops... fixed.
02-18-2006, 03:37 PM
DrJay

32.3K in '01: http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8902533

S_A_V: 1323 on you memory is awesome! congrats. Do you have the mem chips sinked, or do they not even need it? lol @ the X1300 Pro....couldn't resist....sorry.

EDIT: The above run was at 800c / 837m - 1.65 to 1.66 Vgpu.
02-18-2006, 04:20 PM
S_A_V

Congrats on 32k DrJay!

Quote:

Do you have the mem chips sinked, or do they not even need it?

Mem chips sinked with Zalman aluminium sinks (from VF800-Cu package), but I think it's not help too much - chips stay cool with or without sinks.
Also I use Zalman heatsinks at mosfets + 2x80-мм fans (both sides of card).
02-20-2006, 12:45 PM
STEvil

rivatuner works pretty good for overclocking the mem, though I cant adjust the voltage... seems my cards memory does ok too. Will run 850 in a hot sealed case 24/7.. can bench at 900+ but bad artifacts (may be less with lower temps).
08-19-2006, 03:50 AM
caater

got a new cpu and couldn't resist to bench one 2k1 before letting my x1600 go.
card is palit x1600pro golden and comes with 128M 1.4ns ram.
i was actually amazed how far the mem overclocks. 900 and 900+ was artifacting, but benchable.
i always ran nature first and got dozens of lockups just after nature was done and before desktop was visible again. if i would've read this thread carefully earlier, i'd have benched the rest of test with higher clocks though..
so i benched at those clocks.. vgpu was quickly penciled and was ~1,64v
cpu was at 24/7 settings.
couldn't publish score (cpu speed variation error) and also didn't kinda care because i was in a hurry.
but it's a sheer demonstration of conroe power :)

http://alpha.frontier86.ee/~markku/975/x1600_38662.png
08-19-2006, 03:53 AM
massman

yes, indeed, conroe power :)

You CL run is bloody high :D

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:32 PM.

XtremeSystems