PDA

View Full Version : This hertz pretty bad...



Tk64
April 15th, 2002, 22:22
Just overclocked my GF3TI200 some more... it's now faster than the TI500:D Still runs cool as a cucumber with this size heatsink on it, and it's perfectly stable.

The GF3TI500 is supposed to run at 240 MHz core and 500 MHz DDR. (seehttp://www.vnunet.com/Products/Hardware/1125923)

My TI200 is specced out at 175/400.

New speed: 250/550 . I don't want to go any faster, in that case I woulda gone to 350 or so :P

Scaling NVidia's TI500 specs I get these numbers:

Fill rate: 4 billion AA samples/sec
Ops/second: 1000 billion (1 trillion?)
Mem bandwidth: 8.8 GB/second

Sounds pretty good for a card that used to be:

Fill rate: 2.8 billion AA samples/sec
Ops/second: 700 billion
Mem bandwidth: 6.4 GB/second


Anyone else got this far with only a regular heatsink/fan?

P.S. I overwrote the default settings to be sure it stays at 250/550.

P.P.S. With this much overclocking, I can run in 9xFSAA in 1280x960 with a full framerate, in 32 bit color. I still prefer 640x480 tho because on this monitor, the higher the res, the smaller the image gets. E.G. 1280x960 will have a 1" gap on all sides, and 640x480 fills the whole screen. Besides, 640x480 gives me some very nice looking scanlines. Zelda 64 looks better than real life!

MrDetermination
April 15th, 2002, 22:46
LOL... great thread title.

I get similar overclockage out of my Ge2 GTS/64mb Hercules Prophet II. Man I love this card. Its still hanging (Runs Jedi Knight II just fine at 1152xwhatever [~50fps]) and I've had it for 2 years I think... bought it when it first came out for $3XX USD. I'm not at home and haven't messed with its clock in forever... but I know its up there. Guillemont is a class act. The Prophet has a HS/Fan on the card's proc and each 4 litle heat sinks for the ram chips. How cool is that?

MrDetermination
April 15th, 2002, 22:46
Oh and BTW GeForce tweaker is THE tool for GeForce owners :)

Tk64
April 15th, 2002, 23:15
Hey, nice sticker on the VGA port. Overclock OK? :D

My card is sorta layed out like that. Mine is a single heatsink block that covers all 4 RAM chips and the GPU, with a fan covering the GPU part. ~1/2 of the board must be covered by the heatsink. :P I've certainly got a lot less SMD resistors compared to yours tho.

This card is 2 months old (been running it at 200/400 for a while, then 235/550, now 250/550...) It was in the $1xx range. :P

A screenshot of Zelda 64 (640x480, 32bit, 3x3 FSAA, other assorted/strange emu/GF3 settings, GF3 in "low" digital vibrance mode... no scanlines in the screenshot tho :( ):

*drool*

MrDetermination
April 15th, 2002, 23:36
Thats nice. Never thought about running at native resolution and introducing scanlines/FSAA...
/me itches to get home :)

This link (http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3877) goes to a thread with my only readily availiable screenshot.

Tk64
April 15th, 2002, 23:45
Originally posted by MrDetermination
Thats nice. Never thought about running at native resolution and introducing scanlines/FSAA...


Actually the real N64 runs in 2x FSAA. (1x2 I believe)

My screenshot looks mighty nice on this SiliconGraphics trinitron :) Of course you'll only see the scanlines in 640x480 . The real reason I run in 640x480 is because the image fills the screen, unlike 1280x960 .

I think that's pretty good for a 10-year-old monitor (!). Still going strong... AFAIK (since I got it secondhand, still a very hefty price) it has never had a problem.

MrDetermination
April 16th, 2002, 02:31
I have a nice Trinitron 19incher :)


The real reason I run in 640x480 is because the image fills the screen, unlike 1280x960 .

You on crack? What do you mean 1280x960 doesn't fill the screen? That sounds like a monitor adjustment to me. Definately sounds whack yo! 1280x960 is my resolution of choice, and it fills my screen just fine.

Tk64
April 16th, 2002, 03:13
Originally posted by MrDetermination
What do you mean 1280x960 doesn't fill the screen? That sounds like a monitor adjustment to me. Definately sounds whack yo! 1280x960 is my resolution of choice, and it fills my screen just fine.

I mean, it doesn't fill the screen. :P No fun playing in high-res if there's a 1" border all around, and no scanlines on top of that.

All the monitors I've ever seen have not been able to make the image fill the screen in hi-res modes.

Yep, I've used the adjustments, this is when it's stretched to the monitor's limits. I can stretch the image off the screen vertically in hi-res, but not horizontally, so I'd rather have a good aspect ratio.

Funny, I've never found an option on the GF3 to change the H and V sizes. I have the option to move the image, but not to stretch it...

Anyway, this is one of those monitors that has an option as to what kind of cable gets hooked up. It can use a 15 pin D-Sub connector or 5 BNC connectors (usually sold as a 15-pin VGA to 5 BNC cable). I'm using the D-Sub plug now, would using the BNC cable make any difference?

P.S. Just did a test to find the upper limits of the card. Results: 265/595 max before a total crash (very unstable tho). At 270 core, dashes start appearing on the screen (I managed to save it from a crash). At 600 DDR the memory causes a total system crash (along with a very garbled screen), requiring a reboot with CTRL held down. Seems to me my 250/550 combo is a safe setting (plenty fast too).

MrDetermination
April 16th, 2002, 05:17
I seriously doubt the input has anything to do with how the monitor displays the image. The fact you have black borders at high resolutions is definately whack.

Eagle
April 16th, 2002, 05:37
Originally posted by MrDetermination
I seriously doubt the input has anything to do with how the monitor displays the image. The fact you have black borders at high resolutions is definately whack.

Actually, no its not, mine does that at that res. too. Its because when I stretch the monitor edges to maximum width, the monitor reaches 100% before the picture reaches the edge of the screen. And I can't go higher than 100%

MrDetermination
April 16th, 2002, 10:06
It just dawned on me that maybe older monitors were never meant to go so high?

gokuss4
April 16th, 2002, 10:21
what's the max i can overclock my voodoo3 without it burning?

Tk64
April 16th, 2002, 19:43
Originally posted by MrDetermination
It just dawned on me that maybe older monitors were never meant to go so high?

1992 monitor... it goes to 1600x1200 @60Hz...:satisfied: Anything over 1280x1024 is too tiny anyway.

MrDetermination
April 16th, 2002, 20:53
I agree on the too tiny part.

Plus, 1280x1024 is a retarted aspect ratio so we're practically limited to 1280.

Are you saying that even with your desktop set to 1280x9660 there are "edges"?

Tk64
April 16th, 2002, 21:25
Originally posted by MrDetermination
Are you saying that even with your desktop set to 1280x9660 there are "edges"?

Yup. This is how it ends up:

320x240, 512x384, 640x480: Plenty of stretching. Screen is completely full. Refresh: 85Hz.

800x600: Just barely makes it. Fills the screen. Refresh: 85.

1024x768, 1152x864 (<-- desktop setting): ~1/2" black border due to inadequate H-stretching. V-stretch fills it vertically, but messes up the aspect ratio. Refresh: 85.

1280xXXXX: 3/4" borders. Stretchable V but not H. Refresh: 75 (slightly flickery)

1600x1200: 1" borders. V stretchable (just barely), not H though. Refresh: 60, very flickery.

For most things the border doesn't bother me (desktop @ 1152x864, racing game at 1024x768) but emus for some reason bother me... MW4 @ 1280x960 just plain rocks in 9xFSAA, even with borders :P

I would like to see this thing go to 2048x1536, but the icons would be dots... :P

This is not the fault of the GF3/Windows/DX/etc. but the monitor. However like Eagle said it seems to happen on almost all monitors.

Anyways I'm pretty happy with the GF3TI200 now, being faster than a TI500 :biggrin:

MrDetermination
April 16th, 2002, 22:05
However like Eagle said it seems to happen on almost all monitors.

This is just not true! I've seen dozens of monitors running 1280x960 and "borderless". Its GOT TO BE an old monitor thing.

Slougi
April 18th, 2002, 14:37
The monitor was just never designed to go that far, you are running it out of spec. Be carefull not to break it by doing that, the older monitors are stupid nd will try to draw any video feed they get.
I am running mine out of spec as well, 1280*960@75hz, altho it officially supports only 60 hz :P