Wanderer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 22:33:11 +0100, "AJ"
wrote:


What's the difference between the 2? Is it just the clock speed? If so
what's stopping anyone installing coolbits and upping the clock on an FX5200
to the same as an Ultra and saving some cash?



Yes, the difference is clock speed, but you'll likely never get any
plain 5200 memory clocks anywhere near that of the 5200 Ultras because
most 5200's I've seen use some fairly slow 4ns or 5ns chips.

You'll easily get the core up to 5200 Ultra speed (provided it is
actively cooled and not just a passive heatsink seen on most 5200
cards) but that isn't where the most speed gains will be made. Memory
bandwidth is everything and the more speed you can get out of the ram
the better. But like I said, the ram on 5200 cards is too slow to hit
5200 Ultra speed.


Got a Leadtek 5200 TDH here with 4ns memory and active cooling. It's
stable at 275MHz gpu and 550MHz memory. gpu fails at 300MHz, haven't
tried pushing the memory any higher yet.

On Linux it defaults to 250/400 but for windows it comes with
overclocking software and I suspect it defaults to 275/500 (looking at
the manual).

Ultra runs at 325/650 AFAIK so it's not too far short but then
presumably the ultra would have o/c potential too so I guess you get
what you pay for.

Geoff