Turn your FX5900 into a full FX5950

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:33:19 -0000, "Nom"
wrote:

"John Lewis" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 13:57:25 +1300, "The Black Wibble"
wrote:

If an fx5900 owner set the 3D clock/mem speed of his card to 475/950,
what advantage would flashing his card
with an fx5950 BIOS give him?


None, unless you also believe in leprechauns and tooth fairies. It is
fairly obvious that those indulging in this dangerous BIOS mod have
never heard of Coolbits.

The 5950 has specially selected GPUs and faster memory, allowing
higher default clock speeds than any 5900. BIOS
has nothing to do with the speed in 3D mode. However those
lucky enough with the parts on their specific board can push
up the speed with Coolbits, maybe if very, very lucky to 5950
rates. However, if the new BIOS raises the default clock rate
on a 5900 to that of a 5950 in 3D mode, then it may be necessary
to LOWER the clock rate using Coolbits to make it work
properly again. Beware, the 3D benchmarks do not fully exercise
all speed-related failure modes, regardless of how long they are
cycled. A combination of them with Halo is a much better test,
especially the Halo cut-scenes at very high resolutions. They will
freeze if you exceed memory margins.

Er, I suggest you go and do some research, and get a clue, before posting
such mis-informed rubbish.

You can start with this thread over @ Futuremark :
http://discuss.futuremark.com/forum/...w=&sb=&o=&vc=1

The 5950U BIOS both raises the GPU's Core Voltage by 0.2v and backs off the
memory timings slightly - meaning you can clock MUCH higher with the BIOS
flash.

Thanks for the info -- I stand corrected...............

There are PLENTY of people who couldn't reach the 5950U Clockspeeds
before the flash - and now they can.


And that translates in what improvement in real performance ??
Clock-rate is not the whole story.........

I presume that you have a 5900. Please detail the exact improvement
on your board after the BIOS upgrade. I don't expect a quick answer.
It should take you 2-3 days running all your benchmarks and
applications with zero crashes, slow-downs or freezes to set the true
max GPU and Mem clock rates, then to measure the actual frame-rate
performanceimprovement -- having already benchmarked before the
upgrade !!!.

Certainly the 0.2v increase in core voltage may improve matters
slightly if not offset by the slow-down due to increase in chip-temp.
My experience with core voltage increases on the fastest P4
processors (0.13u technology also ) has been disappointing
due to the offsetting effect of temp-rise.

And relaxing the memory timings may make the memory
apparently clock faster ( good for marketing specmanship)
but may even slow down actual data-flow.


BTW, IMHO, this is the most ridiculous thread of the year, so far.
And April 1 is not here yet.

Unfortunately, yours is the most ridiculous post of the year so far. You've
just waded in, with no background knowledge whatsoever, saying that the net
result is zero.


This is quite clearly not the case - this story is all over
the web right now, and you'd have seen that if you'd bothered to look !


For some, the story can turn into a Grimm's fairy tale of failed BIOS
programming, artifacts and poorer performance.

Loading a BIOS matched to a different design is like
applying an after-market turbo to a stock engine without
the necessary cylinder-head, manifold and exhaust changes.

John Lewis

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:19:42 GMT, (John Lewis)
wrote:


I presume that you have a 5900. Please detail the exact improvement
on your board after the BIOS upgrade.

I'm as cynical as you about this. I've read marvelous stories in other
forums about significant overclocking and better results in 3DMark
but I wonder if they're the result of falling into the trap I found
myself falling into........putting more effort into tweaking this Bios
than the one before and therefore having some apparent success.

The other complicating factor is that this Bios does indeed allow
higher clock rates and I suspect people are immediately assuming that
that's better of itself. That factor also makes it more difficult to
compare like with like. To update on my previous post in this thread,
I had said that I got a slight increase in 3DMark 2003. I subsequently
found that while 3DMark runs fine, some games are freezing unless I
reduce the clock rates to a level that gives a lower score than the
old Bios!. I've had to go back to the old Bios.

As I previously said, the really strange thing about this bios
'upgrade' is that it does seem to change the nature of the instability
you get when you overclock. When pushed too far, the old bios would
run 3DMark ok but would give artifacts and 'faulty rendering' (rainbow
colours on some surfaces?). This new bios causes freeze ups before it
gets to that stage but the 3DMarks scores at stable levels are not
significantly different. I wonder why?

I've got the Leadtec A350 TDH LX (lower speed memory, which may be
part of the problem).


Dan

"John Lewis" wrote in message
...
There are PLENTY of people who couldn't reach the 5950U Clockspeeds
before the flash - and now they can.

And that translates in what improvement in real performance ??
Clock-rate is not the whole story.........

Well if you could only reach 450/800 before the flash, and then 500/1000
after the flash, there's quite clearly going to be a marked improvement

I presume that you have a 5900. Please detail the exact improvement
on your board after the BIOS upgrade. I don't expect a quick answer.
It should take you 2-3 days running all your benchmarks and
applications with zero crashes, slow-downs or freezes to set the true
max GPU and Mem clock rates, then to measure the actual frame-rate
performanceimprovement -- having already benchmarked before the
upgrade !!!.

I've got a 5900XT (400/700 stock clocks), but I've not bothered flashing it.
I don't plan to either.

There have been plenty of benchmarks (before and after) posted in the
previously linked thread @ Futuremark though.

Certainly the 0.2v increase in core voltage may improve matters
slightly if not offset by the slow-down due to increase in chip-temp.
My experience with core voltage increases on the fastest P4
processors (0.13u technology also ) has been disappointing
due to the offsetting effect of temp-rise.

Again, see the thread @ Futuremark. The temp increase is minimal, if any.
I put this down to the fan spinning slightly quicker with the 5950U BIOS -
this is backed up by the statements from a few people saying their cards had
got louder.

And relaxing the memory timings may make the memory
apparently clock faster ( good for marketing specmanship)
but may even slow down actual data-flow.

Yep.
If you clock 475/950 before the flash, and then 475/950 after the flash,
you'll find your performance has decreased !

This is quite clearly not the case - this story is all over
the web right now, and you'd have seen that if you'd bothered to look !

For some, the story can turn into a Grimm's fairy tale of failed BIOS
programming, artifacts and poorer performance.

Bear in mind though, the risks are VERY small. I've only read one or two
reports of it not working (compared to the hundreds saying w00h00), and it's
trivial to flash back your old BIOS (which you backed up first) if you run
into problems.

Loading a BIOS matched to a different design is like
applying an after-market turbo to a stock engine without
the necessary cylinder-head, manifold and exhaust changes.

Yep.
But as long as the net result is 100% stable, then it's just fine - this is
the whole principal of overclocking.
I myself run my 200bhp Turbo car at 12psi, instead of the stock 10psi, for a
small "free" performance boost.

"Dan Dan" wrote in message
...
The other complicating factor is that this Bios does indeed allow
higher clock rates and I suspect people are immediately assuming that
that's better of itself. That factor also makes it more difficult to
compare like with like. To update on my previous post in this thread,
I had said that I got a slight increase in 3DMark 2003. I subsequently
found that while 3DMark runs fine, some games are freezing unless I
reduce the clock rates to a level that gives a lower score than the
old Bios!. I've had to go back to the old Bios.

Yeah, you only really get an improvement from the new BIOS, if you can
successfully run the higher clockspeeds that it allows. If you keep the same
speeds you had previously, your performance is actually reduced - as you've
seen

As I previously said, the really strange thing about this bios
'upgrade' is that it does seem to change the nature of the instability
you get when you overclock. When pushed too far, the old bios would
run 3DMark ok but would give artifacts and 'faulty rendering' (rainbow
colours on some surfaces?). This new bios causes freeze ups before it
gets to that stage but the 3DMarks scores at stable levels are not
significantly different. I wonder why?

IIRC, "artifacts and faulty rendering" mean your memory is clocked too high,
and "freeze ups" mean your CPU is clocked too high, and/or overheating.

My card isn't overclocked, but if I turn off all my case fans, and play for
half an hour or so, it begins to freeze up for a few seconds every minute or
so - and the card gets VERY hot !

I've got the Leadtec A350 TDH LX (lower speed memory, which may be
part of the problem).

Inno3D 5900XT here - same 2.8ns slower speed memory, which is why I haven't
bothered doing the flash. I get artifacts if I clock any higher than
420/735, so I think the chances of my card managing the 5950U speeds after
the flash, is slim-to-none

"william bell" wrote in message
...
Seems its one for the Dumb teenagers that like to get some thing for
nothing..

That's exactly what it's for.
The basic premise is that the 5950U BIOS will increase the overclocking
ability of your card. Whether this is a good thing or not, depends on the
person in question.

"f00ge" wrote in message
k...
Right, has anyone actually done this sccuessfully with a Gainward card?

I've tried every ROM and every NVflash version I could find.
None of them will flash my card.
Either I get the readme file displayed, or I get a Board ID mismatch
(that's
when using aflash -5 -6 filename)

Whatr version nvflash dod you use?
What exactly was the command line?

Make an MS-DOS bootdisk

2. Reboot using the bootdisk

3. Type 'a:\nvflash -b original.rom'
this backs up your original bios

4. Type 'a:\nvflash -f n5950u.rom -u -p'
restart and you're done.

From : http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=4045

"Courseyauto" wrote in message
...
Is there any way to check that the card has indeed been turned into a
5950 ultra?

Run some benchmarks, before and after.

What should the memory speeds be for a 5950 ultra compared
to the leadtek A350 TDH LX that it was before?

400/700 for the LX/XT cards, then 475/950 for the 5950U cards.

What utils arethere to
check the memory and core speed.

The nVidia drivers will do it, as long as you've installed Coolbits.

Will the memory still be running at the slower 2.8ns or will it now be
2.2ns?

It will be running at 950MHz instead of the previous 700MHz. But it will
still be 2.8ns memory.

"The Black Wibble" wrote in message
...
If an fx5900 owner set the 3D clock/mem speed of his card to 475/950, what
advantage would flashing his card
with an fx5950 BIOS give him?

If you keep the same 475/950 speeds after the flash, then the advantage will
be zero. Infact, your performance will REDUCE, because the 5950U BIOS backs
off the memory timings slightly.

BUT, the flash will likely let you set much higher speeds - so if you can
then clock to 530/1050 (for example) then you'll obviously get better
performance.

"Nom" wrote in message ...
"The Black Wibble" wrote in message
...
If an fx5900 owner set the 3D clock/mem speed of his card to 475/950, what
advantage would flashing his card
with an fx5950 BIOS give him?

If you keep the same 475/950 speeds after the flash, then the advantage will
be zero. Infact, your performance will REDUCE, because the 5950U BIOS backs
off the memory timings slightly.

BUT, the flash will likely let you set much higher speeds - so if you can
then clock to 530/1050 (for example) then you'll obviously get better
performance.

1050? My card has 2.2ns memory and I can get only 985 max without introducing nasty screen artifacts and,
besides, the mem clock slider in Display Properties only goes up to 1000. :-)

Tony.

--
3GHz P4 (HT enabled)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe
PDC20378 IDE/SATA controller
ADI AD1985 audio
MSI FX5900U-VTD256 (BIOS 4.35.20.22.0)
2x 512MB Kingston PC3500
2x 36.7 SATA WD Raptors
52/32/52 LiteOn CD-Writer
16x Pioneer DVD-120S
Enermax 550W PSU
Windows XP Pro & Linux Fedora
PC-70 Lian Li case w/ side window
Hitachi 174SXW B 17" LCD

To email me, replace org.nz with net.nz

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 09:02:20 -0000, "Nom"
wrote:

"f00ge" wrote in message
. dk...
Right, has anyone actually done this sccuessfully with a Gainward card?

I've tried every ROM and every NVflash version I could find.
None of them will flash my card.
Either I get the readme file displayed, or I get a Board ID mismatch
(that's
when using aflash -5 -6 filename)

Whatr version nvflash dod you use?
What exactly was the command line?

Make an MS-DOS bootdisk

2. Reboot using the bootdisk

3. Type 'a:\nvflash -b original.rom'
this backs up your original bios

4. Type 'a:\nvflash -f n5950u.rom -u -p'
restart and you're done.

From : http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/forums.asp?s=2&c=7&t=4045



I think that the questioner was endeavoring to find out how to get the

right version of nvflash to put on the floppy disk in the first place.
You missed out this vital step in making the boot-disk. I hope he can
read Korean since the links in the above URL message no longer
appear to work.

John Lewis