If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
FX5200 and FX5200 Ultra - diff?
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? cheers |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Well, you *might* be able to clock the core to ultra speeds. The chips are
speed binned. In other words, they are tested just like CPUs are. The best ones are thrown into the ultra bin. The bottom feeders go into the non ultra bin. Who knows, maybe the crappiest make it into the 64 bit cards. Dave "Wanderer" wrote in message ... 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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Geoff wrote:
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 Just an update, seems to be good for 280/600. G |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Asus Gf4 4200ti vs. generic vs. Asus fx5200 | S.Heenan | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | August 2nd 03 07:38 PM |
GF FX5200 in DELL 4550 gives WinXP BSOD | Jonathan Eales | Nvidia Videocards | 2 | July 25th 03 05:30 PM |
FX5200 (non Ultra) vs. ATI 9200? | Harry Muscle | Nvidia Videocards | 5 | July 22nd 03 12:23 PM |
FX5200 (non Ultra) vs. ATI 9200? | Tod | Ati Videocards | 0 | July 3rd 03 10:02 PM |
A7V8X and Geforce FX5200 issues | Bruno | Asus Motherboards | 0 | June 28th 03 09:06 PM |