overclocking a fx 5600 need help

[spamboo]

i have a geforce FX 5600, i got 2388 on marks03 and i want to see of i can push it to 3000 but i dont know how to. does anyone know a reliable OC site, or know how to OC a fx5600?

 

[Northwood83]

Sorry to break it to you but overclocking your card isnt going to give you a near 650 point increase. Since you dont know how to do it I suggest you dont try but if you insist you should only go up little by little to see if the card can handle it. Remember : The core is more sensitive than the memory so be careful.

 

[bx|ch3f_0z]

ok wait....
Your problem isnt in your video card. Though those cards are Nv's worst nightmare.. Im thinking your over-all system may need an upgrade. SO more info is needed about your specs.
But let me give you sometihng to think about.
My gf3ti500,amd ThroA 1700 (1.43), 2/256 2700ddr on iwillr333 and i got upwards of 2900-3000. go figure


ps. that's my old system but it still rocs

 

[spamboo]

mine is a p4 2.6ghz w/ HT,800fsb
1g DDR 400 (dual channel)
i dont think i nedd to up grade.

 

[Northwood83]

No, you do not need to upgrade. The weakest part of your system would be the video card. Have you tried searching the ORB to see if people with your same system are scoring higher?

 

[spamboo]

whats the website for ORB?

 

[Northwood83]

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectmanager

 

[Doobz]

don't you need to buy the pro version of the software to do that, or have i misunderstood something?

 

[KiNG]

a good resource to see if your card is overclockable would be the www.overclockers.com forums, they are very extensive and im sure you'll find wut your looking for.

 

[Northwood83]

No, only certain features are disabled in the ORB for non registered users. You can upload them all you like .

 

[Doobz]

ah, you can upload, but can you compare and such?

 

[Northwood83]

You can compare and everything, just some features when searching are disabled. Just check it out for yourself!

 

[Doobz]

i will as soon as my isp sends me my PNA adapter so i can connect my comp with the 9800 Pro to my DSL modem upstairs

 

[simmo]

I'm gonna buy a GF FX 5600 256mb DDR , think I should ?, its only £125

 

[crabcakes66]

256 is pointless

 

[simmo]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
256 is pointless

I'm dumb at graphics cards, but why ?, is the FX 5600 decent ?, I dont care how well it performs against others, I want to know if it has the capabilities to run HL2 to the max

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by simmo2k3
I'm dumb at graphics cards, but why ?, is the FX 5600 decent ?, I dont care how well it performs against others, I want to know if it has the capabilities to run HL2 to the max

Once again no one knows. However I think its gonna be on the edge of "max" (whatever that is, since we dont know) settings. Unless it run it REALLY crappy. The entire 5200-5900 line isnt exactly DX9 technology workhorses, and I beleive HL2 will be one of these tests on which card has the best modern hardware. Keep in mind, that in raw speed, the 5600 isnt much faster than the Ti4600 (or 4400 or 4200). Its just got a bunch of extra crap it cant run anyway.

 

[simmo]

So what your saying is a should get a GF 4 TI 4200 rather than a GF FX 5600 ?

OR, I could get a GF 4 TI 4800 64mb!, I'm confused!

 

[TrueWeltall]

I'll go look at some benchmarks for you and then come back with the results summed up.

 

[TrueWeltall]

If you do not want to spend heaps of money on a high-end graphics cards then we definitely recommend the product, it's stable and for the money it offers heaps of functionality, features and decent performance.

Link (Read the review)

The 5600 is a good average gamer card, its ability to run with 4xAA and 8xAF and still get semi playable framerates in new games is nice. All the performence that a harcore guy could want is in the ultra model but the price is 50-80 $ more. The 5600 is a good buy, although id wait until halflife 2 is near out for a lower price.

Edit

NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 Ultra is faster than GeForce4 Ti4200-8x

Link to benchmark

 

[SidewinderX]

256Mb of RAM for the card is definitly NOT a waste. It doesn't have much mpact now, but Gabe said that after HL2 releases they make updates that take advange of things such as 256MB of video memory, Hyperhtreading, etc.

 

[dawdler]

Examples (from an anandtech review):

UT2k3 (flyby, NO AA/AF!, 10x7, max details) (totally ignoring Nvidia's trilinear hacks which makes them faster)
(in fps)
9500 Pro: 163
Ti4200: 136
5600 Ultra: 134
5200 Ultra: 81

UT2k3 (flyby 4xAA/8xAF, 10x7, max details, ignoring the fact ATI 4xAA RULEZ Nvidia 4xAA)
9500 Pro: 93
5600 Ultra: 60
Ti4200: 37
5200 Ultra: 36

So what does this show? It doesnt show DX9 speeds (the 9500 trash the 5600 though, but that review didnt show it) and nothing on how fast the 5600 will be in HL2. It does give a *hint*. I would recommend it before the Ti cards, it is newer technology after all. But foremost, I would recommend the 9500 Pro, it costs roughly the same!!!

 

[simmo]

Your a real pal TrueWeltall , 1 more question until I go and spend

Which is faster ?

GF FX 5600 256mb

GF 4 TI 4800 64mb

ATI Radeon 9500 128mb

ATI Radeon 9600 128mb

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by simmo2k3
Your a real pal TrueWeltall , 1 more question until I go and spend

Which is faster ?

GF FX 5600 256mb

GF 4 TI 4800 64mb

ATI Radeon 9500 128mb

ATI Radeon 9600 128mb

Its really hard to say. They are roughly the same speed (in the middle range, though the 9600 falls behind) in its base (meaning just low quality gaming and standard settings).

Here's a quicke of those:

5600: Extra memory is not faster, but its better for the future than 128mb. The card is the slowest of them, but in the middle in terms of hardware technology

4800: Its old, its only got 64mb, but its still fast. Falls seriously behind in FSAA/AF though (unusable)

9500: The fastest of them, but not the most advanced, however it beats the 5600 and 4800 back to the stoneage with FSAA/AF and basic image quality and DX9 speed. Definetly the most futureproof of the all.

9600: A crippled 9800, this one is actually slower than the 9500, and most likely 4800 too (without FSAA). However it has the most advanced core of them all, but its nothing you are in serious need of. It falls behind the 9500 in FSAA due to its crippled bandwidth.

You have to compare this with the prices you are willing to pay for it.

 

[TrueWeltall]

In standard game benchmarks, picking a winner between the Radeon 9500 Pro and GeForce4 Ti 4600 would require a coin toss. The race is that close, with some benchmarks favoring one card over the other, but with extremely close scores in any event. The area where the Radeon 9500 Pro breaks free is with anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering enabled, as the R300 core is simply too much for the GeForce4 Ti to handle.

Link

Price for non-pro 9500 at newegg.com 142 USD
Price for the pro is 198 USD

Keep in mind im taking the highest of the prices.
The 9600 is a stripped down/ lowered 9500 by the way.

It's a little disappointing to realise that the Ti 4800-SE offers nothing over the present Ti 4400 except for the added 8x AGP support. Various benchmarks here at Hexus have shown that the faster AGP speed is simply a gimmick when considered in relation to today's games - it offers little or no speed increase over 4x cards. If the Ti 4800-SE was a recipient of a speed boost, one might be inclined to look upon it favourably. The fact that it has the identical 275/553 clocks as any Ti 4400 will ensure that present owners won't rush out and sell their older Ti-based cards in a hurry.

Link, First paragraph

Given the Radeon's far superior performance, better 2D, and stable drivers, it's hard to recommend the Ti series of GPUs now.

Taken from the same website as above.

But, the BFG card has 256MB of memory! Our tests show that the extra memory just isn't needed for today's gaming applications and/or that the FX 5600 has enough architectural limitations that prevent it from making full use of the extra memory. So for roughly the same amount of money, MSI offers similar performance and a superior bundle.

The FX 5600 is also problematic. In one sense, it is moderately priced, and it offers DirectX9 features. But will you want this card for your DX9 games such as Doom III? Frankly, I doubt it. The FX 5600 was not able to best the previous generation in raw horsepower. It was more successful than its Ti brethren when antialiasing and anisotropic filtering were applied, but it didn't set any speed marks in the process. All this leads us to believe that while the FX 5600 will be able to utilize the DX9 features of future games, it may not perform them well enough to satisfy the gamer expecting big results from his FX-class card. At this point of NVIDIA's FX product offerings, the FX 5200 Ultra represents a better value for performance. In addition, ATi's mid-range DX9 cards must also be considered; they offer similar or greater performance at a similar price point.

Link

Well now ive seen website say this and that, it comes down to what your system specs are. The 9500 cost cheaper but i dont think it can match up to the 5600, it may with newer drivers. The pro version can beat it but at a higher cost. Thats pretty much all i have to say on the subject.

 

[simmo]

The 9500 cost cheaper but i dont think it can match up to the 5600,

I'm more confused, someone said the 9500 is faster now your saying the 5600 is faster ;( ;(, I might as well go and get the GF FX 5600 256mb DDR then

Gainward GeForce FX 5600 256MB DDR 5ns
AGP, "Ultra/780TV-DVI",Tv-Out, Retail

 

[dawdler]

The 9600 is a stripped down/ lowered 9500 by the way.

No it isnt, the 9600 is based on the R350 core (same as 9800) and the 9500 is based on the R300 core (same as 9700)

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by simmo2k3
I'm more confused, someone said the 9500 is faster now your saying the 5600 is faster ;( ;(

It depends on conditions!

In raw (meaning no AA/AF) DX8 (most games today) speeds the 5600 is generally as fast or little faster (it isnt much we are taking about).

But in high quality (meaning max AA/AF or close to it) and DX9 gaming the 9500 is MUCH faster than the 5600!

 

[simmo]

But in high quality and DX9 gaming the 9500 is MUCH faster than the 5600!

Ill get a 9500 then, so its "MUCH" faster in DX9 then ? , since new games are coming out will support DX9 (Doom 3, HL2)

 

[dawdler]

Originally posted by simmo2k3
Ill get a 9500 then, so its "MUCH" faster in DX9 then ? , since new games are coming out will support DX9 (Doom 3, HL2)

Doom 3 is OpenGL, and has a special path for Nvidia that is faster than anything by ATI (Nvidia is faster in OpenGl, and they hack it )
But yeah, I think the core of the 9500 will stand the pressure of new games alot better than the 5600. The FX line is really crippled by its inferior design, and its show everyday. The 5900 is the only good one worth buying, but even there the 9800 is the same like the 5600 vs 9500 comparison, and much cheaper

NOTE: I would still advise the 9500 Pro, its well worth the little extra over the non pro.

NOTE2: Something worthwhile to think on, is that the core the 9500/9700 is based on is the base of Microsoft DX9 specs. Thats why its so good for DX9

 

[TrueWeltall]

But in high quality (meaning max AA/AF or close to it) and DX9 gaming the 9500 is MUCH faster than the 5600!

Yes i agree.

No it isnt, the 9600 is based on the R350 core (same as 9800) and the 9500 is based on the R300 core

The 9500 is still better then the 9600 so it doesnt really matter unless you want to argue over it.

I'm more confused, someone said the 9500 is faster now your saying the 5600 is faster

You've got the 9500 and the 9500 pro, look at the post again

 

[simmo]

Thxs guys, well i'm gonna get a ATI Radeon 9500 (I couldnt find the pro...UK)

You have saved me alot of sweat and blood

 

[dawdler]

The 9500 is still better then the 9600 so it doesnt really matter unless you want to argue over it.

If you read my post that's exactly what I said
The 9600 has the newer core, but it is slower than the 9500. The additions to the core isnt good enough anyway for the normal gamer (when they are used there will be newer and twice as fast cards out).

 

[Jmechy]

ok, not many of you attempted to answer the original post...

to overclock your fx 5600, first get the latest drivers from www.nvidia.com. Next, you need to find the coolbits registry hack, which allows you to overclock your card using nvidias own tools. then get into your display properties (right click desktop, properties, settings, advanced). Click the tab that says "geforce fx" or whatever, and on the menu that pops up to the left, select "clock frequencies". Click the box that says "allow clock frequency adjustments." Now, you can try to crank it up blindly, but that isn't very smart. Press "Auto Detect", and it will automaticlly find the fastest setting possible while staying at safe levels. I have a geforcefx5600 256mb, and it clocked mine up to 367/587. Thats preety nice, considering the default clocks are 325/500. One o/c site i saw said that the max they got out of the card without any visual fragments of heat issues was 369/686. im not so sure about that memory speed, it seems REALLY high, but i'm gonna keep fooling around and pushing mine, and see how high i can get it.