Ati Overclocking

Hi fellas, Just wondering what would be a safe overclock limit for the X700 128mb card?

 

The stock clocks for the MRX700 are 350/350 (core/memory), and on some notebooks, it is 350/300 (or 330) due to slower memory used, as is the case with your notebook I believe.

With my TM4402, the stock clocks were 350/330. I managed a 378/350 stable overclock, with a decent performance increase.

There is no "safe" overclock in my opinion, it is dangerous any way you look at it. But if you want to try, be sure to go in small increments, maybe 5-10MHz at a time.

 

what do you think about the X600 and overclocking? is it even worth a try, i'm not sure what the stock clocks are

 

The default clocks for the Mobility Radeon X600 are 400/250.

I'd say you could push the clock at least another 50MHz, and the memory by ~25 or so.

 

what OC tool do you use? do you run omega drivers? or do you use ati's powerplay? and if you use powerplay how the hell do you get it to show up in catalyst?

also? why is it that the X600 has a higher core clock than the X700?

 

also I can't imagine it would really be worth it, the highest you could really gain would be maybe 10fps or so wouldn't it?

 

I use PowerStrip by EnTech Taiwan.

I'm not sure if it's worth it either...although, you might get a noticable performance increase. With an X600, you're going to need all the frames you can get.

 

Hi all,
I have x700 set by default to 350/300. I downloaded ati tray tools and played with it for a day. I managed to set to 400+/430 without any problems and then I played with latencies. I found that with some latencies I get far better results than overclocking core speed. So finally I decided to go with 350/440 and changed (first number is a new setting and in brackets is default value):
-------Timings1:-------------
CAS: 1 (2)
Don't touch WR latency! I usually ended up with a restart.
------Timings 2:------------
TRCDWR: 2 (3)
TRP: 4(5)
TRAS: 6(14)
TW2RSame Bank: 1(5)
TR2R:1(3)
TRAS, TWRSame Bank and TR2R never produce artifacts. The rest I lower only one notch. Latencies that are not listed here make only problems if lowered.
------Timings 3:------------
Memory refresh rate:255 (35)
TRFC: 20 (15) this one is tricky. At 22 it gives artifacts. So I left it at 20.

Now, I understand smaller latency gives better results (less waiting) and higher refresh numbers mean fewer refreshes of the memory, thus again speeding up. I tested with bench inside tray tools, checked for artifacts and then repeatedly tested with 3dmark05. No problems. 2270 before, 2825 after.
Ati tray tools bench: 2482 before, 3866 after.

Overclocking core speed doesn't seem to affect the results greatly. Memory is the key. If I leave core at 350, then I can overclock memory to 440 without artifacts. If I overclock core to 400 and memory to 400, it works, but it is not faster! Core speed affects how much you can overclock memory without artifacts? Maybe I'm wrong, but that is what I experienced.

My notebook is Prestigio 1590W (Uniwill), i915, 1,86 GHz Pentium M, 2GB DDR2, x700 128MB, Radeon 5.11 (CCC not installed) drivers.
In these tests I turned on enhanced performance in Bios (overclocks CPU to 840 MHz on idle and to 1,96 GHz on 100%), but I turned on Battery optimizer in CHC so in all tests CPU was at 840MHz all the time. So in 3dMark05 I tested only first three graphic tests (no CPU tests). Nice and cool at 52 degrees celsius. Fan turns on now and then. Running CPU at 100% gains nothing in benchmarks, only tests load faster. Of course different story is in games. I just find it better to have cool notebook while testing VPU overclock

And don't think I got those latencies right away. My notebook did reset few times and few times VPU recover did its job. Sometimes I noticed artifacts right away and I managed to restore settings without restarting. Finally I got these numbers that worked. Some of those numbers still can be lowered, but make no big difference and/or I get artifacts. Those I listed made the best score for me.

Ivan

 

Great post ikovac, nice information.

I've also seen better performance results from overclocking/playing with the memory. I cranked up the memory speed from 330 to 351.00MHz - much larger increase than increasing the core from 352MHz default to 378.

 

I forgot to write that I have MXM ati x700 pci-e16x card if that makes any difference. Maybe those have different overclock abilities?

Ivan

 

I've also got the AXIOM (MXM is Nvidia) X700 in mine...I'm not sure if it makes a difference, I wouldn't think so, since it is the same GPU.

 

you just out geeked me ChasMan sorry

 

Thanks fellas i get the general gist that it's not really worth doing! I was just curious to know in case i was tempted to try in the future! once again cheers.

 

Hi all,

So I tested my new settings with Fear performance/test settings at 1024x768 High:
Computer - all maximum (physics etc...)
Graphic adapter
Effects:
All max, Volumetric lights on but medium quality (it was set automatically)
Graphics:
Everything max. FSAA, Soft shadows, Pixel doubling and DX8 shaders off. I didn't change anything, except texture resolution to medium due to 128 MB on card i believe. Brackets show values with my settings from last posts.

Min: 11 (16)
Avg: 22 (28)
Max: 42 (53)
Below 25: 72% (37%)
25-40: 27% (51%)
40+: 1% (12%)
It is OK framerate gain in my opinion.
Now numbers are one thing (lies, **** lies and statistics) but gameplay IS more fluent and somehow BETTER. I don't care much of frames per second, I expect decent visual experience (shadows, lighting and smoke in Fear really make the difference), and I hate big slowdowns in the middle of the fight. What is interesting with Fear that I finished it on 800x600 with FSAA 2x and all other on max (similar to the test above) and game experience mostly depended on the atmosphere and sounds + shadow/light and physics. Not framerate. It was around 30 or more most of the time, but that was before I played with Ati Tray tools. Now I play on 1280x800 (wide) and have to turn off few things (FSAA for example) but it is still OK.
I still somehow expect Fear to be faster. I mean visually is great (I never actually enjoyed firing weapons so much until now), but Half-Life2 was too and it was considerably faster on my machine than Fear. It is my subjective opinion. I didn't run tests.

Conclusion: The speed of graphic card memory IS the main reason for better performance, and memory latencies ARE NOT always set to the optimal values. It is worth playing with it. I get no artefacts or temperature raising (I find it important in notebooks) and framerates are higher. I mean visibly higher. Free speed.

Cheers,
Ivan

 

I pushed my X600 to be stable below 500Mhz Core and 300Mhz Mem....it gave me little over 100 extra points in 3DMark05 (1449).
Will try those timings settings later.

 

I just found an interesting thing, If I leave memory refresh at 35 and overclock memory to 430 or more I get screwed screen but still can restore settings and try again. But If I change memory refresh to 255, I can easily overclock to 450 (slider won't go further) and screen is ok. By testing I found that on my card 435 is absolutely top speed without any artifacts. 440+ won't show artifacts in Ati tray tool, but will in third game demo in 3dmark05.

So I was curious and this is probably the best my x700 can do in few hours of tweaking - from 2270 to start with to 2958 3dMark05 at 400/435 at the end. At least until I find another working setting
Happy overclocking

 

lol - AXIOM is like MXM - upgradeable/interchangeable graphics card.

 

wow, ikovac, i've never heard of people changing gpu memory timings and gaining so much preformance. did u do this through ATI tool? if u did i might have to try that on my desktop X800GTO which will be unlocked to an X850 XT PE very soon since i have found articles to do this.

 

No, I used "ati tray tools" by Ray Adams (freeware). Check www.guru3d.com. Latencies only will not give you big performance right away. I just pointed out that latencies should go along with memory and GPU overclocking and if you get it right, like in my case, you can overclock memory more without artifacts and that gives you good performance gain.

I talked to electronics guru and he told me that latencies are behaving morelike stohastically. That means that some settings might appear to work for a long time but then all goes to hell (not literally, but there are errors). In other words statistically you can always have an artifact with any latencies you set (even default). It is only a different probability of seeing one. That was true when I changed my settings to 420/450 and all latencies needed adjustment. Initial tests gave me 6 or 7 artifacts, but I couldn't see any. 3dmark showed over 3000, but I could see big long sticks going from the beast in 3rd graphic test. What was interesting was that they also had shadow etc... Now I lowered settings to 400/430 and I get no artifacts (so far).

 

Hi Chaz,
You're right MXM is nvidia "format", Axiom is Ati. But interestingly I couldn't buy ati card in axiom flavor. When I was buying my card there was clearly MXM in front. I read somewhere that ATI fully supports MXM with their GPUs. So can I consider an axiom card in future upgrading? How does your axiom card look like? Mine mxm is 5x5cm (i didn't measure) square with gpu in the middle and 4 memory chips around. Is GPU placed on the same place on both cards? (I ask because of cooler). Thanks in advance.

 

Wow, that is interesting if they do support MXM...interesting possiblities, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

I would assume that you should look for an AXIOM - I'm waiting for the Mobility X1600, I'll be slapping of those in.

Check my Sager review - at the bottom I have pics. It does have the M26 GPU in the center, and the memory chips surrounding.

All the AXIOM cards are uniform, so yes, the heatsinks would most likely be in the same place.

 

Hi Chaz,

MXM ATi exactly like mine: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19759.

I really hope AXIOM can fit into my notebook. I would like that x1600 too. Heatsink is surely big enough! But what worries me is that hear that new MXM/AXIOM cards will not work on "older" MXM ready notebooks. Hm. We'll see.

Cheers

 

well.. i can help you out on this one buddy
MXM is an open standard.. ati is definitvly using it- AXIOM or however it is called has been aborted as MXM has been delivered faster.. ATI even brought some developement changes to NVIDIA which NVIDIA implemented in their MXM specs..

and don't worry about upgrading your card, MXM is defacto the standard for upgrading nb-cards!
as i have read you are running on a 128mb card you have got a notebook with an MXM type 1 (hey, you got an uniwill mobo like me, x700 128mb mxm-1 350/300).. mxm type 1 has been designed for slim/light/entry level notebooks, so dont worry mxm type 1 will be produced for the next few years as people tend to get smaller laptops..

the only question is where can we buy mxm cards? i think the dell upgarde cards are not an option as they are using their own connector systems so they are not mxm.. atleast thats what i think

and what? you sick mother****er are running your x700 on a mem clock of 425? as your x700 is by default on 300 i assume you ve got ddr1 bulit-in.. 425 x 2 = 850.. ddr1 max speed is 600 - isnt it? wouldnt **** it up that much.. it's not worth it..

btw, i've got an x700 thats missing powerplay support as it has been cut out of the bios by FSC.. can somebody please dump me his bios with ati tool or ati tray tools and post it here?

cheers

 

Hi dutty,

What a coincidence, I was just replying to one german guy who has the same problems with Powerplay (missing) BIOS. My bios is also without Powerplay.

The same feeling about MXM here. I surely would like to buy some better card one day.

And in connection to overclocking, I am currently on Ati tray tool profile at 400/430 with my latencies that work. 2900 3dmak05, Fear 1024x768 with almost all at maximum. You're right DDR1@2x430=860Mhz, 13.4 GB/s. Obviously some mem can go over 600 MHz. Still works. No problems.

Cheers

 

could you dump me some infos about the performance increase if you only change the memory timings and leave the cpu/mem clocks unmodified?
maybe just run 3dmark03 gpu test 3... am i right that its pretty safe to modify the memory timings? they are programmed by the OEM into the ati bios with the default values they get from their mem supplier.. i mean, it wont heat up the card if i twist them around?

 

Hi dutty,

In my opinion latencies shouldn't be too risky.

3dMark03 3rd test -
26,7 fps @ 350/300 default
27,5 fps @ 350/300 and latencies set

33,8 fps @ 400/400 default
36,6 fps @ 400/430 and latencies set

3dMark03 GPU tests:
350/300 default - 4877
400/400 default - 6167
400/430 with latencies - 6459


Now don't expect big differencies in latencies only. Point is that it is possible to overclock a bit more than you can without setting different latencies. 400/430 ore even more is possible on my card only if I set latencies in few ways.

As I said before, playing with this can result in screwed screen or even reboot. Sometimes VPU recover brings all back. I don't think you can fry your card.

So what I did (- means notch to the left):
Timings 1:
CAS -1 and then apply. Nothing happens, right? Don't touch other.
Timings 2:
TRCDWR, TRP: -1 try apply and see what happens
TRAS: -8 (it used to be 14 now is 6) safe for apply
TW2RSameBank: -1 (used to be 5 now is 1) pretty safe for apply
TR2R: -1 pretty safe for apply
Timings 3 (these are crucial to get higher overclocking speeds of MEMORY):
Memory refresh rate: set it to 255 - shouldn't make problems
TRFC is tricky. If you don't overclock memory first to over 400 and put this to 28 (highest) it would probably screw the screen. And other way round - you need this latency high in order to get high memory speeds. For example my 400/430 won't work if I reset TRFC to default (15).

If you get color boxes all over the screen, don't panic! Just slowly move your mouse to Overclocking tab, and then to Set Default clocks. You'll see all you need to see. It will stop. Grab any window and move it over desktop - cleans all the stuff. Start bar needs just to be unlocked and resized. Pointer however remains screwed until next reboot or changing pointer scheme in Control panel.

If you are still uneasy with the procedure just do this:
Press Bench! on Overclocking tab to see the default speed. It will give you around 2488.
Leave GPU speed at 350. Move memory speed to 350 (this should be the default speed). Press Bench!. You see the difference? 2960.
Now speed up memory to 400 in 10MHz steps. Bench along if you want. You can go all the way to 450, but I wouldn't recommend it - artifacts. 420 works fine for me.
Now once you are happy with memory, try GPU. I think you are safe with 400/400 without touching latencies at all.

This will give you 3400.

400/430 + latencies will give you 3800. And yes I went even further, but there were more instabilities and artifacts. So I decided to leave it at above mentioned speeds. I didn't notice temperature change.

Good luck,

 

interesting, it's actually a big difference if you only modify the mem timings, i think there might even be more space for performance if you tune the latencies right... i get 3650 ATT.Points with 350/400 without modified the coreclk and the mem timings... seemslike modifing the core wont change much at all - except heating up the system... do you have any idea what the mem timing commands mean at all?
as my card runs very fine on 350/400 i think its safe to set it to 350/350 - wonder why they ve set it to 300mem at all.. maybe to keep the heat out of the system?

cheerio

 

btw, i think setting the mem refresh rate to 255 isnt a good idea.. it's default is 35 for me, setting it to 255 will cause the gpu to refresh the mem bus nearly 7 times more often.. i'm looking for settings that wont heat up the notebook too much.. a hot gpu = short life

 

Hi dutty,

Great! You get even better results. I use standard ATi 5.11 mobility drivers. And my CPU was downclocked to 840 (battery optimized profile). Now I get around 3500 at 350/400. What drivers do you find better? ATi, Omega or some other (DNA...)?

Yes 350 -> 400 GPU clock is only 100 or so marks more. I don't know how much heat it brings. I will measure it once.

Timings 1 and 2 mean at how many clocks will memory do reading and writing in different combinations. The smaller the better. That means memory WAITS less in order to write or read, therefore it writes and reads more often.

I believe Timings 3 say at how many clocks will memory refresh (if my english is good enough). Now you want longer time to pass (more clocks) before it refreshes again. So 255 clocks make 7 times LESS refreshes in total. I see it like every 25th clock or on the other hand every 255th clock to do something (refresh).
If I leave all settings (speeds and latencies) at default and move only Memory Refresh Rate to 255, I get 100 marks up. That would go in favor of my suggestion above.

My GPU temp is around 60-65 on idle, around 100 at full gaming @ 350 MHz. Now that is a bit too much to me. Maybe I should check the heatsink. But I still get no problems in hours and hours of gaming. I also have bought a cheap cooling pad (with 4 port USB 2.0 hub) and it helps keeping all things a bit cooler.

I don't know how much heat produces memory when overclocked. If GPU surrounding temperature in Everest shows that information (around 58-65) then overclocking memory has a very small impact on temperature. Latencies should have no impact on temperature in my opinion.

Cheers,

 

i think omega,dna and all that are not good.. i think they were useful a few years ago when you were able to open up more pixelpipes and stuff.. those drivers break alot of things, the best thing is to stick with the original drivers made for your book as every OEM ****s around with it.. you have to find the best drivers yourself i guess - its like woman, everybody has his own taste.. but i stick with the official 5.1 catalyst until the december 5.2 gets released

that would be cool... really, i think the most important factor we have to look at while OVCing a nb is heat.. would you please test 350/300 , 350/350, 350/400, 400/400 (core/mem) all in idle, for like 5 to 10 mins.. i would have done it myself but FSC messed with my x700 bios so i havent go powerplay and i havent got any lowlevel driver access to any of the heatsinks on my gpu (not even cpu)..

that would be very possible.. as i havent found much lecture on ram timings on the net some research should be done.. but one thing i do know is, before doing this one should find out what the manufacture of the ram on the x700 is..

get ATI TOOL, it should show you the temperature too (not for me tho ) and try to get as exact values as possible...

btw, i was thinking of starting a messageboard dedicated to notebook 3d apps/games/gfx cards/driver/ovc - what do you think about it?

edit: i just had an idea, can you dump your bios and attach it as zip? i'd really like to take a look at it, as my bios doesnt even allow gpu temp informations to be read - maybe flashing yours will allow me to..

 

Well, I finally got ATI Tools, downloaded and installed.

I attempted the memory latencie changes, but I ended up with a lock-up and then restart. . However, I was able to push the clocks to 375:400, which I'm running right now. I don't notice any more heat than I normally get, plus I can now play Far Cry perfectly at 1680x1050

 

Hi dutty, Chaz and others

As I can see the temperatures are worrying you - maybe this helps.

Unfortunately, ATI tool has no temp tab in my case (ver 0.24). I remembered why I hadn't been using it before. No Powerplay in my BIOS too.

Test was made with X700 128 MB, NHC and Everest home edition (it reads GPU temp and GPU ambient temp). Game was crimsonland in demo mode. I decided to use that game because of window mode and the fact that for some reason it gives exactly the same temperature readings as playing FEAR! It is old 2d game, but as I said it had perfectly the same impact on my system.

I hope you can see the pictures:


The IDLE graph shows temperature rise at different speeds as dutty suggested. The fall is when the fan goes on. As you can see, there is a sinus-like curve for different speeds showing that lower speeds get hot slower and need less time to cool. Periods are pretty much the same, meaning that cooler can easily cool overclocked gpu and mem while idle. Also idle doesn't show big differences in temps. Ambient GPU temp stays between 57 and 61. CPU temp reaches max 56, min 51.

Now the GAME graph:



This is interesting. Game makes things hot very fast. In 10 minutes you get max temp. My fan turns on 56, 65 is next speed, 70 is the fastest speed. Only 350/400 and 400/400 reach 70 and thus the fastest fan speed. Other OC configurations never reached (well in 10 minutes) 70 CPU temp! So there are small decreases in temperature when fan kicks in. Now If I play game for hours temp must go up even few degrees more, but I couldn't wait so much, and this is only for illustration. From my experience max CPU temp was 74 (after few hours of killing bastards in FEAR for example )
Blue line is overclocked GPU/MEM with my cooling pad. It obviously does some work, and in a long run it keeps things not too hot, and performance gain is visible.
GPU Ambient temp is between 57 and 76. As I stated before this temps are somehow too high to me. But I don't experience any problems whatsoever so far.

So I hope this helps in case you want to overclock your cards.
I'm travelling tommorow and will be away for few days, so if you have some more questions for details please be patient. I will check the forum occasionally. I'd like to hear some more experiences of successfull overclocking. Can you read your GPU temp? Is it also over 100 while playing games?

Cheers and happy overclocking,

EDIT: See an update to this!

 

Beautiful graphs ikovac, and you certainly put a good deal of effort into your post!

My laptop runs very cool - well, for a gaming rig - I will download a program and see if I can get a reading on my GPU's temperature.

 

Hey Ivan - managed to get my core/mem to 380/410. I reached the max on the memory, because even with the default 351 core, I can't get the memory higher than 410 without immediately getting artifacts.

With the default 351/331 core/mem, I got 2783 in 3DMark05 w/ Catalyst 5.11's. Now OC'ed, I got 3133. Pretty good for a notebook...

I also managed to get the CAS to be stable @ 1. Not going to fool with the TRCDWR, I ended up with a restart when I fooled with those. I'll test the 3DMark05 with the CAS 1 tomorrow, let you know how I make out..

 

chaz, i dont recommend setting the memory clock higher than the system clock.. thats too risky imho - but it depends on your card, my ati always locks up if i set the mem bus higher than the core.. anyway, i think thats too risky

 

not only that... only set those type of clocks if you got a coolpad attached. i bet your x700 is around 110°C.. it'll die if it keeps running at those temps

 

Yeah, I only had it at those clocks for a few minutes. Didn't notice any extra heat.

When I am just doing regular tasks with my laptop, I leave it at the default clocks of 351:331. Later, I'm going to try equal core:mem clocks, let you know how that works out...

 

Hi guys,

I'm back. Glad to hear that you overclocked a bit more than you expected! CAS was quite safe for me (one notch) and showed some speed gain.

Great. Now I have a inspiration to play with it a bit more. New drivers are here too, so we'll see.

Cheers,

 

I believe that I have different memory than you do Ivan - my default is 350:330 (GDDR2), whereas yours is 350:300 (DDR1). So, hence I am not able to use your latency settings.

Okay, I did a bit of experimenting. These benches are without changing the latencies.
Bench! (core:mem)

350/330 (def.) = 2,943

350/350 = 3,120

350/375 = 3,313

350/400 = 3,521

With every 20-25MHz jump in memory, you see about 6% performance increase. From default 330MHz to the 400MHz, there is a 16.4% performance increase without even touching the core. Now, let's try that:

375/330 = 2,964

Comparing this to the default 350/330, there is a 0.7% performance increase here. This tells me that the core doesn't matter in the slightest. I did two more just to make sure:

375/400 = 3,557

400/400 = 3,580

Once again, comparing these scores to the benchmarks where the core was not overclocked, there is virtually no performance increase. Even with a 50MHz boost in core speed, we only see a 1.7% performance increase. The only thing overclocking the core will do is offer more heat.

So, in conclusion, if you are going to overclock at all - number one, be careful and it's at your own risk - be sure to watch the temperature -- and, number two, forget about the core speed. It is useless to overclock that. Ivan is right, it's all in the memory.

 

Hi Chaz,

Great! This is the first time I actually noticed that you have GDDR2 (and more VRAM - 256MB on board). Sorry if I was misleading you. Also, that is probably the reason why are you getting 500 more score in 3dmark05. Anyway, seems that GDDR and GDDR2 behave almost the same, but GDDR2 is showing much better performance. Memory, oh memory. Everybody talks of new GPUS, and, well now we see the real bottleneck is memory. And to compare GDDR and GDDR2, in total I managed to get 700 3dmark05 more than the default (underclocked memory) settings, from 2260 to 2960. Now from your post I see that GDDR2 is OCd to give at least 600, and with more tweaking you might be able to get another 100.

Another observation: I have MS Antispyware, Desktop search and NHC running, and when I turn them off I get 50 3dmark05 up. Also in order not to get heat from my CPU I usually have tested with underclocked CPU, so my past posts actually have a bit lower scores. I used to have Aniso optimisations on trilinear optimisations on and ai off. Now I've left all on default.

Now after all that tests and the fact that when I play I actually see the difference with GPU overclocked (more complicated scenes are a bit faster - let's say more fluent), I play games with 400/430 on a cooling pad. That gives me around 2960 3dmark05 and everything is ok (temp, speed gain etc..).

Speed gain for nothing and chicks for free.

Cheers,

 

yep.. discovered that too while i wrote an article about performance gain by overclocking.. but the clock is sometimes necessary to overclock the mem bus... i even had no speed increase with 100mhz+ on the clock.

 

I'm going to try some optimizations on my GPU later (software), then I'm going to run 3DMark05 @ 350:400, see what I get.

I have just hooked up my cooling pad - cheap one but it works. Heat is much less now. Actually, before, I never noticed a difference between OC'ed and non-OC'ed heat, and that was all through playing games...

Cheers

 

there is a difference! but it's only about 1° or 2° if you go from 330 to 350..

 

im confused about types of memory on graphics cards the radion information on ati tray tools says that i have GDDR3 memory this is wrong isnt it? as chaz only has GDDR2

Hardware Information
Installed memory 128 Mb
Memory Type GDDR3
Memory Width 128 bit
Active Rendering Pipelines 8

i have coppied and pasted the relevant part in radion information.

just in case you want to know any more ill paste the rest as well.

_____________________________
General
Display adapter Radeon X700 Mobile (5653)
Core Name M26
SubVendor Unknown 1025
SubDevice 0080
BUS 1
Device 0
Function 0
Base Address 0 C8000008
Base Address 1 00009001
Base Address 2 C0100000
Base Address 3 00000000
Catalyst Registry Path
System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Video\{258CC302-11F4-4229-84B9-1E80F11AB988}\0000

______________________________
Clock Information
BIOS VPU 358.00
Current VPU 357.75
BIOS MEM 330.00
Current MEM 330.75

______________________________
Radeon PCI configuration space
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F
00 02 10 53 56 07 00 10 00 00 00 00 03 08 00 00 00
10 08 00 00 C8 01 90 00 00 00 00 10 C0 00 00 00 00
20 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 25 10 80 00
30 00 00 00 00 50 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 12 01 00 00
40 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 25 10 80 00
50 01 58 02 06 00 00 00 00 10 80 01 00 A0 04 00 00
60 10 09 00 00 01 AD 00 00 00 00 01 11 00 00 00 00
70 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
80 05 00 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
90 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
A0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
B0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
C0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
D0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
E0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
F0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00

______________________________
Hardware Information
Installed memory 128 Mb
Memory Type GDDR3
Memory Width 128 bit
Active Rendering Pipelines 8

______________________________
ASIC details
Family 59
Emulated Revision 3
Gfx Engine ID 21627238

______________________________
Radeon Registers
RADEON_BIOS_0_SCRATCH 02040000
RADEON_BIOS_1_SCRATCH 0100C000
RADEON_X_MPLL_REF_FB_DIV 02353104
RADEON_XCLK_CNTL 00007FFA
RADEON_MCLK_CNTL 00031212
RADEON_XDLL_CNTL 0400A430
RADEON_XPLL_CNTL 48001A00
GB_TILE_CONFIG 00010017
MC_TIMING_CNTL 65668344
MC_SDRAM_MODE_REG 10230000
MC_REFRESH_CNTL 00004A27

______________________________
Video BIOS Information
Version 009.010.001.000
Part Number BK-ATI VER009.010.001.000
Date 2005/04/11 14:48

______________________________
Controller Configurations
Controller 0
Active Connections:
-Secondary Display (0) 1280x800x60
Controller 1
Active Connections:
No Active Connections

______________________________
Displays supported by adapter
0 Monitor (CRT1)
1 LCD Panel (Laptop)
2 TV
3 Digital Flat Panel

looking at the clock speed and mem speed that ati tray tools has said i have dose this mean i actually have GDDR2 the same as chaz?

 

Hey Redfrog - I believe you have GDDR2 - your memory clock is the same as mine, 330MHz. If it was GDDR3, it'd be 350MHz, and if it was DDR, the clock would be 300MHz.

 

cool i take that as being a good thing is my card in this modle of laptop suposed to have GDDR2?
also i was looking at a website samsung i think and i think i read that GDDR2 only comes in 256? this ture or a load of crap?

 

Actually REDFROG, I take that back - looks like you have DDR. That's according to HotHardware. Come to think of it, I have not seen a 128MB X700 with GDDR2...so, maybe you are correct in asserting that only the 256MB X700's have it.

 

and i have never heard of a x700 with 256mb
chazman, redfrog, could somebody please dump your bios? use ati tray tools, the process is simple. click settings, select "miscelleanous" and click dump bios file.. zip it with your favorite zip tool and upload it either here, or directly to the thegamebooks.com forum in the ati section

edit: please use this thread directly, http://www.thegamebooks.com/viewtopic.php?p=29#29 i have already uploaded two different x700 bios files!

 

350/330 would also give 2400 3dmark05 with DDR. GDDR2 should score more.

 

ikovac, would be cool if you could also dump the bios to the thread.