Question about X1600 stock clock speeds

My "original" clock speeds are reported in Everest and ATI Tool to be 425/475 but the actual stock speeds showing up in both these progs is 419/468. Why the discrepancy and what is "original" as opposed to the stock speeds that the card runs at by default?

BTW, the card runs nice and overclocks well when I occasionally desire a few extra FPS in some games but I don't understand this "original" stuff. I have read that most X1600's are usually clocked at 470/470 but I also understand why Asus chose to slightly underclock. Thanks.

 

Mine is at 472/378 by default.

 

Mines are 449/359 stock.

 

450/450 @ stock

 

Two things:

1. I overclocked my card from the stock 472/378 to the "default" 470/470, but I got minor artifacting in BF2. What's up with that? The highest I can go without getting artifacts is 469/450.

2. Powerplay underclock my card to 128/135 when in battery mode. I used ATI Tray Tools to manually underclock to these frequencies, but I noticed that I'm not saving as much power as when I used Powerplay. Is this because Powerplay undervolts the card too, and Tray Tools does not?

 

Yeah, I also noticed that when I OC, in BF2 it artifacts, but in 3DMark05 it doesnt.

BF2 is apparently very sensitive to overclocking.

 

Thanks for the input folks, but I was wondering what the difference between "original" clock speeds and the actual default speed that the card runs at. I know every model lappy with an X1600 will probably have different speeds for various reasons, I just don't understand what monitoring programs mean when they report "original" speeds.

Yan, did you try ATI Tool? It is different than ATI Tray Tools and people seem to have better results, especially with X1xxx series cards.

 

450/450 stock

 

jtom : X1600 not GF7400

@ usapatriot, yan : if you have artifacts during gaming or 3dm's that means for values are simply to high. Scores with artifacts doesn't counts. I can set 600/600 but it's pointless.

 

no, thats the weird thing, I get no artifacts in 3dmark05, but in BF2 i get alot of graphical glitches when OC'ed.

 

378/425 Stock here on my HP. Why are we overclocking? Omega drivers stink...Catalyst give better performance for me.

 

i think we're overclocking to get better performance in graphically demanding games.

 

NO, I'm just a gambler and want to fry my GPU as soon as I get new laptop in my hands Oh, and I don't care about scores, they sucks!! OMG what kind of question is this?!

 

How do you check clock speeds? I have an X1600 and would like to see mine

 

Download ATI Tool

 

Or open Catalyst Control Center, I think clocks are listed under the general tab.

 

Is 450/450 generally agreed upon as the safest speed? I have a TravelMate 4670, and it runs a bit toasty at times. Also, can I use ATI Tool to overclock while also using Catalyst control center? Thanks guys.

 

As far as I can tell, clock speeds are determined on an individual basis with each machine. Get a reliable monitoring program and see what your stock temps are. If you can bump things up without an appreciable increase in temps or abnormal behavior, then you should be fine. CCC is pretty useless for me so I leave it disabled and I just use ATI Tool when I have the need to overclock. The 2 progs are not interdependant. Some people have use for CCC and it has some neat features, just none that I need.