your views on my overclock

see specs in sig. Default clocks are 350/700

Using coolbits it gave me 416/833 on auto

Using rivatuner it gave me 455/850

I used ATI tool on auto and when increasing core speed it actually went up to 480 mhz ! without detecting artifacts but i could see yellow dots on the fuzzy square. I know i should have stopped it before then but im new to this and thought it would stop automatically - has my GPU been damaged by this? It seems to be working fine Also i read in another forum that the yellow dots were ok

Anyway after that stupid move i increased clocks slowly form the coolbits result and kept testing for artifacts for 10mins every 2mhz increase. I got 445 for the core and im testing now, 850 mem and its stable.

Are these clocks reasonable? I dont know if ive gone too high?

 

Heh every laptop/chip will be different, any overclock on a laptop is decent really, on my old 1694 from Acer I got the x600 from 400/250 to 600/300 ^^ Are you noticing any improvements in your games?

 

Yellow dots = bad (aka artifacts). You won't have any problems with heat on a 7300 so i suggest going as high as you can then lowering by 15mhz on each.

 

Yeah if you cant see obvious corruption then your chip is fine.

 

Right, i decded the test 3DM05 again last night using the following clocks:

Stability determined by me : 446/849 - 3DM: 1668
A few mhz up and ATI tool detects artifacts but they go away in a second and the timer restarts BUT i tested these "unstable" clocks in 3DM and saw no artifacting whtsoever.

450/850 - 3DM: 1693
455/850 (rivatuner limits) - 3DM: 1682 (faster core=lower 3DM?)

Considering original clocks are 350/700 I plan to run at 450/850 - is this too high and damaging the card?

 

Just to be safe, throttle it back from the maximum. That little bit won't make a difference, and you'll feel more at ease for doing it.

 

5MHz doesn't make a difference and the difference between those two benches is minimal enough to be thrown out - it's the natural variance in the benchmarks.