Problem with Radclocker?

Robett · Dec 12, 2003, 03:06 PM

I am useing the Omega 3.9 drivers with a Radeon 9800XT and have a question. The normal clock speeds are 411 MHz for the core and 365 MHz for the memory...ok no problem. If however I enable Overdrive the core speed drops to 209 MHz, and the card will not overclock. Is this normal? Is it Overdrive or Radclocker but not both? This is my first ATI card so please be kind if this is a stupid question.
Thanks,
Robett

Dyre Straits · Dec 12, 2003, 03:35 PM

I seem to recall this problem being mentioned a time or two before. Just can't seem to get a handle on the thread right now.

ChrisW · Dec 13, 2003, 07:47 AM

If you would run this program , I could tell you is RadClocker is the problem. Just run it with Overdrive disabled and write down the numbers it gives you. Then enable Overdrive and run it again and write down those numbers. Then post them here.

HolyAvenger · Dec 14, 2003, 01:36 AM

Radclocker messes up my 9600 XT as well...
The card does run 500 MHz core stock, not 300...
Well, I can do without that thing.

ChrisW · Dec 14, 2003, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HolyAvenger
Radclocker messes up my 9600 XT as well...
The card does run 500 MHz core stock, not 300...
Well, I can do without that thing.

It's comments like that that make me greatful for spending so much time and energy to produce a free tweak utility.

mkk · Dec 14, 2003, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChrisW
It's comments like that that make me greatful for spending so much time and energy to produce a free tweak utility.

I feel your pain, but it's inevitable to run into misconceptions and ignorance on the net. Try to shrug it off knowing that the software you've created is good.

About appearing issues when combining two overclocking tools at the same time, feeling surprised is not an option.

Seriously, since the ATI overdrive function at the most only overclocks the core a little bit I see no reason to run with it when a more powerful overclocking tool is readily available.

HolyAvenger · Dec 14, 2003, 03:08 AM

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I guess you simply didn't have time yet to adapt it to the XT cards ?

Mazuko · Dec 14, 2003, 04:10 AM

I was the one that brought up the issue with radclocker and misrepresented clock speeds whilst using overdrive.

It was in this thread here:
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/showthre...threadid=30377

(reproduction of the initial post here)

Quote:

With Overdrive disabled these are my rates according to RadClocker and AIDA32:

Core: 411.75
Memory: 364.5

With Overdrive enabled these are my rates according to RadClocker and AIDA32:

Core: 209.25
Memory: 364.5

And the response posted by Devil Duck that answered some questions is also reproduced below this line.

Quote:

Radclocker misreports the numbers you're referring to (when using Overdrive feature) & it will probably never be fixed (author no longer updating Radclocker). The board cannot be underclocked when using Overdrive, except in that small range below back to the default speeds. Other anomalies exist as well trying to use the Overdrive feature & Radclocker as the verifier. (Yes, I have an XT & have checked out the very same observations you mention.)

At this point, forget Overdrive until the driver supports something truly useful. Radclocker still works for OCing, just turn off Overdrive when doing so. I've found using Radclocker or Powerstrip & a small progy artifact tester to be quite sufficient to discover safe OC levels.

With Overdrive enabled when trying to use radclocker to overclock the card it would crash the card even with a 1MHz increase. But doing that is just dumb. It does work w/ overdrive disabled though.

ChrisW · Dec 14, 2003, 04:33 AM

I've been getting conflicting reports about whether or not it works. Some say it works fine, some say it works with Overdrive disabled, and some say it does not work at all. I think part of the problem may be that people are using different versions of the software. I fixed several bugs in version 1.801d and the latest version of RadLinker. It seems most people are still using the old version (1.800) which is causing me some problems narrowing down the problem.

Mazuko · Dec 14, 2003, 05:54 AM

I just installed your newest version of RadLinker/RadClocker and with overdrive enabled it still displays the incorrect values for RAM and Core Speeds, as does the newest version of AIDA32.

Overdrive enabled:
Core: 216
Ram: 364.5

Overdrive disabled:
Core: 411.75
Ram: 364.5

With overdrive disabled overclocking the core by 1Mhz does not crash as it did with the previous version I used. It still crashes when overclocking the core speed by 1Mhz with overdrive enabled though. I figure that makes sense, as with overdrive enabled trying to pass it's OC'ing threshhold with it enabled probably tells the card something is wrong.

I am willing to help out here if necessary.

ChrisW · Dec 14, 2003, 07:01 AM

Could you run this program and tell me the number (hexadecimal) it gives you with and without Overdrive enabled?

Mazuko · Dec 14, 2003, 07:48 AM

Certainly:

With Overdrive Enabled:
0120 3604

Without Overdrive Enabled:
013D 3604

Dec 12, 2003, 03:06 PM	#1
Robett DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 1 Rep Power: 0	Problem with Radclocker? I am useing the Omega 3.9 drivers with a Radeon 9800XT and have a question. The normal clock speeds are 411 MHz for the core and 365 MHz for the memory...ok no problem. If however I enable Overdrive the core speed drops to 209 MHz, and the card will not overclock. Is this normal? Is it Overdrive or Radclocker but not both? This is my first ATI card so please be kind if this is a stupid question. Thanks, Robett

Dec 14, 2003, 05:54 AM	#10
Mazuko DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 1,008 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	I just installed your newest version of RadLinker/RadClocker and with overdrive enabled it still displays the incorrect values for RAM and Core Speeds, as does the newest version of AIDA32. Overdrive enabled: Core: 216 Ram: 364.5 Overdrive disabled: Core: 411.75 Ram: 364.5 With overdrive disabled overclocking the core by 1Mhz does not crash as it did with the previous version I used. It still crashes when overclocking the core speed by 1Mhz with overdrive enabled though. I figure that makes sense, as with overdrive enabled trying to pass it's OC'ing threshhold with it enabled probably tells the card something is wrong. I am willing to help out here if necessary. __________________ E-bay feedback: http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...me=STRK:ME:UFS

Dec 14, 2003, 07:48 AM	#12
Mazuko DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Fredericksburg, VA Posts: 1,008 Rep Power: 0 System Specs	Certainly: With Overdrive Enabled: 0120 3604 Without Overdrive Enabled: 013D 3604 __________________ E-bay feedback: http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAP...me=STRK:ME:UFS

Dec 13, 2003, 07:47 AM	#3
ChrisW DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 332 Rep Power: 0	If you would run this program , I could tell you is RadClocker is the problem. Just run it with Overdrive disabled and write down the numbers it gives you. Then enable Overdrive and run it again and write down those numbers. Then post them here.

Dec 14, 2003, 01:36 AM	#4
HolyAvenger DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 83 Rep Power: 0	Radclocker messes up my 9600 XT as well... The card does run 500 MHz core stock, not 300... Well, I can do without that thing.

Dec 14, 2003, 03:08 AM	#7
HolyAvenger DriverHeaven Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 83 Rep Power: 0	Sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I guess you simply didn't have time yet to adapt it to the XT cards ?

Dec 14, 2003, 04:33 AM	#9
ChrisW DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 332 Rep Power: 0	I've been getting conflicting reports about whether or not it works. Some say it works fine, some say it works with Overdrive disabled, and some say it does not work at all. I think part of the problem may be that people are using different versions of the software. I fixed several bugs in version 1.801d and the latest version of RadLinker. It seems most people are still using the old version (1.800) which is causing me some problems narrowing down the problem.

Dec 14, 2003, 07:01 AM	#11
ChrisW DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 332 Rep Power: 0	Could you run this program and tell me the number (hexadecimal) it gives you with and without Overdrive enabled?