Is faster Core or Memory clock better?

S

Space_Coyote

Gawd
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
932
I'm trying to squeeze a little more performance out of my 7900GS while I wait for the new releases in November. I'm using ATI Tool to overclock and check for artifacts.

On 'find max core' I get to about 590 (stock 500) before artifacts, memory tops out around 875 (stock 690). The thing is, I can't set them both to max, or even a little under at the same time.

How should I go about tweaking to find the sweet spot? What is a good compromise to shoot for? Is a higher core more advantageous?
 
Not an expert opinion, but it seems to me that the memory speed effects performance more than the core.
 
That would depend on game and resolution too, but I'd go with memory on this card, unless you're running super low resolutions.
 
the Core clock increases the number of shader operations, Texture Fill Rate etc. where as the memory clock increases the bandwidth of the card.
 
with these no.s

i suspect you have an EVGA 7900gs KO

an amazing overclocker i have a frind of mine who slaped a fitalty Fan over it

and pam 850 core 2000 rams

stable at 60 idle 70 ish under load

i would definitly reccomend a good vintalated case and side 120mm fan blowing on the card.

and a good after market fan makes all the diffrernce
 
I've tried a few tests based on this question, I found that most of my games run alittle better with the memory overclocked at a higher frequency, seemed more noticeable than the higher clock rate.
 
At low resolutions, core affects performance more and vice versa at high resolutions, memory bandwidth effects performance.
 
azuldenial said:
At low resolutions, core affects performance more and vice versa at high resolutions, memory bandwidth effects performance.
Click to expand...

The max my old 19" Dell (Sony) Trinitron CRT will do is 1600x1200 I think, so would that be considered low or high?

I'm very interested in that volt mod, but I don't want to get aftermarket cooling when I'm so close to upgrading. Maybe I could just go for like 1.3v instead of the whole 1.5?
 
Yeah 1600x1200 is the high-end for the card, so memory speed would be your priority for maxing out, especially if you turn on any filtering.
 
So far 585/880 seems to be pretty stable. How long do you typically test for atifacts with ATI Tool? It seems to run the card hotter (56-58) than any games I've seen (mid-high 40's).

Right now I'm trying to score a cheap cooler, but in the meantime do you think taking of the stock and using AS5 would drop temps a little?
 
Space_Coyote said:
So far 585/880 seems to be pretty stable. How long do you typically test for atifacts with ATI Tool? It seems to run the card hotter (56-58) than any games I've seen (mid-high 40's).

Right now I'm trying to score a cheap cooler, but in the meantime do you think taking of the stock and using AS5 would drop temps a little?
Click to expand...

I'd go with 1 hour on atitool artifact scanner. If it can manage that, it's fine..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top