driftinggull13 said:I'm not entirely sure what that means, but if I remember correctly, some games require Shader Model 3, so I'd want a graphics card that supports that. What are my options here, or what would be considered a good value purchase? Thanks in advance.😉 What exactly is OpenGL 2, and is it necessary for modern games?
Almost all recent graphics cards come with Shader Model 4, so you probably don't need to worry about shaders. I can't explain OpenGL very well, but since 99.9% of games rely on Direct3D, it isn't really something you need to stress over. OpenGL is mostly used by professionals, and there are specific cards out there designed for sky-high performance in OGL. The cards that us mere mortals typically buy are geared more toward D3D. Just listen to mr. Tamba 🙂
What resolution are you running at? I guess you'll notice a much bigger difference between 1 GB and 512 MB on higher resolutions. At lower settings, 512 MB shouldn't really be an issue.
That’s likely because the game is running at 1280x1024, which is a 4:3 aspect ratio. You really need a resolution that matches a 16:9 or, in some instances, a 16:10 aspect ratio.
Maybe the multiplier drops when there isn't a heavy load to help cut down on power consumption and heat. I might be talking nonsense here, maybe not. It’s definitely standard practice for laptops, but I'm not entirely sure if they do the same thing with desktops.
It really depends on what resolution you're running, but I think you'll be pretty happy with it. Call of Duty is a well-optimized game, unlike something like Crysis... I don't think RE is going to push your hardware any harder than CoD does, so you shouldn't have any issues.
Arthur Martin9 said:Hey guys, I have a question about my X1650Pro. It won't let me overclock even by a single clock cycle—as soon as I try, the image gets all distorted. Is it possible that mine just comes with the maximum clock speeds pre-set from the factory, or is there some kind of built-in protection?
I'm running into the exact same issue. Neither the GPU nor the memory will budge. Anything I try to increase (or even decrease, actually) just results in a black screen on my monitor... I've asked around on a few different forums, but nobody seems to know why. I've pretty much given up and am just sticking to the stock clocks it came with. I doubt you'll get much help from people here.
It isn't just my GPU overclocking that's giving me trouble; now I'm running into issues with the memory too. Honestly, the graphics card isn't even my main priority, but I can't figure out why my system crashes and fails to POST whenever I try to bump up the memory MHz alongside the CPU. I'm using a 1 GB Kingmax DDR 400 MHz module. So, when I set the ratio to 150% (that's 6:4) and increase the FSB by two, bumping the memory from 400 to 404, the whole thing just refuses to boot. Everything works fine when the memory clock is set to auto or via SPD—the CPU overclocks normally, even though it's an older Athlon XP 2400+ setup. I think I might have asked about this before... or maybe not, I can't quite remember. Anyway, if anyone happens to have some insight, I'd really appreciate the help.
So, here’s the deal... I'm running into some issues while trying some Overclocking on my GPU. Honestly, it's pretty standard stuff—we all run into these kinds of hiccups eventually—but this time it feels a bit off. According to Everest, my memory overclock is sitting at 96%. As for the core, it shows 594 MHz (down from the original 600 MHz), and the memory is at 648 MHz (DDR) (originally 330 MHz, which is that 96% jump). I'm working with a PowerColor X1650. When I attempt to OC using ATITool, if I select "find max core" or whatever the setting is called, it claims the memory is already overclocked. It warns me that I'll get artifacts and suggests it might be due to the max core settings. But the second I try to nudge the core clock even by the smallest amount, the screen goes black and everything dies... then I have to hard restart. Even when I hit the default button to reset it back up by just 6 MHz, I still get a black screen. What do you think the issue might be?
Maria Peterson5 said:Guys, I have a quick question. I've got an Intel Core 2 Duo running at 2200 MHz right now. Does anyone know how I can overclock it?
Just Google it... there are a net billion guides on the web about Overclocking, so just read through them and see what works. Starting a thread like this is basically like opening a new topic titled "New PC" and then just asking: Which computer should I buy?
Well, here I am again 😵 . I managed to push it up to 2233 MHz, 15x149, using just the Front Side Bus and a voltage of 😁 👏 . I’d love to bump the FSB up to 150 to hit that nice round 🙂 🙂 🙂 mark, but whenever I try, the system barely even boots into Windows. So... I increased the voltage by 7.5% (the BIOS gives me options for 5, 7.5, and 10%) and I'm wondering if it's too much of a risk to jump to 10%? I really don't want to end up with smoke coming out of the case. That would be 🙂 😵 . One more thing... when overclocking a dual-core CPU, if I raise the frequency by 50 MHz, does that mean I've increased both cores by 50 MHz total, or is it 50 MHz per core for a total increase of 100 MHz?
P.S. Just so you know, my constant use of the word "push" and its variations isn't intentional! 😛
Thanks, I know I can be a bit of a nuisance. If I can't find anything on Google, I might give that a shot—I just hope I don't end up causing some massive short circuit, haha. Thanks again.
I’m running into some confusion again (?!)... I’ve been messing with some jumpers on my motherboard—if that’s what those little switches are called, specifically the clk_ratio—toggling them between on and off like usual. I found some specific combinations for the multipliers in the manual. However, when I shut down the PC, set those "switches" to the 12.5 combination, and boot back up, the multiplier is stuck at 15 again. There’s also this clk_sw setting that I haven't quite figured out yet; I’ve tried everything, switching it on and off, but nothing changes. Does anyone know why it isn't responding?
Next time, I’ll make sure to do some proper research before I pull the trigger on anything $#&[€÷ß!¤!!! If I can track down the manual, I'll take a look, but something isn't adding up... You mentioned an AMD Athlon 3000+ at 1.8 GHz, but I've got a 2400+ running at 2.0 GHz. How does that work? Maybe I just don't understand this stuff as well as I thought I did 😁
I've got a 7n400-pro2 myself. It's basically useless. There isn't even a jumper or any automation available; you just have to pull the battery. As for overclocking, I've given up on it. Even then, I only have two multiplier options to choose from, so it's either a 2500+ or a 3200+.
Ah, at least you actually have the multipliers! I can't find them anywhere. I look at some screenshots and see people using the Registry Mechanic... inside the BIOS, apparently, but I wouldn't know how to find that if I didn't already know. I hit CTRL + F1 and just get a few extra options under advanced chipset stuff or whatever, but there's absolutely no sign of the multiplier.
One more question. When I reset the CMOS, my PC tells me I have an Intel Pentium 4, but once I tweak a few settings in the BIOS, it claims it's an Intel Pentium 4 again, which is totally confusing—now I don't even know which CPU I actually have...?! Why does this happen, and am I overclocking my CPU when it displays the 2400+ rating?
So, I tried my hand at overclocking, but it was a total bust—thank goodness for the CMOS battery saving me! > Is there any software out there that handles this so I don't have to mess around in the BIOS? Something similar to how MSI Afterburner works for graphics cards. I read somewhere online that my processor could potentially hit 2.5 GHz (Intel Pentium 4), but I can't seem to find the multiplier or the system bus settings in my BIOS. All I managed to do was bump the system clock up to 166, and then the whole thing just crashed on reboot.