do these speeds look right for a 9600 pro???

[ibmike]

well just got my rad 9600 pro
and getting pretty low scores in 3d2001 so downloaded rage sd tweak to look at mem and core speeds to find this -------------



please can someone tell me this programme is lieing or have i bought a dodgy card
there were no clock speeds on the site where i bought the card but surely if they are selling as a pro it should have speeds of 600+400 ?

[SilentDeath]

400 core, 600 is the mem which is ddr = 300*2. ur card is fine.

[malfunction]

Just a side note on this - I've just got a 9600 non pro and it's clock locked (more like clock restored actually) with any drivers later than 3.4 - but with the 3.4's I can overclock the core up to 475MHz (the memory on the non pro is 200/400MHz DDR but my memory chips are actually rated at 275/550MHz and will go that fast - but no faster). Not sure if the pro is clock locked but thought it might be worth a mention before you start wondering WTF is going on with the card / riva tuner!

[Austin]

Some 9600PRO's are locked but I believe most aren't. As said some gfx cards quote the DDR RAM at the full effective speed (nVidia) while others quote the actual speed minus DDR optimisations (ATI), so 300mhz DDR is 600mhz effectively when you take DDR into account. 9600PRO do o/c VERY well, 400/600 to around 550/700 is not uncommon, nothing guaranteed though so take small steps and test thoroughly at each setting, IMHO RAM first and then core. Ensure Vsync is disabled for benchmarking and that you don't have AA or AF forced on in the drivers ... you may want 1 or more of these forced on when actually gaming though. Finally rem CPU speed and technology plays a big part esp in the faster gfx cards which take leaps in speed with every extra 0.1ghz. You should expect around 10000marks in 3DMARK2001SE depending upon CPU, if you compare gfx cards you will see 9600PRO is actually placed above you but that's just because almost all benchmarks submitted are from o/c'ed systems. What's your spec?

[Capt Doufos]

I have a Sapphire 9600 Pro and it clocks to around 550mhz core.

[Mr Meltdown]

Off topic but is there a similar proggy for me to download for Nvidia cards to see clock and mem speeds etc?

Cheers,

MM

[Howard]

What 3DMark01 scores are you getting with your R9600Pros guys?

[Mr Meltdown]

OK I just found it. I needed to use the word "tweak" in my google search for it.

http://download.guru3d.com/nvhardpage/

CHeers,

MM

[malfunction]

Originally posted by Howard
What 3DMark01 scores are you getting with your R9600Pros guys?

My 9600 non pro gets 12217:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7015217

(3DMark 2K1 thinks it's a 9600 pro but trust me it's not!)

[Korky]

Some less informed ppl are led to believe because it has a higher core speed than the 9800, it should get a similar score but mem bandwidth and rendering performance between the 2 is very different thats why you pay more than twice the price for a 9800pro

[ibmike]

system specs
ecs kv7mm+ mobo
256mb pc2100
xp 1800+ t bred
as stated 9600 pro

[Austin]

ibmike XP1800+ is still a mighty fine CPU and very capable in todays games, but in benchmarks it will hurt you a little esp if your gfx card can take advantage of the faster CPUs. It is Tbred so runs pretty cool and TbredA should o/c to 1.8ghz XP2200+ while TbredB should o/c to around 2.2ghz XP3000+? Can't find any info on kv7mm+, what chipset does it use? 256MB of PC2100 is more than fine, nice to have the faster RAM for o/c'ing (esp FSB) just as it's nicer to have mroe RAM ... but then isn't it always? Very well balanced system which should game VERY well and yet not cost the Earth. You'd get a bit more by o/c'ing the CPU and gfx card ... even at stock perf should be very good and you should ideally enable 4xAA+4xAF all the time to help soak up some of the gfx card power your CPU can't quite tap.

9600nonPRO is pretty decent but your some way behind a GF4TI4200 in raw 3D speed. 9600PRO is quite a lot better esp when it's o/c'ed. The problem with the whole 9600 series is that they use only 4 pipes (like the 9500 nonPRO did) which is a significant disadvantage and why the 9500PRO (8 pipes 275/270) is faster than the 9600PRO (4 pipes 400/300), 9600PRO needs 550mhz core to have the same sort of core throughput that the 9500PRO has at stock. 9500PRO was too good to be true and thanks to 0.13mu the 9600PRO is very close behind. 9700 and up all use 8 pipes except for the 9800SE. Here's the perf on paper ...

CURRENT CARDS:
9800PRO (0.15) 380/340 256bitDDR 8pipes 21.8GB/s 3.2Gp/s
9800 . . . (0.15) 325/310 256bitDDR 8pipes 19.8GB/s 2.6Gp/s
9600PRO (0.13) 400/300 128bitDDR 4pipes 9.6GB/s 1.6Gp/s
9600 . . . (0.13) 325/200 128bitDDR 4pipes 6.4GB/s 1.3Gp/s

PREVIOUS CARDS:
9700PRO (0.15) 325/310 256bitDDR 8pipes 19.8GB/s 2.6Gp/s
9700 . . . (0.15) 275/270 256bitDDR 8pipes 17.6GB/s 2.2Gp/s
9500PRO (0.15) 275/270 128bitDDR 8pipes 8.6GB/s 2.2Gp/s
9500 . . . (0.15) 275/270 128bitDDR 4pipes 8.6GB/s 1.1Gp/s

NEW 09-2003:
9800SE_1 (0.15) 325/250 128bitDDR 4pipes 8.0GB/s 1.3Gp/s
9800SE_2 (0.15) 380/340 256bitDDR 4pipes 21.8GB/s 1.6Gp/s

[ibmike]

well that has just explained alot thanks m8 the only problem is that my mobo(elite k7vmm+) has no overclocking options in the bios

[m2c4u]

It doesnt matter what "number" you get. As long as you can play the games you want to play with a decent res and quality dont worry about it.

[Austin]

Originally posted by m2c4u
It doesnt matter what "number" you get. As long as you can play the games you want to play with a decent res and quality dont worry about it.

I agree, the bottom line is that so long as your PC can do what you demand of it at least satisfactorily then there's no problem, real games and real perf are what truly count. However synthetic stuff does help to compare and examine how your system is running, how upgrading could enhance things and more importantly check that you are running about where you should be with your setup. With manu's like Powercolor (eg 64bitDDR on cards that should have 128bit DDR) out there you really need to check the perf is what it should be, esp on the lower end cards (GF4MX, GF-FX5200) wjere many manus quietly down the clock speeds from what they should be.

[ibmike]

that is the only thing i use 3d mark for Austin
but as you say if i think i can get it running a little faster then i will do that but only for best performance
not to say my cards faster than yours ETC