StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I'm just curious about this.

I have almost no experience with overclocking, before you get annoyed at me

I have a 2.6 GHz Sony VAIO with a Geforce FX 5200 128 MB (sorta a low end card ). It runs fine (though dies if I shove Battlefront to 1280xwhatever resolution with all quality on max), usually, but it seems to me the case gives off almost no heat whatsoever (some of my other PC's you can feel the heat coming off from the fan).

I was wondering; how hard is it to overclock the graphics card? If I did OC the graphics card, how much would be 'safe' (aka, not overly risky)?

This is one hot topic...

I believe such settings are controlled in the BIOS, at least for your CPU at any rate. I personally don't over clock.

Well for overclocking your video card there is two programs you can use. Though I don't remember their exact names I will try to find them. Praxis why don't you by a new video card? For battlefront I say take the rez down to 800*640 and medium settings and see how that works out.
Cause your running with a 5200.
Tech^
Once I find the apps out I will post links for ya, but for OC the CPU your probably not going to be able to do it since thats a name brand compy. Just depends on what they leave in the bios to mess around with.

Tech^salvager wrote:Well for overclocking your video card there is two programs you can use. Though I don't remember their exact names I will try to find them. Praxis why don't you by a new video card? For battlefront I say take the rez down to 800*640 and medium settings and see how that works out.
Cause your running with a 5200.
Tech^
Once I find the apps out I will post links for ya, but for OC the CPU your probably not going to be able to do it since thats a name brand compy. Just depends on what they leave in the bios to mess around with.

It runs perfectly fine at 1024x768 and even perfectly at 1152x864 with AA turned off and almost everything else turned to max quality (haven't tried turning AA on at that res). Well over 60 fps. Seems to run great. I have no reason to turn my res down. But I'd like to turn the quality up even more and see what it looks like...

Praxis wrote:I'm just curious about this.

I have almost no experience with overclocking, before you get annoyed at me

I have a 2.6 GHz Sony VAIO with a Geforce FX 5200 128 MB (sorta a low end card ). It runs fine (though dies if I shove Battlefront to 1280xwhatever resolution with all quality on max), usually, but it seems to me the case gives off almost no heat whatsoever (some of my other PC's you can feel the heat coming off from the fan).

I was wondering; how hard is it to overclock the graphics card? If I did OC the graphics card, how much would be 'safe' (aka, not overly risky)?

You probably won't be able to OC the CPU with that motherboard.

If you use the Nvidia reference drivers, you should be able to use coolbits to enable the overclocking section in the card's control panel. The usual way to OC is to increase the speed until you start getting artifacts/crashes and then back off a bit until it's 100% stable.

Praxis wrote:I'm just curious about this.

I have almost no experience with overclocking, before you get annoyed at me ;)

I have a 2.6 GHz Sony VAIO with a Geforce FX 5200 128 MB (sorta a low end card ;) ). It runs fine (though dies if I shove Battlefront to 1280xwhatever resolution with all quality on max), usually, but it seems to me the case gives off almost no heat whatsoever (some of my other PC's you can feel the heat coming off from the fan).

I was wondering; how hard is it to overclock the graphics card? If I did OC the graphics card, how much would be 'safe' (aka, not overly risky)?

For nVidia cards, there's a registry change that you make that will enable you to adjust the GPU's clock settings from the nVidia control panel. Though for a FX 5200 part, you're not going to get spectacular performance gains. You're probably better off picking up a newer generation card.

RivaTuner is the program Tech was talking about.
I don't know if your mobo will let you OC, but atleast for me, there are some programs that stay in the windows enviorment and work.

Did some googling based on the info you provided me (registry hacks, etc), read some other forum posts on the subject from forums google found, and got what I needed.

My card is now OCed from 250 to 296- at least, that's what nVidia's control panel tells me Performance is still at full FPS on my current settings, I'll try higher res tomorrow.

No noticeable heat difference.
Thanks!

Even though I said programs one wasn't actually a program. The two are coolbits and Rivatuner. So Praxis what do you mean it dies? Does it just shutoff?

Tech^salvager wrote:Even though I said programs one wasn't actually a program. The two are coolbits and Rivatuner.

Got Coolbits.

So Praxis what do you mean it dies? Does it just shutoff?

Nah, I was exaggurating. When I go on the absolute highest quality settings (4x AA, 1280xwhatever resolution), it drops to about 1 frame per second, so slow I can barely get my mouse to click on any of the menus (including Quit, argh)

Seems to be working great.

BTW, I don't know why people complain so much about the FX 5200. It's not a great card (certainly not), but the drivers are good (very stable, few glitches), it's DX9 (so good compatability with newer games), it can do some nice effects, and can run most (non-Doom 3) games at higher quality settings. And it beats out the Radeon 9200. You get what you pay for for $99- it'd be hard to find a better sub-$100 card. Of course, it's nothing compared to the higher cards like Radeon 9600XT's, but still, it runs every one of my games well (Jedi Academy, Battlefront, etc)

People bash the 5200 because its a really shitty low-end budget card. Basically, the 5200 and 5700 are the equivilent of the MX line for the GF2 and 4 series of cards.

Vertigo1 wrote:People bash the 5200 because its a really shitty low-end budget card. Basically, the 5200 and 5700 are the equivilent of the MX line for the GF2 and 4 series of cards.

True, but for a low end card it's about worth the amount you pay for it.

I mean come on...if it was a $99 card that performed like a $50 card, then I'd be complaining, but for it's price it works pretty well.

Vertigo1 wrote:People bash the 5200 because its a really shitty low-end budget card. Basically, the 5200 and 5700 are the equivilent of the MX line for the GF2 and 4 series of cards.

Your kidding me the 5700.
More like the 5200 and the 5500.

Praxis wrote:Of course, it's nothing compared to the higher cards like Radeon 9600XT's(Jedi Academy, Battlefront, etc)

Just to let you know Praxis ( No pun intended ) that 9600xt is now considered a medium end card.

So what did you pay for your 5200 if you don't mind awnsering.

Tech^salvager wrote:

Vertigo1 wrote:People bash the 5200 because its a really shitty low-end budget card. Basically, the 5200 and 5700 are the equivilent of the MX line for the GF2 and 4 series of cards.

Your kidding me the 5700.
More like the 5200 and the 5500.

But the 5700 Ultra is louder than a leaf blower. I can understand hating that thing

Tech^salvager wrote:So what did you pay for your 5200 if you don't mind awnsering.

$99, a year ago, w/$20 rebate (can't remember if I ever got it or not). I could get one for $55 off newegg now.

Tech^salvager wrote:

Praxis wrote:Of course, it's nothing compared to the higher cards like Radeon 9600XT's(Jedi Academy, Battlefront, etc)

Just to let you know Praxis ( No pun intended ) that 9600xt is now considered a medium end card.

Yeah, but compared to the FX 5200 its "higher"

Praxis wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote:

Vertigo1 wrote:People bash the 5200 because its a really shitty low-end budget card. Basically, the 5200 and 5700 are the equivilent of the MX line for the GF2 and 4 series of cards.

Your kidding me the 5700.
More like the 5200 and the 5500.

But the 5700 Ultra is louder than a leaf blower. I can understand hating that thing

Louder then a leaf blower lol. sorry that was funny. Not any more these days.

Yeah, but compared to the FX 5200 its "higher"

Yeah lol I can see your point.
I was like WTF he payed 100usd for his 5200 then I was guessed he bought it a while back. Cause I payed 104usd for my 5600xt.

Tech^salvager wrote:

Praxis wrote:

Tech^salvager wrote: Your kidding me the 5700.
More like the 5200 and the 5500.

But the 5700 Ultra is louder than a leaf blower. I can understand hating that thing

Louder then a leaf blower lol. sorry that was funny. Not any more these days.

Yeah, but compared to the FX 5200 its "higher"

Yeah lol I can see your point.
I was like WTF he payed 100usd for his 5200 then I was guessed he bought it a while back. Cause I payed 104usd for my 5600xt.

lol

Actually, I remember PCWorld actually tested the FX 5900 Ultra and said it was literally louder than a leaf blower. I've seen a few other people who confirmed it since they had one at their desk. The 5700 Ultra isn't quite as loud, but still loud

And yeah, the FX 5200 costs like $60, maybe $69 now

Actually, I remember PCWorld actually tested the FX 5900 Ultra and said it was literally louder than a leaf blower. I've seen a few other people who confirmed it since they had one at their desk. The 5700 Ultra isn't quite as loud, but still loud

It depends on who makes it. Most companies no longer put that leaf blower setup on the 5700's see. But I do remember when they first came out. Infact Nvidia pu together a movie about it, it was funny.
http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDe ... =322667-OP