512MB HIS X1800XT PCI-E Review adventure

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 07:26 PM

Bought a 512MB HIS X1800XT PCI-E from Auspcmarket.com.au and it arrived today

Update: Cat 5.12 with dual core cpu results are posted at 512MB HIS X1800XT PCI-E + AMD64 Opteron 170 Dual Core Review adventures

:viewfull:

256MB BFG 7800GTX next to 512MB HIS X1800XT

Full pictures here http://fileshosts.com/videocards/HIS/X1800XT/html/

System

Opteron 146 CAB2E 0540FPMW Corsair Hydrocool 200 Water cooled
DFI NF4 Ultra-D R.AD0 704-2BTA bios
512MB HIS X1800XT with Cat 5.11 drivers
1x 74GB WD Raptor 10K SATA OS drive
1x 160GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 SATA NCQ
Liteon 48x24x48x CD Burner
Floppy drive
510W PC Powercooling SLI psu

WinXP Pro SP2 - very old install left over from DFI NF4 SLI-D i had (haven't bothered to do a fresh reinstall yet)
NF4 6.53WHQL chipset drivers

Ram = 2x 512MB Gskill PC4400LE TCCD 431

Some CCC screenies:

Default fan speed in windows is 27%

GPU @27% fan speed = 54C idle

Using ATI Tool set fan speed at 100% and GPU temp drops 8C at idle!

GPU @100% fan speed = 46C idle
- weird CCC shows 20C if ATI Tool is running together heh
- according to ATI Tool at idle GPU current draw = 8.2A and stock speed load GPU current draw = 21.8A - 24.5A

Overclocking Tools
Now there seems to be 3 way to currently oc the card but it seems it ain't as straight forward as first thought - see Update below as to how to properly set 3D clocks:

1. ATI CCC control panel - seems to limit max GPU clocks but loosens memory timings ALOT so that you clock mem higher using this tool.

2. X1800 Overclocking tool from http://www.driverheaven.net/zardon/overclocker.zip
- this seems to also loosen memory timings ALOT so you can clock mem higher, but you can clock GPU higher than that of with ATI CCC control panel. Read http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...1&postcount=88
- Also voltage reporting is out of whack and not accurate.

2D

3D

3. ATI Tool 0.25 Beta 9 - http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=6615 and also 0.25 Beta 10 http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/104
- artifacting scanning doesn't work properly as it reports artifacts at stock (known bug)
- now this tool tightens the memory timings so much tighter than the other 2 tools above, so you can't clock mem as high.
- BUT! According to http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ad.php?t=80637, 600ish mhz on mem in ATI Tool 0.25 Beta 9, is already 200-300pts higher in 3dmark05 than 700-800+mhz mem in X1800 Overclocking tool apparently.
- Also voltage reporting is pretty spot on with ATI Tool.

Unfortunately, this version of ATI Tool is far from perfect for X1800XT users see
- I get this problem too when oc'ing a tad in ATI Tool screen goes blank when i hit run in 3dmark05 and other benchmarks http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...4&postcount=58
- http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...&postcount=154
- http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpo...9&postcount=69
- minor change in clock with ATI Tool on GPU to 600mhz and 3dmark05 completed and my ATI Tool reported GPU at 378mhz and dropped 3dmark05 score from 8,400ish to 6,900ish similar to this guy's issue at http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost...3&postcount=47

ATI Tool seems to only report the 2D speed when run first go. Here's voltages and temp panel:

So as it stands:
For max GPU clock = X1800 Overclocking tool
For max MEM clock = X1800 Overclocking tool OR ATI CCC
For best performance = ATI Tool 0.25 Beta 9
For voltage readings = ATI Tool 0.25 Beta 9

I think all X1800 owners should start bagging the cards oc'bility to force ATI to release their WinCLK overclocking utility that Macci used for his preview/pre-release benchmarks for his X1800XT and save us X1800XT owners the headaches we paid AUD$960-1,000+ for!

Edit: apparently ATI Winclk utility uses same sensor as X1800 Overclocking Tool so though heh.

Update on how to properly set 3D clocks:
- Some interesting info posted at http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...29#post1160329

By SIOUX

NONE of the 2 programs mess with timings guys. i tested it yesterday. people just think so becourse that oc tool dont set the actual clock that you set. thats why i wrote above that you have to use ati tool to SEE the clocks...not to SET the clocks. ati tool will show you the right clock....oc tool can show you 800/800 but ati tool will maybe show you 790/800. then the actual clock is 790/800. thats why people get confused, and think that oc tool mess with the timings...it does NOT.....it just dont set the clocks right )

#eva2000# use ati tool for volts....use oc tool for clocks...but clock the 2d clocks...(600/700 defult)

All these can only be used if ati smart and ati hotkey is disabled.

Yay, can confirm it works:

In service manage in windows disable ATI Smart and ATI Hotkey services and reboot pc. You loose temp reading in CCC but can use ATI Tool to view temps.
Use X1800 Oc'ing tool and set 3D desired clocks using the 2D panel by TYPING in the clocks DO NOT use slider!
Use ATI Tool to only verify and view the 3D clocks are set correctly. So should be same as what you set in X1800 Oc'ing tool.
Whenever you set the mem clock, remember to set the GPU core clock again, or it will fall back to lower clocks and when you set the GPU core clocks again, remember to set the mem clock again, or the same will happen.
Setting voltages, OC'ing tool reports wrong voltages so DO NOT use OC'ing tool to set voltages, use ATI Tool to set voltages. Example, GPU voltage reported in ATI Tool is 1.275v will show in OC'ing tool as 1.3v. Set ATI Tool GPU volts to 1.3v will show OC'ing tool at 1.325v but the real voltage measured by DMM is closer to 1.3v as set in ATI Tool.

As you can see it works!

3dmark05 @default 621/747 clocks set in 2D panel of X1800 Oc'ing tool app.

I then tried setting 2D clock in X1800 Oc'ing tool higher in same windows session and got:

650mhz = 648mhz real GPU 3D clock
660mhz = 654mhz real GPU 3D clock
670mhz = 668mhz real GPU 3D clock
680mhz = 675mhz real GPU 3D clock
685mhz = 681mhz real GPU 3D clock
690mhz = 688mhz real GPU 3D clock <-- had to increase and fix fan speed from 31% to 100%
700mhz = 695mhz real GPU 3D clock (upped GPU volt from 1.275v stock to 1.325v in ATI Tool - shows at 1.35v in OC'ing tool)
702mhz = 702mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.35v ATI Tool)
703-708mhz = 702mhz real GPU 3D clock
710mhz = 708mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.375v ATI Tool)
711-715 = 708mhz real GPU 3D clock
716mhz = 715mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.4v ATI Tool)
717-723mhz = 715mhz real GPU 3D clock
724mhz = 722mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.425v ATI Tool)
730mhz = 729mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.425v ATI Tool)
740mhz = 735mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.425v ATI Tool)
745mhz = 742mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.425v ATI Tool)
750mhz = 749mhz real GPU 3D clock (1.425v ATI Tool)

Note:
- interesting ATI Tool reports default GPU volt = 1.275v
- but ATI CCC according to folks measuring via DMM GPU volt default to 1.33-1.35v ????

same goes for mem clocks in X1800 Oc'ing tool

780mhz = 774mhz real mem 3D clock
800mhz = 792mhz real mem 3D clock
810mhz = 810mhz real mem 3D clock
820mhz = 819mhz real mem 3D clock
830mhz = 828mhz real mem 3D clock

840mhz = 837mhz real mem 3D clock - (artifacts when GPU voltage is stock but at 1.375v GPU volts no artifacts even though mem volts are still untouched at stock! )

850mhz = 846mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool)
860mhz = 855mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool)
870mhz = 864mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool)
880mhz = 873mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool)
890mhz = 882mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool)
895mhz = 891mhz real mem 3D clock (@749mhz GPU + 1.425v GPU + 2.124v VDD and stock 2.097v VDDQ ATI Tool)
900mhz = 900mhz real mem 3D clock (1.375v GPU ATI Tool) - artifacts
900mhz = 900mhz real mem 3D clock (upped to 1.45v GPU ATI Tool to clear artifacts at 2.171v/2.168v on VDD/VDDQ)

3Dmark Benchmarks

Stock cpu 10x200HTT = 2000mhz + @X1800XT clocks
stock 2D = 594/693
stock 3D = 621/747

With SIOUX's work around for X1800 Overclocking tool set

3Dmark05
with cpu stock managed

@680(675)/800(792) = 8,986
@690(688)/800(792) = 9,044
@702(702)/800(792) = 9,060
@710(708)/800(792) = 9,084
@710(708)/802(801) = 9,106

3Dmark2003
with cpu stock

@621/747 = 16,368
@708/801 = 17,698

Please correct me if there's any inaccuracies or fixes for the above issues.

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:24 PM

How sweet is this for 512MB HIS X1800XT on stock heatsink air

------------------------------------------
Opteron 146 CAB2E 0540FPMW @10x280HTT = 2800mhz at stock vcore
2x 512MB Gskill PC4400LE @280mhz 2.5-3-3-6 7-14-2222

3dmark05
@621/747 = 9,235
@708/801 = 10,163
@742/891 = 10,795
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1504826

3dmark2003
@621/747 = 17,707
@708/801 = 19,169

------------------------------------------
Opteron 146 CAB2E 0540FPMW @10x300HTT = 3000mhz at 1.408V
2x 512MB Gskill PC4400LE @272mhz 2.5-3-3-6 7-14-2222

3dmark05
@621/747 = 9,287
@708/801 = 10,221
@715/882 = 10,601
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1501277
@750(749)/890(882) = 10,869
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1501440

3dmark2003
@621/747 = 17,945
@708/801 = 19,449
@735/882 = 20,328

Aquamark3
@621/747 = 98,100
@708/801 = 101,262

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:24 PM

dam local thunderstorms in the area so shutting down unecessary pc activity so this is where I am for tonight

Opteron 146 CAB2E 0540FPMW @10x310HTT = 3100mhz at 1.536v
2x 512MB Gskill PC4400LE @282mhz 2.5-3-3-6 7-14-2222

3Dmark05
@621/747 = 9,321
@750(749)/890(882) = 10,915
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1501741

Lastest: Dec 2, 2005

I have my 11k #4 rank on ORB now

3Dmark05
@749/900 = 11,007

GPU: 1.45v
VDD: 2.171v
VDDQ: 2.165v

Had to squeeze out 900mhz on mem for that bit extra, plus tightened mem timings a tad

pretty nice for single card but definitely lower than what 512MB 7800GTX can do for 3d2k3 especially with dual core cpus and dual core optimised drivers. Although WarCat 5.11b drivers seem to give 1,000+ pts more than Cat 5.11

3Dmark2003 = 20,784

But 3Dmark2001 has always loved ATI cards

3Dmark2001 = 40,094

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:25 PM

Interesting future for video encoding with ATI Avivo Xcode http://www.chip.de/artikel/c1_artike...d1=9227&tid2=0

CHIP Online had the opportunity to test a beta version of ATI’s still secret „Avivo XCode“ encoding tool. It uses the power of the GPU to reduce video encoding time –into virtually any format – drastically. Our results show: The new ATI solution easily does it 5 times faster than even the fastest CPUs available today!

Traditional video encoding tools rely solely on the PC’s main processor for the extensive calculations necessary when en- and decoding video sequences. The secret ATI Avivo XCode tool, however, additionally employs the power of ATI’s X1000 series’ architecture. We assume that the XCode tool mainly utilizes the programmable pixel shader units for it’s number-crunching.

Only new ATI graphics cards need apply

There’s a hook however: Avivo XCode only runs on PCs with ATIs Radeon X1000 series VGA cards; i.e. X1300, X1600, X1800 in their respective Pro or XT versions, as well as their All-in-Wonder version.
Our tests indicate that even the cheapest model, a Radeon X1300 available for around 90 Euros in Europe, can achieve dramatic speed increases at crunching down videos.

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:25 PM

Here's my first run using Farcry v1.33 with HardwareOC's Farycry Benchmark v1.4.2 Farcry Benchmarking Tool v1.4.2

System
Opteron 146 CAB2E 0540FPMW @3000mhz
DFI NF4 Ultra-D 704-2BTA
2x512MB XMS3500C2v1.1 BH-5 @250mhz 2-2-2-5
74GB Raptor OS
160GB Seagate 7200.7 NCQ
510W PC Powercooling SLI PSU

512MB HIS X1800XT @621/747 stock speeds
Cat 5.11 drivers

Settings:

Max Quality
4xAA/16xAF
Demo run = 5 runs
Shader Model 3.0

Demo:

HardwareOC Steam results

Resolution: 640×480
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 97.04 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 100.37 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 96.89 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 98.39 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 100.27 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 98.59 FPS

Resolution: 800×600
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 96.89 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 99.46 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 100.08 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 97.91 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 101.74 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 99.21 FPS

Resolution: 1024×768
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 96.52 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 96.79 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 97.75 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 103.11 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 103.04 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 99.44 FPS

Resolution: 1280×1024
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 87.84 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 92.77 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 94.50 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 94.75 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 95.16 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 93.00 FPS

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 70.83 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 75.19 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 75.37 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 75.27 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 75.94 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 74.52 FPS

HardwareOC Archive results

Resolution: 640×480
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 169.79 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 180.26 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 181.61 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 181.01 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 180.31 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 178.59 FPS

Resolution: 800×600
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 163.41 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 176.79 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 183.65 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 193.87 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 193.84 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 182.31 FPS

Resolution: 1024×768
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 149.34 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 157.89 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 156.37 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 155.14 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 156.67 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 155.08 FPS

Resolution: 1280×1024
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 110.17 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 121.16 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 121.20 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 120.88 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 120.97 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 118.87 FPS

Resolution: 1600×1200
Maximum quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 78.58 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 81.96 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 81.89 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 81.71 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 81.80 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 81.18 FPS

Seems always the first run is lower ?

Yeah weird but higher FPS in Ultra Quality mode @stock 621/747 speeds

HardwareOC Archive results

Resolution: 1024×768
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 149.10 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 162.20 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 161.64 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 160.46 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 161.59 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 158.99 FPS

Resolution: 1280×1024
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 113.53 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 125.06 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 125.07 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 124.66 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 124.70 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 122.60 FPS

Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 81.40 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 84.99 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 84.55 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 84.53 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 84.48 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 83.99 FPS

512MB HIS X1800XT @742/882

Ultra Quality mode

HardwareOC Archive results

Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Archive, demo: Archive1.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 98.25 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 105.19 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 105.13 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 104.99 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 105.02 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 103.71 FPS

HardwareOC Steam results

Resolution: 1600×1200
Ultra quality option, Direct3D renderer
Level: Steam, demo: hocsteam.tmd
Pixel shader: model 3.0
Antialising: 4×
Anisotrophic filtering: 16×
HDR: disabled
Geometry Instancing: disabled
Normal-maps compression: disabled

Score = 80.43 FPS (Run 1)
Score = 86.57 FPS (Run 2)
Score = 85.89 FPS (Run 3)
Score = 86.54 FPS (Run 4)
Score = 84.30 FPS (Run 5)
Average score = 84.74 FPS

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:25 PM

changed to the drivers on the HIS CD-ROM which are cat 5.11 6.14.10.6575 WHQL FM Approved versus cat 5.11 on ATI.com web site which are 6.14.10.6583 WHQL not FM approved and clocked a tad higher

512MB HIS X1800XT stock heatsink air
@756/900 = 11,049
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=1530346

(currently equal 7th ranked on ORB for X1800 series OR #2 ranked for WHQL - FM approved drivers

)

Edit:

meanwhile managed to get #2 ranking on ORB for FM approved drivers in both 3dmark05 and 3dmark2003 for X1800 series categories

Opteron 146 @3130mhz
HIS X1800XT stock heatsink air @756/900

3dmark05 = 11,049
3dmark2003 = 20,860

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:25 PM

reserved 6

eva2000 · 29-11-2005, 09:25 PM

reserved 7

Similar Threads for: 512MB HIS X1800XT PCI-E Review adventure
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A better "Handle" :-D	mag3	Asus Intel motherboards / CPU	6	05-02-2010 04:17 AM
512MB HIS X1800XT PCI-E + AMD64 Opteron 170 Dual Core Review adventures	eva2000	Video Cards	22	12-12-2005 12:02 AM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)