[bleee]

The following quote was taken from barefeats.com 4 lane vs 8 lane vs 16 lane slot - Radeon X1900 on Mac Pro

"DETUNED RADEON X1900 XT
Though the Radeon X1900 XT "whups" the GeForce 7300 GT, we were surprised to find out that Apple "detuned" the X1900 XT to run at 600 core clock speed and 650 memory clock speed. In the Windows PC world, a Radeon X1900 XT typically runs at 625MHz core clock speed and 725MHz memory clock speed. And it does NOT dynamically "up-clock" when you run OpenGL 3D apps as in the case of the MacBook Pro 17"."

I was wondering has anyone tried changing the clock speeds back to the factory default in either windows or os x, has anyone experienced any problems? I know ati ships an over clocker utility with the windows drivers but I have yet to try it out.

[thebunny]

Stock clocked ATI card draws more than 130W I think. The PCIe bus delivers 75W and the power plug another 75W which adds up to 130W max power. They may have underclocked it to keep it under 130W but I'm just guessing. Memory overclocking is safer than core since memory draws less power and produces less heat so I'd try the memory before the core.

[Xyrrus]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

Stock clocked ATI card draws more than 130W I think. The PCIe bus delivers 75W and the power plug another 75W which adds up to 130W max power. They may have underclocked it to keep it under 130W but I'm just guessing. Memory overclocking is safer than core since memory draws less power and produces less heat so I'd try the memory before the core.

How would this work on windows then? A "PC" XT still draws off the PCIe bus, which is standardized, and it still uses 1 PCIe style external power connector, which is standardized. Perhaps the underclock keeps it running a littler cooler and therefore quieter? Also, erm, 75+75=150, not 130.

-Xy

[chefpastry]

First, I replaced the stock heatsink with an Artic Cooling Accelero X2, then I clocked mine to 650MHz core and 775MHz memory. I haven't had any problems yet.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by Xyrrus 

How would this work on windows then? A "PC" XT still draws off the PCIe bus, which is standardized, and it still uses 1 PCIe style external power connector, which is standardized. Perhaps the underclock keeps it running a littler cooler and therefore quieter? Also, erm, 75+75=150, not 130.

-Xy

Typical draw is less than that max so it'll work fine most of the time. That's what NVidia said when they introduced the 8800 GTX with two connectors (they alluded the x1900 series push past the allowed power draw and that the GTX draws only 5W more than the top ATI card and the GTS a fair bit less). Sorry for the math - I meant 150W

[Leonard]

This isn't new... most ATI cards that come with Power Macs are uncderclocked. We have a thread like this about every six months, as some newb finds this out.

[Avanon]

And each time I am left wondering, "Why?" The disparity does not make any sense to me and, as a gamer, is exceptionally frustrating. The graphics card dominance of the PC world is completely arbitrary and I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation as to why Apple is content to remain behind in this area when they lead everywhere else.

/gripe

[thebunny]

x1900 XT clock speed is a small problem and easily fixed. The much bigger problem is the lack of video cards in minis and MacBooks (no, GMA 950 can't be called a video card). The x1600 or the 7300 aren't too hot either.

[bleee]

Originally Posted by chefpastry 

First, I replaced the stock heatsink with an Artic Cooling Accelero X2, then I clocked mine to 650MHz core and 775MHz memory. I haven't had any problems yet.

I've read that article too... any issues if I just leave it with the factory heat sink and clock it up to the manufacture recommended clock sped with I think is 650/675?

[chefpastry]

Originally Posted by bleee 

I've read that article too... any issues if I just leave it with the factory heat sink and clock it up to the manufacture recommended clock sped with I think is 650/675?

I really don't know. I don't know if the stock heatsink would cool it sufficiently. If the same heatsink is good enough for PC versions of the card running at those speeds, I would assume that it should be fine...

[phantomac]

Using the ATI Catalyst Control Center in Windows XP on my MacPro, I overclocked the 1900 to 625MHz core and 750 MHz memory.

I'm running Neverwinter Nights 2 in my screens native 1680x1050 resolution without any problems or the card ever crashing. So I guess the fan supplied by the card's manufacturer is sufficient for the card's standard speeds in the PC world.

[mac128k-1984]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

Stock clocked ATI card draws more than 130W I think. The PCIe bus delivers 75W and the power plug another 75W which adds up to 130W max power.

Is that the new math? At least here in America 75 + 75 = 150 not 130

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

The much bigger problem is the lack of video cards in minis and MacBooks (no, GMA 950 can't be called a video card). The x1600 or the 7300 aren't too hot either.

That's NOT a problem. Those 2 Macs are the cheapest Macs, and to keep them cheap they will most likely always use the built-in graphics.

[thebunny]

Originally Posted by Leonard 

That's NOT a problem. Those 2 Macs are the cheapest Macs, and to keep them cheap they will most likely always use the built-in graphics.

Oh, always is a too strong word. None of the previous iBooks or minis had the built-in "graphics". It's a problem all right since OS X is just going to get more and more graphics intensive and those things are so inadequate and you can't upgrade them either. They would be absolutely wonderful machines had it not been for the GMA950. So long as we put up with that garbage, they'll be putting it in. ATI charges $23 for the x1300 mobile if I remember correctly and that would have made a world of difference for those machines because it's an actual video card.

[bleee]

I've used the "auto" over clocking ability in windows and it set it to 648/747 I think or there abouts, played an hour of BF2142 no problems yet. I think I'm going to just use the auto clocker in windows from ATI because I only play games in windows.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by thebunny 

Oh, always is a too strong word. None of the previous iBooks or minis had the built-in "graphics". It's a problem all right since OS X is just going to get more and more graphics intensive and those things are so inadequate and you can't upgrade them either. They would be absolutely wonderful machines had it not been for the GMA950. So long as we put up with that garbage, they'll be putting it in. ATI charges $23 for the x1300 mobile if I remember correctly and that would have made a world of difference for those machines because it's an actual video card.

The reason Apple didn't use Intel built-in graphics before is because they had to make the motherboard from scratch, now they use motherboards built by or influenced by Intel so they have the option to go with Intel built-in graphics. Even if Apple used ATI graphics chips, you wouldn't be able to upgrade them as they would be built-in to the motherboard like the iMac and the previous laptops. The only Mac you could ever upgrade the graphics on is the Power Mac/Mac Pro. Intel will also be upgrading it's graphics chip on the next motherboards with a more powerful chip.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by bleee 

The following quote was taken from barefeats.com 4 lane vs 8 lane vs 16 lane slot - Radeon X1900 on Mac Pro

"DETUNED RADEON X1900 XT
Though the Radeon X1900 XT "whups" the GeForce 7300 GT, we were surprised to find out that Apple "detuned" the X1900 XT to run at 600 core clock speed and 650 memory clock speed.

An experienced Mac benchmarker is surprised that Apple is underclocking the graphics card?
What rock have they been under for the last few years?