Radeon Overclocking

[Matt2]

Sorry if this is a stupid question, but I have been using nVidia cards since the TNT days.

When overclocking my Radeon 9700np, I have found a direct correlation between core clock vs. memory clock. I ahve found that the higher the core clock, the lower I can clock the memory without having artifacts all over the screen.

So, are ATI cards the same as Nvidia cards regarding overclocking, where overclocking the memory is much more important than overclocking the core? Or does overclocking the core have a significant affect on scores?

Thanks.

btw, I can get the core clock to 370mhz, but the memory seems to artifact at around 309mhz. Right now I am running 325/316 with no artifacting at all.

 

[robcy]

I think you will diffrent results depending on the resulution and AF/AA setting you use. I use 1024X768 at 32bit (crappy 17inch). Well to me it is more benefitial to up the core since the memory bandwith is not really taxed at that resulution. Now when I want to play with high AA/AF settings active them I up the memory since it seems to allow better game play, and memory bandwitdth is being taxed. NOTE: this is with max AA/AF settings since my resolution is low. When I receive my sony 21 inch, then I assume it will be more beneficial to up the memory more since at 1600X1200 the memory bandwidth will be heavily taxed. I have tried quite a few banchmarks, and at my current resolution I always see better results with a higher core overclock, while a higher memory overclock increases the scores, its just not as much.

I normally run 360-365 core and 330-340 mem with low AA/AF, and 340-345 core and 360-365 mem with high AA/AF.