ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz?

"Glitch" <Glitch_120 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
 > Rick wrote:
  > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
  > > to an Nvidia card?
  > >
  > >
 >
 > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
 > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
 > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.

Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.

Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"Rick" <nospam.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > "Glitch" <Glitch_120.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
  > > Rick wrote:
   > > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
   > > > to an Nvidia card?
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
  > > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
  > > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
 >
 > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
 > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
 > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
 >
 > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
 > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
 >
 >
 >
 >

the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card. i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.

dr ratt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"dr ratt" <spamsum1else DeleteThis @zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424d99f4$0$29905$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
 >
 > "Rick" <nospam DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
 > news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
  > > "Glitch" <Glitch_120 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
   > > > Rick wrote:
   > > > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
   > > > > to an Nvidia card?
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
   > > > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
   > > > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
  > >
  > > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
  > > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
  > > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
  > >
  > > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
  > > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  > >
 >
 > the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card.

No it isn't:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro/specs.html" target="_blank">http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro/specs.html</a>

 > i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
 > or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.

Either you have an OEM card (some don't support 2X) or
something is wrong with your system/AGP driver.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"Rick" <nospam DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2gi3e.1824$EE2.1714@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > "dr ratt" <spamsum1else DeleteThis @zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424d99f4$0$29905$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
  > >
  > > "Rick" <nospam DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
  > > news:mng3e.1762$EE2.805@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
   > > > "Glitch" <Glitch_120 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
  > > news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
   > > > > Rick wrote:
   > > > > > Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
   > > > > > to an Nvidia card?
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no
card
   > > > > has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
   > > > > nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
   > > >
   > > > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
   > > > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
   > > > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
   > > >
   > > > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
   > > > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
  > >
  > > the 9700pro is a 4x or 8x agp card.
 >
 > No it isn't:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro/specs.html</font" target="_blank">http://mirror.ati.com/products/radeon9700/radeon9700pro/specs.html</font</a>>
 >
  > > i have one & smartgart offers me only 4x
  > > or 8x operation, 1x &2x are greyed out.
 >
 > Either you have an OEM card (some don't support 2X) or
 > something is wrong with your system/AGP driver.
 >
 >

no on all counts.
its a genuine ati card.
system is purring. fresh install 3 weeks ago. i clock around 16k5 on
3dmarl01se, 5k2 on 3d03 and 2k3 on 3d05; call of duty, far cry, doom 3 &
hl2/cs.s all run perfectly well in 1280x1024 [lcd monitor], thank you. rest
of system = xp3000, abit nf7 sg2, 512 dc corsair value kit, terratec aureon
5.1. xpprosp1+updates, dx9.0c, cat5.2. stock speeds, zalman copper flower +
big fan at <=1500 rpm, temps all around 32 idle, 36ish after 6hrs cs.s. oh,
arctic cooler on 9700pro, running low speed.
everything rosie in device manager.
considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
a machine as you describe?
incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
envelope, then tough.

dr ratt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"dr ratt" <spamsum1else DeleteThis @zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
 > considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
 > would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
 > a machine as you describe?

Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.

Damned right ATI should have made it work.

 > incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
 > that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
 > bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
 > envelope, then tough.

In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
Nvidia.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

Rick wrote:

 > "dr ratt" <spamsum1else.DeleteThis@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
 >
  >>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
  >>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
  >>a machine as you describe?
 >
 >
 > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
 > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
 > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
 > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.

There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
BX chipsets.


 > Damned right ATI should have made it work.

AGP specification is 66.6 MHz. It *does* work when the motherboard provides
a proper AGP port.


  >>incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in, but
  >>that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
  >>bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
  >>envelope, then tough.
 >
 >
 > In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
 > still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
 > Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
 > 9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
 > Nvidia.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

Rick wrote:
 > "Glitch" <Glitch_120 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
 >
  >>Rick wrote:
  >>
   >>>Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
   >>>to an Nvidia card?
   >>>
   >>>
  >>
  >>No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
  >>has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
  >>nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
 >
 >
 > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
 > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
 > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.

IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them
faster on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops out around
92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.

P2B

 > Yesterday a friend gave me an Inno3D 5900 Ultra, which also
 > appears to work fine at 89MHz. Problem solved.
 >
 >
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"Rick" <nospam DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:EBj3e.3408$x4.1037@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > "dr ratt" <spamsum1else DeleteThis @zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
  > > considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
  > > would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so
pitiful
  > > a machine as you describe?
 >
 > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
 > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
 > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
 > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
 >
 > Damned right ATI should have made it work.
 >
  > > incidentally, the pro indicates that overclocking potential is built-in,
but
  > > that refers to gpu & vram speeds.
  > > bottom line here is that if something doesn't work outside its design
  > > envelope, then tough.
 >
 > In this case, it's an ATI problem. Six years later and their attitude
 > still hasn't changed. But whatever. As I mentioned the FX 5900
 > Ultra is working a treat at 89MHz, _and_ it's 50% faster than the
 > 9700 Pro (at least once I finally upgrade my system). Long live
 > Nvidia.
 >
 >

sorry to burst your bubble but new gfx/sound/whatever cards [regardless of
manufacturer] are aimed at new chipsets, not what's current but surpassed,
that's just the computer business.
if you're happier running an nvidia that's your business & prerogative. my
experience is that the 9700pro is the ONLY gfx card i haven't had a problem
with since voodoo 3 [i'm not counting that it should've been full 32bit
colour, it performed to spec perfectly]. driver support is {&was for v3}
excellent and reliable; ie new drivers work & aren't a waste of download
bandwidth.
from v3, i went to tnt2, gf2, then gf3, then gf4 then the ati. in essence i
went from upgrading video roughly every year [with nvidia]to, well, i've
been on this 9700pro about 2.5 years now.
fx5900 =150% of 9700 performance, only on your rig, m8. put it in a real
board & post the results [3d01/03/05] at standard settings. [refresh my
memory - the gf5 series cards aren't dx9, yes/no?]
even though i feel like i want a new game rig right now [bugger drops below
30fps if i want more than 7 bots on cs.s], i'm waiting for ati's mvp for
amd64 rather than spend my money now on an nf4-sli & 2xgf6800ultra system,
that's how happy i am with ati.
also, as someone else said, i'll pay you postage for that trash.
i'll put money where my mouth is, how about you put a gfx card where yours
is?

dr ratt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"David Maynard" <nospam.RemoveThis@private.net> wrote in message news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
 > Rick wrote:
 >
  > > "dr ratt" <spamsum1else.RemoveThis@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
  > >
   > >>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
   > >>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
   > >>a machine as you describe?
  > >
  > >
  > > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
  > > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
  > > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
  > > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
 >
 > There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
 > was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
 > a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
 > That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
 > may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
 > BX chipsets.

I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems. Used P3/100FSB
CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.

As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"P2B" <p2b.DeleteThis@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:JAl3e.5987$x8.1053268@news20.bellglobal.com...
 >
 >
 > Rick wrote:
  > > "Glitch" <Glitch_120.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d2jq3s$ile$2@bagan.srce.hr...
  > >
   > >>Rick wrote:
   > >>
   > >>>Any alternatives to just running at 100FSB (yuck) or switching
   > >>>to an Nvidia card?
   > >>>
   > >>>
   > >>
   > >>No,but these cards weren't made for running on an OCed AGP bus,no card
   > >>has been made for that.You just got lucky with nVidia it's not like
   > >>nVidia's are designed for 89 MHz.
  > >
  > >
  > > Lucky? Every card I've owned in the past five years has run great
  > > at 89MHz... Matrox G400, G450, Nvidia GF1-DDR, GF2, GF3,
  > > GF4 and a few others I've forgetten about. All except the 9700 Pro.
 >
 > IME nVidia cards always run fine at 100Mhz - bit hard to test them
 > faster on a BX, but I had one working at 110Mhz. Matrox tops out around
 > 92Mhz. ATI never goes past 85Mhz.

Well, in the case of the 9700 Pro it had next to no stability at
anything over 66Mhz. 66Mhz = rock solid, 72Mhz = random
Windows hangs, and the piece of shit wouldn't even post at
anything over 78Mhz. Pathetic for a $350 video card.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"dr ratt" wrote in part:
"Damned right ATI should have made it work."...
and
"ATI obviously cut corners where they shouldn't have."

And if wishes were horses...

Phil Weldon



"Rick" <nospam.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IQl3e.1918$EE2.101@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
 > "David Maynard" <nospam.DeleteThis@private.net> wrote in message
 > news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
  >> Rick wrote:
  >>
   >> > <spamsum1else.DeleteThis@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
   >> > news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
   >> >
   >> >>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati
   >> >>engineer
   >> >>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so
   >> >>pitiful
   >> >>a machine as you describe?
   >> >
   >> >
   >> > Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
   >> > was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
   >> > Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
   >> > earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
  >>
  >> There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say
  >> it
  >> was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not
  >> support
  >> a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
  >> That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board
  >> manufacturer
  >> may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB"
  >> Intel
  >> BX chipsets.
 >
 > I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
 > still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems. Used P3/100FSB
 > CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
 > GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
 > run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
 > My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.
 >
 > As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
 > zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
 > series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
 > shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

Rick wrote:

 > "David Maynard" <nospam.RemoveThis@private.net> wrote in message news:114rpm0ea24cje7@corp.supernews.com...
 >
  >>Rick wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>"dr ratt" <spamsum1else.RemoveThis@zen.co.uk> wrote in message news:424dbeb0$0$5477$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>>considering when this vid card was released, if you were an ati engineer
   >>>>would you have spent any time at all tweaking this card to run on so pitiful
   >>>>a machine as you describe?
   >>>
   >>>
   >>>Give me a break. The 9700 Pro dates from 2002, Intel's BX
   >>>was, by far, the biggest installed base of any chipset at that point.
   >>>Some mobo manufacturers had even released products a year
   >>>earlier (e.g. Abit's BX133) that were fully supported at 133FSB.
  >>
  >>There were boards that 'operated' 133 FSB, e.g. Abit's BX133, but to say it
  >>was "fully supported" over states the case. The BX chipset does not support
  >>a 1/2 AGP divider, never did, never will, and there's no way to 'add' it.
  >>That is built into the chipset. And regardless of what a board manufacturer
  >>may have allowed the clock generator to run at there are no "133 FSB" Intel
  >>BX chipsets.
 >
 >
 > I'm aware of that, David. However millions of people were (and
 > still are) running at 133FSB on BX systems.

I've done so myself. But it isn't "fully supported" because it can't be.

 > Used P3/100FSB
 > CPUs still fetch up to $300 on auction sites, for the 1.0 and 1.1
 > GHz's, and it's a safe bet the majority of these are *not* being
 > run at 100FSB. Even the 133MHz P3-S's are fetching $200-300.
 > My 1.4GHz P3-S outperforms the P4 @1.8GHz.
 >
 > As I mentioned, every video card I used for FIVE YEARS had
 > zero problems with the o/c. Even ATI cards prior to the 9x00
 > series had no problems. ATI obviously cut corners where they
 > shouldn't have, or their 9x00's would have worked too.

A card is not required to operate on anything other than a proper AGP port
so it's a bit disingenuous to claim 'cut corners' when the card fails to
operate 35% faster, if that's really the problem, than what it's intended for.

However, it's not uncommon for cards to operate at 'higher' frequencies
especially when you're running a card with a higher AGP rating than the
motherboard. I.E. a 4x card on a 2x AGP port, like a BX chipset, because
the card is designed to tighter timings, for the 4x capability, that
compensate for the higher clock speed at the *lower* x rating.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz? 

"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed DeleteThis @example.com> wrote in message
news:7Zl3e.2080$44.487@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
 > "dr ratt" wrote in part:
 > "Damned right ATI should have made it work."...
 > and
 > "ATI obviously cut corners where they shouldn't have."
 >
 > And if wishes were horses...
 >
 > Phil Weldon
 >

i never said that

dr ratt<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: ATI Radeon 9700 Pro - Any way to make it stable @89MHz?