Page 1 of 3 12 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43
  1. #1
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419

    8800 Ultra Water Cooled Modded Test Results

    Well since I put up test result for a 2900XT I though it only fair to put up the results
    from an 8800 Ultra. Again my test rig is stuffing potatoes in the cards exhaust pipes lol. The
    CPU is a Core2Duo and not a Core2Quad








    Viper
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  2. #2
    Member Hazaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,817
    Do you happen to have any other 8800 benches lying around to compare? While impressive, it doesn't seem to be worth the price.
    2500K @4.2GHz, P8P67 PRO, 8GB G.Skill Sniper, RocketFish Case, 2x 6950, X750 PSU, TRUE120


  3. #3
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazaro
    Do you happen to have any other 8800 benches lying around to compare? While impressive, it doesn't seem to be worth the price.
    Not with the later and faster drivers. I put this up so people can see how the 2900XT 1Gig card results I put up
    compares to it. While the Ultra is definately faster it certainly isn't $300+ faster lol!!!

    With the 97.02 8800 drivers (that is the only drivers I have tested a modded 8800GTX with in the same identical
    test rig) the 2900XT was equal to or faster (a lot faster in 3DM06) than a good modded and 245W TEC cooled
    8800GTX in all tests except Aquamark and that wasn't a large difference either.

    Viper
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  4. #4
    Benchmarking Senior Member Deanzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,832
    Nice temps and clocks VJ.

    But is the 1024Mb GDDR4 OEM 2900XT really $300 cheaper than the Ultra, I would have thought that with a Gig of DDR4 ram it would hve been more expensive.

    I know the standard 2900XT is good value as Ive been very impressed with DM20 results
    My Heatware

    icebob: Do we have to flip the screen upside down to see you Dean!!!!

  5. #5
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanzo
    Nice temps and clocks VJ.

    But is the 1024Mb GDDR4 OEM 2900XT really $300 cheaper than the Ultra, I would have thought
    that with a Gig of DDR4 ram it would hve been more expensive.

    I know the standard 2900XT is good value as Ive been very impressed with DM20 results
    Thanks. The VF-IV Black Diablo's are really getting the job done!

    ATI is using the slowest speed grade (.9ns 1100Mhz) GDR4 that Samsung makes so it
    is a cheap chip relatively speaking and probably costs less than the currently listed, top
    of the line, 1.0ns, 1000mhz GDR3 chip.

    The chips that have to be god awful expensive are the .8ns, 1200Mhz GDR3's on the ultra.
    Samsung doesn't even show they are made so the speed bin yield on those is very low
    and that means very expensive per chip.

    I can't go into anymore detail about the pricing ATM.

    Viper
    Last edited by ViperJohn; 06-03-07 at 11:36 AM.
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Lobsterland
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by ViperJohn
    I can't go into anymore detail about the pricing ATM.
    Didn't you already tip your hand there?
    Not very active these days. PMs are the best way to reach me.

    heatware


  7. #7
    Member Zenoth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    France, Lyon
    Posts
    299
    Very nice, good job !
    CPU: Intel C2D E8400 @ 3.8Ghz / OCZ Vendetta & AS5
    Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 BIOS F8
    Memory: OCZ Reaper HPC PC2-6400 4GB @ 846Mhz
    GPU: eVGA GeForce GTX285 @ Stock
    PSU: Corsair TX750W
    APU: Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic
    OS: Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 + XP Home SP3 x86

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by ViperJohn
    Not with the later and faster drivers. I put this up so people can see how the 2900XT 1Gig card results I put up
    compares to it. While the Ultra is definately faster it certainly isn't $300+ faster lol!!!

    With the 97.02 8800 drivers (that is the only drivers I have tested a modded 8800GTX with in the same identical
    test rig) the 2900XT was equal to or faster (a lot faster in 3DM06) than a good modded and 245W TEC cooled
    8800GTX in all tests except Aquamark and that wasn't a large difference either.

    Viper
    Get back to work..!!..

  9. #9
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by crosshairs
    Get back to work..!!..
    Send me a GTX to mod lol.

    Viper
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  10. #10
    Member EmAn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Ft. Hood Texas
    Posts
    2,507
    nice job
    Cooler Master HAF 932 Asus P5Q-PRO E8400 4050mhz
    Tuniq Tower 120 Crossfire Diamond HD4850's 512mb a piece
    2x2 GB OCZ DDR2 1066 Platinum OCZ GameXStream 600W

    SPC in the US ARMY working on AH-64D Appache Longbow Attack Helicopters
    Yes I work on a $47,000,000 computer that has two jet engines attached to it A LOT of spinning parts and of course... Rockets, GUNS, and Missiles

  11. #11
    Benchmarking Senior Member Deanzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,832
    Quote Originally Posted by ViperJohn
    Send me a GTX to mod lol.

    Viper
    If only I lived in the US, I'd send you my Ultra
    My Heatware

    icebob: Do we have to flip the screen upside down to see you Dean!!!!

  12. #12
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanzo
    If only I lived in the US, I'd send you my Ultra
    I've done many, many cards for customers in lands down under.

    Viper
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  13. #13
    Senior Solid State Aficionado dominick32's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,494
    John,
    Any chance at getting chilled water or a TEC through that block? If so, I may have you build me a Viper Fang 8800 Ultra.

    Dom
    Next Level Hardware
    Solid State Drive Technology Discussion Thread
    ...3770k@4.5 GHz...Noctua Dh14...Asus z77 dlx...Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB... ARES 8Gb 2x4....
    crossfire 2 x diamond 6970's at stock clocks...4TB x2 in raid 1...corsair hx1050 psu...

    Dominick32 states "Bow down to your SSD god dominick32 and kiss my feet which are actually made of pure light.
    Jason4207 Responds: "Upon closer inspection to go in for that foot kiss I'm noticing that the 'light' isn't doing you any justice.

    This should help. :) Circa 2010

  14. #14
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by dominick32
    John,
    Any chance at getting chilled water or a TEC through that block? If so, I may have you build me a Viper Fang 8800 Ultra.

    Dom
    Yes a ViperVenom-V 245w TEC cooler. Pictures 8 through 11 at my picture site. Shoot me an
    email if you want to talk further about it.

    Viper
    Last edited by ViperJohn; 06-04-07 at 10:49 AM.
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  15. #15
    Benchmarking Senior Member Deanzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,832
    Hey VJ,
    Whats your take on this, I recall reading it some months ago but as I didnt have a 8800 card at the time, I just moved on with my day .

    In your testing do you think this holds true or is it Rivatuner reading the frequencies wrong ?

    Ive been playing around with my memory clocks and going by Rivatuner my card clocks something like this.

    (I only tested from 1137 to 1213 and all so note the MHZ may be off by 1 or 5)

    1137 thru 1150 = 1134
    1151 thru 1160 = 1152
    1161 thru 1183 = 1161
    1184 thru 1208 = 1188
    1209 thru 1213+ =1215

    What Im testing at this time is 730/1213 which going by this is 729/1215 actual


    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9211725

    Any how I'd like your take on this if I can.
    Last edited by Deanzo; 06-08-07 at 07:51 AM.
    My Heatware

    icebob: Do we have to flip the screen upside down to see you Dean!!!!

  16. #16
    Magical Leopluridon Senior MadMan007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    in a magical field
    Posts
    5,294
    Oc'ing an 8800 definitely goes up in steps like that, for all 3 clock domains. Unless someone has a way to read the frequesncies off the board maybe we'll never know 100% but I remember reading this a while ago then experiencing it. It can be roughly verified by running benchmarks, one with a consistent score is best.
    There are three sides to any argument - side A, side B, and the Truth

    "This had better be frikkin' important. Is the meadow on fire?"

  17. #17
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanzo
    Hey VJ,
    Whats your take on this, I recall reading it some months ago but as I didnt have a 8800 card at the time, I just moved on with my day .

    In your testing do you think this holds true or is it Rivatuner reading the frequencies wrong ?

    Ive been playing around with my memory clocks and going by Rivatuner my card clocks something like this.

    (I only tested from 1137 to 1213 and all so note the MHZ may be off by 1 or 5)

    1137 thru 1150 = 1134
    1151 thru 1160 = 1152
    1161 thru 1183 = 1161
    1184 thru 1208 = 1188
    1209 thru 1213+ =1215

    What Im testing at this time is 730/1213 which going by this is 729/1215 actual


    http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=9211725

    Any how I'd like your take on this if I can.
    RivaTuner isn't reporting anything wrong. It's just reporting the number held in the registers via the drivers which is the set number and may not be the true clock. The clock generators stepping resolution determines that and the actual clock setting where the step will occur.

    In the case of the 8800 Ultra's the true memory clock will always be an even multiple of 27Mhz which is the base crystal controlled frequency of the clock generator. If you set a memory clock in between an even multiple of 27 the clock generator will round it up or down to an even multiple of 27 for the true clock depending on where you are at in the range in between even multiples.

    Now just to keep things interesting the true memory clock on the 8800GTX cards will step on some 1/3 and 2/3's multiple in between the even multiples of 27Mhz

    The 8800's ROP core clock steps on multiples of 27 as well (and the Shader clock on multiples of 54) but there are some places in the settable core ROP clock range where you can get a true ROP clock that is 2/3 multiple in between even multiples of 27. Unfortunately the core clock generator isn't consistant about doing that. As an example you get true core ROP clocks of 702 (27 x 26), 720 (27 x 26 2/3), 729 (27 x 27) and 756 (27 x 28) but you can not get a 747 (27 x 27 2/3) true ROP clock at this point in the range. It is the same thing down at lower core ROP clocks. At some points you can get a true core ROP clock at a 2/3 multiple and at others you can't. With careful use of the ROP clock setting you can almost always get two different true core Shader clocks at the same core ROP clock though. RivaTuner's clock graph is a god send here. If you run ATItools Scan for Artifacts you can bring up RivaTuner then use it to change the cores 3D ROP clock in 9Mhz increments (Even, 1/3 and 2/3's multiples of 27) and then see the true core ROP and Shader clocks immediately in the graph. For the 8800GTX cards do the same with the memory as the GTX's will step the true memory clock at some 1/3 and 2/3's multiples. Just write down what set clock produces what true core ROP and Shader clocks (and the memory on the GTX cards) and you can save yourself massive amounts of OC trial and error time!

    This contrasts to later ATI cards where the memory always steps on multiples of 9 Mhz and their clock generators always round down if you make a setting in between multiples of 9 on the memory. ATI cards always step the core on multiples of 6.75Mhz and again always round down if you are not dead on.

    Viper
    Last edited by ViperJohn; 06-09-07 at 11:25 AM.
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  18. #18
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMan007
    Oc'ing an 8800 definitely goes up in steps like that, for all 3 clock domains. Unless someone has a way to read the frequesncies off the board maybe we'll never know 100% but I remember reading this a while ago then experiencing it. It can be roughly verified by running benchmarks, one with a consistent score is best.
    You are actually talking something different from Deanzo's question. An 8800 has three memory domains with a domain physically being nothing more than 4 of the 12 memory chips in a domain group. Each domain has it's own register that holds the set clock frequency for that domain which RivaTuner can be setup to read. The belief was the clock generator actually worked that way and used the discrete values held in the three memory clock registers to independently set the true clock frequency of each domain. You always have to think about the set clock value held in a register and the true clock the clock generator sets as two different things as they can be VERY different.

    The first drivers out for the 8800's (97.02's I think) set all three domain registers to the same value when you ran the memory clock up. The later drivers didn't (I haven't checked using the 150 series drivers). When you ran the memory clock up with the later drivers only the register for memory domain 0 (zero) would show the new higher set memory clock number while domain 1 and 2 stayed at the boot up 400Mhz clock.

    Since the card benchmarks scores stayed relatively the same between the 97.02's, which set all three memory domain registers to the same (higher) clock value when you ran the memory clock up, and the next driver release (97.28 I think) which only changed the new set memory clock in the register for memory domain 0 it is pretty safe to assume the memory clock generator only used the clock value held in the domain 0 register for all three memory domains. If it didn't the scores would have dropped with 2/3's of the memory running grossly under clocked.

    I always had a very hard time believing the difference in the set clocks in the domain registers was meaningful and they were a moot point. I doubt NV would have left it that way in the many driver releases that came after the 97.02's if it hurt the cards performance as it was easily correctable. IMO it was a case of RivaTuner being able to accurately display data held in a register that was not actually being used by the clock generator hardware and NV chose to not fix something what wasn't actually broken. Sometimes to much data is not a good thing lol.

    Viper
    Last edited by ViperJohn; 06-08-07 at 04:55 PM.
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

  19. #19
    Benchmarking Senior Member Deanzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    2,832
    Thanks mate

    Very helpful
    My Heatware

    icebob: Do we have to flip the screen upside down to see you Dean!!!!

  20. #20
    Senior Radeon Mod God ViperJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Santa Ana, Ca
    Posts
    2,419
    Quote Originally Posted by Deanzo
    Thanks mate

    Very helpful
    Yeah NV's true core clock stepping has been a bit of a head scratcher evern since the
    7800-256 cards came on the scene lol.

    Viper
    Last edited by ViperJohn; 06-08-07 at 07:33 PM.
    .
    GXT260/280's to 783 x 1620 / 1296 ViperFang-VII Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTS 512Mb to 885 x 2106 / 1224 ViperFang-VI Water Cooled
    .
    8800 Ultra to 756x1944/1269 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    2900XT to 992/1197 ViperFang-IV Water Cooled
    .
    8800GTX to 756x1784/1161 ViperVenom TEC Cooled
    .
    Pictures at www.imageevent.com/marginjohn/viperjohn

Page 1 of 3 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •