PDA

View Full Version : Parhelia Sharkmarks



Ant
22nd July 2002, 11:47
Benchmarks using Sharkmark that came with the Parhelia. Board is a stock retail Parhelia (no extra cooling) running on a ASUS A7S333, XP2000+ and 512MB PC2100. Driver is the latest release version 1.00.3.230 running on Windows XP Pro. The Sharkmark scores are defined as VertexFPS.

The 2 blocks of numbers represent memory and core speeds. According to Matrox the retail board is 275Mhz/220Mhz whereas the bulk offering is 250MHz/200Mhz. At a core speed of 260 Sharkmark crashes locking up the system, guess a little extra cooling may help there.


275 220 = 164.609
275 230 = 170.386
275 240 = 175.951
275 250 = 181.161
275 260 =

275 220 = 164.599
285 220 = 165.873
285 230 = 171.793
285 240 = 177.454
285 250 = 182.777
285 260 =

275 220 = 164.625
295 220 = 166.893
295 230 = 172.974
295 240 = 178.685
295 250 = 184.180
295 260 =

275 220 = 164.599
305 220 = 168.026
305 230 = 174.173
305 240 = 179.976
305 250 = 185.558
305 260 =

275 220 = 164.614
310 220 = 168.529
310 230 = 174.678
310 240 = 180.321
310 250 = 186.171
310 260 =

Kruzin
22nd July 2002, 11:54
GASP
Overclocking?
How can I get an O/Cer for P?
;)

Guru
22nd July 2002, 12:02
Nice! :) Even nicer would be to see benchmarks from some other cpu speeds as well on the same benchmark!

Ant
22nd July 2002, 12:04
Hopefully will do on an Athlon 1.4GHz if I can get it up n running.

Guru
22nd July 2002, 12:11
Originally posted by Ant
Hopefully will do on an Athlon 1.4GHz if I can get it up n running.

Thanx!

103er-Fan
22nd July 2002, 13:41
Looks interesting, any other applications tested yet?

P5ycho
22nd July 2002, 13:44
So this is with standard cooling? i smell OC potential!!!

UT2003 benches would be really interesting...

MK
22nd July 2002, 14:20
Hey Ant, many thanks for these valuable informations!! This clearly shows that there is a lot of unused potential due to the cooling / AGP specification thing.

Did you increase the core voltage to achieve 250 MHz core clock ? Was the card 100% stable ?

MK

Ant
22nd July 2002, 14:22
The card is not 100% stable at 250 it will crap out after a while if I'm running Quake 3 for example, I guess I need some extra cooling.

P5ycho
22nd July 2002, 14:29
Ant, is your case well ventilated?

Ant
22nd July 2002, 14:37
Not really, although the P is the only card in the system. I'm going to add a little extra case cooling to see if that helps any before doing anything to the card. I'd presume from my testing that a bulk card should easily handle retail speeds.

Ant
22nd July 2002, 14:40
Just as a bit of a comparison the figures below were obtained using the version 1.00.1.230 drvers that the board shipped with.

275 220 = 157.495
295 230 = 165.316

Edward
22nd July 2002, 14:46
Well, when becomes the octool available :) ?

az
22nd July 2002, 15:05
So have you used your special gift from Matrox for this? :)

AZ

Ant
22nd July 2002, 15:07
Still waiting for that :)

az
22nd July 2002, 15:35
Hope it's something to really make you happy :)

AZ

GT98
22nd July 2002, 16:24
Nice Results! kinda makes you wonder what they could have done with the card if they went the ATI Route with the higher clockspeed/external power supply! ;)

Time to order that cooljag CPU cooler and some RAM Sinks :)

Nuno
22nd July 2002, 16:41
Does anyone notice that the parhelia doesn´t seem to be very bandwidth limited? Increasing the core frequency brings better results than memory overclocking. Hmmmm.....

TdB
22nd July 2002, 17:08
Does anybody have a download link?
I want to try it with my kyro2. :p

thop
22nd July 2002, 17:14
we have a o/c tool! since ant has it i'm pretty sure the betaboys have it too. so the extra cooling wasn't for nothing. deny all you want :p

xortam
22nd July 2002, 18:08
thop ... everyone probably knew that the BBs would try o/c'ing with their modified boards. That doesn't mean that they weren't honest in their statements that they modded their cards for extra ruggedness. They're going to have to be running at stock speeds during their beta testing. A lot of MURCers seem to be drawn to tinkering with their HW and the BBs are by no means the exception.

GT98
22nd July 2002, 18:16
Originally posted by thop
we have a o/c tool! since ant has it i'm pretty sure the betaboys have it too. so the extra cooling wasn't for nothing. deny all you want :p

Well the BBs are the Goverment when it comes to Nuclear Weapons or UFOs...

"We cannot Confirm or Yet Deny that Fact" :p :D

Stringy
22nd July 2002, 19:02
well this is some nice info...
so we now know that the P doesn't have a G400 like clock setup, ie one PLL clock and MEM and Core are a divisor of it...

looks like we have independant clocks for Mem and Core...
Nice Job..
250 would be nice, 10% boost... extra cooling and alittle luck might yield 15%...


thanks for the info Ant...
Craig

Maniac
22nd July 2002, 19:49
Looks like P. scales almost perfecty in this benchmark with the core/mem increase. Increasing the core/mem roughly 12-13% gives a 12-13% gain in score. Now lets see how high this puppy can be o/c :)

Reverend Maynard
22nd July 2002, 21:39
Don't we need some sort of reference numbers to compare to the set you posted? I am not familiar with the program you used or the number it generates. Basically what I am getting at is this, in the first set of numbers you gained about 6 FPS going from 220 core to 230 core...is this good, is it bad, how are we to know?

Basically if someone says "I OC'ed my video card and gained 700 points in 3dMark2K," I am going to have an understanding of the speed gained. But going from 164 FPS to 170 FPS in a benchmark I've never heard of kind of leaves me scratching my head. Any chance we can see a more standardized benchmark? Regardless of various bias' that may exist, it would be nice to have a frame of reference when looking at the overclocked numbers.

Ant
23rd July 2002, 00:23
If you guys suggest a benchmark I'll run it although it won't really provide a point of reference unless you want it compared to my G400, the point of reference is the default Parhelia speed. Sharkmark is good as it utilises the Parhelia fully, the benchmarks were to show how it scaled, not as a comparison against any other boards that was not the point of the excercise. If one of you wants to send me a GF4 though I'll do the tests :)

Sinistral
23rd July 2002, 00:41
- Ant, you can still give us the results of 3DMark2001. Comparing, core clock scalability with that of the Parhelia alone. As 3DMark is well reknowned. People can independantly compare the results to other cards.

What i mean is:

275:220 = 5500 3DMarks
275:230 = 6000 3DMarks
...

280:220 = 5700 3DMarks
300:300 = 12000 3DMarks :D -

Ant
23rd July 2002, 01:46
If we can get a consensus of opinion as to the key benchmarks that will give us most information I will give them a good run through and update with new driver releases. I'd prefer that to be one or two benchmarks that I can thoroughly test over a range of speeds.

DukeP
23rd July 2002, 02:11
This is a really nice looking demo and bench utility, which I always find is important, as one have to sit and wait for endless runs anyhow. :)
http://www.glexcess.com/xsmark/

This and then 3dbench2001se.

Happy doodling, dont burn any bridges!
;)

~~DukeP~~

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 02:49
Hi,
Ant, could you please run 3dmark2k1 for e.g. and send the detailed results? This way we would be able to compare the values to other cards also. I'm particularly interested in triangle throughput and fillrate changes. Also could you please give a go to the newest drivers? Maybe they'll have some positive effect on the performance too.
Thanx in advance,
Chris

Maggi
23rd July 2002, 02:52
Hey Ant,

I also vote for XS Mark and 3D Mark 2001 SE (build330), but don't just post the overall score. but rather all detailed individual scores, so that we all can see what clock settings make up what difference.

:)

for example:



clock settings default OCed

3DMark Score 6752 6844
Game 1 - Car Chase - Low Detail 100.6 101.8 fps
Game 1 - Car Chase - High Detail 39.3 39.3 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - Low Detail 113.2 115.9 fps
Game 2 - Dragothic - High Detail 68.6 69.8 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - Low Detail 95.4 95.5 fps
Game 3 - Lobby - High Detail 44.5 44.6 fps
Game 4 - Nature 30.6 32.0 fps
Fill Rate (Single-Texturing) 707.0 764.1 MTexels/s
Fill Rate (Multi-Texturing) 2744.6 2879.1 MTexels/s
High Polygon Count (1 Light) 25.1 25.2 MTriangles/s
High Polygon Count (8 Lights) 11.0 11.1 MTriangles/s
Environment Bump Mapping 119.5 124.2 fps
DOT3 Bump Mapping 96.4 101.7 fps
Vertex Shader 91.4 95.1 fps
Pixel Shader 65.6 66.3 fps
Advanced Pixel Shader 76.2 77.5 fps
Point Sprites 14.1 15.0 MSprites/s

Voyager3D
23rd July 2002, 03:08
Shiping driver:
275 220 = 157.495 - 0% (index)
295 230 = 165.316 - 4,97%

New Driver - core o/c (RAM: 275):
275 220 = 164.609 - 4,52% - 0% (index)
275 230 = 170.386 - 8,19% - 3,51%
275 240 = 175.951 - 11,72% - 6,89%
275 250 = 181.161 - 15,03% - 10,06%

New Driver - core o/c (RAM: 310):
310 220 = 168.529 - 7,01% - 2,38%
310 230 = 174.678 – 10,91% - 6,12%
310 240 = 180.321 – 14,49% - 9,55%
310 250 = 186.171 – 18,21% - 13,10%

Ant
23rd July 2002, 03:38
OK for 3DMark exactly what settings should we be running with?

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 03:41
I think defaults would be fine with every FAA, 10bit, triple head, other eye candy turned off. That should give an indication about the raw performance. Thanx in advance.

Maggi
23rd July 2002, 03:47
Originally posted by Ant
OK for 3DMark exactly what settings should we be running with?

what ganyaik said ... :)

just launch it and click 'benchmark'

Ant
23rd July 2002, 03:51
Okey dokey I'll have a play when I get home tonight :)

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 04:14
OK, we're eagerly waiting those results.

Enak
23rd July 2002, 05:41
How about a Quake 3 Benchmark... e.g. a standard demo FPS.

This perhaps should yield interesting results.

Ant
23rd July 2002, 06:08
Can you tell me how to get the demos to run in Quake 3, I used to do it but have forgotten how :)

MK
23rd July 2002, 06:16
Yep no problem:

Copy the neccessary demos to the folder ...\quake3\baseq3\demos\... ! Then start the game choose the appropriate settings and go to the console. There type the following commands (xxxx stands for the name of the demo):

timedemo 1
demo xxxx

After the demo finished, you will see the fps get displayed in the console !

Hope that helps

MK :)

P5ycho
23rd July 2002, 06:17
timedemo 1
demo demoname.dm3

that's all :)

[edit]

beat me to it, MK :)

MK
23rd July 2002, 06:19
Ant, I have a few demos if you need some: Annihilator, Crusher & Q3Crusher. They are supposed to be more stressful than the built in ones ...

MK

[edit: typo]

Ant
23rd July 2002, 06:32
Can you mail them over to me if they are a reasonable size?

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 06:35
Ant: Seems you'll have a busy night/afternoon! ;)

Evildead666
23rd July 2002, 06:50
But lots of fun!!!!

Ant
23rd July 2002, 07:24
Never happier than when I'm tinkering :)

Joel
23rd July 2002, 07:36
Try this Ant.

Q3 Bench http://guru3d.com/q3bench/

Joel

magog
23rd July 2002, 08:24
Nice work Ant!

I created a new chart with Ant's results!
Look at page 5 of this thread!!!

[edit: removed chart]

Maggi
23rd July 2002, 08:35
nice graph !!!

:)

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 08:39
It would be muuuch nicer if it could start from 250MHz and continue, but this is what we've got currently. We have to live with it. :D:D

Ant
23rd July 2002, 08:54
I was going to go back and do it from 250 for those poor souls with a bulk card :)

Drizzt
23rd July 2002, 09:03
Ehy, wait a mo'! I think I'm missing something...
P should be the best with all the Eye candy on, right? So, Ant, can you do a 3dmark bench even with every P special deature turned on? (gigacolor and FAA at least) :)

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 09:11
But how can you compare the results to other cards which have no FAA and gigacolor at all?
One possible solution is doing the 3dmark tests twice. Once with eye candy off and then with eye candy on. Then we could compare the detailed results against each other and against other cards.
Question is that how much spare time Ant has got, to spend on this issue. :D

Ant
23rd July 2002, 09:14
I'll see what I can do :)

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 09:18
Thanx. We are with you. :D
I suppose we won't hear any results before tomorrow morning. Am I right?

MK
23rd July 2002, 09:25
I`ll send them over to you !

MK :)

thop
23rd July 2002, 10:05
hey ant, thanks :)

ganyaik
23rd July 2002, 10:13
Yep, thank you very much for your efforts. Good luck and try not to smoke your Parhelia. :)

Indiana
23rd July 2002, 10:49
I'd like to see Quake3 scores at 1024x768 and 1600x1200, both with 16x FAA.

Cobos
23rd July 2002, 10:56
I'll also add my note of thanks :) I've been waiting for oc results for some time. I'd also like both full quality and "no" quality settings for 3Dmark.

Cobos

CaineTanathos
23rd July 2002, 10:57
It quite normal that the card isn't stable at 250 mhz with the normal heatsink. From what I can tell from the pictures is that its a very small one. Ant could ya tell me the size of that heatsink in mm :)

pretty cool thought it can run 240 with the normal heatsink.

I think the biggest improvements in games will come in future driver releases , I think the drivers aren't really optimized yet for games

Ant
23rd July 2002, 11:13
The heatsink/fan does seem rather pathetic, I'll measure it up next time I have the lid off. The fan is actually "embedded" in the heatsink so by the looks of it in the centre there are no fins on the heatsink.

Here are a few more numbers to fill in at the bottom end.

250 200 = 149.648
250 220 = 160.942
250 230 = 166.480
250 240 = 171.667
250 250 = 176.025
250 260 =

275 200 = 152.680
285 200 = 153.721
295 200 = 154.556
305 200 = 155.041
310 200 = 155.204

McElvis
23rd July 2002, 11:26
Hey Ant, how about some surround gaming numbers?

It appears that overclocking the memory does not get you much of an increase. How about when running Q3 with three monitors?

P5ycho
23rd July 2002, 11:27
it looks like a G400MAX heatsink evolution. Not a very effective design. (i've been studying heatsink designs lately)

Add at least a copper based heatsink for air or water and the thing flies if you ask me...

Enak
23rd July 2002, 12:04
Well at least Matrox designed us something we could spend more time modding :D

Kane

P5ycho
23rd July 2002, 13:08
Using absurd texture sizes when testing the gain on memory overclocking would be a nice idea too. It's all about finding those worst case scenario's.

xortam
23rd July 2002, 14:42
The "OEM rate" numbers look pretty close to retail. Is the clock rate the only HW difference on the OEM cards?

magog
23rd July 2002, 14:52
Now here is the more graphical result of Ant's benchmark...
I added the lastest results for 200 MHz core and 220 MHz mem speed!

It no longer look's weird.... ;)
Thanks Ant!

<img src="http://www.jmdb.de/other/Parhelia_Benchmark_Sharkmark.gif" border="0" alt="">

Ant
23rd July 2002, 14:56
210 hey? OK I'll fill in the gaps :D

Drizzt
23rd July 2002, 14:58
Hey, Ant, what about those 3d glasses I suggested to try?

magog
23rd July 2002, 15:04
Originally posted by Ant
210 hey? OK I'll fill in the gaps :D

Seem's to me you've got to much time! :)

By the way: Which type of memory has the bulk version of the board?

Ant
23rd July 2002, 15:21
Here we go... :)

250 210 = 155.408
275 210 = 158.745
285 210 = 159.840
295 210 = 160.862
305 210 = 161.189
310 210 = 162.211

magog
23rd July 2002, 15:31
Originally posted by Ant
Here we go... :)


Ok, Ant! I updated the chart (look above....).

pgde
23rd July 2002, 17:27
Originally posted by Ant
Benchmarks using Sharkmark that came with the Parhelia.

Hi:

Where on the CD is Sharkmark? I can't find it???

Thx

R.Carter
24th July 2002, 07:05
So at 300MHz we should expect to see a performance increase of about 36% if the increase is linear and memory bandwidth isn't a problem.

ganyaik
24th July 2002, 07:29
Yep, I think that exactly that would be the case, but I think we won't know it in the near future, because 300MHz without watercooling(or whatsoever) seems quite impossible to me. Anyway, I hope I'm wrong with this. :D
Have any of you checked the article at http://www.athlonxp.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Diner_Wrapper&file=index&req=ShowFile&file_wrap=html/reviews_parhelia.html ? Gf4 does 126fps in Sharkmark and an OCd Parhelia does 186! :eek: If Sharkmark doesn't use any Matrox specific features then it definitely shows the strength of the card.

Voyager3D
24th July 2002, 07:49
Don't think 300MHz will be a posibility, even with water cooling...
At 220MHz Parhelia used about 30W, AGP max is 40W...
So my gess would be that 275MHz would be maximum, if we can't give Parhelia some more juice...

I think we will see 260MHz with watercooling (maby 270MHz).. :cool:

frankymail
24th July 2002, 08:12
Wait a sec: (30-4)/220*300+5=40.5 watts… that’s running at 300 MHZ core/350 MHZ mem, without any voltage increase; to be stable at those speeds, you’ll need : better cooling and higher voltages, so to get very high speeds, you’ll definitively need a non-AGP power source (wires from the PSU to the card directly, probably somewhere on the power regulation “sector” of the card). Those kinds of mods have been done in the past for G3/G4/R8500, and is standards on the R9700/V5500, so nothing out of the realm of possibilities…

ganyaik
24th July 2002, 08:12
BTW, does power consumption grow linearly with the clockspeed? If it does then we'll have still chance for a good 33% increase. :D

pgde
24th July 2002, 10:34
Originally posted by pgde


Hi:

Where on the CD is Sharkmark? I can't find it???

Thx

Well, I answered my own question. It is only available to editors. See http://forum.matrox.com/mgaforum/Forum6/HTML/001247.html

P.

zandor
24th July 2002, 17:33
Who's to say your mainboard will actually max out at 40W though? I'd bet most designs will allow for at least a little extra just to be on the safe side, and some will handle a lot of extra current.

Greebe
24th July 2002, 19:33
AGP power spec peters out around 40watts on all non "Pro" spec slots.

ganyaik
25th July 2002, 00:56
Well, question is that how many watts the card would draw at 0MHz. I think it wouldn't be 0W. So the equation would look somehow like this for a normal card: (base)+220*(watts_per_MHz)=~30w according to Voyager3D. So I think from AGP spec point of view 33% clock speed increase is quite feasible. From P point of view... Who knows? :D
BTW, does the OCing of the memorys affect power consumption?

Voyager3D
25th July 2002, 05:30
If that is correct then..: :D

30W/220MHz = 3/22 = 0,13636363... W/MHz

then:

200MHz ~ 27W
210MHz ~ 29W
220MHz ~ 30W
230MHz ~ 31W
240MHz ~ 33W
250MHz ~ 34W
260MHz ~ 35W
270MHz ~ 37W
280MHz ~ 38W
290MHz ~ 40W
300MHz ~ 41W

But it is to good to be true... :p
290MHz would be nice tho.. :D

R.Carter
25th July 2002, 07:01
Hang on a second.

Has Matrox released actual power consumption figures for the current 128MB Parhelia?

The AGP 2.0 specification (http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/agp_index.htm) does indicate that the card can draw up-to

VCC3.3 3.3v @ 6.0A = 19.8W
VCC5 5v @ 2.0A = 10W
VCC12 12v @ 1.0A = 12W

from the AGP connector according to table 4-14. So the card actually has 41.8W to play with.

Of course, Matrox has indicated that you would need to bump the voltage to really overclock it.

Voyager3D
25th July 2002, 07:28
Originally posted by R.Carter
Hang on a second.

Has Matrox released actual power consumption figures for the current 128MB Parhelia?

No.. It was Haig that said in a o/c thread at forum.matrox.com that is used ~30W... :p


from the AGP connector according to table 4-14. So the card actually has 41.8W to play with.
Nice.. :cool:

Enak
25th July 2002, 07:33
Don't forget that your power supply needs to have this power handy...

borat
25th July 2002, 14:38
how would you volt mod a parhelia then?

Enak
25th July 2002, 14:40
I think a bit of soldering might be required...

And the loss of warranty :)

Kruzin
25th July 2002, 14:44
Forget about voltage modding the card.
Doing so will fry the chip in a matter of weeks.

Enak
25th July 2002, 14:46
It's been tried then?! :D

P5ycho
25th July 2002, 15:18
Kruzin, is that some insider info or are you guessing?

TreyPocca
26th July 2002, 05:08
Does the new 8xAPG support more power output? If thats the case there shouldn`t be any problems with O/C´ìng card even more.

Enak
26th July 2002, 06:47
The spec that the power details were taken from is the new AGP 3.0 (8x) spec from intel.

Snake-Eyes
26th July 2002, 08:47
Originally posted by P5ycho
Kruzin, is that some insider info or are you guessing?
He has me wondering if he's speaking from experience too.

R.Carter
26th July 2002, 10:54
Originally posted by TreyPocca
Does the new 8xAPG support more power output? If thats the case there shouldn`t be any problems with O/C´ìng card even more.

As far as I can tell, nothing has changed in the Draft AGP 3.0 revision 0.95 (http://www.intel.com/technology/agp/agp_draft9.htm).

It is still limited to 41.8W, although they did add a new 3.3 VAUX of 0.75A = ~2.5W.

Stringy
26th July 2002, 11:20
Originally posted by Snake-Eyes

He has me wondering if he's speaking from experience too.
Just another Vague response from a BB,
pay no attention, it's not backed up by anything that they can tell you about so its as if he said nothing...

As in all devices, there are tollerances - you can raise the voltage to a point with minimal risk... you also have to deal with the added heat you'll create with more voltage...

this is obviously not a mod for beginers...



Craig

Greebe
26th July 2002, 11:30
Think I can say this... yes there is a means of changing P's gpu voltage. No we have not been informed how to do because of the EXACT reason Kruzin stated.

It will kill the GPU in short order. Period. Not more BB BS hype crapola (F*ckwits) :rolleyes:

Stringy
26th July 2002, 11:40
that's all that needed to be said...
but as usual it takes a bit...


Thanks
Craig

Greebe
26th July 2002, 14:19
No that did not need to be said. not at all. There was absolutely no rhyme or reason to think that we BBz are either lying or holding back what you MUST know every freakin time.

@Stringy You need a shovel to dig that hole any deeper? :rolleyes:

MK
26th July 2002, 14:55
Greebe - just to verify your last statement: increasing P`s voltage just by 0.1 Volt would kill it in the long run ??

MK

Snake-Eyes
26th July 2002, 16:08
Originally posted by Greebe
..(F*ckwits) :rolleyes:
Shouldn't that be singular, in this case. I'd hate to think you consider all of us here.. :D

Besides, most GPU chips burn up if the voltage is raised too far. I was just curious if Kruzin's statement was from experience (and didn't bother asking directly, since I figured an answer couldn't be given..). ;)

Stringy
26th July 2002, 17:51
Ok, one last post, I"m not into Pissing contests...

Kruzin stated "Forget about voltage modding the card.
Doing so will fry the chip in a matter of weeks"

So that ALLUDES to experience with this card and increasing the voltage...
So then this makes others Question where this kind of state is coming from...

This is Typical behavior...
If you have an Opinion State it as such, not as fact and then hide behind the NDA.. if you don't open the door there is NO question about wether it is open...
If you are not allowed to mention it, then don't, a simple I'm not allowed to answer it, sorry... it's not going to hurt my feelings and I'm not going to pester, as I know you as well as other BBz are under such restrictions...

You are backing up the statement that any increase in Voltage will kill the P... this coming from someone who has an O/C'ed system... You know overclocking is not good you your componients, and I would think with the overclock you have you would have raised the voltage a smidge...

This is becoming more and more common, I doubt on purpose but it is very annoying to have a someone make a statement such as that and not be able to ask why because they are under NDA...


anyways, the point is you don't know what the P's voltage tolerence is because as you state, you haven't done this nor have the info on how to...
Thanks
Craig

TreyPocca
27th July 2002, 02:29
Any benchmark numbers with the new drivers?

Kruzin
27th July 2002, 07:12
Originally posted by Stringy
This is Typical behavior...
If you have an Opinion State it as such, not as fact and then hide behind the NDA.. if you don't open the door there is NO question about wether it is open...
If you are not allowed to mention it, then don't, a simple I'm not allowed to answer it, sorry... it's not going to hurt my feelings and I'm not going to pester, as I know you as well as other BBz are under such restrictions...

I'm under no obligation to explain myself or my posts to you, or anyone else.
I made a simple statement. Believe it, or don't...I don't care, but you should know by now that if I post something, I have my reasons.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.
Whining about it is not going to change how I post.

The PIT
27th July 2002, 07:36
Perhaps Kruzin should have said nothing and let you lot fry your card. Jeez what have some of you guys got against the bb anyway. Remember these guys help you out with problems you may have. Slagging them off means no help in future for you.

Stringy
27th July 2002, 09:12
Originally posted by Kruzin


I'm under no obligation to explain myself or my posts to you, or anyone else.
I made a simple statement. Believe it, or don't...I don't care, but you should know by now that if I post something, I have my reasons.

If you don't like my posts, don't read them.
Whining about it is not going to change how I post.

Exactly why I Didn't respond to YOU... I responded to those that posed Questions about your post.. I knew you wouldn't explain it - "you have your Reasons"...

so as I said before: it's like you didn't say anything at all...


Thanks Again...
Craig

Stringy
27th July 2002, 09:16
Originally posted by The PIT
Perhaps Kruzin should have said nothing and let you lot fry your card. Jeez what have some of you guys got against the bb anyway. Remember these guys help you out with problems you may have. Slagging them off means no help in future for you.
I have nothing, absolutely nothing against a BB... the comments just happened to be made by a BB...

If I Fry my card even if someone mentioned a method to do so it's my problem if it dies...

Personally... If they don't help me in the future, so be it...
this kind of "help" does do anything but raise more questions that only end in this type of dicussion because there will be no answer because its all OPINION with no facts...

Yes, it would have been better had nothing been said...
That post was just like these last few, meaningless and adding nothing to the dicussion but words.. we can do without all this crap and keep opinions just that...


Craig

Greebe
27th July 2002, 11:08
No Jerry it shouldn't be singular. Stringy may be the only fool in this thread to make such a clueless comment, but there have been several others that have ignorantly chimed in with the same BS.

Craig, show me where 1 BB has lied to you or anyone else.

Stringy
27th July 2002, 13:59
Originally posted by Greebe
No Jerry it shouldn't be singular. Stringy may be the only fool in this thread to make such a clueless comment, but there have been several others that have ignorantly chimed in with the same BS.

Craig, show me where 1 BB has lied to you or anyone else.
Well did I ever state any BB lied?? not in the least..

it's simple.. Comments like "you should forget about XYZ" and nothing else are just idle comments.. in this case niether of you know how to mod the voltage or what the Voltage tolerance of the P is - I truely do beleive you...
You don't know therefore it is a belief that it isn't worth it or that it will destroy the card - we've all heard the dangers of O/C'ing and CPU manufacturers saying how increasing the voltage will kill your CPU faster - it is still done, it's the users choice... the user accepts all responsibility...

the whole point was he doesn't know so why make outlandish comments - and what info he does know can't be revealed or isn't willing to... so why say anything... it's not like there is a method to do this today... it may never be done....

Anyways...
this has gone on much longer than I like to carry this kind of thing...
Craig

Ant
28th July 2002, 04:40
Shut up the lot of you!

DukeP
28th July 2002, 05:12
Lol.
And so the prophet spoke...

Good one Ant.
;)

~~DukeP~~

K6-III
25th August 2002, 00:39
I look forward to some updates on the availability of the OC utility and instructions for volt-modding....