Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: lopri
Don't be ridiculous. How you connect ESA (an open standard by NV's claim) with 9600 GT's clock frequency behavior is beyond me. The simple fact is that NV announced 9600 GT's clock speed as 650 MHz, but when it actually matters it works at different speed. The result is, as you may well know, that it leaved an impression that NV somehow managed to improved upon G92 core, via hardware revision or drivers revision - and so far it looks like neither.Originally posted by: apoppin
it seems to me the only DIRTY TACTICs are the PR assholes that passed this info along "as shady" to a very GULLIBLE TechPowerUp.com
journalist.
:thumbsdown:
Plus, you're accusing TechPowerUp with absolutely no basis. If you read their stories, it's clear that they'd noticed the discrepancy in initial 9600 GT review, but didn't figure out what exactly was going on. A few days later, they published a more refined findings after apparent effort of proof-gathering. How you think this is a PR stunt by some 'gullible' folks is beyond me, but if you think so you should at least have the courtesy to provide some evidence. Especially when your accusation comprised of such foul languages.
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere* ... and most of this crap IS amd PR .. who else would even be able to alert them to it?
What nvidia has accomplished with their O/C'ing the OPCI bus is not shady [period]
"foul language", get real - is it only foul if i fucking say it?
- or do i not have the privileges the other members do?
:roll:
I would say it is if the card frequency is not reported correctly.
Originally posted by: apoppin
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
This is your evidence forthey used the word "shady" ...
This conspiracy theory of yours?obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
Originally posted by: lopri
And this post is directed to appopin:
Originally posted by: apoppin
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
So according to your logic,
This is your evidence forthey used the word "shady" ...
This conspiracy theory of yours?obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
Not only this is a logical fallacy but also this reminds me of nothing but a 'witch hunt'. With such an attitude the OP of this thread would also be an AMD's shill since he made a thread spreading NV's 'sneaky' trick.
As far as I know it is a common practice to use RivaTuner in order to check video card overclocking, and indeed that's how AnandTech first discovered the uneven performance increase of GeForce 7 series cards. (it jumps in 27MHz intervals) So AnandTech had also got 'passed on to them' about this?
I mean, if I had a 9600 GT that would have been the first thing that I would try. (overclocking using RivaTuner) And according to this 9600 GT debut review found in TechPowerUp, they stated that they noticed the discrepancy of reported clock frequencies. It's days after they published about the 'shady' trick after communicating with the author of Rivatuner as well as their internal testing.
And that's the accusation part which isn't really to interesting to be frank. But what's more important is that the point that I made yesterday (see the first part above few posts) stands still. If anyone is paranoid in this thread it's you, appopin, and I believe many would agree with me.
NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Originally posted by: lopri
I was writing my last post before I knew there were replies, and everything you want to know about LinkBoost is explained in plain English in this very thread and many reviews published. I am leaving this thread and will leave it to fellow forum members.
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: lopri
I was writing my last post before I knew there were replies, and everything you want to know about LinkBoost is explained in plain English in this very thread and many reviews published. I am leaving this thread and will leave it to fellow forum members.
So i shot your argument down from NVIDIA's own web site before you even bothered to look at my 3 posts before your's, detailing the same thing?
... sorry ... i'll PM you next time with an advance notice of my intentions ...
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: lopri
Don't be ridiculous. How you connect ESA (an open standard by NV's claim) with 9600 GT's clock frequency behavior is beyond me. The simple fact is that NV announced 9600 GT's clock speed as 650 MHz, but when it actually matters it works at different speed. The result is, as you may well know, that it leaved an impression that NV somehow managed to improved upon G92 core, via hardware revision or drivers revision - and so far it looks like neither.Originally posted by: apoppin
it seems to me the only DIRTY TACTICs are the PR assholes that passed this info along "as shady" to a very GULLIBLE TechPowerUp.com
journalist.
:thumbsdown:
Plus, you're accusing TechPowerUp with absolutely no basis. If you read their stories, it's clear that they'd noticed the discrepancy in initial 9600 GT review, but didn't figure out what exactly was going on. A few days later, they published a more refined findings after apparent effort of proof-gathering. How you think this is a PR stunt by some 'gullible' folks is beyond me, but if you think so you should at least have the courtesy to provide some evidence. Especially when your accusation comprised of such foul languages.
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere* ... and most of this crap IS amd PR .. who else would even be able to alert them to it?
What nvidia has accomplished with their O/C'ing the OPCI bus is not shady [period]
"foul language", get real - is it only foul if i fucking say it?
- or do i not have the privileges the other members do?
:roll:
I would say it is if the card frequency is not reported correctly.
it is Link BOOST
read all about it
lookie here:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_31319.html
from TWO years ago
:roll:
it is a well-documented FEATURE of some nvidia MBs that nvidia recently enabled
Frankly it is becoming embarrassing for me to be associated in ANY way with ATi fanboys ... it is becoming ridiculous .. i feel really stupid having to defend nvidia from retarded false charges
:frown:
Originally posted by: Zstream
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: lopri
I was writing my last post before I knew there were replies, and everything you want to know about LinkBoost is explained in plain English in this very thread and many reviews published. I am leaving this thread and will leave it to fellow forum members.
So i shot your argument down from NVIDIA's own web site before you even bothered to look at my 3 posts before your's, detailing the same thing?
... sorry ... i'll PM you next time with an advance notice of my intentions ...
apoppin the PCIe bus speed is different then overclocking the core on the video card... I do not see how hard it is to understand that fact.
oK , if it is not for Overclocking the GPU, what is it for?NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Originally posted by: lopri
And this post is directed to appopin:
Originally posted by: apoppin
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
So according to your logic,
This is your evidence forthey used the word "shady" ...
This conspiracy theory of yours?obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
Not only this is a logical fallacy but also this reminds me of nothing but a 'witch hunt'. With such an attitude the OP of this thread would also be an AMD's shill since he made a thread spreading NV's 'sneaky' trick.
As far as I know it is a common practice to use RivaTuner in order to check video card overclocking, and indeed that's how AnandTech first discovered the uneven performance increase of GeForce 7 series cards. (it jumps in 27MHz intervals) So AnandTech had also got 'passed on to them' about this?
I mean, if I had a 9600 GT that would have been the first thing that I would try. (overclocking using RivaTuner) And according to this 9600 GT debut review found in TechPowerUp, they stated that they noticed the discrepancy of reported clock frequencies. It's days after they published about the 'shady' trick after communicating with the author of Rivatuner as well as their internal testing.
And that's the accusation part which isn't really to interesting to be frank. But what's more important is that the point that I made yesterday (see the first part above few posts) stands still. If anyone is paranoid in this thread it's you, appopin, and I believe many would agree with me.
Originally posted by: apoppin
oK , if it is not for Overclocking the GPU, what is it for?NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Maybe you are right ... perhaps one of you geniuses can translate nvidia marketspeak for me ... i am just taking it at face value; perhaps i am just too 'simple' to understand it
Originally posted by: apoppin
oK , if it is not for Overclocking the GPU, what is it for?NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Maybe you are right ... perhaps one of you geniuses can translate nvidia marketspeak for me ... i am just taking it at face value; perhaps i am just too 'simple' to understand it
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: lopri
And this post is directed to appopin:
Originally posted by: apoppin
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
So according to your logic,
This is your evidence forthey used the word "shady" ...
This conspiracy theory of yours?obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
Not only this is a logical fallacy but also this reminds me of nothing but a 'witch hunt'. With such an attitude the OP of this thread would also be an AMD's shill since he made a thread spreading NV's 'sneaky' trick.
As far as I know it is a common practice to use RivaTuner in order to check video card overclocking, and indeed that's how AnandTech first discovered the uneven performance increase of GeForce 7 series cards. (it jumps in 27MHz intervals) So AnandTech had also got 'passed on to them' about this?
I mean, if I had a 9600 GT that would have been the first thing that I would try. (overclocking using RivaTuner) And according to this 9600 GT debut review found in TechPowerUp, they stated that they noticed the discrepancy of reported clock frequencies. It's days after they published about the 'shady' trick after communicating with the author of Rivatuner as well as their internal testing.
And that's the accusation part which isn't really to interesting to be frank. But what's more important is that the point that I made yesterday (see the first part above few posts) stands still. If anyone is paranoid in this thread it's you, appopin, and I believe many would agree with me.
It wouldn't surprise me if ATi was the source of this, it's the sort of thing companies do in their struggle for marketshare.
It also wouldn't surprise me if they found it on their own trying to figure out why 9600GTs have such high performance with half the stream processors.
Either way, I personally don't even think the topic is worth discussing, let alone fighting amongst ourselves about.
AFAIK none of us get any commissions if people do or don't buy 9600s, and the parts are warranted so even if they are OCd, people are safe enough as it amounts to a factory OC.
If you don't want a $170 card that uses LinkBoost, buy a 3870 for $180.. If you want a faster card, get a 8800GT for $190..
People should just be grateful they have choices this powerful for under $200- sheesh- in the world of video cards, that's free.
Originally posted by: Killrose
Does Linkboost only affect the 16x graphics PCi-e bus lane? or every PCi-e lane? I'll have to check my MB bios as I know that I have seen OC capabilities of the PCi-e bus in my AMD 690G bios and I think its only for the graphics bus.
If Linkboost only affects the graphics bus and actually works by giving extra performance whats the problem? Just ignore benchmarks using nvidia chipsets for card comparisons
More room for speculation can be found in the driver. Why does it always return the "normal" frequency and not the real one?
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: nRollo
Originally posted by: lopri
And this post is directed to appopin:
Originally posted by: apoppin
they used the word "shady" ... obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
So according to your logic,
This is your evidence forthey used the word "shady" ...
This conspiracy theory of yours?obviously it got passed on to them from *somewhere*
Not only this is a logical fallacy but also this reminds me of nothing but a 'witch hunt'. With such an attitude the OP of this thread would also be an AMD's shill since he made a thread spreading NV's 'sneaky' trick.
As far as I know it is a common practice to use RivaTuner in order to check video card overclocking, and indeed that's how AnandTech first discovered the uneven performance increase of GeForce 7 series cards. (it jumps in 27MHz intervals) So AnandTech had also got 'passed on to them' about this?
I mean, if I had a 9600 GT that would have been the first thing that I would try. (overclocking using RivaTuner) And according to this 9600 GT debut review found in TechPowerUp, they stated that they noticed the discrepancy of reported clock frequencies. It's days after they published about the 'shady' trick after communicating with the author of Rivatuner as well as their internal testing.
And that's the accusation part which isn't really to interesting to be frank. But what's more important is that the point that I made yesterday (see the first part above few posts) stands still. If anyone is paranoid in this thread it's you, appopin, and I believe many would agree with me.
It wouldn't surprise me if ATi was the source of this, it's the sort of thing companies do in their struggle for marketshare.
It also wouldn't surprise me if they found it on their own trying to figure out why 9600GTs have such high performance with half the stream processors.
Either way, I personally don't even think the topic is worth discussing, let alone fighting amongst ourselves about.
AFAIK none of us get any commissions if people do or don't buy 9600s, and the parts are warranted so even if they are OCd, people are safe enough as it amounts to a factory OC.
If you don't want a $170 card that uses LinkBoost, buy a 3870 for $180.. If you want a faster card, get a 8800GT for $190..
People should just be grateful they have choices this powerful for under $200- sheesh- in the world of video cards, that's free.
It does not matter if AMD is behind it or not. The fact is NV did not mention the overclock and they fooled all the reviewers.
If I was an NV shareholder I wouldn't like it at all. I would think how good they are how they improved their technology and at the end the only thing they did is overclock.
On the other hand. When AMD is going to do something like that I hope you'll report it promptly as well.
Originally posted by: Zstream
Originally posted by: apoppin
oK , if it is not for Overclocking the GPU, what is it for?NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Maybe you are right ... perhaps one of you geniuses can translate nvidia marketspeak for me ... i am just taking it at face value; perhaps i am just too 'simple' to understand it
What do you mean maybe? My statement is right and your translation is wrong. Just admit it already...
Once again the PCIe bus IS different then overclocking the video core!
Comments like "since the balance of this forum has apparently shifted ... toward stupidity" and other condescending remarks in this thread would get others warned but not him.
Originally posted by: SniperDaws
Originally posted by: jaredpace
nah, he went into his bios with the card clocked at stock speeds. He went to PCI-E frequency and changed it from 100 to 110. booted windows and ran 3dmark06.
Then he went back to bios and set the PCI-E back to 100mhz (which is default) ran 3dmark again, and got a lower score.
Correct
but i do have an auto setting for my PCIe would this make any diffrence.
i tried 110Hz with my card at 740/1850/975 and it locked up halfway through return to proxycon or whatever its called.
Originally posted by: taltamir
...
Going back to topic. This IS manually overclocked. He manually overclocked it on a P35 and it was unstable, and then he said the new drivers auto overclock it on a P35 mobo. It's not automatic if he goes into the bios, changes settings, and experiences crashes.
So it seems that it does not happen with a P35 motherboard. Only with an nvidia motherboard.
So an automatic overclock only when combining an nvidia mobo + video card that does not happen with intel mobo, and in fact, cannot be archived (Stably) with an intel mobo. And, which nvidia adventised as "link boost technology". I conclude that this isn't a shady trick, but rather, a case where a feature was not taken into account by some reviewers.
Quote from the article:
What a coincidence it is that some NVIDIA chipsets offer a feature called "LinkBoost" that automagically increases the PCI-Express clocks. This feature was pioneered with the NVIDIA 590i chipset and is present in the NVIDIA 680i chipset too, but has recently been disabled as far as I know. Also some motherboards from ASUS and other companies increase the PCI-Express bus frequency beyond 100 MHz when the BIOS option is set to "auto".
I am not sure what are the ASUS boards that author had in mind though.
Originally posted by: Janooo
Originally posted by: apoppin
oK , if it is not for Overclocking the GPU, what is it for?NVIDIA LinkBoost? technology?automatically increases PCIe bus speeds on the motherboard when LinkBoost-enabled GPUs, such as the NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, are installed
Maybe you are right ... perhaps one of you geniuses can translate nvidia marketspeak for me ... i am just taking it at face value; perhaps i am just too 'simple' to understand it
Can you, please, point me to an article that explains how 7900GTX overclocks itself when paired with LinkBoost-enabled mobo? All I can find is that PCIe is overclocked but not video card.
If it was the case that it's well known how come no review site mentioned that when they tested 9600?
You betcha .. if i can find it, you will hear about it. Equal praise ... equal blame ... i hate everyone equally :QOn the other hand. When AMD is going to do something like that I hope you'll report it promptly as well.
i don't use RT at all in daily usage - except for testing when requiredOriginally posted by: bryanW1995
I'm just glad that rollo came in to rescue apoppin from himself!
note to hector ruiz: you see, apoppin is playing nice with the enemy...send me some free amd goodies!! I'll even quit using rivatuner to force my fan to 50% if you do!