Flashrom To Support Flashing ATI Graphics Cards

[yesterday]

no, Intel dropped Netburst because it was slaughtered by Amd's A64 and did not scale half as well as hoped ( you might remember when Intel released the P4 and talked about reaching 5Ghz and more). Also everything I wrote is true - just visit the different oc forums like ocworkbench. 'I only reached XY so I RMA'd the board' is a common theme. And last but not least - most people do not overclock. But the companies cater for this very small and stupid market. Why? Because magazines are stupid. Way too much weight on useless overclocking, not enough on noise, heat price/performance. The points most important for the vast majority.

Everything you said must be true because you say so eh? All overclockers are idiots and ruining IT because you believe it huh?

You can point to oc forums you don't like, while I can name xtremesystems, HardOCP, anand, OCAU, the DFI forums etc., that have good reputations. I was an overclocker and never RMA'd a single piece of hardware. In the same vein, I could find forums full of Linux zealots. Does this mean all Linux users are total arse-holes, and that Linux is totally useless?

And yes, most people don't overclock, just as in the same way, most people don't buy the highest performing graphics card. But for many of these companies the performance and enthusiast market is important for their branding and image. And it obviously impacts their sales otherwise they wouldn't build such products. I fail to see how this is the fault of the "media". People looking for overclocking performance will look for sites that focus on this, in the same way that I go to silentpcreview and phoronix, based on my interests. All the major general sites are quite balanced. Why rag on overclockers here anyways? Why not rag on people who get SLI or high end cards that draw 80W at idle that are hugely expensive? These setups get way more focus in mainstream hardware circles than overclocking.

The idea that overclocking is useless is just stupid. Just because you aren't into doesn't mean other people don't find value. Overclocking started as a way for getting more bang for your buck. Buying a $50 product and getting the same performance as a $200 product is pretty useful for some people.

But please, feel free to ignore everything I say and tell me that "everything you say is true"

[lordmozilla]

The idea that overclocking is useless is just stupid. Just because you aren't into doesn't mean other people don't find value. Overclocking started as a way for getting more bang for your buck. Buying a $50 product and getting the same performance as a $200 product is pretty useful for some people.

Usually the time spent on getting your extra money's worth doesnt make it worth it.

I know. I have a Q6600 running at 3.0ghz. I can't notice the difference. It probably means i get a few more FPS in some games and can run some stuff faster. I dont care. I can get it to 3.6ghz if I want to. I dont cause it gets all the fans noisy but thats not the point.

I also had a 6800XE flashed as a 6800Ultra and a 5900XT flashed as a 5950Ultra, an AMD Athlon XP 2500M running at 2.6ghz.

It's always more trouble than its worth. But people love the idea of getting that extra performance for free and love the feeling of being elite.

True a 3ghz quad core would have set me back alot at the time, but I probably spent 50hrs overall fixing small problems, messing with memory timings etc... 50x5 = ?250, so at minimum wage I could probably have afforded the better CPU.

End of story, overclocking makes you feel good about your money spending, it doesnt give you anything. Even the best overclock usually doesnt mean you can change from medium to high on any game setting!

But by no means believe it is usefull.

[suokko]

But by no means believe it is usefull.

It is hobby To find good parts that over clock well and doing that overclocking can be fun. Same idea as tuning a car

[yesterday]

Usually the time spent on getting your extra money's worth doesnt make it worth it.

I know. I have a Q6600 running at 3.0ghz. I can't notice the difference. It probably means i get a few more FPS in some games and can run some stuff faster. I dont care. I can get it to 3.6ghz if I want to. I dont cause it gets all the fans noisy but thats not the point.

I also had a 6800XE flashed as a 6800Ultra and a 5900XT flashed as a 5950Ultra, an AMD Athlon XP 2500M running at 2.6ghz.

It's always more trouble than its worth. But people love the idea of getting that extra performance for free and love the feeling of being elite.

True a 3ghz quad core would have set me back alot at the time, but I probably spent 50hrs overall fixing small problems, messing with memory timings etc... 50x5 = ?250, so at minimum wage I could probably have afforded the better CPU.

End of story, overclocking makes you feel good about your money spending, it doesnt give you anything. Even the best overclock usually doesnt mean you can change from medium to high on any game setting!

But by no means believe it is usefull.

Wait,
are you actually telling us that increased clockspeed doesn't make a processor faster? Because, that sort of is the definition of clockspeed.

The last time I looked, chip companies sold processors with various clock speeds. People generally choose the fastest
they can afford of a certain architecture. Intel sell Quads of the same family from 2.67 to 3Ghz. They sell Duals of the same family ranging from 2.67 to 3.33Ghz. These are retail chips. What does overclocking give me? If it works, it gives me a chip at the same speed than the more expensive retail version.

Now, arguing whether the extra clockspeed actually translates to improved user experience is pointless. Firstly, it, depends on what you are doing. Secondly, you may as well ask this of chip makers, instead of overclockers. If it's pointless OCing a chip from 2.66 to 3 Ghz, it's equally pointless to buy a 3Ghz chip instead of the cheaper one.

The reality is that clockspeed DOES improve performance. Show me a benchmark where a lower clocked processor performs better than a higher clocked processor of the same architecture. Whether you notice the improvement now, next year, or never really isn't the point.

And seriously, taking wage calculations? Do you skip work to fiddle with your computer? I don't. The amount of pain comes down to the amount of research you do in products, the amount of time I spent researching what to buy when OCing pretty much equals the amount of time I spend now looking for cool/quiet parts and linux compatible stuff.

[energyman]

you need at least 10% improvement to be able to tell the difference. On almost all systems not the CPU is the bottleneck, but harddisks&co. So even if you increase the mhz of the cpu by 30%, it will translate in a 'visible' improvement of maybe 3% - if you are lucky. Way below the threshold.

Also, every feature costs money. Boards could be a lot cheaper without useless overclocking options. There are some options that are valid, even good, like memory voltage, memory speed. But the rest? Southbridge voltage? why? Now, less noise, less energy consumption, less heat, that benefits everybody not only the 1-5% who overclock.

At the end overclocking is a waste of time. It is just a penis lenght comparism. Most people don't benefit from it. The vast majority is hurt by higher prices. This makes overclocking stupid.

[Ant P.]

I wonder if messing with my R300's BIOS to change some things would get it into a useful state again.

I got the card for free because its RAM would get corrupt after 1-2 hours and then it stays that way even over a cold boot. It works fine when it's not been used for a few days. Would be nice to recycle it at a lower clock instead of just binning it.

[yesterday]

you need at least 10% improvement to be able to tell the difference. On almost all systems not the CPU is the bottleneck, but harddisks&co. So even if you increase the mhz of the cpu by 30%, it will translate in a 'visible' improvement of maybe 3% - if you are lucky. Way below the threshold.

As I have already said, this has nothing to do with overclocking. Intel and AMD release numerous chips under different clockspeeds. Why don't you write them a letter letting them know they are ruining IT?

If I OC my 8200 to 2.8 Ghz (less than 10% increase), how is this any different to buying a 8400 instead?

AMD latest Phenom IIs come in speeds of 3.2 and 3.0 Ghz. Less than a 10% difference.

Arguing that "overclocking is pointless" is just pretty much arguing that clockspeed increases are pointless. You should take that up with the processor companies before you go after the overclockers. Oh, and remember to leave out people who actually have compute-bound tasks from the discussion.

Also, every feature costs money. Boards could be a lot cheaper without useless overclocking options. There are some options that are valid, even good, like memory voltage, memory speed. But the rest? Southbridge voltage? why? Now, less noise, less energy consumption, less heat, that benefits everybody not only the 1-5% who overclock.

Wow, there is alot of misinformation here that I don't know where to start. Firstly, only a handful of boards are designed with OCing in mind. A look through all the major mobo websites shows that the majority of boards are not OC focused. Add in OEM boards, and you'll realise that the vast majority of boards aren't designed for any sort of hardware tweaking. Boards that are OC focused cost WAY more than non-OC boards. With this the case, how can you argue that overclocking is making parts more expensive? It's also a bit silly to act as if boards are hugely expensive. You can find heaps of boards here in Australia for around $100, which is about the cost of a video game. I consider this cheap. Also, do not confuse BIOS options with an OC focused design. A board may offer many BIOS options, but not guarantee to run out of spec. Having a BIOS menu isn't the same as designing for tweakability.

Secondly, you speak as if power efficiency coupled with high performance is a trivial problem solve. Well, it's not. It has nothing to do with the overclocking community. The laptop/netbook and server/workstation spaces have a HUGE emphasis on power/performance, but in those spaces lower powered devices with high performance are very expensive, because they are difficult to design and build. In fact, in consumer land, look at AMDs latest TOL graphics card, the 4890. The thing idles at a handy 71W. That's what's needed to compete on a performance level. You pay a price or performance premium for power efficiency, because it's just easier to design inefficient systems. Optimization of ANYTHING is hard. Blaming overclockers for the thermodynamic realities of computation is silly and disingenuous.

At the end overclocking is a waste of time. It is just a penis lenght comparism. Most people don't benefit from it. The vast majority is hurt by higher prices. This makes overclocking stupid.

I love how you just ignore previous points and just repeat the same thing, albeit with more pejorative language.

The only thing you've proven is that you don't like overclocking, and that you are somewhat pretentious in assuming that things you don't like are worthless. In fact, you are willing to trot out misguided and specious arguments just to justify your distaste.

[yesterday]

I wonder if messing with my R300's BIOS to change some things would get it into a useful state again.

I got the card for free because its RAM would get corrupt after 1-2 hours and then it stays that way even over a cold boot. It works fine when it's not been used for a few days. Would be nice to recycle it at a lower clock instead of just binning it.

Have you run the card with a lower mem clock though software? If it's still busted, it's probably beyond your ability to fix.

Keep in mind the video BIOS is not like the system BIOS. You don't get a nice menu with lot's of options. You basically just flash in a binary file. It's not something you typically "mess with". There is generally a specific reason to change it and specific part you want to update. Just flipping bits is not going to be very successful.

In your case, to get the lower clockspeed you'd need to either figure out the BIOS binary yourself, or find someone or some document that shows you what to change to change the mem clock.

I would try to lower it in software (I guess this means Windows?) first, then look at a BIOS flash.

[Kano]

Well i think it is not problematic when you can reach higher clockspeeds without raising the vcore at all, because then the vcore is still reduced with speedstep/powernow. Many boards do not reduce it when you select a fixed voltage, some provide extra voltage + x %, thats maybe better for saving energy. I had a E6600 which ran at 3 GHz (fsb 333 instead of 266) with standard vcore (or a little raised due to automatic oc function) and run a Q9300 at 3 GHz (fsb 400 instead of 333) without those extra voltage. For testing i pushed it to the limits, but thats not really usefull for everydays work. I would call oc without raising vcore the smart way, because it provides better performance - and when you have to compile lots of things then +600 or +500 mhz are noticeable with still no extreme powerconsumption - EIST still on...

[lordmozilla]

you can probably work out that with the increased heat output of an overclocked processor, you could have saved on your electricity bill and therefore used that to fund a slightly more expensive processor.

I'm not saying overclocking doesnt improve performance. It just doesnt do it in any actual viable and useful way. Sure your benchmarks are slightly higher. Thats the same as Gentoo guyrs that recompile everything with -O3 cause that'll make everything so much faster.

Hell it's a hobby, nothing more.