5 ns RAM on a 133 MHz card, nice.
I think the Powerstrip parameter was "threshold", but now I see it is only in certain versions.

According to the datasheet, HY5DU281622ET-5 should do 200 MHz. the -5 was the slowest from this series.

Can the GPU cope at 200 MHz? It doesn't get hot. Why would Diamond have set the clock rate so slow on these?

I may have found out how to adjust the limits with 3DRageTweak from this online FAQ, http://www.rage3d.com/radeon/r3dtweak/faq.htm

How do I increase/decrease the overclocking limits?

1Use Regedit:
2Find HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Game Util\ATI Radeon Overclocker. Change one or more of the following:
3UpperCoreX
4LowerCoreX
5UpperMemX
6LowerMemX
7They are multiplied by the defaults to get the ranges.

I'll try this later shortly.

200 MHz is easy for RV100. I see no problem here.
Perhaps Diamond used slower RAM on different batches of these cards.

havli wrote on 2021-10-25, 05:44:

200 MHz is easy for RV100. I see no problem here.
Perhaps Diamond used slower RAM on different batches of these cards.

It sounds like you have experience here; do you know what is borderline stable for GPU and memory speed? And why these cards are clocked so low from the onset? Are the manufacturers trying to force a budget audience to not detract from the more higher end line of graphic cards?

It is individual for each card. But in general, I think most RV100 should be capable of 220 MHz, perhaps even more. That is of course if the memory can run that fast. But I think 5ns chips on your card shoud be fine even at 220. For example my AGP R7000 was stable at 240/480 MHz last time I tried (and that one has 5.5ns DDR).

As for the low default clock on this Diamond. Perhaps it was market segmentation. Perhaps they were originally equipped with slower memory and later switched to faster chips. What datecode your card has? Maybe it is a late production and at that time there was nothing slower than 5ns available.

I see what looks like a datecode on the Diamond card and it is 0540, so 40th week of 2005. That seems really late to be making Radeon 7000 cards. It looks like the ATI-branded cards with 64 MB and DVI are set at 150 MHz, while the ATI cards with 32 MB and VGA only are 166 MHz. I still don't understand why the Diamond cards with VGA, DVI, composite, and 64 MB are 133 MHz.

I can confirm that HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Game Util\ATI Radeon Overclocker , UpperCoreX, UpperMemX are the locations to increase the upper limits with Rage3d Tweak. They were set at 1.35 and 1.3, respectively. I set them both to 1.7.

I see on this website, https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_7 … _radeon_ve_pci/ , which says it maintains world records for benchmarks on a Radeon 7000 PCI. Here they show the card clocked to 212 MHz core and 197 MHz memory.

I tried some overclocking of my Radeon 7000 in Windows 98, NT4, W2K, and XP. In Windows 98SE, if I set the memory speed to 189 MHz or faster and proceed to move an application's window around the screen, I see these artifacts:

If I reduce the speed to 187 MHz, the artifacts are gone. However, in NT4/W2K/XP I do not see any artifacts even if I clock the memory to 212 MHz. Why? Given that w98 shows artifacts at 189 MHz and W2K does not, is it safe to run the Radeon above 189 MHz in NT4/W2K/XP? I was hoping to run the NT's at around 212 MHz to compensate for slower game performance compared to w98.

I run some asynchronous tests in w98, but running the GPU faster than the memory didn't show any speed improvements. Is this expected?

For the record, with the Mendocino at 450 MHz; Radeon 7000; Catalyst 6.2.
Win98SE at 184.5/184.5 MHz
Quake1=65.7 fps,
Quake2=41.9 fps,
Quake3=23.6 fps.

W2K at 184.5/184.5 MHz
Quake1=61.9 fps,
Quake2=29.9 fps,
Quake3=21.9 fps.

W2K at 220/220 MHz
Quake1=71.5 fps,
Quake2=32.6 fps,
Quake3=24.7 fps.

I would not dwell on the low clocks much, if somebody used the chip in 2005, 3d performance is irrelevant to them.
First Radeon did not support asynchronous clocks, AFAIK this holds true for RV100 as well.
What a conundrum, I don't see a reason for different memory ceiling. Maybe the clocking software works differently in other OS.

First Radeon did not support asynchronous clocks, AFAIK this holds true for RV100 as well.

Not "officially". I think it was more of a driver issue, which was fixed with Catalyst drivers after Radeon 7500/8500 release.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2021-10-25, 14:04:

First Radeon did not support asynchronous clocks, AFAIK this holds true for RV100 as well.

Not "officially". I think it was more of a driver issue, which was fixed with Catalyst drivers after Radeon 7500/8500 release.

Have you noticed any performance gain when running the Radeon's GPU faster than its memory? I tried 220 MHz GPU and 185 MHz memory, but the performance result was the same as with 185 MHz GPU and 185 MHz memory.

Putas wrote on 2021-10-25, 11:03:

I would not dwell on the low clocks much, if somebody used the chip in 2005, 3d performance is irrelevant to them.
First Radeon did not support asynchronous clocks, AFAIK this holds true for RV100 as well.
What a conundrum, I don't see a reason for different memory ceiling. Maybe the clocking software works differently in other OS.

I have done a bit more testing on the OS-dependent clock discrepancy observation. In Windows 98SE, it appears as if there is some sort of effect, or resonance, that occurs between 190 - 210 MHz which causes Windows GUI corruption. If I run the Radeon at 186.75 MHz or 211.5 MHz, the effect is not observed. Odd! Perhaps something to do with the driver for win9x? This effect was only witnessed in Windows 98SE, and not W2K. I have run Quake 2 in loop for about 15 minutes at 211.5 MHz and I have not witnessed any OpenGL corruption, nor Windows GUI corruption following the Quake tests.

I tried taking it up to 220.5 MHz, but after a few minutes, Quake 2 showed a substantial amount of screen corruption. I also confirmed that at 211.5 MHz, W2K was able to play Quake 2 in loop for 15 minutes without corruption. At 213 MHz, W2K started to show some faint GUI corruption. While more extensive testing is needed to make more conclusive recommendations, I'd say that 211.5 MHz is a good starting point for anyone looking to investigate the RV100 and overclocking.

I can see now why this site, https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/radeon_7 … _radeon_ve_pci/ , indicated that 212 MHz was max for the RV100. I don't understand them running the memory at 197 MHz though. Is there a particular Catalyst version which allowed for this?

Not wanting to fry my card, I'm setting Win98SE to default to 184.5 MHz and NT4/W2K/XP to 198 MHz. If there's a particular game which demands more speed, I'll push it up to 211.5 MHz. I can see maybe Quake 3 benefiting a little from this boost, e.g. at 184.5 MHz, 23.6 fps. At 211.5 MHz, 25.0 fps

The other bit of good news is that those looking for a Radeon 7000 need not seek out the ATI-branded version w/64 MB (150 MHz) or the ATI-branded version w/32 MB (166 MHz) because this lowly Diamond 64 MB (133 MHz) seems to fare just as well at higher clocks.