 |
 |
 |
|
 |
You are not logged in.
The Intel datasheets tell all about the clock speeds. The GMA IGPs in notebooks are way down clocked, undoubtedly so they run cooler and use less power.
It is very likely that the main 3D acceleration bottleneck in these EeePCs is actually memory bandwidth because these systems are only equipped with single channel memory interfaces, and usually only DDR2-400 or DDR2-533 at that. 3D games like video memory bandwidth and these notebooks don't have it. I think they do well with what they have though.
Overclocking the IGP won't help with flash or video playback because those are are either not accelerated by it or only benefit maybe from hardware overaly. The only thing these IGPs can decode in hardware for video is MPEG2 (aka DVD).
Last edited by swaaye (2009-07-26 8:23:04 pm)
Offline
On my Sony vaio notebook it actually is set to 400Mhz already, so I didn't benefit at all using GMA booster.
Offline
Guys... here, the GMA Booster says tha the 400MHz preset was applied... but EVEREST only rcognize 250MHz...
In 250MHz preset, it shows 200MHz, and in 200MHz, apperas 166MHz.... o.0
WTF?!?!?!?!?
Help me......
Offline
I don't want to install GMA booster on my computer. Someone report what the nonexistant performance increase on the GMA 915..
Offline
Is there no way to permanantly change the speed of the GPU? Every time I restart my netbook it resets back to the default speed. I dont mind running GMABooster every time I start my netbook but it would be nice to have the option of a permanant change.
Offline
you people are actually getting a fps improvement out of this thing?
Offline
and after couple of months they will frey the chipset 
and bye bye eeepc
Offline
The 400MHz is the normal speed for the GMA, Asus under clocks it to save power. So no one will burn out their chips doing this.
Rycall wrote:
Is there no way to permanantly change the speed of the GPU? Every time I restart my netbook it resets back to the default speed. I dont mind running GMABooster every time I start my netbook but it would be nice to have the option of a permanant change.
There's a quickset shortcuts in the start menu folder, just copy or drag the one you want to the startup folder to have it automatically start.
Poopsi wrote:
you people are actually getting a fps improvement out of this thing?
Yes, just don't expect miracles. 2.4x a weak GMA still leaves you with a weak GMA, just not as weak as it was before and doesn't change the CPU bottleneck. Even ION based netbooks still are limited by the ATOM processor. And the GMA 900/950 aren't going to suddenly support DirectX10 no matter how much you speed them up.
This is just to make the lousy GMA a little bit less lousy is all.
Offline
back when I tested this I only got two or three more fps in warcraft III. that's why I ask.
Of course, the argument could be made that the limiting factor there wasn't the graphics card, but something else (probably the processor, given that it seemed to slow down when there were more units in the map in general -IE: more players-)...
Offline
I also wonder if some of the lack of noticeable improvement is due to a RAM bottleneck. These graphics chipsets are capable of running on systems with higher RAM / FSB speeds, and with the slower bus speeds, it's logical for Asus to lower the GPU clock to match. Speeding up the GPU clock just means it's going to hurry up and wait for data on the bus. This is an inherent issue that has plagued shared RAM GPUs since the beginning of time. System RAM speed is slower than VRAM speeds.
Somewhere on some GMABooster thread, a user was posting GPU benchmark results, and overclocking the CPU / FSB had a far greater impact than overclocking the GPU.
Nothing will ever stop the 915/950 from being a crappy chipset. Intel has a long history of making worthless GPUs. Intel also has a long history of strongarming companies to allow them to foist such garbage on the public.
Offline
Yes, and the netbooks have been the most strictly regulated of all.
Poopsi wrote:
back when I tested this I only got two or three more fps in warcraft III. that's why I ask.
Of course, the argument could be made that the limiting factor there wasn't the graphics card, but something else (probably the processor, given that it seemed to slow down when there were more units in the map in general -IE: more players-)...
Yes, the CPU has to handle the physics and game AI. Even ION netbooks suffer from this limitation and as Turionaltec pointed out the memory/FSB also factor for latency.
Offline
Yeah i do notice a larger performance gain from overclocking my cpu than i do my gpu, but doing both just kinda nicely smoothes out the shittyness of the 950 and turns it into a nicely laid steaming pile of ****
Ive also been using GMA booster for a few months now, and all i can say is...my chipset still works, i dont get much excess heat from gma booster
My thoughts, dont bother with GMA booster unless you feel like the gma is jus barely(choppy video, borderline unplayable frame rate) handling what ever it is your doing...its not going to make you magically be able to run things you couldnt before lol
Your windows rating may improve a little bit as well (see my sig)
Last edited by zeroanimated (2009-10-21 6:22:11 pm)
Offline
Ok so heres what I think about GMA Booster
The reason that the program has a wide range of effects on different games/videos is due to where the bottleneck is. If the game is coded to emulate shaders etc on the cpu, then overclocking the gpu won't make any difference. However if the game uses more of the GMA's power then it will indeed make a difference.
Ive had the program since it came out, and i see on the website that more gpu's have been added to the support and this makes me believe that it must be of use to people. I'm fairly sure the owner isn't going to work on something that doesn't make any money.
Personally i have my 901 at work and its used by me and my mates playing FIFA and FEAR and various other games and watching films while on break, so its nearly always plugged in. I work 6 days a week and its always turned on and is used about three hours a day with the cpu overclocked fully and gma booster on 400mhz and it hasn't blown up yet.
As for the reasons that its underclocked I don't really think that ASUS could have predicted that people would be trying to play high end games on it. It probably would be more beneficial to them to advertise a system with high battery life than saying buy this laptop and you might be able to play the latest games.
All in all its a good way of improving some tasks, it only costs what you think it's worth, its free to try for as long as you like and in my experience at least it works.
Offline
Just to give you guys an idea of how a GMA950 works on a slower 1,66Ghz Core2Duo processor,
It is succesfully able to display most games at 800x600, and some games (like WOW, Prince of Persia, or Phantasy Star Unlimited) at 1024x600 resolution, with an average framerate ranging between 22-25fps, min fps = 14 (some peaks), max fps = 40 in those games.
It is slow but still playable.
Now play those games at 250Mhz, and the 800x600 versions of Phantasy star unlimited are around 18fps, in other words the game slows down like the Matrix. Wow will just throttle the frames, and you'll see some frameskipping.
On my laptop I was not able to set the base speed to 166Mhz. I could only test the 250 and 400Mhz settings.
Offline
I use GMABooster for the speed improvements in Aero. I noticed that my 1000HE with Windows 7 (2GB Ram) is great with Aero but there are those slow animations that bug me and wreck my workflow.
I can say that GMABooster does improve aero performance. Just the fact that it can render 20+ tabs with Google chrome flawlessly makes it impressive. It beats having to wait several milliseconds to go from one tab/window to another.
Offline
also i have a 22" monitor running 1920x1080 resolution. The only setup that gets no lag from Aero is when GMABooster is at 400mhz.
Offline
