K6-2+550@616 with no L3 cache

[Titanion]

Put simply, using my K6-2+ 550 Mhz CPU and 256 MB of system ram, which of the two settings should I use for semi-intense 3D games like NWN and Dungeon Siege?

1) 100x6=600 Mhz with 1024 KB of L3 cache

or

2) 112x5.5=616 Mhz with L3 cache disabled

My onboard cache will not work with a FSB of 112 Mhz [BSOD], but when it is disabled my system "seems" 100% stable running at 616 Mhz. BTW, my computer will not post attempting 6x112=672 Mhz, but I stopped adding voltage at 2.3 volts.

Do I gain more than I lose, or do I lose more than I gain? (112 Mhz FSB and an additional 16 Mhz versus the loss of 1024 MB of L3 Cache) If an L3 cache is worth an additional 6% performance, what do I gain by increasing my bus speed and adding a few extra Mhz?

If I plan to add another 256 MB of system ram, bringing my total up to 512 MB, all cacheable off of the on-chip L2 cache, will that swing votes one way or another?

W2k SP2
Soyo 5ema+
GeForce 2 MX 400 64 MB
256 MB PC 133 System Ram

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

What about 107x5.5 or something less than 112. In other words, what is the fastest fsb you can get with the l3 cache enabled? Your memory bandwidth is a big deal in overall computer performance, so I'd be willing to take a cut in CPU speed for memory speed, but I would try to get that L3 cache also. I'd compromise and get all I can out of it with the L3 cache.

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[skligmund]

Oh, also TRY using both settings for a while in those games. See if anything noticeable is different. Try benchmarking and any other demanding programs.

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[Titanion]

With the Soyo 5ema+, it goes directly from 100 to 112 to 124, but the onboard cache will not work above 100... There is not even a Turbo mode of 103 that I can find anywhere.

Not sure if what meaning this has, but a MadOnion PCMark2002 reads the following:

Set at 600Mhz with L3

CPU 1058
Mem 668
HDD 377

Set at 616 Mhz with no L3 cache

CPU 1064
Mem 694
HDD 368

I like the fact that with my FSB at 112, my AGP GeForce2 is running at 75x2 instead of 66x2, but I am still not sure what effect that has.

I will run additional tests on both settings and post them. Which utility will give me the most information?

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[Titanion]

OK, I have some interesting results... I tested benchmarks using Sisoftware Sandra's CPU and Multimedia test, as well as PCMark2002. I tested my system at 600 Mhz with L3 cache and without L3 cache. Then i tested it at 616 Mhz without L3 cache.

Both CPU and Multimedia tests with Sandra show the 616 Mhz results as being far better; it also show that running at 600 with L3 and without L3 are about the same.

Authentic BM-----616 no L3------600 no L3-----600 with L3

CPU Dhrystone-----1603 MIPS-----1565----------1567
CPU Whetstone-----827 MFLOPS---808-----------809

Multi-Media
Integer MMX------1952 it/s------1907----------1909
FP 3DNow---------2567 it/s------2508----------2509

This seems clear cut... FSB@112 all the way with no L3. But Mad Onion's PCMark2002 tells a different story. I am showing the best results out of three benchmarks each. All were fairly close to eachother.

--------616 Mhz no L3-----600 Mhz no L3----600 Mhz with L3
CPU-----1062-------------1024--------------1064
Mem-----694--------------624---------------692
HDD-----367--------------370---------------369

Now, what the heck does all of this mean? The L3 makes a big difference at 600 Mhz with my FSB at 100 Mhz. But when I drop the L3 and increase the FSB to 112Mhz, it is a wash. Is this correct? What will the numbers look like if I add 256MB of Ram to my system? I do not have a stick habndy right now to test this computer. If 616 with no L3 is the same as 600 with L3, then should I keep it at 616 and add more ram.. because it will now all be cacheable with the onchip L2.

I have a couple additional questions before I close. I am enabling/disabling the external cache setting in my bios... I am assuming that the on-chip L2 cache runs with the internal cache setting in the bios. Is this correct?

Also, my RAM reads as CL3, but I am running it in the bios as CL2? Do I need to change it to CL3 in the bios? Can it run at CL2? Everything seems stable, and it has been set at CL2 for months now?

K6-2+ users and experienced overclockers out there, please help me better understand what all these benchmark results should be telling me...

Thanks,

Titanion

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

I still recommend using a game for benchmarking, or something that is 'tangable'. Try downloading and using Futuremarks's 3D Mark. PC Mark is good, but 3D Mark will 'show' you the improvements accomplished. Make sure it is 3D Mark 2001 (or 2001SE).

As for your RAM, what is telling you CL3? SiSoft Sandra? If so, chances are it is running at CL3. Look over the bios again for any other RAM options, to see if one of those is hindering something.


With the information provided, I would be tempted to use the 616 with no L3 if I was to play games, just to get my RAM speed up.

Have you tried overclocking your GeForce yet? If not, do this: <A HREF="http://www.overclockers.com.au/techstuff/a_coolbits/" target="_new">http://www.overclockers.com.au/techstuff/a_coolbits/</A> and see what you can get out of it. It could help a lot.


Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[Titanion]

Downloading 3DMark2001SE now... will post results when I get them. My wife and daughter are back in town, so I will not be able to get to this ASAP as I did yesterday...

My eVGA GeForce2 MX400 64 MB card's default settings are Clock 200 and Memory 150... or 300, depending on how you read it. I have Overclocked the Core to 233 and the Ram to 175. With the Ram above 175, I get artifacts, but I have not tried pushing the clock above 233. I have read that there is a bottleneck with this card, so I do not know if pushing the clock higher would help.

It does read CL3 in the Sandra program, under memory modules, (Apacer... CL3 up to 133), but above, under Logical/Chipset memory banks, it reads it running as CL2.

It is hard to make an objective decision when running a game. This is my second computer, and I do not play it that often, but my friends do when we play LAN games. I have been playing Dungeon Siege to see a differance, but it is hard to tell. And DS has its FPS issues anyway. 600 with L3 might be playing a little better, but it is hard to know for sure. I thought that 616 with no L3 was playing better when I started this process, but now I am just confused. I do have MP; how would I use that to make a benchmark?

Will running at 616 Mhz with a FSB of 112, no L3, and 512 MB of ram play better than at 600 Mhz with L3, yet with only 256 MB of Ram? I want to hear yes, go back to 112x5.5, disable my external cache, buy more ram, and call en end to this. But what I really want is the best possible system to play LAN games with.

Thanks for your continued input.

Titanion

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

O.K.

So your RAM IS running at CL2. The RAM is being pushed a tad harder than it was specificly designed for. What it means by CL3 up to 133 is the RAM was designed to run at CL3 @ 133, or CL2 @ 100. But if it is stable, you are fine, that is what they call 'aggressive RAM timing'. Pretty much everybody does it.

I think your system will do better in gaming with the 512MB RAM and no L3. In my opinion, 256MB is the least amout of RAM a computer should have, more tends to be better.

Yeah, I'd like to see the 3Dmark scores on that unit, post when you can!

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Skligmund on 04/05/03 04:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Titanion]

Using 3DMark2001SE, my results were as follows.

600 Mhz with L3-------600 no L3---------616 no L3

1321------------------1123--------------1246

I ran about 5 tests each at both 600 Mhz with L3 and 616 Mhz with no L3, and posted above are the highest scores. I only ran one test at 600 with no L3, just to see a score. I am tempted to put my old K6-2 550 in just to see how it compared, but it is in another computer at the moment, and it is not worth the bother.

I tried a lot of different bios setting attempting to get my L3 working at 112 Mhz, but it just will not do it. And ideas here? What adjusts the speed of the L3?

When I get home today, I will try the computer at 616 with a FSB at 112, but with the Ram running at AGP speed, 75 Mhz. Will the L3 cache also run at 75 with this setting? I am curious to see how that scores, but it would defy the whole purpose of getting my memory up to 112 Mhz. If it scores above 1321, would it be worth keeping there?

I keep reading that L3 is not that significant, but these scores say otherwise. I am back to my origional delima: do I stay at 6x100 with 1024 KB of L3 cache but only 256 MB of system ram, or do I disable the L3, go up to 616, and get my total system ram up to 515 MB?

Is it possable that disabeling the external cache also disables the on-chip L2 cache?

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

With the information given, I would stick with the L3 and 256 Megs of RAM.... Why can't you do 600 +L3 and 512 Megs of RAM?

As for the L3 Cache speed... I'm not sure, maybe SiSoft Sandra will tell you your onboard cache speeds. Try looking in the CPU & Bios information module. But I don't know what controls the speed of the L3 cache.

I highly doubt that disableing the L3 cache would disable the L2 cache.

Just try different things, like running Memory at AGP speeds and such, see if you can get a performance boost out of anything. I've had my setup for 2 years, and I'm always changing things, trying to get just a little more out of it......

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[Titanion]

I, too, am trying to squeeze some more out of this computer. Even if it is my 2nd unit now, it is still my baby. Running system memory at AGP speed still gave me a BSOD, so the L3 must still run at the FSB speed of 112 Mhz.

As to the 512 MB issue, I am concerned that if I keep the L3 and add another 256 MB of Ram, getting my total up to 512 MB, not all of my system Ram will be cacheable. My L3 cache is 1024 KB, and everything I read says it can only cache 256 MB of Ram. I have not tested my computer to see if there is a performance drop.

How does W2K access system ram, anyway. When I read about cache issues on the Internet, most posts are about Windows 98 reading ram from top to bottom or bottom to top, to opposite first of the ram that is being cached when the limit is exceeded [that is a confusing sentence].

However, on one thread about the Soyo 5ema+, there was a post where one user was told from the horse's mouth, Soyo, that all of the system ram used on that board is cacheable. I am not sure if I believe this; it goes against everything I have read and have been told. 2048 can cache 512, 1024 can cache 256, 512 can cache 128, 256 can cache 64... And I usually research a lot before I post a question or ask for advice. I hate reading posts like, "So, dude, how do I change my jumper settings" when there are hundreds of posts out there already. But some questions are hard to find specific answers for, and cache ram seems to be one of them. If I knew 100% all 512 MB of system ram would be cacheable with my L3, I would order some low density PC 133 Ram while online this very moment.

And if it is not cacheable, what do I gain by having more ram, and what will I lose in preformance, specifically, fps in 3D games? I know I need to pop one in there and test it, but...

BTW, is getting 1330 or so Marks in 3DMark2001SE an OK score for a K6-2+ 550 overclocked to 600 Mhz with 256 MB of Ram and a GeForce2?



<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

Your 3Dmark score is comparable to others with the same setup, I just did a search at futuremark's online browser. So worry not, 3DMark score is normal for that setup.

As for caching the RAM, you get another 'not sure' from me. But the fact of the matter is that 256 Megs of RAM is plenty for the system you have, I wouldn't bother making it 512 anyway. Your bottle necks are not the RAM, but most likely your hard-drive and video card. But those aren't much of a bottle neck, your system is pretty well balanced.

I wish I was more help.

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[Titanion]

I have been told that the GeForce2 is one of the best cards I could have for this SS7 AGP 2X motherboard.

But I am not sure about the way ?I have my HDDs set up. I have a slow Maxtor 20 GB 5400 HD ATA 66 with W2K installed on it. I also have a IBM 30 GB 7200 ATA 100 set up as a slave. The motherboard only supports 33, but I have a Promise pci card that lets me, in theory, get to 133, and I have given each drive its own cable. The pci card came with a Maxtor 80 BG drive I use in another computer.

Will installing windows on the 7200 HDD make a difference? Will rinning W2K on the 5400 HDD but playing games from the 7200 HDD inprove things? How much of a bottleneck is this 5400 HDD? Which drive is more importane, the one W2K is installed on or the one a game is installed on... I currently have my page file on the faster drive and W2K installed on the 5400 HDD. When a game is being played, I am not sure what the best setup is. It would be a real pain to have to put W2K on the 7200 HDD. At present, the 20 BG drive is 85% full and the 30 GB HDD is 85% free. [That sentence was fun to write.]


<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

No, you aren't losing anything, I was thinking you had that era hard-drives running ATA33, your fine. You might get a slight increace of performance running off your 7200 RMP disk, but not a whole lot really. I'd leave it until you need to re-install the OS, then change it.

Anything higher than a GeForce2 is a waste if you don't have AGP4X. Now it depends on what GeForce2 you have. Do you have an MX200, MX400, GTS, Pro or what?

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.

 

[Titanion]

You are right about the motherboard Era being 33, but I hope the Promise pci card does actually produce a faster speed running off of the pci bus, or however that works. I think it reports the HDDs as mode 4 and 5 respectivly.

The card is an eVGA GeForce2 MX 400 64 MB...

I could probable spend $200 and get a new motherboard, cpu, tower, powersuply, and more ram--using all other parts from this current system--and build another 1.6 GHz computer, but I do not have the heart to tear this baby apart. I have been slowly tweaking this unit for the last few years. But I know I have to accecpt the fact that I have done everyhthing I can to it already... so you can see why getting my fsb up to 112 Mhz got me so excited.

All things considered, it plays NWN and dungeon Siege fairly well... but when a lot of stuff is happening, during the battles that really count, it lags like hell... and my friends that play on it--when I am on my newer machine--do not understant what a beautiful thing the K6-2+ and GeForce2 running at 600 Mhz really is...

<font color=red><b>To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.</b></font color=red>
John Milton, <i>Paradise Lost</i>, II 262-263

 

[skligmund]

You are definently getting faster esults with the promise card over using the ATA33 from the motherboard. I know how you feel, I did the same thing with a K6-3+ 450, at 650 (I think). I just got rid of the last part that was in it a few months ago, my old 10X DVD-ROM, which took a crap.

Water cooling is for the weak. Get liquid nitrogen.