Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

still got performance problems with P4P800-E and Prescott

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
November 28, 2004 9:52:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

This is a repost as the other didn't appear so if it pops up twice, sorry.

I posted a while ago the dismal performance I'm getting with this board and
a Prescott 3.0ghz cpu with 2 x 512K crucial 2-2-2-5 ddr400 memory. I've
noticed the passmark cpu tests give significant differences but not entirely
sure if that's not unusual - is it possible the cpu or motherboard is faulty
even though the system works albeit relatively slowly. This thing has me
totally flummoxed and perplexed. I've swapped out a power supply from
another machine with no change (don't know why but thought it might be a
power issue). I haven't got access to another 800FSB cpu to compare and not
sure I'll get any sense out of the tech support as it is actually working
which is frustrating in the extreme. If I select turbo mode the board dies -
it literally blacks out completely requiring a hard power off to get bios
back with the post message that overclocking failed??? I'm really getting
pissed off with this now - is it likely the cpu or mainboard are faulty or
just a combo of the two, who knows?
November 29, 2004 8:03:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <coele3$iog$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, "Tim" <Tim@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> In XP, Perfmon is in Administrative tools in the control panel. By default
> when you open it, it displays the following 3 metrics (aka counters):
>
> % Processor Time
> Avg.Disk Queue Length
> Pages/sec
>
> The first is the traditional CPU use graph. The Disk Queue length is not a
> lot of use to people with one IDE or SATA disk drive that does not support
> TCQ or NCQ and are not running multithreading server style systems - it
> indicates how busy the disc subsystem is (IDE systems will rarely get much
> of a queue as they don't have a supported queueing system...). The third
> metric is a measure of the number of memory page references where the page
> was not in memory. It indicates memory overloading / virtual memory use. On
> a system with adequate memory this should be zero or close to most of the
> time.
>
> If you right click on any of the metrics shown at the bottom of Perfmon, you
> can select properties where you can change the scale of the displayed
> metrics, colour and line style and many other things. If you add a metric
> that is off the scale immediately (EG disc read bytes / second) then you can
> adjust the scale to fit the screen and / or you could adjust the extent of
> the Y axis (EG make it 0 - 200 instead of the default 0 to 100).
>
> The Yellow light bulb on the toolbar is handy - click and it will highlight
> the graph line for the counter (metric) you have selected at the bottom.
>
> To add a counter, click the + sign. There is a lot to learn here. A real
> lot. To add "interrupts" click +, in the Performance Object drop list select
> "Processor", then in the Select counters list, scroll to the bottom and
> select Interrupts / sec and click Add.
>
> Note that there is an Explain button which will show a brief and technical
> explanantion of the metric. If you need more help on these metrics then I
> suggest going to http://support.microsoft.com/ or http://msdn.microsoft.com/
> and doing a search or try google.
>
> On my system, if I add Interrupts / Second, the average reading comes up at
> around 1300 per second (the system is quite idle). Obvisouly I will not see
> a meaningful graph like this unless it is scaled appropriately - it is
> scaled to 0.01 which results in a usable graph hovering around the "13"
> mark.
>
> Often the output displayed by a tool like Perfmon won't mean much to you -
> unless you have an idea of what 'normal' is, so I suggest having a tinker
> and getting to understand what some of the more usual counters are, what
> normal is, and if you get stuck later you can always compare running
> systems.
>
> HTH
> - Tim
>
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
> news:nospam-2911040111010001@192.168.1.177...
<<snip snip>>
> >
> > ................. I also tried to find info on performance
> > counters, and didn't have much luck there, either.......
> >
> > HTH,
> > Paul

Well, I'm using Win2K, and the Perfmon had nothing in the Window
and there were no resources in the list at the bottom of the screen.

But, I discovered that by double clicking the empty area
(how intuitive...), I got a dialog to pop up with the "add counters"
in it. Gotta confess I'm not an icon guy, and that row of
icons at the top of the screen is just a blur for me. (I'm
a menu guy from way back, and hate the world of tiny icons.)
I never would have considered that big cross up there to be
a plus sign. Maybe if I click the light bulb in the row
of icons, I'll be rewarded with a clue ? (I wonder if Tognazzini,
the Apple interface guru, has anything to say on
the "world of tiny icons" :-)

I found this before making my discovery above. It has the raw
info used to make the "add counters" items.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/win2000platform/...

Thanks for bootstrapping me! I never would have wasted
another moment on this interface if you hadn't got
me to click on stuff :-)

Paul
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
November 30, 2004 6:04:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Just recently assembled a new Celeron D computer
and I saw the same, turn on Turbo and it fails, even
when not overclocked. I haven't looked into it much
further yet, because the performance is pretty good
regardless. Eventually I overclocked it by some 40%,
2.4 Celeron D @ 3.4, with stock HSF and a minor increase
in Vcore. The CPU temperature hardly ever goes above 50C,
with QFan disabled - don't need it since my Antec PSU
is quiet enough. I also had to disable Spread
Spectrum modulation, not sure why it defaults to
enabled, not sure why this setting even exists.

My memory is Corsair Value Select, 2x512. It's
running in dual mode, and my memory benchmarks
are just fine for P4 class. All in all it's performing
comparable to a 2.9GHz Northwood, which is normal.
I'm not sure if I even need Turbo.

How do you tell if Turbo is on or off when it's
set to Auto in BIOS?



"Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:30ul30F34salgU1@uni-berlin.de...
> This is a repost as the other didn't appear so if it pops up twice, sorry.
>
> I posted a while ago the dismal performance I'm getting with this board and
> a Prescott 3.0ghz cpu with 2 x 512K crucial 2-2-2-5 ddr400 memory. I've
> noticed the passmark cpu tests give significant differences but not entirely
> sure if that's not unusual - is it possible the cpu or motherboard is faulty
> even though the system works albeit relatively slowly. This thing has me
> totally flummoxed and perplexed. I've swapped out a power supply from
> another machine with no change (don't know why but thought it might be a
> power issue). I haven't got access to another 800FSB cpu to compare and not
> sure I'll get any sense out of the tech support as it is actually working
> which is frustrating in the extreme. If I select turbo mode the board dies -
> it literally blacks out completely requiring a hard power off to get bios
> back with the post message that overclocking failed??? I'm really getting
> pissed off with this now - is it likely the cpu or mainboard are faulty or
> just a combo of the two, who knows?
>
>
Related resources
November 30, 2004 10:52:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <313mofF367g34U1@uni-berlin.de>, "Johnny"
<repro007@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Paul wrote:
> > I don't normally top post, but don't want to try to trim the
> > rest of this down.
> >
> > Some random observations:
> >
> > 1) Could this be a Hyperthreading problem ? Is Hyperthreading
> > disabled in the BIOS ? I don't know my Hyperthreading policy
> > versus OS, but perhaps if you were quitting Passmark between
> > runs, maybe the program is running on a different virtual
> > processor each time, and one virtual processor has more load
> > than the other. If you disable Hyperthreading in the BIOS,
> > the perf difference might stop.
> >
> > In any case, Hyperthreading is not all it is cracked up to
> > be. In some cases, it is a clear win, but in other cases it
> > can trash the performance of the memory subsystem, and actually
> > run slower than without it.
> >
> WOW!!! Before altering any voltages or settings, just running the standard
> [auto] jumperless detection settings and simply setting CPU hyperthreading
> [disabled] option, the results are now, well, somewhat different!!
> How thorough or accurate passmark is I know not but for purposes of
> comparison it's useful. It's difficult to present the results in here but
> the scores for example of the CPU suite of tests are as follows in my
> attempt at a table (hope it comes out ok).
>
> cpu test hyperthreading [enabled] hyperthreading[disabled]
>
> integer math 170/246 varies 257 solid
> floating p math 230 291
> mmx 181 278
> sse 131 164
> compression 1319 1868
> encryption 6.8 10.9
> image rotation 113 195.9
> string sorting 665 810
>
> CPU passmark 322 467
> integer math
>
> I havent managed to get anything other than very close to the numbers
> above with hyperthreading [disabled], it is solid. [disabled]
> hyperthreading has also affected the memory test benchmark speeds,
> presumably due to the increased CPU performance.
>
> all this before altering any voltages or any other settings, blimey!

Does the memtest86 memory bandwidth indicator change as a function
of the BIOS Hyperthreading setting ? It shouldn't. In any case, one
thing that strikes me, is how negative an effect hyperthreading is
having on your results.

> >
> > 2) Increase Vdimm to the Corsair. DDR400 memory needs 2.6V to
> > start with, and you may find bumping the memory voltage up
> > a couple notches stops the errors. If the memory passes memtest86
> > in an overnight test without errors, use Prime95 torture test
> > in mixed mode, and see if it runs error free as well. I've had
> > memory pass memtest86 and fail Prime95.
> >
> > 3) Look up your Corsair memory here:
> >
> > http://corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms.html
> >
> > Click the link and download the datasheet. For example, 3200XL
> > is rated for 2.75V and you could try that. The datasheet for
> > 3200XL claims the SPD is loaded with 2-2-2-5, so it shouldn't
> > start at 2.5-2-2 on its own. If this is some other memory,
> > you may need to post in this forum, and get some help with
> > your product - or search for someone having the same system
> > as you've got:
> >
> The product is CMX512-3200XLPT listed on their site under CMX512-3200XL and
> it clearly states 2.75V. Changing the voltage to 2.75V has stopped the
> blackouts.
>
> For interest here are the passmark memory results before (but with
> hyperthreading disabled) and after voltage change. The - configure DRAM
> timing by speed option is [enabled] in bios
>
> test [auto] 2.75V[auto] 2.75V / 2.0-2-2-5
>
> allocate small block 1162.8 1163 1164.8
> read cached 1390 1389.7 1389.9
> read uncached 1326.6 1328.3 1328.8
> write 809.4 809.7 809.4

As the auto and manual setting seem to be doing the same thing, I think
you can conclude that the SPD on the 3200XL is 2-2-2. You can play
with the 5 number manually, as by calculation, the 5 number is supposed
to be the sum of two of the other parameters plus 2 (four beats of
DDR data taking 2 cycles). On an AMD system, raising that number to
10 is best, while on the P4, a lower value is better, but play with it
a bit, and see what happens.

In terms of memory bandwidth, your CTIAW and memtest86 bandwidth
indicators are in the same ballpark as mine, so I don't think you
are far off from optimal. Certainly, overclocking the memory will
be the single biggest determinant of memory bandwidth, and the
nice thing about the 3200XL, is you can play with it a bit. I think
it can be pushed up to DDR500, at the expense of relaxing the timing
numbers a bit. My Ballistix doesn't like that quite as much.

These two documents describe some of the things you can do to
optimize memory bandwidth. But with the Asus hack to enable PAT,
the rules might be more like an 875 than an 865. The chips, after
all, are the same die, but with different signals pinned out.

ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273... (875P)
ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25303... (865PE)
>
> altering the dram burst timing between 4 and 8 clocks appeared to make no
> difference in these tests. having memory acceleration enabled gave the
> following 1165.4,1389.3, 1340.2, 810 so only read uncached improved
> slightly but consistently.

When the cache is enabled for a certain area of memory, the memory
controller likes to fetch cache-line-sized chunks. That might be why
normally, the 4 versus 8 setting doesn't make a difference. Perhaps
the memory used by PCI cards for I/O is uncached ? I've left mine
set at 4. (I think the cache line size is 64 bytes, and with dual
channel memory, 16 bytes are transferred per beat, so the 4 setting
would be right for it. If you were in single channel mode, perhaps
8 would be the right setting, times 8 bytes per beat.)

>
> **** INTEL/AMD/VIA memory config info, c't/Andreas Stiller V2.7 June 03
> ****
> Kernel Driver: WinNT DIRECTNT.SYS V01.09
> Pentium 4,(0F34-00)ca 3274 MHz (sleep) 2999 MHz (load)
> Bus Speed: max=200MHz, ratio=15 => 200 MHz
> Hostdevice: (2570) Springdale i865 MCH, Vendor: (8086) Intel, Rev:0002h
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Springdale i865 MCH Rev:02: Bus:0, Device-Nr:0, Function:0
> System Frequency : FSB533/133 MHz
> Memory Frequency : DDR266/133 MHz (1:1)
> IOQ Depth : 12 deep
> Top of usable Memory : 1024.0 MByte
> Extended SMRAM (Tseg) : disabled
> Overflowdevice : disabled and unlocked, ID= 2576h, Rev: 2
> Memory Delays Base Address : FECF0000 not prefetchable
> CPU Parking : disabled
> Memory : row0: 512 MByte/16 KB Pages
> : row1: 512 MByte/16 KB Pages
> DRAM-Channels : Dual Channel Linear, DDR
> ECC & Refresh : Non-ECC, Refresh=7.8 µs
> PAT-mode : (1) fully enabled
> Active to Precharge Delay : 5 clocks .. 70 µs
> Tcl - Trcd -Trp : 2-2-2 T (DRAM Clocks)
>
> Memory Read Bandwidth : ca. 5780.5 MBytes/s, Cacheline size= 64
> >> go on with CR
>
>
> >
> > http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?foru...
> >
> > 4) CTIAW and memtest86 disagree on your PAT setting. I don't know
> > what to make of that.
> >
> > 5) There is a possible reason for CTIAW mis-reporting the bus
> > speed. An 865PE Northbridge is not supposed to have PAT, but
> > Asus and others use a trick to enable it. The processor has
> > two signals called BSEL, and they indicate the bus speed rating
> > of the processor (400, 533, 800 etc). The BSEL signals are
> > normally routed from the processor to the Northbridge and to
> > the clockgen. What Asus did, is they disconnected that link.
> > Asus sends a fake value of BSEL to the Northbridge - I think
> > if the FSB is set to 533, PAT is enabled, so by sending the
> > 533 bit pattern to the Northbridge, but setting the clockgen
> > to 800, PAT is enabled, and the memory can run at DDR400, just
> > like on an 875P Northbridge. I think what CTIAW could be doing,
> > is reading the Northbridge register, instead of checking the
> > clockgen. This trick is great for fooling the hardware, but
> > software authors have to be aware of the trick too, to get
> > the info right.
> >
> > 6) I dug up some benchmarks you can try. Maybe these will be
> > reproducible from run to run.
> >
> > http://www.super-computing.org/
> > ftp://pi.super-computing.org/windows/super_pi.zip
> >
> > Super_pi computes PI, and you select the number of digits from
> > the menu. You double click the .exe, to run a Windows dialog.
> > Select the number of digits to calculate and then run it.
> > I just ran 1 million digits, and it takes 48 seconds
> > on my 2.8C with 2x512MB 2-2-2-6 memory. I did two test runs and
> > they had exactly the same test time. A file is created in the
> > install directory with the results of the calculation.
> > The test time and the amount of memory used increase
> > with the digits setting. Some people use the 32M setting
> > as a stability test for new motherboards.
> >
> 44 seconds with hyper threading [disabled]
> 53 seconds with hyper threading [enabled]
>
> as you say this test is consistent

I just don't understand why your results are being hammered
so bad by Hyperthreading. The OS cannot be taking up that much
memory bandwidth in the background. And, since your processor
has a 1MB cache, it shouldn't be measurably thrashing the cache
either. I wonder if Windows is actually using the whole
cache ? I remember reading a while back, about a situation where
Windows needed to be manually adjusted to use the whole cache
(back in the P3 era). Something still isn't right here.

> >
> > Here is a second test:
> >
> > This is some kind of finite element analysis. It was
> > posted by the author a while back. It uses a good chunk
> > of memory, and judging by the CPU heating, is not memory
> > bound, but does a fair amount of computing. To use it,
> > unzip the file, fire up a MSDOS window, cd to the unzipped
> > directory, then type "now" into the MSDOS window, to execute
> > now.bat . After it reaches "step 992", it will finish, and
> > print the number of "MUPs", which are millions of operations
> > per second. My computer takes 202 or 203 seconds to run the
> > benchmark, and achieves a rating of 12.27 MUPs (the number
> > is printed in scientific notation, so shift the decimal
> > point as appropriate).
> >
> with hyperthreading [enabled]
>
> 242 - 244seconds 10.16 - 10.24 MUPs +/- 0.04% (i assume)
>
> with hyperthreading [disabled]
>
> 203seconds 12.21 MUPs +/- 0.06% consistently.

The Hyperthreading penalty seems to be the same here, as
Super_PI. It seems strange that they would be the same, as
these programs won't have the same memory access pattern.

>
> > http://users.viawest.net/~hwstock/bench/3d0/3d0.zip
> >
> > Instructions and some background info are here:
> > http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70142
> >
> > Those two tests are reproducible for me. Give them a
> > try, with and without Hyperthreading turned on in the
> > BIOS.
> >
> > Note: The 3d0 program is a bit unhygenic, and leaves
> > a bunch of files in its directory. You may want to
> > dump all but the original files, when the directory
> > fills up.
> >
> Be interested to hear what you make of that lot. Obviously hyperthreading is
> doing the bulk of the damage but the memory scores seem a little low also.
> I'll run the memtest and mess with some other BIOS settings later but I have
> to go make some money now.
>
> many thanks,
> J

<<snip>>

All I can say, is Hyperthreading is doing way more damage than
it should be. Try memtest86 again, with Hyperthreading enabled
and then with it disabled. There should be no change in the
bandwidth readout. If there is, there is some other serious
problem there.

In my registry, I see an entry called SecondLevelDataCache, but
it is set to zero. Implying it is detected automatically, as if
L2 were disabled, you would see the performance plummet.

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CURRENTCONTROLSET\CONTROL\SESSION MANAGER\MEMORY
MANAGEMENT

According to this, changing it shouldn't help:
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/116/

You might try downloading Sandra Lite 2005 and run the
"Cache and Memory" benchmark. The 2002 version I've got
has that benchmark, and the "bumps" in the curve tell
you where the cache breakpoints are. A Prescott, with
its 1MB cache, should have a breakpoint at the 1MB mark
if the cache is working.

http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=dload&locati...

I think if I try to install it, it will remove the older software,
so I cannot do this right now. I hope the Lite version still has
that benchmark...

HTH,
Paul
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 1, 2004 9:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:52:47 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
wrote:

what video are you running and drivers as well ? You would be
surprised how one piece of hardware can ruin your day, even if it's
good...Swap vendors, say ati for nvidia or vice versa...try an agp
card that is 4x not 8x...

or try this: get your mits on a tried and true quality pci video card
(ie: ati 7xxx with 32mb ddr). Remove the agp card and install the pci
card and see how your system performs.

It sounds like you have some pretty good hardware, just finding the
right combination will make all the difference...

or else your board is foobar...

>This is a repost as the other didn't appear so if it pops up twice, sorry.
>
>I posted a while ago the dismal performance I'm getting with this board and
>a Prescott 3.0ghz cpu with 2 x 512K crucial 2-2-2-5 ddr400 memory. I've
>noticed the passmark cpu tests give significant differences but not entirely
>sure if that's not unusual - is it possible the cpu or motherboard is faulty
>even though the system works albeit relatively slowly. This thing has me
>totally flummoxed and perplexed. I've swapped out a power supply from
>another machine with no change (don't know why but thought it might be a
>power issue). I haven't got access to another 800FSB cpu to compare and not
>sure I'll get any sense out of the tech support as it is actually working
>which is frustrating in the extreme. If I select turbo mode the board dies -
>it literally blacks out completely requiring a hard power off to get bios
>back with the post message that overclocking failed??? I'm really getting
>pissed off with this now - is it likely the cpu or mainboard are faulty or
>just a combo of the two, who knows?
>
December 1, 2004 2:56:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Paul wrote:
> In article <313mofF367g34U1@uni-berlin.de>, "Johnny"
> <repro007@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Paul wrote:
>>> I don't normally top post, but don't want to try to trim the
>>> rest of this down.
>>>
>>> Some random observations:
>>>
>>> 1) Could this be a Hyperthreading problem ? Is Hyperthreading
>>> disabled in the BIOS ? I don't know my Hyperthreading policy
>>> versus OS, but perhaps if you were quitting Passmark between
>>> runs, maybe the program is running on a different virtual
>>> processor each time, and one virtual processor has more load
>>> than the other. If you disable Hyperthreading in the BIOS,
>>> the perf difference might stop.
>>>
>>> In any case, Hyperthreading is not all it is cracked up to
>>> be. In some cases, it is a clear win, but in other cases it
>>> can trash the performance of the memory subsystem, and actually
>>> run slower than without it.
>>>
>> WOW!!! Before altering any voltages or settings, just running the
>> standard [auto] jumperless detection settings and simply setting CPU
>> hyperthreading [disabled] option, the results are now, well,
>> somewhat different!!
>> How thorough or accurate passmark is I know not but for purposes of
>> comparison it's useful. It's difficult to present the results in
>> here but the scores for example of the CPU suite of tests are as
>> follows in my attempt at a table (hope it comes out ok).
>>
>> cpu test hyperthreading [enabled] hyperthreading[disabled]
>>
>> integer math 170/246 varies 257 solid
>> floating p math 230 291
>> mmx 181 278
>> sse 131 164
>> compression 1319 1868
>> encryption 6.8 10.9
>> image rotation 113 195.9
>> string sorting 665 810
>>
>> CPU passmark 322 467
>> integer math
>>
>> I havent managed to get anything other than very close to the numbers
>> above with hyperthreading [disabled], it is solid. [disabled]
>> hyperthreading has also affected the memory test benchmark speeds,
>> presumably due to the increased CPU performance.
>>
>> all this before altering any voltages or any other settings, blimey!
>
> Does the memtest86 memory bandwidth indicator change as a function
> of the BIOS Hyperthreading setting ? It shouldn't. In any case, one
> thing that strikes me, is how negative an effect hyperthreading is
> having on your results.
>
Yeah me too - it's got me flumoxed this thing. The bandwidth indicators in
memtest are exactly the same with hyperthreading enabled and disabled. The
CPU temperature increases by 10C to 48-50C when hyperthreading is disabled
then drops back to 38-40C when I enable it.

If I select Turbo Mode in the BIOS settings the system still bombs out
despite the memory tweaks.

>>>
>>> 2) Increase Vdimm to the Corsair. DDR400 memory needs 2.6V to
>>> start with, and you may find bumping the memory voltage up
>>> a couple notches stops the errors. If the memory passes memtest86
>>> in an overnight test without errors, use Prime95 torture test
>>> in mixed mode, and see if it runs error free as well. I've had
>>> memory pass memtest86 and fail Prime95.
>>>
>>> 3) Look up your Corsair memory here:
>>>
>>> http://corsairmicro.com/corsair/xms.html
>>>
>>> Click the link and download the datasheet. For example, 3200XL
>>> is rated for 2.75V and you could try that. The datasheet for
>>> 3200XL claims the SPD is loaded with 2-2-2-5, so it shouldn't
>>> start at 2.5-2-2 on its own. If this is some other memory,
>>> you may need to post in this forum, and get some help with
>>> your product - or search for someone having the same system
>>> as you've got:
>>>
>> The product is CMX512-3200XLPT listed on their site under
>> CMX512-3200XL and it clearly states 2.75V. Changing the voltage to
>> 2.75V has stopped the blackouts.
>>
>> For interest here are the passmark memory results before (but with
>> hyperthreading disabled) and after voltage change. The - configure
>> DRAM timing by speed option is [enabled] in bios
>>
>> test [auto] 2.75V[auto] 2.75V / 2.0-2-2-5
>>
>> allocate small block 1162.8 1163 1164.8
>> read cached 1390 1389.7 1389.9
>> read uncached 1326.6 1328.3 1328.8
>> write 809.4 809.7 809.4
>
> As the auto and manual setting seem to be doing the same thing, I
> think you can conclude that the SPD on the 3200XL is 2-2-2. You can
> play
> with the 5 number manually, as by calculation, the 5 number is
> supposed to be the sum of two of the other parameters plus 2 (four
> beats of
> DDR data taking 2 cycles). On an AMD system, raising that number to
> 10 is best, while on the P4, a lower value is better, but play with it
> a bit, and see what happens.
>
> In terms of memory bandwidth, your CTIAW and memtest86 bandwidth
> indicators are in the same ballpark as mine, so I don't think you
> are far off from optimal. Certainly, overclocking the memory will
> be the single biggest determinant of memory bandwidth, and the
> nice thing about the 3200XL, is you can play with it a bit. I think
> it can be pushed up to DDR500, at the expense of relaxing the timing
> numbers a bit. My Ballistix doesn't like that quite as much.
>
> These two documents describe some of the things you can do to
> optimize memory bandwidth. But with the Asus hack to enable PAT,
> the rules might be more like an 875 than an 865. The chips, after
> all, are the same die, but with different signals pinned out.
>
> ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25273... (875P)
> ftp://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/applnots/25303... (865PE)
>>
>> altering the dram burst timing between 4 and 8 clocks appeared to
>> make no difference in these tests. having memory acceleration
>> enabled gave the following 1165.4,1389.3, 1340.2, 810 so only read
>> uncached improved slightly but consistently.
>
> When the cache is enabled for a certain area of memory, the memory
> controller likes to fetch cache-line-sized chunks. That might be why
> normally, the 4 versus 8 setting doesn't make a difference. Perhaps
> the memory used by PCI cards for I/O is uncached ? I've left mine
> set at 4. (I think the cache line size is 64 bytes, and with dual
> channel memory, 16 bytes are transferred per beat, so the 4 setting
> would be right for it. If you were in single channel mode, perhaps
> 8 would be the right setting, times 8 bytes per beat.)
>
>>
>> **** INTEL/AMD/VIA memory config info, c't/Andreas Stiller V2.7
>> June 03
>> ****
>> Kernel Driver: WinNT DIRECTNT.SYS V01.09
>> Pentium 4,(0F34-00)ca 3274 MHz (sleep) 2999 MHz (load)
>> Bus Speed: max=200MHz, ratio=15 => 200 MHz
>> Hostdevice: (2570) Springdale i865 MCH, Vendor: (8086) Intel,
>> Rev:0002h
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Intel Springdale i865 MCH Rev:02: Bus:0, Device-Nr:0, Function:0
>> System Frequency : FSB533/133 MHz
>> Memory Frequency : DDR266/133 MHz (1:1)
>> IOQ Depth : 12 deep
>> Top of usable Memory : 1024.0 MByte
>> Extended SMRAM (Tseg) : disabled
>> Overflowdevice : disabled and unlocked, ID= 2576h,
>> Rev: 2 Memory Delays Base Address : FECF0000 not prefetchable
>> CPU Parking : disabled
>> Memory : row0: 512 MByte/16 KB Pages
>> : row1: 512 MByte/16 KB Pages
>> DRAM-Channels : Dual Channel Linear, DDR
>> ECC & Refresh : Non-ECC, Refresh=7.8 µs
>> PAT-mode : (1) fully enabled
>> Active to Precharge Delay : 5 clocks .. 70 µs
>> Tcl - Trcd -Trp : 2-2-2 T (DRAM Clocks)
>>
>> Memory Read Bandwidth : ca. 5780.5 MBytes/s, Cacheline size=
>> 64 >> go on with CR
>>
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.houseofhelp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?foru...
>>>
>>> 4) CTIAW and memtest86 disagree on your PAT setting. I don't know
>>> what to make of that.
>>>
>>> 5) There is a possible reason for CTIAW mis-reporting the bus
>>> speed. An 865PE Northbridge is not supposed to have PAT, but
>>> Asus and others use a trick to enable it. The processor has
>>> two signals called BSEL, and they indicate the bus speed rating
>>> of the processor (400, 533, 800 etc). The BSEL signals are
>>> normally routed from the processor to the Northbridge and to
>>> the clockgen. What Asus did, is they disconnected that link.
>>> Asus sends a fake value of BSEL to the Northbridge - I think
>>> if the FSB is set to 533, PAT is enabled, so by sending the
>>> 533 bit pattern to the Northbridge, but setting the clockgen
>>> to 800, PAT is enabled, and the memory can run at DDR400, just
>>> like on an 875P Northbridge. I think what CTIAW could be doing,
>>> is reading the Northbridge register, instead of checking the
>>> clockgen. This trick is great for fooling the hardware, but
>>> software authors have to be aware of the trick too, to get
>>> the info right.
>>>
>>> 6) I dug up some benchmarks you can try. Maybe these will be
>>> reproducible from run to run.
>>>
>>> http://www.super-computing.org/
>>> ftp://pi.super-computing.org/windows/super_pi.zip
>>>
>>> Super_pi computes PI, and you select the number of digits from
>>> the menu. You double click the .exe, to run a Windows dialog.
>>> Select the number of digits to calculate and then run it.
>>> I just ran 1 million digits, and it takes 48 seconds
>>> on my 2.8C with 2x512MB 2-2-2-6 memory. I did two test runs and
>>> they had exactly the same test time. A file is created in the
>>> install directory with the results of the calculation.
>>> The test time and the amount of memory used increase
>>> with the digits setting. Some people use the 32M setting
>>> as a stability test for new motherboards.
>>>
>> 44 seconds with hyper threading [disabled]
>> 53 seconds with hyper threading [enabled]
>>
>> as you say this test is consistent
>
> I just don't understand why your results are being hammered
> so bad by Hyperthreading. The OS cannot be taking up that much
> memory bandwidth in the background. And, since your processor
> has a 1MB cache, it shouldn't be measurably thrashing the cache
> either. I wonder if Windows is actually using the whole
> cache ? I remember reading a while back, about a situation where
> Windows needed to be manually adjusted to use the whole cache
> (back in the P3 era). Something still isn't right here.
>
>>>
>>> Here is a second test:
>>>
>>> This is some kind of finite element analysis. It was
>>> posted by the author a while back. It uses a good chunk
>>> of memory, and judging by the CPU heating, is not memory
>>> bound, but does a fair amount of computing. To use it,
>>> unzip the file, fire up a MSDOS window, cd to the unzipped
>>> directory, then type "now" into the MSDOS window, to execute
>>> now.bat . After it reaches "step 992", it will finish, and
>>> print the number of "MUPs", which are millions of operations
>>> per second. My computer takes 202 or 203 seconds to run the
>>> benchmark, and achieves a rating of 12.27 MUPs (the number
>>> is printed in scientific notation, so shift the decimal
>>> point as appropriate).
>>>
>> with hyperthreading [enabled]
>>
>> 242 - 244seconds 10.16 - 10.24 MUPs +/- 0.04% (i assume)
>>
>> with hyperthreading [disabled]
>>
>> 203seconds 12.21 MUPs +/- 0.06% consistently.
>
> The Hyperthreading penalty seems to be the same here, as
> Super_PI. It seems strange that they would be the same, as
> these programs won't have the same memory access pattern.
>
>>
>>> http://users.viawest.net/~hwstock/bench/3d0/3d0.zip
>>>
>>> Instructions and some background info are here:
>>> http://www.abxzone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70142
>>>
>>> Those two tests are reproducible for me. Give them a
>>> try, with and without Hyperthreading turned on in the
>>> BIOS.
>>>
>>> Note: The 3d0 program is a bit unhygenic, and leaves
>>> a bunch of files in its directory. You may want to
>>> dump all but the original files, when the directory
>>> fills up.
>>>
>> Be interested to hear what you make of that lot. Obviously
>> hyperthreading is doing the bulk of the damage but the memory scores
>> seem a little low also. I'll run the memtest and mess with some
>> other BIOS settings later but I have to go make some money now.
>>
>> many thanks,
>> J
>
> <<snip>>
>
> All I can say, is Hyperthreading is doing way more damage than
> it should be. Try memtest86 again, with Hyperthreading enabled
> and then with it disabled. There should be no change in the
> bandwidth readout. If there is, there is some other serious
> problem there.
>
> In my registry, I see an entry called SecondLevelDataCache, but
> it is set to zero. Implying it is detected automatically, as if
> L2 were disabled, you would see the performance plummet.
>
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CURRENTCONTROLSET\CONTROL\SESSION
> MANAGER\MEMORY MANAGEMENT
>
> According to this, changing it shouldn't help:
> http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/116/
>
> You might try downloading Sandra Lite 2005 and run the
> "Cache and Memory" benchmark. The 2002 version I've got
> has that benchmark, and the "bumps" in the curve tell
> you where the cache breakpoints are. A Prescott, with
> its 1MB cache, should have a breakpoint at the 1MB mark
> if the cache is working.
>
>
http://www.sisoftware.co.uk/index.html?dir=dload&locati...
>
> I think if I try to install it, it will remove the older software,
> so I cannot do this right now. I hope the Lite version still has
> that benchmark...
>
> HTH,
> Paul
December 1, 2004 4:05:51 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:50:45 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> I also noticed the CPU temperature jumps to 48-50C when hyperthreading
> is disabled. Once I enable hyperthreading and watch asusprobe
> I see it drop back to 38-40C though

I have the same effect with Motherboard Monitor, but not in BIOS.
Motherboard Monitor and other programs is not compatible with
hyperthreading.
December 1, 2004 6:29:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Ken wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:50:45 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I also noticed the CPU temperature jumps to 48-50C when
>> hyperthreading is disabled. Once I enable hyperthreading and watch
>> asusprobe
>> I see it drop back to 38-40C though
>
> I have the same effect with Motherboard Monitor, but not in BIOS.
> Motherboard Monitor and other programs is not compatible with
> hyperthreading.
>
Hmmm - my experiences with this setup are that it's hyperthreading itself
where all the incompatibilities lie.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
December 3, 2004 7:25:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:48:28 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Bill Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 11:50:45 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Smith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:52:47 -0000, "Johnny" <repro007@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>
>>
>> hmm...corsair...
>>
>I've given it up as a bad job - there's only so many times I'm prepared to
>hit my head against the wall. The parts have been issued an RMA today and
>get sent back tomorrow. What are your experiences with Corsair RAM Bill?
>

actually, none. Just read alot of posts and I try to base some of that
info on what I purchase...If you have any other ram available, it may
be worth the trouble to try it out. I've been running crucial 2 x 512
ddr400 since they were released and I've had no problems with that.

or try the ram in another working system...
sorry I cannot be of more help, but you can still try to eliminate
some of the hardware being the problem...
!