Massive upgrades causing lower benchmark??

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Here's what I had:
133MHz mobo with AGP x4 only
AMD Athalon 1600+
512 MB 333 RAM
Radeon 9600 XT video

I get a 3DMark benchmark rating of around 3400 with that.

Here's what I just upgraded to:
nVidia2 400 MHz mobo with AGP x8
AMD Athalon 2500+
512 MB 400 RAM
same Radeon 9600 XT

But I'm getting a lower 3DMark of around 2400!

I so don't get it.
I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
leave it at 3200+.)

And of course the latest Radeon drivers. All after having completely
reinstalled WinXP Pro (with SP2 both before and after the upgrade.)

So, why the heck would the system perform WORSE after getting all
nearly twice as fast components?
Am I missing something? Is there something I need to focus on?
Something I should check?
I have a sneaky suspicion it has something to do with the BIOS...but
what?
I have AGP set to 8x. Apeture set to 128MB. FS caching is on. I've
played with the chip/board speeds, but if I have it set to 200 (400)
which is the natural speed of the RAM...I just don't get it.

Oddly, even if I set it to "expert" and set the CPU multiplier to 9.0,
I still get a CPU check of 1100+ at boot up. I can't at them moment
think of what weird BIOS contortions allow the CPU to check in as a
3200+, but I know it doesn't seem to make sense in the BIOS itself.
Something like, setting the board to "turbo" and the CPU to "optimal"
or something.

Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated!!
Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"LRW" <deja@celticbear.com> wrote in message
news:3a1d1813.0408270807.4b89840b@posting.google.com...
> Here's what I had:
> 133MHz mobo with AGP x4 only
> AMD Athalon 1600+
> 512 MB 333 RAM
> Radeon 9600 XT video
>
> I get a 3DMark benchmark rating of around 3400 with that.
>
> Here's what I just upgraded to:
> nVidia2 400 MHz mobo with AGP x8
> AMD Athalon 2500+
> 512 MB 400 RAM
> same Radeon 9600 XT
>
> But I'm getting a lower 3DMark of around 2400!
>
> I so don't get it.
> I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
> manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
> The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
> is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
> what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
> 3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
> any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
> leave it at 3200+.)
>
> And of course the latest Radeon drivers. All after having completely
> reinstalled WinXP Pro (with SP2 both before and after the upgrade.)
>
> So, why the heck would the system perform WORSE after getting all
> nearly twice as fast components?
> Am I missing something? Is there something I need to focus on?
> Something I should check?
> I have a sneaky suspicion it has something to do with the BIOS...but
> what?
> I have AGP set to 8x. Apeture set to 128MB. FS caching is on. I've
> played with the chip/board speeds, but if I have it set to 200 (400)
> which is the natural speed of the RAM...I just don't get it.
>
> Oddly, even if I set it to "expert" and set the CPU multiplier to 9.0,
> I still get a CPU check of 1100+ at boot up. I can't at them moment
> think of what weird BIOS contortions allow the CPU to check in as a
> 3200+, but I know it doesn't seem to make sense in the BIOS itself.
> Something like, setting the board to "turbo" and the CPU to "optimal"
> or something.
>
> Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated!!
> Liam

Have you tried flashing the bios? Perhaps your chip is a different flavor
then the board was intended for?

Besides why would Nvidia want there board to work with a Radeon? just a side
note...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Joe Nobody" <sherryFuLlOfShIt@sssnet.com> wrote in message
news:10ivloeg09sehbc@corp.supernews.com...
>> So, why the heck would the system perform WORSE after getting all
>> nearly twice as fast components?

> Have you tried flashing the bios? Perhaps your chip is a different flavor
> then the board was intended for?
>
> Besides why would Nvidia want there board to work with a Radeon? just a
> side note...

Yeah, I flashed the BIOS to the latest. No change. =/
And why wouldn't nVidia want their chipset to work with different video
cards? What do you think would happen to their sales if it got out that they
made their motherboard incompatable with half the video cards out there?
Would be really bad business.

Thanks for replying!
Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Joe Nobody wrote:
> "LRW" <deja@celticbear.com> wrote in message
> news:3a1d1813.0408270807.4b89840b@posting.google.com...
>
>>Here's what I had:
>>133MHz mobo with AGP x4 only
>>AMD Athalon 1600+
>>512 MB 333 RAM
>>Radeon 9600 XT video
>>
>>I get a 3DMark benchmark rating of around 3400 with that.
>>
>>Here's what I just upgraded to:
>>nVidia2 400 MHz mobo with AGP x8
>>AMD Athalon 2500+
>>512 MB 400 RAM
>>same Radeon 9600 XT
>>
>>But I'm getting a lower 3DMark of around 2400!
>>
>>I so don't get it.
>>I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
>>manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
>>The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
>>is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
>>what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
>>3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
>>any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
>>leave it at 3200+.)

It's coming up as a 3200+ because you're setting the FSB to 200 Mhz instead
of the 166 Mhz (333) the processor is rated at. In other words, you're
overclocking it and the first thing you need to do is either set it to the
stock values or run stability tests to verify proper operation (not a bad
idea in either case).


>>And of course the latest Radeon drivers. All after having completely
>>reinstalled WinXP Pro (with SP2 both before and after the upgrade.)
>>
>>So, why the heck would the system perform WORSE after getting all
>>nearly twice as fast components?
>>Am I missing something? Is there something I need to focus on?
>>Something I should check?
>>I have a sneaky suspicion it has something to do with the BIOS...but
>>what?
>>I have AGP set to 8x. Apeture set to 128MB. FS caching is on. I've
>>played with the chip/board speeds, but if I have it set to 200 (400)
>>which is the natural speed of the RAM...I just don't get it.
>>
>>Oddly, even if I set it to "expert" and set the CPU multiplier to 9.0,
>>I still get a CPU check of 1100+ at boot up. I can't at them moment
>>think of what weird BIOS contortions allow the CPU to check in as a
>>3200+, but I know it doesn't seem to make sense in the BIOS itself.
>>Something like, setting the board to "turbo" and the CPU to "optimal"
>>or something.
>>
>>Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated!!
>>Liam
>
>
> Have you tried flashing the bios? Perhaps your chip is a different flavor
> then the board was intended for?
>
> Besides why would Nvidia want there board to work with a Radeon? just a side
> note...

Because, when you say it meets AGP specifications, it shouldn't matter
who's card is plugged in, as long as it too meets AGP specifications.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The reversion of the cpu being reported as 1100+ seems to mean that
the settings you are making aren't sticking, and the motherboard is
reverting to its defaults. Try setting the FSB to 166 and the multiplier
to 11.


LRW wrote:

> Here's what I had:
> 133MHz mobo with AGP x4 only
> AMD Athalon 1600+
> 512 MB 333 RAM
> Radeon 9600 XT video
>
> I get a 3DMark benchmark rating of around 3400 with that.
>
> Here's what I just upgraded to:
> nVidia2 400 MHz mobo with AGP x8
> AMD Athalon 2500+
> 512 MB 400 RAM
> same Radeon 9600 XT
>
> But I'm getting a lower 3DMark of around 2400!
>
> I so don't get it.
> I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
> manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
> The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
> is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
> what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
> 3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
> any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
> leave it at 3200+.)
>
> And of course the latest Radeon drivers. All after having completely
> reinstalled WinXP Pro (with SP2 both before and after the upgrade.)
>
> So, why the heck would the system perform WORSE after getting all
> nearly twice as fast components?
> Am I missing something? Is there something I need to focus on?
> Something I should check?
> I have a sneaky suspicion it has something to do with the BIOS...but
> what?
> I have AGP set to 8x. Apeture set to 128MB. FS caching is on. I've
> played with the chip/board speeds, but if I have it set to 200 (400)
> which is the natural speed of the RAM...I just don't get it.
>
> Oddly, even if I set it to "expert" and set the CPU multiplier to 9.0,
> I still get a CPU check of 1100+ at boot up. I can't at them moment
> think of what weird BIOS contortions allow the CPU to check in as a
> 3200+, but I know it doesn't seem to make sense in the BIOS itself.
> Something like, setting the board to "turbo" and the CPU to "optimal"
> or something.
>
> Anyway, any suggestions would be appreciated!!
> Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

> Joe Nobody wrote:
>
>> "LRW" <deja@celticbear.com> wrote in message
>> news:3a1d1813.0408270807.4b89840b@posting.google.com...

>>> I so don't get it.
>>> I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
>>> manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
>>> The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
>>> is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
>>> what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
>>> 3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
>>> any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
>>> leave it at 3200+.)
>
>
> It's coming up as a 3200+ because you're setting the FSB to 200 Mhz
> instead of the 166 Mhz (333) the processor is rated at. In other words,
> you're overclocking it and the first thing you need to do is either set
> it to the stock values or run stability tests to verify proper operation
> (not a bad idea in either case).
>

Yeah, I get that. But what I don't get is why it STILL will say 3200+
even when I bring the CPU multiplier down to 9 or 9.5. By my math that
should be a little over 1800 MHz which is a 2500+. =)
In any case, with the board at 200 which is the native speed of the RAM,
and the CPU overclocked, I simply don't understand why I get WORSE
3dMark score than with a board and RAM set at 133 and x4 AGP and half
the processor.

I ran SiS burn-in and it found no problems with the CPU at 3200+. That
and the CPU temp never going above 45C, I'll keep it at that. I'd rather
have the FSB and RAM at 200.

Thanks for the reply!!
Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

LRW wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Joe Nobody wrote:
>>
>>> "LRW" <deja@celticbear.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3a1d1813.0408270807.4b89840b@posting.google.com...
>
>
>>>> I so don't get it.
>>>> I downloaded the latest VGA/HD controller/mobo drivers from the mobo
>>>> manufacturer. I have the BIOS set to 400 (200) MHz.
>>>> The RAM is checking as the appropriate DDR400 at boot up and the CPU
>>>> is even coming up as 3200+ (although that's unintentional. No matter
>>>> what I do with the BIOS, the CPU is being read as either a 1100+ or a
>>>> 3200+. I'd rather it was read as its native 2500+, but I'm not getting
>>>> any temp reading of greater than 42C from the CPU, so I guess I'll
>>>> leave it at 3200+.)
>>
>>
>>
>> It's coming up as a 3200+ because you're setting the FSB to 200 Mhz
>> instead of the 166 Mhz (333) the processor is rated at. In other
>> words, you're overclocking it and the first thing you need to do is
>> either set it to the stock values or run stability tests to verify
>> proper operation (not a bad idea in either case).
>>
>
> Yeah, I get that. But what I don't get is why it STILL will say 3200+
> even when I bring the CPU multiplier down to 9 or 9.5. By my math that
> should be a little over 1800 MHz which is a 2500+. =)

Because it's multiplier locked so it doesn't make one whit of difference
what your BIOS multiplier setting is.

> In any case, with the board at 200 which is the native speed of the RAM,
> and the CPU overclocked, I simply don't understand why I get WORSE
> 3dMark score than with a board and RAM set at 133 and x4 AGP and half
> the processor.

There could be a number of reasons but I see you've done at least some
testing for one of them: stability.

Next I'd try turning 8x off and see how it does 4x.

> I ran SiS burn-in and it found no problems with the CPU at 3200+. That
> and the CPU temp never going above 45C, I'll keep it at that. I'd rather
> have the FSB and RAM at 200.

I would too and mine was intentionally overclocked, except I got the mobile
so I could alter the multiplier of I wanted to and so mine is at 12x200.

>
> Thanks for the reply!!
> Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
> LRW wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> Joe Nobody wrote:
>>> It's coming up as a 3200+ because you're setting the FSB to 200 Mhz
>>> instead of the 166 Mhz (333) the processor is rated at. In other
>>> words, you're overclocking it and the first thing you need to do is
>>> either set it to the stock values or run stability tests to verify
>>> proper operation (not a bad idea in either case).
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I get that. But what I don't get is why it STILL will say 3200+
>> even when I bring the CPU multiplier down to 9 or 9.5. By my math that
>> should be a little over 1800 MHz which is a 2500+. =)
>
>
> Because it's multiplier locked so it doesn't make one whit of difference
> what your BIOS multiplier setting is.

Oh. I didn't realize. Well that explains that.

>
>> In any case, with the board at 200 which is the native speed of the
>> RAM, and the CPU overclocked, I simply don't understand why I get
>> WORSE 3dMark score than with a board and RAM set at 133 and x4 AGP and
>> half the processor.
>
>
> There could be a number of reasons but I see you've done at least some
> testing for one of them: stability.
>
> Next I'd try turning 8x off and see how it does 4x.

?? Uhm, OK. Why not.
Interestingly, I increased my AGP bus from 66 to 75, and I got a 3DMark
of 3972. Which is a lot better than 2589! But not too much better than
pre-upgrade 3624. But, better is better.
Odd that increasing the bus of the AGP, for a card that stayed the same,
made a difference while all the hardware upgrading made it worse.

Thanks, Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

JK wrote:

> The reversion of the cpu being reported as 1100+ seems to mean that
> the settings you are making aren't sticking, and the motherboard is
> reverting to its defaults. Try setting the FSB to 166 and the multiplier
> to 11.
>
>
Well, as someone has already mentioned, it seems the CPU is locked and
my changing the miltiplier is doing nothing. It's 1100+ when the FSB is
set too high or too low, 2500+ when it's set to 166 (which is the
desired setting for the CPU,) and 3200+ when FSB is 200.
Thanks for replying!
Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

LRW wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> LRW wrote:
>>
>>> David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joe Nobody wrote:
>>>> It's coming up as a 3200+ because you're setting the FSB to 200 Mhz
>>>> instead of the 166 Mhz (333) the processor is rated at. In other
>>>> words, you're overclocking it and the first thing you need to do is
>>>> either set it to the stock values or run stability tests to verify
>>>> proper operation (not a bad idea in either case).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, I get that. But what I don't get is why it STILL will say 3200+
>>> even when I bring the CPU multiplier down to 9 or 9.5. By my math
>>> that should be a little over 1800 MHz which is a 2500+. =)
>>
>>
>>
>> Because it's multiplier locked so it doesn't make one whit of
>> difference what your BIOS multiplier setting is.
>
>
> Oh. I didn't realize. Well that explains that.
>
>>
>>> In any case, with the board at 200 which is the native speed of the
>>> RAM, and the CPU overclocked, I simply don't understand why I get
>>> WORSE 3dMark score than with a board and RAM set at 133 and x4 AGP
>>> and half the processor.
>>
>>
>>
>> There could be a number of reasons but I see you've done at least some
>> testing for one of them: stability.
>>
>> Next I'd try turning 8x off and see how it does 4x.
>
>
> ?? Uhm, OK. Why not.
> Interestingly, I increased my AGP bus from 66 to 75, and I got a 3DMark
> of 3972. Which is a lot better than 2589! But not too much better than
> pre-upgrade 3624. But, better is better.
> Odd that increasing the bus of the AGP, for a card that stayed the same,
> made a difference while all the hardware upgrading made it worse.

I'd be almost willing to bet that overclocking the AGP to 75 kicked it out
of 8x mode.



>
> Thanks, Liam

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Just for your own interest, I use 12.5*202 on a chip that was sold as an
Athlon XP 3000+

Mine is not multiplier locked, obviously.

John