Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 3800+ 64x2, any settings in XP I'm missing, SLOW??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 25, 2006 6:01:32 PM

Well, not really slow, but I'm wondering if I need to enable anything in XP to help things move along a little quicker. Both cores are showing up in the system monitor, but this one doesn't seem much faster (if any) than my old Athlon 1400+ from 5 years ago, that I just replaced. I thought I read somewhere a while back that you needed to let XP know you were using 2 cores. Is that the case? Are there any settings on the HD or SATA controller that I need to look at? I already moved the jumper on the HD to allow 3gb/sec. Other specs as follows:

Biostar NF4U MB, Seagate 250 SATA 3gb/sec, 1 gig ram

Just seems to be laboring more than it should with that type of horsepower. Any suggestions?
August 25, 2006 6:42:27 PM

Did you install all drivers?
August 25, 2006 6:46:29 PM

Yeah, I believe so. There was a chipset drive on the MB cd, along with a driver for the AMD processor itself. Didn't see anything on the HD to load. What else would there be?
August 25, 2006 7:00:29 PM

I did re-partition that drive after XP was installed. I needed to run a drive tools program from Seagate to get XP to see the full 250 gb. The bios still does not see it, and did not during initial XP setup. Would this partition hurt performance? I did update the bios. Should I delete and start over?
August 25, 2006 7:27:50 PM

First of all an X2 is not going to make your computer run that much faster.
The X2 +3800 is really nothing more then two +3200's sharing memory on the same MB. So is a +3200 faster then a +1400? Yes it is, but it’s not a +3800 the nomenclature would imply. Only when you run two programs at the same time or a program that’s multi-thread designed will you see a difference. Also remember that most modern games (if that’s your bench mark to speed) are more GPU bottlenecked then CPU. The other components in your system play a part in over all feel of “quickness” you’re looking for, what is the rest of your system like?
August 25, 2006 8:10:22 PM

Quote:
Well, not really slow, but I'm wondering if I need to enable anything in XP to help things move along a little quicker. Both cores are showing up in the system monitor, but this one doesn't seem much faster (if any) than my old Athlon 1400+ from 5 years ago, that I just replaced. I thought I read somewhere a while back that you needed to let XP know you were using 2 cores. Is that the case? Are there any settings on the HD or SATA controller that I need to look at? I already moved the jumper on the HD to allow 3gb/sec. Other specs as follows:

Biostar NF4U MB, Seagate 250 SATA 3gb/sec, 1 gig ram

Just seems to be laboring more than it should with that type of horsepower. Any suggestions?

If you using your old install of XP this maybe what your asking for but this issue should be fixed in SP2.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=81...
August 25, 2006 8:29:14 PM

As for the old install, when you first install XP, on a brand new system, there are no service packs installed yet. As you walk through setup (you know, with the blue DOS looking screens), XP says you have so much room available to plant a partition, and then format. At that point, it tells me I only have 137 gig available. I really have 250, so I had to go in after the SP2 update, and run a program that partitioned the extra space on the drive. At that point I already have the OS all set up.

I did read that site in your post and will try all of those fixes.
August 25, 2006 9:00:47 PM

Yes, there should be a noticeable difference between those two processors. My daughter has a 2000 and I have an X2 4200 with virtually the same programs on both and mine moves around 20-30% faster. With improvements in memory (dual), FSB speeds and on-chip (CPU) memory controller if you are not seeing at least 10-20% speed increases something is wrong.

First off, a clean install of WinXP w/ SP2 is highly recommended; heck, everyone should do it at least once a year anyway. But before that, update your BIOS to the newest version. After those two, update via Windows Update then do a quick cleanup (I use j16 Power Tools free version for quick registry cleanup jobs). Look over your “Startup Programs” and make sure you remove all the junk. All those processes add up.

Move are your TSRs to the second processor (you can Set Affinity to CPU1 to test this out). There is software out there (don’t remember because I rarely use it) to do this.
August 26, 2006 12:01:20 AM

Yeah, I just did a fresh install, so I should be good there. The problem is, when I start to install XP (with nothing on the HD at all, a clean format), initially it only sees 137 gigs in XP setup, and only uses that for the install. I wish I could make one big partition out of the entire 250 gb up front, but it does not because its not SP2 or greater. Any way to make it see the entire drive before setting up windows, like right after the format? Would adding that partition after XP is all set up, and I've updated to SP2, be hurting me?
August 26, 2006 12:15:13 AM

Quote:
Yeah, I just did a fresh install, so I should be good there. The problem is, when I start to install XP (with nothing on the HD at all, a clean format), initially it only sees 137 gigs in XP setup, and only uses that for the install. I wish I could make one big partition out of the entire 250 gb up front, but it does not because its not SP2 or greater. Any way to make it see the entire drive before setting up windows, like right after the format? Would adding that partition after XP is all set up, and I've updated to SP2, be hurting me?


1. Get an empty floppy disk, Insert the Motherboard CD into your CD-ROM drive
2. Find the SATA-II driver which your HDD is connected to the SATA-II controller (most cases its NVIDIA controller)
3. Copy the SATA-II driver onto the Floppy Disk
4. Boot up with XP CD-ROM and press F2 (Install third party SCSI or RAID driver)
5. When finished loading system boot files, it will prompt you in Insert 3rd party SCSI or RAID driver for the SCSI or RAID controller.
6. Insert the floppy disk u created and press return (hopefully XP recognise it as the right driver and carries on)

7. If all successful, you should see XP recognises your HDD as its maximum capacity.

P.S. U also need to set the SATA-II controller in BIOS to Non-RAID if u only have 1 SATA-II HDD connected. 8)

Good luck
August 26, 2006 12:25:42 AM

Quote:
Well, not really slow, but I'm wondering if I need to enable anything in XP to help things move along a little quicker. Both cores are showing up in the system monitor, but this one doesn't seem much faster (if any) than my old Athlon 1400+ from 5 years ago, that I just replaced. I thought I read somewhere a while back that you needed to let XP know you were using 2 cores. Is that the case? Are there any settings on the HD or SATA controller that I need to look at? I already moved the jumper on the HD to allow 3gb/sec. Other specs as follows:

Biostar NF4U MB, Seagate 250 SATA 3gb/sec, 1 gig ram

Just seems to be laboring more than it should with that type of horsepower. Any suggestions?



Ican't imagien an Athlon 1400+ being in the same league with x2 3800+. You may be running at a lower speed because of CoolnQUiet. Go into the BIOS and disable it.
August 26, 2006 1:00:21 AM

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that comment that a dual core 3800+ would not be noticeably faster than a Athlon 1400+. I figured I should see an improvement. I guess I will need to reload everything and start over and try that driver trick. Seagate also has an application you can load before installing XP that is supposed to help get XP to see the full capacity. I will try all of this and look for the coolnquiet. I don't remember seeing anything like that in the bios, but I will look. Is it called anything else? I have a Biostar mb with Award Bios.
August 26, 2006 1:02:25 AM

Gifty - you need to slipstream your WinXP CD to SP2.
This is commonly done (and is just fine - in fact, recommended by Micro$oft.)
I did my SP1 CD, it is now SP2 and installs go a lot faster and better.
Don't have a direct link for ya, but there is info on the net.
EDIT: to 'disable' Cool & Quiet, simply go to Display Properties > Screen Saver > Power and set Power Scheme 'Always On'.
My A64 3800+ (single-core) felt faster than x2 3800+ because it was 1 CPU @ 2400MHz. Dual-core @ 2000MHz is a different kind of power...
And don't forget to install the new AMD dual-core driver they released in June,
Regards
August 26, 2006 1:04:29 AM

AMD has a x2 driver on thier page under utilities and drivers, I dont see much of a boost either unless I am burning a cd and downloading, its a excellent chip though 8)
August 26, 2006 1:33:15 AM

Quote:
Can't you disable it in the bios as well?

Well, yeah but that's a little harsh - you might wish to just enable it and disable it again, quickly & easily from within Windows...
I actually had the Intel SpeedStep stuff disabled (in BIOS) for my new build, but now I have enabled it to check it out.
It is quite transparent, taking the CPU multiplier down when appropriate and also lowering the CPU voltage (huge heat savings).
I just played some FarCry and I dunno, I trust it to go back to full-speed if required... (I cannot perceive it, anyway).
But by all means, select 'Always On' and be sure,
L8R
August 26, 2006 1:34:45 AM

Quote:
Yeah, I wasn't sure about that comment that a dual core 3800+ would not be noticeably faster than a Athlon 1400+. I figured I should see an improvement. I guess I will need to reload everything and start over and try that driver trick. Seagate also has an application you can load before installing XP that is supposed to help get XP to see the full capacity. I will try all of this and look for the coolnquiet. I don't remember seeing anything like that in the bios, but I will look. Is it called anything else? I have a Biostar mb with Award Bios.



If you start with a clean install, XP SP2 should see it. I had a similar problem but it was because XP needs the HDD driver to recognize all the space. Liek I said though you definitely want to go into Computer Propertes and see what it reads the chip running at (or get CPU-z). A 3800+ has beaten the 965EE in some benchmarks so it is definitely faster if running full spped. It is also possible that you have some malware running. If you had the Internet connected while you installed you DEFINITELY got some malware.

When you install, DON'T connect the Internet until you install either SP1 or SP2. You can activate after.
August 26, 2006 1:43:17 AM

Quick question: I assume Win XP Pro x64 already comes with SP2, am I right? I currently have a choice of installing 32-bit with SP2 or the x64 version.
August 26, 2006 1:45:25 AM

win xp x64 only has up to sp1 available... but it includes all the features of the x86 version of sp2... but yes, you do have the option of installing either OS
August 26, 2006 1:52:32 AM

OK call me stupid (no, actually don't :lol:  ) but I'm not sure if I got that. x64 SP1 is the same as 32-bit SP2?
August 26, 2006 1:53:51 AM

I mean, I know they're not same (duh!) but they are equivalent?
August 26, 2006 1:55:36 AM

Quote:
I mean, I know they're not same (duh!) but they are equivalent?


lol, well that simplied what i was gonna have to type lol... but yes, they are essentially the exact same (security fixes, updates, and all)... one was just released later is all

its the OS im using as of right now anyhow... i occasionally alternate between x86 and x64... but i tend to like x64 more because its more stable (and responsive) in general, compared to x86

though driver support is more of an issue for it... but if you have all your drivers available, OEM, 3rd party, modded and what not... ...then x64 shouldnt have any issues

as far as virus and malware protection... theres 3 apps i can think of offhand, AVG antivirus x64, avast x64, and windows defender x64... maybe norton, but norton is more bloated and resource hungry
August 26, 2006 2:13:27 AM

Cool! I'll install x64 then and if I'm having too much trouble I'll dual boot with 32-bit. Oh and sorry for going off topic. Thanks choirbass!
August 26, 2006 2:15:57 AM

welcome :) 
August 26, 2006 2:27:38 AM

No kidding, malware just by installing xp without a service pack? Never knew that either. I certainly had the cable modem hooked up during the install.
August 26, 2006 11:02:47 AM

Quote:
I mean, I know they're not same (duh!) but they are equivalent?


he meant the FEATURES

like windows firewall, microsft installer, spyware remover, etc etc... but the software is designed and compiled in 64-bit 8)
August 26, 2006 2:13:03 PM

Quote:
OK call me stupid (no, actually don't :lol:  ) but I'm not sure if I got that. x64 SP1 is the same as 32-bit SP2?



Yes it is the same, except it's based on Server 2003 SP1.
August 26, 2006 8:27:13 PM

Regarding malware and unpatched XP: Yes, it happens. You're fine though, provided you update asap. Well, you're probably fine. You won't get infected while you are installing - but once it's up and running, and once you can access a web page, you should patch immediately. Better yet, slip-stream xp sp2 onto a new cd and install from that.
August 26, 2006 10:04:14 PM

LoL, you can get infected quickly if you just 'test' the internet with a very fresh SP1 install, can't you?
Quote:
When you install, DON'T connect the Internet until you install either SP1 or SP2. You can activate after.

Sure. (I would have said 'plug in' after.)
But it's amazing to think, WinXP and of course Win2K can't see large harddisk volumes - we tend to forget. Only WinXP SP1 has that ability so you need your CD to be at least that... the WinXP CD is running the whole show when you first start a new rig, partitioning the HDs and everything.
I have the 320GB partition (yup just one) and take it for granted, despite its being a kinda recent thing...
Spoilt! LoL,
L8R
!