Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon64 Needs Boost

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 29, 2005 1:34:42 AM

I recently bought an Athlon 64 3200+ at 2.2Ghz and ECS 755-A2 mobo. This replaces my P4 2.4Ghz.
There's 1GB of RAM on it. But its performance doesn't seem any tad faster than my P4 :(  Which is disappointing.
Here were some things I did during the migration process. Was wondering if someone could help me figure out how to get more speed out of this chip, besides OCing.
+ I did not reinstall Windows XP, but instead simply took the hard drive from the previous system and plugged it into the new one. XP detected all the new stuff on the new board and installed fine. This is great for me cuz I don't have to reinstall apps. But I wonder if reinstalling XP will make things faster?
+ My 2 RAM, 512MB each, run at 2700 & 2100. So I wonder if it's the speed of RAM? To test, I bought a new 512MB running at 3200. But that didn't seem to help either.
So what else could it be? I always defragment, it doesn't seem slow, but it's not faster than the P4 2.4Ghz.
Or do I really just need to wait for Windows 64 bit version?
Thanks.

More about : athlon64 boost

January 29, 2005 1:47:44 AM

Hey, if it runs at all be thankful. Move all your data files to a second drive and reformat your master. Start over fresh and you'll see some speed difference.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
January 29, 2005 1:51:40 AM

Did you try with just the new 512? Ram will always run at the speed of the slowest chip.
Doing a fresh install should help.
Try running Sisoft Sandra, to see what it says.
Some things cant be changed, like the minimum wait times for xp loading, but what makes you think your system is not faster?
Related resources
January 29, 2005 2:01:37 AM

Thanks for all the quick replies & suggestions.
My graphics is rather old, but I think it'll mostly apply when I play games. it's Sapphire Radeon 9000 pro 128mb.
I did try it with just the new 3200 512MB of RAM, but didn't seem fast.
I do game development (Visual Studio C++), so I can tell if it's faster than before or not...and it isn't by much, if at all.
I also do video editing, and also there it doesn't seem faster than before either.
Note this is all sensing, not real benchmarking. But at least you should be able to tell, right? 3200++ compared with 2400 should be somewhat faster.
I think I'll invest some time over the weekend and reinstall XP, if there's no other (cheap) suggestion.
January 29, 2005 2:55:30 AM

I like the 9kpro. I have one here...somewhere. 8.1 is good for a lot of games.
Video editing is fairly manual labor intensive, so dont expect much time saving, but in compiling, I am suprised. You would want to have the 1 gig of ram for those. I would take a slight hit on async, and run the 3200 and the 2700.
Something is definitely slowing you down. A clean install will help.
January 29, 2005 3:01:35 AM

ok ... check that. when you are compiling, it should not be that much different because you are using simple boring task and the raw clock speed here is what matter. so, it is clearly normal that you are not really seeing much difference between both machine. The graphic card you have is CRAP...read that CRAP. it is holding back your cpu like you cannot believe. put at least a radeon 9800, and even there you wont see that much difference.. but put a 6800 or a x800 card in and you'll see how fast is the 3200 + when it has room to run. Editing... always waiting for your HDD. And for encoding the movie? guess what? here again that the raw clock speed that make the difference..and you have 2 cpu running almost the same... no see difference. so, you are roughly comparing 2 identics machine. and get rid of that PC2100 DDR memory stick... I went from a xp1700+ to a xp2500+ to an a643200+ and I dont type faster. Same speed to when I'm surfing the net. But I do see a huge difference in game, because I did upgrade my video card too, or in encoding because i went from a 1.46 ghz to a 1.83 ghz to a 2.1 ghz, or in editing, because I always got faster HDD with each upgrade ...

I think that you should look a bit further than a compiler ..learn a bit of machine code to know how instructions are processed and you'll know right now why you dont see much difference. And get rid of that radeon 9000. If you do game developpement, how can you say if your game will be visually appealing while still playable?? Get something that is more mainstream if you are serious about game dev.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
January 29, 2005 4:37:08 AM

So pat, you are saying that a 2.6 P4b is a faster compiler than an A64 3200?
I am trying to be nice here, so this may take some time.
When this gentleman bought his 2.4, he was ill advised. Certainly at that time the xp chips were 10+% faster than thier Intel counterparts. It is true that with the P4c, Intel went a long way to catching up. At the same time, they were not able to hold onto those gains for long.
Recent benchmarks have shown that the A64s are even further ahead at compiling than thier predecessors ever were. He should find that his compile times are about 1/2 of what they were with his old chip.
As to his choice of graphics card. Not all game developers are working on the next D3. You would be supprized how many games can be developed for people who have never even spent $100can on a graphics card. You may also be supprised that not all compiling in games is for the high end effects. I understand that some people went to great lengths to make HL2 playable on geforce2 cards. Thier efforts should be appreciated.
For my part, I do not know why this gentleman feels a 9000pro is all he needs, or will suffice for now. That is not our concern.
Most of us here are reasonably good at trying to help people. We try to be conciderate. I do see that you have a lot of knowledge to share. That is welcome. If you would be so kind as to be a little more kind, that would be kind.
January 29, 2005 4:02:42 PM

ecs is the devil. haha, you have the devil in your computer! (points and laughs)

this is my boomstick!
January 29, 2005 8:04:02 PM

Quote:
It is true that with the P4c, Intel went a long way to catching up.

I don't agree with "catching up". You have to give credit where credit is due. I think with the introductiuon of the i865pe & i875p chipsets and the P4 "C" chips, Intel flew way past AMD. Every major review site that first tested those 800 bus P4's would agree. But you are right, it only lasted until A64 came in, taking gaming bragging rights first and later pretty much evening up or winning most other aps also. Not that Intel doesn't shine in some Aps, as it does. But for many months now, I have not even considered going with an Intel system on anyones build, no matter the use. A64's are too fast and too cheap IMO, and there are loads of mobos to choose from now. I also think alot less of Athlon XP's now that semprons have taken over and AXP prices have climbed. You have to be very budget limited to consider building anything but an A64 now IMHO.

Clarifying his purchase and your comment about it. I think you are talking price right, not ratings? An Athlon XP2400+ would not have been ahead of a P4 2.4B. But price wise, there was an AMD XP costing the same as his P4 2.4B that would outperform it. So it is probably safe to say that he probably didn't get the most for his money. I think ratings wise Athlon XP's pretty much were name rated to = their P4 "B" competition, while destroying the "A" and being destroyed by the "C".

Anyway, this was all a little OT. The original poster should clearly backup his data, wipe the HDD clean and do a clean OS install.

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=3400555" target="_new"> My</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8268935" target="_new">Gamer</A>
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pauldh on 01/29/05 05:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 29, 2005 9:35:10 PM

i will always laugh at people that pay for ecs.

this is my boomstick!
January 30, 2005 3:04:06 AM

Sorry Paul, what I was talking about was compiling. The P4b 2.4 was not generally as good as the 2400+, until dual core. The 7205 chipset brought it up to par, and in some areas a little better. The thing is, my comments were based on compiling, not general use. I dont think anyone has every said the P4s, even the P4c is better at compiling than the xps.
!