Soyo SY-TISU - Why slower than my old P3-BF

[Guest]

I recently installed a Soyo SY-TISU motherboard in place of my old P3-BF. After running a few benchmarks, I realized that my P3-BF ran faster in most cases. What's going on? Main system specs:

Windows XP
SY-TISU motherboard
PC-133 RAM
P III 1 Ghz CHip
IBM Deskstar ATA-100 (20 GB)

Now I knew how to get the most out of the P3-BF, but this is silly that a board from 1998 could do better than a more recent board with an I815 chip.

I had problems getting the 815 software installed, but it appears to be fixed. My installation of the board was as follows:

turn off machine
swap old/new board
restart XP
Reinstall portions of XP due to blue screens
Get slow results

So...any ideas anybody? Something just aint right. I truly believe that right out of the box this motherboard should show some benefit over the P3-BF during benchmark testing. Heck, I even lost 12 fps just running the Quake III demo!!! (I am currently getting 107 fps with demo001)

Should I have completely reinstalled XP? Should I have deleted all information from the Device Manager that pertain to the motherboard?

Help!!!!! I want my frames back! Any and all ideas will be entertained!

Gah

 

[Crashman]

You didn't know that the BX has faster memory access than the i815? Shame on you, you got taken. There is ONE benefit to the i815's performance, which is that you can load the Intel Application Accelerator on it. Try that and see if it helps.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Guest]

Okay.....how come when i ask this questions all i get is sarcasm?

If you look back on some Toms Hardware reviews of the CUSL2, etc, and other 815 mobos, you'll see things like frame rates of 145 and up. That's what i am searching for and not getting. That would tell me that the system is working correctly, and rather well optimized. When I use SANDRA, I only get numbers similar to, or less than, running this on my BX chip. Something is obviously wrong.

Would a format/reinstall of XP help?

Gah

 

[Crashman]

Yes, like I said, the BX works better. In fact, they couldn't have done much to make the BX a better performing chipset. When they introduced the i815, they purposely slowed the memory performance slightly in order to make their "high end" i840 and i820 chipsets look better.

I personally upgraded from the i815 to the BX several months ago. The advantages of the i815 having UDMA 100 and AGP4x do not outweigh the other performance advantages of the BX. Tom did several comparisons and reached a similar conclusion, although in some circumstances he recommended going with the slower i815 anyway because it could overclock to a higher FSB.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

 

[Guest]

Okay, I did some more research....ug...youre right. !

However, I am still uncomfortable with the need to overclock the BX just to get to 133 or 150. As you know, the AGP frequency does not have the correct dividers for overclocking, so you suddenly get the AGP running at 83, which as you know is rather over spec. I know it can be done, but the controller chip gets compromised. Of course, if you are running PCI video (*ack*) you can do this and OC up to 150, which really makes the BX snap.

Anyway, I guess I was only seeing what I wanted to see: that the 815 was better. hmm.. Oh well, I guess now I can buy a few more parts and have two nice gaming machines in my house....!

Thanks for your help!

Gah