2000+ to 3000+, no change

[maxwell011]

i don't mean to multiple-post but this is also in my old thread then figured people who already responded would think its the same problem.

ok. i bought an athlon xp 3000+ off ebay w/original heatsink/fan. put on some arctic silver and slapped it in. i made notes of how fast various things were w/the 2000+ so i could compare (ripping dvd's, game map loading, etc). everything is the same [or actually slower] w/the 3000+ put in. does any one know why. it has twice the cache than the 2000+ and runs at 333 instead of 266. there was a preset speed of 2167 which is what it runs at so i set it to that. that set the multiple at 13 and frequency at 166/33, the core voltage is 1.6. should i change that or what. what am i doing wrong. thx, maxwell

 

[Freestone]

Did your memory clock also change from 133 (PC2100) to 166 (PC2700)?

 

[temporello]

What you mention (dvd ripping,game map loading) may depend more on hard disk performance,VGA rather your processor power alone!
Specific CPU tests should be of more help,I think.

 

[cdogg]

As freestone said, you must make sure that you're memory is running in synch with your new CPU's FSB at 333MHz (166x2) which requires PC2700 RAM.

Download a trial version of SiSoft Sandra and benchmark the CPU. See how it compares to other CPU benchmarks that are saved in the software...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[felixc]

Does the BIOS display the correct CPU speed at boot?

 

[felixc]

Here's an article on your motherboard:

http://www17.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20020905/index.html

 

[maxwell011]

as far as my ram goes, i do have pc2700 ; i plan to get a stick of ddr400 soon. i also have a copy of sandra but i wanted to see the speed/preformance in practical applications. the bios added a preset speed of 2167 so i set it at that. system properties, dirx and amd's cpuid all recognised it as 3000+ ; dirx and cpuid also recognised the correct frequency. as far as the article, if there's a max cpu it will accept, that's changed. out of the box, i think it was 2600+ but i've flashed the bios with four upgrades and one of them raised the max cpu to 3000+.

is it possible that the cpu is bad. you know, like some things work but they don't work right or is it a matter of, with cpu's, it either works or it doesn't.

 

[Freestone]

We now know you have the correct RAM, but now you need to confirm that it is being clocked correctly. This information should be in BIOS somewhere.

 

[maxwell011]

there are two options: auto and 333. it was on auto ; i changed it to 333 but it didn't make any difference. also, i'd still like to know if the chip could be bad or if its a case of, it works or doesn't.

 

[garebo]

I believe its basically either a case of it works or not.

Just a thought, though. Sometimes changes get made in bios that we didnt exactly mean to do. So have a look in device mgr and see if your ide settings are either dma or dma if available.


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[maxwell011]

...you mean if dma is enabled, if so, yes. this is driving me crazy, if not bumming me out a little. setting aside the higher bus and increased cache, its 500 mhz faster than the 2000+. i went to an overclocking site and people who o/c'ed around 500 mhz enjoyed a 25 to 30% increase in speed/performance. i should be getting something. there's got to be a reason. anybody got any ideas not already in this thread. thx

 

[garebo]

Yes, i just wanted to make sure that wasnt causing a bottleneck for you.
Still, there is likely some bottleneck somewhere. I think to get that 25 to 30% increase in performance you are talking about it may involve more than just changing from an xp2000 to xp3000.
Only thing i can think of is making sure the ram is recognized correctly but it appears you have done that.
I'm not really too up on that but what about the ram timing? That is different from the mhz. What timing does it show in the bios for your ram?


Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[rvnguy]

maxwell011,

I just want to remind you that I believe that you were cautioned (first thread) that this would be a small step and that to see major improvements other things would have to be considered.

The post from temporello, is spot on in your case. As the algorithms required for ripping DVD's and the video code processing are quite intensive and will utilize the swap file (on the HD) in a major way. This becomes a large bottleneck and restricts the actual performance seen.

You should be using a CPU benchmarking application to see the on chip performance and work from there to improve data transfer, DVD burn speed and so forth.

Wise purchases in these areas will transfer to a new system when you make that decision.

I realize that you were hoping to see a large % increase and quote the O/C'ers comments(they use CPU Benchmarking to evaluate this) , but looking back I believe that this increase was refered to for the on chip performance. As it is extremely difficult to determine the performance one will see due to the multitude of part variables.



rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all

 

[roycrom]

I'm not an expert, but isn't an OS reinstall advised after changing CPU? Just a thought.

------------------------------------------
Somethings come from nothing, nothing seems to come from somethings - SFA - Guerilla

roycrom

 

[felixc]

I have two systems at home. One with XP2000+ and DDR266 ram, the other with XP2600+ and DDR333. Same graphics card in both. Most of the games play with no noticeable difference, although the benchmarks show a speed increase. The bottleneck is elsewhere, probably in the graphics card.

 

[cdogg]

As felixc and rvnguy have pointed out, there are many factors at play here...

First of all, ripping DVD's is mainly dependent on the performance of your DVD-ROM reader/burner. Encoding DVD's is a separate process that is mainly dependent on hard drive and CPU performance (i.e. DVD Shrink or Nero). So when you say it "hasn't" changed for you, we need to know which process you are referring to.

Secondly, "game map loading" isn't too specific. Discussing gaming performance isn't a hot topic around here, and threads often disappear when it is mentioned. However, most gaming performance depends on the video card. If that's hasn't been upgraded, then don't expect a 20% jump or more in performance just because you upgraded the CPU. It'll be better, just not to that extent.


Finally, the best thing for you to is to run benchmarks with the old CPU and the new CPU, then compare. Focus on benchmarks that isolate the CPU and memory more than other components like as the hard drive or video card. That's the only way, besides using the PC, that you'll know if there is a serious issue here or not...

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[maxwell011]

first, i wasn't expecting a huge increase ; i only pointed out that people o/c'ing around 500 mhz were seeing 25-30% increases and that i should see something. my vc is nvidea ti4200 8x 128 mgs ram. ripping (dvd decrypter) one particular dvd9 started at 2.1, went up to 4.6 and back thru the second layer to 2.1 on 2000+ and same with 3000+. ripping pre-burned dvd's (4.35 mg) took 7 1/2 min with 2000+ and now 7 min 45 sec (longer). (burner is lg gsa4120 which, with current revision (a113), is 16x.) encoding (dvd shrink) is the same.

would like to add: o/c'ed from 2167 to 2490 and still noticed no difference and amd's cpuid [as well as dirx] still showed default speed. why is that

 

[felixc]

What amount of DRAM do you have?

Ti4200 is a very low end card nowadays. You will find a huge graphics speed increase with just about any new graphics card above $100.

As many others said, you must find a benchmark, like Sandra, that can benchmark your CPU speed , disk speed, and memory speed, if you want to pinpoint anything that can slow down your expected performance. One thing is slowing down the rest. Get the tools to find it!

IMHO those who claim a 25% increase with 500MHz of overclocking are liars!

 

[maxwell011]

512 mhz pc-2700. i know about the card but it has digital out with a crt adapter and i use that second monitor alot and i get great performance with it in the most graphic-intensive games. still, when you strip everything else away, the increase in mhz, fsb, cache and the barton core, i still think i should see something, even if its just a few seconds.

also, is it significant that when i o/c'ed from 2167 (default) to 2490, both cpuid and dirx both showed the cpu to still be running at default speed.

 

[garebo]

I feel pretty certain that a ram increase to a gig would give you a difference you would notice, even in just booting up, but other areas as well.


Good advice + great people = tek-tips