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

 

[garebo]

Another thing. I have always read, over the years, that a person should only upgrade their pc if they are, at the least, doubling the mhz value of the pc. In other words, going from, say a P3 900 to a P4 2.0. That would be about double the mhz. Or from an athlon xp 1600 to an athlon xp 3400 (i think they make a 3400, but this is only for comparison). But lets face it, that usually means an increase in not only the size of ram, but the capability of the ram, same with vid card and other motherboard\bus\cache upgrades and\or improvements.
So its, i dont think, never just the cpu, its the sum of the parts.

Now increasing the ram and going with a better video card would all help your pc work noticeably faster.



Good advice + great people = tek-tips

 

[cdogg]

maxwell,

I'm sorry, but the "overclocking" forum you were visiting is irrelevant here. You cannot compare apples to oranges. You don't know what else they had in their system to cause a massive jump in performance.

I can tell you right now that ripping is not a CPU-intensive process. When I rip a DVD using something like DVD Decrypter, it's using less than 15% of my CPU and that makes perfect sense. What's happening is that your DVD burner/reader is sending RAW data (1's and 0's, not converting anything) to your hard drive. Both of those devices matter more than the CPU. Changing the CPU should have little or no effect. I'm surprised you say that the Encoding step hasn't improved. Do you realize that encoding is NOT the same thing as writing to the DVD?

3 steps:
1) Ripping DVD data to hard drive making an exact copy (not changing the size or anything)
2) Encoding data to the right format (if needed, such as removing a chapter). This step is not needed if you are not changing the data size on your hard drive. This step if used is almost all CPU.
3) Writing to DVD

Steps 1 and 3 should not change much when changing the CPU.


Did you time how long it took for Windows to boot up with your old CPU? If so, was there any improvement using the new one? This would have been the most obvious benefit.

Do you still have the old CPU? Throw it back in if you do and see if your ripping times go back down (it shouldn't).

~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]

i'm not sure what you mean about throwing the old cpu back in to see if my rip times go back down cuz they never went up. as far as windows loading, i never really paid attention to how long it took but, i think, if there were an appreciable difference, i'd have noticed. what i'm thinking of doing is getting a 400 fsb msi and replacing the ram with a stick of pc-3200. (i just hate to part with my asus. its the a7v8x deluxe - raid, fire wire, sata, gigabit lan...) do you think that would help get the benefit out of the cpu. the extra expenditure won't sting too much because of the deal i got on the cpu. i found it almost as soon as it was listed on ebay with a "buy now" of $89 ($4 shipping). not oem but with original heatsink/fan, the package it came in, even the little sticker.

 

[felixc]

As the article in Tom's hardware said, if your chipset is KT-400 and not KT-400A, it is not worth putting DDR400 on this mobo.I agree with Garebo about the quantity of DRAM. Increasing the amount of memory to 1 Gig will make a difference in graphics map loading. On my system it was day and night, with games like "World of Warcraft". But if you have to buy more RAM you can buy a DDR 400 module and run it at 333MHz so you won't get penalized if you go to another mobo.

I'd put my money on more ram and a better graphics card, instead of changing the mobo.

The BIOS may just read the CPU settings instead of performing a speed test. Please go on the web and get "Sandra" from Sisoft to benchmark your CPU.

 

[cdogg]

maxwell,
What I said about rip times had everything to do with your comment:

"[blue]ripping pre-burned dvd's (4.35 mg) took 7 1/2 min with 2000+ and now 7 min 45 sec (longer)[/blue]"

If you truly believe that the CPU is the problem with it being "longer", then throw the old one back in to see if it makes any difference. I was saying that it shouldn't for reasons stated in my last post.


You said in your original post that this was a 333MHz FSB CPU. Getting a 400MHz FSB mobo will not help you at all without changing the CPU.

The bottom line is that if you are not willing to swap your old CPU back in to run benchmarks against your new one, then you're wasting time trying to resolve a problem that doesn't necessarily even exist. How can you truly know if this CPU is the problem without comparing benchmarks? Things like ripping aren't going to show it, and game performance is mostly the video card.

~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