AMD Processors
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: low performances
Topic Summary:
Created On: 07/03/2004 08:42 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 07/03/2004 08:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

Hi all,


I've just bought a 2500+ Barton and a GA-7VT880 Motherboard.

The problem is, I think the processor is not functioning properly.

In some tests like Sandra's arithmetic benchmark the values are ok, but in 3dMark 2003 the CPU score is way too low... around 317 points, although other systems with the same processor score around 400 points.


My system specs:

256MB PC 3200

Radeon 9000 128MB

Gigabyte 7VT880 with chipset VIA

Power Supply: 300W

Barton 2500+
 07/03/2004 09:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
lordmozilla
Senior Member

Posts: 331
Joined: 01/27/2004

ehm sprry to say this but this seems normal....

3dmrak 2003 tests you graphics card.... Well mainly... A radeon 9000 is a very slow card and even high end cards like 9800pro's and XT's at the best get around 6000... so a 9000 wont get far... Plus 256mb of ram isnt great and really the 2500 isnt exactly the newest CPU on the market is it ??

You have a fine PC but the graphics card is the only reason why you got a low score... But if you dont play games it doesnt matter. And the higher sysmark score is normal.. That test tests your RAM and your CPU mainly...
 07/03/2004 09:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

Well to be honest this scores are not normal for such a configuration...

Systems that are VERY similar to mine reach 1200-1300 3Dmark points, while I reach only 600...
 07/03/2004 09:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
lordmozilla
Senior Member

Posts: 331
Joined: 01/27/2004

really with a radeon 9000 ??? are you shure it wasnt a 9600 or 9200 ??

a Geofrce Ti 4400 with a P4 at 2.8ghz and 512mb of ram gets 1691
an Geforce MX420 gets 53

A radeon 9000 is 3dmarks2001 1024x768 got 7460.
An MX440 got 8347

the system that was very similar what was the graphics card in it ?? and did you see the resulyt or did they tell you ?? remeber people can lie....
 07/03/2004 11:14 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

I'm just speaking of the CPU test;

look here:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2568206' ">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2568206

My system is the one on the left. Go down a bit, and read the CPU Score: 317 vs 401, although the processors are almost the same (mine is a bit more powerful)
 07/03/2004 03:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
lordmozilla
Senior Member

Posts: 331
Joined: 01/27/2004

his CPU is not necceseraly more pozerfull than your I dunno how fast in Mhz a barton 2500 is but I know a palomino 2000 is at 1666mhz... Maybe he overclcocked his PC and he does have 512mb of ram... What speed is your ram ?

did you run the test at this resolution ? 1024x768@32 bit ?

and what motherboard do you have is it an nvidia chipset or a Via one ?? Via ones are less performant...

Try updating your video drivers adn maybe this guy was using beta drivers... They tend to cheat the scores a bit....

edit : the barton CPU runs at 1.83ghz.... so maybe he overclcoked his FSB speed...
 07/03/2004 03:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
OliverMaltby
Senior Member

Posts: 1095
Joined: 06/01/2004

QUOTE edit : the barton CPU runs at 1.83ghz.... so maybe he overclcoked his FSB speed...

If he did then the processor would show up differently, i.e. if a Barton 2600+'s FSB was changed to 190 from 166 it would show up as a Barton 3200+.

-------------------------
ASRock 939Dual-Sata2 Athlon ULi m1695 | AMD 64 3200+ S939 | 2 x OCZ Premier 512MB DDR400 CL 2.5-3-3-7 | Tagan TG430-U15 430W PSU (40A on combined 12V) | Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 160Gb 8Mb Cache | Point Of View nVidia GeForce 6800GS | Creative Audigy 2 ZS | Logitech 5.1 X-530 Sound System | Hauppauge PVR250 | Liteon DVDR+-
 07/03/2004 03:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
lordmozilla
Senior Member

Posts: 331
Joined: 01/27/2004

yeah that's a good point... so he didnt overclock but maybe he overclcoked his graphics card...
 07/04/2004 03:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

Maybe he overclocked his graphics card, but what I mean is that my CPU ratings are too low..
 07/04/2004 04:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
lordmozilla
Senior Member

Posts: 331
Joined: 01/27/2004

yes but what is your chipset ?? Via or Nvidia ? or what make model is your motherboard ?
 07/04/2004 05:04 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
-Milt-
Senior Member

Posts: 1722
Joined: 03/15/2004

Gil-galad,

You are comparing two totally unequal systems, and using different testing systems to do it with, on this link that you provided...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2568206' ">http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=2568206

You are not even running the same program version... i.e.
Program Version: 3DMark03 Revision 1 Build 3 / 3DMark03 Revision 4 Build 0

Please run WCPUID to get all the gory details about what CPU you currently have in there, and what speed it's running at...
WCPUID is available for free here http://www.h-oda.com/' ">http://www.h-oda.com/
Because 3D Mark 2003 says that your FSB is 143

3D Mark 2003 is designed and used as a 3D testing system... and for that it it is a good one.
But all that it is capable of testing is your video card, nothing else.
Use some other program, like Sandra, to compare CPU performance.

-------------------------
Here is my new PCChips M848A' ">http://img.photobucket.com/alb...2_T-2-3-3-6-2_M848.jpg v2.1, with a 1700+ @ 2411 MHz, and my trusty old PCChips M810L' ">http://members.lycos.co.uk/mmm...00MHz_Sandra_tests.jpg v7.1A, with a Barton 2500+ @ over 3500+. Some of my fancy cars are on this pag
 07/05/2004 04:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

WHAT??? The 3Dmark versions are exactly the same!!!
 07/05/2004 05:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
-Milt-
Senior Member

Posts: 1722
Joined: 03/15/2004

Gil-galad,

Try again... read you own posted 'comparison'... scroll down to 'Program Version:'
Revision 1 Build 3
is NOT the same as
Revision 4 Build 0

Other minor details include things like he's using an on-board graphics card, and it's a GeForce4, so your comparison is simply not valid.
You are comparing Apples with Oranges.

If you want a valid comparison, go to
http://service.futuremark.com/...Inde...2Fprojectsearch' ">http://service.futuremark.com/...%2Forb%2Fprojectsearch
Select a CPU
CPU Clock Range
and
Graphics Chipset
similar to yours, and see what you get.


-------------------------
Here is my new PCChips M848A' ">http://img.photobucket.com/alb...2_T-2-3-3-6-2_M848.jpg v2.1, with a 1700+ @ 2411 MHz, and my trusty old PCChips M810L' ">http://members.lycos.co.uk/mmm...00MHz_Sandra_tests.jpg v7.1A, with a Barton 2500+ @ over 3500+. Some of my fancy cars are on this pag
 07/06/2004 04:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

I think there is an error in the link, because I see the two projects with the exactly same program version...
 07/06/2004 05:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

By the way, I also tested with Aquamark 3.


This is the link of the comparison with a very similar system:
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/a...re.p...RunID=469812450' ">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/a...compareRunID=469812450


He has 512 MB Ram, I have only 256, but my video card has 128 and his 64...


Look especially at the CPU score: his is 184% higher!!!!!

And when you look at the GFX score, consider that he has only 64 Megs RAM!!


What I'm trying to say is that there is something wrong with my processor or with my motherboard... I seriously need help
 07/06/2004 01:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
-Milt-
Senior Member

Posts: 1722
Joined: 03/15/2004

Gil-galad,

While I'm waiting for my Aqua-mark registration to come through, let's try this one more time...
Click on the link you gave me previously...
Scroll down to where it says "Benchmark Settings"
Right below that it says "Program Version"

It looks something like this...
Benchmark Settings
Program Version 3DMark03 Revision 1 Build 3 3DMark03 Revision 4 Build 0

Can you see any difference???



-------------------------
Here is my new PCChips M848A' ">http://img.photobucket.com/alb...2_T-2-3-3-6-2_M848.jpg v2.1, with a 1700+ @ 2411 MHz, and my trusty old PCChips M810L' ">http://members.lycos.co.uk/mmm...00MHz_Sandra_tests.jpg v7.1A, with a Barton 2500+ @ over 3500+. Some of my fancy cars are on this pag
 07/06/2004 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
-Milt-
Senior Member

Posts: 1722
Joined: 03/15/2004

Okay, I'm now registered at AquaMark, but when I click your link, I get this error message...

QUOTE An error has occured. 
    Please try again.
  If this error persits, please contact support. 
  Error Message: 
  No active run selected.
Although I can't look at the page, I can tell you that as long as you have enough memory to run the program, it will make NO difference to the score you get.
It is the quality (read speed), not the quantity of the memory, (and the GPU), that is being tested.


So I'd suggest that you try out my previous suggestion about 3D Mark 2003...
If you want a valid comparison, go to
http://service.futuremark.com/...Inde...2Fprojectsearch' ">http://service.futuremark.com/...%2Forb%2Fprojectsearch
Select a CPU
CPU Clock Range
and
Graphics Chipset
Select values similar to yours, and see what you get.

What speed do you have that 2500+ Barton set at???
Please run WCPUID to get all the gory details about what CPU you currently have in there, and what speed it's running at...
WCPUID is available for free here http://www.h-oda.com/' ">http://www.h-oda.com/




-------------------------
Here is my new PCChips M848A' ">http://img.photobucket.com/alb...2_T-2-3-3-6-2_M848.jpg v2.1, with a 1700+ @ 2411 MHz, and my trusty old PCChips M810L' ">http://members.lycos.co.uk/mmm...00MHz_Sandra_tests.jpg v7.1A, with a Barton 2500+ @ over 3500+. Some of my fancy cars are on this pag
 07/07/2004 05:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Author Icon
Gil-galad
Member

Posts: 46
Joined: 07/03/2004

Ok, the link doesn't function, because it doesn't return to you the same page I see.

I paste the Aquamark 3 comparison exactly as it is reported on the comparison page; I underlined the important scores:



Your measurement "Benchmark 2004-07-03 17-43-32"
AquaMark Score: 9009 (CPU: 3573, GFX: 1032) FPS: 9.01 TPS: 3002 K
CPU: AMD Athlon™ XP 2500+ CR: 1835 MHz SRAM: 256 MB OS: Microsoft Windows 98 SE
GFX: RADEON 9000 SERIES CM: 250 / 200 MHz VRAM: 128 MB DRIVER: 4.14.1.4066
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High
INFO: edomonet, 2004-07-03, "Benchmark 2004-07-03 17-43-32"



Compare measurement "MM Elektronik
AquaMark Score: 10090 (CPU: 6583, GFX: 1092) FPS: 10.09 TPS: 3362 K
CPU: AMD Athlon™ XP 2500+ CR: 1875 MHz SRAM: 512 MB OS: Microsoft Windows 2000
GFX: RADEON 9000 SERIES CM: 250 / 200 MHz VRAM: 64 MB DRIVER: 6.14.10.6368
RES: 1024x768 x 32bit AA: Off AF: 4x DETAILS: Very High
INFO: MM Elektronik, 2003-09-15, "MM Elektronik "

AquaMark Score:
Your: 9009 100%
Comp: 10090 111%

AquaMark CPU Score:
Your: 3573 100%
Comp: 6583 184%

AquaMark GFX Score:
Your: 1032 100%
Comp: 1092 105%

Average FramesPS:
Your: 9.010 100%
Comp: 10.091 111%

Average TrianglesPS:
Your: 3002 K 100%
Comp: 3362 K 111%



I did several comparisons and my processor's rating is too low when running Aquamark and 3DMark tests. With Sisoftware Sandra the rating seems good.
What I suspect is that something is not functioning properly between GFX and CPU

The Gigabyte support suggested me to flash the Bios, and this helped a bit, but scores are still too low.

I am wondering if upgrading to Windows XP (I now have W 98 SE) could help, considering that my mainboard is a very new model and maybe the drivers for windows 98 don't recognize it well.
Statistics
112018 users are registered to the AMD Processors forum.
There are currently 0 users logged in.

FuseTalk Hosting Executive Plan v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.



Contact AMD Terms and Conditions ©2007 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Privacy Trademark information