Upgrade intel 850->amd 1.4ghz = Slower! Why?
New system specs: Abit KG7-RAID AMD761 6PCI 1AGP 4DDR-DIMM UDMA100 RAID SocketA ATX AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400MHz/1. 4GHz 256Kb 266MHz 0. 18 bulk SocketA Original 256Mb DDR PC2100 184pin 266MHz cas2! (AMD OK) Geforce DDR 32MB Old system specs: Intel 850mhz (not overclocked) 3x 128PC133 SDRAM ASUS p3v4x Geforce DDR ...
New system specs:
Abit KG7-RAID AMD761 6PCI 1AGP 4DDR-DIMM UDMA100 RAID SocketA ATX
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400MHz/1.4GHz 256Kb 266MHz 0.18 bulk SocketA
Original 256Mb DDR PC2100 184pin 266MHz cas2! (AMD OK)
Geforce DDR 32MB
Old system specs:
Intel 850mhz (not overclocked)
3x 128PC133 SDRAM
ASUS p3v4x
Geforce DDR 32MB
Benchmarks i did was in:
SiSoft Sandra 2001te Professional
3DMark2001
In Sisoft sandra my system scored great after this upgrade. However there was no graphic benchmark in this program so i took, what everyone else use, 3DMark2001.
I left everything in 3DMark 2001 set to Default, didn't change any settings.
Here are my results:
Intel 850 - Total Score: 2262
Amd 1533mhz(oced) - Total Score: 1612
A dropdown by 650!!
As you can see the new system preformed miserably poor!
What's up with this AMD deal anyways? Could it be my DDR-memory?
There is an option in the bios called SDram timing something.. where you can choose between ULTRA - TURBO - FAST - NORMAL - AUTO.
When i choose anything else than AUTO or NORMAL windows 2000 wont boot, blue screens. And no, it doesn't help to set down the cpu to standard.
I run the cpu at 133 x 11.5 = 1529.5mhz@1.750cvolt. (standard)
Used Geforce 12.41 drivers & the enviroment is windows 2000.
Any ideas..? Updates? Amd patches? Is this normal?
Abit KG7-RAID AMD761 6PCI 1AGP 4DDR-DIMM UDMA100 RAID SocketA ATX
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1400MHz/1.4GHz 256Kb 266MHz 0.18 bulk SocketA
Original 256Mb DDR PC2100 184pin 266MHz cas2! (AMD OK)
Geforce DDR 32MB
Old system specs:
Intel 850mhz (not overclocked)
3x 128PC133 SDRAM
ASUS p3v4x
Geforce DDR 32MB
Benchmarks i did was in:
SiSoft Sandra 2001te Professional
3DMark2001
In Sisoft sandra my system scored great after this upgrade. However there was no graphic benchmark in this program so i took, what everyone else use, 3DMark2001.
I left everything in 3DMark 2001 set to Default, didn't change any settings.
Here are my results:
Intel 850 - Total Score: 2262
Amd 1533mhz(oced) - Total Score: 1612
A dropdown by 650!!
As you can see the new system preformed miserably poor!
What's up with this AMD deal anyways? Could it be my DDR-memory?
There is an option in the bios called SDram timing something.. where you can choose between ULTRA - TURBO - FAST - NORMAL - AUTO.
When i choose anything else than AUTO or NORMAL windows 2000 wont boot, blue screens. And no, it doesn't help to set down the cpu to standard.
I run the cpu at 133 x 11.5 = 1529.5mhz@1.750cvolt. (standard)
Used Geforce 12.41 drivers & the enviroment is windows 2000.
Any ideas..? Updates? Amd patches? Is this normal?
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
I just checked out amd's website.. and i found lots of drivers.. and i downloaded this called Driver pack 1.30.. and it actually increased preformence greatly! i thought there were something wrong with it all. And yeah, i did update my via drivers quite often. viahardware's website.
Thanks for repying.
Still i'm worried about these so called CAS2 memories.. i dont think they are worth calling cas two.. a pair of samsung cas 2.5 whups their but. :|
Thanks for repying.
Still i'm worried about these so called CAS2 memories.. i dont think they are worth calling cas two.. a pair of samsung cas 2.5 whups their but. :|
i usually just use generic ram from a local PC shop around here, good price, good performance, but more importantly excellent stability. However, i use conservative settings in my BIOS i don't enable the Turbo option or anything, I just leave my settings at auto for memory. This is with an Asus K7V with Award Medallion BIOS.
Hey guys, when it comes to memory, I will never go non-name brand. Memory is too important and a pain in the a$$ to troubleshoot. If you're looking for good memory (non RDRAM) go to www.crucial.com. Most of the time, they have free shipping and there memory is top-top quality. Crucial is a Micron company. I bought microns for my company for many many years, now we have to buy gateway computers (due to our relationship with gateway), but all gateway machines STILL use Micron memory. Anyway, crucial.com has excellent memory, usueally free 2day shipping, and really good prices. Currently a PC133 256mb dimm cas 2 is 35.99, with free shipping. thats pretty damn good, and you'll never have to second guess your memory.
Just incase you guys were lookin for new memory..
the PC2100 is a good deal there as well, they just dont deal in RDRAM
jeff
Just incase you guys were lookin for new memory..
the PC2100 is a good deal there as well, they just dont deal in RDRAM
jeff
Im also curious to the person having the degredation issue, what Service pack were you running on Win2000? Supposedly, SP2 is supposed to fix most of the stuff that the 4-1 patch fixes. What is the general consensious on this? I may be getting an AMD/Via setup soon, and would like to know what people think. I recall reading something on Viahardware.com about how SP2 matches with the 4n1's, and the outcome was that SP2 fixed most of everything...
thanks!
jeff
thanks!
jeff
I live in Canada so I have to pay some sort of shipping cost for crucial memory But I have found a good local place.
Even with SP2, it is still good to install VIA or AMD chipset drivers to ensure maximum compatibility. Also once you install the chipset drivers, don't bother upgrading unless you get some serious problems. It is ok to try out new ones and do a performance comparison, but if they don't do anything then don't use them and install the old ones, this is easily done with the VIA 4in1's not sure about AMD. I am currently using VIA 4.32 as it solved some Win2k Hard Disk issues, and am using SP1, system runs great and fast with VIA KX133, I even have AGP4X with Fast Writes enabled, using Detonator 12.41 with DirectX 8. I Find that SP2 breaks compatibility with alot of games, specifically NFS4 and NFS5.
Even with SP2, it is still good to install VIA or AMD chipset drivers to ensure maximum compatibility. Also once you install the chipset drivers, don't bother upgrading unless you get some serious problems. It is ok to try out new ones and do a performance comparison, but if they don't do anything then don't use them and install the old ones, this is easily done with the VIA 4in1's not sure about AMD. I am currently using VIA 4.32 as it solved some Win2k Hard Disk issues, and am using SP1, system runs great and fast with VIA KX133, I even have AGP4X with Fast Writes enabled, using Detonator 12.41 with DirectX 8. I Find that SP2 breaks compatibility with alot of games, specifically NFS4 and NFS5.
I can say that samsung CAS 2.5 works better than that TwinMos CAS 2 memory.
886 323 1 222 = works, 770mb/sec
886 222 1 222 = CRASH with TwinMos memory
Samsung it hands out 850mb/sec
Benchmark program: SiSoft Sandra.
And i even paid more for those sucky worthless piece of no good junk £$@£$@£€€! TwinMos memory..
Samsung is my brand from now on just next to http://www.mushkin.com/ mushkin ROCKS! Stability way go! a bit expensive though..but moma knows my friend has some pc133 mushkin memories he bought a long time ago kickin in at 650mb/sec when normal pc133 rates somewhere around 280mb/sec +/- 100megs.
I'm not saying i am right here.. this is just my interpretation of this whole memory deal.
886 323 1 222 = works, 770mb/sec
886 222 1 222 = CRASH with TwinMos memory
Samsung it hands out 850mb/sec
Benchmark program: SiSoft Sandra.
And i even paid more for those sucky worthless piece of no good junk £$@£$@£€€! TwinMos memory..
Samsung is my brand from now on just next to http://www.mushkin.com/ mushkin ROCKS! Stability way go! a bit expensive though..but moma knows my friend has some pc133 mushkin memories he bought a long time ago kickin in at 650mb/sec when normal pc133 rates somewhere around 280mb/sec +/- 100megs.
I'm not saying i am right here.. this is just my interpretation of this whole memory deal.
