A Digital Age Deserves A Digital Leader

Highest performance score you've seen?

Postby Grav!ty » Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:47 am

I quite honestly wouldn't upgrade system components based solely on the Performance Rating tool unless of course one was getting 1 scores for anything and not even then, if the system is running aero and behaving reasonably well without too much of a lag in opening programs or files.

For a long time until just a week or so ago I ran 1024 MB of RAM on my test system and never had an issue with running Vista. Simply adding more RAM to a system that shows that RAM is the weakest link is not going to produce a better RAM rating either. If the systems RAM timings can be improved then that would help, but if the timings can't be improved in the BIOS, then I don't think that any amount of RAM is going to make a difference.

My view is that one should wait until more is known about DirectX10 before one goes out and spends money now on system components if Vista performance in general is acceptable at this stage.
Image

"The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." - Niccolo Machiavelli
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 15790
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:22 am
Real Name: Graham

Postby Grav!ty » Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:03 am

This is the first run on the Intel system in my signature. I usually get a slightly better score after reboot and will try again later

Image


The AMD system falls down on GPU performance but it does OK considering its a 128 MB 6600GT

Image
Image

"The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." - Niccolo Machiavelli
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 15790
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:22 am
Real Name: Graham

Postby Curtybob » Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:46 am

Wow... nice scores there, G. (heh heh.... you gangsta, you!) I can't get my 1 GB of RAM to get any higher than 4.5 in this build. 4.5 may be a predetermined limit for 1 GB of DDR? Been scoring the same on my RAM all day, and I have gone from DDR400 to DDR610. It does go below 4.5 when I leave the timings loose at DDR400, but it won't go above 4.5 no matter what. :no
My old sig didn't match the new board. Therefore, you get to read this text sig.
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2004 2:50 am
Location: Jackson, MO

Postby kd1966 » Sun Sep 03, 2006 12:51 pm

I get different scores for SAME 1GB of PC3200 RAM in different systems, BUT the higher score on this RAM went to the slower CPU (Athlon XP 3200+ got 4.5 and my X2 4200+ got a 3.4)
PRO PLATINUM
User avatar
Posts: 6831
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:00 am
Location: USA - GSO - NC

Postby Grav!ty » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:46 pm

kd1966 wrote:I get different scores for SAME 1GB of PC3200 RAM in different systems, BUT the higher score on this RAM went to the slower CPU (Athlon XP 3200+ got 4.5 and my X2 4200+ got a 3.4)


See if you can tighten up your RAM timings and reduce the latencies on the X2 4200+ system in DRAM Configuration or similar page in the BIOS. Use CPU-Z to see what they are on the XP 3200 system and set the same or better on the 4200+ :)
Image

"The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are." - Niccolo Machiavelli
PROfessional Member
User avatar
Posts: 15790
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:22 am
Real Name: Graham

Postby JabbaPapa » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:47 pm

kd1966 wrote:I get different scores for SAME 1GB of PC3200 RAM in different systems, BUT the higher score on this RAM went to the slower CPU (Athlon XP 3200+ got 4.5 and my X2 4200+ got a 3.4)


Technically speaking the X2 4200+ would be slower overall than a single core 3200+, and whilst the OS (at last !) may play happier with a dual core, from the strict hardware PoV the overall lower clock speed of the 4200+ may be a cause of the discrepancy, because of slower overall CPU to RAM I/O.

This is BTW the first hard evidence I've seen to support my theory that dual core CPUs actually have certain disadvantages (in Vista) compared to the faster single core chips of the same generation.

One should remember that dual core CPU technology was originally invented as a means to gain more clock cycles per CPU for use with Windows XP.

It would seem that (in Vista) this extra CPU activity and lower overall CPU clock speed may each contribute to lowering RAM I/O from the CPU. Not good :no
Image
PRO VETERAN
User avatar
Posts: 9538
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: Monte-Carlo
Real Name: Julian Lord

Postby JabbaPapa » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:50 pm

Having said that, and BTW I still may be completely proven wrong, Grav!ty's advice about latencies seems sound enough, and may quite possibly help you out with your "troubles"
Image
PRO VETERAN
User avatar
Posts: 9538
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: Monte-Carlo
Real Name: Julian Lord

Postby Pyr0 » Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:56 pm

from personal experience i know the memory bandwidth on the single core chips is greater than on the X2's ;)

Core2Duo E6600 (L629F) 3.6GHz
Asus P5N32-E SLI (0903 BIOS)
2x1024MB TeamGroup Xtreem PC5300 @ DDR2-1164, 5-4-4-12
Asus EN8800GTX
Tagan 900W PSU
=============================
Core 2 Duo E6700 (QPGA) 3.6GHz
Intel 975XBX
2x1024MB Crucial 10th Anniv. PC5300 3-3-3-8
2x ATi X1950PRO 256MB
Etasis 850W PSU
=============================
AMD64 X2 4400+ @ 2750MHz
DFI Lanparty nF4 SLI-DR Venus
2x1024MB OCZ EB PC4000 Plat.
Foxconn 7950GT 512MB
Dell Ultrasharp 2407WFP 24"
PRO Level 12
User avatar
Posts: 550
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Merseyside U.K..... (next to Liverpool)

Postby kd1966 » Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:05 pm

The memory timings may explain it; I've "tweaked" some of the BIOS settings in my Athlon XP 3200+ system while I have done nothing with my X2 4200+ system with regards to memory settings............... I've looked at the BIOS in my X2 system and it's pretty daunting right now...............lol I don't wanna screw up the good vibes right now
PRO PLATINUM
User avatar
Posts: 6831
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:00 am
Location: USA - GSO - NC

Postby JabbaPapa » Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:36 pm

kd1966 wrote:The memory timings may explain it


It's quite possible --- this could in any case be an interesting research project for some hardware/overclocking person or other ** cough ** Hugo ** cough **
Image
PRO VETERAN
User avatar
Posts: 9538
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:17 pm
Location: Monte-Carlo
Real Name: Julian Lord

PreviousNext

Return to General Windows Support

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests

cron
cron