Author Topic: Not getting expected performance (Read 934 times)

Octavius · « **on:** May 22, 2004, 02:07:51 PM »

I recently bit the bullet and bought some major upgrades.

From a 1.2ghz Athlon and K7S5A, I went to this:

AMD Athlon 64bit 3000+ CPU
MSI K8T Neo motherboard
1gb Kingston DDR400 (PC3200)
with my existing ATi 9600xt with cat 4.5 or something
winxp

I haven't benchmarked in a long time so I decided to download 3dMark 2001 SE. With the sliders set all the way to the right (full performance), I got 8834. Did a quick reference and found that others with 1.2ghz CPU's and similar graphics cards were getting a similar score.

What might be the problem? I don't think I'm seeing the huge performance increase I expected. AH2 runs like a dream. IL2 is great, but, again, not as great as expected. Deux Ex: Invisible War is crap even at 1280x1024 with only 2xAA and 2xAF.

txmx · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2004, 07:16:33 PM »

Try mushkin pc3500 DDR ram.
I have some and the stuff overclocks like a raped ape.

It is some very fast memory.
I have heard 1gig is too much and that 512 is better using two sticks of 256 in slots 1 and 3 to get the dual data rate.

Not a big fan of the cat 4.5 drivers you might go back to 4.2 and see if that helps ya.

Looks like ya got a good MObo and CPU

So I would just do some tweaking and shut down some of the crap XP has running in the back ground.

End it all is a good program If you dont have it get it.

It's free.

ChasR · « **Reply #2 on:** May 23, 2004, 12:28:41 AM »

Octavius,
Your score on 3Dmark2001 sounds a bit low. I'd first make sure AA and AF were set to application preference. Second I'd make sure there was nothing running in the background while benching.
Your memory is fine. The gain you'd get from PC3700 memory is ZERO unless you plan on overclocking your computer. At stock speed low latency (CAS 2) memory would make some difference but you won't notice it except for your benchmark scores. The Muskin memory txmx refers to may run at low latency at DDR400 but there again you won't notice the difference except in the benchs.
With XP, 1 GB of memory is the sweet spot. The story about it being too much is applys to Win98 and Me which have problems addressing memory above 512MB and will actually be a little slower with 1GB. Be sure the two sticks are in the right slots so dual channel will work.
I'll run 3Dmark2001 on my computer (P4C 3.0 @ 3.6) with an ASUS Radeon 9600XT and let you know how it scores.
I really don't think you should expect to see any huge performance increase with the same video card. If the old system didn't bottleneck the card (and it shouldn't have to any large degree), then apps (games) that are gpu intensive are going to run at the same speed. Put a 9800XT in your machine and you'll see huge improvements.
PS: 3Dmark2001 score 13918 without disabling any services or startup items. You should score about the same. I'd bet on AA & AF being on instead of application preference.

Connection · « **Reply #3 on:** May 23, 2004, 01:59:30 AM »

3DMark is 90% about your video card.

Try other benchmarks that actually take into account the rest of your system, such as SiSoft Sandra.

Also, did you format and reinstall windows after that mayor upgrade?

txmx · « **Reply #4 on:** May 23, 2004, 03:56:22 AM »

I tried I gig and my B-marks where so close to what I go with 512 that I sent the other ram back LOL.
It simply was not worth the extra cash .

Eagler · « **Reply #5 on:** May 23, 2004, 07:56:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connection
Also, did you format and reinstall windows after that mayor upgrade?

^^^ what he said

you have to reformat and re-install EVERYTHING when you change your motherboard. too much gunk from the old board left in there slowing things down. I have never had a MB swap perform to its max until I re-installed the OS and then everthing else from scratch

gl

Connection · « **Reply #6 on:** May 23, 2004, 03:04:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by txmx
I tried I gig and my B-marks where so close to what I go with 512 that I sent the other ram back LOL.
It simply was not worth the extra cash .

Do you play games or do you play benchmarks?

1Gig of ram will make zero difference in overal FPS and benchmark scores, especially outdated benchmarks such as the 3DMark series (all of them)

It does make a big difference in a multitask heavy windows enviroment, it makes a HUGE difference in games like LOMAC, IL2, Far Cry, Morrowind, FS2004, that would normally stutter in certain situations with 512mb.

As for the RAM, he wont notice any difference going to more expensive stuff unless he plans to overclock, which I doubt because he never suggested it and because his system does not seem like an enthusiast overclocker's setup.
I would spend that money on a Radeon 9800 Pro or better.

Octavius · « **Reply #7 on:** May 23, 2004, 03:52:29 PM »

Yep, reformatted/reinstalled everything. Heh, XP installed in 10 minutes!

I did the test again after discovering the DirectX/OpenGL settings did not apply themselves as 'application preference.' Ran it again and got around 12000.

Ditto on the ram stuff. Mushkin is great I'm sure, but I don't plan on overclocking at the moment. I have Kingston ValueRam which will definitely get the job done at default settings/speeds.

txmx · « **Reply #8 on:** May 23, 2004, 04:47:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Connection
Do you play games or do you play benchmarks?

1Gig of ram will make zero difference in overal FPS and benchmark scores, especially outdated benchmarks such as the 3DMark series (all of them)

It does make a big difference in a multitask heavy windows enviroment, it makes a HUGE difference in games like LOMAC, IL2, Far Cry, Morrowind, FS2004, that would normally stutter in certain situations with 512mb.

As for the RAM, he wont notice any difference going to more expensive stuff unless he plans to overclock, which I doubt because he never suggested it and because his system does not seem like an enthusiast overclocker's setup.
I would spend that money on a Radeon 9800 Pro or better.

I have no trouble playing IL2 FB at 1600x1200 res all eye candy on .

Got the LOMAC demo and have no issue's with it either.

Octavius · « **Reply #9 on:** May 23, 2004, 06:46:26 PM »

No trouble at Perfect landscape settings? The nifty water pixel shaders kill my FR

Connection · « **Reply #10 on:** May 23, 2004, 07:11:00 PM »

I dont have trouble playing IL2 either with 512, but I never said it was a framerate problem.

1GB reduces micro stutters at any resolution. Terrains in IL2 and LOMAC tend to be bigger than 512mb so stutters are inevitable.

1GB of RAM running at 200mhz is a very sweet spot.

Eagler · « **Reply #11 on:** May 23, 2004, 08:25:56 PM »

as cheap as ram is now a days, it is the least expensive upgrade you can do for your system and with XP, more is better

txmx · « **Reply #12 on:** May 23, 2004, 10:10:30 PM »

The best thing for windows XP is a program called End It All LOL.

If your running medium grade ram you will need more but if your running top shelf stuff with BH-5 chips witch is what i have (and i dont think you can get anymore).

You would be shocked what you can pull off with a little tweaking of XP to shut down all of the bullchit runninjg in the back ground you really free up alot of mem.

I dod try 1 gig and just did not see any difference .

And I dont notice any stutters in IL2 FB at all.

And I do run refresh at 200mhz.

FPS are 55-156 is the best I have seen to date.

txmx · « **Reply #13 on:** May 23, 2004, 10:11:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Octavius
No trouble at Perfect landscape settings? The nifty water pixel shaders kill my FR

No troubles but I was unaware that you could run at perfect settings yet?
I though we were all waiting on a patch.

Octavius · « **Reply #14 on:** May 24, 2004, 12:12:14 AM »

I can run ingame video options at "excellent" settings (all options at max except landscape) just fine. "Perfect" landscape looks like this and it cuts my frame rate a ton: