PDA

View Full Version : Frustrated with GA-8IK1100 performance....HELP!


Rich Heimlich
April 27th 04, 04:21 PM
Guys,

I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
something.

It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
RAM and a Radeon 8500.

I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
(I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
retail P4 2.8GHz.

Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
months to find the issue.

What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.

I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
everything over to it.

The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
into the system to get it for verification.

ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
is really cutting through this problem.

Mark and Tracy
April 27th 04, 05:13 PM
"Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
...
> Guys,
>
> I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
> stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
> something.
>
> It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
> RAM and a Radeon 8500.
>
> I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
> (I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
> and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
> retail P4 2.8GHz.
>
> Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
> 2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
> 2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
> months to find the issue.
>
> What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
> those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.
>
> I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
> today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
> everything over to it.
>
> The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
> there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
> feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
> possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
> into the system to get it for verification.
>
> ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
> out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
> several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
> is really cutting through this problem.

Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?
This is a dual channel board. therefore for it to work at full speed (and it
is fairly quick) it must have 2 sticks of ram to work at its full potential.
also the sticks or ram have to be placed in the correct slots, please see
your instruction booklet.

Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.

Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.

Hope this helps.

Mark

Mark and Tracy
April 27th 04, 05:14 PM
"Mark and Tracy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Guys,
> >
> > I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
> > stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
> > something.
> >
> > It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
> > RAM and a Radeon 8500.
> >
> > I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
> > (I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
> > and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
> > retail P4 2.8GHz.
> >
> > Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
> > 2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
> > 2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
> > months to find the issue.
> >
> > What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
> > those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.
> >
> > I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
> > today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
> > everything over to it.
> >
> > The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
> > there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
> > feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
> > possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
> > into the system to get it for verification.
> >
> > ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
> > out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
> > several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
> > is really cutting through this problem.
>
> Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?
> This is a dual channel board. therefore for it to work at full speed (and
it
> is fairly quick) it must have 2 sticks of ram to work at its full
potential.
> also the sticks or ram have to be placed in the correct slots, please see
> your instruction booklet.
>
> Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.
>
> Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
> cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
> windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Mark


OOOPSSS that should read disable not enable it. (see above) sorry

Rich Heimlich
April 27th 04, 06:14 PM
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:13:26 +0100, "Mark and Tracy"
> wrote:

>Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?

Two sticks of 512. The receipt (I bought this from MWave who has this
interesting service of shipping assembled and tested motherboards, RAM
and CPU combinations) shows "Kingston KVR400X64C3AK3/1G 2X5".

The RAM comes marked as "Kit of 2" meaning two pieces and each is in
the Red/Orange slot, not the purple slots. I believe that puts the RAM
in DDR1 and DDR4 slots.

>Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.

The rep told me that when we bought it. Sort of gave the impression
that while it wasn't the absolute fastest, it wasn't far from it and
was more stable than most. I read many problem posts of people trying
to get other RAM to work with this board while mine has never been a
stability problem.

>Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
>cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
>windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.

Er, that says, "Enabled" and "Enabled". If you find the specific item,
that would help. I'll dig.

MTech
April 27th 04, 06:56 PM
Been there done that. Had a soyo dragon+(amd) system that for some reason,
using good components, I could never get a "fast" system. Never found the
issue, but my daughter absolutlely LOVES it..LOL.
I built a 8KNXP rev 2 using 2.8 processor and kingston ram PC3500. I went
with a 9700pro because I just got a heck of a deal. The whole deal is
clocked to 3.3mhz and my 3dmarks03 score is 5975 using the default test
setup without any messing with the video card or fancy/smacy cooling.
System runs all day long and I'm pleased as punch....so if your looking for
a relatively cheap system to build.....

If you have a bud close to you that you could swap ram with, that would at
least eliminate one problem.

Also, just to remind you, make sure that video card is working right. Have
you used sandra and posted scores to compare? Try some test that is
non-video biased like sandra and post the results.

Don

"Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
...
> Guys,
>
> I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
> stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
> something.
>
> It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
> RAM and a Radeon 8500.
>
> I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
> (I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
> and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
> retail P4 2.8GHz.
>
> Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
> 2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
> 2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
> months to find the issue.
>
> What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
> those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.
>
> I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
> today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
> everything over to it.
>
> The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
> there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
> feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
> possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
> into the system to get it for verification.
>
> ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
> out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
> several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
> is really cutting through this problem.

Rich Heimlich
April 27th 04, 07:11 PM
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:56:34 -0400, "MTech" >
wrote:

>Been there done that. Had a soyo dragon+(amd) system that for some reason,

Had a Soyo Dragon Ultra+ myself before this. Never had a problem with
it. <grin>

>I built a 8KNXP rev 2 using 2.8 processor and kingston ram PC3500. I went

As I understand it, that board is essentially the same as my board
except for better RAID features which I really won't use. If so, that
concerns me a bit.

>Also, just to remind you, make sure that video card is working right. Have
>you used sandra and posted scores to compare? Try some test that is
>non-video biased like sandra and post the results.

I just got Sandra last night after years away. Just run it's
benchmarks and see? Where should I post them?

Rich Heimlich
April 27th 04, 08:42 PM
Guys,

Bit of a surprising update.

I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
interesting.

I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
even though they're unified drivers.

I did all that and the system is up.

I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.

Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
was well low.

Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.

Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?

I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
switched to this with the new system as it was handy.

Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
it's the power supply.

And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?

MTech
April 28th 04, 03:48 AM
I think it speaks volumes.....I think you MAY have a video card problem.
Don't know much about your board but you ARE using the external p/s cable
that connects DIRECTLY to the card and you did leave the plastic piece in
the front of the PROAGP slot, right? ( I think i have that right).

Run the Sandra CPU multi media AND the memory Bandwidth test and I'll post
mine as well. We can post them here.

I think you have a video card problem.

Don

"Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
...
> Guys,
>
> Bit of a surprising update.
>
> I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
> replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
> interesting.
>
> I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
> the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
> but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
> even though they're unified drivers.
>
> I did all that and the system is up.
>
> I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
> doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.
>
> Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
> was well low.
>
> Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.
>
> Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?
>
> I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
> watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
> switched to this with the new system as it was handy.
>
> Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
> it's the power supply.
>
> And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 04:44 AM
On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:48:45 -0400, in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte you wrote:

>I think it speaks volumes.....I think you MAY have a video card problem.
>Don't know much about your board but you ARE using the external p/s cable
>that connects DIRECTLY to the card and you did leave the plastic piece in
>the front of the PROAGP slot, right? ( I think i have that right).

Yep. In fact, it's funny. Today I was running around going, "Is the
9800 an AGP Pro card? I don't think it is, and it doesn't have the
connectors to even reach that area." hahaha It's amazing the amount of
talking to yourself you do when this sort of thing happens. The little
plastic piece is still there and, in fact, I tried to REMOVE the power
from the card today to test the 8500 but couldn't get it out so I just
left it hanging outside. As long as it isn't drawing power, it doesn't
matter.

>Run the Sandra CPU multi media AND the memory Bandwidth test and I'll post
>mine as well. We can post them here.

Absolutely. You'll see the info shortly.

>I think you have a video card problem.

Thanks for at least hearing me. I've posted this all over and very few
people are even interested. Just for the sake of coverage I've now
ordered a replacement power supply (top of the line PC Power and
Cooling 600w supply, which is really the one I wanted to start with)
and just ordered another motherboard, JUST IN CASE. The good news is,
my father-in-law is looking to upgrade his system shortly so whatever
I have extra, I'll just sell to him at a discount and consider my loss
and insurance premium. <grin>

Meanwhile the 9800, for some UNKNOWN reason, I actually bought the
1-year plan to return it so it can go back. I may just buy a second
one to be sure and then take this one back and have them apply the
credit for the one I bought.

The really funny thing is that this is already my second 9800 Pro. The
first one had major problems from the start. Obvious video noise
everywhere.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 04:54 AM
If I got this right, here goes:

CPU Mult-Media Benchmark

Integer iSSE2 21364 it/s
Floating-Point iSSE2 30348 it/s

If I read this right those numbers are pretty much right where they
should be for the processor.

Memory Bandwidth Benchmark

RAM Bandwidth Int Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s

These look to be solid numbers too.

So what's this telling you? For me it seems to say that the CPU and
memory are not the issue.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 06:07 AM
Well, I solved it, I think but I'm still really confused by what
happened.

Follow this.

I've been running Omega drivers going back to my 8500. Then I got this
machine and kept doing that. I then did the bit of installing the 8500
to see what it could do in this system.

I then noticed I had duplicate tabs in the Settings/Advanced section
of the Display settings. Clearly I'd gone a little nuts installing so
it was time to uninstall and get a fresh start.

I went to Add/Remove Programs and selected Change/Remove on the ATI
Display Drivers. Oddly it came up and showed both the Radeon 9800 Pro
(and 9800 Pro Secondary) AND the 8500 there. Except for one major
difference. Under the 8500 on the columns to the right it noted that
this card was AGP and Primary. Under 9800 Pro it said, "N/A" under
both of those for both 9800 lines.

Now maybe that's just the way it is, but that got me thinking that the
system wasn't using the AGP properly with these drivers. So then I
figured, what the hell. Why not just install the stock ATI drivers and
see what happens.

I removed all the Omega drivers, installed the ATI drivers (blech, now
I have no Direct3D tab with all the known settings) and rebooted.

Everything looked the same and then I ran 3Dmark 2001. The intial
screen is the pickup running down a road. With the 9800 it was always
starting out around 95fps no matter what I did. Now it was at 204fps.
Okay! So then I let it run. End result, 18,168.

But now I have to figure out what the hell is killing the Omega
drivers because I really want to be able to configure my setup that
way.

Meanwhile I have to see if I can cancel the order for the motherboard
I just ordered!

WHY are the Omega drivers failing?

Dimitris
April 28th 04, 06:30 AM
Rich Heimlich > wrote in message >...
> Guys,
>
> Bit of a surprising update.
>
> I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
> replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
> interesting.
>
> I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
> the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
> but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
> even though they're unified drivers.
>
> I did all that and the system is up.
>
> I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
> doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.
>
> Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
> was well low.
>
> Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.
>
> Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?
>
> I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
> watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
> switched to this with the new system as it was handy.
>
> Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
> it's the power supply.
>
> And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?

It might be a virus, thought it would hard for a virus do descriminate
between 8500 and 9800.

So the most possible cause is that AGP doesnt work correctly when you
put Radeon 9800. If you havent have any crashes with 9800 plugged in
then 99% it isnt a power problem.

Run Dxdiag and check at the display tab that AGP acceleration is
enabled. If not, remove all ATi drivers, reboot, install your
motherboard chipset drivers and reboot. Then install ATi drivers,
reboot and run dxdiag again and check. Also from the smartgart tab of
ati check whether agp is on and at which speed.

It might be the horrible case that this combination of motherboard and
radeon9800 cant cooperate to AGP bus.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 06:59 AM
Grrr, not entirely out of the woods yet. 3DMark 2003 has me at 2048
which is the same exact score I got before.....

Perhaps it is power and when 3DMark pushed the card, the card just
isn't getting the power to keep up?

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 07:02 AM
And now, 3DMark 2001 is back to its slow mode.... something is REALLY
WRONG.

Dimitris
April 28th 04, 07:39 AM
Rich Heimlich > wrote in message >...
> Guys,
>
> Bit of a surprising update.
>
> I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
> replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
> interesting.
>
> I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
> the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
> but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
> even though they're unified drivers.
>
> I did all that and the system is up.
>
> I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
> doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.
>
> Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
> was well low.
>
> Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.
>
> Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?
>
> I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
> watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
> switched to this with the new system as it was handy.
>
> Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
> it's the power supply.
>
> And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?
And do not use omega drivers, they might have compatibility problems
with your motherboard and radeon9800.

Morph
April 28th 04, 09:55 AM
Rich,


When in the BIOS, have you tried the Control and F1 buttons, to enter the
performance settings. Page 37 in my manual.

cheers

Morph



"Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
...
> Guys,
>
> I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
> stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
> something.
>
> It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
> RAM and a Radeon 8500.
>
> I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
> (I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
> and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
> retail P4 2.8GHz.
>
> Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
> 2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
> 2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
> months to find the issue.
>
> What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
> those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.
>
> I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
> today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
> everything over to it.
>
> The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
> there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
> feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
> possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
> into the system to get it for verification.
>
> ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
> out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
> several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
> is really cutting through this problem.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 02:22 PM
On 27 Apr 2004 22:30:54 -0700, (Dimitris)
wrote:

>Run Dxdiag and check at the display tab that AGP acceleration is
>enabled. If not, remove all ATi drivers, reboot, install your
>motherboard chipset drivers and reboot. Then install ATi drivers,
>reboot and run dxdiag again and check. Also from the smartgart tab of
>ati check whether agp is on and at which speed.

It's there. It wasn't there two weeks ago so when I did get it going I
figured I was home free. <grin>

>It might be the horrible case that this combination of motherboard and
>radeon9800 cant cooperate to AGP bus.

That's my concern. The intermittent nature of this is leading me to
think that's the issue. Plus Gigabyte has already moved on to a 2.0
version of this motherboard and it's clear to me that this one had
some issues.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 02:23 PM
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:25:42 +0930, "Morph" >
wrote:

>When in the BIOS, have you tried the Control and F1 buttons, to enter the
>performance settings. Page 37 in my manual.

I use CTRL-F1 all the time, though using "Top Performance" locks up
the system and this is the first motherboard I've had since the 386
days that requires you to pull the battery to clear the CMOS.

Dimitris
April 28th 04, 04:34 PM
Rich Heimlich > wrote in message >...
> Grrr, not entirely out of the woods yet. 3DMark 2003 has me at 2048
> which is the same exact score I got before.....
>
> Perhaps it is power and when 3DMark pushed the card, the card just
> isn't getting the power to keep up?


It is obvious that when you run 3dmark 2003 agp bus was disabled.
Reenable agp bus using powerstrip(recommended from
www.entechtaiwan.com) or dxdiag.

Rich Heimlich
April 28th 04, 07:05 PM
On 28 Apr 2004 08:34:47 -0700, (Dimitris)
wrote:

>It is obvious that when you run 3dmark 2003 agp bus was disabled.
>Reenable agp bus using powerstrip(recommended from
>www.entechtaiwan.com) or dxdiag.

Every reboot it's being set off something. dxdiag shows it as set but
powerstrip allows me to set it and then when I run 2003 I got 6100.
Any reboot and I'm back a score around 2000.

At least there's progress.

Dimitris
April 28th 04, 07:13 PM
Rich Heimlich > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:25:42 +0930, "Morph" >
> wrote:
>
> >When in the BIOS, have you tried the Control and F1 buttons, to enter the
> >performance settings. Page 37 in my manual.
>
> I use CTRL-F1 all the time, though using "Top Performance" locks up
> the system and this is the first motherboard I've had since the 386
> days that requires you to pull the battery to clear the CMOS.

There is a Clock Spread Spectrum option in Bios. Set it to Enable or
Auto.
If that doesnt work, go the advanced chipset options(using ctrl-f1)
and turn off fastwrites, and set agp aperture size to 128mb if you
have <=1GB of ram or 256MB if you have more than 1GB. If you can find
a bios option like AGP driving or AGP comp driving, set it to higher
value(warning this may result to crash) .

MTech
April 29th 04, 11:13 PM
Yes, they look decent enough. I'd say it's video problem...agp, 8x etc.

My numbers are after yours;

"Rich Heimlich" > wrote in message
...
> If I got this right, here goes:
>
> CPU Mult-Media Benchmark
>
> Integer iSSE2 21364 it/s

25448

> Floating-Point iSSE2 30348 it/s

35095

>
> If I read this right those numbers are pretty much right where they
> should be for the processor.
>
> Memory Bandwidth Benchmark
>
> RAM Bandwidth Int Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s

4853

> RAM Bandwidth Float Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s

4837


Don

Rich Heimlich
April 30th 04, 03:52 PM
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:13:46 -0400, "MTech" >
wrote:

>Yes, they look decent enough. I'd say it's video problem...agp, 8x etc.

Sent you an e-mail. Not sure if you block or not.

Dimitris
May 1st 04, 03:29 AM
Rich Heimlich > wrote in message >...
> On 28 Apr 2004 08:34:47 -0700, (Dimitris)
> wrote:
>
> >It is obvious that when you run 3dmark 2003 agp bus was disabled.
> >Reenable agp bus using powerstrip(recommended from
> >www.entechtaiwan.com) or dxdiag.
>
> Every reboot it's being set off something. dxdiag shows it as set but
> powerstrip allows me to set it and then when I run 2003 I got 6100.
> Any reboot and I'm back a score around 2000.
>
> At least there's progress.

There must be a software misconfiguration. Which programs have you
installed on the PC? Have you install Intel Application Accelerator?