AOA Forums

AOA Forums (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/)
-   AMD Motherboards & CPUs (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/4-amd-motherboards-and-cpus/)
-   -   Barton 2500 and Asus A7N8X-X only 4650 in 3D Mark 2001 se!! (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/amd-motherboards-and-cpus/24624-barton-2500-asus-a7n8x-x-only.html)

Boris811 27th May, 2004 01:12 AM

Barton 2500 and Asus A7N8X-X only 4650 in 3D Mark 2001 se!!
 
Hi guys, i am new to this forum, so regards to all you....
I really never worked seriously with Bios settings, so i am total amateur for that matter....
I am so confused, i recently upgraded my comp, to Asus A7N8X-X, Barton 2500+(box) 333 fsb, 512 mb DDR 400 PC 3200 Kingston Value Ram, and JNC case with 350 w, and my old components remained the same, Saphire Radeon 9200 SE 64 mb, Maxtor 80 gb, Quantum Fireball 40 gb, and so on....
Before that i had Duron 1300, Asus A7VE, via kt 133, 256 sdram....
In 3D Mark 2001 se, with that system i had a score of 4035(1024, 16 bit colors, 24 zbuffer, textures compressed...)

Now with my new system i have 4650....
It is imposibble to only have 600 more points with my new system...
This is my curent bios settings:
Cpu 166 mhz, Agressive performance, Memory Agressive timings, AGP aperture 64 mb, Vcore(i think it's that) = 1.65,
L1, L2 enabled..

Is 3D Mark 2001 se only messures graphic card performance, so that there is no difference what proccesor, memory you have..???
My friend have Asus A7V8X-X, 256 ddr, Athlon Xp 2000+ 266 fsb, and Radeon 9200 se, but the 128 mb version.. and he gets score of 5100, so how could he get better score then mine, is it really that much difference beetwen the 64 mb, and 128 mb version......??

I run Far Cry, at medium settings, something High at good FPS around 50, 60, Colin 4 runs everything high at about 25-30 fps at 800x600, but Splinter Cell Pandorra Tomorrow at medium settings runs really bad, it's not playable...
So is it just me, or what, because i think there is really little performance jump from my old system, i mean i ve spend alot of money on this upgrade, so i am not satisfied..
Can you guys please suggest some Bios settings, something that i could set up, so i can gain in performace, i think that it really should go higher in 3D mark.....
I ve seen that people are messing with Bios, increasing the settings, but i am a little worried, is my Box version of cooler capable for that tweaking, i don't want to fry something... Is there some safe tweaking, not to mess up anything, (don't wanna remove my motherboard battery, or something... ive read that alot of yoy do, that is stressing for me)....???
Thanks ahead guys....

whatever 27th May, 2004 02:09 AM

sorry, you wrote too much so i didnt' read all. hehe

did you say you run 16bit color with your previous system(duron1300)??

did you run 32bit color in your new system?? that can seriously affect the score. You need to compare the benches between the two systems at exact same 3dmark settings, i.e. 32bit vs 32bit, default bench.

Make sure you run the system at sync, 100% FSB : DRAM ratio.

3Dmark 2001 is mainly system performance dependent. It is also video card dependent but the system overclock is seriously involved.

there are so many many settings in software that can impact your score. Make sure all the eye-candy features in your video display property/menu is diabled i.e. Anti-Aliasing, anisotropic filtering, Quality/Performance setting.

make sure you installed the motherboard driver for your ASUS board, on a clean HDD, clean install of software.

Boris811 27th May, 2004 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatever
sorry, you wrote too much so i didnt' read all. hehe

did you say you run 16bit color with your previous system(duron1300)??

did you run 32bit color in your new system?? that can seriously affect the score. You need to compare the benches between the two systems at exact same 3dmark settings, i.e. 32bit vs 32bit, default bench.

Make sure you run the system at sync, 100% FSB : DRAM ratio.

3Dmark 2001 is mainly system performance dependent. It is also video card dependent but the system overclock is seriously involved.

there are so many many settings in software that can impact your score. Make sure all the eye-candy features in your video display property/menu is diabled i.e. Anti-Aliasing, anisotropic filtering, Quality/Performance setting.

make sure you installed the motherboard driver for your ASUS board, on a clean HDD, clean install of software.

No, it is also 16 bit colors, anisotropic filtering is application prefference(2x), Smooth vision peformance(2x)...... but i don't think that the problem is there....
Sorry for the long post, but i had to explain everything.....

whatever 27th May, 2004 03:12 AM

so.... same vid card used on both old and new system, right?

okay...... hmm 600 pts. difference.. hmm.. on a scale of R9200 class hmm.. sounds like that could be just about right. The slow cards like the R7500/8500/LE/9200 and GeForce3 series themselves are the bottleneck so the increase of points will be small. The points will still increase, but at a small rate. About 100mhz raw clock(with FSB@ constant, meaning no change) gives me precisely 100~ 110 points with the Tbred & GF3 Ti200.

You will get more response and better answers from futuremark forum. ya know.. there are a lot of video card freaks there.

no no don't say sorry. I'm sorry for not reading all of your post. I'm too lazy you know. HEHEHE

Staz 27th May, 2004 04:54 AM

I wouldn't bunch the 8500 in with those other cards. I have a retail 8500 that when overclocked with an OC'ed system will get just barley score over 10,000 in 3DMark2001se. With more moderate overclocking it scores about 9500. Anyway it beats my 9600 non pro.

There is no such thing as safe tweaking. Everything other than stock has some amount of risk attached to it. I would first raise your AGP apeture to atleast 128 or maybe 256. Then try software overclocking. Beyound that you better be able to replace it if you want to push it.

If you can affor to replace it then do so. And steer clear of the SE cards from now on.

That 9200se is a cheap card and is probibly your bottleneck. The thing with the diference between the 64MB model and the 128MB model being a 600 point diference, the memory bandwidth may be increased with the higher ram amount. This was true with the Radeon 9500 64MB model and 128 Model. The 128 model had twice the memory bandwidth which did much more for performance than the actual amount of memory.

whatever 27th May, 2004 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris811
My friend have Asus A7V8X-X, 256 ddr, Athlon Xp 2000+ 266 fsb, and Radeon 9200 se, but the 128 mb version.. and he gets score of 5100, so how could he get better score then mine, is it really that much difference beetwen the 64 mb, and 128 mb version......??

like i've said, sounds like your video card is the limiting factor. If the card is too slow, you're not gonna get huge points gain. Actually 600+ pts. boost is quite reasonable. That is a lof of increase based on a scale of slow azz card & Athlon XP. That R9200SE is slow card. You want bigger gain in score, get a faster card.


Quote:

My friend have Asus A7V8X-X, 256 ddr, Athlon Xp 2000+ 266 fsb, and Radeon 9200 se, but the 128 mb version.. and he gets score of 5100, so how could he get better score then mine, is it really that much difference beetwen the 64 mb, and 128 mb version......?
maybe your friend overclocked his card??

ya know... many people oc their cards...

whatever 27th May, 2004 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Staz
I wouldn't bunch the 8500 in with those other cards. I have a retail 8500 that when overclocked with an OC'ed system will get just barley score over 10,000 in 3DMark2001se. With more moderate overclocking it scores about 9500. Anyway it beats my 9600 non pro.

There are some "fast" R8500 cards out there. But there are also "extremely slow azz" R8500 cards out there as well, such as, R8500LELELE. Extremely pathetic card I've seen in my life.. memory runs about a half of what R8500LE and Retail can do. Totally crippled crap cards... Scored far... far.... far less than my GF3 ti200 card. You average all those out, R8500 class cards are considered, not that great. You can't just count on the fastest 8500 cards. You gotta look at "overall".


and... don't get so picky when i included the r8500 along with those slow cards. I was trying to get him the idea of "slow card" vs. "fast card"(r9800pro, r9800xt level). Score increase/decrease rate are not the same between the two. That is what I was trying to get him to understand about how hard it is to gain 3dmark '01 points with slow azz cards..


oh, and... I got 14,105 on a GF3 ti200 card. LOL.. but what did I type in there... I included GF3 series there didn't I. Even though my card can do over 14k(on a damaged card btw..), I still considered this class of card "slow". That's the "concept" I was getting at...

Boris811 27th May, 2004 01:55 PM

No, no my friend did not OC his card,......
So you are saying that this actually the max score with this system, but i hear GF3 ti, scoring 10000, how is that possible...?
And can you suggest some safe tweaking in the bios that i could do.....?
And also how do you guys overclock your cards.......?

Staz 27th May, 2004 02:53 PM

We are not saying that is the best the system can do. We are saying that is the best that system can do with that video card in it, because that video card is slow. Let's face it, it is a $50 video card.

Yes a GF3 Ti 500 can score 10,000. As I already said my Radeon 8500 retail could do that to. And the Radeon 8500 Retail was on par with the GF3 Ti (Radeon was slightly faster).

I'll explain it this way. The Radeon 8500 retail was a great DX 8.1 card based on the R200 core and clocked at 275/550. Back then ATi came out with LE versions that were much cheaper but clocked at 250/500 or 230/460 or 230/333 and even 200/266. These are the dogs that whatever was refering to.

When ATi came out with it's 9xxx seiries of cards then needed a buget card. They came up with a Radeon 9000 based on the R250 core. A quick look at the spec sheet revealed that the only diference between the R200 and R250 cores was the the R250 core had only 1 texel unit per pipeline and the R200 had 2.

The Radeon 9000 came in 2 flavors, Pro which was clocked identicle to the Radeon 8500 retail at 275/550, and a non pro which was clocked at 250/400. Naturally the Pro version was within 1%-2% of the Radeon 8500 retail with the non pro version falling way behind.

Then when 8X AGP support became mainstream ATi took the R250 core and added that feature to it and renamed it the R280 core. Other than 8X AGP support the cores are exactly the same. All of the cards based off of the R280 core are Radeon 9200. Trust me on this one, 8X AGP offers very little real world improvement over 4X AGP.

Then to further muddle the water ATi introduced SE versions of all it's card. The SE is a slower or crippled version so that ATi could sell to those that have very little need for 3D graphics at a low cost, without having to lower the price of cards that gamers want to buy. To make the Radeon 9200 an SE card they dropped the clock speeds from 250/400 down to a dismal 200/333 or even sometimes 200/300. This is the card you have.

As you can see, it wouldn't be hard for a GF3 Ti clocked at 240/500 (that kept pace with a Radeon 8500 retail clocked at 275/550) to totally trounce your Radeon 9200se running at 200/333.

Staz 27th May, 2004 02:59 PM

go into your BIOS and change AGP apeture to 128. This will increase the max amount of system memory that can be used by the graphics card. Also make sure AGP fast writes are enabled.

Then head over to the files section and check out the overclocking tools. Power strip is very popular. I personally like Rage 3D tweak.

Boris811 27th May, 2004 03:01 PM

Ok, thanks but can you tell me how i could overclock my card.....?

SteveI 27th May, 2004 03:04 PM

Sorry to say this, but the 9200 SE is a budget card, with budget performance.. For ATI, SE is their way of saying that they crippled memory performance. As a direct result, scores are pathetic.

While you seem to have significantly improve your system, keep in mind that 3dmk2k1 is primarily a video performance benchmark... While I think your old system score was a bit low, the 600 point improvement with the newer components does make sense.

I would not recommend the 9200SE to anyone. While it is newer than an 8500 (and a higher number), it was always meant for the low end market... Just some creative marketing by ATi.

Think of it this way... ATI considers all of its 9XXX series the current generation of cards. All of the 9000 to 9200 is their budget market. As you get to the 9500-9600 range, that is where you get some performance for gaming. And stay away from the SE's if possible. The good 8500's will actually score on par or better with some of the 9500-9600's for 01... 03 w/ DX9 is where the newer cards have an edge. Unfortunately, since the 9200 is budget minded, it doesn't even support DX9... sorry.

SteveI 27th May, 2004 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris811
Ok, thanks but can you tell me how i could overclock my card.....?

There are a few different software apps that will do it... check out our files section... The utility that comes with the omega drivers works for me. Some prefer the one from rage3d.

whatever 27th May, 2004 04:08 PM

The two other guys who helped you here are correct.

One thing I need to make clear is that 3Dmark 2001 as I said before, is "system" dependent. It measures the performance of both CPU, FSB, Memory, and Video card clocks. The first four tests in the 3dmark are calculated and total out points. The "Car" tests are both card and CPU dependent. The "Lobby" tests are highly CPU dependent. "Dragothic" test is both card and CPU dependent. The "Nature" test is mainly the card dependent, but is also partially system based also. There are nature score differences by 2~ 5 pts. depending on the system performance aside from video card clocks. The rest of the tests(other than first four tests) do not affect the score.

But of course.. im not saying ignore the video card clocks because the card is also very well involved in this type of benchmark. It is the 3Dmark 2003/ that is HIGHLY video card dependent. You can take a slow azz system with higher clock card to take out a faster system with same video card that is clocked less.

whatever 27th May, 2004 04:23 PM

And to the original poster, if you want good scores possible, use Windows2000pro OS with NT file system. Service Pack version 2 is recommended. Use DirectX 8.1. It is liked by many cards and the program itself. Get rid of any extra programs that are running in the background. What I mean by that is something that takes up extra system resources and could possibly interrupt 3dmark tests. Also the video card drivers themselves make difference in scores. Maybe your friend is using different driver version than yours.

You also need to overclock your system. 166FSB default isn't good enough. At least run it at 200FSB at tight memory timings and CPU aggressive on. Make sure 128bit Dual Channel memory bus is enabled. 3Dmark also likes a single stick, single channel memory as well, because it reduces the latency between the sticks how the data is transferred. But if you have Dual Channel available, use it. It will boost performance. All these little things add up in scores and you get a one big ass score at the end. If you don't collect these things, you ain't gonna get much.

Boris811 27th May, 2004 06:52 PM

Thanks so much guys for those advices..
So is it safe for me to set Cpu FSB to 200, without changing the cooler,(i have a Box version that comes with Barton), and can i change the multiplier to 12 or something...?
Also that Rage 3D tweak doesn't work for me, when make some changes and he askes do i want to keep them..., and i say yes, he restores to default..!!

Staz 27th May, 2004 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boris811
Thanks so much guys for those advices..
So is it safe for me to set Cpu FSB to 200, without changing the cooler,(i have a Box version that comes with Barton), and can i change the multiplier to 12 or something...?
Also that Rage 3D tweak doesn't work for me, when make some changes and he askes do i want to keep them..., and i say yes, he restores to default..!!

No it is not safe to just up the FSB to 200. Take baby steps. Download MotherBoard Monitor and install it. Go ahead and start raising the FSB like 5MHz at a time and watch your temps.Keep them under 60 under full load. Under 55 would be better. As long as you don't raise the Vcore you shouldn't run into to many heat issues with the stock cooler.

If you have multiplyer control you will want to lower the multi and raise the FSB to keep the CPU at close to stock speed. Keep raising the FSB until the system becomes unstable, then back it off 2MHz. This will be your max FSB for your RAM and MoBo. Then drop the FSB down and up the multi by 0.5 at a time and the rasie the FSB back up to your max FSB. Then lower the FSB and raise the multi again. Wash, rinse, repete. Keep this up until you have found the highest FSB and highest MHz for your system.

Wether or not you have multipier control is based on the CPU. AMD started locking them after 0339.

Don't worry about single or dual channle memory, your board only does single.

If rage3D didn't work then try powerstrip or Radenator.

Boris811 27th May, 2004 08:49 PM

I have multiplier control, but i only have an option for FSB of 166, or 200.
What does that mean, is there something i change so i can take small steps for raising the FSB or is just 166 and 200...??
And if i change the FSB, should i also raise the memory to be the same as that, because i know that memory should run in sync with CPU....

And what does the number in Athlon XP's mean anyway, i never knew that exactly, i always thought that 2500+ means that it runs like a Pentium at 2.5 ghz... is that true, or does that mean that it can work at 2500 mhz, but the default is 1800.... ???

Boris811 27th May, 2004 09:34 PM

I ve raised FSB to 170, aperture size to 128, and the score in 3dmark was the same...
Then i raised to 175 and set memory timings to 2,2,2,11 and my computer didn't want to boot, it beeped like this, long beep about 2 seconds, then pause for 2 sec, then again beep for 2 seconds..... What does that mean..... Then i shut it down and bios restored all my settings....
Is it safe to raise the multiplier to 12 and set FSB to 170, 175.....?
Why the hell i can't change those memory timings, i ve read that 2,2,2,11 is great for Nforce 2.....??
Is it my Ram, i have Kingston 512 ddr sdram, PC 3200/400, single channel mode Value Ram....?
Or could it be my case, it's 350 w, and i have alot of things, i have two Cdroms, TV card, two hard discs....

Gizmo 27th May, 2004 09:39 PM

If you run 2,2,2,11 you may not be able to run your FSB that fast.

Tell you what; go read this. Read it all the way through to the end. :thumbsup:


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:41 PM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0