Terrible Cpu Benchmarks

DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
<div class="IPBDescription">why god why?</div> K I just ran 3DMark03 on my new computer, athelon 64 (running at 2k ghz), 1 gig mem, Radeon 9600 pro... and the vid card did fine, but the CPU did HORRIBLY. 190 CPUmarks. I compared it to other people's with the same setup, and they got around 700 CPUmarks... so my CPU is performing about 1/4 as well as it should... I've noticed poor performance in some games too, and I was wondering where the bottleneck was...

anyone have any clue how I could troubleshoot what's wrong?

Comments

  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    edited December 2003
    Mobo and processor please? Also do you know what average temperatures you run?

    Also are you running your ram in sync or out of sync with the processor (same frequency, I.E. bus speed, is your bus speed the sam as the ram speed?)
  • MonsieurEvilMonsieurEvil Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
    It's an Athlon 64? Are you sure that the beanchmark even covers that architecture correctly in your version?
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    ASUS K8V mobo... temps of CPU and mobo both 37 celsius, according to Asus PC Probe... I have no clue about your other question Otto -- it's above my head =P

    as for your Q, MonsE, I have no clue -- all I know is I just downloaded 3DMark today so it's the latest version, and according to the comparisons they let you do online, everyone else with my configuration who has run the test has had CPU scores about 4 times higher than mine... and during the CPU test, my FPS slowed down to... 1 FPS or less =P

    old games like Freespace 2 even slow down on this machine... and NS runs at 40 fps... and actually, while I'm on the subject, HL crashes whenever I try to run it in either OpenGL mode OR Direct3D... only way I could get the game to run has been to use some program I found called DirectGL, which I believe uses Direct3D to emulate OpenGL... that may or may not be a separate problem...
  • TenSixTenSix Join Date: 2002-11-09 Member: 7932Members
    You should be flying fine, is the OS a relativly fresh install? Do you have all background programs closed when running the benchmark?
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    yep, fresh after restart, with everything shut down... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> sadness
  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    edited December 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Dec 11 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Dec 11 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> ASUS K8V mobo... temps of CPU and mobo both 37 celsius, according to Asus PC Probe... I have no clue about your other question Otto -- it's above my head =P

    as for your Q, MonsE, I have no clue -- all I know is I just downloaded 3DMark today so it's the latest version, and according to the comparisons they let you do online, everyone else with my configuration who has run the test has had CPU scores about 4 times higher than mine... and during the CPU test, my FPS slowed down to... 1 FPS or less =P

    old games like Freespace 2 even slow down on this machine... and NS runs at 40 fps... and actually, while I'm on the subject, HL crashes whenever I try to run it in either OpenGL mode OR Direct3D... only way I could get the game to run has been to use some program I found called DirectGL, which I believe uses Direct3D to emulate OpenGL... that may or may not be a separate problem... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    If you go into bios you should see somewhere your CPU's frequency and a multiplier. The CPu frequency times 2 is your front speed bus. There should also be a RAM frequency displayed during post, that should be set to the same as your FSB.
  • ZelZel Join Date: 2003-01-27 Member: 12861Members
    dumb question, did you reinstall windows when you installed that motherboard?
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    Zel: it's a new puter, the OS came installed with it... I could maybe use the recovery CD if I was confident it would help, but I'd rather not resort to that...

    Otto: I searched everything in my BIOS and read everything at post, and I can't see what you're talking about... wish I wasn't such a nub... what's an example of a front bus speed, so I know what the number I'm looking for looks like?

    bah...
  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Dec 11 2003, 11:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Dec 11 2003, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Zel: it's a new puter, the OS came installed with it... I could maybe use the recovery CD if I was confident it would help, but I'd rather not resort to that...

    Otto: I searched everything in my BIOS and read everything at post, and I can't see what you're talking about... wish I wasn't such a nub... what's an example of a front bus speed, so I know what the number I'm looking for looks like?

    bah... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    Ok this might be a bit different seeing as I'm on an A7N8X Deluxe but here goes

    In Bios:
    Go to advanced > Advanced chipset features

    CPU External Frequency - 2 times this is your bus speed
    CPU Frequency multiple - This number times the external frequency is your megahertz

    I'm not sure if its the same but to access ram frequency and timings I have to set the following to aggressive or user defined

    System Performance
    CPU Interface


    Memory Frequency - Whatever your bus speed youve determined to be you should make it the same, usually BY SPD sets it the same, if not see if theres a Sync option, otherwise you may have to manually set it by the percents.

    Memory Timing - Uh.. since you said youre a nub I wouldnt recommend touching this but if you ever want to get a bit more performance google around or ask me or anyone else about this


    Other things to check for (still under advanced chipset):
    Graphics Aperature Size: Whatever mb your card is, mnost likely 128, make sure its set.
    AGP Frequency: IF YOU CHANGE BUS SPEED SET THIS TO 66!!!! From what I hear 66 is pretty much the default, and a lot of the time by messing with bus speed it actually changed the AGP frequency, which can result in frying the card / unstability.
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    well it looks like my CPU frequency is 200, and it can be set in increments of 1 up to 215? am I on the right track? =P as for memory settings, everything seems to be on 'auto' which I assumed was OK... is there any chance I damaged my CPU by messing with the wrong settings? I flashed the bios just now and reset everything to default, and no improvement =/ thanks for the help, everyone who's looking at this thread... maybe it's just a fluke anyway... battlefield 1942 is the most demanding game I have and it runs fine on high (if not highest) settings so maybe I should leave it alone and see how HL2 runs when it comes out =p

    what BIOS settings have the potential to damage your CPU? just so I know, so I know if I stupidly touched them at some point... if the CPU was damaged, would the computer work at all, or is it an all-or-nothing thing and the machine wouldn't boot?
  • OttoDestructOttoDestruct Join Date: 2002-11-08 Member: 7790Members
    200 Sounds about good, thats what I'm running. I have a 2600+ Barton processor running 200x10 = 2000 mhz, which I believe is about the same as the 2800+ runs. Really it depends on the multiplier. 200 would mean that you have a 400mhz FSB (2x200) which also means you should have youre ram running at 200 mhz frequency.
  • esunaesuna Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
    I'm tempted to show my ignorance and suggest that 3DMark 2003 doesn't cover 64 bit architecture (Since the program was released before 64bit chips were on the market) and also, i believe there's a beta version of windows which supports the 64 bit architecture to it's full potential.

    As with everything i type, this is probably wrong. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> Esuna, that sounds logical, and I hope you're right and it's just a fluke... the thing that makes me worried is that you can automatically compare your results to other peoples' online, and I compared mine to a bunch of others who also had Athelon 64s, and none of their benchmarks were anywhere near as low as mine... even the lowest one was like 680, while mine was 180... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> so what makes me fear it's not that the software predates the technology is that A) it detects the processor and you can search for benchmarks for that processor on their website, and B) everyone else had consistent benchmarks between like 680 and 720... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
  • esunaesuna Rock Bottom Join Date: 2003-04-03 Member: 15175Members, Constellation
    <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Dec 12 2003, 06:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Dec 12 2003, 06:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> Esuna, that sounds logical, and I hope you're right and it's just a fluke... the thing that makes me worried is that you can automatically compare your results to other peoples' online, and I compared mine to a bunch of others who also had Athelon 64s, and none of their benchmarks were anywhere near as low as mine... even the lowest one was like 680, while mine was 180... <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> so what makes me fear it's not that the software predates the technology is that A) it detects the processor and you can search for benchmarks for that processor on their website, and B) everyone else had consistent benchmarks between like 680 and 720... <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
    All i could suggest is trawl through the net looking to update your OS and other things to the newest version and try to get all the latest drivers for your gfx card, etc. Also, are all the other tests done with the same video card, or just CPU?
  • XythXyth Avatar Join Date: 2003-11-04 Member: 22312Members
    edited December 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--DiscoZombie+Dec 11 2003, 09:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiscoZombie @ Dec 11 2003, 09:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> old games like Freespace 2 even slow down on this machine... and NS runs at 40 fps... and actually, while I'm on the subject, HL crashes whenever I try to run it in either OpenGL mode OR Direct3D... only way I could get the game to run has been to use some program I found called DirectGL, which I believe uses Direct3D to emulate OpenGL... that may or may not be a separate problem... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

    *starts new page*
    The answer to that is new drivers, I had the same problem and new set of drivers cleared everything up. But that probably <i>IS</i> a seperate problem, though It could effect your video performance.
  • DiscoZombieDiscoZombie Join Date: 2003-08-05 Member: 18951Members
    edited December 2003
    <!--QuoteBegin--esuna+Dec 12 2003, 02:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (esuna @ Dec 12 2003, 02:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> All i could suggest is trawl through the net looking to update your OS and other things to the newest version and try to get all the latest drivers for your gfx card, etc. Also, are all the other tests done with the same video card, or just CPU? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
    well as far as windowsupdate goes, god knows my OS is updated... and vid drivers too... flashed BIOS... there's no drivers associated with processors right? I haven't been to the AMD site yet, actually...

    the benchmark regimen runs 3 or 4 accelerated benchmarks, and then 2 that I assume bypass the graphics acceleration to see how well your processor does without it, and that's where I start getting like 1 frame every 5 seconds and the terrible score...

    IS there a chance my chip is somehow damaged?
Sign In or Register to comment.