Skyscraper wrote:

kithylin wrote:

I have my athlonXP 3200+ (400 mhz FSB barton core) chip that runs stable @ 2500 something mhz with a 6800 ultra in it. Would you like some results from that as a comparison from "the other side of the fence" to intel about that time? I think the A-XP chips were around northwood chips. I'd have to check the dates though.

The Athlon XP 3200+ will perform much much better than a P4 Northwoood with PC133 memory. It gave the later Intel dual DDR chipsets for Northwoods with 800 Mhz FSB a run for their money, at 2500MHz I expect the Barton to be competetive with all single core Netbust CPUs.

More benchmark results are always nice though 😀

Maybe I'll work on that today, and see if I can get my kingston ddr-525 ram out of my 939 machine, see if I can get the XP-3200+ machine to run with ram around 500+ Mhz maybe. It doesn't have individual ram timings in bios, or enough ram voltage to get it up there though.. kingston 500 mhz ddr requires I think 3.2v on the ram. Might see how it goes though.

I'll have to get a second hard drive for it and install XP on it though.. it's running Win98 right now, which really holds back it's performance.

EDIT: Also skyscraper, which OS are you testing these in? XP or Win98se?

And here is my results from this thing from win98se. This is the highest overclock I can get with this OS, being limited to 512MB ram so have to use my 2 x 256MB sticks of Samsung DDR-333 ram, that, surprisingly seems to run just fine up at 474 Mhz, but that's about as far as this ram goes. 1 mhz higher and it BSOD's windows on start up. Next planning to try XP, and that will enable me to try out the kingston hyper-x ddr-525 ram, since it's 2 x 1GB. Possibly get it clocked higher.. but already 2500 mhz is in the top 1% category for an AthlonXP socket 462 chip. Also I did Win98se first because I already had the OS installed, so was easier to get going. I think you (Skyscraper) used XP in your tests of the P4 chips.. and I already know that Win98se is a serious hinderance on system performance, so this thing will most likely be even faster in XP.. I think it's beating your P4's already though? Not sure.

Anyway! On to the images.

3dMark 99. I have the paid version, so I get all the bonus tests.. so second side of the result browser shows the bottom results that wouldn't show on the first one. Also.. that cpu score... 😲 😲

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-99-6800- ... n98se).jpg

3dMark 2000.

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-2000-680 ... n98se).jpg

3dMark 2001se.

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-2001se_6 ... n98se).jpg

And now to work on getting WinXP on here. I'm thinking to be able to run 3dmark 2000, I'll stay with about SP-0 or SP-1a, I think 2000 was broken in SP2 when I last remembered.

EDIT: Also, I'm using driver version 81.98 (The latest possible under Win98se). WinXP will permit me to use a lot newer drivers. I'm wondering if I should do two tests.. start with the drivers you used, and then move to the much newer ones and see how they do.

nvidia.com says the 6800 ultra was supported all the way out to drivers 307.83, although I think I get stuck around 285.xx or somewhere around there without SP2, when I last tried this on my AMD 939 machine.

seems low for 2.5GHz barton and 6800;
I would expect 15K+ on 2001se

SPBHM wrote:

seems low for 2.5GHz barton and 6800;
I would expect 15K+ on 2001se

Like I said in the post... It's running win98se. Which really, really holds back performance. I'm trying to get WinXP on it and that should be full speed.

This damn system really doesn't want to run with 2GB of ram installed. Looks like no hyper-X sticks then.. might be 2559 mhz is all I'll ever get out of it. 😒 😢 1GB works.. not sure if I want to run it single-channel or not. Guess I will for now just to get more ram and the hyper-x stuff in it.

kithylin wrote:

SPBHM wrote:

seems low for 2.5GHz barton and 6800;
I would expect 15K+ on 2001se

Like I said in the post... It's running win98se. Which really, really holds back performance. I'm trying to get WinXP on it and that should be full speed.

This damn system really doesn't want to run with 2GB of ram installed. Looks like no hyper-X sticks then.. might be 2559 mhz is all I'll ever get out of it. 😒 😢 1GB works.. not sure if I want to run it single-channel or not. Guess I will for now just to get more ram and the hyper-x stuff in it.

that should be it, I never used 98se for anything faster than a geforce 4 mx

XP should run fine with 512MB for 3dmark and games from before 2004.

And here we go. Same system, except using Windows XP 32-bit, no service packs, and nvidia drivers 92.91 just like Skyscraper used, as a comparison against his intel systems. I may go back in a little while and re-do this with some newer 200.xx drivers and see if it makes any difference.

I couldn't get the 1GB kingston hyperX stick to work. The hyper-X sticks will do 520 Mhz DDR, but I have to have them in a system where I can manually program the ram timings and feed them enough voltage. This AthlonXP system doesn't give me fine control over ram that I need to use those.. so (for reasons unknown to me) this pair of Samsung 256MB sticks... just.. work, and even though they're rated for 333 Mhz, I've taken them all the way out to about 470 Mhz just on "auto" in bios with no fine tuning controls or anything, they just.. work. It's beyond me why.

Also of note, the 3dmark `99 max test completed at 232 Mhz FSB, but none of the other ones would in XP (But do in Win98), so had to lower it to 231 Mhz and then they worked, which is odd. But whatever, computers are weird.

Anyway, on to the piccies.

3DMark `99 Max.

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-99-6800- ... WinXP).jpg

3dMark 2000.

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-2000-680 ... WinXP).jpg

3dMark 2001se.

Larger: www.outfoxed.net/amd-k7/3dmark-2001se-6 ... WinXP).jpg

Skyscraper wrote:

The combination of the somewhat "new" driver 92.91, the Geforce 6800GT and the lack of memory bandwidth seem to make a huge bottleneck even worse. I tested a Northwood Celeron aswell and its even slower.

In fact the performance is so bad that I almost thought something was wrong so I installed a Northwood P4 2.26 and clocked it to 3 Ghz just to see if it would perform OK with its larger cache or if this board performs horrible with all CPUs. The Northwood P4 performs as it should so there are nothing wrong with the board its just the combination of small cache and lack of memory bandwidth that kills the performance with the Willamette and the Celeron.

That Northwood Celeron is just incredible. 3020 in 3DMark2000?! I'm pretty sure I've seen PIII-600s score higher!
All of this 3DMark99/2000 benching is making me feel the need...the need for speed! 😁
Pentium III powers, activate!

3DMark2000
PIII-S @ 1575MHz, 6800GT, 2GB DDR-300 2-2-6

3DMark99

3DMark01 (I posted this one around two months ago)

And here's 3DMark 2003 and 2005. I used driver version 307.83 for these ones.

3DMark03 is so close to 10k it's infuriating. I'm sure with a mild GPU overclock it would easily hit 10k. Wings of Fury gained 25 fps from switching to DDR memory! And people say the PIII can't take advantage of DDR memory. To that, I say pshaw! 😁 To be fair, it may not only be the DDR memory that's making a difference. With the Apollo Pro 266T board, I can run the graphics card at AGP4x without any instability. The old 694T board could only handle AGP 2x reliably.

PIII-S @ 1575MHz, 6800GT, 2GB DDR300 2-2-2

3DMark05:

Here are some more results with a Willamette P4, this time a P4 2.0 as this Asus P4B533-E wont let me overvolt much.

3dmark 99 @2.0

3dmark 2000 @2.0

3dmark 2001 @2.0

Overclocked results

3dmark 99 @2340

3dmark2000 @2340

3dmark 2001 @2340

And here is a stock Gallatin 3400 with a Geforce 6800 "Ultra" 😀, A Gallatin dosnt really need dual channel memory it seems as the score looks OK.

I thought this 9500 PRO was broken but apparently it's my CUBX-E the problem, with the P2B (with an old bios from 1999 and all) it seems to be 100% fine

funny thing my best score was using the driver provided by XP SP3, when I installed 10.4 it broke windows, and 6.10 was 200 points lower, also win98se with 6.10 was just 100 points lower than this, this is running with the default memory options on the bios, there is probably more performance to be extracted out of this,
at least now I have an AGP card actually working for the first time since around 2006, also it's the second 9500PRO I've owned, and third R300 card 😀

Skyscraper wrote:

I ran 3dmark with my new spare Asus CUSL2-C system.

The scores would be a little bit higher with AGP 4X but the BIOS forces AGP 2X when overclocking.

You have to use evil inside bios 😉

Stermy57 wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

I ran 3dmark with my new spare Asus CUSL2-C system.

The scores would be a little bit higher with AGP 4X but the BIOS forces AGP 2X when overclocking.

You have to use evil inside bios 😉

I did try the modified BIOS but that BIOS would not overclock as good as the latest official BETA. AGP 4x and 2,2,2,5 memory timings did not perform as well as AGP 2x and 2,2,2,7 timings with 105 MHz extra core speed.

Skyscraper wrote:

Stermy57 wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

I ran 3dmark with my new spare Asus CUSL2-C system.

The scores would be a little bit higher with AGP 4X but the BIOS forces AGP 2X when overclocking.

You have to use evil inside bios 😉

I did try the modified BIOS but that BIOS would not overclock as good as the latest official BETA. AGP 4x and 2,2,2,5 memory timings did not perform as well as AGP 2x and 2,2,2,7 timings with 105 MHz extra core speed.

Did you set FSB frequency with windows software (like setfsb) or from bios?
Have you ever tried i815 Tweaker?

From the BIOS. i815 tweaker cant change AGP speed, the only tweaker I know of that can set AGP 4x only works with Win-9x (DOS) while this spare system only runs XP and isnt used at all as its a spare system.

Skyscraper wrote:

From the BIOS. i815 tweaker cant change AGP speed, the only tweaker I know of that can set AGP 4x only works with Win-9x (DOS) while this spare system only runs XP and isnt used at all as its a spare system.

Try to set FSB from windows with "setfsb"

Stermy57 wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

From the BIOS. i815 tweaker cant change AGP speed, the only tweaker I know of that can set AGP 4x only works with Win-9x (DOS) while this spare system only runs XP and isnt used at all as its a spare system.

Try to set FSB from windows with "setfsb"

Its a spare computer I dont use so its stored away in cold storage 😀

I do not care enough to go get it only to get 150 more points in a 3d benchmark. Im not a stranger to setfsb or other clockgen software but I prefer to do my overclocking in the BIOS setup.

Skyscraper wrote:

Stermy57 wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

From the BIOS. i815 tweaker cant change AGP speed, the only tweaker I know of that can set AGP 4x only works with Win-9x (DOS) while this spare system only runs XP and isnt used at all as its a spare system.

Try to set FSB from windows with "setfsb"

Its a spare computer I dont use so its stored away in cold storage 😀

I do not care enough to go get it only to get 150 more points in a 3d benchmark. Im not a stranger to setfsb or other clockgen software but I prefer to do my overclocking in the BIOS setup.

Understand 😀
You give me curiosity to investigate! I will do some bench to find a solution!

Stermy57 wrote:

Understand 😀
You give me curiosity to investigate! I will do some bench to find a solution!

A modified version of the latest beta BIOS for the CUSL2 would be the best way to get the board to work with AGP 4X overclocked without hassle but I think the people doing the mod has moved on 😁

I run a CUSL2 with a P3-1400-S in my Windows 9x system aswell. As it is a system I use alot Im satisfied with running the CPU at 1575 MHz therefore I can use the older modified BIOS with that system. The latest beta BIOS is only needed when going for a max overclock.

The Socket-478 P4 EE "Gallatin" 3.4 running in a motherboard with dual channel memory pushes the Geforce 6800 "Ultra" pretty hard, this is somewhat GPU limited.

Here's a mobile T5600 with a 9800GT on the AOpen i975xa-YDG board

I'm not sure how Win7-based 3DMark 2003/2005 scores compare with XP, but these look OK to me. The CPU score is excellent for this type of processor.

Look at that insane CPU score! That's a tremendous score for a 1.83GHz Core 2. IIRC, Win7 has always done very well in the 3DMark CPU tests--even better than XP.

Skyscraper wrote:

The Socket-478 P4 EE "Gallatin" 3.4 running in a motherboard with dual channel memory pushes the Geforce 6800 "Ultra" pretty hard, this is somewhat GPU limited.

I don't think that's GPU limited. A stock-clocked Radeon 9800 Pro can score 22K with a 2.64GHz A64 behind it, so I'd imagine a 6800 Ultra could easily hit ~35K with a faster CPU.