OT - Athlon to P4 Upgrade Complete - Basic comparison results.

Ok, the upgrade is done and I thought I'd post some simple, quick comparisons. The hardware upgrade took about 1.5 hours. Of course, I spent the next 20 hours reinstalling Windows, programs, games, drivers, etc... Twice - I run two WinXP bootable partitions, one for General Computing and one for Gaming Only with no external hardware or other junk enabled. By the time of the RASCAR race I had been up for 34 hours :) Old System ------------ ABIT KG7 Athlon XP 1800+ (Boxed) GeForce 4 Ti4400 512MB Crucial DDR2100 RAM Cass-2.5 Windows XP Turtle Beach Santa Cruz Sound Card Intel 10/100 NIC Maxtor DiamondMax Plus D740 80GB 7200rpm Hard Drive. Lian-Li PC50 Aluminum Case. Antec TruePower 433 Power Supply. etc... etc... etc... New System ------------- ABIT IT7-Max2 Intel Pentium 4 2.53Ghz (Boxed) GeForce 3 Ti4400 512MB Corsair XMS PC2700 Cass-2 Windows XP Turtle Beach Santa Cruz Sound Card Intel 10/100 NIC Maxtor DiamondMax Plus D740 80GB 7200rpm Hard Drive. Lian-Li PC50 Aluminum Case. Antec TruePower 433 Power Supply. etc... etc... etc... Both systems running bone-stock speeds. No overclocking anywhere. Note also the new system is running the RAM in stock configuration, which is DDR-266 not DDR-333, event though the RAM supports it. Temps - With stock boxed fan/heatsink - 45c at Idle and 58c when pushed at 100% processor for 30 minutes using Sandra's Burn-In Test. The only problem I had during assembly was with the AGP slot. I had the same problem that others have noted in that it is a real BITCH to get the AGP card inserted, and it does not seem to be case specific. The only way I could get it installed was the same way others have, and that's to loosen all the System Board retaining screws, insert the card (it was still WAY tight), and then screw the motherboard back down. It is clear that the AGP slot on this System Board is not nailed down at spec. Stability - Perfect! On the software side, the USB drivers are tricky and you need to research this carefully when setting up any system under Windows XP that has USB 2.0 ports. You can destroy Windows XP if you don't. Other than that, NO ISSUES. After getting it up and running, Windows XP installed, SP1 and all other updates installed, all system level drivers installed, and getting a Green-Board in the Device Manager, I imaged the system prior to any further installation thus having a basic System Restore CD set. Ok, here come the numbers! 3DMark2001se ----------------- Old - 8953 New - 10585 Sandra CPU Arithmetic ------------------------ Old Dry - 4229 MIPS New Dry - 4868 MIPS Old Whet - 2127 MFLOPS New Whet - 3099 MFLOPS Sandra CPU MultiMedia -------------------------- Old INT - 8446 IT/s New INT - 9987 IT/s Old FP - 9337 IT/s New FP - 12415 IT/s Sandra Memory Bandwidth ---------------------------- Old INT - 1659 MB/Sec New INT - 2030 MB/Sec Old FLOAT - 1584 MB/Sec New FLOAT - 2027 MB/Sec Hard Drive Performance ------------------------- Both pretty much the same at just under 40MB/Sec Sustained Transfer at larger block sizes as tested with ATTO Benchmark. Nascar Racing 2002 Performance ----------------------------------- It looks like I've picked up about 20-30fps + in NR2002, and it seems to be more fps stable with a loaded field. It's hard to tell precisely because over 100fps the fps meter starts flickering madly in NR2002. I did see 150fps flash in there at times, and it probably went higher. Running at 1280X960X16 OpenGL with all options except Anistropic Filtering, No V-Sync and No FSAA I'm getting well over 100fps at pretty much every track in Testing mode. Full-Field, with full forward and rear view (42 car) and all options except as noted above results in 30-70fps depending on the track, corner, track conditions, etc... Never dropping under 30fps under any circumstances is cool :) All this is about what I would have expected if I had stayed Athlon and went with the 2600+. Since the 2600+ is vapor-ware, and I would have had to change motherboards anyway (the KG7 doesn't currently support the 2600+, and it's not clear if it ever will), I'm happy with the move. It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. -Larry

> It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a VIA KT333 chipset. However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+ is 1.53G ) Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar performance come the end of it Doug

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:04:26 +0000, Larry wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Ok, the upgrade is done and I thought I'd post some simple, quick > comparisons. > > The hardware upgrade took about 1.5 hours. Of course, I spent the next 20 > hours reinstalling Windows, programs, games, drivers, etc... Twice - I run > two WinXP bootable partitions, one for General Computing and one for Gaming > Only with no external hardware or other junk enabled.

Why didn't you just create a 2nd hardware profile under XP instead of installing it twice? That would have saved you several gigabytes of drive space. > All this is about what I would have expected if I had stayed Athlon and went > with the 2600+. > > Since the 2600+ is vapor-ware, and I would have had to change motherboards > anyway (the KG7 doesn't currently support the 2600+, and it's not clear if > it ever will), I'm happy with the move. Unless Abit has stopped developing BIOS's for the board, you can't be sure. Besides, it's not Abit who won't suppport it - It's the chipset they used that simply can't be updated beyond a certain point. > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. I wouldn't say the video card was "hampered" by the Athlon. In fact, your increase in video performance is probably more the result of the combination of the new motherboard and the much faster CPU. I'm sure you would have realized a similar increase in speed with the Athlon 2200.

Larry...glad i read this.... I made my first PC from scratch on Friday...what a coincidence :) It was:- Xp2100+ Asus K7V333 512 DDR 333(2700) 120 GB IBM 7200 GF4 Ti4200 etc etc I fired it up and all worked perfect,installations etc etc. We tried every socket,every component etc etc...all was fine.Elation..!! Then.... I checked that all the 8 USB sockets were working....they were. So set about clearing up all the boxes and rubbish,then i stumbled upon the CD that came with the motherboard.Containing Asus software and USB 2.0 drivers. So i installed everything i though appropriate and rebooted. Now only 2 of the 8 USB work,but within Device Manager,all is installed and working no conflicts. Your warning makes me think that there is something i should know about USB 2.0...?? Any ideas what i have to do...? TIA AD

> Since the 2600+ is vapor-ware, It is a shame that AMD has been missing release dates, they'd be doing much better. But my next cpu will be an amd, I'm still a fan of the underdog. rms [email hidden]

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > 2200/GF4-4600: > > 3dmark2001se > 10349 > > Sandra: > > arithmetic: > dhry 4979 > whet 2503 > > multimedia: > int: 9903 > fp: 11488 > > memory: > int: 1919 > fp: 1816 > > Achim

Plus - �150 to spend on a larger hard drive, a bigger monitor, a couple of good nights out etc etc Doug

For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon 2200/GF4-4600: 3dmark2001se 10349 Sandra: arithmetic: dhry 4979 whet 2503 multimedia: int: 9903 fp: 11488 memory: int: 1919 fp: 1816 Achim "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a VIA > KT333 chipset. > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+ is > 1.53G ) > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > performance come the end of it > > Doug > >

Siimple. I wanted the fastest thing I could get my hands on at the time, without paying the "New Processor" tax. That's why I didn't go with the P4 2.8. The 2.53 is the sweet spot right now. Plus I was in a position where I needed to buy a FireWire card and USB 2.0 card. This took care of it all at one time. -Larry "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a VIA > KT333 chipset. > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+ is > 1.53G ) > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > performance come the end of it > > Doug > >

There are still common items using this method, plus I like having a second boot available for emergencies. -Larry "john simmons" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 09:04:26 +0000, Larry wrote: > Why didn't you just create a 2nd hardware profile under XP instead ofinstalling it > twice? That would have saved you several gigabytes of drive space. > > > > All this is about what I would have expected if I had stayed Athlon andwent > > with the 2600+.

Andrew, I'm not even sure _I_ have it right yet (though it appears it's ok) much less comment on a totally different board. The IT7-Max2 complicates things a bit in that it uses the USB 2.0 controllers from both the Intel ICH4 South Bridge AND an additional VIA USB 2.0 Host Controller to provide the 10 on-board USB 2.0 ports. I know the Intel based ports are ok. I haven't plugged into any of the VIA ports yet, but I have some pictures to transfer and I'll use it to be sure. There are definetly no end of documents floating around talking about these issues, but unfortunately they don't all say the same thing, and most don't designate whether they are pre-SP1, post-SP1, etc... It appears to me that Microsoft didn't help this mess much in SP1. -Larry "Andrew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an6n1u$rbc$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Larry...glad i read this.... > > I made my first PC from scratch on Friday...what a coincidence :) > > It was:- > > Xp2100+ > Asus K7V333 > 512 DDR 333(2700) > 120 GB IBM 7200 > GF4 Ti4200 > etc etc > > I fired it up and all worked perfect,installations etc etc. > We tried every socket,every component etc etc...all was fine.Elation..!! > > Then.... > I checked that all the 8 USB sockets were working....they were. > > So set about clearing up all the boxes and rubbish,then i stumbled upon

the > CD that came with the motherboard.Containing Asus software and USB 2.0 > drivers. > > So i installed everything i though appropriate and rebooted. > > Now only 2 of the 8 USB work,but within Device Manager,all is installedand > working no conflicts. > > Your warning makes me think that there is something i should know aboutUSB

Quoted text (10 lines)

> 2.0...?? > > Any ideas what i have to do...? > > TIA > > > AD > >

So am I, but certain things can't be argued with. Availability, for one. And you gotta love the P4 mounting system. It's almost impossible to damage the processor with this thing :) I've never broke an Athlon, but I know some folks who seem to do it as a hobby :) -Larry "Roger Squires" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:XwDl9.422$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > Since the 2600+ is vapor-ware, > > It is a shame that AMD has been missing release dates, they'd be doing > much better. But my next cpu will be an amd, I'm still a fan of the > underdog. > > rms > [email hidden] > >

Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock setting ? -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > 2200/GF4-4600: > > 3dmark2001se > 10349 > > Sandra: > > arithmetic: > dhry 4979 > whet 2503 > > multimedia: > int: 9903 > fp: 11488 > > memory: > int: 1919 > fp: 1816 > > Achim > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a VIA > > KT333 chipset. > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+ is > > 1.53G ) > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > performance come the end of it > > > > Doug > > > > > >

Luckily, I was well covered there :) When I upgrade a piece, I tend to get the top-of-the-line at the time of purchase, and my computers 'extremities' tend to transfer through several machines because of this. I think it saves money in the long run. The exception is CPU's. I usually buy the next-slowest speed available (as I did in this case) because the 'Processor Tax' has eroded away. -Larry "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:EsFl9.1553$Fv2.127903@wards...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > 3dmark2001se > > 10349 > > > > Sandra: > > > > arithmetic: > > dhry 4979 > > whet 2503 > > > > multimedia: > > int: 9903 > > fp: 11488 > > > > memory: > > int: 1919 > > fp: 1816 > > > > Achim > > Plus - �150 to spend on a larger hard drive, a bigger monitor, a couple of > good nights out etc etc > > Doug > >

Just for giggles, I set my Ti4400 to Ti4600 speeds and re-tested. The resulting 3DMarks was 11047. I set it back to normal afterward. I'm not a huge overclocking fan. -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (45 lines)

> For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > 2200/GF4-4600: > > 3dmark2001se > 10349 > > Sandra: > > arithmetic: > dhry 4979 > whet 2503 > > multimedia: > int: 9903 > fp: 11488 > > memory: > int: 1919 > fp: 1816 > > Achim > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. The > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a VIA > > KT333 chipset. > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+ is > > 1.53G ) > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > performance come the end of it > > > > Doug > > > > > >

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the first A7M > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) Another satisfied A7M266 user :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy http://www.theuspits.com "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" --Groucho Marx--

You didn't beat me, your system is moderately faster than mine - quite a different thing :) But the purpose of me uploading this wasn't to make your system look like bad bang for the buck or something. I only uploaded this to offer a comparison since Doug had mentioned such a system. I refrained on purpose from making any appraising comments. Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the first A7M 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) My system is not overclocked, btw, but I did optimize the BIOS. Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:SJIl9.46238$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (35 lines)

> Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) > > How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock setting ? > > -Larry > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > 3dmark2001se > > 10349 > > > > Sandra: > > > > arithmetic: > > dhry 4979 > > whet 2503 > > > > multimedia: > > int: 9903 > > fp: 11488 > > > > memory: > > int: 1919 > > fp: 1816 > > > > Achim > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+.

The > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. aVIA > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+is

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >

Well like Doug says, apparently the 4400 was and still is the actual bottleneck in your system. You might have gotten better bang for the buck upgrading the graphics card... ( remember you started it ;-) Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:I4Jl9.46487$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (37 lines)

> Just for giggles, I set my Ti4400 to Ti4600 speeds and re-tested. > > The resulting 3DMarks was 11047. > > I set it back to normal afterward. I'm not a huge overclocking fan. > > -Larry > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > 3dmark2001se > > 10349 > > > > Sandra: > > > > arithmetic: > > dhry 4979 > > whet 2503 > > > > multimedia: > > int: 9903 > > fp: 11488 > > > > memory: > > int: 1919 > > fp: 1816 > > > > Achim > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+.

The > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty clearly. > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. aVIA > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect good > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a 1800+is

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > >

Absolutely :) Achim "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Joachim Trensz wrote: > > > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the firstA7M

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) > > Another satisfied A7M266 user :-) > > > Beers and cheers > (uncle) Goy > > http://www.theuspits.com > > "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........" > --Groucho Marx--

Um, I was just having fun Achim :) -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an7s26$bbuta$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (23 lines)

> You didn't beat me, your system is moderately faster than mine - quite a > different thing :) > > But the purpose of me uploading this wasn't to make your system look like > bad bang for the buck or something. I only uploaded this to offer a > comparison since Doug had mentioned such a system. I refrained on purpose > from making any appraising comments. > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the first A7M > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) > > My system is not overclocked, btw, but I did optimize the BIOS. > > Achim > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:SJIl9.46238$[email hidden]... > > Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) > > > > How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock setting

?

Quoted text (34 lines)

> > > > -Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > > > 3dmark2001se > > > 10349 > > > > > > Sandra: > > > > > > arithmetic: > > > dhry 4979 > > > whet 2503 > > > > > > multimedia: > > > int: 9903 > > > fp: 11488 > > > > > > memory: > > > int: 1919 > > > fp: 1816 > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. > The > > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty

clearly. > > > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a > VIA > > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expectgood > > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a1800+

Quoted text (16 lines)

> is > > > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Nope. Tried it. The processor change made a much bigger difference. -Larry. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:an7s7n$bn6pu$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (48 lines)

> Well like Doug says, apparently the 4400 was and still is the actual > bottleneck in your system. You might have gotten better bang for the buck > upgrading the graphics card... ( remember you started it ;-) > > Achim > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:I4Jl9.46487$[email hidden]... > > Just for giggles, I set my Ti4400 to Ti4600 speeds and re-tested. > > > > The resulting 3DMarks was 11047. > > > > I set it back to normal afterward. I'm not a huge overclocking fan. > > > > -Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > > > 3dmark2001se > > > 10349 > > > > > > Sandra: > > > > > > arithmetic: > > > dhry 4979 > > > whet 2503 > > > > > > multimedia: > > > int: 9903 > > > fp: 11488 > > > > > > memory: > > > int: 1919 > > > fp: 1816 > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP 1800+. > The > > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty

clearly. > > > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself. a > VIA > > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expectgood > > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a1800+

Quoted text (16 lines)

> is > > > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in your > > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Ah ok, I was a little worried I'd stepped on your toes, which hadn't been my intention :) Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8Z1m9.60070$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Um, I was just having fun Achim :) > > -Larry > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:an7s26$bbuta$[email hidden]... > > You didn't beat me, your system is moderately faster than mine - quite a > > different thing :) > > > > But the purpose of me uploading this wasn't to make your system look

like > > bad bang for the buck or something. I only uploaded this to offer a > > comparison since Doug had mentioned such a system. I refrained onpurpose > > from making any appraising comments. > > > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the firstA7M

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) > > > > My system is not overclocked, btw, but I did optimize the BIOS. > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:SJIl9.46238$[email hidden]... > > > Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) > > > > > > How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock

setting

Quoted text (30 lines)

> ? > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an Athlon > > > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > > > > > 3dmark2001se > > > > 10349 > > > > > > > > Sandra: > > > > > > > > arithmetic: > > > > dhry 4979 > > > > whet 2503 > > > > > > > > multimedia: > > > > int: 9903 > > > > fp: 11488 > > > > > > > > memory: > > > > int: 1919 > > > > fp: 1816 > > > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message > > > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP1800+. > > The > > > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800 itself.a

Quoted text (11 lines)

> > VIA > > > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect > good > > > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a > 1800+ > > is > > > > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in

your

Quoted text (14 lines)

> > > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very similar > > > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Hehe. Not at all :) It's a shame I don't believe in overclocking. I could probably make this thing a lot faster... -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:anah8j$bsp8t$[email hidden]... > Ah ok, I was a little worried I'd stepped on your toes, which hadn't beenmy

Quoted text (14 lines)

> intention :) > > Achim > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8Z1m9.60070$[email hidden]... > > Um, I was just having fun Achim :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:an7s26$bbuta$[email hidden]... > > > You didn't beat me, your system is moderately faster than mine - quite

a

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > > different thing :) > > > > > > But the purpose of me uploading this wasn't to make your system look > like > > > bad bang for the buck or something. I only uploaded this to offer a > > > comparison since Doug had mentioned such a system. I refrained on > purpose > > > from making any appraising comments. > > > > > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the first > A7M > > > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > > > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) > > > > > > My system is not overclocked, btw, but I did optimize the BIOS. > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:SJIl9.46238$[email hidden]... > > > > Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) > > > > > > > > How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock > setting > > ? > > > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > > > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an

Athlon

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > > > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > > > > > > > 3dmark2001se > > > > > 10349 > > > > > > > > > > Sandra: > > > > > > > > > > arithmetic: > > > > > dhry 4979 > > > > > whet 2503 > > > > > > > > > > multimedia: > > > > > int: 9903 > > > > > fp: 11488 > > > > > > > > > > memory: > > > > > int: 1919 > > > > > fp: 1816 > > > > > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in > message > > > > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP > 1800+. > > > The > > > > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty > > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800

itself.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> a > > > VIA > > > > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect > > good > > > > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a > > 1800+ > > > is > > > > > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in > your > > > > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very

similar

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Larry wrote: > > Hehe. Not at all :) > > It's a shame I don't believe in overclocking. I could probably make this > thing a lot faster... It exists, believe me.

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:34:13 -0000, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote something like this: >I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting with the >very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systems we >get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and >sims maxxed. So why overclock. Cause it's fun :) -- - Igor -

I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting with the very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systems we get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and sims maxxed. So why overclock. I btw decided to purchase Athlons a few years ago not only because they are much cheaper and were faster at the time, but also because I felt and still feel that it's important to have a second player in the market. And the advent of AMD to the market has shown that it is beneficial for us all if there's a bit of competition going on. I'm currently watching the new DDR333 based Athlons (2800 or Barton), together with an Nvidia chipset with its fast dual channel memory access, but I'm in no hurry - what a nice situation, for a change - and this clearly comes from the competition between AMD and Intel. If Intel still owned the market alone, we'd still be starving for more power all the time. But the competition has pushed both Intel and AMD ahead of the software industry - finally! That's why I'll buy strategically in the future as well. I may even buy an ATI next year <g> Achim "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kN7m9.63074$[email hidden]... > Hehe. Not at all :) > > It's a shame I don't believe in overclocking. I could probably make this > thing a lot faster...

Jussi 'Igor' Koukku wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:34:13 -0000, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> > wrote something like this: > > >I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting with the > >very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systems we > >get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and > >sims maxxed. So why overclock. > > Cause it's fun :)

And geeky. ;)

It used to be fun when I really gained something, but now, all I can see is a difference in the fps counter, but I don't have any advantage in the gameplay. That's suspended the fun for me. Might come back one day, who knows :) Achim "Jussi 'Igor' Koukku" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > >...So why overclock. > > Cause it's fun :)

Joachim Trensz wrote: > > I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting with the > very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systems we > get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and > sims maxxed. So why overclock. Because "We need more power !!!" to quote a famous TV show host, anyone seen Heidi the tool girl lately ? Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ "A man is only as old as the woman he feels" --Groucho Marx--

I agree. AMD is solely responsible for my being able to buy a P4 2.53 Retail Processor for $260. -Larry "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:anbpld$crg53$[email hidden]... > I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting withthe > very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systemswe > get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and > sims maxxed. So why overclock. > > I btw decided to purchase Athlons a few years ago not only because theyare > much cheaper and were faster at the time, but also because I felt andstill

Quoted text (7 lines)

> feel that it's important to have a second player in the market. And the > advent of AMD to the market has shown that it is beneficial for us all if > there's a bit of competition going on. > > I'm currently watching the new DDR333 based Athlons (2800 or Barton), > together with an Nvidia chipset with its fast dual channel memory access, > but I'm in no hurry - what a nice situation, for a change - and this

clearly > comes from the competition between AMD and Intel. If Intel still owned the > market alone, we'd still be starving for more power all the time. But the > competition has pushed both Intel and AMD ahead of the software industry - > finally! That's why I'll buy strategically in the future as well. I mayeven

Quoted text (11 lines)

> buy an ATI next year <g> > > Achim > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:kN7m9.63074$[email hidden]... > > Hehe. Not at all :) > > > > It's a shame I don't believe in overclocking. I could probably make

this > > thing a lot faster... > >

There is no way an 11% improvement in your rendering pipe equates to 30 fps increase. LOL Also the fps meter in papy games is flawed. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:anah8j$bsp8t$[email hidden]... > Ah ok, I was a little worried I'd stepped on your toes, which hadn't beenmy

Quoted text (14 lines)

> intention :) > > Achim > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8Z1m9.60070$[email hidden]... > > Um, I was just having fun Achim :) > > > > -Larry > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:an7s26$bbuta$[email hidden]... > > > You didn't beat me, your system is moderately faster than mine - quite

a

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > > different thing :) > > > > > > But the purpose of me uploading this wasn't to make your system look > like > > > bad bang for the buck or something. I only uploaded this to offer a > > > comparison since Doug had mentioned such a system. I refrained on > purpose > > > from making any appraising comments. > > > > > > Although now that you bring it up, my motherboard is one of the first > A7M > > > 266's - modern Socket A 333 mobos are quite a bit faster. Maybe your > > > system... naw, I'm not going to say it :) > > > > > > My system is not overclocked, btw, but I did optimize the BIOS. > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:SJIl9.46238$[email hidden]... > > > > Wow, I beat you with a Ti4400 :) > > > > > > > > How is your system configured? Is everything at the bone-stock > setting > > ? > > > > > > > > -Larry > > > > > > > > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > > news:an77ij$bnp02$[email hidden]... > > > > > For what it's worth, here for a comparison, the results of an

Athlon

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > > > > 2200/GF4-4600: > > > > > > > > > > 3dmark2001se > > > > > 10349 > > > > > > > > > > Sandra: > > > > > > > > > > arithmetic: > > > > > dhry 4979 > > > > > whet 2503 > > > > > > > > > > multimedia: > > > > > int: 9903 > > > > > fp: 11488 > > > > > > > > > > memory: > > > > > int: 1919 > > > > > fp: 1816 > > > > > > > > > > Achim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Doug Ellison" <[email hidden]> wrote in > message > > > > > news:0BAl9.11326$J47.968272@stones... > > > > > > > > > > > > > It also shows that the Ti4400 was hampered by the AthlonXP > 1800+. > > > The > > > > > > > fairly substantial increase in frame rate shows this pretty > > clearly. > > > > > > > > > > > > The 760 chipset was probably as much to blame as the 1800

itself.

Quoted text (14 lines)

> a > > > VIA > > > > > > KT333 chipset. > > > > > > > > > > > > However - to go from a �53 CPU to a �184 CPU - one should expect > > good > > > > > > improvements - especially when the extra 1Ghz of power ( iirc a > > 1800+ > > > is > > > > > > 1.53G ) > > > > > > > > > > > > Why didnt you go with an Athlon 2200 which would have worked in > your > > > > > > motherboard? Would have been a cheaper upgrade with very

similar

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > > > > > performance come the end of it > > > > > > > > > > > > Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:34:13 -0000, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I used to moderately overclock my systems for many years, starting with the >very first Pentium, but I feel it's become unnecessary. With our systems we >get excellent fps with all quality and detail settings in both drivers and >sims maxxed. So why overclock. ><snip> but there could be a few more fps at the monaco grid with a full pack when overclocking ... <grin> My carrier so far: 486 33@33 "what is overclocking?" P1 90@120 P1 200@200 my board didn't go further Cel 300a@450 what a deal. This thingie worked for me for a looooooong time at no probs Cel 600@909 Quite good choice, unluckily was stolen together with the rest of my household XP 1600+ 1400@1450 ITM my GF2 seems to be the bottleneck, so I didn't push further, until.... I fried the CPU when trying a new theory on thermal paste. Returned the one, told them overheated, and.... got a new one <g> XP1600+ 1400@1400 This thing doesn't go faster, because <see above> My resume: Overclocking is fun :-) JensSchumi --------------------------------------------- LWFF Ball Bearing conversion at: http://jensschumi.bravepages.com/ GPLRank: -14.82 Monsters of GPL: sub 95