I ran SuperPI w/ 1,000,000 decimal point(s) while RightMark sat to the side.
CPU Core Speed never dropped below 3199.97 & went as high as 3200.05. In
addition, it ran the SuperPI calculations in 31.328 secs.
To me it appears that the proc is running as it should ... think if I
completely turned off CoolNQuiet it would do better?
Sniper
..
--
__________________________________________________ _____
There is no right or wrong, just the consequences of your actions ...
Sniper wrote:
> I ran SuperPI w/ 1,000,000 decimal point(s) while RightMark sat to the side.
> CPU Core Speed never dropped below 3199.97 & went as high as 3200.05. In
> addition, it ran the SuperPI calculations in 31.328 secs.
>
> To me it appears that the proc is running as it should ... think if I
> completely turned off CoolNQuiet it would do better?
>
> Sniper
>
I found some results on hwbot. 31.3 is still a bit slow.
The guy with 26.44 is using DDDR2-800 5-5-5-18 2T dual channel (as
seen in his CPUZ). And so is the guy with the 28.2 second timing.
Weird. Maybe one of them has antivirus software running in
the background.
Is the memory properly installed for dual channel ?
(Usually, the slots to use are a matched color, for your matched sticks
of memory.)
Something else you can try as an experiment, is to set affinity
for just one core, for SuperPI before it runs.
1) Start SuperPI, so you see its initial window.
2) Press control-alt-delete, to start Task Manager
3) Find the SuperPI program in the list of running processes.
4) Right click, and select "Set affinity" using the item at the
bottom of the list.
5) Your setup should show "CPU0" and "CPU1" with a tick in
each of the boxes. Remove the tick from next to CPU0.
What that means, is for the rest of this test run,
SuperPI will run on CPU1.
6) Start the 1 million digit calculation and get a time.
If the time is faster, that says the movement of SuperPI
from CPU0 to CPU1 and back again (OS scheduler does that),
caused some performance loss. And sometimes it is an
interaction with Cool N' Quiet.
I did a number of runs with affinity not set, and with
affinity set so the process stayed on CPU1, and on
average it made no difference.
The power management on my motherboard is busted (BIOS
design decision) so my machine runs at top speed all
the time. There may be a setting in the BIOS to disable
CNQ, or you can use the Power control panel in WinXP
and change the power scheme to one that would prevent
CNQ from cranking it down.
Using RMClock, maybe you've already done enough experiments
to see how Cool N' Quiet works ? (I.e. RMClock graph lines
change when system is idle.)
Oh, another thing you can check. Bring up Device Manager,
and click the (+) next to "Computer". The value of the
text string underneath should be "ACPI Multiprocessor PC".
If it is something different, post back. If it says
"Uniprocessor", you could be running on one core.
I just re-did it w/ a fresh reboot and nothing else open and scored a 28.297
secs.
..
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ghg5e4$shp$1@aioe.org...
> Sniper wrote:
>> I ran SuperPI w/ 1,000,000 decimal point(s) while RightMark sat to the
>> side. CPU Core Speed never dropped below 3199.97 & went as high as
>> 3200.05. In addition, it ran the SuperPI calculations in 31.328 secs.
>>
>> To me it appears that the proc is running as it should ... think if I
>> completely turned off CoolNQuiet it would do better?
>>
>> Sniper
>>
>
> I found some results on hwbot. 31.3 is still a bit slow.
>
> http://www.hwbot.org/listResults.do?...true&limit=100
>
> 26. SuperPi - 26.44 sec - Johny (warforum.cz) - (Athlon 64 6400+ X2 @
> 3209mhz)
> 27. SuperPi - 27.16 sec - LifeTimeKid (LifeTimeClan) - (2x Athlon 64 6400+
> X2 @ 3215mhz on air)
> 28. SuperPi - 27.3 sec - THRASHER2 (PC Apex) - (Athlon 64 6400+ X2 @
> 3207mhz on air)
> 29. SuperPi - 27.73 sec - f3rr1s (PC Games Hardware) - (Athlon 64 6400+ X2
> @ 3216mhz on air)
> 30. SuperPi - 28.12 sec - jonny13 (Freeocen.de) - (Athlon 64 6400+ X2 @
> 3200mhz on air)
> 31. SuperPi - 28.2 sec - iman_22a (ShahrSakhtafzar Iran ) - (Athlon 64
> 6400+ X2 @ 3216mhz)
>
> The guy with 26.44 is using DDDR2-800 5-5-5-18 2T dual channel (as
> seen in his CPUZ). And so is the guy with the 28.2 second timing.
> Weird. Maybe one of them has antivirus software running in
> the background.
>
> Is the memory properly installed for dual channel ?
> (Usually, the slots to use are a matched color, for your matched sticks
> of memory.)
>
> Something else you can try as an experiment, is to set affinity
> for just one core, for SuperPI before it runs.
>
> 1) Start SuperPI, so you see its initial window.
> 2) Press control-alt-delete, to start Task Manager
> 3) Find the SuperPI program in the list of running processes.
> 4) Right click, and select "Set affinity" using the item at the
> bottom of the list.
> 5) Your setup should show "CPU0" and "CPU1" with a tick in
> each of the boxes. Remove the tick from next to CPU0.
> What that means, is for the rest of this test run,
> SuperPI will run on CPU1.
> 6) Start the 1 million digit calculation and get a time.
>
> If the time is faster, that says the movement of SuperPI
> from CPU0 to CPU1 and back again (OS scheduler does that),
> caused some performance loss. And sometimes it is an
> interaction with Cool N' Quiet.
>
> I did a number of runs with affinity not set, and with
> affinity set so the process stayed on CPU1, and on
> average it made no difference.
>
> The power management on my motherboard is busted (BIOS
> design decision) so my machine runs at top speed all
> the time. There may be a setting in the BIOS to disable
> CNQ, or you can use the Power control panel in WinXP
> and change the power scheme to one that would prevent
> CNQ from cranking it down.
>
> Using RMClock, maybe you've already done enough experiments
> to see how Cool N' Quiet works ? (I.e. RMClock graph lines
> change when system is idle.)
>
> Oh, another thing you can check. Bring up Device Manager,
> and click the (+) next to "Computer". The value of the
> text string underneath should be "ACPI Multiprocessor PC".
> If it is something different, post back. If it says
> "Uniprocessor", you could be running on one core.
>
> Paul
Then, in your mind, what the heck might make this thing seem so ****
sluggish when multitasking? & I mean simple multi ...having up 2 instances
of IE and, like, Limewire and this thing (PC) seems to slow to a crawl ...
or replace Limewrire w/ iTunes etc.
Ugh, the frustration.
..
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ghh0ms$5jj$2@aioe.org...
> Sniper wrote:
>> I just re-did it w/ a fresh reboot and nothing else open and scored a
>> 28.297 secs.
>>
>
> From what I can see from here, looks good.
>
> Paul
Sniper wrote:
> Then, in your mind, what the heck might make this thing seem so ****
> sluggish when multitasking? & I mean simple multi ...having up 2 instances
> of IE and, like, Limewire and this thing (PC) seems to slow to a crawl ...
> or replace Limewrire w/ iTunes etc.
>
> Ugh, the frustration.
>
Ever tried Process Explorer ? Download and unzip. Run the EXE.
(The program doesn't need to be installed, it runs from where
it was unzipped.) Press <control> I to bring up the performance
display. Then, fire up your two instances of IE and Limewire/iTunes,
and see if something other than those processes is using cycles.
I assume you had a look at this tuneup thread. Not everything
there is absolutely necessary. At the very least, you
should install the CPU driver from AMD.
You can get the CPU driver here, if you haven't already
installed it. It is the second item from the bottom,
"AMD Processor Driver Version 1.3.2.0053 for Windows XP".
Check your Add/Remove and see if you already got it.
I have run into these complaints before, but usually the
poster manages to fix it themselves, leaving me in the
dark. So I don't really know what step fixed it for
them.
Well, if you do not mind, I have no problem keeping you up to date on here
as to what, if any, gains I am making ...
..
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:ghh625$sn9$1@aioe.org...
> Sniper wrote:
>> Then, in your mind, what the heck might make this thing seem so ****
>> sluggish when multitasking? & I mean simple multi ...having up 2
>> instances of IE and, like, Limewire and this thing (PC) seems to slow to
>> a crawl ... or replace Limewrire w/ iTunes etc.
>>
>> Ugh, the frustration.
>>
>
> Ever tried Process Explorer ? Download and unzip. Run the EXE.
> (The program doesn't need to be installed, it runs from where
> it was unzipped.) Press <control> I to bring up the performance
> display. Then, fire up your two instances of IE and Limewire/iTunes,
> and see if something other than those processes is using cycles.
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb896653.aspx
>
> I assume you had a look at this tuneup thread. Not everything
> there is absolutely necessary. At the very least, you
> should install the CPU driver from AMD.
>
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=60416
>
> You can get the CPU driver here, if you haven't already
> installed it. It is the second item from the bottom,
> "AMD Processor Driver Version 1.3.2.0053 for Windows XP".
> Check your Add/Remove and see if you already got it.
>
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13118,00.html
>
> I have run into these complaints before, but usually the
> poster manages to fix it themselves, leaving me in the
> dark. So I don't really know what step fixed it for
> them.
>
> Paul
Well, I done fingered it out! **** "Roxio Media Creator EIGHT" had a prog
that would start running in the background only a few minutes after I would
boot my computer and take up nearly 100% of 1 of my cores & another nearly
40% of the other while PC idled. W/ direction to progs like AMD Power
Monitor & Microsoft's Processs Explorer from you, Paul, I could clearly see
what was going on. One quick Google search & I had everything throttled
back down & all is well w/ my PC ...I've been watching it for the past 7
hours & everything remains content, as do I.
I cannot thank you enough Mr. "Paul" ... I cannot thank you enough ... your
knowledge & links to invaluable programs was key to my getting a grip on the
situation.
Sniper wrote:
> Well, I done fingered it out! **** "Roxio Media Creator EIGHT" had a prog
> that would start running in the background only a few minutes after I would
> boot my computer and take up nearly 100% of 1 of my cores & another nearly
> 40% of the other while PC idled. W/ direction to progs like AMD Power
> Monitor & Microsoft's Processs Explorer from you, Paul, I could clearly see
> what was going on. One quick Google search & I had everything throttled
> back down & all is well w/ my PC ...I've been watching it for the past 7
> hours & everything remains content, as do I.
>
> I cannot thank you enough Mr. "Paul" ... I cannot thank you enough ... your
> knowledge & links to invaluable programs was key to my getting a grip on the
> situation.
>
> Take care & Happy Holidays ...,
>
> Sniper (Jason)
> NY (No, not the city)
>
Given a big enough mallet, we can fix anything :-)
ATTN: "Paul" ... 
Linear Mode
