Curse

Snograt · Mar 18, 2008, 02:45 AM // 02:45

*cough*

Meanwhile, etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

What a load of crap. Update the scores!

So your RAM score is 5.2, what is your computer score?

5.2 is my lowest score, so 5.2 is my computer score :/

Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU @ 2.66GHz 5.8
Memory (RAM) 8.00 GB 5.2
Graphics NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX 5.9
Gaming graphics 2812 MB Total available graphics memory 5.9
Primary hard disk 315GB Free (463GB Total) 5.6

The HDDs are Western Digital 500GB jobbies - 2 of em, not RAIDed. 5.6 ain't too bad for them. Expected 5.9 for the 2 SLI'd GTXs.

Admael · Mar 18, 2008, 03:12 AM // 03:12

I'm sorry to inform you that you can get a lot more out of your system than that! There must be something wrong, your processor, its the Q6700 Kentsfield right? It should hit 5.9+ easily. I have an old Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz that hit 5.9 running on stock.

Your RAM, take two DIMMs out and update your scores. Make sure the remaining two DIMMs are in matching color bays.

The a single 8800 GTX can hit 5.9, so glad you're having no problems there.
The maximum a 7200.XX RPM hard drive can hit without extra redundancy support is 5.7, so no problems there.

Evil Genius · Mar 18, 2008, 09:06 AM // 09:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Admael

Any combination (4x1GB or 2x2GB) will yield 5.9

I don't think so. The score is more dependent on RAM quality than quantity. By quality I mean "Data Transfers per Second" (800, 1066 etc), "Peak Bandwidth" (6400, 8500 etc) and "Latency" (eg 4-4-4-12).

No way 4GB of no brand RAM will get you 5.9

In reference to Snograt's system scores, I wouldn't be too concerned about the RAM only scoring 5.2. Windows Experience isn't exactly the best benchmark for real ingame performance. With 8BG of Ballistix Tracer RAM, you will be fine with anything. The Q6700 score is only .1 off maximum - no real reason for concern. Tom's Hardware says the QX6700 should have a score of 5.9, perhaps difference is the extreme/non-extreme versions?

Btw, my scores are:
Processor (Intel E4300 @2.4 Ghz) ... 5.3
RAM (2GB Kingston HyperX @1066MHz 5-5-5-15) ... 5.7
Graphics (XFX 7950GX2 XXX) ... 5.9
Gaming graphics .....................5.8
Hard disk (Western digital at 7200RPM)........ 5.4

The Way Out · Mar 18, 2008, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Genius

I don't think so. The score is more dependent on RAM quality than quantity. By quality I mean "Data Transfers per Second" (800, 1066 etc), "Peak Bandwidth" (6400, 8500 etc) and "Latency" (eg 4-4-4-12).

No way 4GB of no brand RAM will get you 5.9

In reference to Snograt's system scores, I wouldn't be too concerned about the RAM only scoring 5.2. Windows Experience isn't exactly the best benchmark for real ingame performance. With 8BG of Ballistix Tracer RAM, you will be fine with anything. The Q6700 score is only .1 off maximum - no real reason for concern. Tom's Hardware says the QX6700 should have a score of 5.9, perhaps difference is the extreme/non-extreme versions?

Btw, my scores are:
Processor (Intel E4300 @2.4 Ghz) ... 5.3
RAM (2GB Kingston HyperX @1066MHz 5-5-5-15) ... 5.7
Graphics (XFX 7950GX2 XXX) ... 5.9
Gaming graphics .....................5.8
Hard disk (Western digital at 7200RPM)........ 5.4

I have gotten mixed results when it comes to Vista scoring memory. I run OCZ at home and get 5.9

At work, I picked up some Kingston Value RAM and got the same... go figure.

Snograt · Mar 18, 2008, 06:51 PM // 18:51

Hum, it's nice all the input I'm getting from you knowledgable types - thanks a lot!

Now I've got the 8 Gig, I'm wary about messing about with swapping sticks - damn system cost me £3200 and I don't want to bust it

Can you guys recommend some investigative software that would pinpoint any problems? I seem to recall Memtest (?) being bandied around. Think I've got a 3DMark knocking around in windows.old somewhere too...

[EDIT] - whoa - hold everything! I also had a copy of CPU-Z, and that reports that, yes, I'm running a QX6700 Kentsfield, BUT it reports that my 8GB of brand new RAM is running at 400Mhz. What in frog's name do I do about that?

Brain hurts now

Pasha the Mighty · Mar 18, 2008, 07:14 PM // 19:14

Change the speed in the BIOS. But don't do it untill you've read you're motherboard's manual, and if it's the first time, maybe read a guide or something on the internet

Brianna · Mar 18, 2008, 07:25 PM // 19:25

Mine says ''DRam Frequency 332.5Mhz'' and then just on ''Frequency'' it says; 200Hmz, 266Mhz, 333Mhz'' and on ''Max Bandwidth'' it says PC2-5300(333Mhz).

Bad? I can boost that way up right? Cause If I can then I'm going to.

Snograt · Mar 18, 2008, 08:02 PM // 20:02

The BIOS reports that it is 800MHz

Pasha the Mighty · Mar 18, 2008, 08:09 PM // 20:09

maybe cpu-z is wrong. would it be listed in dxdiag? just try it and make sure

Admael · Mar 18, 2008, 09:20 PM // 21:20

400MHz for your RAM sounds good to me. If you're running PC2-6400, that's the speed RAM runs at stock. (without overclocking)

I could only *IMAGINE* how much you paid for a QX6700 Kentsfield, but WEI score... definitely a huge letdown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianna

Mine says ''DRam Frequency 332.5Mhz'' and then just on ''Frequency'' it says; 200Hmz, 266Mhz, 333Mhz'' and on ''Max Bandwidth'' it says PC2-5300(333Mhz).

Bad? I can boost that way up right? Cause If I can then I'm going to.

That's not bad, the max a PC2-5300 can run at is 333MHz, so either overclock it, or get a new board+memory

EDIT: I decided to explain the confusion early instead of walking this in circles, cuz I know we will. DDR stands for double data rate, there are DRAM dividers, so you only see your RAM running at half the speed. DDR2 667->333, 800->400, 1066->533. This is true with AMD's HT BUS and Intel's FSB/QDR as well.

EDIT2: You're right, kinda forget, I haven't bought "cheap" computer parts in awhile... I know better! I just loosen the timings of my memory to 5-5-5-12, 5.7 blarg

QX9650 Yorksfield @ 4GHz, 450x9: 5.9
2GB mushkin 1066, 4-4-4-12: 5.9
Nvidia 8800 GTS 512 in SLI: 5.9
2303MB GFX Memory: 5.9
Raptor X, 10k RPM: 5.9

zamial · Mar 18, 2008, 10:58 PM // 22:58

I have also upgraded to vista 64 recently. I love the new os. I score a flat 5.9 in vista and a 16k+ in 3dmark06. people complain about vista's memory foot print but with 8gigs of ram I don't seem to ever run into issues other than the memory controller on my mobo not being happy with me but thats a dif story. I have found that I like my overall computer experience more (with games included). I do not play games older than gw currently and am more excited about the ones coming out, than older games.

From what i can tell:
Some people hate change but there are others that hate stagnation more, I am in the latter of the 2.

Snograt · Mar 18, 2008, 11:51 PM // 23:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamial

I have also upgraded to vista 64 recently. I love the new os. I score a flat 5.9 in vista and a 16k+ in 3dmark06. people complain about vista's memory foot print but with 8gigs of ram I don't seem to ever run into issues other than the memory controller on my mobo not being happy with me but thats a dif story. I have found that I like my overall computer experience more (with games included). I do not play games older than gw currently and am more excited about the ones coming out, than older games.

From what i can tell:
Some people hate change but there are others that hate stagnation more, I am in the latter of the 2.

QFT and agreement.

Think I will run a 3Dmark06 benchmark - if I can get the damn thing to work! It's one of several things in windows.old that isn't happy being there (obviously). I may d/l the free version, but it's annoying after paying for the damn thing.

Admael · Mar 19, 2008, 12:58 AM // 00:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

QFT and agreement.

Think I will run a 3Dmark06 benchmark - if I can get the damn thing to work! It's one of several things in windows.old that isn't happy being there (obviously). I may d/l the free version, but it's annoying after paying for the damn thing.

What's the error message you're getting? If it's something about OpenAL, just uninstall OpenAL and reinstall real quickly-- I get the problem almost every time I install Vista x64 (you may or may not have already guessed it, but I am a systems builder/technology enthusiast)

The QX6700 costs twice as much as the Q6700, but they're the same processor. The QX6700 has an unlocked multiplier, so you have more options when overclocking. Bottom line: You paid for the unlocked multiplier, it'd be a waste not to use it

Snograt · Mar 19, 2008, 02:10 AM // 02:10

I'm at work now, so I can't check, but basically it was a missing .dll - I'm assuming I installed 3Dmark under XP, then upgraded to Vista, THEN upupgraded to 64bit

Poor old Vista hasn't got a clue what's in windows.old (and, er, windows.old.000) - my copy of office was in .old but quite happily re-installed in the new system, passed original software checks and downloaded several gigs of updatery. Heh.

Sorry, I tend to ramble when I'm "working"

[edit]Lucky I keep old emails for too long - found my old 3DMark keys

9335 3DMarks

Added a lengthy dxdiag output saved as a .doc file, as there's a weird 19kb limit for .txt files.

DxDiag.doc

Admael · Mar 19, 2008, 09:11 AM // 09:11

Is that 3DMarks06? If so, I know you can do a hell of a lot better than 9.3k marks.

Snograt · Mar 19, 2008, 10:05 AM // 10:05

Yup, 3DMark 06. Wonder what the hell's up with my system :/

Admael · Mar 19, 2008, 10:42 AM // 10:42

It's probably because your system is running at stock, once you tighten the timings of your RAM you should do a lot better.

Let's talk about memory timings, they're displayed (in it's simplest form) as CAS/tRCD/tRPD/tRAS.

CAS controls the amount of time, measured in "cycles", between receiving a command and acting on that command.
tRCD is the RAS to CAS delay. tRCD is the cycle time between the first stage in memory access, the row strobe, and the second stage.
tRPD is the amount of time it takes for memory to terminate the access in one row and begin another.
tRAS is the time between receiving a request for data electronically on the pins of a memory module and then initiating RAS to start the actual retrieval of data.

You mentioned you had OCZ 4x2GB, iirc, you can tighten them to 5-4-4-15

Snograt · Mar 19, 2008, 09:43 PM // 21:43

I have Ballistix Tracer. Going to flash the BIOS - the current one for my nForce 680i is from 2006. Hate BIOS flashing, but needs must...

Admael · Mar 19, 2008, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snograt

I have Ballistix Tracer. Going to flash the BIOS - the current one for my nForce 680i is from 2006. Hate BIOS flashing, but needs must...

You can go 4-4-4-12 with Ballistix Tracer. I hate flashing the BIOS as well, I've only done it a few times with ASUS boards.

Snograt · Mar 19, 2008, 10:35 PM // 22:35

Ok, flashed the BIOS with no problems (nVidia's tweaking software is pretty damn good).

My memory IS set at 4-4-4-12.

Some extra, and maybe irrelevant information...

RRD 3
RC 24
WR 5
WTR 8
REF 7.8µs

Freq. 1866.7MHz
7x multiplier

FSB Memory Clock Mode - Unlinked
FSB (QDR) 1066.7MHz

As a point of interest, when my system was delivered, only one core was enabled - had to enable cores 1 to 3 via the BIOS myself!

[edit]By the way - $20 for a BIOS update? What's that all about? Grrr...