If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
upgrading an old pc?
Hi
I have question of the possible upgrade within my old mobo and cpu. I use the pc for photography (Photoshop, RAW conversion) not gaming. Would I benefit more from getting more memory or changing to AMD Athlon XP 3000 ? And how much improvement should I expect? My pc: Processor Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+ Speed : 1.67GHz Mainboard : ASUSTeK Computer INC. A7N8X Total Memory : 1GB DDR Chipset Model : ASUS nForce2 AGP Controller Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Total Memory : 1GB DDR Memory Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Memory Module 1 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC3200U DDR-200 Standard Timings : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 200MHz : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 167MHz : 2.5-3-3-7 2-9-0-0 Memory Module 2 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC2100U DDR-133 Standard Timings : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 133MHz : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 100MHz : 2.0-2-2-5 2-0-0-0 Video System Adapter : NVIDIA GeForce 6200 (256MB DDR3, AGP 3.00, PS 3.0, VS 3.0) tia peter |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
upgrading an old pc?
peter wrote:
Hi I have question of the possible upgrade within my old mobo and cpu. I use the pc for photography (Photoshop, RAW conversion) not gaming. Would I benefit more from getting more memory or changing to AMD Athlon XP 3000 ? And how much improvement should I expect? My pc: Processor Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+ Speed : 1.67GHz Mainboard : ASUSTeK Computer INC. A7N8X Total Memory : 1GB DDR Chipset Model : ASUS nForce2 AGP Controller Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Total Memory : 1GB DDR Memory Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Memory Module 1 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC3200U DDR-200 Standard Timings : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 200MHz : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 167MHz : 2.5-3-3-7 2-9-0-0 Memory Module 2 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC2100U DDR-133 Standard Timings : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 133MHz : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 100MHz : 2.0-2-2-5 2-0-0-0 Video System Adapter : NVIDIA GeForce 6200 (256MB DDR3, AGP 3.00, PS 3.0, VS 3.0) tia peter From a processing core perspective, you'd expect a 3000+ to be 50% faster than a 2000+ (if you believe the AMD P.R. rating). The 3000+ has twice the cache, but the core clock runs at 2100 or 2167, depending on which 3000+ we're talking about. So the core clock is going to be 2100/1667 = 1.26, and the rest of the improvement is presumably due to doubled cache and higher FSB. Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W Barton 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W An old rule of thumb for Photoshop, was that if the undo buffer was set to 1 buffer, then Photoshop needed 5x as much memory as the size of the image being processed. Plus a chunk for the OS as well. 1GB might give you room for say a 150MB image. If you routinely exceed that image size, in processing, then you're hitting the scratch disk. The memory bandwidth might be, say 900MB/sec, while a hard drive might be 60MB/sec. So hitting the scratch disk is a big penalty. If you worked on a 300MB image, the disk light might be coming on a lot. You can judge that for yourself, and test various sized images, to see if your version of Photoshop follows those rules or not. If you have your "undo" setting higher than 1, then the multiplier would be larger than 5X. You can comfortably double the memory to 2GB. The chipset doesn't work properly, for any memory quantity over 2GB. So you can forget about 3x1GB as a configuration. Your best config would be 2x1GB, leaving the third slot empty. That gives dual channel operation. (Even if you try 2x1GB plus 512MB, I'm told it doesn't work. Even 2x1GB plus 256MB doesn't work. I have personally tested 3x512MB, and three sticks do run stable. So the issue seems to be total memory quantity, rather than number of sticks as such.) The modules should not come from Ebay, as the DDR modules there use x4 chips. The 1GB modules you'd purchase, should use (16) 64Mx8 chips, which usually takes the form of branded RAM (Crucial, Kingston, OCZ, Corsair, Samsung, Micron). Ebay has unbranded modules with Samsung chips (and the chip name is not to be confused with Samsung making the whole module - there is no brand name on the Ebay module itself). The Ebay modules may be cheaper than others, but they're not recommended from a resale perspective (if you want to sell them, or give them to a friend later). For example, this kit would make a nice 2x1GB solution. Always read the reviews, before buying any memory... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227210 1) The memory upgrade helps, if you're hitting the scratch disk a lot. But the best you can do, is double the memory. If the images are so big, that you're still hitting the scratch disk, even after moving to 2GB memory, then a memory upgrade might not be a big improvement. 2) Say the processing speed was somewhere between 26% and 50% faster, with a new processor. Some of the time is spend processing, and some of the time is spent sloshing files back and forth to disk (or memory). The sloshing part could currently be dominating what is going on. Perhaps you can judge for yourself, based on your own experiments, what to expect. You could, for example, slightly overclock the processor, and measure the improvement in batch processing time. And maybe that would give an idea how much improvement processing alone makes. You could use a small overclock, so the machine doesn't get too annoyed with you (like 5%). (Change CPU clock from 133 to 140MHz. I hope you're familiar with how to program memory timings, because to do the testing properly, you want to try to preserve the memory settings if you can. And that means doing some manual programming, copying the currently used timing values seen in Windows, down into the BIOS screens.) If overclocking or fiddling with memory timings or clock, always test with memtest86+ first. Don't immediately boot into Windows. I use a Linux LiveCD for further testing, after a couple passes of memtest, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. The Linux LiveCD is nice, because you don't need any hard drive connected in order to use it. Thus your hard drive doesn't get corrupted, while doing initial overclocking testing. Either Knoppix or Ubuntu would do, and they're a 700MB download, plus burning the ISO9660 to a CD. Another alternative might be to slow the CPU clock down by 5%, and do your percentage improvement testing that way. Maybe that would be less risky and less fiddling to do. The purpose of trying 5%, is to estimate how much difference that 26% or 50% number might make. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
upgrading an old pc?
Paul,
Generally speaking, will a 5% underclocking always create a more stable environment? al "Paul" wrote in message ... peter wrote: Hi I have question of the possible upgrade within my old mobo and cpu. I use the pc for photography (Photoshop, RAW conversion) not gaming. Would I benefit more from getting more memory or changing to AMD Athlon XP 3000 ? And how much improvement should I expect? My pc: Processor Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2000+ Speed : 1.67GHz Mainboard : ASUSTeK Computer INC. A7N8X Total Memory : 1GB DDR Chipset Model : ASUS nForce2 AGP Controller Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Total Memory : 1GB DDR Memory Bus Speed : 2x 134MHz (268MHz) Memory Module 1 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC3200U DDR-200 Standard Timings : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 200MHz : 3.0-3-3-8 2-11-0-0 Set Timing @ 167MHz : 2.5-3-3-7 2-9-0-0 Memory Module 2 Type : 512MB DDR Speed : PC2100U DDR-133 Standard Timings : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 133MHz : 2.5-3-3-6 2-0-0-0 Set Timing @ 100MHz : 2.0-2-2-5 2-0-0-0 Video System Adapter : NVIDIA GeForce 6200 (256MB DDR3, AGP 3.00, PS 3.0, VS 3.0) tia peter From a processing core perspective, you'd expect a 3000+ to be 50% faster than a 2000+ (if you believe the AMD P.R. rating). The 3000+ has twice the cache, but the core clock runs at 2100 or 2167, depending on which 3000+ we're talking about. So the core clock is going to be 2100/1667 = 1.26, and the rest of the improvement is presumably due to doubled cache and higher FSB. Barton 2100 (3000+) OPGA 200 512 10.5x 1.65V 85oC 53.7W Barton 2167 (3000+) OPGA 166 512 13x 1.65V 85oC 58.4W An old rule of thumb for Photoshop, was that if the undo buffer was set to 1 buffer, then Photoshop needed 5x as much memory as the size of the image being processed. Plus a chunk for the OS as well. 1GB might give you room for say a 150MB image. If you routinely exceed that image size, in processing, then you're hitting the scratch disk. The memory bandwidth might be, say 900MB/sec, while a hard drive might be 60MB/sec. So hitting the scratch disk is a big penalty. If you worked on a 300MB image, the disk light might be coming on a lot. You can judge that for yourself, and test various sized images, to see if your version of Photoshop follows those rules or not. If you have your "undo" setting higher than 1, then the multiplier would be larger than 5X. You can comfortably double the memory to 2GB. The chipset doesn't work properly, for any memory quantity over 2GB. So you can forget about 3x1GB as a configuration. Your best config would be 2x1GB, leaving the third slot empty. That gives dual channel operation. (Even if you try 2x1GB plus 512MB, I'm told it doesn't work. Even 2x1GB plus 256MB doesn't work. I have personally tested 3x512MB, and three sticks do run stable. So the issue seems to be total memory quantity, rather than number of sticks as such.) The modules should not come from Ebay, as the DDR modules there use x4 chips. The 1GB modules you'd purchase, should use (16) 64Mx8 chips, which usually takes the form of branded RAM (Crucial, Kingston, OCZ, Corsair, Samsung, Micron). Ebay has unbranded modules with Samsung chips (and the chip name is not to be confused with Samsung making the whole module - there is no brand name on the Ebay module itself). The Ebay modules may be cheaper than others, but they're not recommended from a resale perspective (if you want to sell them, or give them to a friend later). For example, this kit would make a nice 2x1GB solution. Always read the reviews, before buying any memory... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16820227210 1) The memory upgrade helps, if you're hitting the scratch disk a lot. But the best you can do, is double the memory. If the images are so big, that you're still hitting the scratch disk, even after moving to 2GB memory, then a memory upgrade might not be a big improvement. 2) Say the processing speed was somewhere between 26% and 50% faster, with a new processor. Some of the time is spend processing, and some of the time is spent sloshing files back and forth to disk (or memory). The sloshing part could currently be dominating what is going on. Perhaps you can judge for yourself, based on your own experiments, what to expect. You could, for example, slightly overclock the processor, and measure the improvement in batch processing time. And maybe that would give an idea how much improvement processing alone makes. You could use a small overclock, so the machine doesn't get too annoyed with you (like 5%). (Change CPU clock from 133 to 140MHz. I hope you're familiar with how to program memory timings, because to do the testing properly, you want to try to preserve the memory settings if you can. And that means doing some manual programming, copying the currently used timing values seen in Windows, down into the BIOS screens.) If overclocking or fiddling with memory timings or clock, always test with memtest86+ first. Don't immediately boot into Windows. I use a Linux LiveCD for further testing, after a couple passes of memtest, but that isn't everyone's cup of tea. The Linux LiveCD is nice, because you don't need any hard drive connected in order to use it. Thus your hard drive doesn't get corrupted, while doing initial overclocking testing. Either Knoppix or Ubuntu would do, and they're a 700MB download, plus burning the ISO9660 to a CD. Another alternative might be to slow the CPU clock down by 5%, and do your percentage improvement testing that way. Maybe that would be less risky and less fiddling to do. The purpose of trying 5%, is to estimate how much difference that 26% or 50% number might make. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
upgrading an old pc?
Thank you very much Paul. I could not even dream of more extensive explanation! Much appreciated! many thanks peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
upgrading an old pc?
~AlicGinnis~ wrote:
Paul, Generally speaking, will a 5% underclocking always create a more stable environment? al Not always. On boards before Nforce2, the PCI and AGP clocks might not have been locked. They were divided down from the CPU clock, and the dividers caused certain ranges of CPU clock values, to cause the PCI clock to be too high. For example, 112MHz on my oldest board, used a PCI divider of 3. 112 / 3 = 37.3MHz. PCI is stable up to 37.5MHz (based on the possibility that a disk controller may derive an IDE ribbon cable clock from the PCI clock). That particular clock generator, would use the divider of 3, up to a CPU clock of 120MHz. 120MHz / 3 gives a PCI clock of 40MHz, which is too high, and could corrupt an IDE disk. So using 120MHz and booting Windows, was a bad thing to do, and Windows could be corrupted and never boot again. Above 120MHz, the divider was 4, and then it was safe up to 133MHz or a bit higher. Later boards used an independent source for PCI and AGP. On my Nforce2 board, I can lock PCI and AGP to 33.3 and 66.6MHz. So there is no danger when changing the CPU input clock. On boards after Nforce2, there were a handful of boards with SATA corruption and PCI Express corruption issues, due to the clock being out of spec. But the manufacturers figured out the stupid things they did, a bit faster than previously. Today, the clocking is pretty safe on modern boards. (For the boards with SATA problems, one funny aspect was that not all SATA ports were equally affected. Two might be good, and two ports might be sensitive to clock choices.) If it wasn't for all of that clocking baloney, a 5% underclock at the same Vcore voltage, should be more stable. At least until some other part of your computer, dominates the instability issues (like RAM). RAM can be affected by stuff like cosmic rays, and presumably so can the processor. Circuits can be affected by electromagnetic interference or transients on the power supply. There are all sorts of sneaky ways to "tip over" a computer. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Upgrading from W95 | Silver Surfer | Gateway Computers | 10 | April 27th 05 04:22 AM |
Upgrading CPU | JayJay | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | April 13th 04 02:15 AM |
FAR CRY upgrading | eng | Homebuilt PC's | 11 | April 9th 04 06:12 AM |
Upgrading my PC.. please help | OVS | General | 16 | March 31st 04 02:51 AM |