A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » Motherboards » Gigabyte Motherboards
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Frustrated with GA-8IK1100 performance....HELP!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 27th 04, 04:21 PM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Frustrated with GA-8IK1100 performance....HELP!

Guys,

I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
something.

It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
RAM and a Radeon 8500.

I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
(I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
retail P4 2.8GHz.

Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
months to find the issue.

What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.

I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
everything over to it.

The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
into the system to get it for verification.

ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
is really cutting through this problem.
  #2  
Old April 27th 04, 05:13 PM
Mark and Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rich Heimlich" wrote in message
...
Guys,

I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
something.

It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
RAM and a Radeon 8500.

I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
(I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
retail P4 2.8GHz.

Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
months to find the issue.

What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.

I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
everything over to it.

The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
into the system to get it for verification.

ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
is really cutting through this problem.


Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?
This is a dual channel board. therefore for it to work at full speed (and it
is fairly quick) it must have 2 sticks of ram to work at its full potential.
also the sticks or ram have to be placed in the correct slots, please see
your instruction booklet.

Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.

Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.

Hope this helps.

Mark


  #3  
Old April 27th 04, 05:14 PM
Mark and Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mark and Tracy" wrote in message
...

"Rich Heimlich" wrote in message
...
Guys,

I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
something.

It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
RAM and a Radeon 8500.

I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
(I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
retail P4 2.8GHz.

Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
months to find the issue.

What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.

I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
everything over to it.

The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
into the system to get it for verification.

ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
is really cutting through this problem.


Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?
This is a dual channel board. therefore for it to work at full speed (and

it
is fairly quick) it must have 2 sticks of ram to work at its full

potential.
also the sticks or ram have to be placed in the correct slots, please see
your instruction booklet.

Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.

Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.

Hope this helps.

Mark



OOOPSSS that should read disable not enable it. (see above) sorry


  #4  
Old April 27th 04, 06:14 PM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:13:26 +0100, "Mark and Tracy"
wrote:

Did you buy 2 sticks of 512 ddr/400 or just 1 stick of 1024ddr/400?


Two sticks of 512. The receipt (I bought this from MWave who has this
interesting service of shipping assembled and tested motherboards, RAM
and CPU combinations) shows "Kingston KVR400X64C3AK3/1G 2X5".

The RAM comes marked as "Kit of 2" meaning two pieces and each is in
the Red/Orange slot, not the purple slots. I believe that puts the RAM
in DDR1 and DDR4 slots.

Its not the fastest but is still up their with best IMHO.


The rep told me that when we bought it. Sort of gave the impression
that while it wasn't the absolute fastest, it wasn't far from it and
was more stable than most. I read many problem posts of people trying
to get other RAM to work with this board while mine has never been a
stability problem.

Also there is one option in the bios that is set as enabled as default, i
cant exactly remember but its something to do with limiting timings for
windows NT. you need to enable this if u are using XP.


Er, that says, "Enabled" and "Enabled". If you find the specific item,
that would help. I'll dig.
  #5  
Old April 27th 04, 06:56 PM
MTech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Been there done that. Had a soyo dragon+(amd) system that for some reason,
using good components, I could never get a "fast" system. Never found the
issue, but my daughter absolutlely LOVES it..LOL.
I built a 8KNXP rev 2 using 2.8 processor and kingston ram PC3500. I went
with a 9700pro because I just got a heck of a deal. The whole deal is
clocked to 3.3mhz and my 3dmarks03 score is 5975 using the default test
setup without any messing with the video card or fancy/smacy cooling.
System runs all day long and I'm pleased as punch....so if your looking for
a relatively cheap system to build.....

If you have a bud close to you that you could swap ram with, that would at
least eliminate one problem.

Also, just to remind you, make sure that video card is working right. Have
you used sandra and posted scores to compare? Try some test that is
non-video biased like sandra and post the results.

Don

"Rich Heimlich" wrote in message
...
Guys,

I've about had it with my choice in buying this motherboard. Either it
stinks (which I don't think), is defective (possible) or I've goofed
something.

It has never felt any faster than my Athlon XP 1800+ system with 512k
RAM and a Radeon 8500.

I now have this board with a Radeon 9800 Pro and 1GB of Kingston RAM
(I forgot the speed but it was fast when I ordered it 6 months ago,
and was model KVM400 or something like that.) The processor is a
retail P4 2.8GHz.

Anyway, things have felt sluggish so I just ran 3DMark 2001 and 3DMark
2003 and the results are horrible for this setup. They were 9478 and
2048 respectively. Something is NOT right and I've been looking for
months to find the issue.

What could cause such poor performance? I should be seeing double
those numbers at least, especially on the 2003 3DMark.

I'm to a point where if I don't find the solution quickly, as in
today, I'm going to buy a new Socket 478 motherboard and just move
everything over to it.

The only hardware of concern is the Kingston RAM as on the back of it
there's a sticker referring to it as "Value RAM" which doesn't make me
feel very confident about it. If anyone thinks this is the problem or
possibly the problem and the actual model number would help, I'll go
into the system to get it for verification.

ANY help would be appreciated. At this point I'm just pulling my hair
out. The BIOS seems to be set perfectly, XP has been re-installed
several times with performance checked right after installs... Nothing
is really cutting through this problem.



  #6  
Old April 27th 04, 07:11 PM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:56:34 -0400, "MTech"
wrote:

Been there done that. Had a soyo dragon+(amd) system that for some reason,


Had a Soyo Dragon Ultra+ myself before this. Never had a problem with
it. grin

I built a 8KNXP rev 2 using 2.8 processor and kingston ram PC3500. I went


As I understand it, that board is essentially the same as my board
except for better RAID features which I really won't use. If so, that
concerns me a bit.

Also, just to remind you, make sure that video card is working right. Have
you used sandra and posted scores to compare? Try some test that is
non-video biased like sandra and post the results.


I just got Sandra last night after years away. Just run it's
benchmarks and see? Where should I post them?
  #7  
Old April 27th 04, 08:42 PM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guys,

Bit of a surprising update.

I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
interesting.

I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
even though they're unified drivers.

I did all that and the system is up.

I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.

Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
was well low.

Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.

Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?

I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
switched to this with the new system as it was handy.

Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
it's the power supply.

And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?
  #8  
Old April 28th 04, 03:48 AM
MTech
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think it speaks volumes.....I think you MAY have a video card problem.
Don't know much about your board but you ARE using the external p/s cable
that connects DIRECTLY to the card and you did leave the plastic piece in
the front of the PROAGP slot, right? ( I think i have that right).

Run the Sandra CPU multi media AND the memory Bandwidth test and I'll post
mine as well. We can post them here.

I think you have a video card problem.

Don

"Rich Heimlich" wrote in message
...
Guys,

Bit of a surprising update.

I also happen to have a Radeon 8500 here that the Radeon 9800 Pro
replaced. Not sure what this tells me but the results are VERY
interesting.

I decided to try and eliminate the 9800 Pro as a problem by installing
the 8500 and re-installing the drivers. I'm using the Omega drivers
but once XP sees you have a different card it will force a re-install
even though they're unified drivers.

I did all that and the system is up.

I then decided to run 3DMark 2001 as it's a DX8 benchark and the 8500
doesn't do much with DX9 as I recall. So I run the benchmark.

Recall that the 9800 Pro gave me a score around 9400 and clearly that
was well low.

Well, the 8500 is giving me a score of 10518.

Does that pretty much point the finger at the video card?

I'm also wondering about the power supply. It's an Antec True Blue 430
watt supply. I had been a PC Power and Cooling fan forever but
switched to this with the new system as it was handy.

Thoughts? I'd hate to go about replacing the video card only to find
it's the power supply.

And, does this test of mine really even tell us anything?



  #9  
Old April 28th 04, 04:44 AM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:48:45 -0400, in
alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte you wrote:

I think it speaks volumes.....I think you MAY have a video card problem.
Don't know much about your board but you ARE using the external p/s cable
that connects DIRECTLY to the card and you did leave the plastic piece in
the front of the PROAGP slot, right? ( I think i have that right).


Yep. In fact, it's funny. Today I was running around going, "Is the
9800 an AGP Pro card? I don't think it is, and it doesn't have the
connectors to even reach that area." hahaha It's amazing the amount of
talking to yourself you do when this sort of thing happens. The little
plastic piece is still there and, in fact, I tried to REMOVE the power
from the card today to test the 8500 but couldn't get it out so I just
left it hanging outside. As long as it isn't drawing power, it doesn't
matter.

Run the Sandra CPU multi media AND the memory Bandwidth test and I'll post
mine as well. We can post them here.


Absolutely. You'll see the info shortly.

I think you have a video card problem.


Thanks for at least hearing me. I've posted this all over and very few
people are even interested. Just for the sake of coverage I've now
ordered a replacement power supply (top of the line PC Power and
Cooling 600w supply, which is really the one I wanted to start with)
and just ordered another motherboard, JUST IN CASE. The good news is,
my father-in-law is looking to upgrade his system shortly so whatever
I have extra, I'll just sell to him at a discount and consider my loss
and insurance premium. grin

Meanwhile the 9800, for some UNKNOWN reason, I actually bought the
1-year plan to return it so it can go back. I may just buy a second
one to be sure and then take this one back and have them apply the
credit for the one I bought.

The really funny thing is that this is already my second 9800 Pro. The
first one had major problems from the start. Obvious video noise
everywhere.
  #10  
Old April 28th 04, 04:54 AM
Rich Heimlich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If I got this right, here goes:

CPU Mult-Media Benchmark

Integer iSSE2 21364 it/s
Floating-Point iSSE2 30348 it/s

If I read this right those numbers are pretty much right where they
should be for the processor.

Memory Bandwidth Benchmark

RAM Bandwidth Int Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buffered iSSE2 : 4177MB/s

These look to be solid numbers too.

So what's this telling you? For me it seems to say that the CPU and
memory are not the issue.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
my new mobo o/c's great rockerrock Overclocking AMD Processors 9 June 30th 04 08:17 PM
64 benches Ed Light AMD x86-64 Processors 2 April 4th 04 08:16 PM
Top performance on 8INXP in detail Axl Gigabyte Motherboards 3 February 20th 04 09:36 PM
2D performance ATI compared to Matrox Jo Vermeulen General 17 January 14th 04 08:25 PM
Extremely slow HDD write performance with GigaRAID on KNXP pinky Gigabyte Motherboards 0 September 20th 03 03:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.