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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 08:36 PM |
2D performance ATI compared to Matrox | Jo Vermeulen | General | 17 | January 14th 04 07:25 PM |
Extremely slow HDD write performance with GigaRAID on KNXP | pinky | Gigabyte Motherboards | 0 | September 20th 03 03:01 PM |