M2A-VM Memory problem??

I have a question for someone knowledgable about what may be or not a
problem with memory.

I put together an ASUS barebones system with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+
processor and 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM
500 GB WD ATA hard drive
I installed Windows XP Pro for an operating system.

My old computer is another barebones that I bought about eight years
ago. It has an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard and AMD Athlon 2800+
processor 1GB DDR memory running Windows XP Home

With the exception of booting up I could not see much difference in
the speed of the two so I added another 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ
NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM with no difference in speed that is notable.

The faster processor seems to do many tasks at lightning speed,
however I think many of the programs/hardware are bottlenecks as they
can't keep up.

Maybe I would have been better off to upgrade the old computer.

Any suggestions??
ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 130 GB EIDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe

My post screen is as follows:

Main Processor: ADM Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+
Memory Test: 4062208K OK+ 128M shared memory
Memory Info: DDR2 667 Dual Channel 128 bit




ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 130 GB EIDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:45 -0700, wrote:

>I have a question for someone knowledgable about what may be or not a
>problem with memory.
>
>I put together an ASUS barebones system with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+
>processor and 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM
>500 GB WD ATA hard drive
>I installed Windows XP Pro for an operating system.
>
>My old computer is another barebones that I bought about eight years
>ago. It has an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard and AMD Athlon 2800+
>processor 1GB DDR memory running Windows XP Home
>
>With the exception of booting up I could not see much difference in
>the speed of the two so I added another 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ
>NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM with no difference in speed that is notable.
>
>The faster processor seems to do many tasks at lightning speed,
>however I think many of the programs/hardware are bottlenecks as they
>can't keep up.
>
>Maybe I would have been better off to upgrade the old computer.
>
>Any suggestions??
>ASUS M2A-VM
>AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>4GB DDR2 667
>WD 500 GB SATA
>WD 130 GB EIDE
>Samsung DVD Lightscribe

wrote:
> My post screen is as follows:
>
> Main Processor: ADM Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+
> Memory Test: 4062208K OK+ 128M shared memory
> Memory Info: DDR2 667 Dual Channel 128 bit
>
> ASUS M2A-VM
> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
> 4GB DDR2 667
> WD 500 GB SATA
> WD 130 GB EIDE
> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:45 -0700, wrote:
>
>> I have a question for someone knowledgable about what may be or not a
>> problem with memory.
>>
>> I put together an ASUS barebones system with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+
>> processor and 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM
>> 500 GB WD ATA hard drive
>> I installed Windows XP Pro for an operating system.
>>
>> My old computer is another barebones that I bought about eight years
>> ago. It has an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard and AMD Athlon 2800+
>> processor 1GB DDR memory running Windows XP Home
>>
>> With the exception of booting up I could not see much difference in
>> the speed of the two so I added another 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ
>> NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM with no difference in speed that is notable.
>>
>> The faster processor seems to do many tasks at lightning speed,
>> however I think many of the programs/hardware are bottlenecks as they
>> can't keep up.
>>
>> Maybe I would have been better off to upgrade the old computer.
>>
>> Any suggestions??
>> ASUS M2A-VM
>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>> 4GB DDR2 667
>> WD 500 GB SATA
>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe

AMD Athlon64 X2-6000+ review
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=494

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

You can reproduce the Tbreak PCMark05 benchmark on page 2 of the review.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/PCMark05_d4656.html

(From) http://www.majorgeeks.com/downloads4.html

To a first order approximation, CPU performance depends on the
core clock speed. Messed up RAM doesn't make that much of a difference.

The AMD processors have multiple operating speeds. The multiplier is
adjustable. If Cool N' Quiet is running, the multiplier drops the speed
of the processor, when the OS is idle. When the machine is loaded, it
speeds up again (like 200MHz x 15 = 3GHz). If, for some reason, the system
was running at the low multiplier all the time, that is an easier way to
explain a performance lost, than otherwise.

If memory was not adjusted for optimal performance, you might see a 5% to
10% difference. If you sabotaged the memory on purpose (turned down memory
clock setting, cranked timings to max), you might see more difference than
that. So I wouldn't look to memory to either save you, or screw
your results.

For an OS like Win2K/WinXP, don't expect bags of memory to make that much
difference. For example, I have 1GB total on my Win2K machine, and the only
time I ran out of memory, was once while downloading and printing the worlds
biggest web page. There is no swapping to speak of, the rest of the time.
If you put 2GB of memory on the machine, that should have been plenty.

Vista makes much better use of extra memory, and certain operations in
Vista would be faster, as lots of bits end up cached in memory.

Have a look through the CPUZ results, and post them if you want. Just
don't expect miracles by adjusting the memory alone. Perhaps something
else more significant isn't working right.

For stability testing, try this. This will tell you if the CPU and memory
are working properly. If the program stops with an error, you need to
solve the stability problem first, before looking at performance. An
unstable machine is useless. This is Orthos, and is designed to run
two copies of Prime95 on your dual core processor.

http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/orthos_exe_20060420.cab (file to download)
http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/beta2.htm (the download page)
http://sp2004.fre3.com/ (Stress Prime 2004 main page)

Paul

I tried to install ORTHOS but it was missing a dll file and would not
run.
I ran CPU-Z annd some of the numbers are as follows:

CPU-
3000MHz
1.5volts
multiplier 15
bus speed 200MHz

Memory-
333.3 MHz
cas latency 5.0
other timings
5
5
15
20

I hope this info helps.


ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 130 GB EIDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe





On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:18:47 -0400, Paul <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> My post screen is as follows:
>>
>> Main Processor: ADM Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+
>> Memory Test: 4062208K OK+ 128M shared memory
>> Memory Info: DDR2 667 Dual Channel 128 bit
>>
>> ASUS M2A-VM
>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>> 4GB DDR2 667
>> WD 500 GB SATA
>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:45 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> I have a question for someone knowledgable about what may be or not a
>>> problem with memory.
>>>
>>> I put together an ASUS barebones system with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+
>>> processor and 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM
>>> 500 GB WD ATA hard drive
>>> I installed Windows XP Pro for an operating system.
>>>
>>> My old computer is another barebones that I bought about eight years
>>> ago. It has an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard and AMD Athlon 2800+
>>> processor 1GB DDR memory running Windows XP Home
>>>
>>> With the exception of booting up I could not see much difference in
>>> the speed of the two so I added another 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ
>>> NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM with no difference in speed that is notable.
>>>
>>> The faster processor seems to do many tasks at lightning speed,
>>> however I think many of the programs/hardware are bottlenecks as they
>>> can't keep up.
>>>
>>> Maybe I would have been better off to upgrade the old computer.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions??
>>> ASUS M2A-VM
>>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>>> 4GB DDR2 667
>>> WD 500 GB SATA
>>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>
>AMD Athlon64 X2-6000+ review
>http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=494
>
>http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
>
>You can reproduce the Tbreak PCMark05 benchmark on page 2 of the review.
>
>http://www.majorgeeks.com/PCMark05_d4656.html
>
>(From) http://www.majorgeeks.com/downloads4.html
>
>To a first order approximation, CPU performance depends on the
>core clock speed. Messed up RAM doesn't make that much of a difference.
>
>The AMD processors have multiple operating speeds. The multiplier is
>adjustable. If Cool N' Quiet is running, the multiplier drops the speed
>of the processor, when the OS is idle. When the machine is loaded, it
>speeds up again (like 200MHz x 15 = 3GHz). If, for some reason, the system
>was running at the low multiplier all the time, that is an easier way to
>explain a performance lost, than otherwise.
>
>If memory was not adjusted for optimal performance, you might see a 5% to
>10% difference. If you sabotaged the memory on purpose (turned down memory
>clock setting, cranked timings to max), you might see more difference than
>that. So I wouldn't look to memory to either save you, or screw
>your results.
>
>For an OS like Win2K/WinXP, don't expect bags of memory to make that much
>difference. For example, I have 1GB total on my Win2K machine, and the only
>time I ran out of memory, was once while downloading and printing the worlds
>biggest web page. There is no swapping to speak of, the rest of the time.
>If you put 2GB of memory on the machine, that should have been plenty.
>
>Vista makes much better use of extra memory, and certain operations in
>Vista would be faster, as lots of bits end up cached in memory.
>
>Have a look through the CPUZ results, and post them if you want. Just
>don't expect miracles by adjusting the memory alone. Perhaps something
>else more significant isn't working right.
>
>For stability testing, try this. This will tell you if the CPU and memory
>are working properly. If the program stops with an error, you need to
>solve the stability problem first, before looking at performance. An
>unstable machine is useless. This is Orthos, and is designed to run
>two copies of Prime95 on your dual core processor.
>
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/orthos_exe_20060420.cab (file to download)
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/beta2.htm (the download page)
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/ (Stress Prime 2004 main page)
>
> Paul

PCMARK05 score is 721
slow!

ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 130 GB EIDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:18:47 -0400, Paul <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> My post screen is as follows:
>>
>> Main Processor: ADM Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 6000+
>> Memory Test: 4062208K OK+ 128M shared memory
>> Memory Info: DDR2 667 Dual Channel 128 bit
>>
>> ASUS M2A-VM
>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>> 4GB DDR2 667
>> WD 500 GB SATA
>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:45 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> I have a question for someone knowledgable about what may be or not a
>>> problem with memory.
>>>
>>> I put together an ASUS barebones system with an Athlon 64 X2 6000+
>>> processor and 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM
>>> 500 GB WD ATA hard drive
>>> I installed Windows XP Pro for an operating system.
>>>
>>> My old computer is another barebones that I bought about eight years
>>> ago. It has an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard and AMD Athlon 2800+
>>> processor 1GB DDR memory running Windows XP Home
>>>
>>> With the exception of booting up I could not see much difference in
>>> the speed of the two so I added another 2X MWAVE 1GB PC25300 667MHZ
>>> NON-ECC 240-PIN DDR2 DIMM with no difference in speed that is notable.
>>>
>>> The faster processor seems to do many tasks at lightning speed,
>>> however I think many of the programs/hardware are bottlenecks as they
>>> can't keep up.
>>>
>>> Maybe I would have been better off to upgrade the old computer.
>>>
>>> Any suggestions??
>>> ASUS M2A-VM
>>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>>> 4GB DDR2 667
>>> WD 500 GB SATA
>>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>
>AMD Athlon64 X2-6000+ review
>http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=494
>
>http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
>
>You can reproduce the Tbreak PCMark05 benchmark on page 2 of the review.
>
>http://www.majorgeeks.com/PCMark05_d4656.html
>
>(From) http://www.majorgeeks.com/downloads4.html
>
>To a first order approximation, CPU performance depends on the
>core clock speed. Messed up RAM doesn't make that much of a difference.
>
>The AMD processors have multiple operating speeds. The multiplier is
>adjustable. If Cool N' Quiet is running, the multiplier drops the speed
>of the processor, when the OS is idle. When the machine is loaded, it
>speeds up again (like 200MHz x 15 = 3GHz). If, for some reason, the system
>was running at the low multiplier all the time, that is an easier way to
>explain a performance lost, than otherwise.
>
>If memory was not adjusted for optimal performance, you might see a 5% to
>10% difference. If you sabotaged the memory on purpose (turned down memory
>clock setting, cranked timings to max), you might see more difference than
>that. So I wouldn't look to memory to either save you, or screw
>your results.
>
>For an OS like Win2K/WinXP, don't expect bags of memory to make that much
>difference. For example, I have 1GB total on my Win2K machine, and the only
>time I ran out of memory, was once while downloading and printing the worlds
>biggest web page. There is no swapping to speak of, the rest of the time.
>If you put 2GB of memory on the machine, that should have been plenty.
>
>Vista makes much better use of extra memory, and certain operations in
>Vista would be faster, as lots of bits end up cached in memory.
>
>Have a look through the CPUZ results, and post them if you want. Just
>don't expect miracles by adjusting the memory alone. Perhaps something
>else more significant isn't working right.
>
>For stability testing, try this. This will tell you if the CPU and memory
>are working properly. If the program stops with an error, you need to
>solve the stability problem first, before looking at performance. An
>unstable machine is useless. This is Orthos, and is designed to run
>two copies of Prime95 on your dual core processor.
>
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/orthos_exe_20060420.cab (file to download)
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/beta/beta2.htm (the download page)
>http://sp2004.fre3.com/ (Stress Prime 2004 main page)
>
> Paul

wrote:
> PCMARK05 score is 721
> slow!
>
> ASUS M2A-VM
> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
> 4GB DDR2 667
> WD 500 GB SATA
> WD 130 GB EIDE
> Samsung DVD Lightscribe

Did you get both a CPU number and a Memory number ?
The 721 you reference above - which one is it for ?
Did all the tests run to completion - none missing ?

I tried to run PCMark05 on my system, not realizing it is only for WinXP or later.
I've got Win2K, and I'm getting stuck on a missing DLL.

There are utilities on this page for Athlon64 X2 owners.
Again, I'm out of luck, and cannot examine these and see whether
they are useful or not.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13118,00.html

One thing I'd want to check, is that the FID (multiplier) stays
at 15x while the test runs. The "AMD Power Monitor Version 1.0.2"
looks interesting, for example, on that AMD page.

There is another utility, but I have mixed feelings about it. It
does have graphs to show system response, but they are poorly labeled,
making it hard to interpret the results with accuracy. The tool
is RMClock.

http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
http://cpu.rightmark.org/download/rmclock_225_bin.exe

(Picture of RMClock monitoring window.)

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6...dchange2hl.jpg

Of interest, would be changes in FID and VID. Or the presence
of throttling in the top trace. I don't know the details for
AMD, but on Intel the processor slows down when it gets hot.
You'd need a temperature monitoring utility (Asus Probe might
suffice) to see what happens to CPU temp.

Have a look around, and see if anything looks suspicious.

There is a Power Options control panel, and the policy selected
may influence Cool N' Quiet and FID/VID changes. I suppose a simpler
way to force the issue, is to disable CNQ in the BIOS, leaving
less uncertainty while in Windows. You can always change it back
later.

I've been through an exercise like this with someone recently,
but in his case, in the end I'm not sure what fixed it for him.
It seemed like sometime after the "Dual Core Optimizer and MS hot fix"
step, then removing one of them, that a SuperPI benchmark returned
to a normal level. The second link below, is an ongoing thread about
the Dual Core Optimizer, and a later released patch from Microsoft.
It is a long thread and is best read starting from the end, in order
to get the most up to date feedback of what works.

http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...32b7eaf249b9f9

"How to install the AMD X2 drivers, hotfix, the correct way"
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=81429&page=24

Paul

Some new numbers from PCMARK05 Advanced Edition

System 3910
CPU 5975
Memory 5838
Graphics 1768
HDD 3289

Memory frequency shows 667.0 MHz

I visited the site for the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer and it is for an
AMD Athlon™ 64/FX Processor. Will it also work with my processor?

ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 160 GBIDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe
Acer AL2216W LCD



On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:05:01 -0400, Paul <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> PCMARK05 score is 721
>> slow!
>>
>> ASUS M2A-VM
>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>> 4GB DDR2 667
>> WD 500 GB SATA
>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>
>Did you get both a CPU number and a Memory number ?
>The 721 you reference above - which one is it for ?
>Did all the tests run to completion - none missing ?
>
>I tried to run PCMark05 on my system, not realizing it is only for WinXP or later.
>I've got Win2K, and I'm getting stuck on a missing DLL.
>
>There are utilities on this page for Athlon64 X2 owners.
>Again, I'm out of luck, and cannot examine these and see whether
>they are useful or not.
>
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13118,00.html
>
>One thing I'd want to check, is that the FID (multiplier) stays
>at 15x while the test runs. The "AMD Power Monitor Version 1.0.2"
>looks interesting, for example, on that AMD page.
>
>There is another utility, but I have mixed feelings about it. It
>does have graphs to show system response, but they are poorly labeled,
>making it hard to interpret the results with accuracy. The tool
>is RMClock.
>
>http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
>http://cpu.rightmark.org/download/rmclock_225_bin.exe
>
>(Picture of RMClock monitoring window.)
>
>http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6...dchange2hl.jpg
>
>Of interest, would be changes in FID and VID. Or the presence
>of throttling in the top trace. I don't know the details for
>AMD, but on Intel the processor slows down when it gets hot.
>You'd need a temperature monitoring utility (Asus Probe might
>suffice) to see what happens to CPU temp.
>
>Have a look around, and see if anything looks suspicious.
>
>There is a Power Options control panel, and the policy selected
>may influence Cool N' Quiet and FID/VID changes. I suppose a simpler
>way to force the issue, is to disable CNQ in the BIOS, leaving
>less uncertainty while in Windows. You can always change it back
>later.
>
>I've been through an exercise like this with someone recently,
>but in his case, in the end I'm not sure what fixed it for him.
>It seemed like sometime after the "Dual Core Optimizer and MS hot fix"
>step, then removing one of them, that a SuperPI benchmark returned
>to a normal level. The second link below, is an ongoing thread about
>the Dual Core Optimizer, and a later released patch from Microsoft.
>It is a long thread and is best read starting from the end, in order
>to get the most up to date feedback of what works.
>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...32b7eaf249b9f9
>
>"How to install the AMD X2 drivers, hotfix, the correct way"
>http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=81429&page=24
>
> Paul

wrote:
> Some new numbers from PCMARK05 Advanced Edition
>
> System 3910
> CPU 5975
> Memory 5838
> Graphics 1768
> HDD 3289
>
> Memory frequency shows 667.0 MHz
>
> I visited the site for the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer and it is for an
> AMD Athlon™ 64/FX Processor. Will it also work with my processor?
>
> ASUS M2A-VM
> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
> 4GB DDR2 667
> WD 500 GB SATA
> WD 160 GBIDE
> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
> Acer AL2216W LCD
>

So the CPU and Memory results are consistent with the Tweaktown results
for a 6000+.

Paul

>
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:05:01 -0400, Paul <> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> PCMARK05 score is 721
>>> slow!
>>>
>>> ASUS M2A-VM
>>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>>> 4GB DDR2 667
>>> WD 500 GB SATA
>>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>> Did you get both a CPU number and a Memory number ?
>> The 721 you reference above - which one is it for ?
>> Did all the tests run to completion - none missing ?
>>
>> I tried to run PCMark05 on my system, not realizing it is only for WinXP or later.
>> I've got Win2K, and I'm getting stuck on a missing DLL.
>>
>> There are utilities on this page for Athlon64 X2 owners.
>> Again, I'm out of luck, and cannot examine these and see whether
>> they are useful or not.
>>
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13118,00.html
>>
>> One thing I'd want to check, is that the FID (multiplier) stays
>> at 15x while the test runs. The "AMD Power Monitor Version 1.0.2"
>> looks interesting, for example, on that AMD page.
>>
>> There is another utility, but I have mixed feelings about it. It
>> does have graphs to show system response, but they are poorly labeled,
>> making it hard to interpret the results with accuracy. The tool
>> is RMClock.
>>
>> http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
>> http://cpu.rightmark.org/download/rmclock_225_bin.exe
>>
>> (Picture of RMClock monitoring window.)
>>
>> http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6...dchange2hl.jpg
>>
>> Of interest, would be changes in FID and VID. Or the presence
>> of throttling in the top trace. I don't know the details for
>> AMD, but on Intel the processor slows down when it gets hot.
>> You'd need a temperature monitoring utility (Asus Probe might
>> suffice) to see what happens to CPU temp.
>>
>> Have a look around, and see if anything looks suspicious.
>>
>> There is a Power Options control panel, and the policy selected
>> may influence Cool N' Quiet and FID/VID changes. I suppose a simpler
>> way to force the issue, is to disable CNQ in the BIOS, leaving
>> less uncertainty while in Windows. You can always change it back
>> later.
>>
>> I've been through an exercise like this with someone recently,
>> but in his case, in the end I'm not sure what fixed it for him.
>> It seemed like sometime after the "Dual Core Optimizer and MS hot fix"
>> step, then removing one of them, that a SuperPI benchmark returned
>> to a normal level. The second link below, is an ongoing thread about
>> the Dual Core Optimizer, and a later released patch from Microsoft.
>> It is a long thread and is best read starting from the end, in order
>> to get the most up to date feedback of what works.
>>
>> http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...32b7eaf249b9f9
>>
>> "How to install the AMD X2 drivers, hotfix, the correct way"
>> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=81429&page=24
>>
>> Paul

wrote:
> I installed the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer but I am confused! Does it run
> in the background??
>
> ASUS M2A-VM
> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
> 4GB DDR2 667 333.3MHz 5 5 5 15
> WD 500 GB SATA
> WD 160 GB IDE
> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
> Acer AL2216W LCD
>

The Optimizer is a patch that fixes the way that the OS works.
RDTSC is a timestamp privileged instruction, and is a way of
doing high precision timing. It might get used while gaming.
This description is from the AMD download page:

"AMD Dual-Core Optimizer - The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer can help improve
some PC gaming video performance by compensating for those applications
that bypass the Windows API for timing by directly using the RDTSC (Read
Time Stamp Counter) instruction. Applications that rely on RDTSC do not
benefit from the logic in the operating system to properly account for
the affect of power management mechanisms on the rate at which a processor
core's Time Stamp Counter (TSC) is incremented. The AMD Dual-Core Optimizer
helps to correct the resulting video performance effects or other incorrect
timing effects that these applications may experience on dual-core processor
systems, by periodically adjusting the core time-stamp-counters, so that
they are synchronized."

You should read through that long thread I linked to, as this is information
that a dual core owner should know about.

"How to install the AMD X2 drivers, hotfix, the correct way"
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=81429&page=24

Some software products misbehave, when run on a dual core processor. For
those, you can go into the Task Manager, and "Set Affinity" to just one
core, while the program is running. That would be a nuisance if you had
to do that every time. Another way to control them, is with programs like
this. With this, you prepare a shortcut, with "runfirst program_name arguments"
as the form of the shortcut. Runfirst runs a program on a single core, and
if you then open Task Manager, the tick box for Core0 would already be
set, while the tick box for Core1 would be cleared.

http://www.activeplus.com/us/freeware/runfirst/

Someone should write a small doc, summarizing all the things a dual core
AMD owner should know. I don't own one, so I'd be a poor candidate for the
job :-)

There are a couple pictures here, of setting affinity in Task MAnager.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_affinity

Is your system performing properly now ? What do you think ?
Based on the following information you provided, I don't see anything
terribly wrong with this. Core is running 3GHz. Memory is 333*2 = DDR2-667.
Timings are 5-5-5, which is an average kind of memory. If there is any
remaining *******s in your system, it is that "affinity/scheduler/patch" kind
of stuff.

"multiplier 15
bus speed 200MHz

Memory-
333.3 MHz
cas latency 5.0
other timings
5
5
15
20"

To put things in some kind of perspective, your previous 2800+ ran at
2GHz, and a single core on the new processor runs at 3Ghz. That means,
for non-multiprocessor aware software (which is a lot of it), you would
expect the new processor to behave 50% faster. To a first order
approximation. (Support for SSE or other specialized features might
make a bigger difference.)

Compare the time to calculate 1 million digits, on the old computer
and the new. SuperPI is a benchmark that focuses mainly on CPU
and memory. I get anywhere from 44 seconds to 48 seconds on my
3.2GHz P4. With your fancy processor, you should be able to do
better than that.

http://www.xtremesystems.com/pi/super_pi_mod-1.5.zip

Run super_pi_mod.exe (104960 bytes). Select 1 million digits and
run it.

HTH,
Paul

I installed the AMD Dual-Core Optimizer but I am confused! Does it run
in the background??

ASUS M2A-VM
AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
4GB DDR2 667 333.3MHz 5 5 5 15
WD 500 GB SATA
WD 160 GB IDE
Samsung DVD Lightscribe
Acer AL2216W LCD

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:05:01 -0400, Paul <> wrote:

> wrote:
>> PCMARK05 score is 721
>> slow!
>>
>> ASUS M2A-VM
>> AMD ATHLON 64 X2 6000+
>> 4GB DDR2 667
>> WD 500 GB SATA
>> WD 130 GB EIDE
>> Samsung DVD Lightscribe
>
>Did you get both a CPU number and a Memory number ?
>The 721 you reference above - which one is it for ?
>Did all the tests run to completion - none missing ?
>
>I tried to run PCMark05 on my system, not realizing it is only for WinXP or later.
>I've got Win2K, and I'm getting stuck on a missing DLL.
>
>There are utilities on this page for Athlon64 X2 owners.
>Again, I'm out of luck, and cannot examine these and see whether
>they are useful or not.
>
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/..._13118,00.html
>
>One thing I'd want to check, is that the FID (multiplier) stays
>at 15x while the test runs. The "AMD Power Monitor Version 1.0.2"
>looks interesting, for example, on that AMD page.
>
>There is another utility, but I have mixed feelings about it. It
>does have graphs to show system response, but they are poorly labeled,
>making it hard to interpret the results with accuracy. The tool
>is RMClock.
>
>http://cpu.rightmark.org/products/rmclock.shtml
>http://cpu.rightmark.org/download/rmclock_225_bin.exe
>
>(Picture of RMClock monitoring window.)
>
>http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/6...dchange2hl.jpg
>
>Of interest, would be changes in FID and VID. Or the presence
>of throttling in the top trace. I don't know the details for
>AMD, but on Intel the processor slows down when it gets hot.
>You'd need a temperature monitoring utility (Asus Probe might
>suffice) to see what happens to CPU temp.
>
>Have a look around, and see if anything looks suspicious.
>
>There is a Power Options control panel, and the policy selected
>may influence Cool N' Quiet and FID/VID changes. I suppose a simpler
>way to force the issue, is to disable CNQ in the BIOS, leaving
>less uncertainty while in Windows. You can always change it back
>later.
>
>I've been through an exercise like this with someone recently,
>but in his case, in the end I'm not sure what fixed it for him.
>It seemed like sometime after the "Dual Core Optimizer and MS hot fix"
>step, then removing one of them, that a SuperPI benchmark returned
>to a normal level. The second link below, is an ongoing thread about
>the Dual Core Optimizer, and a later released patch from Microsoft.
>It is a long thread and is best read starting from the end, in order
>to get the most up to date feedback of what works.
>
>http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.co...32b7eaf249b9f9
>
>"How to install the AMD X2 drivers, hotfix, the correct way"
>http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...=81429&page=24
>
> Paul