IS7E - IC7G ??

Jerry Barrett · Jul 10, 2003

Hi Folks
I have some strange goings on, let me explain

1 PC: IC7G/latest BIOS, P4 2.6HT, 1GB 800Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB HDD, Ge4 Ti4600 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

this runs SETI@home in a tad under 4 hours, thats using 1 virtual CPU not both, no worries

1 PC: IS7E/latest BIOS, P4 2.4std, 1GB 533Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB Drives, Ge4 MX440 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

This machine runs SETI@home in something like 11 hours, obviously using 99% of CPU

I cant understand why theres such a huge difference, both PC's are setup for DDR RAM with 512Mb modules in banks 1 and 3 as per manual, BIOS setting are mostly the same apart from the obvious differences. Both SETI's are setup to run all the time and the screen saver/vdu power off after 15 minutes.

I was under the impression that the IS7 did infact perform better than the IC7 bearing this in mind and the fact the RAM and CPU are slightly slower, I would have expected something like a 20-30% increase in time, thats about 5-6 hours for the IS7 based PC....

Any Thoughts

Regards
Jerry

TomG · Jul 10, 2003

I can't account for the dramatic difference in time for your test but of the two boards, the better board, my understanding, is the IC7 series. I'd do some other testing like running the Sandra memory benchmark tests to see what kind of comparable memory bandwidth tests you get for starters.

if these boards are set up as standard systems with no overclocking and the NB ratios are by CPU and the ram is By SPD, etc., then the possibility exists that one board is running the ram at a different speed than the other.

pay close attention during boot, to the extent of hitting the Pause key if necessary, and note the ram speeds right after the CPU type on the POST screen. see of both systems are declaring the same ram speeds...

John Lewis · Jul 10, 2003

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:20:39 +0100, "Jerry Barrett"
wrote:

Hi Folks
I have some strange goings on, let me explain

1 PC: IC7G/latest BIOS, P4 2.6HT, 1GB 800Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB HDD, Ge4 Ti4600 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

this runs SETI@home in a tad under 4 hours, thats using 1 virtual CPU not both, no worries

1 PC: IS7E/latest BIOS, P4 2.4std, 1GB 533Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB Drives, Ge4 MX440 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

...

Swap the processors and see what happens.

John Lewis

CoonLiver · Jul 10, 2003

Are you sure both clients are the command line interface? Sounds like the 2.4 is using the screen saver. On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:20:39 +0100, "Jerry Barrett" wrote:

Hi Folks
I have some strange goings on, let me explain

1 PC: IC7G/latest BIOS, P4 2.6HT, 1GB 800Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB HDD, Ge4 Ti4600 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

this runs SETI@home in a tad under 4 hours, thats using 1 virtual CPU not both, no worries

1 PC: IS7E/latest BIOS, P4 2.4std, 1GB 533Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB Drives, Ge4 MX440 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

...

Jerry Barrett · Jul 11, 2003

Hi
Umm, I don't change the install routine and I use the same downloaded file from SETI, I just move it from 1 machine to the next, there all in screen saver mode, run all the time, but the srcreens power off after 15 mins.

I have been over and over the BIOS setup, it all seems to be set up correctly (standard)

I also checked the SANDRA memory bandwidth specs and the IS7E still appears to be well up in its class, so maybe 'thats life' . I'm gonna update the IS7E to a >2.6GHT P4 and a gig of 800M DDR Ram later when I have recovered from this round of updates. I have a BE7 (waiting for BIOS from Abit) board to put the 533Mz CPU and RAM for a server I'm updating later.

Thanks for all your thoughts guys
Regards
Jerry

"CoonLiver" wrote:

Are you sure both clients are the command line interface? Sounds like the 2.4 is using the screen saver. On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 11:20:39 +0100, "Jerry Barrett" wrote:

Hi Folks
I have some strange goings on, let me explain

1 PC: IC7G/latest BIOS, P4 2.6HT, 1GB 800Mz DDR RAM, 2 SATA 40GB HDD, Ge4
Ti4600 and WinXPPro, latest SP's

this runs SETI@home in a tad under 4 hours, thats using 1 virtual CPU not ... 99% of CPU

I cant understand why theres such a huge difference, both PC's are setup

for

DDR RAM with 512Mb modules in banks 1 and 3 as per manual, BIOS setting are mostly the same apart from the obvious differences. Both SETI's are setup to run all the time and the screen saver/vdu power off after 15 minutes.

I was under the impression that the IS7 did infact perform better than

the

IC7 bearing this in mind and the fact the RAM and CPU are slightly slower, I would have expected something like a 20-30% increase in time, thats about
5-6 hours for the IS7 based PC....

Any Thoughts

Regards
Jerry

Rick (archive) · Jul 11, 2003

"Jerry Barrett" wrote:

Hi
Umm, I don't change the install routine and I use the same downloaded file from SETI, I just move it from 1 machine to the next, there all in screen saver mode,

There's the difference. "MX" GF cards are *much* slower.

RickW

TomG · Jul 11, 2003

Jerry, how did the memory benchmarks compare between the two machines? any significant differences?

Jerry Barrett · Jul 11, 2003

Tom Hi
Yes significant difference: (none of these machines are overclocked)

The IS7E, is a 2.4G(B) running DDR 533Mz Ram @ 4*133Mz that gave a Sandra Mem Bandwidth of (Integer): 3427MB/s and (Float): 3457 MB/s

Both IC7G are 2.6G(C) with DDR800Mz Ram 4*200Mz and these give Sandra Mem Bandwidth of (Integer): 4807MB/s and (Float): 4827 MB/s

According to Tom's Hardware the IS7x was released to perform as well as if not slightly better than the IC7x, Shortly I hope to update the IS7E to full HT spec with a 2.6G(C) and 800Mz DDR RAM, I'll let the group know what the difference is when I find out.

Regards
Jerry
"TomG" wrote:

Jerry, how did the memory benchmarks compare between the two machines? any significant differences?

--

Thomas Geery
Network+ certified

ftp://geerynet.d2g.com
ftp://68.98.180.8 Abit Mirror <----- Cable modem IP
This IP is dynamic so it *could* change!...
over 113,000 FTP users served!
^^^^^^^
... file from SETI, I just move it from 1 machine to the next, there all in screen saver mode, run all the time, but the srcreens power off after 15 mins.

I have been over and over the BIOS setup, it all seems to be set up correctly (standard)

I also checked the SANDRA memory bandwidth specs and the IS7E still appears to be well up in its class, so maybe 'thats life' . I'm gonna update the IS7E to a >2.6GHT P4 and a gig of 800M DDR Ram later when I have recovered from this round of updates. I have a BE7 (waiting for BIOS from Abit) board to put the 533Mz CPU and RAM for a server I'm updating later.

Thanks for all your thoughts guys
Regards
Jerry

"CoonLiver" wrote:

Are you sure both clients are the command line interface? Sounds like the 2.4 is using the screen saver.
... using 99%
of CPU

I cant understand why theres such a huge difference, both PC's are setup for
DDR RAM with 512Mb modules in banks 1 and 3 as per manual, BIOS setting are
mostly the same apart from the obvious differences. Both SETI's are setup to
run all the time and the screen saver/vdu power off after 15 minutes.

I was under the impression that the IS7 did infact perform better than the
IC7 bearing this in mind and the fact the RAM and CPU are slightly
slower, I
would have expected something like a 20-30% increase in time, thats about 5-6 hours for the IS7 based PC....

Any Thoughts

Regards
Jerry

...

Jerry Barrett · Jul 11, 2003

Rick Hi
Well, yes maybe, I really find it hard to believe the SETI client is sitting there waiting for the graphics to keep up, indeed when the screen has gone off (power save mode) and its brought back on a couple of hours later, the progress bar can be seen to adjust to its current position. leading me to think (maybe incorrectly) it doesnt unpdate the screen in power save mode!!

I'll try the command line version on the 2.4Ghz (B) version to see it it improves things.

Thanks for the thought.

Regards
Jerry
"Rick" wrote:

"Jerry Barrett" wrote:

Hi
Umm, I don't change the install routine and I use the same downloaded file from SETI, I just move it from 1 machine to the next, there all in screen saver mode,

There's the difference. "MX" GF cards are *much* slower.

RickW

TomG · Jul 11, 2003

well, I personally think that the ram bandwidth differences could have something to do with it since the care and feeding of a hungry P4 is essential to good performance. I could understand the question a bet better if the bandwidths were real close and such but given the machine that takes longer to complete the routine has the slower graphics card, slower CPU and slower ram bandwidth, I think the numbers say it all.