• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

810 chipset gets only 80% RC5 speed of a VIA or BX...

MadRat

MadRat

Lifer
Anybody else see this happen? Running in a mini-ATX case with a c700 (not my machine of course!) its just plain pitiful at cracking RC5 blocks. Its better than nothing so I'll leave it as is. 🙂

Just found it strange that it can only muster 82% the speed of when I tested it in a VIA motherboard. I know this board runs the 566@850 the same on a BX-based board, so I'm assumning that the 810 board is the culprit.
 
I've got two i810 and one i810e and they all post scores
that are within 5% of my BX (BX6-R1.0), and all scores
nearly hit Dnet's list of processors and their scores.
I am running under the original Win98.

Did you load all the latest Intel chipset drivers for the i810?
Did you completely remove all old drivers and references/settings
for them in your registry?
 
I've got 4 boxes at home and my P3-650@728/i810 combo lags far behind my other systems in SETI@Home. I dunno about AMD's but as far as (non-RAMBUS) Intel goes I thought the BX and 820 chipsets were fastest and the 810 a distant 3rd. That's been my experience so far anyway...

Rob
 
RC5 shouldn't be as chipset dependant as SETI. I see the same numbers on a Celeron/810 as I do a Celeron/LX. I'd check to see if anything is swiping cycles.
 
As far as I know.
i810 has an integrated graphics core which shares memory bandwidth with the CPU. Could this be the case? From what I know, i810 using integrated graphics is at least 10% slower than BX with the same config running office benchmarks.

 
guys...you don't seem to understand.

RC5 is FSB, memory controller, memory bandwidth, memory latency, hard drive speed, agnostic. The core is small enough to fit into the 16Kb of L1 cache. Trust me, I've tested it.

For RC5, chipset, FSB, memory speed, latencies, harddrive (well, this can have a little impact if you have it log, etc), and many more things, DON'T MATTER.

The only thing that matters for RC5 is the architecture of the chip itself, and the frequency (aka, mhz).

S@H, on the other hand, depends more on the L2 cache, and to a slightly lesser extent, the FSB and memory speed. OGR, as shown by the speed page, is large enough so that it likes to have a faster L2 cache than a large one.

But RC5 cares only about architecture, and frequncy.
 
The 810 machine I'm running SETI@Home on does nothing but SETI 24/7. No other apps are installed let alone running. I don't even turn the monitor on, it just sits under my desk and whirs away. I was gonna replace it with a P3B-F but rleach2's MB died on him so I gave him that one. Anything to keep another ship in the air! 😉

Rob
 
Robor
Isn't the 820 chipset with SDRAM the slowest of them all? (did you mean 815 by any chance?)

BTW ,if you want to give me an Asus m/brd it'll be gratefully recieved 😉
 
Okay, added my fourth i810 board today with a Celeron 700.

Dnet is showing 1,975,304 keys/sec
I'm getting 1,957,391.51 keys/sec

It is a little slower by 0.90682193728155261164863737429783%

You definitely have something messed up in your setup, or
another program hogging cycles.
 
Sorry.

I just do alot of design work, and I find that
if I keep all of the places, my designs don't
need to be tweaked as much.

Habit I guess. Drove my professors nuts, they
kept marking things wrong, I'd point out that
I carry everything out...
 


<< Isn't the 820 chipset with SDRAM the slowest of them all? (did you mean 815 by any chance?) >>



its pretty fast with rdram. its just that rdram is soo expensive. the bx is the best desktop chipset ever made, so its not really fair comparing anything to it.
 
It still only gets 1.3MKeys/sec. Perhaps its the integrated sound, NIC, modem, or video messing with it. 😛

Don't know, sent it back home. Thanks for trying.
 
Assimilator1: Argh! Yes, I did mean an 815. That's my ASUS CUSL2 all right! 🙂 I swear since getting heavy into the DC forum I don't visit the main page enough. What a dumba$$! 😱 Thanks for the correction.

Oh, BTW, if you want some more info I've got a handful of HP Kayak boxes at work. They're P3-600's in ASUS 820 MB's (don't remember which) w/128MB RAMBUS and they run NT4 workstation. They are faster than our newer DELL OptiPlex 800Mhz/128MB 815E running Win2000. Go figure...

Rob
 
I can say it ain't the 810 chipset. I run it here under dos and w95 and it is up to speed as it should be, no preloaded, custom install.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top