Crappy PCMark2002 scores.

[Horsep0wer]

i just benched my system using Pcmark2002. i don't know why, but i am getting crappy CPU scores. memory and HDD scores seem to be on par, but i am getting beat badly by a variety of other CPU's, including Durons that run approx 2400GHZ. the top CPU score(an AMD) is around 7800 with people using less ram than me . i don't have any unecessary backround programs running, and have disabled most of the system processes i am sure i can disable. do you have any ideas?

here's a link to running processes and services.
http://personalpages.bellsouth.net/c/o/coolice123/Services.JPG

my score

http://personalpages.bellsouth.net/c/o/coolice123/PCMark2002score.JPG

 

[sman789]

did you check out other stock 2.4Cs...thats why amd are rated that way. ie 2100+ isnt 2.1ghz but comparable to p4 2.1

when you oc the amd it'll toast the stock p4. Now OC urs to 3.0 and you'll be happy


lemme get my scores

 

[sman789]

CPU: 5937 Mem: 8058 HDD: 1064



Date: 2003-06-08
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2350 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9600 Series
OS: Microsoft Windows XP


CPU: 7514 Mem: 10111 HDD: 1863



Date: 2003-07-01
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 2940 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9600 Series
OS: Microsoft Windows XP

CPU: 8316 Mem: 9654 HDD: 1647



Date: 2003-07-04
CPU: Intel Pentium 4 3290 MHz
GPU: ATI RADEON 9600 Series
OS: Microsoft Windows XP

 

[Horsep0wer]

i see what you're saying, but the other processors were tested at 2400 ghz, just like mine. maybe PCMark2002 only records the "rated" clock speed when testing, not the overclock speed. i dunno, but i ain't happy that Durons are beating me.

 

[RalfHutter]

Quit crying guy. Look at my PCMark2002 scores. I'm running the same CPU & speed as you, almost identical RAM and a slower HDD.

Here's my PCMark2002 scores

Note that our CPU scores are virtually indentical, you're kicking my ass in the Memory and HDD score. I'd say you were just fine and that I'm the one that should be whining about my crappy RAM score.

P4 2.4C @ 2394MHz
1 GB Mushkin Level II PC3200 (2x512MB) @ 2-3-3-6, DDR400
80GB Seagate Baracuda IV, 2MB cache

 

[stevejst]

Ralfhutter, your scores really suck.
Low memory scores are very much tied to the timings, in case of Pentiums, and motherboard. Low CPU scores should be a matter of concern, 2.4C should go over 6,500 on default. You guys have it below 6,000, that has to do something with the motherboard.

maybe PCMark2002 only records the "rated" clock speed when testing, not the overclock speed

Nope, I get well over 7,400 when overclocked to 3 GHz, as it should.
(Excuse me, I was talking about "over 9000" on Sandra.)

 

[Slammy1]

Hmmmm. I run a pretty sig. o/c on the P4P800-D and I get over 10k in my memory. It's the HDD that gives me probs, as it does a lot of owners of the P4P800 series MoBo. You should be able to tweak your settings to improve your memory scores.

 

[Jeff7181]

Just so ya know, it's most likely not a "Duron" ... PCMark calls my XP2500 a Duron. And it's definately not a Duron =)

*EDIT* And... it's not 2400 Ghz... it's 2400 Mhz, or 2.4 Ghz.

 

[KhoiFather]

Wooohooooo!!! :beer:

 

[Horsep0wer]

Originally posted by: RalfHutter
Quit crying guy.

why is it that twice now u have made comments to me like that? i want peoples advice and opinions on my score, not someone telling me to "quit crying". i'm trying to learn about this chip and board. just because YOU are happy with your score doesn't mean the rest of us should be. i do appreciate you telling me your scores though.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Just so ya know, it's most likely not a "Duron" ... PCMark calls my XP2500 a Duron. And it's definately not a Duron =)

*EDIT* And... it's not 2400 Ghz... it's 2400 Mhz, or 2.4 Ghz.

Precisely, it also leads me to the queary, Has anyone even seen a Duron run 2.4ghz with exoctic cooling? I for one have not.

 

[Tetsuo316]

i would venture a guess that those 2.4 Ghz chips that are beating you soundly are overclocked. the higher fsb really adds to the score

 

[RalfHutter]

Originally posted by: Horsep0wer

Originally posted by: RalfHutter
Quit crying guy.

why is it that twice now u have made comments to me like that? i want peoples advice and opinions on my score, not someone telling me to "quit crying". i'm trying to learn about this chip and board. just because YOU are happy with your score doesn't mean the rest of us should be. i do appreciate you telling me your scores though.

I'm not happy either.

My comment was in the vein of "it's all relative, and there's folks out there with worse scores than you".

 

[Shimmishim]

are you running win2kpro by any chance?

seems like when you run pcmark 2002, it only uses 1 processor or 50% of the cpu ...

that may explain things...

 

[Shimmishim]

i ran pcmark2002 with HT enabled and HT disabled

HT enabled maxed out at 7200

HT disabled i got 8600

I am running 3.5 ghz

so yeah...

if you are using win2kpro be sure to disable HT when you run pcmark2002 and you'll see a DRAMATIC increase!

hope that helps!

 

[stevejst]

if you are using win2kpro be sure to disable HT when you run pcmark2002 and you'll see a DRAMATIC increase!

You gotta be kidding?!
There is something wrong with your setup, perhaps too much overclocking?

PCMark makes no difference with HT enabled or disabled for the simple reason because the tests are not multithreaded. But you gotta know that HT enabled Pentium is a heck of a lot more powerfull than the one disabled.

By the way I am getting 7,500 on 3 GHz (HT enabled or disabled, doesn't matter).

 

[stevejst]

Use Sandra to check what I just said. Arithmetic bench with HT enabled will increase about 10%, floating bench anywhere between 40 and 60%. That is a heck of a difference, it is just too darn stupid to run this processor with HT disabled, for that matter one could buy Northwood B 1.6 or 1.8 and overclock that one.

 

[Shimmishim]

it has to do with win2kpro

it only uses 50% of the cpu whie running pcmark2002

if you can tell me how to get it to run 100% while benching.. then let me know

 

[masterosok]

I pretty sure Shimmishim is correct.

That is the reason, many people are told to run 2 occurances of Prime with a P4 when running Win2kpro and testing.

However I could be wrong.

 

[stevejst]

it has to do with win2kpro

Alright. That is therefore not HT compatible OS. Change it! WinXP has been out for 2 years already!
Even Red Hat Linux 9 supports HT!

 

[Shimmishim]

bah!

i'll get it eventually!

it's not cheap ya know?

and i'm also in the process of moving so i'll just hold off!

 

[stevejst]

Interesting. Windows 2K has Service Pack 4 released about a month or two ago. Perhaps that can fix the problem of low HT scores in single threaded tests. WinXP also sees HT as 2 CPUs but there is no drop in scores.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: stevejst
Interesting. Windows 2K has Service Pack 4 released about a month or two ago. Perhaps that can fix the problem of low HT scores in single threaded tests. WinXP also sees HT as 2 CPUs but there is no drop in scores.

really?

interesting...

maybe it's a win2kpro / servicemark issue..

i have sp4 installed already...