How long per seti WU for a P3 550E?

hymy

Senior member
Oct 12, 1999
535
0
76
I got this P3 550E thats really dogging thru these WU's. Its slower than the P3 450 I have.

But anyway here the specs: 128 MB ram, PC 133 cas 3, on an AOPEN ax3s i815 MB. Running the version 3.0 GUI, screen saver set to blank in 0 minutes and it runs always. OC'd @ 733 it took 6hr 18 min. Now at normal 550 its gonna take at least 8hrs. IS THIS NORMAL!?!!?!
 

Sukhoi

Elite Member
Dec 5, 1999
15,350
106
106
Hmm...my C433 takes 9 hours with the v2.70 beta, which is faster than the 3.0 GUI. I'd think your WU times would be a little faster, but not more than an hour or so.
 

office boy

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
4,210
0
0
Well first off if your running a 550 at 600 thats only 110Mhz FSB, you could set your pc-133 ram to cas2 and maybe even cas2, ras to cas2 and ras2. also dosn't the i815 support 4 way memory interleave?
because if it does you'll want that on...
 

blade47

Golden Member
Dec 12, 1999
1,353
0
0
It sounds slow to me. Why don't you try the text client? What about running your ram at cas2? The 815 is supposed to have good memory latency so it should be faster than that. My P3-500e@620mhz is turning them out at 4.2-6.6hrs with v3.0cli.
 

Assimilator1

Elite Member
Nov 4, 1999
24,165
524
126
I've got my Cel 366 @ 550 ,CAS2 RAM ,BX board ,here are my WU times for CLi v3.0 (never run GUI v3.0 on this PC)

10/12 Thu 12:08am 39e4f2f0 qresult.543 5h29m08s ASSIMILATOR
10/12 Thu 5:24am 39e53ce9 qresult.544 5h15m35s ASSIMILATOR
10/12 Thu 10:36am 39e5862e qresult.545 5h12m36s ASSIMILATOR
10/12 Thu 5:31pm 39e5e75a qresult.546 6h54m35s ASSIMILATOR
10/13 Fri 12:46am 39e64d63 qresult.547 7h05m11s ASSIMILATOR
10/13 Fri 7:39am 39e6ae3d qresult.548 6h53m13s ASSIMILATOR
10/13 Fri 5:38pm 39e73a81 qresult.549 9h58m27s ASSIMILATOR
10/14 Sat 12:00am 39e79404 qresult.550 5h49m24s ASSIMILATOR
10/14 Sat 7:47am 39e8018e qresult.551 7h22m10s ASSIMILATOR
10/14 Sat 1:49pm 39e85642 qresult.552 5h16m38s ASSIMILATOR
10/14 Sat 8:56pm 39e8ba58 qresult.553 7h04m17s ASSIMILATOR
10/15 Sun 2:23am 39e906fe qresult.554 5h16m40s ASSIMILATOR

Cli v2.4 was around 7.6-8 hrs/WU
 

hymy

Senior member
Oct 12, 1999
535
0
76
Ok so it's slow.

Ok per office boy I set all the memory settings to low as possible, We'll see what happens. If I can get it optiomized I might try it at 733 again for a while.

Anybody know what kinda effect spread spectrum modulation has? I can't seem to find anything about memory interleave, but I'll load up the manual later.
 

jinsonxu

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2000
1,370
0
0
Spread Spectrum

Options : Enabled, Disabled, 0.25%, 0.5%, Smart Clock

When the motherboard's clock generator pulses, the extreme values (spikes) of the pulses creates EMI (Electromagnetic Interference). The Spead Spectrum function reduces the EMI generated by modulating the pulses so that the spikes of the pulses are reduced to flatter curves. It does so by varying the frequency so that it doesn't use any particular frequency for more than a moment. This reduces interference problems with other electronics in the area.

However, while enabling Spread Spectrum decreases EMI, system stability and performance may be slightly compromised. This may be especially true with timing-critical devices like clock-sensitive SCSI devices.

Some BIOSes offer a Smart Clock option. Instead of modulating the frequency of the pulses over time, Smart Clock turns off the AGP, PCI and SDRAM clock signals when not in use. Thus, EMI can be reduced without compromising system stability. As a bonus, using Smart Clock can also help reduce power consumption.

If you do not have any EMI problem, leave the setting at Disabled for optimal system stability and performance. But if you are plagued by EMI, use the Smart Clock setting if possible and settle for Enabled or one of the two other values if Smart Clock is not available. The percentage values denote the amount of jitter (variation) that the BIOS performs on the clock frequency. So, a lower value (0.25%) is comparatively better for system stability while a higher value (0.5%) is better for EMI reduction.
 

hymy

Senior member
Oct 12, 1999
535
0
76
Well I turned off spread spectrum and I think its now stable at 733 at default voltage with cas 222. I should be cooking with gas now. I let you all know if it stays stable. God I wish I could keep this thing indefinately.
 

JWMiddleton

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2000
5,686
172
106
Let's start with a Go Dawgs!!!

I have a similar setup (see sig below) and have my generic memory set to CAS3. With CLI2.4 my average time is 5.378 hrs per WU. I'm sure the CLI3.0 time will be better based on tests on other PIII systems.

Good luck!
 

Toro 45

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
4,263
0
76
Switching from cas3 to cas2 shaved a good 1 hour to hour& a half off of my time.
Toro
 

Assimilator1

Elite Member
Nov 4, 1999
24,165
524
126
Was that with the old client? ,it might not apply so much with the newer clients?

Anyone tried CAS3 vs CAS2 on v3.0?
 

hymy

Senior member
Oct 12, 1999
535
0
76
Well it won't stay stable OC'd to 733, after about 2hrs it of good stability it crashes and takes the whole registry with it. And I have to reinstall windows.

I backed off to 550 and I can't find a way to disable spread spectrum with a 100FSB, so it'll just have to be a dog. Its not mine for long and I won't get to leave seti on it. So I'm not gonna go to extrordinary lengths to get 733 out of it. (I'M upgrading a friends computer and it won't be left on enough to matter.)

Ass1: 3.0 GUI

JWMiddleton:
Its been a good year for the DAWGs, except for about 70,000 dollars in damage to the field after the tennessee game. I think the goalposts must be in somebodies backyard because they had to buy new ones. The athens paper claims one of them made its way downtown via a impromptu parade. I stayed home and got drunk because I knew it would get ugly when we beat 'em.
 

blade47

Golden Member
Dec 12, 1999
1,353
0
0
hymy, since the system won't be left on enough to run seti, what about RC5?:) Under the seti miniteam of course.;)
 

hymy

Senior member
Oct 12, 1999
535
0
76
sorry, I have issues w/Dnet. I was a victim of some kind of Dnet worm or trojan, several years ago. I'm still too traumatized by that. You can check it out here.



But otherwise, I don't want the support issues that come along with a computer not under my direct control.