Low performance with Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and ASUS EN8800GT

imported_sea

Junior Member
Dec 18, 2007
3
0
66
Note that this problem may not be completely isolated to my CPU, but I have a feeling it's at least related to it.

Recently I built a (mostly) new computer, with the following specifications:
  • * AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ processor
    * ASUS M2NPV-VM motherboard
    * ASUS EN8800GT 512MB video card
    * 2x1GB DDR2 667Mhz RAM
    * CoolerMaster eXtreme Power Duo 600W PSU
Coming off of my previous computer, I was initially very impressed with the speed of the thing, but soon found that it was performing under my expectations. Although my games are more than playable, I don't think I'm getting the framerates that I should be.

I initially became suspicious when I ran 3DMark06 and found that my score was 9777 - I'd been led to believe that someone with a similar system configuration could reach 11,000 on stocks speeds. After overclocking my video card about 8%, my score went up to about 10,540 points at maximum - not a terrible score, but still lower than I expected, especially considering that I had overclocked things.

I then started using the Half-Life 2: Lost Coast tech demo for benchmarking due to its easy-to-use stress test feature, and found myself disappointed. Despite whatever settings I use, my framerate stays consistent at about 100 fps average - at lowest settings, I get about 102 fps on average, and at highest settings with 4xAA and 16xAF, I get about 98 fps on average. I shouldn't be getting worse performance than benchmarking systems were a year and a half ago.

So, naturally, that sounds like a CPU bottleneck. However, after running SiSoftware's Sandra to benchmark my CPU, it seems to be fairly consistent with the reference model - some scores are a little higher here and some are a little lower there, but nothing too significant. On top of that, all reviews have indicated that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ falls somewhere between the Intel Core 2 Duo processors in terms of performance, depending on the application, so I would expect much better performance out of the CPU; I highly doubt that at 3.01Ghz it's acting as a bottleneck for the video card. So, if the CPU is bottlenecking the video card, then Sandra isn't reporting it properly.

I've gone over everything that I can think of - I've made sure all my voltages are right, RAM is set up properly, BIOS updates and downgrades, driver installs, uninstalls and reinstalls, done tons of benchmarking with the same programs over and over, but absolutely nothing seems to help. I'm pretty much completely clueless about what the problem could be. I've tried posting on a couple of forums already, but nobody has been any help there so far, so I figured I'd try a place where the people are a little bit more expert than the average gaming forum. Any help would be appreciated.
 

thestain

Senior member
May 5, 2006
393
0
0
Hi,

You are not using a performance Motherboard or CPU, why such high expectations?

What temps is your cpu running at? If not over 50C, not a problem.. but just asking.

Second.. my guess is this is not cpu related if not running too hot other than well it is not that good of a cpu.. The Core 2 Arch is a much better performer, right?

third.. could you give manufacturer and timings and voltage for your ram? This motherboard might not work well with the ram you selected.. could be being picky.

Are you using on board video in any way? Enabled??.. how much memory used for, etc..?? sometimes this can be tricky in how you have this set for ultimate performance.. it needs to be disabled in general, but for some programs.. this could lead to some delays so its quirky.

and.. you should know it, but.. this home theater motherboard is not really for a performance system and from reviews it does take an occassional hit compared to premium motherboards of up to 20 percent in test like 3d Mark. What is the case you are using and what cooler are you using for your cpu?

You could replace that board and cpu pretty cheaply.. probably for under $300 and blow your current performance away

 

AMDZen

Lifer
Apr 15, 2004
12,589
0
76
Originally posted by: thestain
You are not using a performance Motherboard or CPU, why such high expectations?

Exactly

Originally posted by: sea
On top of that, all reviews have indicated that the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ falls somewhere between the Intel Core 2 Duo processors in terms of performance, depending on the application, so I would expect much better performance out of the CPU; I highly doubt that at 3.01Ghz it's acting as a bottleneck for the video card.

Well whoever told you that is wrong, at 3.0 Ghz your processor isn't much if any quicker then mine even though my proc is old tech. I have an Opteron 170 running at about the same clockspeed.

A C2D running at 3.0 Ghz would absolutely destroy any Athlon X2 that exists today, not to mention it would best it by a large margin even at 2.0 Ghz
 

imported_sea

Junior Member
Dec 18, 2007
3
0
66
I'm using Kingston ValueRAM. I realise it is not high-performance memory, but I am not willing to spend a hundred dollars on the stuff, and I know that performance hit is not particularly big anyway and only becomes a problem when you get into higher-performance computers.

I was unsure about the motherboard simply because from what I've read, most AM2 socket motherboards perform pretty much exactly the same, and the only major difference between them is in the features you get. Reviews of it also looked fairly good. We actually decided to switch this one out for another one because the first one I was looking at didn't have the right number of PCI slots, but the guy working at the store might not have realised that the board wasn't the fastest around.

As for the processor, I realise it's not top-of-the-line, but all benchmarks using a similar hardware combination led me to believe that I would get better performance out of it, and not that it would act as a bottleneck. Otherwise I would have gone with an Intel CPU.

Originally posted by: AMDZenWell whoever told you that is wrong, at 3.0 Ghz your processor isn't much if any quicker then mine even though my proc is old tech. I have an Opteron 170 running at about the same clockspeed.
You mean various review sites like ExtremeTech, Tom's Hardware, AnandTech and TweakTown are wrong?

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear. I know I don't have a supercomputer here, but the performance I'm getting is not up to par with what all research indicated it would be.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,587
10,225
126
Originally posted by: sea
I then started using the Half-Life 2: Lost Coast tech demo for benchmarking due to its easy-to-use stress test feature, and found myself disappointed. Despite whatever settings I use, my framerate stays consistent at about 100 fps average - at lowest settings, I get about 102 fps on average, and at highest settings with 4xAA and 16xAF, I get about 98 fps on average. I shouldn't be getting worse performance than benchmarking systems were a year and a half ago.
You're disappointed at getting 100fps? Color me confused.

 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear. I know I don't have a supercomputer here, but the performance I'm getting is not up to par with what all research indicated it would be.

Well, I'll bite . . .

OS?
HHDs?
System Resources/background services?
Driver version?
What games?

Quick check - I found 3dmark06 x2 5000+ score: 9029
- not found at the ORB - Lookee Here

At your settings:

Half Life 2: Lost Coast
1280X1024: 92.52
1600x1200: 103
1920x1440: 107.13


You're worrying about nothing. Your cpu is not a bottleneck.

"WHO" told you you should get better performance? Let them post verifiable benchies and settings ... Run the UT3 Demo and compare your result to Tech Report at 2560x1600.

 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,002
126
A 6000+ is about as fast as a 2.4ghz C2D... it's not 'that' slow. It's just not as fast as the C2D's are. 4xAA, 16AF @ 98FPS isn't that bad, is it? :p
 

Tempered81

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2007
6,374
1
81
your amd cpu/mobo is not as fast as a budget c2d that is overclocked. thats the reason your score & fps are lower than your high expectations. problem solved.

i have an 8800gt as well, and my e4300/ds3 will give me 13,000 3dmark06
 

imported_sea

Junior Member
Dec 18, 2007
3
0
66
Thank you for the replies.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryYou're disappointed at getting 100fps? Color me confused.
Heh. It has to do more with getting less than I expected than being disappointed at the performance. Half-Life 2 and my other games run perfectly save for a few occasional hitches, so everything's more than playable. I'm not disappointed so much in the performance as I am a little confused as to why the computer doesn't quite hit the speeds I thought it would.

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear. I know I don't have a supercomputer here, but the performance I'm getting is not up to par with what all research indicated it would be.

Well, I'll bite . . .

OS?
HHDs?
System Resources/background services?
Driver version?
What games?
My operating system is Windows XP Service Pack 2 with all recent updates installed, and I have nearly all non-essential background services and running processes disabled, various tweaks made to Windows for performance (disabled DOS short names, disabled effects, etc.) and no anti-virus software going in the background. I regularly clean my registry, temp files, etc. using programs like CCleaner, RegScrubXP and ATF Cleaner.

I have two ATA hard disk drives (one piece of crap store brand thing, runs at 7200 RPM, not used for games, and a Maxtor 6L250R0).

I'm using my motherboard's 0901 revision BIOS, downgraded from 1201 earlier due to concerns about performance. Video drivers are NVIDIA ForceWare 169.02, running along with RivaTuner and NVTray. Chipset drivers are nForce version 8.26/11.09.

The games I've been looking at are mostly the Unreal Tournament III beta demo (runs mostly fine at almost-highest settings with tweaks), Half-Life 2, Episode One and Lost Coast, Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (from what I hear it runs fairly poorly everywhere, anyways), Call of Duty 4 demo (flawless on highest settings), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (runs about as well as I can expect out of it on highest settings), as well as some older stuff like Fable: The Lost Chapters, Hitman: Blood Money and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Resolutions past 1024x768 are of little interest to me because my monitor doesn't support anything higher at a decent refresh rate (it's quite old, but still pretty great compared to most CRTs I've seen lately).

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo"WHO" told you you should get better performance? Let them post verifiable benchies and settings ...
Mostly from comparing to various benchmark results posted online by large web sites like TweakTown, ExtremeTech, etc. and other users, such as those on the Futuremark forums. What I've seen there indicates that my performance just isn't quite up to snuff with the hardware I'm using. What concerns me the most is the fact that changing settings seems to have absolutely no major effect on performance.

EDIT: Ran a couple more benchmarks in Sandra. Nothing really out of the ordinary, except for this:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9718/sandra1eh9.jpg

Note the difference compared to the reference system. Not sure if it would be an indicator of anything horrible, but the .NET framework does seem to get used quite a bit these days.
 

error8

Diamond Member
Nov 28, 2007
3,204
0
76
Well using a 667 mhz ram on an AMD system is a mistake. Your frame rates in games are very good, so I don't see any problems here. The only thing that looks odd is your 3dmark score, which is a bit lower then normal, but not to low anyway. If I were you I'd try overclocking the CPU until the ram hits 800 mhz or so. I do believe that right now, any AMD cpu is a bottleneck for a 8800 series card, so the highest scores in 3dmark are seen only with Intel cpus.
 

j0j081

Banned
Aug 26, 2007
1,090
0
0
well he is saying his 3dmark score is low compard to similar configurations, not more expensive or faster processors. I have no idea what's wrong but I do know on my old system Ram speed made a huge difference in gaming.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: sea
Thank you for the replies.

Originally posted by: VirtualLarryYou're disappointed at getting 100fps? Color me confused.
Heh. It has to do more with getting less than I expected than being disappointed at the performance. Half-Life 2 and my other games run perfectly save for a few occasional hitches, so everything's more than playable. I'm not disappointed so much in the performance as I am a little confused as to why the computer doesn't quite hit the speeds I thought it would.

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Maybe I'm not being entirely clear. I know I don't have a supercomputer here, but the performance I'm getting is not up to par with what all research indicated it would be.

Well, I'll bite . . .

OS?
HHDs?
System Resources/background services?
Driver version?
What games?
My operating system is Windows XP Service Pack 2 with all recent updates installed, and I have nearly all non-essential background services and running processes disabled, various tweaks made to Windows for performance (disabled DOS short names, disabled effects, etc.) and no anti-virus software going in the background. I regularly clean my registry, temp files, etc. using programs like CCleaner, RegScrubXP and ATF Cleaner.

I have two ATA hard disk drives (one piece of crap store brand thing, runs at 7200 RPM, not used for games, and a Maxtor 6L250R0).

I'm using my motherboard's 0901 revision BIOS, downgraded from 1201 earlier due to concerns about performance. Video drivers are NVIDIA ForceWare 169.02, running along with RivaTuner and NVTray. Chipset drivers are nForce version 8.26/11.09.

The games I've been looking at are mostly the Unreal Tournament III beta demo (runs mostly fine at almost-highest settings with tweaks), Half-Life 2, Episode One and Lost Coast, Company of Heroes: Opposing Fronts (from what I hear it runs fairly poorly everywhere, anyways), Call of Duty 4 demo (flawless on highest settings), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (runs about as well as I can expect out of it on highest settings), as well as some older stuff like Fable: The Lost Chapters, Hitman: Blood Money and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. Resolutions past 1024x768 are of little interest to me because my monitor doesn't support anything higher at a decent refresh rate (it's quite old, but still pretty great compared to most CRTs I've seen lately).

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo"WHO" told you you should get better performance? Let them post verifiable benchies and settings ...
Mostly from comparing to various benchmark results posted online by large web sites like TweakTown, ExtremeTech, etc. and other users, such as those on the Futuremark forums. What I've seen there indicates that my performance just isn't quite up to snuff with the hardware I'm using. What concerns me the most is the fact that changing settings seems to have absolutely no major effect on performance.

EDIT: Ran a couple more benchmarks in Sandra. Nothing really out of the ordinary, except for this:

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9718/sandra1eh9.jpg

Note the difference compared to the reference system. Not sure if it would be an indicator of anything horrible, but the .NET framework does seem to get used quite a bit these days.

Give yourself a break. You're fine. :D

Don't go nukular comparing your rig to synthetic benchies on 3GHz Intel quads, 1066 ram, WinV, 20% OC'ed Asus 8800gt's, SATA hard drives, 64-bit, etc

There is a reason tech companies like M$ have so much money. With a 'legacy' OS - XP - you will never get complete functionality of DX10. SM4, VS4, and the Direct3d10 API unless you open your wallet and purchase Vista. Faster ram or hard drives are not going to give you the increase in performance for the price you will pay.

And I'm assuming you're running 75-100hz refresh rate on your CRT. Be very happy. It's all downhill from there :)