• 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.

Problems with my E6300

H

hurtstotalktoyou

Platinum Member
So I got an E6300 for Christmas. I used my old mobo and CPU to upgrade my Mom's PC.

The E6300 was giving me all sorts of trouble. I'm wasn't too worried, though, because all my stability problems occured only when I was overclocking. But I was a bit peeved. To help alleviate my bad mood, I decided to run some amateur benchmarks. If my machine wasn't stable, at least it was fast.

But the E6300 at stock turned out to be nearly as slow as my overclocked Sempron 64 2800+! What gives?

Here are the system specs...

My Mom's PC:
Sempron 64 2800+ (s754) @ 2.32 GHz
Epox EP-8KDA3J
1GB (2x512MB) single channel DDR-333 @ 387 MHz
40GB Western Digital WD400EB
64MB nVidia GeForce4 MX 420

My new PC:
E6300 @ stock (1.86 GHz)
Gigabyte GA-965P-S3
1GB (2x512MB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2-675 @ 667 MHz
80GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA/150
64MB (256MB with turbocache) Biostar GeForce 6200TC

I've run one benchmark so far. I encoded a CD image to "best" quality RAR using WinRAR 3. The Sempron did it in 7:56. The C2D did it in 7:23. That's a 7.4% performance increase from a virtual Athlon 64 3200+ to a Core 2 Duo E6300. Does that sound right?

UPDATE: I've now run three benchmarks total

#1: encoded 54:33 of CD-quality WAV files to FLAC level 8 using DMC 10
#2: encoded a 696 MB CD image to "best" quality RAR using WinRAR 3
#3: encoded a 42:01 DivX movie to DVD-quality MPEG-2 using TMPGEnc Plus

Sempron 64 2800+ @ 2.32 GHz
DMC: 4:11
WinRAR: 7:56
TMPGEnc: 22:34

E6300 @ 1.86 GHz (stock)
DMC: 4:04 (2.87% performance increase)
WinRAR: 7:23 (7.45% performance increase)
TMPGEnc: 20:11 (11.8% performance increase)

Please help!
 
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
So I got an E6300 for Christmas. I used my old mobo and CPU to upgrade my Mom's PC.

The E6300 was giving me all sorts of trouble. To help alleviate my bad mood, I decided to run some amateur benchmarks. If my machine wasn't stable, at least it was fast.

But the E6300 at stock turned out to be nearly as slow as my overclocked Sempron 64 2800+! What gives?

Here are the system specs...

My Mom's PC:
Sempron 64 2800+ (s754) @ 2.32 GHz
Epox EP-8KDA3J
1GB (2x512MB) single channel DDR-333 @ 387 MHz
40GB Western Digital WD400EB
64MB nVidia GeForce4 MX 420

My new PC:
E6300 @ stock (1.86 GHz)
Gigabyte GA-965P-S3
1GB (2x512MB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2-675 @ 667 MHz
80GB Seagate 7200.7 SATA/150
64MB (256MB with turbocache) Biostar GeForce 6200TC

I've run one benchmark so far. I encoded a CD image to "best" quality RAR using WinRAR 3. The Sempron did it in 7:56. The C2D did it in 7:23. That's a 7.4% performance increase from a virtual Athlon 64 3200+ to a Core 2 Duo E6300. Does that sound right?

Please help!
Click to expand...

Your ram confuses me.

Other than that, you may have gotten some defective components. You should worry about system stability before speed.

Make sure that all your components are working as they should, and go from there. The problem will probably solve itself.
 
Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Originally posted by: regnez

Your ram confuses me.
Click to expand...

I'm running my RAM at 667, even though it is rated at 675. It's either that or 800, and I want to make sure I'm not overclocking anything for my benchmarks.
Click to expand...

The 675 is confusing, 800 is realistic, although 675 and 800 I can't see mixing up. You sure your RAM isn't rated 667 (which is what you're running it at)?
 
Actually, if the benchmark you were using was single-threaded, that sounds about right. The E6300 is only about 35% faster than your Sempron clock for clock, and so with a little quick math...

Yep. Your Core 2 Duo at stock is about as fast as a 2.5 ghz Sempron (at least in single core...) Try some multithreaded benchmarks, you should see significant speed gains.
 
Originally posted by: pkrush
Actually, if the benchmark you were using was single-threaded, that sounds about right. The E6300 is only about 35% faster than your Sempron clock for clock, and so with a little quick math...

Yep. Your Core 2 Duo at stock is about as fast as a 2.5 ghz Sempron (at least in single core...) Try some multithreaded benchmarks, you should see significant speed gains.
Click to expand...

That's not what the pro benchmarks say. Anyhow, TMPGEnc is a dual-core-aware application.
 
Huh. Are you sure that both cores are showing up in the Task Manager? If you didn't reinstall Windows when you upgraded, they might not be. Also, see if you can disable TurboCache on that video card, since I guarantee that's eating up a significant amount of memory and bandwidth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top