SETI uncovered some issues.

ochadd

Senior member
May 27, 2004
408
0
76
SETI @ home has dug up some serious problems with my rig.

Before I upgraded my CPU I was running an Athlon XP2000(1.667Ghz) and doing work units at 14.5 hours per unit. Which I thought was ok because I had nothing to compare it to.

I just reinstalled SETI for some hardware tests and I am up to about 18 hours per unit with an XP2500(1.8Ghz).

According to the stats on the SETI homepage I should have been doing units at around 4.5 hours for the XP2500 and under 5 hours with the xp2000.

I OCed my processor to an XP2500@2.2Ghz and see no improvement.

3DMark scores are also absolutely terrible. 1500 in 3Dmark03 which is actually worse than my XP2000.

Flashed my bios and started over from scratch with the most recent update but nothing helps.

I was told to post in here. Another user said my 3Dmark scores are in line with my system specs but I still dont understand why SETI would take so long compared to the results other users have with the same processor.

XP2500@2.2
1Gb DDR333 (512x2 ocsystem and kingston value ram)
Asus A7V333
WD800JB 80Gb 7200rpm and 8Mb cache
Nvidia GeForce ti4200 128Mb
SB Audigy2 Platinum
 

BlackMountainCow

Diamond Member
May 28, 2003
5,759
0
0
I guess that mostly your DDR333 RAM is the problem. Most ppl have DDR400 (PC3200) RAM with such high clocked Athlon XPs. Your XP3200+ (OCed 2500) is the same baby I use, but I get WU times of under 2 hours. But nevertheless, my old XP2000+ only had DDR333 RAM as well and I never cam above 5 hours for a SETI WU. So something is really wrong with you system.

EDIT: Are you using the CLI or the GUI version of SETI??
 

Freewolf

Diamond Member
Feb 15, 2001
9,673
1
81
Sounds like you are running the screensaver. You need to run the client version and also turn off anything that going into a sleep mode except your monitor.
 

ochadd

Senior member
May 27, 2004
408
0
76
Blackmountaincow: My processor is actually unlocked, I just crank up the multiplier and dont touch the FSB. Would the graphical version make a differnce of 10+ hours though?


freewolf: I will have to check the sleep/hybernate out but the screensaver is always on in the morning when I get up.
 

Freewolf

Diamond Member
Feb 15, 2001
9,673
1
81
Originally posted by: ochadd
Blackmountaincow: My processor is actually unlocked, I just crank up the multiplier and dont touch the FSB. Would the graphical version make a differnce of 10+ hours though?


freewolf: I will have to check the sleep/hybernate out but the screensaver is always on in the morning when I get up.

The screensaver is the problem.
 

BlackMountainCow

Diamond Member
May 28, 2003
5,759
0
0
Yep, the command line version is WAY WAY WAY WAY (did I mention WAY?) faster than the screensaver version!! That's your problem and the reason for your loooooooooong times per WU! :D
 

networkman

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
10,436
1
0
Roger that! Dump that GUI and go to the CLI -- makes one heck of a difference in performance! ;)

Also, for what it's worth, my gaming rig is similar to yours:

XP2500@2.1
1Gb DDR400 (512x2 Kingston value ram)
Gigabyte GA something..
WD800JB 80Gb 7200rpm and 8Mb cache
ATI 9600XT 128Mb
SB Audigy2 Platinum
 

Unforgiven

Golden Member
May 11, 2001
1,827
0
0
ive seen the screensaver make as much as 30 hours of difference on some 2+ ghz chips....the cli will cut your times down to where they need to be.
 

Unforgiven

Golden Member
May 11, 2001
1,827
0
0
i hope this dude didnt waste a bunch on upgrading his box only to find out he was using the slower version of seti.
 

nickdakick

Platinum Member
Jun 27, 2000
2,484
0
0
Yup, Athlon XP 2400+ with heavy usage CLI times are ~ 3h30m :D

OT: schwarze Bergkuah, gar ned so weid weg, wenn's Profil stimmt. :laugh:
 

Assimilator1

Elite Member
Nov 4, 1999
24,120
507
126
166FSB & RAM won't hurt WU times too much ,as the others have said the GUI version is much slower than the CLI version ,the CLI is around 25-75% faster depending upon whether or not you had your GUI version showing graphics.

Btw ,my main rig.
XP1700 @2.04GHz,177FSB/RAM ,nfrc2 DDR dual channel, 2.1 - 2.5hrs/WU for most WUs.
2nd rig
XP2200 @2.03GHz,150FSB/RAM,VIA KT133a SDR, about 3 - 3.5hrs/WU for most WUs.

Both run CLI v3.03

I used to have a Asus A7V266-E ,with the XP1700 @1.9GHz,152MHz FSB/RAM ,average WU's were done in about 2.9hrs
 

ochadd

Senior member
May 27, 2004
408
0
76
You guys were all right. The difference between gui and the CLI was friggin HUGE. Im not sure what my times are now but the avereage went from 14.5 down to 6.25. Thanks for the advice and CLI.
 

dawks

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,071
2
81
Yea my PII 400 was averaging about 13.5 hours per work unit, while using the CLI. I've just upgraded to a XP 2500+ Barton, and am seeing about 3 hours per WU.
 

MoFunk

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
4,058
0
0
Now just reverse your OC and you will be good to go. Seti loves a higher FSB. I am running a Barton at 11x215 and I am getting some sub 2 hour WU times. My average is 2:01. The higher FSB is what makes the difference.
 

Assimilator1

Elite Member
Nov 4, 1999
24,120
507
126
Originally posted by: ochadd
You guys were all right. The difference between gui and the CLI was friggin HUGE. Im not sure what my times are now but the avereage went from 14.5 down to 6.25. Thanks for the advice and CLI.

Is that for the XP2000? 6.25 hrs is still somewhat slow (even taking into account 15% slower speed of v3.08 CLI).
My friend has a Duron 1400 ,133FSB/RAM, SDR RAM ,KT266a chipset on CLI v3.03 his rig does most WU's in about 4.5hrs
 

Unforgiven

Golden Member
May 11, 2001
1,827
0
0
i think hes saying his overall average (based on the main seti page) went down from 14.5 to 6.25. my xp 2000 does a unit in about 3.5 hours or lower.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,716
417
126
tbqhwy.com
my Xp 2400+ @ 2.3 does them in about 2.5 hours and im running PC2700 DDR 333, make sure you dont have a screensve on and you dont have you HDs power down