• 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.

Slower Than Expected Performance

P

Pointchiz

Junior Member
Greetings,

I've recently pruchased an AMD Athlon 64 3000+ only to find out that its not performing as fast as it should be. Anandtech can get over 420 fps in Quake 3 with Normal graphics settings. I can only get 360 and my 3Dmark 2001se score is 19,000.

System specs

Athlon 64 3000+
Asus K8V SE (Via 4in1 4.51)
1 GB DDR 400
ATI Radeon 9800 pro (4.4 catalyst)
420-Watt Antec True Power PSU
APG 4x
Fast Writes Disabled
Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

WCPUID 3.3 reports 2 ghz cpu clock - 200 mhz system bus - 200 mhz system clock


I'm using the onboard sound chip. I've tryed re-installing windows several times while changing the order of the driver installations. Whats really wierd is that my first motherboard was a Gigabyte K8N Nforce 3 150 and my Quake 3 score was 260 while 3dmark 2001se reported 16,000.

I have been able to reproduce the 260 fps in Quake 3 on my Asus K8N SE. Theres 3 DIMM slots, 2 of them are colored yellow while the other one is blue. Since I have 2 sticks of RAM, I tryed putting both DIMMS in the yellow colored slots and performance dropped down to 260 fps. I took a stick out of one of the yellow slots and put it back in the blue one to get it back up to 360 fps.

I didn't have to change motherboard after all. Oh well, the Asus board is better anyway. It bugs me though. I bugs me to know that I'm missing 60 fps somewhere and I don't know how to get it.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2038&p=7

Look at this, it's almost as if my system is performing like an Athlon XP 3000+ instead of a Athlon 64 3000+.

Anyone here able to reproduce the Quake 3 scores of Anandtech on a similar machine? I've tryed Quake 3 version 1.11 and 1.17 - the FPS difference between the 2 point releases are neglegible. I don't know what it could be. I seriously doubt that CAS 2.0 memory can be responsible for a 60 fps jump. Is it Windows XP? Does the moon have to be full? /me dies.
 
Isn't Anand using a 9800XT? Besides, your scores are great. If you can tell the difference between 420 and 360FPS, I really am sorry for you, otherwise...you have a great system, enjoy it!
 
WTF are you using that system to play quake3 for anyway? I can build a comp for about 300 bucks to play quake3...
 
I can;t remember my scores, but 19,000 sounds to be in range. These also depend on other factors, such as how thard card is configured, in what graphics mode, etc... You are fine. Enjoy the new rig, and don;t spend so much time looking at benchmarks, the real thing is what is most important.
 
Quake 3 Arena is the best written graphics engine on the planet. It uses your entire subsystem. Your FPS will always go higher if your upgrading CPU, RAM and MOTHERBOARD. It's the only benchmark I trust for system performance excluding video card.

According to that graph in the link I've provided, theres something missing. I use to get 330 FPS with an Athlon XP 2700+ 333mhz bus and 333mhz DDR.

I'm not in it for Quake 3. I just use it as a benchmark after upgrading to make sure my system is performing as it should be. I've been using it since late '99 to make sure my systems are up to speed.

Why do you think Anandtech still uses Quake 3 to benchmark CPU's? The game came out in '99 and its still THE most used CPU benchmark.

Someone out there must use Quake 3 to see if thier system is up to par with what hardware review websites are publishing. Is there anyone out there that has a similar issue? Anyone feel like re-installing Quake 3? You don't even have to patch it. After installing it, just load it up, bring down consol with the tild key and type /timedemo 1, press enter, then type /demo demo001 then press enter.
 
what was the video card on the Athlon XP 2700+ system?

BTW, does the system "feel" faster?

BTW - 2, Meant to include that the system in my sig. at stock hits 20,492 and 6300 in 3Dmark 2001SE and 3DMark 2003.
 
The videocard doesn't matter for Quake 3 but, to answer your question, I was using a Geforce 4 Ti 4200. In the Quake 3 benchmark, your video card does almost nothing. Its just twiddling its thumbs.
 
Originally posted by: jdogg707
what was the video card on the Athlon XP 2700+ system?

BTW, does the system "feel" faster?

BTW - 2, Meant to include that the system in my sig. at stock hits 20,492 and 6300 in 3Dmark 2001SE and 3DMark 2003.
Click to expand...

I just re-ran 2001se and got 18,863. And my 2003 was 5770.
 
Mark, i think if you take out a stick of RAM your system will perform better. Try using Bank 1 and Bank 3. Play around with it because, your system is not as fast as it should be.

Damn it, this bites. My rig is like as if it was an Athlon XP 3000. Is there some turbo switch I have to turn on? Do I have to pet this thing? Ahhhh, it's never going to stop itching me 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Pointchiz
Mark, i think if you take out a stick of RAM your system will perform better. Try using Bank 1 and Bank 3. Play around with it because, your system is not as fast as it should be.

Damn it, this bites. My rig is like as if it was an Athlon XP 3000. Is there some turbo switch I have to turn on? Do I have to pet this thing? Ahhhh, it's never going to stop itching me 🙂
Click to expand...

haha, I have never seen anyone this upset about a system that benches like yours does. What were you expecting? You may see numbers like Anand's, you may not...Variance exisists in everything from the manufacture date of the hardware to the OS install. It changes constantly. What resolution are you running Quake3 at? And the Video card will matter, if you have two similar systems and one has a Geforce2 MX and the other a Radeon 9800XT, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which will be faster.
 
Originally posted by: jdogg707
Originally posted by: Pointchiz
Mark, i think if you take out a stick of RAM your system will perform better. Try using Bank 1 and Bank 3. Play around with it because, your system is not as fast as it should be.

Damn it, this bites. My rig is like as if it was an Athlon XP 3000. Is there some turbo switch I have to turn on? Do I have to pet this thing? Ahhhh, it's never going to stop itching me 🙂
Click to expand...

haha, I have never seen anyone this upset about a system that benches like yours does. What were you expecting? You may see numbers like Anand's, you may not...Variance exisists in everything from the manufacture date of the hardware to the OS install. It changes constantly. What resolution are you running Quake3 at? And the Video card will matter, if you have two similar systems and one has a Geforce2 MX and the other a Radeon 9800XT, it doesn't take a genius to figure out which will be faster.
Click to expand...
And I am running Win2k for the benches I posted. I am bored, so maybe I will try XP benches.... And I have 3 sticks of memory, so I need all three slots. (1.5 gb)
 
I can't settle for less. I'm sure theres something I've overlooked or haven't thought of. The specs are the same as anandtech. The card is the same, the CPU is the same even the board is almost the same. The only thing thats different is the OS and the memory used. I feel downclocked 🙁
 
its cause you are useing all 3 mem banks, take one out and see what you get, it will be better also if yo ujust use 1 bank with a gig ram stick it will be better again
 
So no one here knows what it could be? How is Anandtech getting those numbers? Do you guys benchmark your systems like they do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top