AMD 64 X2 4200 dual core seems slow

Discussion in 'AMD 64 Bit' started by John Perry, Aug 19, 2006.

  1. John Perry

    John Perry Guest

    I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark

    Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3

    Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    fast on the overall CPU test?

    I'd appreciate comments
    --
    John Perry

    http://www.redoak.co.uk
    http://www.eze-buy.co.uk
     
    John Perry, Aug 19, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:35:38 +0100, John Perry wrote:

    > I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    > and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    > dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark
    >
    > Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    > Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    > Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3
    >
    > Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    > fast on the overall CPU test?
    >
    > I'd appreciate comments


    The A64 has Cool & Quiet which drops the clock speed when the processor is
    running a light load. It sounds like your system isn't raising the clock
    to full speed when it's running that benchmark. In Windows there is a
    power management control panel, you should check to see if its set to some
    low power mode (I'm a Linux user so I can't tell you what the proper
    choice is in Windows but it should be obvious). It's also possible that
    you are missing the drivers that control Coll & Quiet or that your BIOS
    needs an update.
     
    General Schvantzkoph, Aug 19, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Perry

    John Perry Guest

    On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:32:24 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
    <> wrote:

    >On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:35:38 +0100, John Perry wrote:
    >
    >> I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    >> and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    >> dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark
    >>
    >> Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    >> Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    >> Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3
    >>
    >> Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    >> fast on the overall CPU test?
    >>
    >> I'd appreciate comments

    >
    >The A64 has Cool & Quiet which drops the clock speed when the processor is
    >running a light load. It sounds like your system isn't raising the clock
    >to full speed when it's running that benchmark. In Windows there is a
    >power management control panel, you should check to see if its set to some
    >low power mode (I'm a Linux user so I can't tell you what the proper
    >choice is in Windows but it should be obvious). It's also possible that
    >you are missing the drivers that control Coll & Quiet or that your BIOS
    >needs an update.


    Thanks for that. I downloaded the latest drivers for the CPU, and
    then the processor ran really hot and I had a blue screen.

    Next I installed the AMD power monitor, and set the processor into
    laptop mode, and now it runs cool at 33C not 45C! And then I ran
    performance test again and the result was 410.

    Now, what is interesting is that performance test only used I core and
    the frequency went up from 1000 to 2200 and the voltage from 1.1 to
    1.35V on that core, but the other core had nothing to do.

    Conclusion is that I have the 10% improvement going from 2GHz to
    2.2GHz, but I still have a spare core that is not being used, so the
    performance is really around 800.

    Now, how the Lenovo reports 816, is beyond me.

    Thanks again for the tips!
    >

    --
    John Perry

    http://www.redoak.co.uk
    http://www.eze-buy.co.uk
     
    John Perry, Aug 19, 2006
    #3
  4. John Perry

    Mark Guest

    John Perry wrote:

    > On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 07:32:24 -0400, General Schvantzkoph
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:35:38 +0100, John Perry wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    >>> and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    >>> dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark
    >>>
    >>> Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    >>> Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    >>> Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3
    >>>
    >>> Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    >>> fast on the overall CPU test?
    >>>
    >>> I'd appreciate comments

    >>
    >>The A64 has Cool & Quiet which drops the clock speed when the processor is
    >>running a light load. It sounds like your system isn't raising the clock
    >>to full speed when it's running that benchmark. In Windows there is a
    >>power management control panel, you should check to see if its set to some
    >>low power mode (I'm a Linux user so I can't tell you what the proper
    >>choice is in Windows but it should be obvious). It's also possible that
    >>you are missing the drivers that control Coll & Quiet or that your BIOS
    >>needs an update.

    >
    > Thanks for that. I downloaded the latest drivers for the CPU, and
    > then the processor ran really hot and I had a blue screen.
    >
    > Next I installed the AMD power monitor, and set the processor into
    > laptop mode, and now it runs cool at 33C not 45C! And then I ran
    > performance test again and the result was 410.
    >
    > Now, what is interesting is that performance test only used I core and
    > the frequency went up from 1000 to 2200 and the voltage from 1.1 to
    > 1.35V on that core, but the other core had nothing to do.
    >
    > Conclusion is that I have the 10% improvement going from 2GHz to
    > 2.2GHz, but I still have a spare core that is not being used, so the
    > performance is really around 800.
    >
    > Now, how the Lenovo reports 816, is beyond me.
    >
    > Thanks again for the tips!
    >>

    > --
    > John Perry


    Note, the test program may be single threaded. The OS will then dump
    the various sundry windows processes onto the other core as
    it likes but likely those processes still won't work that one
    out much compared to the load prog. which is made by design to use lots of
    cpu. Try running two instantiations of the test program at the same time.
    Mark
     
    Mark, Aug 21, 2006
    #4
  5. John Perry

    Bill Guest

    Mark wrote:

    >> Thanks for that. I downloaded the latest drivers for the CPU, and
    >> then the processor ran really hot and I had a blue screen.


    At full speed, you should not go over about 50'C and you shouldn't get a
    BSOD. Something is wrong with the setup or the cooling.

    Normal idle temps for an x2 should be around 30-35'C in a room with
    ambient temperature of 20'C and proper case & CPU cooling.

    Perhaps your heatsink is not properly seated?

    Or your case has very inadequate fan exhaust and you have a big hotspot
    inside the case?

    A friend once had a heat problem with his system. It turned out the
    power supply fan was thermal controlled and would run at very slow
    speeds if the power supply wasn't being taxed.

    The ambient case temp was over 40'C so the heatsink could not cool the
    CPU enough under load. He didn't have a case fan, just the single power
    supply fan, so the case had poor air flow. There were mounting holes for
    a case fan, so I just added a $15 80mm fan to exhaust the hot air and
    all was well again.

    >> Next I installed the AMD power monitor, and set the processor into
    >> laptop mode, and now it runs cool at 33C not 45C! And then I ran
    >> performance test again and the result was 410.

    >
    >> Now, what is interesting is that performance test only used I core and
    >> the frequency went up from 1000 to 2200 and the voltage from 1.1 to
    >> 1.35V on that core, but the other core had nothing to do.


    But that's running at half speed again, so you're losing performance and
    not using the second core. Double whammy!

    >Note, the test program may be single threaded. The OS will then dump
    >the various sundry windows processes onto the other core as
    >it likes but likely those processes still won't work that one
    >out much compared to the load prog. which is made by design to use lots of
    >cpu.


    That's not completely accurate.

    Even with a single threaded app, Windows XP will distribute the process
    across the two cores, and it's rarely a 50/50 split. What actually
    happens is the thread is distributed as the process priority is
    executed, so the load will vary on each core as the program runs and
    time slices with the other processes that are running at the same time.

    Sometimes when you upgrade a processor, XP doesn't upgrade it's kernel
    hardware access layer (HAL) to work with the extra core - it doesn't
    "see" your dual-core CPU. There are two kernels, one is the single
    processor (SP) and the other is the multiple processor (MP) HAL.

    Also, you need to ensure your BIOS supports dual-core processors, and
    that if you're running XP Home Edition, you have service pack 2 (SP2)
    installed.

    Now to check, bring up the Task Manager. Look under the Performance tab
    and if it only shows one graph for your CPU then XP is not running the
    multiple processor HAL kernel and it's not using the second core.

    You can also check in Device Manager where it should be showing 2
    processors. Expand the Computer options and you should see "APCI
    multiprocessor PC" for the MP HAL.
    If it says "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface(ACPI) PC", then
    you're still running the SP HAL.

    So if it looks like you're using just one core, you need to open the
    Device Manager and uninstall the CPU from the system, and restart your
    computer. That should force XP to update the HAL and you should have two
    CPUs shown in Device Manager after the restart. You may have to remove
    the CPU running in Safe Mode...I can't remember if it'll work from the
    normal desktop mode.
     
    Bill, Aug 23, 2006
    #5
  6. John Perry

    Frodo Guest

    Look at the true speed of both desktop CPUs, 4200 only runs 10% faster.
    The new 4200 uses added features for better performance (like 3DNOW
    professional?)
    But that does not mean that test programs will take full advantage of newer
    instructions.
    Your older 3000 comes with 1024K level two cache, the 4200 only has 512K per
    core.
    What CPU is in the ThinkPad?
    Is it an AMD dual core running at 2.4GHz?

    "John Perry" <> wrote in message
    news:blush:...
    >I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    > and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    > dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark
    >
    > Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    > Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    > Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3
    >
    > Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    > fast on the overall CPU test?
    >
    > I'd appreciate comments
    > --
    > John Perry
    >
    > http://www.redoak.co.uk
    > http://www.eze-buy.co.uk
    >
     
    Frodo, Aug 23, 2006
    #6
  7. John Perry

    Au Guest

    On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:11:45 -0400, Bill scribed:

    > At full speed, you should not go over about 50'C and you shouldn't get a
    > BSOD. Something is wrong with the setup or the cooling.
    >
    > Normal idle temps for an x2 should be around 30-35'C in a room with
    > ambient temperature of 20'C and proper case & CPU cooling.


    I second the temperature range you quote, same processor. The hottest I
    ever saw when loading the processor with things to do was 52DegC. Normal
    web-browsing and the such is around 33DecC. If you enable the fans to spin
    lower for a bit quieter time (especially the CPU one) then the temperatures
    do go up (I think it's called QFan or something).
     
    Au, Aug 25, 2006
    #7
  8. John Perry

    Ed Guest

    On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:16:32 +0100, John Perry
    <> wrote:
    >
    >Conclusion is that I have the 10% improvement going from 2GHz to
    >2.2GHz, but I still have a spare core that is not being used, so the
    >performance is really around 800.


    Most benchmarks only use 1 CPU.

    A dual core VS a single core at same MHz is about 90% faster on
    multi-threaded apps or when multi-tasking several apps.

    Ed
    --
    A64 s939 4200+ X2
    A64 s754 3200+
     
    Ed, Aug 25, 2006
    #8
  9. John Perry

    John Perry Guest

    Thanks for comments:

    On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:12:02 GMT, "Frodo" <>
    wrote:

    >Look at the true speed of both desktop CPUs, 4200 only runs 10% faster.
    >The new 4200 uses added features for better performance (like 3DNOW
    >professional?)
    >But that does not mean that test programs will take full advantage of newer
    >instructions.
    >Your older 3000 comes with 1024K level two cache, the 4200 only has 512K per
    >core.
    >What CPU is in the ThinkPad?


    Intel T2400 Core Duo 1.83GHz

    >Is it an AMD dual core running at 2.4GHz?


    1.35GHz in each core

    Also the test only used one core in the AMD - I do not know if the
    Intel processor was clever enough to use both.

    >
    >"John Perry" <> wrote in message
    >news:blush:...
    >>I have run Norton's Passmark Performance Test 5 from Systemworks 2005
    >> and have some strange results after upgrading my Athlon Venice to a
    >> dual core with 2GB DDR 400 RAM: This is CPU Benchmark
    >>
    >> Athlon 3000 (2GHz) Venice: 373.9
    >> Athlon 4200 (2.2Ghz) Dual Core 423.9
    >> Lenovo T60 2400 Dual Core 816.3
    >>
    >> Why of why does my ThinkPad with just 512MB RAM appear to be twice as
    >> fast on the overall CPU test?
    >>
    >> I'd appreciate comments
    >> --
    >> John Perry
    >>
    >> http://www.redoak.co.uk
    >> http://www.eze-buy.co.uk
    >>

    >
    >

    --
    John Perry

    http://www.redoak.co.uk
    http://www.eze-buy.co.uk
     
    John Perry, Sep 4, 2006
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. georgepaul1979 via HWKB.com

    Need Help- Buying two AMD 3200+ or one 4200+(Dual Core)

    georgepaul1979 via HWKB.com, Oct 29, 2005, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    239
    General Schvantzkoph
    Oct 30, 2005
  2. The Frozen Canuck

    AMD 64 +3000 > AMD 64 X2 +4200: System seems slower

    The Frozen Canuck, Dec 4, 2005, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    261
    Rhonda Francis
    Dec 7, 2005
  3. KD
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    306
  4. Guest

    AMD Single Core vs Dual Core

    Guest, Apr 16, 2006, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    566
  5. Old Guy

    Dual core Opteron vs dual core Athlon

    Old Guy, Mar 10, 2007, in forum: AMD 64 Bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    436
    Guest
    Mar 13, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page