Need help with AMD 3800 X2 upgraded CPU not working right

[spencertaylor]

Hi all! I just updated my Vista, home made, PC from an Athlon 64 3500+
single core chip to an Athlon 64 3800 X2 to take advantage of multi-
processing in Vista. Here is the problem. When I ran the benchmarks,
Vista is performing terribly. I went from about 12,500 to about 7,500
in 3D Mark 03. I didn't do a clean install of Vista, but the
motherboard (MSI 7025) and OS picked up the CPU right away. What
should I look at doing to fix this performance problem? This should be
an upgrade, not a downgrade. Please help!

 

[BobS]

Did you do the hardware upgrade and test under WinXP and then test again
under Vista?

You may want to check MSI's site
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K8N_Neo2_Platinum&class=mb
for updates and read the words in read on this page. Do you have the latest
BIOS version installed that may have updates to support Vista.

Also, check with NVIDIA's site for updated nForce 3 drivers as well as
drivers for your graphics card and any other peripherals such as CD/DVD
players, SATA hard drives.

Bob S.

 

[spencertaylor]

Did you do the hardware upgrade and test under WinXP and then test again
under Vista?

You may want to check MSI's sitehttp://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=K8N_Neo2_Platinum...
for updates and read the words in read on this page. Do you have the latest
BIOS version installed that may have updates to support Vista.

Also, check with NVIDIA's site for updated nForce 3 drivers as well as
drivers for your graphics card and any other peripherals such as CD/DVD
players, SATA hard drives.

Bob S.




- Show quoted text -

Thanks Bob. I am not running XP at all, so no way to check.
I had Vista installed with the 3500, then swapped in the 3800 X2.
I checked for updated drivers on NVIDIA'S site, no dice for the nForce
3. You have to use the buidlt in drivers from Vista.
I have the latest driver from NVIDIA for my 6800 Ultra, but I am
thinking I may have to reinstall it. I don't know why that would be
the problem, but that is my next step.
Any other ideas?

Thx

 

[Dale White]

Looking at task manager, does the performance chart show 2 CPUs ? I was
running some tests and I found that if I use the /NUMPROC=1 (number of
processors to 1) that my system actually performed much much slower (too
slow to be a single CPU issue, since my Dual core 4800+ ran slower than my
3800+ single core). I've used that before on Systems with 2 Physical CPUs
and didn't see the performance loss of that nature.

Anyways,I'm wondering if that might be your problem, Vista isn't using both
cores correctly or at all. Looking at Taskmanager, should give you an ideal.
Another way, is to look at device manager and heck that there are two
processors listed under Processors.

Looking at the specs on the board, it doesn't list support for the X2s.
Which means, it would accept the chip, but not offer out both CPUs. This is
like running a CPU with Hyperthreadign from itnel, in a board that doesn't
support it. You don't get the use of HT.

If you're not getting the actual dual cores, then what I encountered might
be what you are encountering, with slower than expected performance

 

[Dale White]

Ok, just checked and I see that you need at least the 1.9 bios to run dual
cores. The latest is 1.B. If you haven't already, try that.

 

[spencertaylor]

Looking at task manager, does the performance chart show 2 CPUs ? I was
running some tests and I found that if I use the /NUMPROC=1 (number of
processors to 1) that my system actually performed much much slower (too
slow to be a single CPU issue, since my Dual core 4800+ ran slower than my
3800+ single core). I've used that before on Systems with 2 Physical CPUs
and didn't see the performance loss of that nature.

Anyways,I'm wondering if that might be your problem, Vista isn't using both
cores correctly or at all. Looking at Taskmanager, should give you an ideal.
Another way, is to look at device manager and heck that there are two
processors listed under Processors.

Looking at the specs on the board, it doesn't list support for the X2s.
Which means, it would accept the chip, but not offer out both CPUs. This is
like running a CPU with Hyperthreadign from itnel, in a board that doesn't
support it. You don't get the use of HT.

If you're not getting the actual dual cores, then what I encountered might
be what you are encountering, with slower than expected performance








- Show quoted text -

Actually, the latest BIOS from MSI completely supports dual core
chips. I believe it's 1.0c - something like that - it has a "c" in it.
I should check the device manager, but I am pretty sure it is
recognizing both cores.
When I installed the new PC, Vista recognized the chip and produced a
new experience score - and the CPU went up, even though the clock
speed went from 2.2 GHz to 2.0 Ghz.

 

[spencertaylor]

Ok, just checked and I see that you need at least the 1.9 bios to run dual
cores. The latest is 1.B. If you haven't already, try that.










- Show quoted text -

I have a newer BIOS than that the "c" BIOS that MSI support sent me.
It has full dual core support, and the chip shows in the bios as two
cores.
I don't think this is a BIOS related issue. I think it's a driver
problem of some kind, but I don't know which one.

 

[BobS]

It would appear you are not having a problem at all with the hardware - it's
the testing program. Is it fully Vista compliant?

Bob S.

 

[spencertaylor]

It would appear you are not having a problem at all with the hardware - it's
the testing program. Is it fully Vista compliant?

Bob S.








- Show quoted text -

Absolutely, Microsoft spendt months tweaking their Vista performance
for 3D Mark, as it is the most widely used benchmark for gaming
performance.

 

[Dale White]

Absolutely, Microsoft spendt months tweaking their Vista performance
for 3D Mark, as it is the most widely used benchmark for gaming
performance.

I don't know about saying that microsoft spent months tweakign their Vista
performance for 3Dmark. That would imply they are cheating the real results,
by tweaking the OS for one benchmark.

Also, 3Dmark06 is the only one listed with Vista support and then only with
patch 1.10.

In reference to your other post, if you have a BIOS later than the 1.9, then
I agree, it's most likely not a BIOS issue.Still interested in what Vista is
reporting, in terms of 1 CPU or two

 

[Dale White]

I forgot to note, that 3Dmark03 does work fine under Vista, Just for the
sake of saking it, I just ran the 03 on XP and Vista64

XP
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5279883

Vista 64bit
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5279841

If you have you're previous scores saved to ORB, you can look at the
breakdown and see where Vista is falling behind. Obviously, if the CPU score
is less, then that's a good indicator where teh problem is. If you didn't
save your scores to ORB, then has the great thespian Homer J. Simpson would
say "DOH"

 

[BobS]

Okay - just did some checking:

1. There are updated nForce 3 drivers available for Vista -
http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_32bit_beta1.html

2. This page http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/approveddrivers/
indicates that the 3DMark03 program does not support NVIDIA Vista video
drivers http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_100.65.html which are
version 100.65.

So maybe this is why......?

Bob S.

 

[spencertaylor]

I forgot to note, that 3Dmark03 does work fine under Vista, Just for the
sake of saking it, I just ran the 03 on XP and Vista64

XPhttp://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5279883

Vista 64bithttp://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=5279841

If you have you're previous scores saved to ORB, you can look at the
breakdown and see where Vista is falling behind. Obviously, if the CPU score
is less, then that's a good indicator where teh problem is. If you didn't
save your scores to ORB, then has the great thespian Homer J. Simpson would
say "DOH"






- Show quoted text -

It slows down during part of the tests for no apparent reason.
It's really weird. It's definitely not talking to the CPU right, or
there is a conflict with the driver.
I was at about 12500, now it's consistently 7450.

 

[spencertaylor]

Okay - just did some checking:

1. There are updated nForce 3 drivers available for Vista -http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_32bit_beta1.html

2. This pagehttp://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark03/approveddrivers/
indicates that the 3DMark03 program does not support NVIDIA Vista video
drivershttp://www.nvidia.com/object/winvista_x86_100.65.htmlwhich are
version 100.65.

So maybe this is why......?

Bob S.

Awesome! I will give the mobo driver a go.
I have an MSFT approved driver from nVidia - the latest one.
They are releasing so many now, it's hard to keep up.

Thanks!

 

[Dale White]

Do you have a Vista install disk ? You could try running the setup from
Vista, Normally this just reverts most files back to the base install of
Vista. If you haven't tried already, you could also run windows updates and
see if there are any updates for the system\Cpu.

Jusdt have to ask, can you think of any other changes you've made lately /
When was teh last time you ran 3dmark03 ? This could be another problem,
that you're just now finding out about. One thing that has fixed wierd
little problems, is to create and log-in to another account. A user over in
the FEAR forums couldn't install the game FEAR. but he created another admin
account nd it installed fine, after that he was able to login with his
account and play fine. FEAR was the only game that wouldn't install.

Just something to try, while you debate re-installing Vista from scratch.

 

[Dale White]

Just be aware that driver is from 2005. It's kinda hard to believe it's
going to be better than what was suppiled with Vista already. notice thelink
says, Beta1, which means it's not technically an "release level driver"
The driver itself says it's Alpha level, which screams of highly untested
stand back and hold your ears on this one.

 

[spencertaylor]

Just be aware that driver is from 2005. It's kinda hard to believe it's
going to be better than what was suppiled with Vista already. notice thelink
says, Beta1, which means it's not technically an "release level driver"
The driver itself says it's Alpha level, which screams of highly untested
stand back and hold your ears on this one.








- Show quoted text -

That's good advice. That must be an old link.

 

[spencertaylor]

Do you have a Vista install disk ? You could try running the setup from
Vista, Normally this just reverts most files back to the base install of
Vista. If you haven't tried already, you could also run windows updates and
see if there are any updates for the system\Cpu.

Jusdt have to ask, can you think of any other changes you've made lately /
When was teh last time you ran 3dmark03 ? This could be another problem,
that you're just now finding out about. One thing that has fixed wierd
little problems, is to create and log-in to another account. A user over in
the FEAR forums couldn't install the game FEAR. but he created another admin
account nd it installed fine, after that he was able to login with his
account and play fine. FEAR was the only game that wouldn't install.

Just something to try, while you debate re-installing Vista from scratch.







- Show quoted text -

I wouldn't do a reformatted install, I would do a "repair install".
Anyone know how you do this with Vista.
I am very familiar with it in XP.

 

[BobS]

The nForce are older drivers dated July 29, 2005 right at the top of the
page and I only posted that as something to try since you said the only
nForce 3 drivers you had were on the Vista DVD. Usually better to get the
drivers right from the manf is the common wisdom.

Second link was the important one - the 3DMark03 page does not show any
approved drivers for your hardware under Vista - only for WinXP. So that
makes this benchmark test invalid for your use.

The 3rd link was for the latest video drivers for GeForce 6 series of cards
(6800) and those are dated Feb 20, 2007. I was being gentle when I said "So
maybe this is why?"

I'll rephrase that. "It does not appear that the 3DMark03 benchmark program
that you're using is valid for your particular setup based on the page I
referenced."

Bob S.

 

[Dale White]

I'm not sure how you can say the test is invlaid Since he ran the test with
the 3500+ under Vista, why would the test be invalid when he runs it with
the 3800+ ? Because he's video drivers aren't on the supported list, that
explains a slowdown after a processor upgrade ?

It is common wisdom to use an "Updated' driver from the vendor, I don't
think many would suggest using a nearly 2 year old beta (or alpha) driver
over that which came with Vista. I'd try a driver for a newer generation of
motherboard, before I tried something 2 years old and lists as an Alpha
driver. But granted it's something to try

Your 2nd reference is not completely fair either. You don't see Vista listed
there for 3dmark06, but it clearly states the 1.1.0 patch has Vista Support.
(http://www.futuremark.com/products/3dmark06/49965/)
So does that means the program supports Vista, but there is no supported
Vista video drivers listed on their page, so you could never run the test ?
Plus the catch with the "Approved drivers" is less about "Does it work?",
and more about people who used modified drivers to give them inflated
scores. The Aquamark benchmark suffered from some serious cheaters, though I
have no ideal why anyone cared that much about a silly benchmark.

I understand your point of looking at face value at the support page, but
sometimes you have to read beyond that. if you look under ATI, Futuremark
says they approved drivers 7.1 for XP\2000, but there isn't any 7.1 drivers
for 2000, ATI stop supporting 2000 at the 6.2 drivers. Obviously, they need
to update and correct their page to be more accurate.

But back to the basic problem, if he runs the test with the 3500+ and gets a
score and then runs with teh 3800+ and gets a worse score, I don't think we
can say the test is invalid, because 3dmark03 doesn't list official support
for his rev of video drivers, which in about 1-1/2 months they will, because
they tend to run about 2 months behind