• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

looking for P4 6xx series owners....

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
M

MikeyLikesItSI

Member
​
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
I'm trying to see if there is a trend with these new CPU's with 2meg cache.

I'm getting terrible memory bandwith scores in sandra, and sentential said his scores aren't much better. I was hoping that some other 6xx series owners could post their current O/C, systems specs, and sandra bandwith score.

P4 630 @ 4.05 (270 x 15) 1.400 vcore
DFI LanParty 875P-T
ADATA Vitesta DDR600 2.5-3-3-7 1:1 @ 3.0 vmem

Sandra: 5567....
 
Isn't the L2 cache not 1:1 with cpu speed?

I don't know, I thought I read that somewhere...They reviewed a 3.2 or a 3.4 and the L2 was at 2.8 ghz. That could be it?

-Edit-

Nevermind, I was wrong.:bang head If only I had a nice chunk of change, I think I'd replace my current system for a 6xx.
 
benchmarks aren't everything... im not an absolute expert, but try something else that would test that, and compare preformance with something else =P
 
that is pretty low for memory. At 255mhz with the 530, I get just over 6000. You should clean over 6400, i figure. I've done ~6200 at 260.
 
Hi Mikey,

My 660 is on it's way, so I can let you know in a week, but perhaps it is a mobo problem, both being not fully supported and BETA bios?

What do they say at DFI-Street regarding this? Hopefully it'll be corrected in the official bios, though they have a tendacy to ignore problems, though I guess it's worth a query.
 
Hmmmm this is not good. Perhaps this might have something to do with the fact that im forced to run CPC off? I thought my bandwith looked awefully low. However its strange...my peformance figures are *right* on the money.

I think tis possible that Sandra isnt reading it right
 
Before anyone panics I want to show you this. Take a look. Eventho Sandra reads wrong, look at lobby. This will make you feel alot better:

cpubandwith1.jpg


cpubandwith2.jpg


Same timings are used in both. Only difference is the vcard. Since the tests highlighted are not GPU dependant its VERY clear that the 640 is faster.

Sandra is just glitching up. Nothin to fear
 
Who'se tictac?

Also, remember, neither board has an official 6xx's CPU support BIOS, so perhaps be patient for a bit.

Anyway, let's hope this get's sorted out.

Oh, and don't worry about CPC, that only enhances memory performance at lower bus speeds. Many mobo's automatically turn it off at anything greater than 200Mhz. I could be mistaken though...
 
Carnajo said:
Who'se tictac?

Also, remember, neither board has an official 6xx's CPU support BIOS, so perhaps be patient for a bit.
Click to expand...
Tictac is one of the best BIOS modders on the net. Abit has had 2 ****ing weeks to sort it out. Its either time to put up or shut up. It just aint that hard for me to get the Asus that does not suffer from these issues
 
Just got thru talking to guys at DFI street. The 875-T does *not* have this issue with the newest beta BIOS from Oskar Wu. Im giving Abit 1 week then Im ordering the DFI
 
Sentential, you cannot draw a clear comparison using that orb you posted. I don't care how "CPU dependent" those tests are; one has to assume that using different video cards will amount to even the slightest degree of variance.

P.S. - If you look even closer, you'll find that the clock speeds differ, too. It might appear to be marginal, but these small discrepancies can very well be the reason why there are differences in the scores. Next time, compare apples to apples for the most objective comparison. Such sloppy reasoning would never be seen as credible on an online review.

deception``
 
deception`` said:
Sentential, you cannot draw a clear comparison using that orb you posted. I don't care how "CPU dependent" those tests are; one has to assume that using different video cards will amount to even the slightest degree of variance.

P.S. - If you look even closer, you'll find that the clock speeds differ, too. It might appear to be marginal, but these small discrepancies can very well be the reason why there are differences in the scores. Next time, compare apples to apples for the most objective comparison. Such sloppy reasoning would never be seen as credible on an online review.

deception``
Click to expand...
The sisandra bandwith alone is cause for concern....period
 
Sentential said:
The sisandra bandwith alone is cause for concern....period
Click to expand...

I said nothing about Sandra bandwidth. The only thing Sandra is good for are such bandwidth screens, which offer no insight into real world performance. For practical intents and purposes, Sandra is nothing more than a bench queen's program. Besides, that particular version of Sandra may not even be properly coded to calculate efficient of 6xx processors correctly. There are too many unknown factors in that case; hence, I care not for it or its results (and neither should you).

I was referring specifically to your 3D Mark comparsion, which has too many erros to be considered credible by any means.

deception``
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Where's my bandwith?
Replies
8
Views
588
MikeyLikesItSI
M
Back