have i hurt my 1.4?

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• #1

i have had a 1.4 for about 1 month, and i am oc at 1.55. i run seti all the time, and now my sandra scores are what most normal 1.4s are at. it should be about 300pts higher. why? if i stop running seti 24/7? i dont know what to do. is it possible to slightly damage a chip? i tried running everything at default, and it is just worse. the fastest i can get my chip, is what i have it at now. i am hopping there is a simple thing i have overlooked, but i hope you guys can help. thanks.

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #2

i would really appreciate you smart people out there to help me...

 

B

Big Mike

Senior Head of Import Performance

​

Joined

Dec 17, 2000

Location

Fort Wayne, IN

• Oct 15, 2001

• #3

Not to offend but did you stop Seti when you ran Sandra? its possible you were losing CPU time to Seti...If not have you done any bios updates or the like? its possible you've gotten a new bios that actually performs worse

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #4

yes, when i benchmark...i run nothing... i did do a bios upgrade last night, but im talking about before. i have a friend (we built the same computer) and he runs about 300pts higher than i do...that is how i know there is a problem.

 

Thelemac

Administratively Deficient

​

Joined

Mar 15, 2001

• Oct 15, 2001

• #5

Are you both using the same OS? That could change it...it could also affect it if you have different motherboards or memory timings...a whole bunch of things, really.

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #6

EVERYTHING down to the stepping on our cores (ayhja 9) is the same. including os. i have an extra hd and a cd/rw. that is it. that is the only difference....ram...mobo...bios....everything else is the same...even the case.

 

Thelemac

Administratively Deficient

​

Joined

Mar 15, 2001

• Oct 15, 2001

• #7

Are you using one set of results, or an average of several?

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #8

both

 

Thelemac

Administratively Deficient

​

Joined

Mar 15, 2001

• Oct 15, 2001

• #9

What benchies are you using?

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #10

im mostly talking about sandra...the cpu bench....he also gets a few more frames in 3dmark2001

 

Oneiron

Member

​

Joined

Aug 22, 2001

Location

Trondheim, Norway

• Oct 15, 2001

• #11

strange... are you sure you ain't running some background processes that are stressing you're CPU? (Ctrl + Alt + Del to check if you didn't know )
Anyway, remember that no two systems can never be the same. You might just have had a run of bad luck when you got you're CPU. What about the memory benchmarks... are they allso alot worse?

 

OP

zangler

Member

​

Joined

Sep 19, 2001

Location

Houston, TX

• Oct 15, 2001

• Thread Starter
• #12

the only thing is, i think my scores used to be up around his....my memory scores are a bit better than the "benchmark systems" running the same chipset and mem. but i do think that my scores were higher.

 

S

sciss

Registered

‍

Joined

Aug 25, 2001

Location

Montreal, Canada

• Oct 15, 2001

• #13

If you're using win9x you may try running msconfig to compare what gets loaded during boot process.