Abnormally Slow Sandra scores on A7V333

[Breadfan]

I'm using a new A7V333 at work with an AthlonXP 1800, and 256mb of Crucial DDR2100.

I'm curious if anyone else has run Sandra benchmarks, and if so, were they abnormally slow?

I don't have a screenshot right now (but can get them in a little bit), but my CPU scores are too low. So are my memory scores.

The CPU, an 1800, comes closer (on both cpu tests) to a 1ghz Athlon Tbird. It's slower than a 1600, and even a bit slower than a 1.2.

Memory scores, as mentioned, are similar in their deficit. My memory scores are less than that of a KT266A. I figured they'd atleast be on par. If memory serves, they were less than KT266 scores too.

The system "feels" fast though. So is Sandra reporting wrong or what?

Oh yeah, I was running default speed at first, then upped it to 140fsb (1.6ghz) the second run.

Mike

 

[MDA]

Here are my memory scores on my A7V333 with a fsb of 172!!
and 256mb of Samsung pc2700.

 

[Breadfan]

Nice!

I'll do a bit of tweaking, but right now mine are under that of the Nforce you have on that screen...

Still, all my scores are low like that...not just memory but CPU as well...hmmm...better double check everything...but it IS running at 1.6 now.

BTW I'm not gonna be oc'ing like mad on this, if at all due to it being a work machine. But still, at default speeds the CPU should register as faster...

Mike

 

[Hoot]

A7V333 Bios 1006.002 Beta

Sandra 2002-----MEM-----------CPU------------MMX

10x180 Turbo----2775/2523---4977/2492---9890/11459

Hoot

 

[Breadfan]

Here's mine...wow these REALLY suck

Sandra 2002
XP1800+, Win2k
Bios 1005
133fsb

CPU = 2774/1393

MMX = 5505/6398

MEM = 1261/1172

Wow...these are HORRIBLE scores. Even at default settings and mem timings they shouldn't be this bad. I think I got better scores on my old A7V at home with a 1.2 tbird...

I've only been installing stuff on it, not really using it, but it seems very stable. I setup the Sandra burnin while some of us went to lunch, came back in an hour and it was still running fine.

So basically the system is running great, but these scores...geez...

Any ideas of what I should look at? What could cause this?
Mike

Update:
Installed new VIA 4n1's, v4.38a. No change.
I think I'm gonna reset the CMOS, and then try reflashing the BIOS.

I turned off the quick post so i could actaully get a chance to see the post screen (wow thats fast) and on the bottom, during the memory test, it spelled test "testh". Hmmm...one would not expect a spelling error on the post screen like that...maybe it's a corrupt bios??????

 

[Aman99]

Try using older via 4in1's if you haven't already. I seem to remember getting slow 3dmark 2k1 scores and I think that fixed it. Not sure if that was the fix though, might be worth a shot anyway though.

 

[Breadfan]

Actually the version it shipped with was on the Epox boards I was using, all of which worked great, so Ididn't think there would be a 4n1 problem. I doubt there is one anyway.

I did find one VERY odd thing out. Usually after boot up, or when idling, CPU usage will be around 0%, unless ofcourse you are running folding@home or etc.

Anyway, when idling, Win2k says my cpu is working an average of about 20-25%. However, none of the processes show they're using CPU time, except for the idle process which is 99.

Most of the processes are system processes I can't terminate, but those I could didn't stop the cpu from being used that much.

That might explain the low scores though...the question is, what is doing that????

Clearing the CMOS didn't do anything, maybe I'll flash before I leave.

Mike

 

[meatpipe]

Actually- I believe you are running an older version of Sandra. It looks like that's the issue because the AMD scores were ion that area. What version do you have ???

 

[Breadfan]

I'm running version 859.

I booted to safe mode and the CPU usage was at 0% when sitting.

Go back into normal mode and its averaging 20-25% again. So there must be a process that is messed up and constantly taking CPU time. That would explain most of it. I'll try uninstalling some of the software.

Since its a work machine, I could always wipe the drive and start from scratch. I don't want to though...

I think I'll just take some programs off and see what happens...

Mike

 

[dxiw]

Heres mine in sandra 2002:
Athlon xp 2100+ (1820mhz o/c 2200+) = 5035 points
Memory - fsb=140 512mb ddr333 corsair xms = 2289mb/sec
in 2001:
cpu: 5200 points
memory: ?

 

[Breadfan]

Ok I got the scores up, but still nowhere where they need to be.

Turns out the problem lies with the USB 2.0. Anyone else with Win2000 having USB 2.0 issues? Basically when I have USB 2.0 installed the computer idles with the cpu in about 25% use.

I uninstalled the USB 2.0 from the system, and my scores went up to:

CPU - 3015/1509
MMX - 5971/6934
MEM - 1382/1277

I then disabled USB 2.0 on the motherboard by the jumper, and my scores jumped to:

CPU - 3214/1611
MMX - 6373/7390
MEM - 1513/1415

Nothing else I've done has gotten them past this.

My best guess now is reflashing the BIOS and then reinstalling Win2k. Maybe starting fresh will help out.

I'm not sure why I'm having USB 2.0 problems...it installed without a hitch and shows its working fine, but then it messes up the CPU time.

I don't have any USB2.0 devices to try.

Hoot, if you read this, how is that 1006 beta BIOS? I'm a bit leary of putting a beta on a system that will go to a non-tweaker. But, I'm already running 1005 from the factory. Is it better to just reflash 1005?

Well hopefully by the end of the day I'll have it squared away, then I can leave it for a few days to burn in. I must say, aside from these issues (which could be my fault for all I know), the I've not had one lockup...seems like a great board...

Mike

 

[Breadfan]

Ok fixed it.

Reflashed the 1005 bios (probably not necessary) and reinstalled win2k.

Kept USB2.0 disabled...for now atleast.

Put on SP2, dx8.1, nvidia dets 23.11 and the 4.29 4n1's (not in that order)

This is running at 133 fsb, at 1533mhz

CPU - 4251/2125
MMX - 8432/9803
MEM - 2044/1925

Wish it was my machine...man those are baselines...I'm not even oc'd...wow I could tweak those so much higher!!! I think I'm gonna have to get one of these boards!

I haven't used an ASUS board since the A7V, and I must say, they have this odd feel of quality to them when used...its hard to say, but I get more of that feeling over something like say, an Epox...yeah I know, pretty scientific huh...

Anyway, thanks for the hints guys. I'm still curious about USB2.0 on Win2k...maybe I need later drivers? I don't really feel like putting them on, b/c even after removing the USB2.0 from the system the scores were still deflated.

Mike

 

[bbdd]

i hope they get the usb drivers tweaked since i just bought a new external usb 2.0 hard drive to use for backup purposes...running hard drives over usb 1.1 is not fun.

someone drop a post if they find a solution to the usb slowdown issue.

 

[Mhypertext]

I'm using a new A7V333 at work with an AthlonXP 1800, and 256mb of Crucial DDR2100.

I'm curious if anyone else has run Sandra benchmarks, and if so, were they abnormally slow?

I don't have a screenshot right now (but can get them in a little bit), but my CPU scores are too low. So are my memory scores.

The CPU, an 1800, comes closer (on both cpu tests) to a 1ghz Athlon Tbird. It's slower than a 1600, and even a bit slower than a 1.2.

Memory scores, as mentioned, are similar in their deficit. My memory scores are less than that of a KT266A. I figured they'd atleast be on par. If memory serves, they were less than KT266 scores too.

The system "feels" fast though. So is Sandra reporting wrong or what?

Oh yeah, I was running default speed at first, then upped it to 140fsb (1.6ghz) the second run.

Mike

Why are your running pc2100 on a kt333 mobo???

 

[Breadfan]

i hope they get the usb drivers tweaked since i just bought a new external usb 2.0 hard drive to use for backup purposes...running hard drives over usb 1.1 is not fun.

someone drop a post if they find a solution to the usb slowdown issue.

It wasn't the USB2.0, I thought it was, but it was that mixed with the Hercules MuseXL soundcard I was using. With the MuseXL gone, all was well.

I don't have any USB2.0 devices, but everything is instlaled fine in Win2k.

Mike

 

[Breadfan]

Re: Re: Abnormally Slow Sandra scores on A7V333

Why are your running pc2100 on a kt333 mobo???

Becuase I have no reason to run anything else. This computer is for my boss to take home, so it is not overclocked, nor will it be.

In addition, the Crucial DDR2100 can still oc better than many DDR2700 sticks. Infact, if I'm correct, "true" pc2700 sticks are only just now appearing...many of the other pc2700 sticks are merely pc2100 that is certified to oc to 2700 specs.

Mike

 

[MV99]

Early PC2700 were hand picked PC2100 7ns chip. But,now, you can find many true PC2700 RAM like Samsung original PC2700 (one of the best performer), Kingmax PC2700 (Kingmax PC3200 uses 5ns chip), TwinMos Windbond chip based PC2700...etc. They all use 6ns chip and will go well beyond DDR333 if you have good cooling set up.




Epox 8k3a+ and Asus A7V333
Kingmax PC2700
TwinMos PC2700 (Windbond chip)
Samsung PC2700
CoolerMaster ATC210 modified with 8 fans
Thermalright AX-7 with Delta 80CFM
PC mods rheobus 4 channel fan controller (17W per channel)
digiDoc5 for temp hardware monitoring
2 x IBM ATA 100 HD
Toshiba 16x DVD and Pelixter CD-ROM

MV99