Memory Benchmarks?!?!? WTF!!??

[engjohn]

I have a P3 450 @ 558. 124FSB, on a Abit VA6. 256MB Micron pc133 and 128 of NEC pc100. I know about mixing ram but I am only running it at 124FSB, should not be a prob.
When I benchmark the ram using SiSoft Sandra it shows a measly -
Int ALU RAM bandwidth 149 MB/s
Float FPU /RAM Bandwidth 154 MB/s.
What is up with that?!?!?
On my other system I have a Cel366 @ 456, 83FSB. Using generic pc100, one stick of 128 and two at 64. When I run the same tests it posts DOUBLE the ram bandwidth?!?!?

Am I missing something here? Is it that the VA6 uses the VIA chip as opposed to the BH6 and the BX chipset? Does it have something to do with the cache speed on the processor?

I have the VA6 P3 450 @558 running the ram as fast as possible. It only gives me the option to run at normal fast or turbo, I have tried all with little to no improvement. If you have ANY advice for me I could use the help.....
Thanks

 

[Matthew A.]

Check to see what you may have enabled or disabled in Sandra's memory b.mark options. It's only a guess
though.

 

[Microsoft]

via blows at memory benchmarks just ignore them

 

[engjohn]

Do you mean that VIA sucks at reporting the benchmarks, or the numbers are really that low and I am screwed?!?

 

[Pineapple]

engjohn (Jan 23, 2001 11:43 p.m.):
Do you mean that VIA sucks at reporting the benchmarks, or the numbers are really that low and I am screwed?!?

Sorry to tell you this, but the numbers are really that low, and you are screwed (unless you change your motherboard). VIA is known for having sh*tty memory bandwidth in their chipsets. Some hoped that new bios releases and 4 in 1 drivers would improve performance, and they slightly did in some cases, but the truth is, Via boards still have horrible memory bandwidth.

My memory benchmark scores are double that of average via benchmark scores (almost 3 times in your case). Because of my high memory bandwidth and BX chipset, my framerates have increased up to 15 fps at high resolutions, and 25 fps in lower resolutions. Also, I am able to run at a much higher front side bus, and completely stable without a single crash since i've had it.

Sure, the BX chipset doesnt support 4X AGP, but that means nothing. The advantages of 4X agp over 2X agp is maybe 1 fps in windows 98, and NO difference in Win2k. I use to have the CUV4X. It was pretty stable after adjusting the VIO voltage, and allowed me to go up to 945 mhz max with my 700. Extremely disappointed with the memory bandwidth (even after tweaking it with the H-Oda tools), I replaced it with a CUSL2. With that i achieved much better memory benchmark scores, and small gain in framerate, however, I could not prevent it from crashing in games after several minutes. I tried many fsb speeds, neither would be 100% stable in games. So i replaced it with the CUBX. All I can say is... wow. My Alu/Fpu memory benchmarks are both in the 500's (double that of my CUV4X benchmarks and 100+ that of my CUSL2 benchmarks). 100% stable at 980 Mhz, 140 fsb, Cas 2,2,2. Everything just runs faster and better with the biggest difference being the 15% increase in framerate in games. BX chipset forever...

 

[engjohn]

looks like I will have to swap out the MB with the one in my server (a BH6). Oh well, paid my money, took my chances, and got burned...
I knew I should have just stuck with intel's chip sets.

On another note, how do the BX's compare to the 815's 830's and the such. Or are they the same?

 

[Mr B]

Pineapple (Jan 24, 2001 12:27 a.m.):

engjohn (Jan 23, 2001 11:43 p.m.):
Do you mean that VIA sucks at reporting the benchmarks, or the numbers are really that low and I am screwed?!?

Sorry to tell you this, but the numbers are really that low, and you are screwed (unless you change your motherboard). VIA is known for having sh*tty memory bandwidth in their chipsets. Some hoped that new bios releases and 4 in 1 drivers would improve performance, and they slightly did in some cases, but the truth is, Via boards still have horrible memory bandwidth.

My memory benchmark scores are double that of average via benchmark scores (almost 3 times in your case). Because of my high memory bandwidth and BX chipset, my framerates have increased up to 15 fps at high resolutions, and 25 fps in lower resolutions. Also, I am able to run at a much higher front side bus, and completely stable without a single crash since i've had it.

Sure, the BX chipset doesnt support 4X AGP, but that means nothing. The advantages of 4X agp over 2X agp is maybe 1 fps in windows 98, and NO difference in Win2k. I use to have the CUV4X. It was pretty stable after adjusting the VIO voltage, and allowed me to go up to 945 mhz max with my 700. Extremely disappointed with the memory bandwidth (even after tweaking it with the H-Oda tools), I replaced it with a CUSL2. With that i achieved much better memory benchmark scores, and small gain in framerate, however, I could not prevent it from crashing in games after several minutes. I tried many fsb speeds, neither would be 100% stable in games. So i replaced it with the CUBX. All I can say is... wow. My Alu/Fpu memory benchmarks are both in the 500's (double that of my CUV4X benchmarks and 100+ that of my CUSL2 benchmarks). 100% stable at 980 Mhz, 140 fsb, Cas 2,2,2. Everything just runs faster and better with the biggest difference being the 15% increase in framerate in games. BX chipset forever...

So, If I get the jist of what you are saying here, (Ive got an A-Trend mb, w/ the VIA Apollo 133 chipset) my Celeron 600, which is rock solid @945, but a bit shaky at 990, would likely run solid @990, maybe 1008?????

To quote Charlie Brown, "AAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGH!!!!"

True of false, someone please clue me in on this one....

Mr B

 

[Pineapple]

Mr B (Jan 24, 2001 10:15 p.m.):
So, If I get the jist of what you are saying here, (Ive got an A-Trend mb, w/ the VIA Apollo 133 chipset) my Celeron 600, which is rock solid @945, but a bit shaky at 990, would likely run solid @990, maybe 1008?????

To quote Charlie Brown, "AAAAAAAUUUUUUUGGH!!!!"

True of false, someone please clue me in on this one....

Mr B

Well, its possible, and somewhat likely, but it may not be the chipset that is limiting you, it could be heat, or the processor just can't take any more. Also, the CUBX has fsb settings of
66,75,83,100,103,105,110,112,120,124,133,140,150
So, depending on your multiplier, you can calculate out what the maximum cpu speed you could obtain. Now, its also possible if you get the CUBX that it will not run any faster than what you are currently running at, and the fact that the CUBX has less fsb settings, you may end up having to run at a slower fsb. Its not likely, but possible. If i were you, I would find a way to test the motherboard before buying it, or buy it, and have the option of returning it. You probably wont have to do that since the BX chipset is the best, but always be prepared for the unexpected.

 

[Pineapple]

I'm assuming the Celeron 600 has a 9.0 multiplier. So, here are the speeds at which you could run at on the CUBX...

FSB/CPU
--------
100/900
103/927
105/945
110/990
112/1008
115/1035

You will have a better chance of getting 990 on the CUBX, but it still may be to high for your cpu to handle. Good Luck.