Athlon64 v AthlonXP

Message boards : Number crunching : Athlon64 v AthlonXP
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 181924 - Posted: 24 Oct 2005, 20:55:30 UTC

Have downloaded and installed some AMD 64 drivers and utilities and these seem to have increased the efficiency of the processor, Chris

ID: 181924 · Report as offensive
Profile James Von Schmittou

Send message
Joined: 4 Jun 02
Posts: 5
Credit: 983,878
RAC: 0
United States
Message 181992 - Posted: 24 Oct 2005, 23:56:58 UTC - in response to Message 181924.  

Have downloaded and installed some AMD 64 drivers and utilities and these seem to have increased the efficiency of the processor, Chris


The real big difference in "Athlon64 v AthlonXP" is the SSE2 instructions that the a64 uses over the xp. Just Check my profile, i have a Athlonxp @2gh and a A64 @1.8ghz. big difference in crunch times, fyi- both are using optimised clients for there respectable capabilities. Just for s@#t and giggles, check my dualcore thate i just got, its just a beast.

ID: 181992 · Report as offensive
Chilcotin

Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 4
Credit: 3,281,561
RAC: 1
Canada
Message 182048 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 3:17:43 UTC

Lord T - I have an A64 3500 running Windows 2003 Standard Server and an optimized client. Work Units are taking on average 1 hr 14 minutes to complete.

The machine is not overclocked and runs 24x7 as a small home file server. Your mileage may vary.
ID: 182048 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182062 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 5:48:10 UTC - in response to Message 182048.  

Lord T - I have an A64 3500 running Windows 2003 Standard Server and an optimized client. Work Units are taking on average 1 hr 14 minutes to complete.

The machine is not overclocked and runs 24x7 as a small home file server. Your mileage may vary.


OK,point me in the direction of a compatible optimized client, Lord T.

ID: 182062 · Report as offensive
Profile Tern
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Dec 03
Posts: 1122
Credit: 13,376,822
RAC: 44
United States
Message 182065 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 6:09:48 UTC - in response to Message 182062.  

OK,point me in the direction of a compatible optimized client, Lord T.


http://www.marisan.nl/seti/
ID: 182065 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 182066 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 6:19:40 UTC - in response to Message 182062.  

Lord T - I have an A64 3500 running Windows 2003 Standard Server and an optimized client. Work Units are taking on average 1 hr 14 minutes to complete.

The machine is not overclocked and runs 24x7 as a small home file server. Your mileage may vary.


OK,point me in the direction of a compatible optimized client, Lord T.


Go here for TMR's optimized clients. Download and run CPUZ first, and get the file for your CPU's instruction set. Happy crunching...

Regards, Daniel.
ID: 182066 · Report as offensive
gone thanks to mmciastro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Aug 02
Posts: 62
Credit: 63,928
RAC: 0
Message 182099 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 9:41:47 UTC
Last modified: 25 Oct 2005, 9:45:25 UTC

Hi Lord T,

in this thread the C&Q issue has been discussed. If you run WinXP, you can find the C&Q settings here:

Start>Settings>Control Panel>Performance and Maintenance>Power Options.

Regards,

Christoph
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." R.M. Nixon
ID: 182099 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182248 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 20:26:53 UTC

The question may have been answered but unfortunately it would seem that my mobo - Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939 does not support this feature. The (ctrl+F1)bios has no refernece to Cool'n'Quiet and I have updated to the latest BIOS. There is no reference either in the systems/power options, AMD web site offers onle an exe for w2k not xp.

ID: 182248 · Report as offensive
Profile Steve Cressman
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 02
Posts: 583
Credit: 65,644
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 182266 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 20:57:55 UTC - in response to Message 181913.  


the only thing I found was a refernce to CPU-Thermal Throtle, this was set to 50%. Is lower or higher better?


I'm not positive but my guess is that CPU-Thermal Throtle is the same as Cool'n'Quiet. This is what needs to be ajusted or turned off.

98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.
ID: 182266 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182268 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 20:59:55 UTC - in response to Message 182266.  


the only thing I found was a refernce to CPU-Thermal Throtle, this was set to 50%. Is lower or higher better?


I'm not positive but my guess is that CPU-Thermal Throtle is the same as Cool'n'Quiet. This is what needs to be ajusted or turned off.


I have not disabled this feature but have tried both lower and higher numbers and the result remains the same, will disable and see what happens. Lord T

ID: 182268 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182273 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:05:38 UTC - in response to Message 182268.  


the only thing I found was a refernce to CPU-Thermal Throtle, this was set to 50%. Is lower or higher better?


I'm not positive but my guess is that CPU-Thermal Throtle is the same as Cool'n'Quiet. This is what needs to be ajusted or turned off.


I have not disabled this feature but have tried both lower and higher numbers and the result remains the same, will disable and see what happens. Lord T


Have disabled this feature but the processor is still throtling back to 15-20% and running at 1GHz

ID: 182273 · Report as offensive
Hans Dorn
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2262
Credit: 26,448,570
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 182274 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:06:33 UTC - in response to Message 182268.  
Last modified: 25 Oct 2005, 21:07:24 UTC


I have not disabled this feature but have tried both lower and higher numbers and the result remains the same, will disable and see what happens. Lord T


Hi!

Cool'n'quiet and thermal throttling are two different features.
Thermal throttling gets activated if the cpu runs too hot,
cool'n'quiet if the system is idle.

You could try increasing the priority of the running seti tasks with "task manager"

If this helps, cool'n'quiet is the culprit.

I remember seeing different cpu speeds listed somewhere under "frequency & voltage control" in my bios.
Maybe something can be disabled there...

Regards Hans
ID: 182274 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182279 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:15:16 UTC - in response to Message 182274.  


I have not disabled this feature but have tried both lower and higher numbers and the result remains the same, will disable and see what happens. Lord T


Hi!

Cool'n'quiet and thermal throttling are two different features.
Thermal throttling gets activated if the cpu runs too hot,
cool'n'quiet if the system is idle.

You could try increasing the priority of the running seti tasks with "task manager"

If this helps, cool'n'quiet is the culprit.

I remember seeing different cpu speeds listed somewhere under "frequency & voltage control" in my bios.
Maybe something can be disabled there...

Regards Hans


Re-enabled Thermal Throtle,changing priority with task manager does not work either, can't find anything under 'voltage control'

ID: 182279 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182281 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:17:19 UTC

Checking the process priority I have noticed that System Idle is taking the remaining processor power

ID: 182281 · Report as offensive
Hans Dorn
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2262
Credit: 26,448,570
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 182285 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:20:34 UTC - in response to Message 182279.  

Changing priority with task manager does not work either, can't find anything under 'voltage control'


Hi!

You have to change the view from applications to processes in task manager,
than right-click on a process.

This should give you a context menu containing a "Change Priority" option.
Just set to "normal".

BTW NEVER set a process to "real time" or your system might lock up!

Regards Hans
ID: 182285 · Report as offensive
Profile Lord Tedric
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jun 99
Posts: 204
Credit: 1,063,736
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 182287 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:23:35 UTC - in response to Message 182285.  

Changing priority with task manager does not work either, can't find anything under 'voltage control'


Hi!

You have to change the view from applications to processes in task manager,
than right-click on a process.

This should give you a context menu containing a "Change Priority" option.
Just set to "normal".

BTW NEVER set a process to "real time" or your system might lock up!

Regards Hans


Yes, Ive have tried those options and the processor still throtles back. Lord T

ID: 182287 · Report as offensive
Profile Steve Cressman
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 02
Posts: 583
Credit: 65,644
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 182289 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:35:08 UTC

Pentium 4 Thermal Throttle

Introduction

Pentium 4 processors have a feature called Thermal Throttling which protects the CPU from overheating, preventing it from burning. Case the processor reaches a "trigger" temperature (which varies acordingly to the CPU model), the processor automatically lowers its speed, in order to make the generated heat to decrease. In the event of an overheating condition, your PC will be slower, but on the other hand your processor won't burn. If even lowering the processor speed the temperature doesn't drop to a safe level, the computer is turned off, in order to protect your CPU.

Actually there are two types of Thermal Throttling:

* TM1: Available in Pentium 4, Xeon, Celeron (Northwood and Prescott cores only) and Pentium M processors. In this type the Thermal Throttling function does not physically lower the CPU clock, but it inserts idle cycles between the instructions sent to the CPU core (i.e. it inserts wait states inside the processor), which lowers the processor performance, hence its temperature.
* TM2: Used on socket 775 Pentium 4 and Celeron and Pentium M processors, this type really lowers the CPU clock. This is done by lowering the CPU clock multiplier.

Average users won't know if the Thermal Throttling is activated or not in their computers. If this feature is activated in your PC, it will run slower and also this means that you have an overheating problem in your computer, which has to be solved.

There is a very small program called Throttle Watch (http://www.panopsys.com/throttlewatch.htm) that can tell you if the Thermal Throttling is being activated or not. Just uncompress and run the program and you will see two windows. The top window shows how much the processor is being used. You can access a similar windows by pressing the Control Alt Del keys at the same time on Windows XP and then selecting the Performance tab.

But it is on the lower window that you will find the advantage of this program. This window shows if the Thermal Throttling feature is being used or not, and how much.

98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.
ID: 182289 · Report as offensive
Hans Dorn
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2262
Credit: 26,448,570
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 182291 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:42:41 UTC - in response to Message 182287.  


Yes, Ive have tried those options and the processor still throtles back. Lord T


Oh dear!

This is the moment where I usually say: Wait a minute I'm coming over to have a look!

So I'll have to give up now I'm afraid.

You might try running Sandra Lite

to see if your system has a performance problem.

Regards Hans
ID: 182291 · Report as offensive
Profile Steve Cressman
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Jun 02
Posts: 583
Credit: 65,644
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 182292 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:45:15 UTC
Last modified: 25 Oct 2005, 21:51:24 UTC

in my last post you will notice it says :

Average users won't know if the Thermal Throttling is activated or not in their computers. If this feature is activated in your PC, it will run slower and also this means that you have an overheating problem in your computer, which has to be solved.

There is a very small program called Throttle Watch (http://www.panopsys.com/throttlewatch.htm) that can tell you if the Thermal Throttling is being activated or not.
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.
ID: 182292 · Report as offensive
Profile Crunch3r
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Apr 99
Posts: 1546
Credit: 3,438,823
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 182293 - Posted: 25 Oct 2005, 21:48:17 UTC - in response to Message 182291.  


Yes, Ive have tried those options and the processor still throtles back. Lord T


Oh dear!

This is the moment where I usually say: Wait a minute I'm coming over to have a look!

So I'll have to give up now I'm afraid.

You might try running Sandra Lite

to see if your system has a performance problem.

Regards Hans


You could use this one http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utilities/power.exe

to see if your cpu runs at full load.




Join BOINC United now!
ID: 182293 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Athlon64 v AthlonXP


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.