The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official] - Page 1559 - Overclock.net

HothBase · 05-15-09

I just have a quick question here

Is AMD's Dual-Core Optimizer still needed after XP's SP3?

blitz6804 · 05-15-09

I do not know if it is NEEDED, but I have never not had on it on an XP system.

BlackOmega · 05-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by thlnk3r

BlackOmega, nice numbers man. At first I thought that was just one drive until I saw the "stripe" part. You sure did max that bus out though

Good luck

Thanks

, I'm going to mess around with defragging and such to see if it'll improve at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nategr8ns

I'm going to set up my old 939 parts (MSI board, 2x512mb Corsair VS, 3800+) as another computer. My dad will speed test between that and his Pentium 4 3.4ghz w/2x512mb of DDR2 Ballstix.

I'd also like to try overclocking with my DFI again. Last time it was too complicated and I just haven't had time to play with it. Which settings in which menus do I want for the RAM multiplier and HT multiplier?

That P4 is about to be owned hard

, you should be able to get that 3800+ to ~2.8 fairly easily.

As for the menu, all your reference clock, HT mult. and voltage settings are going to be in the Genie BIOS sub-menu, top of the right column in the main BIOS screen. To get to your RAM settings, once you're in the Genie BIOS sub-menu, the very top option will say RAM speed or something, hit enter there and it'll take you to the dividers and timings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HothBase

I just have a quick question here

Is AMD's Dual-Core Optimizer still needed after XP's SP3?

Like Blitz said, I don't think its actually ever needed. But I'd highly recommend having it installed. It coordinates something about the clock cycles, if I'm not mistaken. I know without it, certain games like COD2 don't work properly. It causes internal game errors. I've only noticed the errors in single player modes of games.

nategr8ns · 05-15-09

Thanks BO
+

blitz6804 · 05-15-09

The Dual Core Optimizer prevents the "Benny Hill" effect. This will occur on some single-threaded applications being run on a dual-core processor as a result of the core inexplicably changing load to match the other, inactive core.

nategr8ns: Remember that a 3800+ is supposed to rival a P4 HT @ 3.8 GHz. With a 3800+, even at stock, going against a 3.2 GHz P4 sans HT, we would predict a slaughter as BlackOmega suggested. I have a P4 sans HT @ 3.0 GHz. My Barton 2500+ at 1852 MHz gives it a run for its money. This is probably the fault of the Pentium's RDRAM, but that is unfixable without changing the motherboard, an unneeded and unwarranted (and flat-out wasteful) expense.

Tator Tot · 05-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

The Dual Core Optimizer prevents the "Benny Hill" effect. This will occur on some single-threaded applications being run on a dual-core processor as a result of the core inexplicably changing load to match the other, inactive core.

nategr8ns: Remember that a 3800+ is supposed to rival a P4 HT @ 3.8 GHz. With a 3800+, even at stock, going against a 3.2 GHz P4 sans HT, we would predict a slaughter as BlackOmega suggested. I have a P4 sans HT @ 3.0 GHz. My Barton 2500+ at 1852 MHz gives it a run for its money. This is probably the fault of the Pentium's RDRAM, but that is unfixable without changing the motherboard, an unneeded and unwarranted (and flat-out wasteful) expense.

Even with DDR RAM, the Athlon XP 3200+ flat out trashes any Pentium 4 on the market. HT or Not.

More so, that Pentium 4 CPU's got worse as they went on.

Out of all the Netburst chips, the Northwoods are the best. Even with their lower cache, they still performed better clock for clock against other Pentium 4s.

The reason being, is they did more calculations per cycle.

With the other pentium 4's, they lowered the calculations per cycle, so they could up the bus speed & cache.

Which gave little to no performance gains at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HothBase

I just have a quick question here

Is AMD's Dual-Core Optimizer still needed after XP's SP3?

No, not really. And it was never really "needed."

It did allow for some bug fixes in single threaded apps/games/whatever. But most of that is long gone in any modern app.

**txtmstrjoe** · 05-15-09

I actually have one game in my collection which still needs the dual-core optimizer in XP: Madden NFL 2008. Once in a blue moon, the dual-core optimizer actually deactivates itself for some reason, and I get the "Benny Hill" effect whilst playing this game.

BlackOmega · 05-15-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nategr8ns

Thanks BO
+

No problem Nate

. I just remembered something that you might need to know. If you're going to try upping the voltage, use the VID special control. When you go in there you'll notice everything is in %'s. This is the most effective way of changing it unless you need to go to a ridiculously high voltge like 1.70 and above. The Default voltage (on both of my NF4 boards anyway) is 1.31v. So if you want to up the voltage 4.3% (104.3 in the menu) calculate like 1.31 x 1.043= 1.366 and so on.

Good luck

EDIT:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blitz6804

The Dual Core Optimizer prevents the "Benny Hill" effect. This will occur on some single-threaded applications being run on a dual-core processor as a result of the core inexplicably changing load to match the other, inactive core.

nategr8ns: Remember that a 3800+ is supposed to rival a P4 HT @ 3.8 GHz. With a 3800+, even at stock, going against a 3.2 GHz P4 sans HT, we would predict a slaughter as BlackOmega suggested. I have a P4 sans HT @ 3.0 GHz. My Barton 2500+ at 1852 MHz gives it a run for its money. This is probably the fault of the Pentium's RDRAM, but that is unfixable without changing the motherboard, an unneeded and unwarranted (and flat-out wasteful) expense.

I thought it was more due to the FSB limitation. The 423 pin P4 with RDRAM Dell that I still have (folks are using it) had a pathetically slow 100MHz FSB. I remember that when I was comparing the 939 chips to them, the 939's actually had about 20x the amount of throughput per clock cycle of the Pentiums.
And RDRAM, IMO, is actually very good (for when it was created). But rambus right along with intel screwed that one up by trying to monopolize the market. From what I remember the RDRAM actually had over double the performance of SDRAM and IIRC it even outbandwidthed DDR ever so slightly. Could be wrong on that though.

nategr8ns · 05-15-09

how do you tell the difference between RDRAM and SDRAM? I may just not have any RDRAM systems lying around, but I don't think I've seen an RDRAM stick.

HothBase · 05-15-09

Thanks for the answers, guys.

		Overclock.net - Overclocking.net > AMD > AMD - General
The Socket 939 Appreciation Club and Knowledgebase [Official]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)