Jealous of freinds Intel 3.0Ghz

A

appatula

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
173
OK here's the deal, My friend an I both built ourselves gaming rigs, I went with AMD, and he went with Intel. I recently saw him play UT2004 Red Orchestra mod and the loading times were noticeably faster in between menus and such and there is also less lag on his system compared to my system etc, just overall better performance speed wise. ( my BFG 6800gt kills his vid card so graphically I'm set) I'm just wondering if it is actually because of my AMD 3000+ Winchester? my friend has a Intel 3.0Ghz, what would give me the same performance and speed as his 3Ghz processor within the $200-$250USD range?? any suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated!!
-Appatula
 
What kind of video/graphical settings does he have? Does he have more RAM as well? Raising the video settings substantially highers your loading times, if loading times are your only problem I wouldn't really care that much as long as in game performance whips him. Oh, and OC the baby will ya? Even on stock cooling it should get a decent, stable OC. :)
 
Yeah I've tried to OC but im a complete noob and It always turns out really unstable Ive upped the FSB a bit but cant rasie it over 10 without errors booting and such which seems a bit weak to me maybe im doint sumthing wrong anyhow I have OCZ Platinum Rev. 2 512x2 (1 GB kit) running dual channel and I know the stuff overclocks nice just dont know what im doing wrong. As for graphics settings he is same resolution but not all "Highest" video settings as me.........

Specs: MSI Neo 2 Platinum
160 Gb Maxtor
2x512mb OCZ Platinum Rev.2 PC3200
BFG 6800 GT OC
AMD 3000+ Wichester Core (stock cooling,....XP-90 in the mail)
 
appatula said:
OK here's the deal, My friend an I both built ourselves gaming rigs, I went with AMD, and he went with Intel. I recently saw him play UT2004 Red Orchestra mod and the loading times were noticeably faster in between menus and such and there is also less lag on his system compared to my system etc, just overall better performance speed wise. ( my BFG 6800gt kills his vid card so graphically I'm set) I'm just wondering if it is actually because of my AMD 3000+ Winchester? my friend has a Intel 3.0Ghz, what would give me the same performance and speed as his 3Ghz processor within the $200-$250USD range?? any suggestions are welcome and greatly appreciated!!
-Appatula
Click to expand...

Loading times have more to do with ram and HD

grab a WD Raptor 10K drive and make sure you have 1gb of ram.
Have your page file setup to a seperate physical drive.

Also as was mentioned earlier if you have hi-res textures checked and he has medium or low, then you have to load up a lot more content then he does, thus extending load times.
 
obiwansotti said:
Loading times have more to do with ram and HD

grab a WD Raptor 10K drive and make sure you have 1gb of ram.
Have your page file setup to a seperate physical drive.

Also as was mentioned earlier if you have hi-res textures checked and he has medium or low, then you have to load up a lot more content then he does, thus extending load times.
Click to expand...

Agreed, loading times has nothing to do with your processor. And make sure all your game settings are identical to get rid of any of those variables.
 
yeah, I don't think an expensive HD is really the solution, but if it helps your e-
nevermind, the gigabyte ram drive is coming out soon, and that should help you smoke your intel buddy, though even a P3 with a ram drive would smoke any system in load times. How much ram does he have? How much ram do you have? What kind of ram? Is this game HT optimized, and does his chip have HT? Is there a bunch of stuff going on in the background? Why not just stick to benchmarks for bragging rights, and not subjective menu load times?
 
What are your current ram timings? You may want to back them down a bit if you're trying to increase your FSB.
 
Yep he's got TH too and he has got 1gb of crappy generic ram ( never herd of the manufacturer) Ohh and good stuff (cf)Eclipse Ill be shure to study that to get OCing started and the timings are all set to "Auto" in my bios but as for the hard drive is the only cheap thing in my system (I paid $240+ for the ram at newegg alone) But the hard drive I spent like 75 on here's its specs:

This hard drive features an ultra fast 8MB cache plus 160GB capacity.
Ideal for high-end gaming and digital video
7200 RPM ATA/IDE hard drive
Ultra fast 8MB cache buffer - up to 20% faster performance
Ultra ATA/133 interface - up to 33% faster data transfer rates
Easy installation

Product Specifications
Drive Capacity 160GB
Internal or External Internal
Interface Ultra ATA/133
Rotation Speed 7200 RPM
Compatibility PC
Manufacturer Model L01P160
Cache Buffer Size 8MB
Data Transfer Rate ATA/133
Average Seek Time 9.4ms
Special Features Includes intelligent formatting and partitioning software
Warranty One year
 
a 3000+ winchester 939 chip is what... 1.8ghz?

You need to clock that CPU up... a winchester will get you 2.4ghz no prob and maybe even higher. it will help even out that performance gap... you don't even need to worry about ram overclocking well... you have memory dividers to keep that speed to around 200mhz if you need to.

I mean a 3.0ghz intel is not slow... with HT if you have things running in the background it can handle that better then AMD can.

Things to also check are your chipset drivers and that sort of thing... AMD systems can be finicky about that sort of stuff...
 
mikelz85 said:
yeah, I don't think an expensive HD is really the solution, but if it helps your e-.........
Click to expand...


So everytime he wants to play the game he has to reinstall it onto that ram drive - if he turns off his system, well for more the 16 hours - not too mention spend alot more money and be limited since it connects via te SATA bus anyways... ?

getting a ram drive is about e- ..... getting a 10k raptor is about over performance on your system and alot more storage for your money.
 
MrGuvernment said:
So everytime he wants to play the game he has to reinstall it onto that ram drive - if he turns off his system, well for more the 16 hours - not too mention spend alot more money and be limited since it connects via te SATA bus anyways... ?
Click to expand...
it's powered by standby voltage. it'll be fine as long as he doesn't actually kill power to the computer

app, can you give us the full specs of your system?
 
Who cares if it takes longer to load. His HDD is probably faster, and most likely your CPU is actually better!
 
ram drives are about the fastest performance out there, it has full power as long as you don't unplug the PC, and even if you do, it has 16 hours before it loses the data, on top of that most people would back up the data on a HD partition anyways. Of course if you want performance measured in MS, and not NS, it is always available with the raptors, which do offer a slight performance increase over plain jane 7200 rpm drives.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
it's powered by standby voltage. it'll be fine as long as he doesn't actually kill power to the computer
Click to expand...
So, your saying this thing is wide open for a backup-battery mod? ;)
 
appatula said:
OK here's the deal, My friend an I both built ourselves gaming rigs, I went with AMD, and he went with Intel. I recently saw him play UT2004 Red Orchestra mod and the loading times were noticeably faster in between menus and such and there is also less lag on his system compared to my system etc,
Click to expand...
I was watching my friends FX55 system load battlefield. I started mine at the same time as his. I also have an Athlon 64 3000+, Geforce 6600GT, 1Gb ram, but I have a Sata hard drive. It can read one big file at about 74MBs (when im loading big video files for editing).

My computer loaded quite a bit faster than his. Its somewhat funny. He spend nearly $3,000, and I have only $700 into mine. But, with dual PCI-E video cars (i think they were 6800s or 6600GTs) he could out do mine easily for the next 5 years from now at games.
 
The 16mb cach Maxtor SATA drives are even better............................
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
Better than a raptor? Are you smoking DRUGS?
Click to expand...

Which begs the question....what ELSE do you smoke? :D

Anyway, it really sounds like there are too many variables between your systems to do a real "comparison". Sounds like he probably has a Raptor or some other SATA drive, which is faster than your IDE hard drive. That and RAM are really the only things that affect load time, since the CPU has to do next to nothing to tell the hard drives to load things to RAM, and the video card isn't doing any frame rendering during map loading, so the only course of action for load times is a hard drive upgrade. Or buying lots of RAM, like I did for Battlefield 2. Hard drive would definitely be better for UT2004, since BF2 is one of the first FPS games to actually "recommend" 2GB of RAM for best performance.

Like someone else said, if you have textures set to "High", you're uploading a lot more into your RAM than he is with his set lower. That will increase your load times right there. Try putting all your settings equal to his, or have him set his equal to yours and do a direct comparison. I have a feeling that your system beats the brakes off his in-game, with the AMD 3000+ and the 6800 GT.
 
well, it wasn't me smoking, but my twinmos just helped me to land on the top ten superpi with only a ~2.93ghz clockspeed, so I guess the ram just smoked a couple of FX scores, does that count?
 
appatula said:
Yeah I've tried to OC but im a complete noob and It always turns out really unstable Ive upped the FSB a bit but cant rasie it over 10 without errors booting and such which seems a bit weak to me maybe im doint sumthing wrong anyhow I have OCZ Platinum Rev. 2 512x2 (1 GB kit) running dual channel and I know the stuff overclocks nice just dont know what im doing wrong. As for graphics settings he is same resolution but not all "Highest" video settings as me.........

Specs: MSI Neo 2 Platinum
160 Gb Maxtor
2x512mb OCZ Platinum Rev.2 PC3200
BFG 6800 GT OC
AMD 3000+ Wichester Core (stock cooling,....XP-90 in the mail)
Click to expand...


There is in fact a bit of “Sacrilege” when you post in here with a system like that in STOCK form! ;)

You are sitting on a lot more then you know, honest. Follow the links, it will over clock. First time I tried it I went nuts till I read a bit, your “noob” status will be gone like your virginity :D

Enjoy that toy, it a good one
 
Good to know its that easy!! ;) and yes I know, I want to crank this puppy. Im reading as we speak but its also great to know that theres guys back at [H]ard forums ta help me out!! Thanks for the help/suggestions!!
-Ben
 
mikelz85 said:
well, is it possible that HT is playing some sort of role here?
Click to expand...
I beleive this as well up to a point. On the Loading things and general use. BUt deffinatly not in Frames / Second.

I have used HT first hand and know the impact it makes. But It cant be That drastic I dont think;
 
Well, the in game stuff is a given, seeing as how graphics cards are way different, but HT could make a difference even if there was just a bunch of stuff in the background on each PC. Is the game HT optimized at all? I guess it'd be unlikely, as that would essentially be multithread/SMP optimization, which I don't think is around too much in games yet.
 
I would say the only way HT is making an impact is that if there is a AV or Spyware etc thing running and or a million things running at once.

I do beleive that all "PR" ratings aside... we are talking about 1200Mhz difference. Sure, we all know the MHz myth and all know AMD processors do more work per clock however.... 1200Mhz is a big difference, and we might be seeing some of that here.

Also cache sizes are probly bigger on the P4... etc...

Maybe I would check if the Ram is at 1T? maybe its not, Sure its not a big deal but it would help
 
brom42 said:
Agreed, loading times has nothing to do with your processor. And make sure all your game settings are identical to get rid of any of those variables.
Click to expand...
Disagreed. Depending on the games, loading times can sometimes have everything to do with the CPU, and very little to do with the HD and RAM.

Why? During the loading screen, most games are not simply moving the data from the HD to the RAM, instead, those games are decompressing data, precompressing textures, converting texture format, and a lot other stuffs that are CPU intensive.

And like others have said, check the graphical settings.
 
Anyone would need to know all system specs of both systems, drivers and settings to determine why there is a difference.

I'm not convinced however that simply changing from AMD to Intel or vice versa will make a huge difference if you're talking processors that perform about the same in the same game with the same video card.
 
QUOTE:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CMAN
The 16mb cach Maxtor SATA drives are even better............................

Better than a raptor? Are you smoking DRUGS?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny,i dont see the word RAPTOR in my post. The 16mb drive is as fast as 2 8mb 7200 in raid 0. You must be on LSD,your seeing things that aren't there.
 
Simple fact is you prob have more apps loading into windows boot than he does thus your loading time is longer. Make sure you both have the exact system resources etc then do a fair comparison.
 
I dunno about backround running progs, he has a whole bunch of crap going in the backround on his comp, I actually do make shure minimal backround proggies are running on my rig so his HT does help him with that, as for the overclocking well does 2.34GHz sound like a decent overclock for my 3000+ winch?? I used Prime95 to stress test it but once I go past FSB 261 Prime95 spits this nasty message at me:
FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.498046875, expected less than 0.4
Hardware failure detected, consult stress.txt file.
Torture Test ran 0 minutes - 1 errors, 0 warnings
Execution Halted

Anyhow my OCing settings were FSB 260, FSB Muliplier 9x, and a 166mhz (5:6) Ram divider, Ram Timings were 2.5-3-3-8 2T I think thats all you need.....
 
sounds like you need a bit more voltage, up it another .1 to .15vcore
 
what voltage were you using in the first place? ;)

also, use small fft's to test the cpu, ram rarely has an effect on it, then use memtest and a pass or two of superPI 32m
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top