Slow Performance - win7 64, x4 955, 9600gt

O

Ou7k4st

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
126
Ok
I just helped my roommate build a budget gaming pc and this is what we got.

Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-MA770T-UD3P AM3
Ram: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
Proc: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W
Video: ECS N9600GT-1GMS-F GeForce 9600 GT 1GB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP
OS: Win 7 ultimate 64

After putting it together we ran the windows performance index and its getting good scores for everything but Aero Graphics.. its scoring a 4.4, it gets 6.4 for gaming graphics. We ran 3dmark vantage and the video card is scoring just over 1k and processor is getting 11k. I ran the 3dmark on my machine as comparison([email protected], 9600gt 512mb, 4gigs ddr800, abit p35 mobo, vista 64) and scored over 4k video and over 22k cpu. His 9600gt is a 1gb card and all in all his pc should be beating mine.

I've tried installing the chipset drivers that came with the mobo, and the newest ones from the site. I've tried a few different nvidia drivers including the newest that came out yesterday and back to 8.5's.

I've checked, his 9600gt has power connected and is running at 16x 2.0 pcie.

I'm not really sure what else to do here, any ideas or help would be appriciated. We are just kinda disappointed it the results so far.
 
I'm wondering if this is an issue with win7 and 9600gt or maybe the motherboard and the 9600gt
 
Ou7k4st said:
Ok
I just helped my roommate build a budget gaming pc and this is what we got.

Mobo: GIGABYTE GA-MA770T-UD3P AM3
Ram: G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600
Proc: AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition Deneb 3.2GHz Socket AM3 125W
Video: ECS N9600GT-1GMS-F GeForce 9600 GT 1GB 128-bit GDDR2 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP
OS: Win 7 ultimate 64

After putting it together we ran the windows performance index and its getting good scores for everything but Aero Graphics.. its scoring a 4.4, it gets 6.4 for gaming graphics. We ran 3dmark vantage and the video card is scoring just over 1k and processor is getting 11k. I ran the 3dmark on my machine as comparison([email protected], 9600gt 512mb, 4gigs ddr800, abit p35 mobo, vista 64) and scored over 4k video and over 22k cpu. His 9600gt is a 1gb card and all in all his pc should be beating mine.

I've tried installing the chipset drivers that came with the mobo, and the newest ones from the site. I've tried a few different nvidia drivers including the newest that came out yesterday and back to 8.5's.

I've checked, his 9600gt has power connected and is running at 16x 2.0 pcie.

I'm not really sure what else to do here, any ideas or help would be appriciated. We are just kinda disappointed it the results so far.
Click to expand...

I high lited the part of his card that is causing the issue. More thna likely you512MB 9600GT is of the 256bit bus and DDR3 type. Also, C2Q are damn near on par with AMD PIIs. HIs is stock at 3.2, yours OC'd to 3.0. Itdoesn't surprise me your scored better.
 
You think that would cause his 3dmark video to be 1/4 and his proc to be 1/2 my score?
 
Ou7k4st said:
You think that would cause his 3dmark video to be 1/4 and his proc to be 1/2 my score?
Click to expand...

It is most deffinitely affecting his GPU score and the gaming score of his system. I would suggest maybe try doing some driver updates to his system and maybe BIOS tuning. While C2Q are, for the most part equal or slighty faster than AMDs, his CPU score should be closer to yours, 21-21.5k range.

Also, make sure you have PhysX enabled on his system for the test as it seems be on in yours, it is for vantage. As 3DM now makes use of Nvidia GPUs for Physics if they are present.

But his gaming will suffer from what I highlited earlier.
 
I checked and he does have phys-x installed and enabled, ran the test again and still the same.

These scores just seem way way too low even if the vid card has slower ram

BTW, thx for help so far. Good call on the memory I didn't notice and mine is ddr3.
 
Ou7k4st said:
I checked and he does have phys-x installed and enabled, ran the test again and still the same.

These scores just seem way way too low even if the vid card has slower ram

BTW, thx for help so far. Good call on the memory I didn't notice and mine is ddr3.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, its not just the ram, its the data bus it sits on aswell. your has twice the bandwidth his does just from a pure data bus sidee of things. Doesn't take into account improvements of DDR3 over DDR2
 
Yeah man...your talking have the memory bandwidth of 128-bit vs. 256-bit...so we'll say a 25% drop in performance...then DDR2 vs. DDR3...roughly another 25% off...and considering its a dumbed down version I would take a guess in saying that the core clock is slower too, with the RAM speed obviously being slower...so over all I would say his 9600POS is about half the speed of your 9600GT...

Also, although your CPUs are roughly equivalent, the CPU score also has the Physx score combined with it...so with Physx off you would probably have a more similar CPU score...his 9600GT, even though it supports Physx, is much too slow, thus reducing his CPU score compared to yours.

Elementary my dear Watson!
 
Yeah I guess that does make sense. Man, what a screw job :p

Guess its time to finally look into neweggs return policy... wish i had noticed it was ddr2

I'm gonna O/C the 955 once I get everything else straight so that should also boost it considerably
 
Last edited:
Sorry to hear it didn't work out. There's nothing more frustrating than getting the wrong parts by mistake =/
 
AndroidVageta said:
Yeah man...your talking have the memory bandwidth of 128-bit vs. 256-bit...so we'll say a 25% drop in performance...then DDR2 vs. DDR3...roughly another 25% off...and considering its a dumbed down version I would take a guess in saying that the core clock is slower too, with the RAM speed obviously being slower...so over all I would say his 9600POS is about half the speed of your 9600GT...
Click to expand...

You're on the right track: the reasojn your math doesn't match the real performance is because you made some mistakes.. It's the memory holding the card back, and the math shows it!

Stock 9600 GT:

650 MHz core
1800 MHz memory
256-bit bus

Bandwidth = 1800 MHz*32 bytes wide bus = 56,700 MB/s

Now, GDDR2 tops-out at 1GHz. So let's assume the best case (it could be as-low-as 800 MHz).

ECS 9600 GT:

650 MHz core
1000 MHz memory
128-bit bus

Bandwidth = 1000 MHz*16 bytes wide bus = 16,000 MB/s

The bandwidth on the ECS card is little-more than one quarter the stock card. It's no wonder you're getting one quarter the performance in Vantage. The 9600GT CRAVES memory bandwidth.
 
defaultluser said:
You're on the right track: the reasojn your math doesn't match the real performance is because you made some mistakes.. It's the memory holding the card back, and the math shows it!

Stock 9600 GT:

650 MHz core
1800 MHz memory
256-bit bus

Bandwidth = 1800 MHz*32 bytes wide bus = 56,700 MB/s

Now, GDDR2 tops-out at 1GHz. So let's assume the best case (it could be as-low-as 800 MHz).

ECS 9600 GT:

650 MHz core
1000 MHz memory
128-bit bus

Bandwidth = 1000 MHz*16 bytes wide bus = 16,000 MB/s

The bandwidth on the ECS card is little-more than one quarter the stock card. It's no wonder you're getting one quarter the performance in Vantage. The 9600GT CRAVES memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, so my numbers were higher than should have been LOL! Thanks for the clarification!!
 
defaultuser,

How do you get your "x" bytes wide number? I've always messed with computers, but I never delved so far into the numbers. You guys amaze me how deep you get into it with just saying this is better than that (which i usually just look for). So why is the first 32 bytes and the second 16 bytes? Thanks.
 
You can probably get a 9800gt to replace that 9600 for around the same price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top