# Another X1950Pro and Power consumption question



## VeDz (Jun 11, 2007)

Well, I am getting a HiS X1950 Pro *AGP* 256mb. 

My system specs currently are:

Intel Celeron 2.7 Ghz (Northwood Core)
2 sticks of random DDR SDRAM
1 HDD (5400rpm)
ATi 9600 Pro (currently)
PSU, 250W. 

As, you can see the computer itself isn't very demanding/performing. I am having doubts about the PSU though. Using the *eXtreme Power Supply Calculator* I can make it so my system consumes less than 250W, WITH the X1950 Pro inside, around 237W is the number it gave me. Also, people suggest that you have to look at the 12v rail? I looked at it and beside it, it listed as 218W. So 218W can be the maximum consumption of the 12V rail right? I took that 218W / 12 = 18A? I am pretty sure 18A for just a video card is a bit too much? I mean, my vacuum cleaner is 18A. . 

Also, there is another system in my household which has a 300W maximum power supply. In this system, I have the X800XL and a lot of USB and CD drives. It is completely stable. 

With some research I found out that the X800XL peak load power consumption is roughly 49W. Moreover, the X1950 Pro's is roughly 65-70W. So basically another 20 extra watts. I will take this power supply if my current one doesn't perform. Also, I think the 12V rail has 22A on this one. 

Lastly, I know my system is quite crap  and its going to bottleneck the X1950Pro. But, I will prepare for a upgrade real soon to better specs. 

Thanks in advance for reading my essay 

Regards,

VeDz.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 11, 2007)

PSU advice is touchy on forums.  There are many opposing ideas. 

1)My computer only need xxx watts.
Ok, but how hard do you want your PSU to work.  If you match the watts exactly then your PSU will have to work "full time" in order to supply the required power.
This can result in a lower "lifespan" for your PSU, and even use more electricity then you think.  It may also cause an additional expense with future"upgrades".

2)600 watts! I can't afford that much electricity.
Bogus!!  You only use and pay for as much as your computer draws.  Just because the PSU can supply 600 watts, doesn't mean it does "Full time".  If your computer draws less then the PSU supplies then the PSU doesn't need to work as hard; this reduces heat and increases "lifespan" of PSU.

Therefore: Get the best Quality PSU you can afford that exceeds the requirements of your PC.  The better the quality the longer it will last and the less problems you will have.

Yes your 1950 GPU needs more AMPS then you would expect, however keep in mind the standard card "draw" comes from the MOBO thru the PCI-E slot.  When the card switches to 3D mode it will need to draw power from the additional power connector, this is the highest draw for the GPU.  If the power is not there you will not be happy with the results.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 11, 2007)

Power requirement for the X1950 pro; 147 to 206(load)  watts (appx)
12.25 amps to 17.167 amps (load).  I believe ATI recomends 22 to 24 amps on the 12v Rail.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/radeon-x1950-pro/index.x?pg=10


----------



## VeDz (Jun 11, 2007)

Thanks for the reply. It is just that, I won't be using approximately the full load of the PSU for more than 1 hour, everyday. Also, the card is an AGP one, if it makes a difference. But, if ATi recommends 22 to 24 amps on the 12v rail, I think the second power supply can suffice for that. Is there anyway to make sure? I can post a screenshot of the side of the powersupply for further confirmation. 

Also, the power requirement for the X1950Pro at load is indeed 65-70W. The link that you showed is of the full system power requirement. I am sorry if I am incorrect. Again, thanks for the reply. !


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 11, 2007)

Yeah that Total System power requirement VS GPU power requirement causes issues at times.  Keep in mind that a single Rail PSU also supplies power to the Motherboard and all of it's components (memory,PCI cards,CPU, ETC) Off the same 12v rail.  So be sure to include that into your estimation of the power you need.  Most mobo's need around 8 to 10 amps(depending on Model, ammount of Ram, #/type of additional PCI cards etc).  Whats left will end up being the power available to the aditional power connector to the GPU.  Many GPU makers reccomend a Dual Rail PSU; However, as long as the total power available is present the single rails usually do a better job.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

UPDATE:

I recieved the X1950Pro, but somethings weird/wrong.

3dmark2001SE: 7800
3dmark2003: 11000

and yes, it is weird.


*Specs:*
Intel Celeron 2.7Ghz (Northwood Core)
2 sticks of ddr sdram
1 hdd
and a 250W power supply powering all of the above. 

Now I am guessing the power supply has to do ample with my scores, not being high enough and the card not being in peak efficiency. I will be getting a 450W supply for sure tomorow or day after. I noticed that the idle temperature of the card remains 50 degrees celsius. While on LOAD it hits a max of 55 degrees celsius. I am guessing this is just another clue that the card is lacking power to perform at its max potential. *AND this is after 3dmark03 benchmark.*

I was expecting the card to hit temperatures of 70 degrees(load) judging by my case and my hot room. Can someone confirm this? that, the reason it is not hitting high LOAD temperatures when it has high IDLE temperature is because of the card not having enough juice to perform.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 13, 2007)

Hey VeDz, Please fill out your system specs (more detailed then what you posted), It will give members a much better idea of how to diagnose your particular issues with the new card.  Click "User CP" and then "Edit System Specs".  Thanks


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

ok done


----------



## Random Murderer (Jun 13, 2007)

ok, i dont have experience with the agp version, but it should essentially be the same...
my first question is:
is it the version with the 2-slot cooler?


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

Nope, it is the 1 slot cooler. It looks exactly like this.


----------



## Random Murderer (Jun 13, 2007)

ok, you wont really see a temp change with that cooler.
50°C idle and 55°C load sounds about right for that cooler...


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 13, 2007)

I reviewed a few sites showing results with that card and different CPU's, and you got most of then beat in 3dMark03.  Most of the test were in the 6000 to 9000 range.  Now  that doesn't mean you can't get more out of it or that its a high score, its just what I found available in a short quick search.  
So, basicly it looks good so far.

Download Aquamark 3 and give it a run;
http://www.techpowerup.com/downloads/124/Aquamark_3.html


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

I think those marks are for 3dmark 05, where a x1950 pro is supposed to score like 10k. Around 13-15k for 03, and about 4.5k for 06. Definetly something is wrong, I will be buying a power supply today. After that if it still has messed up scores, then I can definitely blame it on my horrible CPU. 

6000-9000 :| on 03, even my x800Xl scored higher with 10k. 



> ok, you wont really see a temp change with that cooler.
> 50°C idle and 55°C load sounds about right for that cooler...



So it is a good cooler?


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 13, 2007)

Your gonna need a good 500w PSU to run things both comfortably and stable. Not to mention give yourself enough power to OC the crap out of that Celeron, which is going to be a huge bottleneck for a X1950 Pro. Hopefully your mobo gives you some good OC options in its BIOS.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

My Celeron can handle it over clocking that is. But, my mobo can't. It limits it at 3.00ghz, with the vcore at 1.5-1.75. That doesn't make a difference at all. I agree, that the X1950 Pro is going to be bottlenecked.  My best bet is a P4 =.00Ghz. Even, that, will probably bottleneck my X1950 Pro. Socket 478


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 13, 2007)

Herer's a link to the recommended PSU's for the X1950pro
http://ati.amd.com/technology/crossf...dyourown2.html

The recommended PSU is 450W with a 12v30a single rail or 12v22a dual rail PSU for a fully loaded system which yours is not.

I'm using a Enermax Noisetaker 600W 12v18 dual rail at the moment which has not caused any issues. 

I am running a P4 3.0E HT @ 3.2Ghz and appears to be slightly bottlenecking it.

I've also noticed a decrease in performance in SIMS2 over my 7600GS as I don't think it can handle the quality of the textures the X1950pro gives to that game.

I've also noticed CCC causing a performance decrease in my system.
I am currently using just the display drivers which have made the performance of my system much better.

I will be trying out Omega drivers after the post and I'll let you know if there is any performance decrease or not like CCC.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 13, 2007)

VeDz said:


> My Celeron can handle it over clocking that is. But, my mobo can't. It limits it at 3.00ghz, with the vcore at 1.5-1.75. That doesn't make a difference at all. I agree, that the X1950 Pro is going to be bottlenecked.  My best bet is a P4 =.00Ghz. Even, that, will probably bottleneck my X1950 Pro. Socket 478



You considered a cheap mobo\CPU\RAM upgrade? You can pick up an E4400, nVidia 650i chipset based mobo and some cheap (but decent) 2x1GB DDR2 memory for a total cost of like $300. Less if you need to penny pinch a bit.

E4400 $139
Abit IB9 $73 after MIR
2x1GB ADATA PC6400 4-4-4-12 timings, $80 after MIR

All this, is of course based on the assumption you have the funds and havent already bought the AGP 1950Pro.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

haha already bought the X1950 Pro  Ok, I have bought a PSU too. 500W, and 28A on the 12V rail. Should suffice, I guess. I will post some marks to see if it made any difference.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

I don't think the wattage/amp was ever the problem. I have nothing else connected to the new power supply, than my X1950Pro, the mobo and hdd + cpu. Just as before, I am getting the same problem. 

3dmark2001SE: 7800
3dmark2003: 11000
3dmark2005: coming up. 

I bet its my darn cpu, that is bottlenecking it so much. But, one thing, the X1950Pro did goto a temperature of 70C. So I am a bit happy about that.


----------



## Ketxxx (Jun 13, 2007)

70c is kinda hot for a 1950 Pro..

Long shot, but you tried the latest drivers and DirectX?


----------



## VeDz (Jun 13, 2007)

Yep, I have the latest of both. An update for 3dmark2005, I scored 2500 :| Something, is honestly messed up. Even having a celeron 2.7ghz shouldn't bottleneck it to 1/5 of its capability. Funny thing, he games that came with the card also have fps lag.

Also, the ATi Tray Tools benchmark gave me 4700.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 14, 2007)

*Even high end P4's can't really handle a X1950pro AGP*

I tried *Omega* drivers and they are no better for the system in performance.
I'd say the *P4*'s even *3Ghz* are not good enough for this card,
since my *P4 3.0E HT*@ *3.2Ghz* still doesn't make any change.

I found the *best peformance *is with just the display driver so far.

I believe these cards are made for *AMD/AGP *motherboards since the *AMD* motherboards have access to faster *CPU's* which are needed for this GPU than *P4* motherboards.

I'll be doing some tweaks in *ATi tray tools *to see if I can get any better improvements.

*The dreaded conclution*

Two options.

*1:-Cheapest solution*
Replace your *P4* with a *AMD 939skt AGP*motherboard with one of the fastest *CPU's* you can get for it and 1Gig of DDR400 or 500 if you are into OC'ing.

*2:-Obvious solution*
Sorry to say this but at the end of the day you're better to invest in a better spec'd *PCI-E* rig if you want smooth all round performance in gaming without having to tweak and tweak.


**Optional option*
you could buy an *XBOX360* or *PS3*


----------



## VeDz (Jun 14, 2007)

Can you post your ATi Tray Tool benchmark? I was thinking of upgrading to a P4..but if that doesn't even cut it, I have no clue what to do. :| 

Honestly, I am getting the same performance that I got in games with my 9600 Pro in the same setup. It feels like the X1950 Pro isn't even trying. When I start my task manager in between games, I see my CPU being at 100%. I HATE THIS CPU  It is not even a CeleronD that could be later upgraded to a Core 2 Duo or something, just a plain celeron socket 478, with the max upgrade to a P4 3.0Ghz(No HT). Which they made a Core 2 Duo for socket 478...


----------



## Xaser04 (Jun 14, 2007)

erocker said:


> I have a x1950pro and my system at peak uses 587 watts.



What else do you have in your system?

587 watts is well over double what most review sites show as the peak load for a system with a X1950pro. 

In fact thats higher than a HD2900XT / 8800Ultra

As for the op well you are MASSIVELY cpu bottlenecked. (this is shown by the fact that your 3dmark03 score (the one that isn't so heavily reliant on the cpu) isn't *that* bad in comparison to the other two benchmarks)

The old Northwood based celerons were erm heavily cut down* compared to their P4 siblings (only 128k L2 cache) which really hampers performance. 

*this is a nice way of putting it. 

A p4 at 3ghz or above should provide a nice boost although that will still bottleneck the card somewhat. 

A way of getting around cpu bottlenecking ( to some degree) is to move the load to the GPU (ie by running higher resolutions with AA/AF max settings) however this will only work if the game isn't cpu dependant. (although its something to try)


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 14, 2007)

*Best option I can think of for you*

I'll post a an *ATi tray tool *benchmark for you tomorrow.

I don't know if you've heard of *Video benchmark stability *test?
http://freestone-group.com/video-card-stability-test/benchmark-results.html

*Here's a benchmark I already have*
The *Gigabyte nVidia 7600GS 256mb *scored *1011fps* but plays some games better.
The *Sapphire ATi X1950pro 512mb   *scored *2180fps* with *Omega* drivers.

As for frame performance yes it is better frame wise but there are areas where the frames get stuttery and double visioned in some games.

*You say you don't know what to do?*
Go for option one if you want to use that card to a decent potential as well as play todays games.

Well it's the best option I can think of without putting you way out of pocket.

Seriously your motherboard, and *CPU* are* not *suited to that *GPU *which could have been outlined in the sale of the card.

But then why would they if it's going to decrease the sales margin.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 14, 2007)

I did that test...and I scored 631 with Omega drivers !! is something wrong with my card?..How can a CPU bottleneck it soo much.  I will try to get my hands on a P4 some time though.

Is there an application/game/benchmark that stresses ONLY the video card?


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 14, 2007)

Have you tried 3Dmark 06 yet? I've just bought an X1950GT (same as pro but slower clocks). I scored 3418 3Dmarks. My system is way past it's sell by date (see specs)

Main Test Results

3DMark Score 3418 3DMarks 
SM 2.0 Score 1497 Marks 
SM 3.0 Score 1653 Marks 
CPU Score 782 Marks 

So your scores should be better than that. (proabably alot better)

I'm using catalyst 7.5 atm. Tried the latest omega drivers but they didn't recognise my card. :S


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 14, 2007)

Just got 6321 in 3D '05 (2811 for CPU)


----------



## VeDz (Jun 14, 2007)

about 2500 in 3dmark05. and about 2000 in 3dmark06.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 14, 2007)

What's your cpu score like in '06? It might be worth getting something like sisoft sandra and taking a look at what is says about your board and memory configuration. You might have something setup wrong somewhere.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 15, 2007)

I doubt it's the card since the stability test also takes the rest of your system into consideration.

But yeah your CPU motherboard is probably holding it back.

*This is something I read in a thread somewhere:-*
The *GPU* is like a car and the *CPU* is like the driver.

You need a good *CPU *to handle this *GPU.*You need a good driver to control the car.

So yeah go for option one I gave you if you want total control of this card.

Go for the *P4* if you don't mind some bottlenecking.
Just remember *3.0 *& up only!

I'll be reformatting my main *HDD* Sunday or Monday since driver cleaner doesn't seem to be doing it's job properly.
Reminants of* nVidia *drivers still in the system and I can't get rid of *nv4display.dll* out of *system32* folder.

Delete it and a new one pops up in its place!

Anyway I'll see if anything gets better after.

Using just the Catalyst display drivers without the control centre at the moment since I seem to be getting best gaming performance this way.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 15, 2007)

*VeDz my ATi tray tools benchmark you asked for.*

This is the end result with my *P4 3.0E HT 478 @ 3.2Ghz *and *Sapphire ATi 1950pro 512mb*

I'm not too sure if thats good or not though.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

rodneyhchef said:


> What's your cpu score like in '06? It might be worth getting something like sisoft sandra and taking a look at what is says about your board and memory configuration. You might have something setup wrong somewhere.



can you tell me how do I use the SiSoft Sandra software? I have downloaded it, but it has so many options. 


To Widjaja,

Yup, I think I will definetly get a P4. Probably in like 2 weeks. However, I don't think my motherboard an support one with more than 3.2Ghz of speed.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

just have a look at the mainboard information, cpu and bios information and see if there are any warnings. its also worth doing some cpu and memory bandwidth benchmarks to see how bad the situation really is. There should hopefully be something in the list of systems that they've benchmarked that yours is similar to so you can compare.

I'm very suprised at how slow your results are. I just ran an ati tray tools benchmark and got 5258.25.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

According to SiSoft Sandra, my cpu benchmarks compare fairly well to other cpus. Like the Athlon XP 3200+ and pentium 4 2.8ghz. 

So maybe this might not be the problem? I also did the memory benchmark, and I find that a bit fishy. I will let you know more about that. 

rodneyhchef, what do you get for Super Pi scores?

Also, playing games with a lot of units/characters really shows the FPS lag then. Could it be a ram problem?


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 15, 2007)

*Rodneychef*
Are you talking about *VeDz* ATi tray tools benchmark or mine?

Yeah it's important to now about everything in a *PC* when it comes to performance.

If one things seriously lacking it weighs the rest of the hardware down.

I may do a bit *OC*ing to my *CPU* since the temps are idling at *47*deg and see if it makes any difference in *ATi tray tools *benchmark.

Seems the *arctic5* thermal grease is doing it's job.

I might download *3Dmark 06 *and see what I get.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

which version of sandra are you running? you can't compare one version's benchmarks to another. So the sort of numbers I get may not mean anything compared to yours. I can't get the latest version to run for some reason, so I'm using sandra 2005.Sr2a. I'm not sure what "super Pi" is?

Widjaja - VeDz's results, not yours.


----------



## Alcpone (Jun 15, 2007)

Only read last page, has spyware been taken out of equation, your rig may be lagged badly by that kinda shit going on in the background, more than others with what your specs are!


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

My CPU is currently idling at 19 degrees  There is SOOO much potential for overclocking, but it just won't go past 3.19 ghz


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

I actually reformatted this comp, after I received the X1950 Pro.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

So what kind of memory bandwidth are you getting? That kind of bench mark should be comparable between versions. It shouldn't be far off 3.2GB/s or 6.4 if you have dual channel. Mines something like 2.9


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

yep, its 2933 mb/s

I honestly don't know what the heck is wrong :|


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 15, 2007)

Well. . . .thats me out of answers

Since you have your mind set on a *P4*, go for a *3Ghz HT* at least.
Northwoods don't run as hot but are not too *OC*able.
Prescotts are definitley a *mini heater *in your PC but with the right cooling I've read they can be *OC*ed to *3.8Ghz *stable.

Do you have the latest *BIOS* for you motherboard?
What *FSB* is that Celeron *533* or *800*?
lol I have a *P4 2.4Ghz 533*which can be *OC*ed for sale but if were you I would pass.

A little later down the track you can look for a better motherboard if it has a limited *BIOS*

P.S what software are you using to find what memory band width you are using?


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

:O I thought my motherboard didn't support HT, now I did some research and it indeed does! yay! I would buy your P4 and OC it, if I had any spare money with me right now 

The software is SiSoft Sandra.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

Can you enable dual channel memory on your motherboard? That will probably help quite a bit.

Just found this. Is this your motherboard?

http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=P4M80-M7&cat=MBB


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

Well, its weird. The name of my motherboard is that one. It looks like that too. Same features and everything. Except, the only difference is that the one in your link is a Socket 775 and mine is a socket 478. I wish it was a 775  But, I don't know if it supports dual channel or not.

This is the one. http://www.geeks.com/details.asp?invtid=P4M8M4-COMB44&cpc=SCH


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

Only thing I can think of is is the on-board VGA disabled in the bios? I'd go through all the bios settings for integrated peripherals and double check what's enabled and what's disabled.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 15, 2007)

Vedz, no your mobo will not support dual channel memory, Check your ACPI settings in BIOS.
Also check here for Mobo Driver and other Updates;

http://www.biostar-usa.com/mbdownloads.asp?model=P4M80-M4


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

I think my memory might be slow :| I guess that explains why it I get FPS lag in applications/games where there are a lot of units. Is there a way to benchmark memory? other than SiSoft Sandra? I have two sticks of ram, each same brand 512mb and 225mhz...


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 15, 2007)

your memory bandwidth is the same as mine, so I don't think the issue is with your RAM. Have you had a look through your bios yet?


----------



## VeDz (Jun 15, 2007)

Ya, I looked through it, and I honestly don't find anything wrong with it. I even loaded the default settings. 

But, one thing. I completely uninstalled the catalyst omega drivers and installed the drivers which where came with the card and I note some improvement. That stability test? I get 830 now. Also, my 3dmark03 score went up to 12000. And my 3dmark 05 went to 3100 and 06 went to 2500.

strange...

I am really hoping the problem is not due to a defective card...I have only a few days to return it then.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 16, 2007)

Have you installed *CCC* as well as the *catalyst display drivers *as I have found using the control center as well cause poorer performance in my system.

Right now I'm using *Catalyst 7.5* display drivers and *ATi tray tools* which has given me the best results.

I might do some tweaking in tray tools.
See if changing the *shader* does any difference and lowering the *texture LOD *since I think thats what is choking my *CPU* but it's only a theory at the moment.

I'm not going to *OC* the *GPU* as it's already fast enough, I'll study up on the standard tweaks.

With freight cost the *P4* I have would probably be the same price as a *P4 3.0*

Have you checked to see if you have the latest *BIOS* for your motherboard?


----------



## VeDz (Jun 16, 2007)

I have tried it with the CCC installed and uninstalled. I think that made little difference to which I didn't note if the difference was good or bad. Also, my BIOS is up to date with default settings. Where can I change the shader and texture LOD from? All the games/applications that I use currently suggest that if unit # = high then performance = low.

Nevertheless, i will be getting a P4 in a week or two. However, if that doesn't make a difference I am completely clued out then to what will.

One last thing. I overclocked my CPU about 400mhz to 3.1ghz and my fps in the Video Card stability test went up about 200 fps. I guess this is good proof that the CPU is the cause?


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 17, 2007)

Yeah I think it has to do with the typr of CPU and not just the speed.
Maybe something to do with the cache size of the CPU.

My P4 cache sizes are:-
L1 data cache is 16kb
L1 trace is 12 kuops
L2 cache is 1mb

I found texture LOD adjustment in ATi tray tools/direct 3d/settings but I still have to find what it really is.
It sounds like level of detail but I'll find tonight or later.

Well looks like I'm the guinea pig here for the P4's since all the other prople I've come across with a X1950pro has an AMD and don't say they have any performance issues.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 17, 2007)

I have an intel core 2 with an x1950pro...you DIDN'T LOOK HARD ENOUGH! Granted it's not an older P4, it's still INTEL! 

But any P4 you get will bottleneck that card, but the faster you can get your P4 and memory bandwidth, the better your results will be! My system runs great, I crank most all the goodies up in many games without issue, of course I generally play in 1280x1024 or 1600x1200...so that works for my x1950.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 17, 2007)

I'm talking about people with *P4's* not *PentuimD's* or *C2D's*
Of course there won't be any bottlenecks involved with *PentiumD* and *C2D* in conjunction with this card.

I'm thinking of going to *AMD* since I have already bought this card and it's not entirely expensive for me to just buy a new *motherboard* and *CPU*.

*As I've said in a previous post in this thread :-*
*AMD/AGP *motherboards have access to more powerful *CPU's* than *P4/AGP *motherboards.

But this thread is not about me it's about the poor bugger who didn't know that this card gets *CPU* bottlenecks.

*VeDz*
So far it appears to me that I have to reduce the texture performance of the *GPU* for the *CPU* to cope.


----------



## DuggyUK (Jun 17, 2007)

Kursah said:


> I have an intel core 2 with an x1950pro...you DIDN'T LOOK HARD ENOUGH! Granted it's not an older P4, it's still INTEL!



Same here C2D (E4300@2.7Ghz)


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 17, 2007)

*Good news for VeDz*

I have some good news for you *VeDz*
I have *OC'd* my *P4* over *3.3Ghz *and have noticed an improvemt in performance.

I'll be *OC*ing it to it's stable limit to see how much better the performance gets.

Sad to see someone is trying to make you feel bad about the system you have.

I'll tell you now, you can't impress a chick with how *big* and *powerful* your *PC* is. e.g DuggyUK

Like to see you say "hey babe I've gotta *C2D* too feel like coming home for the night to have a bit of a *LAN*?"


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 17, 2007)

Surely mine isn't much (if any) better? Yet I get deecent(ish) results.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 17, 2007)

This where I noticed the performance issue and it's *CPU* related.

*FPS* goes up and down *too* dramatically with the *P4* so the *CPU* bottleneck is noticeable in that way.
*OC*ing the *P4* from *3.2Ghz *to *3.3Ghz *has shown more improvement in *FPS* stability not more *FPS*.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 17, 2007)

I just got this 1950pro 256mb PCI-e yesterday. Installed it ran 3dmark 06 and got 4000. Launched up my favorite game Armed Assault, and the performance was horrible. geo fps ranging from 11 to 30. reformatted PC made 10 gig partition for pagefile, 50 gig partition for games. Launched arma again and everything was smooths as hell. I cranked up shadows a,AA and AF, and the game looks beautiful with FPS 20-44(Arma runs on low FPS on all the systems)

this is how it looks now:


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 17, 2007)

Hmm heard about partitioning HDD's doing someting which makies gaming better.
I'll give it a go tomorow and see what happens.

Anyway my CPU hit a wall when attempting to OC to 3.5Ghz so the P4 3.0E HT is staying at over 3.4Ghz.
Not bad on a Intel stock cooler and arctic5 thermal paste.

Odd thing was one benchmark went up and the other went down.
Video Card Stability test I scored 2382fps instead of 2180
ATi tray tools Benchmark I scored 6786fps 6791fps.

Anyway see what happens after a re-format and partition.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

VeDz said:


> So 218W can be the maximum consumption of the 12V rail right? I took that 218W / 12 = 18A? I am pretty sure 18A for just a video card is a bit too much? I mean, my vacuum cleaner is 18A. .



This correct.

However, your vaccum uses 110(or 220v).

110*18a=1980w

12v*18a=218w

Theres a drasticly different amount of raw power being used. (Although 200w does seem a bit much for a GPU alone)

For instance a CPU could use upwards of 40-70a.

However, its a very very low 1.35v, so you really end up with somewhere around 67w used.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 17, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Hmm heard about partitioning HDD's doing someting which makies gaming better.
> I'll give it a go tomorow and see what happens.
> 
> Anyway my CPU hit a wall when attempting to OC to 3.5Ghz so the P4 3.0E HT is staying at over 3.4Ghz.
> ...



reformat always helps with weaker CPU's like mine. vidjaja if ur mainly gaming on ur rig disabling pagefile helps alot. No need to load stuff from HD , everything is on RAM, wich makes the gameplay smoother. Ofcourse u can OC the hell out of ur CPU, but neet and well serviced system runs games better, than a minor overclock. Allso i'm not into the whole benchmark thing, I run 3dmark06 now and then, but the real results are shown while gaming.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Hmm heard about partitioning HDD's doing someting which makies gaming better.
> I'll give it a go tomorow and see what happens.
> 
> Anyway my CPU hit a wall when attempting to OC to 3.5Ghz so the P4 3.0E HT is staying at over 3.4Ghz.
> ...



Pretty sure theres nothing useful configuration wise for partitioning a hdd for gaming performance...

Theres been some things about isolating the pagefile etc, but its a lot of hassle.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 17, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Pretty sure theres nothing useful configuration wise for partitioning a hdd for gaming performance...
> 
> Theres been some things about isolating the pagefile etc, but its a lot of hassle.



And have u tried it urself???? Don't talk about things u really dont know about, and havent seen for ur self lol


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

PuMA said:


> And have u tried it urself???? Don't talk about things u really dont know about, and havent seen for ur self lol



Got benchmarks to back any claims up?

I've yet to actually ever find any.

Anything I've ever seen are just benchmarks saying its a waste of time.

If it had benefits, don't you think everyone would do it already? 

What you said is..


> reformatted PC made 10 gig partition for pagefile, 50 gig partition for games.



Was it a fresh format before? If not, its not comparable.

A format will very often give you a significant performance boost, because 90% of people's windows setups get cluttered up after a few weeks of use. Stray processes and such.

In order to do a legit comparison you have to use the same hardware with a fresh format, or else you introduce variables into the equation that will most definatly skew results.

http://discuss.extremetech.com/forums/4/648402001/ShowThread.aspx

Posted by melloe on ET.

Definatly a waste of time, unless you put the pagefile on a seperate hard drive(such as maybe a 40gb raptor), and are making excessive use of the page file.

neither of which are good for performance. If you rely that heavily on a page file, you need more ram.

Since the page file will still be on the SAME hard drive, a partition would probably only slow it down, simply because its seperated from everything else. It has to go through extra accessing information to locate, read and write the same data. It would only probably help fragmentation....

A seperate physical drive for a swap file would definatly give an improvement. Assuming its a bottleneck.


----------



## Kasparz (Jun 17, 2007)

Oh my god guys, 3Ghz sandiego AMD singlecore is bottlenecking my x1900gt, and theres guy using x1950pro on 2.7Ghz northwood celeron on uber crap system. Gosh, that x1950pro costs more than entire system.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 17, 2007)

I can imagine having the pagefile on a separate physical drive having it's advantages, so long as it's nice and fast, but having it on a separate partition on the same drive surely can't help as the drive read/write heads are shared across partitions.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 17, 2007)

Haha, Kasparz, I know its unfortunate isn't it? Thanks for the replies guys. 

I had heard the disabling the page file improved gaming performance since it stores info on ram rather than HD. So I did that some time back, before I had the X1950 Pro. I guess there was a bit of differencce for the better. 

The thing is, I know for sure my OS is fine, as I just recently reformated after I got the video card. The paritition and page file on the partition thing is a bit confusing. Can you elaborate a bit more PuMA?
Anyway, the best I can do with my CPU is upgrade it to a 3.0GHz P4 with HT. That should hopefully be sufficient, heck I will OC it later as Widjaja said that overclocking the P4 stabilizies the FPS.

Only concern to me, is hoping the card won't be defective. I can stay care free, as I will one day (sooner than later) upgrade to the P4, making use of my card a bit more Then probably better/faster ram. My CPU also, is 100% usage when I am in an application/game. While my video card temperature barely goes up. This could probably suggest that CPU is working as hard as it can, while the video card isn't breaking a sweat because it is limited by the CPU thus not having to give better performance, hence the temperatures not going up. Just a thought. 

Also, just to clarify, I was getting the same performance with my 250W that I am now getting with my 500W. Same stability too. Only difference is, now I am not worried about burning my motherboard/ram/(insert component). 



> So far it appears to me that I have to reduce the texture performance of the GPU for the CPU to cope.



What do you mean by the texture performance Widjaja? I will try to lower that if you tell me how.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 17, 2007)

which version of the HIS card did you get? The Ice Q version? I imagine they run pretty cool anyway.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 17, 2007)

VeDz said:


> Haha, Kasparz, I know its unfortunate isn't it? Thanks for the replies guys.
> 
> I had heard the disabling the page file improved gaming performance since it stores info on ram rather than HD. So I did that some time back, before I had the X1950 Pro. I guess there was a bit of differencce for the better.



It's not recommended you remove the page file, you will most likely run into issues as Windows and many programs are designed to use the page file. Even if you have 4gb or more of RAM, the page file will still be used.



> The thing is, I know for sure my OS is fine, as I just recently reformated after I got the video card. The paritition and page file on the partition thing is a bit confusing. Can you elaborate a bit more PuMA?
> Anyway, the best I can do with my CPU is upgrade it to a 3.0GHz P4 with HT. That should hopefully be sufficient, heck I will OC it later as Widjaja said that overclocking the P4 stabilizies the FPS.



Read up on creating partitions and assigning page files to them. I found it best if I had a secondary HDD (about 10 gb in size, or partition) to assign the page file to. You still should have a page file set for windows, but you can make it smaller in size. Usually the performance gained from messing with all this is minimal, and not worth the hassle for most.



> Only concern to me, is hoping the card won't be defective. I can stay care free, as I will one day (sooner than later) upgrade to the P4, making use of my card a bit more Then probably better/faster ram. My CPU also, is 100% usage when I am in an application/game. While my video card temperature barely goes up. This could probably suggest that CPU is working as hard as it can, while the video card isn't breaking a sweat because it is limited by the CPU thus not having to give better performance, hence the temperatures not going up. Just a thought.



You should consider saving up and upgrading your system. Parts are getting cheaper, and even something a few years old and dirt cheap (AMD if deciding to stick with P4, Intel if going for newer more recent tech, at least for the moment, C2D is on top). You will never be content if you keep updating your dated hardware, and it doesn't matter if you go P4, Pentium D or whatnot, there will be a bottleneck. Even on new technology, like my C2D for instance is a bottleneck for my x1950pro at stock speeds, and OC-ing to my current levels allows more bandwidth for the card, relieving the bottleneck, do I believe the bottleneck is gone. No, I don't, but my performance suits my needs for now. 



> Also, just to clarify, I was getting the same performance with my 250W that I am now getting with my 500W. Same stability too. Only difference is, now I am not worried about burning my motherboard/ram/(insert component).



Yeah performance shouldn't change, but stability will be more consistant as you have overhead wattage to keep your system more stable. I try to keep an overhead of wattage by around 100-200, so that way even when my system is fully loaded down, it's not stressing the PSU to it's max, keeping the PSU closer to it's efficiency zone and alive longer.



> What do you mean by the texture performance Widjaja? I will try to lower that if you tell me how.



I'm willing to bet he means filtering/LOD settings, turning texture detail and filtering settings down would increase performance but also cause muddier and less detailed textures.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 17, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Got benchmarks to back any claims up?
> 
> I've yet to actually ever find any.
> 
> ...



was fresh formatt, and yes the format did all the wonders. I dont use any benchmarks, I like to see the differences with my own eyes. Any benchmark can tell u got x score on CPU but z score on GPU, but I think its all bullshit and would just give a wet dream to u as a internet/tech nerd.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

PuMA said:


> was fresh formatt, and yes the format did all the wonders. I dont use any benchmarks, I like to see the differences with my own eyes. Any benchmark can tell u got x score on CPU but z score on GPU, but I think its all bullshit and would just give a wet dream to u as a internet/tech nerd.



Yeah, placebo effect > physics.

I forgot, sorry.


----------



## Kursah (Jun 17, 2007)

PuMA said:


> reformat always helps with weaker CPU's like mine. vidjaja if ur mainly gaming on ur rig disabling pagefile helps alot. No need to load stuff from HD , everything is on RAM, wich makes the gameplay smoother. Ofcourse u can OC the hell out of ur CPU, but neet and well serviced system runs games better, than a minor overclock. Allso i'm not into the whole benchmark thing, I run 3dmark06 now and then, but the real results are shown while gaming.



I had opossite results, I tried this on my old Athlon 1.4 Socket A system, made it even more unstable (it was a cheap POS to start with, but the GF 2 Mx440 was decent at the time), on my P4 Williamete 1.4 Sck 423/Rambus/ATI 9600 setup, caused worse performance and "skipping", I had a gig of Rambus in it (fortunately I had 2 sticks donated to me...that junk is overpriced). I've even tried it on my P4 630 setup, none of them gained anything from removing the page file. Keeping your disk clean, defragged and virus/adware free helps a lot. Removing unneeded resources from boot/running helps more than removing the page file ever could because that will free up RAM and CPU resources. 

But glad it worked in your case, one of the few I've seen, most who do disable pagefile end up with more problems, even if not immediate as Windows and many programs look for it and are designed to use it along with RAM. Remove your exhuast off of your car, exhaust manifolds/headers and all, sure it will run somewhat better, but eventually your valve seals will burn up and it's all down hill from there.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jun 17, 2007)

Kursah said:


> But glad it worked in your case, one of the few I've seen, most who do disable pagefile end up with more problems, even if not immediate as Windows and many programs look for it and are designed to use it along with RAM.



Yep. Something like photoshop will likely get pissed off at you.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

rodneyhchef said:


> which version of the HIS card did you get? The Ice Q version? I imagine they run pretty cool anyway.



no, it is not the ice q version  those look soo cool! the cooler is quite good, as it dumps the air right into my exhaust fan.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

One more option:-
Return that card for a say a 7600GT AGP, and with the money left over upgrade your CPU as I have found my P4 handled the 7600 I had better than this card.

At the end of the day, the trick is to have a well balanced PC.

I'm going to reinstall woindows this afternoon to see if there is any performance increase as I have seen in forums the P4 3.0 is said to handle this GPU, but then again this was coming from people who haven't tested this theory first hand.

Even with the P4 OC'd to 3.4Ghz, it's still not much of an improvement IMO but none the less it is an improvement.

I'm looking to get no CPU bottleneck performance from this GPU and from what I've researched. . . .

An AMD/AGP motherboard is the only one which can handle this since it can use a much faster CPU than what a 478skt motherboard P4 can.

If not. . . .then the AGP X1950pro is the fastest GPU for AGP which no AGP motherboard can handle.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

I had that option in my head. But, then I thought, I am getting the same performance right now with my X1950 Pro in games, that I was getting with my 9600 Pro. So...something is bottleneckingit quite nicely, quite low. I am afraid a 7600GT would also have a bottleneck problem. 

Plus, it's Nvidia, no way.  j/k


----------



## Kursah (Jun 18, 2007)

Well, hate to say it, but your best option to get the most out of that card would be to build a new system around it. And if you're going to do that, might as well take it back and get the PCI-e version. Your system is just about perfect for a 9600, but much beyond that, maybe a 9800, is about what you'll be good for.

A faster processor will help, but whether or not it will be up to your expectations....that's the question worth asking yourself.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

I agree with Kursah.
Yes your system at present is suited to the 9600 maybe a 9800.
Or build around it IF you still want to use this card.

Yeah the 7600GT may do the same thing with your system.

I think all of us will be pointing out that damn Celeron.

I think you know by now anyway lol.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 18, 2007)

@ VeDz changing your paging file (virtual memory) may give you some performance improvements depending what the are set on now.  Try setting it to your ammount of RAM X 1.5 for minimum(1536), and 3X the ram for maximum(3072).  As long as it's not greater than 10% of your HDD it should work.  Weather or not it helps will depend entirly on the mobo and Ram.  However' I must agree with the others about needing to get a better rig or go for the 7600. Your Mobo will support a P4.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

Oh no going to the dark side. . . .Oh well.
Looking at AMD.
The fastest processor avilable for use with this AGP card is either the AMD64 FX60 or the AMD64 X2 4800+

They beat any P4 hands down therefore will not bottleneck this GPU in theory.


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 18, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Oh no going to the dark side. . . .Oh well.
> Looking at AMD.
> The fastest processor avilable for use with this AGP card is either the AMD64 FX60 or the AMD64 X2 4800+
> 
> They beat any P4 hands down therefore will not bottleneck this GPU in theory.



For OC go for the FX, unlocked multi's!


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

@Namslas
Hows your rig handling your GPU
Any CPU bottlenecking with your X2 3800+?
What is unlocked multi's and how will that improve gaming performance over one without?


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 18, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> @Namslas
> Hows your rig handling your GPU
> Any CPU bottlenecking with your X2 3800+?



It's all good, it does everything I need it to.  Have had it oc'd to 2.7Ghx, with the X1900XTX, oc'd about 2/3rds.  FPS is great, 3dMark06 - 5824 (pretty good for a Gateway),Super-Pi around 58sec (kinda slow, but not bad for 4X512).  Can play any/all games at max settings NP.  2x1GB memory would be better, but the price of the mem I got was great($45 a stick).  The mobo can handle more, but right now my budget can't.  Would like to up it to a X2 4600 and 2X1GB Giel(or so).


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

Temptation to go to the darkside getting closer.
I can get a *AMD64 X2 4800+* with Heatsink and a *ABIT AV8 3rd-eye* motherboard with that little *LCD* ocing unit for a good price!

I think this combo with the *GPU* & RAM I have aready will give game lag a can of shut the *fuck *up!


----------



## Namslas90 (Jun 18, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Temptation to go to the darkside getting closer.
> I can get a *AMD64 X2 4800+* with Heatsink and a *ABIT AV8 3rd-eye* motherboard with that little *LCD* ocing unit for a good price!
> 
> I think this combo with the *GPU* & RAM I have aready will give game lag a can of shut the *fuck *up!



Sounds like a good choice, Bang for the Buck wise.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

I don't really have enough to change my whole comp. If I would be upgrading though, I would be getting a socket 775 motherboard with PCI-E so I can use those amazing C2Ds. 

But, too expensive  I will just get a P4 in a bit unfortunately. I don't play intense graphic games though, just a few oldies that ran "ok" with my 9600 pro. Now they still run "ok", but obviously one would expect a difference coming from 9600 pro to x1950 pro. I honestly believe a pentium 4 processor will solve the issue. 

On Super PI, I get about 1m and 47 seconds. On my AMD 64 3500+, I get around 56 seconds. I heard P4s being in that range also. 

Can someone with a P4 here do a Super PI test. Thanks, appreciate all the feed back guys.


----------



## hat (Jun 18, 2007)

SUPER PI 1M as per request:
Pentium 4 HT 3GHz 800MHz FSB 1MB L2
1GB Crucial Technology BALLISTIX DDR400


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 18, 2007)

*Another Super PI result*

P4 3.0E HT @ 3.4Ghz
2x1GB ADATA DDR400 Dual Channel @ 460Mhz

1m test 39sec

Still haven't re-installed windows to see if there is any change
Procrastination.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

Those results are really good I think. I don't think the P4 will be a bottleneck. Although, it may have something to do with the Hyper Threading. It will be hard for me to get my hands on those. Those beat my AMD 64 3500+ scores and I think they beat the X2 3800 + of Namslas90.

One last request, if someone with a normal P4 without HT do the test?


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 18, 2007)

Just ran it on mine (now I know what it is!!) And it did it in 50seconds. I'm quite pleased with that. If Super pi is a good estimate of how good your cpu is (I dunno) then I'd agree that the cpu is the problem.


----------



## rodneyhchef (Jun 18, 2007)




----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

ah ha! I think looking at your score rodney has convinced me, that my CPU is pretty horrible, and how you score quite high. I think Super Pi relies on a bit of memory but minutely. My score basicaly is a double of yours, a P4 etc. I have also checked if my Celeron was just bogus or all of them are. I found a 2.5ghz celeron which score 1m and 59s compared to my 1min 47 seconds. So, definetly, its not my current CPU problem, but rather the fact that celerons are horrible. 

With that said, I found a laptop with a P4 2.8ghz no HT, which ran SUper Pi at 50 seconds too. So, I think the deal is sealed of what I will be getting. 

Thanks for everyones help. Appreciate it very much. 

A big cheers to all of you.


----------



## VeDz (Jun 18, 2007)

I am scared again. 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=33224 

This man, has a 3.0E p4.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 19, 2007)

VeDz I think those *Super PI *tests, benchmark test etc, relate to in game performance at all.

See what I ended up getting?
*39*sec in the *1* min test and still my *CPU* sucks in gaming.

I've reformatted, re-installed windows and partitioned my *HDD* so I have a separate partition for games still not one bit of improvement.

So I maybe getting a *AMD64 X2 4800+* and new *motherboard* to sort out the bottlenecking.

At the end of the day mate you may have to do the same to sort out you issue completley

Feel sorry for you dude


----------



## PuMA (Jun 22, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Yep. Something like photoshop will likely get pissed off at you.



with 2gb of ram, im using photoshop without any problems. True that u will need ATLEAST 2gb to do it, and I think its a good trade, to load textures etc. from ram only and eliminate the slow hdd paging. I dont have any benchies to prove, but the effects are seen clearly when gaming: Faster loading times, no stuttering, maybe a little FPS boost. Im currently playing Armed Assault, and the game loads up a huge 400x400 square kilometers into memory, not to mention, 
300+ troops+ vehicles present in the island. Disabling pagefile helps in this game, and have heard that it did the same to others too.  

And im sorry for my flaiming the other day(was quite drunk)


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 22, 2007)

*PuMA*
I decided to re-format and partition my *HDD* and nothing changed.
My *AMD* motherboard has arrived, now I just have to wait for the *CPU* then do some bench comparisons and gaming comparisons.

I think my new *CPU* will piss all over the the current one considering the *AMD64 X2 **4800+ 939skt* is somewhere aorund the levels of a decent *PentiumD* or so I've read.

If the games play around the same quality as my mates rig I'd be happy

*Mates Rig:-*
Pentium D 945 3.4Ghz Pressler
2X 1GB DDR667mhz Dual Channel
7600GT 256mb PCI-E
Some mid range Gigabyte SLi motherboard

*My rig by next week:-*
AMD64 X2 4800+ @2.4Ghz
2X 1GB DDR400 Dual Channel
X1950pro 512mb AGP
ABIT AV8 3rd-eye


----------



## PuMA (Jun 22, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> *PuMA*
> I decided to re-format and partition my *HDD* and nothing changed.
> My *AMD* motherboard has arrived, now I just have to wait for the *CPU* then do some bench comparisons and gaming comparisons.
> 
> ...



yes that rig will run all the games fine+ u got ati card so GFX are awesome with it.
the performance gain that I had for reformatting was mainly because I hadn't formatted in awhile, so everything runs better with fresh format. Sorry that ur partioning didnt work, but with that proc u can run recent games probly with everything maxed(and with 512mb u can up the res aswell)

I'm waiting to get my 2x512 mem, I allready now that It helps with the games. 
BTW: im on 939 just like u.

u can't really compare intel and AMD. Intel has higher clock frequency, but AMD's handle memory allocations much better+ some other advantages that i dont remember. 
To put it this way: Pentium for running aps and AMD for gaming (tough the new core2 will perform better in games nowdays)


just a little Q: Am I able to run my mem in dual channel (2x512mb vm green and 2x512mb tranced ram)???? They are matching pairs


----------



## Agility (Jun 22, 2007)

Dual channel only works with two rams. YOu can still insert the other two rams but they'll only be used when your DIMM-1/2 is completely used up by your programs/processes.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 22, 2007)

Agility said:


> Dual channel only works with two rams. YOu can still insert the other two rams but they'll only be used when your DIMM-1/2 is completely used up by your programs/processes.



I tought 2 chips in channel A and 2 chips in channel B would make the compatible chips do dual channel
I've used 2gb on this machine before...


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 22, 2007)

*PuMA*
This how my current motherboard works
*Slots:-*
Dual Channel
*1:-*RAM Matching
*2:-*
*3:-*RAM Matching
*4:-*
Single Channel
*1:-*RAM Matching
*2:-*RAM
*3:-*RAM Matching
*4:-*none

So I would say as long as you have two matching pairs of dual channel *RAM* even if each pair is a different brand then you will have dual channel.

Oh and the partitoning made my SuperPI 1m score go from 39sec to 38 sec. . . . . .yay.


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 22, 2007)

If two pair of dual channel were working at the same time then it would be quad channel.
But no it goes first pair of dual channel ram.
Once thats used up then it's the next pair.

2X 512MB dual channel DDR400 ram would be like 1GB DDR400 with twice the bandwidth.


----------



## PuMA (Jun 22, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> If two pair of dual channel were working at the same time then it would be quad channel.
> But no it goes first pair of dual channel ram.
> Once thats used up then it's the next pair.
> 
> 2X 512MB dual channel DDR400 ram would be like 1GB DDR400 with twice the bandwidth.



so noway making 2x512 matching pair and 2x512 matching pair to use in dual channel???


----------



## Widjaja (Jun 23, 2007)

No *2X1GB* dual channel does what you want 2 dual channel *512MB* pair to do unfortunatley.
For you it would go:-
Once first *2x512mb* used up then the next *2x512mb*
Even with four *512mb* ram sticks of the same brand.


----------



## PuMA (Jul 2, 2007)

well plugged my new 2x512, and cpu-z shows that 4x512 indeed run in dual channel


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 3, 2007)

Yes they do but the first pair will be used up then the next pair.
Not both at the same time.


----------



## tkpenalty (Jul 3, 2007)

VeDz, all along the Celeron was bottlenecking, dont think that PCs are very expensive. In fact the new E2140 costs the same as a Pentium 4...Also RAM is dirt cheap for now and so are motherboards like the DUALVSTA, or some guys like to call it; the swiss army knife motherboard. I'm guessing for this upgrade you will need like $500~$600 at the most. the DualVSTA has a AGP and a PCI-E slot so you're in luck.


----------



## PuMA (Jul 4, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Yes they do but the first pair will be used up then the next pair.
> Not both at the same time.



thats how single channel works...


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 4, 2007)

In a way 4x512's are two 1gb ram in single channel each with twice the bandwidth

Slot 1:-512mb
                    First 1GB dual channel pair to be used up
Slot 2:-512mb
Slot 3:-512mb
                    Second 1GB dual channel pair to be used up
Slot 4:-512mb

So your PC uses the first pair then goes to the next unlike my config.

Slot 1:-1GB
                2GB Dual channel
Slot 2:-1GB
Slot 3:-Empty
Slot 4:-Empty

Once that pair is used up thats it. . . .virtual ram


----------



## VeDz (Jul 4, 2007)

tkpenalty said:


> VeDz, all along the Celeron was bottlenecking, dont think that PCs are very expensive. In fact the new E2140 costs the same as a Pentium 4...Also RAM is dirt cheap for now and so are motherboards like the DUALVSTA, or some guys like to call it; the swiss army knife motherboard. I'm guessing for this upgrade you will need like $500~$600 at the most. the DualVSTA has a AGP and a PCI-E slot so you're in luck.



That is the perfect solution. Thank you so much. I didn't know that a motherboard with both PCIE and AGP existed. And the motherboard is quite cheap as well, I can get one for approx $80. Then all I need is another CPU and RAM. 

Now I am not feeling all so much guilty that my X1950Pro is a waste as it can very well be upgraded nicely in the future. 

Thanks again, tkpentaly.


----------



## Dippyskoodlez (Jul 4, 2007)

Widjaja said:


> Yes they do but the first pair will be used up then the next pair.
> Not both at the same time.



Widjaja is correct in the 4x 512mb usage..

it should behave in dual channel like 2 sticks.


----------



## Widjaja (Jul 5, 2007)

Dippyskoodlez said:


> Widjaja is correct in the 4x 512mb usage..
> 
> it should behave in dual channel like 2 sticks.



Ah atleast you understand me.
I was thinking of breaking out the blackboard and sock puppets to explain it.

Anyway VeDz, it's a start.
I think ASROCK have brought out one of these AGP/PCIE boards as well.

I think there is also a C2D board which uses AGP and are for sale here.

Well I've move to AMD and have found improvements.

Although this card hates NFSMW.


----------

