Quad core benching like a dual

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Power Obsessed, Mar 28, 2008.

  1. The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
    performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.

    The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
    that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
    results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    outside the norm.

    I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    benchmark has me concerned.

    Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    Power Obsessed, Mar 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Power Obsessed

    Carlos Guest

    Hi,
    What benchmarking program you are running?

    You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
    "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx

    Carlos

    "Power Obsessed" wrote:

    > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
    > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
    >
    > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
    > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
    > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    > outside the norm.
    >
    > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    > benchmark has me concerned.
    >
    > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    Carlos, Mar 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
    were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
    now its 850.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Carlos" wrote:

    > Hi,
    > What benchmarking program you are running?
    >
    > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
    > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    >
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >
    > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
    > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
    > >
    > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
    > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
    > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    > > outside the norm.
    > >
    > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    > > benchmark has me concerned.
    > >
    > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    Power Obsessed, Mar 28, 2008
    #3
  4. Power Obsessed

    Carlos Guest

    Hi,
    I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software
    ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.
    Carlos

    "Power Obsessed" wrote:

    > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
    > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
    > now its 850.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "Carlos" wrote:
    >
    > > Hi,
    > > What benchmarking program you are running?
    > >
    > > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
    > > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > >
    > > Carlos
    > >
    > > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > >
    > > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
    > > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
    > > >
    > > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
    > > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
    > > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    > > > outside the norm.
    > > >
    > > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    > > > benchmark has me concerned.
    > > >
    > > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > > --
    > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    Carlos, Mar 28, 2008
    #4
  5. Yeah thats what I'm racking my brain about. I did update the bios but, since
    then reflashed it to the old version. (due to these benchmark results). Other
    than that nothing comes to mind.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Carlos" wrote:

    > Hi,
    > I would then start asking myself what changes in hardware and/or software
    > ocurred since the last known "good" benchmark.
    > Carlos
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >
    > > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my CPU
    > > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was 1660
    > > now its 850.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "Carlos" wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi,
    > > > What benchmarking program you are running?
    > > >
    > > > You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie Russel,
    > > > "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > > > http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > > >
    > > > Carlos
    > > >
    > > > "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far as
    > > > > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being utilized.
    > > > >
    > > > > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The thing
    > > > > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager performance
    > > > > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    > > > > outside the norm.
    > > > >
    > > > > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    > > > > benchmark has me concerned.
    > > > >
    > > > > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > > > --
    > > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    Power Obsessed, Mar 28, 2008
    #5
  6. Power Obsessed

    John Barnes Guest

    You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got
    over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the
    overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have
    to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.

    "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > CPU
    > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > 1660
    > now its 850.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "Carlos" wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    >>
    >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    >> Russel,
    >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    >>
    >> Carlos
    >>
    >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >>
    >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far
    >> > as
    >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    >> > utilized.
    >> >
    >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    >> > thing
    >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    >> > performance
    >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    >> > outside the norm.
    >> >
    >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    >> >
    >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    >> > --
    >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> > Nvidia
    >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    John Barnes, Mar 28, 2008
    #6
  7. Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    (passmark). Single core and dual.
    The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "John Barnes" wrote:

    > You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    > programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors got
    > over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    > great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making the
    > overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't have
    > to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies article.
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > > CPU
    > > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > > 1660
    > > now its 850.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "Carlos" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi,
    > >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    > >>
    > >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > >> Russel,
    > >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > >>
    > >> Carlos
    > >>
    > >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as far
    > >> > as
    > >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    > >> > utilized.
    > >> >
    > >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    > >> > thing
    > >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > >> > performance
    > >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but, thats
    > >> > outside the norm.
    > >> >
    > >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with the
    > >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    > >> >
    > >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > >> > --
    > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> > Nvidia
    > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 28, 2008
    #7
  8. If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
    is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

    "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "John Barnes" wrote:
    >
    >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    >> got
    >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    >> the
    >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    >> have
    >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    >> article.
    >>
    >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    >> > CPU
    >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    >> > 1660
    >> > now its 850.
    >> > --
    >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> > Nvidia
    >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Hi,
    >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    >> >>
    >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    >> >> Russel,
    >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    >> >>
    >> >> Carlos
    >> >>
    >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    >> >> > far
    >> >> > as
    >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    >> >> > utilized.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    >> >> > thing
    >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    >> >> > performance
    >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    >> >> > thats
    >> >> > outside the norm.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    >> >> > --
    >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >>
    >>
    Colin Barnhorst, Mar 28, 2008
    #8
  9. I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom
    line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using
    four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it
    worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

    Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
    > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "John Barnes" wrote:
    > >
    > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    > >> got
    > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    > >> the
    > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    > >> have
    > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > >> article.
    > >>
    > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > >> > CPU
    > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > >> > 1660
    > >> > now its 850.
    > >> > --
    > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> > Nvidia
    > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> Hi,
    > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > >> >> Russel,
    > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Carlos
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    > >> >> > far
    > >> >> > as
    > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    > >> >> > utilized.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    > >> >> > thing
    > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > >> >> > performance
    > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    > >> >> > thats
    > >> >> > outside the norm.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    > >> >> > the
    > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > >> >> > --
    > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #9
  10. Power Obsessed

    Dennis Pack Guest

    Power Obsessed:
    If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at 667mhz
    or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.

    --
    Dennis Pack
    XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
    WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
    "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The
    >bottom
    > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is
    > using
    > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is
    > it
    > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    >
    > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >
    >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have
    >> seen
    >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.
    >>
    >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That
    >> > still
    >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the
    >> > results
    >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of
    >> > the
    >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    >> > --
    >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> > Nvidia
    >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "John Barnes" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost
    >> >> all
    >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    >> >> got
    >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores
    >> >> are
    >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    >> >> the
    >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    >> >> have
    >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    >> >> article.
    >> >>
    >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for
    >> >> > my
    >> >> > CPU
    >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system
    >> >> > was
    >> >> > 1660
    >> >> > now its 850.
    >> >> > --
    >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> Hi,
    >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    >> >> >> Russel,
    >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> Carlos
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    >> >> >> > far
    >> >> >> > as
    >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE
    >> >> >> > being
    >> >> >> > utilized.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software.
    >> >> >> > The
    >> >> >> > thing
    >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    >> >> >> > performance
    >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    >> >> >> > thats
    >> >> >> > outside the norm.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    >> >> >> > the
    >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    >> >> >> > --
    >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    >> >> >> > heatsink,
    >> >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor
    >> >> >> > X,
    >> >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    Dennis Pack, Mar 29, 2008
    #10
  11. Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory slower
    and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too
    busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never get
    an answer.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Dennis Pack" wrote:

    > Power Obsessed:
    > If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at 667mhz
    > or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.
    >
    > --
    > Dennis Pack
    > XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
    > WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
    > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The
    > >bottom
    > > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is
    > > using
    > > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is
    > > it
    > > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    > >
    > > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > >
    > >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have
    > >> seen
    > >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    > >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.
    > >>
    > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That
    > >> > still
    > >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the
    > >> > results
    > >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of
    > >> > the
    > >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > >> > --
    > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> > Nvidia
    > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "John Barnes" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost
    > >> >> all
    > >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    > >> >> got
    > >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores
    > >> >> are
    > >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    > >> >> the
    > >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    > >> >> have
    > >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > >> >> article.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for
    > >> >> > my
    > >> >> > CPU
    > >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system
    > >> >> > was
    > >> >> > 1660
    > >> >> > now its 850.
    > >> >> > --
    > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> Hi,
    > >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > >> >> >> Russel,
    > >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> Carlos
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    > >> >> >> > far
    > >> >> >> > as
    > >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE
    > >> >> >> > being
    > >> >> >> > utilized.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software.
    > >> >> >> > The
    > >> >> >> > thing
    > >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > >> >> >> > performance
    > >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    > >> >> >> > thats
    > >> >> >> > outside the norm.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    > >> >> >> > the
    > >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > >> >> >> > --
    > >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    > >> >> >> > heatsink,
    > >> >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor
    > >> >> >> > X,
    > >> >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>

    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #11
  12. Power Obsessed

    Guest

    On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom
    > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using
    > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it
    > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    >
    > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
    > > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    > > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

    >
    > > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    > > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    > > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > > > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    > > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > > > --
    > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > > "John Barnes" wrote:

    >
    > > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    > > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    > > >> got
    > > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    > > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    > > >> the
    > > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    > > >> have
    > > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > > >> article.

    >
    > > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > > >>news:...
    > > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > > >> > CPU
    > > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > > >> > 1660
    > > >> > now its 850.
    > > >> > --
    > > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > >> > Nvidia
    > > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

    >
    > > >> >> Hi,
    > > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

    >
    > > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > > >> >> Russel,
    > > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

    >
    > > >> >> Carlos

    >
    > > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

    >
    > > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    > > >> >> > far
    > > >> >> > as
    > > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    > > >> >> > utilized.

    >
    > > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    > > >> >> > thing
    > > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > > >> >> > performance
    > > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    > > >> >> > thats
    > > >> >> > outside the norm.

    >
    > > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    > > >> >> > the
    > > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

    >
    > > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > >> >> > --
    > > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > > >> >> > 4gb
    > > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > >> >> > Nvidia
    > > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to
    diagnose. [I've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]

    Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the
    background jobs are off?
    , Mar 29, 2008
    #12
  13. Its true though. The four-stick problem is a fact on a lot of consumer
    mobos. At 800 the memory controller is straining with a fully populated
    board. There have been dozens of cases in the Vista hardware_devices ng
    where that was the resolution for systems not booting with 4GB or 8GB of
    PC6400 ram installed. The nVidia chipsets seem particularly prone to this
    (nForce4, 650i, 680i and some others). In fact, I have such a board. I
    cannot run 8GB of PC6400 ram but I can take out one stick and all is well.
    I can run all four sticks at 667 though.

    "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    news:D...
    > Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory
    > slower
    > and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too
    > busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never
    > get
    > an answer.
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "Dennis Pack" wrote:
    >
    >> Power Obsessed:
    >> If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at
    >> 667mhz
    >> or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Dennis Pack
    >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
    >> WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
    >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The
    >> >bottom
    >> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is
    >> > using
    >> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    >> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know
    >> > is
    >> > it
    >> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    >> >
    >> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    >> > --
    >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> > Nvidia
    >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    >> >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have
    >> >> seen
    >> >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for
    >> >> device
    >> >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the
    >> >> system.
    >> >>
    >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That
    >> >> > still
    >> >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the
    >> >> > results
    >> >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the
    >> >> > software.
    >> >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    >> >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of
    >> >> > the
    >> >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    >> >> > --
    >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > "John Barnes" wrote:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost
    >> >> >> all
    >> >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core
    >> >> >> processors
    >> >> >> got
    >> >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores
    >> >> >> are
    >> >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores
    >> >> >> making
    >> >> >> the
    >> >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it
    >> >> >> doesn't
    >> >> >> have
    >> >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    >> >> >> article.
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    >> >> >> news:...
    >> >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results
    >> >> >> > for
    >> >> >> > my
    >> >> >> > CPU
    >> >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my
    >> >> >> > system
    >> >> >> > was
    >> >> >> > 1660
    >> >> >> > now its 850.
    >> >> >> > --
    >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    >> >> >> > heatsink,
    >> >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor
    >> >> >> > X,
    >> >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> Hi,
    >> >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP
    >> >> >> >> Charlie
    >> >> >> >> Russel,
    >> >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    >> >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> Carlos
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    >> >> >> >>
    >> >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level
    >> >> >> >> > as
    >> >> >> >> > far
    >> >> >> >> > as
    >> >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE
    >> >> >> >> > being
    >> >> >> >> > utilized.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or
    >> >> >> >> > software.
    >> >> >> >> > The
    >> >> >> >> > thing
    >> >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    >> >> >> >> > performance
    >> >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there
    >> >> >> >> > but,
    >> >> >> >> > thats
    >> >> >> >> > outside the norm.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled
    >> >> >> >> > with
    >> >> >> >> > the
    >> >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    >> >> >> >> >
    >> >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    >> >> >> >> > --
    >> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    >> >> >> >> > heatsink,
    >> >> >> >> > 4gb
    >> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb
    >> >> >> >> > Raptor
    >> >> >> >> > X,
    >> >> >> >> > Nvidia
    >> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >> >> >>
    >> >> >>
    >> >>

    >>
    Colin Barnhorst, Mar 29, 2008
    #13
  14. To:colin,
    It sounded totally off the wall, I apologize dennis. I was just getting
    frustrated that the core point kept being missed and I thought that was the
    case again.
    I figured out what was going on it was the benchmark software or at least
    the way it was configured.
    The one good point about the side-tracking onto my processor was I got to
    thinking about threads and I wondered if there was a way to set the number of
    threads or processes.
    Therewas I never saw it before because there was never a need to set it
    anyhow, I set it to four processes and got the results I used to get (1650).
    Thanks for checking me,
    Jim
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > Its true though. The four-stick problem is a fact on a lot of consumer
    > mobos. At 800 the memory controller is straining with a fully populated
    > board. There have been dozens of cases in the Vista hardware_devices ng
    > where that was the resolution for systems not booting with 4GB or 8GB of
    > PC6400 ram installed. The nVidia chipsets seem particularly prone to this
    > (nForce4, 650i, 680i and some others). In fact, I have such a board. I
    > cannot run 8GB of PC6400 ram but I can take out one stick and all is well.
    > I can run all four sticks at 667 though.
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > news:D...
    > > Nevermind, that makes absolutely no sense. Why would I run my memory
    > > slower
    > > and remove some of it? Between people changing the subject or being too
    > > busy trying to point out the downfalls of my processor I guess I'll never
    > > get
    > > an answer.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "Dennis Pack" wrote:
    > >
    > >> Power Obsessed:
    > >> If you're using 4x1GB sticks of ram, try clocking the ram at
    > >> 667mhz
    > >> or removing the stick from the 4th slot. Have a great day.
    > >>
    > >> --
    > >> Dennis Pack
    > >> XP x64 SP2, Vista Enterprise x64 SP1
    > >> WHS, Office Professional Plus 2007
    > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The
    > >> >bottom
    > >> > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is
    > >> > using
    > >> > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > >> > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know
    > >> > is
    > >> > it
    > >> > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    > >> >
    > >> > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > >> > --
    > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> > Nvidia
    > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > >> >> author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have
    > >> >> seen
    > >> >> is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for
    > >> >> device
    > >> >> buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the
    > >> >> system.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:...
    > >> >> > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That
    > >> >> > still
    > >> >> > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the
    > >> >> > results
    > >> >> > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the
    > >> >> > software.
    > >> >> > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > >> >> > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of
    > >> >> > the
    > >> >> > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > >> >> > --
    > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > "John Barnes" wrote:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost
    > >> >> >> all
    > >> >> >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core
    > >> >> >> processors
    > >> >> >> got
    > >> >> >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores
    > >> >> >> are
    > >> >> >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores
    > >> >> >> making
    > >> >> >> the
    > >> >> >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it
    > >> >> >> doesn't
    > >> >> >> have
    > >> >> >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > >> >> >> article.
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > >> >> >> news:...
    > >> >> >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results
    > >> >> >> > for
    > >> >> >> > my
    > >> >> >> > CPU
    > >> >> >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my
    > >> >> >> > system
    > >> >> >> > was
    > >> >> >> > 1660
    > >> >> >> > now its 850.
    > >> >> >> > --
    > >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    > >> >> >> > heatsink,
    > >> >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor
    > >> >> >> > X,
    > >> >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> > "Carlos" wrote:
    > >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> Hi,
    > >> >> >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP
    > >> >> >> >> Charlie
    > >> >> >> >> Russel,
    > >> >> >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > >> >> >> >> http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fallacy.aspx
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> Carlos
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:
    > >> >> >> >>
    > >> >> >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level
    > >> >> >> >> > as
    > >> >> >> >> > far
    > >> >> >> >> > as
    > >> >> >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE
    > >> >> >> >> > being
    > >> >> >> >> > utilized.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or
    > >> >> >> >> > software.
    > >> >> >> >> > The
    > >> >> >> >> > thing
    > >> >> >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > >> >> >> >> > performance
    > >> >> >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there
    > >> >> >> >> > but,
    > >> >> >> >> > thats
    > >> >> >> >> > outside the norm.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled
    > >> >> >> >> > with
    > >> >> >> >> > the
    > >> >> >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.
    > >> >> >> >> >
    > >> >> >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > >> >> >> >> > --
    > >> >> >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1
    > >> >> >> >> > heatsink,
    > >> >> >> >> > 4gb
    > >> >> >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb
    > >> >> >> >> > Raptor
    > >> >> >> >> > X,
    > >> >> >> >> > Nvidia
    > >> >> >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >> >>
    > >> >>
    > >>

    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #14
  15. I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the benchmark
    software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so helpful.

    Jim
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "" wrote:

    > On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > > I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom
    > > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using
    > > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it
    > > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.
    > >
    > > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > > > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > > > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
    > > > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    > > > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

    > >
    > > > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > > >news:...
    > > > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    > > > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    > > > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > > > > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > > > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    > > > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > > > > --
    > > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    > >
    > > > > "John Barnes" wrote:

    > >
    > > > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    > > > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    > > > >> got
    > > > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    > > > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    > > > >> the
    > > > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    > > > >> have
    > > > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > > > >> article.

    > >
    > > > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > > > >>news:...
    > > > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > > > >> > CPU
    > > > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > > > >> > 1660
    > > > >> > now its 850.
    > > > >> > --
    > > > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > > >> > Nvidia
    > > > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    > >
    > > > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

    > >
    > > > >> >> Hi,
    > > > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

    > >
    > > > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > > > >> >> Russel,
    > > > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > > > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

    > >
    > > > >> >> Carlos

    > >
    > > > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

    > >
    > > > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    > > > >> >> > far
    > > > >> >> > as
    > > > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    > > > >> >> > utilized.

    > >
    > > > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    > > > >> >> > thing
    > > > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > > > >> >> > performance
    > > > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    > > > >> >> > thats
    > > > >> >> > outside the norm.

    > >
    > > > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    > > > >> >> > the
    > > > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

    > >
    > > > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > > >> >> > --
    > > > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > > > >> >> > 4gb
    > > > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > > >> >> > Nvidia
    > > > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to
    > diagnose. [I've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]
    >
    > Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the
    > background jobs are off?
    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #15
  16. Power Obsessed

    Guest

    On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the benchmark
    > software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so helpful.
    >
    > Jim
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    > "" wrote:
    > > On Mar 28, 6:29 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > > > I do appreciate all you input but, we're veering off the subject. The bottom
    > > > line is the benchmark rating I was getting before ,whether or not it is using
    > > > four threads, was about 4 times as high as now.
    > > > So the quad core doesn't live up to the bells and whistles. All I know is it
    > > > worked VERY good and now it doesn't.

    >
    > > > Could someone please give me a clue as to the cause.
    > > > --
    > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
    > > > > If you are quoting a KB that cites 3.12GB as a limit be aware that the
    > > > > author cites that number as an example only. The actual range I have seen
    > > > > is 2.0GB to 3.5GB. It depends on what the BIOS has set aside for device
    > > > > buffering, like video cards. It depends on the hardware on the system.

    >
    > > > > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > > > >news:...
    > > > > > Atcually I would be limited to 3.12ghz (I have it overclocked). That still
    > > > > > doesn't address the problem. According to past benchmark tests the results
    > > > > > from CPU testing blew away all baselines that come with the software.
    > > > > > (passmark). Single core and dual.
    > > > > > The majority of the time the task manager shows three if not four of the
    > > > > > processors being utilized by whatever processes are running.
    > > > > > --
    > > > > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > > > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > > > > "John Barnes" wrote:

    >
    > > > > >> You are limited to 2.4ghz for single thread execution, which almost all
    > > > > >> programs not designed for a supercomputer are. Single core processors
    > > > > >> got
    > > > > >> over 4ghz which is 80% faster. If you are multi-tasking quad cores are
    > > > > >> great and some of windows functions will run on the other cores making
    > > > > >> the
    > > > > >> overall performance of a single thread program faster since it doesn't
    > > > > >> have
    > > > > >> to multiplex the functions like the on single cores. Read Charlies
    > > > > >> article.

    >
    > > > > >> "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > > > > >>news:...
    > > > > >> > Passmark I have used this many times in the past and the results for my
    > > > > >> > CPU
    > > > > >> > were about 3 or four times as much. the overall score for my system was
    > > > > >> > 1660
    > > > > >> > now its 850.
    > > > > >> > --
    > > > > >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > > > >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > > > >> > Nvidia
    > > > > >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > > > >> > "Carlos" wrote:

    >
    > > > > >> >> Hi,
    > > > > >> >> What benchmarking program you are running?

    >
    > > > > >> >> You might also want to read this excellent article from MVP Charlie
    > > > > >> >> Russel,
    > > > > >> >> "The Multi-Core Fallacy", here:
    > > > > >> >>http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2007/11/11/the-multi-core-fa...

    >
    > > > > >> >> Carlos

    >
    > > > > >> >> "Power Obsessed" wrote:

    >
    > > > > >> >> > The last benchmark I ran was about a third of the normal level as
    > > > > >> >> > far
    > > > > >> >> > as
    > > > > >> >> > performance. I checked the task manager and all for cores ARE being
    > > > > >> >> > utilized.

    >
    > > > > >> >> > The first thought was faulty benchmark results and/or software. The
    > > > > >> >> > thing
    > > > > >> >> > that really concerned me was while looking at the task manager
    > > > > >> >> > performance
    > > > > >> >> > results all four cores spiked a 100%. They didn't stay there but,
    > > > > >> >> > thats
    > > > > >> >> > outside the norm.

    >
    > > > > >> >> > I have rarely seen the levels rise above 50% so this coupled with
    > > > > >> >> > the
    > > > > >> >> > benchmark has me concerned.

    >
    > > > > >> >> > Anyone have any idea what is going on with this thing?
    > > > > >> >> > --
    > > > > >> >> > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink,
    > > > > >> >> > 4gb
    > > > > >> >> > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X,
    > > > > >> >> > Nvidia
    > > > > >> >> > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64

    >
    > > Things that used to work and don't work later are pretty hard to
    > > diagnose. [I've posted my share of them with no solution ever found.]

    >
    > > Any chance you set some power saving feature? Are you sure all the
    > > background jobs are off?


    Sure, tell us more.
    , Mar 29, 2008
    #16
  17. Power Obsessed

    Zootal Guest

    In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I might
    suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one
    benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's
    not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or
    configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we change
    something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so
    benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and
    expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of
    them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your
    computer.




    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the
    >> benchmark
    >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so
    >> helpful.
    >>
    >> Jim
    Zootal, Mar 29, 2008
    #17
  18. To Zootal:
    The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.
    (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of the
    box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.
    The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU
    with. I have no idea why that setting was different
    Thank,
    Jim
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Zootal" wrote:

    > In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I might
    > suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one
    > benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's
    > not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or
    > configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we change
    > something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so
    > benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and
    > expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of
    > them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your
    > computer.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the
    > >> benchmark
    > >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so
    > >> helpful.
    > >>
    > >> Jim

    >
    >
    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal
    conditions.

    "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > To Zootal:
    > The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.
    > (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of
    > the
    > box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.
    > The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU
    > with. I have no idea why that setting was different
    > Thank,
    > Jim
    > --
    > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    >
    >
    > "Zootal" wrote:
    >
    >> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I
    >> might
    >> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one
    >> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's
    >> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or
    >> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we
    >> change
    >> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so
    >> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and
    >> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of
    >> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your
    >> computer.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    >> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the
    >> >> benchmark
    >> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so
    >> >> helpful.
    >> >>
    >> >> Jim

    >>
    >>
    >>
    Colin Barnhorst, Mar 29, 2008
    #19
  20. Ya but that only happens when its idle right? Not in the middle of the
    processor being called upon. I know it will automatically shut the system
    down if you reach critical temps.
    --
    Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64


    "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:

    > Modern processors throttle down to conserve energy and improve thermal
    > conditions.
    >
    > "Power Obsessed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > To Zootal:
    > > The thing that really threw me was the HUGE difference in the results.
    > > (from 1600+ to 800+). I had used this software in the past "right out of
    > > the
    > > box" I guess you could say. No configuration at all.
    > > The setting I'm talking about is the number of processes to test the CPU
    > > with. I have no idea why that setting was different
    > > Thank,
    > > Jim
    > > --
    > > Asus P5W DH , Q6600 Quad core 2.4ghz @3.12, thermalake V1 heatsink, 4gb
    > > Crucial ballistix 800mhz , 16gb Mtron 6000 SSD, 150gb Raptor X, Nvidia
    > > 8800gt , 700 watt OCZ GameXStream power s , XP Pro X64
    > >
    > >
    > > "Zootal" wrote:
    > >
    > >> In addition to all of the varied comments that others have added....I
    > >> might
    > >> suggest that you not put a lot of emphasis or confidence on any one
    > >> benchmark. Processors vary greatly internally, and so do benchmarks. It's
    > >> not difficult to tune a benchmark to favor a specific architecture or
    > >> configuration. This happens, and not always intentionally. Anytime we
    > >> change
    > >> something in a compiler or cpu config, etc., we run a half dozen or so
    > >> benchmarks so that we get a better profiling of what the change did, and
    > >> expose potential problems. No one benchmark can tell it all, and none of
    > >> them are representative of what you will actually be doing with your
    > >> computer.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > On Mar 28, 8:36 pm, Power Obsessed <> wrote:
    > >> >> I ended up figuring it out. If your interested it was the way the
    > >> >> benchmark
    > >> >> software was configured. I do want to thank all of you for being so
    > >> >> helpful.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Jim
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    >
    Power Obsessed, Mar 29, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Adrian
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    615
    Benjamin Gawert
    Mar 19, 2007
  2. GraB

    AMD quad-core - even 16-core!!

    GraB, Jun 16, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    358
    Chris Wilkinson
    Jun 17, 2005
  3. thingy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    404
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 21, 2006
  4. Nighthawk
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    544
    Nighthawk
    Nov 10, 2007
  5. ray

    Re: Core Duo or Core Quad for image processing

    ray, Sep 9, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    334
Loading...

Share This Page