a couple benchies of my little upgrade

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:02 AM

So I ran a slew of benchmarks before and after my upgrade, and here they are for anyone interested.
specs before and after:

BEFORE..............................AFTER
AthlonXP 1800+......................Athlon 64 3000+
ECS K7S5A (SiS735) mobo.............ASUS K8V SE Deluxe (K8T800)
1024 MB DDR @ 133MHz (2-3-3-6)......1024 MB DDR @ 200MHz (2-2-2-10-1T)
(same RAM, just running full speed now)

other significant parts:
ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro
120GB/8MB Hitachi (main), 80GB/2MB WD, 80GB/2MB IBM hard drives
Antec 480W TruePower PS

Everything was run at default speeds. All BIOS performance settings were default, except memory timings.
The OS was Windows XP SP1. I will refer to the two systems as "AXP-1800" and "A64-3000" in the graphs, even though the CPU might not be the subject of the test (such as in HDD tests.)
Every test was run with default settings, unless noted otherwise. Every 3D test was at 1024x768 and 32-bit depth, unless noted otherwise. Every 3D test was run with the Catalyst drivers set to "Balanced" quality, unless noted otherwise. The few select AA/AF tests were run using the "High Quality" and "Optimal Quality" settings in the Catalyst control panel (2xAA/8xAF and 4xAA/16xAF.) V-Sync was off, unless noted.
Disregard the crappy quality of the graphs, I wasn't trying to make something pretty to look at, just something to convey information.
And you can skip my comments, I'm not that interesting to listen to

Now . . . for the main event . . . .

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:11 AM

I like the new lower temps, first of all.

AMD's Cool 'n' Quiet helps keep the Idle temps pretty low, even in this case with only 1 fan.
The Load temp is decent too, considering the case cooling, and the stock AMD cooler, which is amazingly quiet. It makes almost no noise

I'm very happy with the overall quietness of my computer now, it's a huge difference from the noise I had with the 4200 RPM fan on the AthlonXP's Alpha PAL8045 heatsink. I can literally hear leaves rustling in the trees outside now, compared to the constant whirr I had before. I also have the case fan connected to the Antec power supply's fan connector, which keeps it at a low RPM, very quiet. I'd say the main noise I hear from the computer now, would be the two non-fluid-bearing hard drive motors. It's pretty damn quiet!

Decent improvement in boot time, too:

The new setup gets through POST noticeably faster, as well as loading Windows faster. Time was recorded manually.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:11 AM

Right, some real-world benches to start with . . .

A variety of songs from my CD's, encoded to MP3 format, the total average speed recorded.
A standard selection of songs was used both times (before and after).
The LAME command swith used was: --alt-preset extreme
If ya don't get it, the speed is in multiples of normal playing speed. Meaning, 2.0x would be twice as fast as the song normally plays, so encoding would take half the amount of time as the actual length of the song. got it?

Anyway, a relatively conservative increase in performance. LAME is very linear with clockspeed, and with only ~475 MHz more in the new CPU, the ~30% improvement was to be expected. I'm not complaining either way, faster than before

Using my standard set of files from a DVD movie, the MPEG-2 video sequence was encoded to DivX in VirtualDub, total average framerate recorded.
Settings were: 640 x 272 resolution, 930kbps bitrate, B-frames on, performance/quality: slowest, 2-pass.
Very impressed with this one

an awesome 60% increase from before. I never expected I'd see over 48fps, which is 2x real-time. A full 2-pass encoding job, start to finish, video and audio, in an example 90-minute movie used to take 145 minutes, and now takes just over 90. That's almost an hour saved, a sizable chunk of time. Even a 1-pass job changed from 82 minutes to 52. Pretty amazing, for a $175 CPU, and considering how poor AMD used to be at video encoding, compared to Intel.

I don't use Photoshop, but ran this test out of curiosity. The improvement was just about linear with clockspeed, as expected.

OK, I browse pics on my computer using ACDSee. On some large, high-resolution pictures, there would be a considerable delay while the picture would load. I thought it worthy of a before/after comparison. A 6200x6200 JPEG image of distant galaxies from NASA, weighing in at 60.9 MB, was used. The time was recorded from ACDSee's built-in timer.

One thing that really annoyed me with the old AthlonXP, was the huge wait involved when RAR'ing large items. That annoyance is now gone

This Athlon 64 churns through this task with unimaginable speed. One thing of note is that WinRAR is also very sensitive to memory bandwidth, even changing memory timings slightly would influence the benchmark notably. The increase in memory speed from before definitely played a hand in the massive increase in this benchmark. WinRar 3's built-in benchmark was used.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

I ran a couple tests to compare HDD performance before and after, which would show differences in the mobos' hard drive controllers (and their drivers.) The Hitachi and WD drives were on the SiS735 chipset before, and now the Hitachi is on the VIA controller, while the WD is on the Promise controller (in IDE mode, not RAID.) My IBM drive was on an ATA-66 controller card before, so I excluded its results.

Read speeds are about the same, ever so slightly higher. But the random access times slowed a bit, along with burst speeds (which I don't regard as too important.) This might be due to the fact that the old SiS735 chipset had the northbridge and southbridge all in one chip . . . maybe less latency? I don't know for sure. But the SiS735 was good at IDE performance, that I know. I would be surprised sometimes to see my 2MB-cache drives get higher results than some 8MB-cache drives on mobos with newer chipsets. CPU usage higher a bit with the VIA, and more so with the Promise drivers. But nothing to worry too much about, I will be using the drives on the Promise controller less than my main drive anyway.

I like AIDA32's Random Read hard drive benchmark, because it feels most like real-life usage. I reads from different areas, and this also lets access time play an influence in the result; it's rare in real life to read data sequentially from the hard drive.
The average random read results dropped a bit, probably because of the slower access times shown in HDTach. And again, CPU usage is up a bit.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

I don't put much value in PCMark scores, I consider them for mostly entertainment purposes. I think they're just too limited and arbitrary for the scores to have much meaning. The individual test results may have some value, though. I ran these for the fun of it.

The huge increase in the PCMark2002 Memory score can be attributed to the increase in speed of the RAM (was forced to run at 133MHz on the old mobo), as well as the Athlon 64's on-chip memory controller.

Nice increase in memory bandwidth as measured by Cachemem . . . the difference between PC2100 speed on a lesser chipset memory controller, and PC3200 speed on an on-chip memory controller. That on-chip memory controller is mainly what is responsible for the massively reduced latency, as well as the memory timings.

Ran just out of curiosity, these numbers have little meaning in the real world. SANDRA manages to pull 3082 MB/s with all its buffering tricks, which is pretty high for PC3200. Over 96% efficiency thanks to the memory controller and tight timings.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

Yes, this is a CPU/mobo upgrade, but I felt like running a bunch of 3D tests anyhow

Some OpenGL to start . . .

Big increases in all resolutions in Balanced quality, small ones with AA/AF enabled. That's the way it usually goes with CPU upgrades

Same thing with SS:TSE, but a little more improvement in AA/AF tests. SS:TSE also includes a unique result in its sustained low framerate. Other benchmarks have a "min" framerate result, but that result might represent a mere split-second of a low framerate for all anyone knows. SS:TSE record the framerate at the sustained low speed, something you're more likely to notice when playing. I wish more benchmarks would use a similar way of measuring the slowdowns.

DroneZmarK is an old OpenGL benchmark, and not too popular. Ran it for old time's sake, but with framerates over 200 fps now, and its growing age, I'll be leaving this behind.

GLExcess is another old benchmark. I think it's obsolete nowadays, getting ridiculous framerates in most of its tests. I don't consider it a very good measure of OpenGL performance, which can be said of many synthetic benchmarks, but more so I believe, with this one. It has its "pretty" moments, but I'll be retiring this bench as well. Hopefully a more robust sequel to this will emerge one day soon.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

Direct3D . . .

Pixel Shader 2.0 was enabled in this bench, for full visual effect. A game very much dependent on your graphics card, but still a little improvement is seen.

This game uses Vertex Shader 2.0, but not PS 2.0. Still, it is very graphics card dependent, thus a small imcrease. One thing about this bench, though. I've read that the creators of the game have specifically stated that the benchmark is much more intensive than the game itself, and to not judge the game's performance by the benchmark's.

A very nice looking Direct3D 8.1 game, and it craves a fast CPU. I ran it with shadows off, like most reviews I've seen, but also with them on. A notable increase, even with shadows on.

As expected, much more improvement in Botmatch framerates than Fly-by, as the massive CPU bottleneck was removed. Even with AA/AF, decent increases in Botmatch.

An old Direct3D 8.1 game, this helicpoter sim places a lot of stress on the CPU.

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

Ah yes, the good ol' synthetic mainstays we all know and love/hate

Woot, huge increase here

Hey, still a decent increase in 3DMark03, for a graphics-dependent bench. Nice increase in the CPU score, though I'm not sure what relevance it has.

Not bad, my score finally looks like what it should be. More cryptic "GFX" "CPU" scores . . . .

Of course the real fun is in oc'ing and going for the highest score

Messed around with 3DMark03 recently, will play with the others soon . . . .

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

I felt like running some tests with V-Sync on, just to see what the "real" difference would be in the old and new systems, since I usually play with V-Sync on.

Smaller gains across the board, and very small in some cases. The gains on non-vsync graphs can be inflated, compared to what you "really" experience, if you use V-Sync. Should reviews start including V-Sync numbers too?

Vampyromaniac · Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

Well, there you have it. Hope I didn't bore you

I'm still very impressed by this CPU, it's like no other CPU upgrade I've experienced.
And when you consider the price, the noise, heat, and of course the performance, I think it's just an outstanding CPU!

Sandok · Sep 12, 2004, 10:56 AM

Very nice vampy!!! Happy for you man!!! Now, enjoy the power of AMD

WisMerHill · Sep 12, 2004, 11:25 AM

Man, Vamp you ever considered finding a hobby , you must have loads of free time

j/k m8 , great benchmarks, will be an very good example for people who are wondering if they should upgrade and don't know if it's worth it.
gj !

Dom · Sep 12, 2004, 07:12 PM

Go Vampy! <3

Drakon · Sep 12, 2004, 07:56 PM

nice scores, vampy...

I am still stuck with my XP 2700+ for a few more mths...

Vampyromaniac · Sep 13, 2004, 08:11 AM

I thank you kindly, sirs.

Danhill · Sep 13, 2004, 08:52 AM

Congrats very nice scores, and I loved the graphs too.

John O Shea · Sep 13, 2004, 01:22 PM

I Had a celeron 2500 not very impressive you say well i could overclock it to 3600 without breaking wind only thing is the FSB would overclock the AGP port as well and cause driver errors and crashes

Sep 12, 2004, 10:02 AM	#1
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	a couple benchies of my little upgrade So I ran a slew of benchmarks before and after my upgrade, and here they are for anyone interested. specs before and after: BEFORE..............................AFTER AthlonXP 1800+......................Athlon 64 3000+ ECS K7S5A (SiS735) mobo.............ASUS K8V SE Deluxe (K8T800) 1024 MB DDR @ 133MHz (2-3-3-6)......1024 MB DDR @ 200MHz (2-2-2-10-1T) (same RAM, just running full speed now) other significant parts: ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro 120GB/8MB Hitachi (main), 80GB/2MB WD, 80GB/2MB IBM hard drives Antec 480W TruePower PS Everything was run at default speeds. All BIOS performance settings were default, except memory timings. The OS was Windows XP SP1. I will refer to the two systems as "AXP-1800" and "A64-3000" in the graphs, even though the CPU might not be the subject of the test (such as in HDD tests.) Every test was run with default settings, unless noted otherwise. Every 3D test was at 1024x768 and 32-bit depth, unless noted otherwise. Every 3D test was run with the Catalyst drivers set to "Balanced" quality, unless noted otherwise. The few select AA/AF tests were run using the "High Quality" and "Optimal Quality" settings in the Catalyst control panel (2xAA/8xAF and 4xAA/16xAF.) V-Sync was off, unless noted. Disregard the crappy quality of the graphs, I wasn't trying to make something pretty to look at, just something to convey information. And you can skip my comments, I'm not that interesting to listen to Now . . . for the main event . . . . __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Sep 12, 2004, 10:11 AM	Thread Starter #3
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Right, some real-world benches to start with . . . A variety of songs from my CD's, encoded to MP3 format, the total average speed recorded. A standard selection of songs was used both times (before and after). The LAME command swith used was: --alt-preset extreme If ya don't get it, the speed is in multiples of normal playing speed. Meaning, 2.0x would be twice as fast as the song normally plays, so encoding would take half the amount of time as the actual length of the song. got it? Anyway, a relatively conservative increase in performance. LAME is very linear with clockspeed, and with only ~475 MHz more in the new CPU, the ~30% improvement was to be expected. I'm not complaining either way, faster than before Using my standard set of files from a DVD movie, the MPEG-2 video sequence was encoded to DivX in VirtualDub, total average framerate recorded. Settings were: 640 x 272 resolution, 930kbps bitrate, B-frames on, performance/quality: slowest, 2-pass. Very impressed with this one an awesome 60% increase from before. I never expected I'd see over 48fps, which is 2x real-time. A full 2-pass encoding job, start to finish, video and audio, in an example 90-minute movie used to take 145 minutes, and now takes just over 90. That's almost an hour saved, a sizable chunk of time. Even a 1-pass job changed from 82 minutes to 52. Pretty amazing, for a $175 CPU, and considering how poor AMD used to be at video encoding, compared to Intel. I don't use Photoshop, but ran this test out of curiosity. The improvement was just about linear with clockspeed, as expected. OK, I browse pics on my computer using ACDSee. On some large, high-resolution pictures, there would be a considerable delay while the picture would load. I thought it worthy of a before/after comparison. A 6200x6200 JPEG image of distant galaxies from NASA, weighing in at 60.9 MB, was used. The time was recorded from ACDSee's built-in timer. One thing that really annoyed me with the old AthlonXP, was the huge wait involved when RAR'ing large items. That annoyance is now gone This Athlon 64 churns through this task with unimaginable speed. One thing of note is that WinRAR is also very sensitive to memory bandwidth, even changing memory timings slightly would influence the benchmark notably. The increase in memory speed from before definitely played a hand in the massive increase in this benchmark. WinRar 3's built-in benchmark was used. Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Sep 12, 2004 at 10:19 AM.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #6
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Yes, this is a CPU/mobo upgrade, but I felt like running a bunch of 3D tests anyhow Some OpenGL to start . . . Big increases in all resolutions in Balanced quality, small ones with AA/AF enabled. That's the way it usually goes with CPU upgrades Same thing with SS:TSE, but a little more improvement in AA/AF tests. SS:TSE also includes a unique result in its sustained low framerate. Other benchmarks have a "min" framerate result, but that result might represent a mere split-second of a low framerate for all anyone knows. SS:TSE record the framerate at the sustained low speed, something you're more likely to notice when playing. I wish more benchmarks would use a similar way of measuring the slowdowns. DroneZmarK is an old OpenGL benchmark, and not too popular. Ran it for old time's sake, but with framerates over 200 fps now, and its growing age, I'll be leaving this behind. GLExcess is another old benchmark. I think it's obsolete nowadays, getting ridiculous framerates in most of its tests. I don't consider it a very good measure of OpenGL performance, which can be said of many synthetic benchmarks, but more so I believe, with this one. It has its "pretty" moments, but I'll be retiring this bench as well. Hopefully a more robust sequel to this will emerge one day soon. Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Sep 12, 2004 at 10:43 AM.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #10
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Well, there you have it. Hope I didn't bore you I'm still very impressed by this CPU, it's like no other CPU upgrade I've experienced. And when you consider the price, the noise, heat, and of course the performance, I think it's just an outstanding CPU! __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Sep 12, 2004, 11:25 AM	#12
WisMerHill DriverHeaven Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 468 Rep Power: 0	Man, Vamp you ever considered finding a hobby , you must have loads of free time j/k m8 , great benchmarks, will be an very good example for people who are wondering if they should upgrade and don't know if it's worth it. gj ! __________________ [color=sandybrown][color=white] [/color] [color=white][color=white]M[/color][color=white]y Computer[/color]: [/color][color=white]3DMark2001[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]3Dmark2003[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]3DMark200[/color][color=white]5[/color][color=white] - [/color][color=white]PCMark2004[/color][/color]

Sep 12, 2004, 10:11 AM	Thread Starter #2
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I like the new lower temps, first of all. AMD's Cool 'n' Quiet helps keep the Idle temps pretty low, even in this case with only 1 fan. The Load temp is decent too, considering the case cooling, and the stock AMD cooler, which is amazingly quiet. It makes almost no noise I'm very happy with the overall quietness of my computer now, it's a huge difference from the noise I had with the 4200 RPM fan on the AthlonXP's Alpha PAL8045 heatsink. I can literally hear leaves rustling in the trees outside now, compared to the constant whirr I had before. I also have the case fan connected to the Antec power supply's fan connector, which keeps it at a low RPM, very quiet. I'd say the main noise I hear from the computer now, would be the two non-fluid-bearing hard drive motors. It's pretty damn quiet! Decent improvement in boot time, too: The new setup gets through POST noticeably faster, as well as loading Windows faster. Time was recorded manually.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #4
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I ran a couple tests to compare HDD performance before and after, which would show differences in the mobos' hard drive controllers (and their drivers.) The Hitachi and WD drives were on the SiS735 chipset before, and now the Hitachi is on the VIA controller, while the WD is on the Promise controller (in IDE mode, not RAID.) My IBM drive was on an ATA-66 controller card before, so I excluded its results. Read speeds are about the same, ever so slightly higher. But the random access times slowed a bit, along with burst speeds (which I don't regard as too important.) This might be due to the fact that the old SiS735 chipset had the northbridge and southbridge all in one chip . . . maybe less latency? I don't know for sure. But the SiS735 was good at IDE performance, that I know. I would be surprised sometimes to see my 2MB-cache drives get higher results than some 8MB-cache drives on mobos with newer chipsets. CPU usage higher a bit with the VIA, and more so with the Promise drivers. But nothing to worry too much about, I will be using the drives on the Promise controller less than my main drive anyway. I like AIDA32's Random Read hard drive benchmark, because it feels most like real-life usage. I reads from different areas, and this also lets access time play an influence in the result; it's rare in real life to read data sequentially from the hard drive. The average random read results dropped a bit, probably because of the slower access times shown in HDTach. And again, CPU usage is up a bit.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #5
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I don't put much value in PCMark scores, I consider them for mostly entertainment purposes. I think they're just too limited and arbitrary for the scores to have much meaning. The individual test results may have some value, though. I ran these for the fun of it. The huge increase in the PCMark2002 Memory score can be attributed to the increase in speed of the RAM (was forced to run at 133MHz on the old mobo), as well as the Athlon 64's on-chip memory controller. Nice increase in memory bandwidth as measured by Cachemem . . . the difference between PC2100 speed on a lesser chipset memory controller, and PC3200 speed on an on-chip memory controller. That on-chip memory controller is mainly what is responsible for the massively reduced latency, as well as the memory timings. Ran just out of curiosity, these numbers have little meaning in the real world. SANDRA manages to pull 3082 MB/s with all its buffering tricks, which is pretty high for PC3200. Over 96% efficiency thanks to the memory controller and tight timings.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #7
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Direct3D . . . Pixel Shader 2.0 was enabled in this bench, for full visual effect. A game very much dependent on your graphics card, but still a little improvement is seen. This game uses Vertex Shader 2.0, but not PS 2.0. Still, it is very graphics card dependent, thus a small imcrease. One thing about this bench, though. I've read that the creators of the game have specifically stated that the benchmark is much more intensive than the game itself, and to not judge the game's performance by the benchmark's. A very nice looking Direct3D 8.1 game, and it craves a fast CPU. I ran it with shadows off, like most reviews I've seen, but also with them on. A notable increase, even with shadows on. As expected, much more improvement in Botmatch framerates than Fly-by, as the massive CPU bottleneck was removed. Even with AA/AF, decent increases in Botmatch. An old Direct3D 8.1 game, this helicpoter sim places a lot of stress on the CPU.

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #8
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	Ah yes, the good ol' synthetic mainstays we all know and love/hate Woot, huge increase here Hey, still a decent increase in 3DMark03, for a graphics-dependent bench. Nice increase in the CPU score, though I'm not sure what relevance it has. Not bad, my score finally looks like what it should be. More cryptic "GFX" "CPU" scores . . . . Of course the real fun is in oc'ing and going for the highest score Messed around with 3DMark03 recently, will play with the others soon . . . .

Sep 12, 2004, 10:12 AM	Thread Starter #9
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I felt like running some tests with V-Sync on, just to see what the "real" difference would be in the old and new systems, since I usually play with V-Sync on. Smaller gains across the board, and very small in some cases. The gains on non-vsync graphs can be inflated, compared to what you "really" experience, if you use V-Sync. Should reviews start including V-Sync numbers too?

Sep 12, 2004, 10:56 AM	#11
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 0	Very nice vampy!!! Happy for you man!!! Now, enjoy the power of AMD

Sep 12, 2004, 07:12 PM	#13
Dom DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 12,940 Rep Power: 0	Go Vampy! <3

Sep 12, 2004, 07:56 PM	#14
Drakon DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Floatin'... Posts: 4,957 Rep Power: 0	nice scores, vampy... I am still stuck with my XP 2700+ for a few more mths...

Sep 13, 2004, 08:11 AM	Thread Starter #15
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	I thank you kindly, sirs. __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250

Sep 13, 2004, 08:52 AM	#16
Danhill DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sweden Posts: 4,112 Rep Power: 0	Congrats very nice scores, and I loved the graphs too. __________________ MOBO: [color=white]ASUS A8N-SLI Premium[/color] CPU: AMD 64 3200+ (Venice) @ 2,50 Ghz MEM: 2 x 512 DDR 466, VGA: 2 x 6600 GT in SLI, HDD1: WD Raptor HDD2: Maxtor Diamond Plus 9, Case: Antec Plus View 1080, PSU: ThermalTake PurePower 500W, MX 1000, Dell 2001 FP, Aud. 2 SZ

Sep 13, 2004, 01:22 PM	#17
John O Shea DriverHeaven Newbie Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 3 Rep Power: 0	I Had a celeron 2500 not very impressive you say well i could overclock it to 3600 without breaking wind only thing is the FSB would overclock the AGP port as well and cause driver errors and crashes