overclock, or upgrade?
Posted 16 December 2005 - 02:09 PM
Posted 22 December 2005 - 09:44 PM
Posted 23 December 2005 - 04:51 AM
Posted 27 December 2005 - 04:28 PM
noticing that my boot up time is getting slower and slower, even after using the Tune Up Utilities program that helped a littled, but not enough to buy it.
Most of the all in one maintenance programs I've tried are like that.
People say that Windows defragmenter isn't really that good, and disk
cleanup doesn't really do that much, the registry gets fragmented, and there
is also wasted space there as well, and lots of other stuff, etc, etc, etc.
I believe they are right, just a matter of opinion on what works best. I
found a website: http://mywebpages.co...OptimizeXP.html,
that discusses not only techniques, and tweaks, but also mostly all free
programs that clean clutter, fix registry problems, and such, and actually
work. I'm not completely through it yet, but everything I've tried has made
the computer faster. My boot up time has gone from approx 3min 36 sec, to
48 seconds. It was never that slow on my old Dell(866mhz cpu). I guess
with all the data I have coming in to this thing, things can get cluttered,
and fragmented. It seems the program on that website, Diskeeper has done
the most so far. It is just a defragging program, but one that runs all the
time, and in the background, and not using resources unless they are
available. Anyway, one of the programs is a system info program, that is in
depth, especially for drivers to make sure they are up to date(PC Wizard).
It tells me that the timing on this Corsair XMS 3200c2pt is actually 3, 3,
3, 8. It breaks down like this:
Cas lat=3, ras to cas=3, ras prechard=3, cycle time=8. When I installed
this memory, on my MSI board, I didn't change anything, just left the
chipset area on auto. It said the cas latency was 2.5. While trying to use
clockgen to overclock, I changed it to 2 and 3. I now have it set to 2, but
on auto. Also I see below where it is set to 2t, and I've heard it should
be set to 1t. Should I go in and set all these features manually?
Posted 27 December 2005 - 04:48 PM
Posted 29 December 2005 - 10:16 PM
Posted 30 December 2005 - 07:18 AM
Admins got a good idea there, a RAID 0 array may help you a little, RAID is for business apps like yours, you will just need to be careful to back up data onto a HD not in the array or onto a DVD/s as a RAID 0 if it collapses its gone.
3 minutes is a long boot time, my boot times when i first put it together where as low as 24 seconds, now its into the 30s range but its never gone to a minute. Diskeeper looks a good program, windows defragmenter is notoriously inefficient.
So the ram is good it will be giving you some better performance, but your biggest improvement will be from a faster CPU and maybe giving a raid array a try, Does the software you use work in linux? It might be something work ascking the techs that made the software, linux is smaller and can sometimes give an improvement, it might be worth a bot of research.
Posted 30 December 2005 - 01:58 PM
my boot time is now back under a minute, as well as using Diskeeper boot defragmenter a couple times in this past week. I know the system can get cluttered, but I've never had a boot time that bad, even on my old Dell(866mhz). My friend knows about Raid arrays, and I've done some reading as well. We'll try the cpu ugrade probably next week, and go from there.
Posted 30 December 2005 - 02:08 PM
Posted 30 December 2005 - 10:12 PM
Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:09 AM
The optimised defaults are the same as the normal defaults except that it turns on dynamic overclocking to seargent and it turns RAM timing to aggresive mode(which will tighten them up further when it can but dont overclock and do that at the same time).
Posted 01 January 2006 - 10:02 PM
Thanks again for your help.
ps do these difference in numbers matter?
Posted 03 January 2006 - 02:48 AM
It's not going to make any difference. First, your motherboard only supports 1,000. Second, the A64 has a very efficient memory controller, and I didn't know FSB was ever a bottleneck for them. Finally, you're memory has to be up to the task. I think this is more about marketing fluff than actual performance.
Posted 03 January 2006 - 10:21 AM
Posted 17 January 2006 - 11:20 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users