CPU bottlenecking?

Are these FD benchmarks even 3D? They seem to be 2D benches by the looks of 'em, which would explain why our scores aren't much higher than yours in some areas.

Since certain images are 'overlapping' others & giving the impression of depth: I'd say it is a very simple 3D benchmark. I feel it is good for determining the max amount a card can render @ 16-bit & low res. Max under the best conditions, if you will.

Little story on FD & something that recently happened to me that relates to this thread:

I purchased a CPU/GPU cooler 'kit'. Little fan, 2 heatsinks, thermal 'goop' & some thermal pads. $10! I pulled my card & installed the fan on the hs already there. Plugged the fan in & re-installed the card. Ran FD. All was well & thought $10 well spent.

Well I had these 2 hs's & the goop & some pads still. RAM time! Out came the card. Dang! The hs's were too big for the RAM. Hmmm. GPU *has* to be generating heat out the back side of the card, the PCB isn't that thick, afterall.

The 50cent size hs looked perfect & out came a 'pad' to attach it. Popped it right on. Put the card back in & all appeared well. Put the case cooling fan to blow across the hs's & patted myself on the back.

Started the comp & ran FD. 233k random & 112K lines! Sometihing was wrong. Ran it 2 more times. Same thing! I killed the comp & thought you 2 had jinxed me. lol

So I pulled the card & removed the hs on the back. Re-benched & it was back at 433 & 320k lines. WHEW! Thought I'd popped the card!

Only thing I can figure is that the hs/pad was making a bridge between 2 or more of the open contacts on the back of the card. Lucky I didn't damage the card.

Not one to waste materials [but one to push my luck]: I used the 5cent sized hs & a smaller pad only on the center of the back of the chip. It works fine, he he.

Maybe, just maybe: there is a cable or something laying on others cards that is having the same affect. Maybe?

Have a good one,

I have a few cables touching the very end of the card, but nothing on the surfaces, so there's no way that has an effect.

BX -3

Where the hack you find intel bx3 motherboard it doesn't exist.
Are you insane.
How you put the 1.4 ghz celeron on "bx3".
That is impossible.
Do you mean bx 2 because it support only to 850mhz.
How you even get to work that thing.
I got bx 2 and i never read 1.4 ghz on bx 2 that's crazy.
On that board only slot 1 processors you have to put.
Do you use some adapter but again i'm realy don't understand how that work.
Can you explain???

The CPU does bottleneck the graphics performance IF you have a fast graphics card.
I used to have a 1GHz Athlon, and a RADEON 9700 PRO (which I still have) and used to play Return to Castle Wolfenstein at 2048x1536 smooth. Everything was on max, excludind Anti Aliasing as it only works up to 1600x1200, but to be frank, you don't need it hehe.
Another case where bottlenecking isn't true is 3D Mark 2003. I get 4300 Marks which is higher than some faster CPUs with the same card.
But yeah, overall, it is a huge bottleneck.

I saw a post about ATA 100 adapter. You don't need it if you are using UDMA-66. IDE hard drives work at about 60MB/s on average, so it's not worth the upgrade. My motherboard is UDMA-66 and my WDC-100GB kicks ***, and it beats the two friends that I have that have UDMA 100 HDDs in the benchmark (Performance Test and HD-Tach I think it was).

The best thing to do if you got a slow CPU and yuo can't afford a new one is overclock it. Trust me it's definitely soemthing for nothing. I o/c'ed my 1.2GHz to 1.3GHz and the benchmarks shows a higher inc. in performance than in ratio for clock speed, which means it is releasing some of the bottlenecking.

End.

What about your ram....PC100/133 = :dead:

Re: BX -3

1) Why did you bump a thread that was 9 months old?

2) You are wrong about BX2 boards not supporting above 850mhz.

hehehe ...

This thread is quite funny. Looks like THX-PRO became a new member, just to make his first post on a 9 months old thread.

Way to go THX-PRO!!!
And welcome to TechSpot.:grinthumb

We all needed a bit of amuzement.

PS: Don't take anything too personal THX-PRO, as really all the regulars here are very friendly, and like a good debate.

To Soul Harvester

1) First i use this thread because i have this motherboard from my second computer and i like it to upgrade max faster processor on this motherboard.
2)This can't be correct i read on intel site that this motherboard can only support processor to 850 mhz with new flash bios.
But if you now what max processor i can put on this board i like to know.I still don't know how this is work.
Can you explain a little precise.
He must use some adapter to put that processor on that board because isn't slot1 it's FC-PGA with 100mhz bus.
I be very gratefull for your help.
Sorry for my english.

You should look at the Powerleap site.

If you have a 100mhz FSB board, you can always use a Tualatin Celeron all the way to 1.4GHZ, since it uses a 100mhz FSB.

I guess I must be living in "wrong" then, because I am using a BX board with a 1ghz chip with no special modification!

Just because *your* particular board does not support it, does not mean other manufacturers using the same chipset have not added support for other chips. As long as your board supports the proper voltage, and in some cases multiplier, the board should function with katmai, coppermine, or tualatin p3s.

Just to continue beating a dead horse...

The BX-3 is a Dell modification of the BX-2, and yes with the powerleap upgrade it can use up to a 1.4ghz Tualatin Celeron.

As for my bottleneck, you could say I'm past it now...just take a look at my sig. I just built it today.