TechSpot

SLOW 2.5 G Celeron

By rss00
Jan 2, 2004
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I just bought a new ECS L4VXA2 mobo, 2.5 GHz Celeron, 256M PC2100 mem, 60 G Western Dig disk, Verbatum CD R/W.

    Installed Win 98 and system runs slower than the 133 Mhz PI it repleaced. No errors show up and it seems to work but is VERY slow. FSB jumper is set to 400.

    I replaced the mobo but it did not fix the problem (I thought it was probably the clock running at a slow rate). Can RAM cause this? How about the processor? Diagnostic software does not indicate any hardware problems.

    Probably some simple solution that I just don't know about.

    Processor is running barely above room temp...24 degrees in a cool room. Fan is running.

    Disk is 7200 rpm.

    It took 3 hours to load MS office...only about 1 hour on my old P 1.

    CPU runs so cool I know (think) it is not clocking properly...not even warm to the touch.

    Thanks for your help.
  2. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,304   +52 Staff Member

    LoL. 3 hour to load office?

    Does it only run slow when you use your CDROM? Could be a PIO mode issue.

    Although I cannot imagine ANY set of circumstances causing such a potentially fast system to run that slow, it might be worth installing the latest Hyperion drivers.

    As a matter of fact, I just recently installed Windows 98 using the same exactly board (coincidentally) and CPU (even more coincidentally). The speed was fine. But I also installed all the latest drivers for it.

    How long does it take to boot into Windows 98? Is it excessively long?
  3. RealBlackStuff

    RealBlackStuff Newcomer, in training Posts: 8,165

    In Start/Control Panel/System, to set the HD- and CD-DMA in W98, you have to enter those settings 2 times right after one another. After the second time it tells you to reboot. If it does not tell you to do so, you did not do it right
  4. SubKamran

    SubKamran Newcomer, in training Posts: 303

    How fast does it startup? My boot time is 1:11 from POST to login screen. If it's faster than that then it's something to do with installing.
  5. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    I timed the boot and it takes about the same amount of time that Kamran indicated (+/1 a second). removed CD and no change. Checked DMA settings and reinitiate them. Reloaded mobo drivers and BIOS and system went to pot...wouldn't complete boot. After setting all BIOS settings to AUTO sense (where applicable) system will complete boot but will not recognize mouse clicks now.

    Rick - what drivers did you load in? Since I reloaded drivers, the system is worse off than before...perhaps I used the wrong ones.
  6. tripleione

    tripleione Newcomer, in training Posts: 181

    Sounds like the CPU is defective. Three hours to load MS Office does not make sense... especially for a CPU clocked at that high of a speed.

    Are you sure that all of the L1 and L2 caches are being recognized and that they are both enabled in the BIOS?
  7. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    I thought a celeron only had one cache and disabled one of them in the BIOS. When I originally assembled it L1/L2 was enabled and I got "windows protection" errors when installing windows. After disabling so only one cache was enabled, the errors stopped.
  8. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    Ok if one of your caches are disabled no wonder its slow as dirt. My friends used to disable the cache on the schools computers just for a good laugh when the computer guy would come to fix them. Make sure you reenable it, and then we'll figure out why you get protection errors.
  9. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    OK man...thats def. why its soooo slow...check this out
    L1 Cache Size: 16 kB
    L2 Cache Size: 128 kB
    Those are the sizes of your two Caches...you've been operating that cpu with only 16kb of L1 cache...thats like stripping all its power......
  10. tripleione

    tripleione Newcomer, in training Posts: 181

    I don't think that's it, vassil. The P4 has only 8KB L1 cache, but it is much faster than any celeron, even when the celeron is clocked higher (due to the P4's huge increase in L2 cache 512KB/1MB vs. 128KB).

    However, the celeron should not be going that slow irregardless of how much cache it has. At 2.5GHz, your celeron should not be working slower than a Pentium 133MHz... in fact, it should be at least three times as fast.
  11. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    Please go back and reread what he wrote...



    He disabled one of the caches....rendering the cpu to become very very very slow....
     
  12. tripleione

    tripleione Newcomer, in training Posts: 181

    I misunderstood your reply. I thought you were inferring that because the celeron only has 16KB L1 cache, it was the reason it was going so slow.

    My apologies.
  13. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    Based on other advise yesterday, I reloaded mobo drivers and some window drivers. System now does not complete its boot. Am currently reinstalling win 98. I know I have taken a lot of "hits" from you guys for using 98 but it is all I have at the moment. I understand that it is not the optimum OS to use but it should still be better than the P 133 machine. Anyway, when finished installing 98 will report status.

    I am still confused on the L!/L2 cache. Everything I have read indicates that celerons only use L2. Looking at benchmarks though, between P4 1.7G and Celeron 1.7G would indicate that the cache plays a significant role in performance. P4, at best, is about double the performance in "in-line" execution results because of it's cache being double the size as celeron. By in large, P4 is about 25% better though. See review below.

    http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20020903/p4_celeron-09.html
  14. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    Just found an article on celerons. My misunderstanding was that the L2 and L1 cache is half the size on the celeron...not that the celeron only has one cache. Thanks for straigntening me out. Now to pursue the windows protection error after enabling L1/L2 in the BIOS. (after 98 is reloaded)
  15. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    Ok, listen, if you even have one of them disabled, its going to run like dirt. thats it....
  16. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,304   +52 Staff Member

    ... And dirt doesn't run at all, if that's any indication of exactly how fast it will run. :)

    I'm curious... How did the L2 cache become disabled? By default, it is NEVER disabled on any board I've seen, including that one. Were you poking around again??? ;)
  17. XtR-X

    XtR-X Newcomer, in training Posts: 1,040

    Maybe is it possible to sorta jump 'em wrong with thermal compound, or make a bad connection?
  18. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    Remember guys, in his earlier post he said he disabled it because he was getting errors in windows( and some unknown force gave him the bright idea to disable to cache....)
  19. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    You got it. The understatement of the century...runs like dirt...it makes dirt look fast.

    Spent 4.5 hours reloading windows to recover from yesterday's problems encountered when reloading drivers etc. Like I said, dirt is fast.

    After reloading, went into the BIOS and enabled L1/L2. Which I originally disabled...see previous post. UGH This is the only way it would install windows. Thought there was only one cache in celeron.

    Anyway, booting windows caused "windows protection error" while loading ndis.vxd. Booted in safe mode and performance was great. Booted again using line by line prompts and deselected ndis devices as they were being enabled. System booted fine and performance is great.

    Found exact problem described on MS web site for processor faster than 2.1G but it appears to require a call into microsoft to get a fix. They acknowledge it is a problem with the OS but still require a service call rather than just posting a download. Unless anyone else has seen this and has the patch, guess I'll have to wait until monday and give them a call.

    Thanks for all the help.

    Microsoft's summary is:

    SYMPTOMS
    When you are installing Windows 95 or Windows 98 on a computer that has a CPU that runs at 2.2 gigahertz (GHz) or faster, you may receive the following error message:

    While initializing device NDIS: Windows protection error
    CAUSE
    The timing calibration code in the Network Driver Interface Specification (NDIS) driver causes a divide by zero if the CPU runs at 2.2 GHz or faster. This problem does not occur with CPUs that run at 2.1 GHz or slower.
    RESOLUTION
    Windows 98
    A supported fix is now available from Microsoft, but it is only intended to correct the problem that is described in this article. Apply it only to computers that are experiencing this specific problem.
  20. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    Glad you found your prob. I say you spend $90 and buy Windows XP....you wont regret it....
  21. rss00

    rss00 Newcomer, in training Topic Starter Posts: 21

    Wish I would have spent the $90 before starting this project...but then again, wouldn't have had the great learning experience.
    :dead:
  22. SubKamran

    SubKamran Newcomer, in training Posts: 303

    That would suck. :eek: 2.5Ghz Cel = 299Mhz Pentium? (j/k...I know that wasn't literal)

    I would just replace the CPU with a P4. I think if your mobo can support that high a Celeron it should support a P4. Don't quote me :D

    And yes, Windows XP is a godsend. :)
  23. vassil3427

    vassil3427 Newcomer, in training Posts: 822

    If you do get XP, get the upgrade edition. You dont have to have 98 installed. When you boot from the XP disk and start installing. It will ask to see a previous version of windows, just insert the 98 disc, and then reinsert the XP disc after a minute....
  24. mvhw

    mvhw Newcomer, in training

    After assembling five different computers, I have found that a good rule of thumb is this: the operating system should be of the same vintage as the motherboard. The new motherboards (as of Feb 2004) really do run best with XP, as I have found out the hard way. With 98 you probably want to disable LAN in the bios. I also disabled any onboard sound and modem I may find in the bios. Then I added a PCI sound card and a modem. Also, it is much better to start with a clean install of XP rather than upgrading from another op, thereby upgrading all its problems too. If your other software is old, XP may have issues with it. If you buy XP, make sure it has SP1 (service pack 1). My Celeron now runs well, after countless hours of work, but it is no match to my AMD 2500+. My AMD 2500+ with the Azza KT400-ALH runs very well with ME, and should therefore run very well with 98. Three webpages on my site may help you:
    http://www.abbeyclock.com/computer.html
    Good luck,
    Mark.
  25. leokaiser69

    leokaiser69 Newcomer, in training

    I know your post is eally old, but do you still own Azza Alh kt400 mb with athlon xp 2500 + barton?
    thanks
    Lk
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...


Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.