SATA Problem?

milehile · 10-05-2006, 12:03 AM

I have just recently built a computer for my cousin. The specs are as follows:

AMD Athlon 4800+ 64 X2 Dual Core w/ stock heatsink (64+64 L1 cache, 1mb+1mb L2 cache)
1gig PNY PC3200
Foxxconn SLI MB
evga nVidia 7900gs
250gig WD SATA
Aspire X-Cruiser Black case
Aspire 500watt power supply

The problem is that, when installing the Battlefield 2 update from ver. 1.1 - 1.4, a computer with the following specs:

AMD Athlon 3600+ 64 single core w/ stock heatsink (64+64 L1 cache, 512 L2 cache)
1gig gSkill PC3200
Gigabyte MB
evga 6600gt
160gig Seagate Ultra ATA
Powmax case
AGI 450watt power supply

:had a load time of approx. 5 minutes faster than the first system. What I am wondering, is, why a computer with a single core and non-SATA beat one with them when both installs were started at the same exact time?

**Fr4665** · 10-05-2006, 03:07 AM

is the new system ddr2 ? the latency times between ddr2 and ddr are diffferent and usually ddr2 is supposed to be faster but its not (i think thats correct correct me if im wrong)

the single core had a memory controller on the die wich allows faster transfere between cpu and ram and harddrive.

milehile · 10-05-2006, 01:19 PM

Both ram are identical other than the brand name. The motherboard is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813186059 The ram that is in now is a single 1gig PC3200 DDR400 PNY chip. The thing i'm wondering is if there is something that might be bogging a new computer with better componants than another one is loading a patch slower.

lhuser · 10-06-2006, 05:33 AM

To what I see, the AMD Athlon 64 system beats the other because the dual-core CPUs are running in compatible with it. They're really meant for an AM2, so, your AMD athlon has better efficiency than the Duual-Core. It's llike that.

**Cellus** · 10-06-2006, 08:30 AM

No the dual-core architecture should not be interfering with dealing any "incompatibilities" if the motherboard supports it. Dual-core processors simply have two execution cores - pretty much everything else is the same (with a couple exceptions). Windows XP can dynamically handle the load between the two cores (albeit not perfectly) - to get the best results the program needs be aware and use multi-threading, but as far as I know Battlefield 2 has yet to support it.

There are probably other factors not being accounted here as well - drive fragmentation, patches, background processes, and so forth. I should note that BF2 will take longer on the first run and any other runs where configuration changes are made as it optimizes the shaders. Those factors need to be considered in performance as well, not just the hardware. I have seen older PCs run laps around bleeding-edge PCs because they were not updated and patched, had drive fragmentation, were running a billion background processes, and so forth. Also, the GS series of cards are not nearly as good as their GT cousins by a significant margin.

milehile · 10-06-2006, 10:38 AM

The video card is a GS other than a GT only cause of the $50 diff. Another thing I didn't think about was, "breaking-in". Will breaking in the new parts change performance over time? Every part in this computer with exception of the CD drive, floppy drive, and ram are brand spanking new. Will breaking-in the new stuff ensure thier full potential? Thanks for the replies

10-05-2006, 12:03 AM	#1 (permalink)
milehile Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 473 OS: Windows 7 RC My System	SATA Problem? I have just recently built a computer for my cousin. The specs are as follows: AMD Athlon 4800+ 64 X2 Dual Core w/ stock heatsink (64+64 L1 cache, 1mb+1mb L2 cache) 1gig PNY PC3200 Foxxconn SLI MB evga nVidia 7900gs 250gig WD SATA Aspire X-Cruiser Black case Aspire 500watt power supply The problem is that, when installing the Battlefield 2 update from ver. 1.1 - 1.4, a computer with the following specs: AMD Athlon 3600+ 64 single core w/ stock heatsink (64+64 L1 cache, 512 L2 cache) 1gig gSkill PC3200 Gigabyte MB evga 6600gt 160gig Seagate Ultra ATA Powmax case AGI 450watt power supply :had a load time of approx. 5 minutes faster than the first system. What I am wondering, is, why a computer with a single core and non-SATA beat one with them when both installs were started at the same exact time? __________________ *When you don't do something right, how can you be sure you've done anything at all?*

10-05-2006, 03:07 AM	#2 (permalink)
Fr4665 aka mr.fraggs Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA or Germany Posts: 2,965 OS: Win XP,Vista,Android My System	is the new system ddr2 ? the latency times between ddr2 and ddr are diffferent and usually ddr2 is supposed to be faster but its not (i think thats correct correct me if im wrong) the single core had a memory controller on the die wich allows faster transfere between cpu and ram and harddrive. __________________ I don't subscribe to threads please PM me if i miss a reply. ------- Everest SensorView Pro DriverCleaner how to fix your game

10-05-2006, 01:19 PM	#3 (permalink)
milehile Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 473 OS: Windows 7 RC My System	Both ram are identical other than the brand name. The motherboard is http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813186059 The ram that is in now is a single 1gig PC3200 DDR400 PNY chip. The thing i'm wondering is if there is something that might be bogging a new computer with better componants than another one is loading a patch slower. __________________ *When you don't do something right, how can you be sure you've done anything at all?*

10-06-2006, 08:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
Cellus Moderator Networking Team Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 2,664 OS: Windows Vista Business SP1, Windows XP Professional SP3 My System	No the dual-core architecture should not be interfering with dealing any "incompatibilities" if the motherboard supports it. Dual-core processors simply have two execution cores - pretty much everything else is the same (with a couple exceptions). Windows XP can dynamically handle the load between the two cores (albeit not perfectly) - to get the best results the program needs be aware and use multi-threading, but as far as I know Battlefield 2 has yet to support it. There are probably other factors not being accounted here as well - drive fragmentation, patches, background processes, and so forth. I should note that BF2 will take longer on the first run and any other runs where configuration changes are made as it optimizes the shaders. Those factors need to be considered in performance as well, not just the hardware. I have seen older PCs run laps around bleeding-edge PCs because they were not updated and patched, had drive fragmentation, were running a billion background processes, and so forth. Also, the GS series of cards are not nearly as good as their GT cousins by a significant margin. __________________ TSF Networking Team Virus/Trojan/Spyware Removal Help Donate! Last edited by Cellus; 10-06-2006 at 08:32 AM.

10-06-2006, 10:38 AM	#6 (permalink)
milehile Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 473 OS: Windows 7 RC My System	The video card is a GS other than a GT only cause of the $50 diff. Another thing I didn't think about was, "breaking-in". Will breaking in the new parts change performance over time? Every part in this computer with exception of the CD drive, floppy drive, and ram are brand spanking new. Will breaking-in the new stuff ensure thier full potential? Thanks for the replies __________________ *When you don't do something right, how can you be sure you've done anything at all?*

10-06-2006, 05:33 AM	#4 (permalink)
lhuser Registered User Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 52 OS: My modified Windows XP My System	To what I see, the AMD Athlon 64 system beats the other because the dual-core CPUs are running in compatible with it. They're really meant for an AM2, so, your AMD athlon has better efficiency than the Duual-Core. It's llike that.