Intel D875PBZLK - Page 6

**specmike** · 07-04-2003, 11:38 PM

WOW! Looks like I may have stirred up sumpin askin bout this Intel board and runnin PAT. I was just trying to help 2 dudes at Corsair HoH. I want to watch this closely. I mean, what if "CHIPZILLA" can't get PAT to run on their own boards?

Looks more like Intel SYM technology, Stole Yo Money! Or, mebbe there is a perfectly logical reason for all of this

Mike.

**Sandog** · 07-04-2003, 11:39 PM

Here's my cachemem test.

casheman

Someone with an Asus P4C800 or any PAT enabled board needs to run it so we can compare.

realdieu · 07-04-2003, 11:45 PM

Update!

Quote:

Originally posted by realdieu
Well, I just received a response from Michael at Lostcircuits and here is his response:

Update! I guess PAT is enabled!!!

**Sandog** · 07-04-2003, 11:49 PM

What? where? when? why?

realdieu · 07-05-2003, 12:05 AM

Well, I just received a response from Michael at Lostcircuits and here is his response:

Quote:

The easy and unequivocal way to find out is to run cachemem and look at the latencies. If the highest latencies are around 100 ns, PAT is working, if they are above 130 ns, it is not. You may have to re-run cachemem a few times if you have stray results.

The numbers shown are cpu cycles so you need to divide them by the GHz value of your CPU, e.g. 270 cycles / 3.0 = 90 ns.

If you were running a 3.0 GHz CPU, I say that PAT is definitely enabled, otherwise, your numbers would be in the 450'ies, if your CPU is any slower speed grade, it would become more difficult to judge.

Update! I guess PAT is enabled!!! I guess the fellow that made CTIAW is a little off in his readings...

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandog
What? where? when? why?

kabouki · 07-05-2003, 12:18 AM

Hey Realdieu ... are you drunk too?? Man ... that makes two of us!!!

Now ... this thread is something about the Intel 875 mobo and PAT ... isn't it? Now, would anyone think that Pat Gelsinger wouldn't put PAT to work on his own boards ?!?! Ppl ... relax ... I'm with Realdieu (not only on alchoolic degree) ... either the guy that made CTIAW made some mistakes ... or ... Intel is making some special mambo jambo with their boards to make PAT invisible but noticeable ...

**Sandog** · 07-05-2003, 12:33 AM

You know I don't think those scores are too bad. My test shows it takes 91clocks to move 512kB's to the L2 cache and it takes 302 clocks to move twice as much (1024kB's) to main memory. Thats only a 50% increase in clock cycles to move bits to the memory vs. addressing onboard cache. That would be like taking 20 seconds to get a pack of smokes from the next room to taking 30 seconds to get a pack from NYC.

Flavius_abx · 07-05-2003, 03:02 AM

I have 2.60C on a D875PBZ... with Corsair TwinX LL 3200 set at 2-3-2-6. I too have seen CPU-Z and Sandra report my PAT off. But my cachemem latency is 108ns. Does this mean my PAT is actually on? I am running stock everything (except my the GPU). Thanks!

**Sandog** · 07-05-2003, 10:51 AM

Show us a pic.

apco25 · 07-05-2003, 11:05 AM

OK,

I tested my 875 with cachem26. I looked at the latency and see that I get 265??? worst case (Lower right hand corner result).

So, 265/3.029 = 87.4876ns! is this correct? According to the above, PAT must be on...

-apco25

Flavius_abx · 07-05-2003, 12:40 PM

Here's the pic. 276 cycles/2.60Ghz = 106ns. Is PAT on?

30+MrGAS · 07-05-2003, 01:30 PM

according to the logistics guy my PAT is working with the "0" setting....gee thanks Intel.

sure looks better when you see enabled....

I'll just trust Big Toe and the rest of you that my 3dmark2001 results are about 500 points higher with good 'ol PAT.

never have overclocked any 'puter ,this is all magic to me.

nice to see that my D875PBZ w/3.0 and 2x512 corsair twinx pc3200 set at 2,,3,2,6 or 2.3.3.7. or 2,3,3,8, will just speed on down the road.

great reading,this forum,but i dont have big enough cahonies to do much changing with out one of you fellas living next door...

**Sandog** · 07-05-2003, 01:43 PM

Sounds like you have all the changes you can make. You also made a good choice in motherboards. Enjoy.

Ralf Hutter · 07-06-2003, 10:44 AM

I'm just barely setting up my 875PBZ + 2.4C.

Here's my PAT results:

1)ctiaw gives me "(0) Reserved" just like everyone else.

2)Cachemem gives me 102.5 so apparently PAT is enabled.

BTW - I have a BIOS question about this board that I'm going to post in the BIOS forum. If you 875PBZ guys could look at it I'd sure appreciate it!

**Sandog** · 07-06-2003, 01:18 PM

Hey guys I am beginning to think none of us have PAT enabled and are getting screwed. My reason for thinking this is I ran Sandra last nite. I ran Memory bench with several different settings in my bios. I compared these to the results of the mem test to a P4 3.0 512MB board and I only barely beat it when I had the fastest mem settings and was in burn in mode +4%. That ain't right. And like everybody else Sandra said no PAT enabled.

07-04-2003, 11:38 PM	#76
specmike Yes, Yellowbeard Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Metro Atlanta, GA. Posts: 2,620	WOW! Looks like I may have stirred up sumpin askin bout this Intel board and runnin PAT. I was just trying to help 2 dudes at Corsair HoH. I want to watch this closely. I mean, what if "CHIPZILLA" can't get PAT to run on their own boards? Looks more like Intel SYM technology, Stole Yo Money! Or, mebbe there is a perfectly logical reason for all of this Mike. __________________ OFFICIAL CORSAIR TECH SUPPORT
(Offline)

07-04-2003, 11:39 PM	#77
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	Here's my cachemem test. casheman Someone with an Asus P4C800 or any PAT enabled board needs to run it so we can compare. Last edited by Sandog : 07-27-2003 at 10:29 AM.
(Offline)

07-04-2003, 11:49 PM	#79
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	What? where? when? why?
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 12:18 AM	#81
kabouki Unpredictable User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Coimbra - Portugal Posts: 632	Hey Realdieu ... are you drunk too?? Man ... that makes two of us!!! Now ... this thread is something about the Intel 875 mobo and PAT ... isn't it? Now, would anyone think that Pat Gelsinger wouldn't put PAT to work on his own boards ?!?! Ppl ... relax ... I'm with Realdieu (not only on alchoolic degree) ... either the guy that made CTIAW made some mistakes ... or ... Intel is making some special mambo jambo with their boards to make PAT invisible but noticeable ... __________________ Ama me fideliter, fidem meam noto: de corde totaliter, et ex mente tota, sum presentialiter, absens in remota, quisquis amat taliter, volvitur in rota.
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 12:33 AM	#82
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	You know I don't think those scores are too bad. My test shows it takes 91clocks to move 512kB's to the L2 cache and it takes 302 clocks to move twice as much (1024kB's) to main memory. Thats only a 50% increase in clock cycles to move bits to the memory vs. addressing onboard cache. That would be like taking 20 seconds to get a pack of smokes from the next room to taking 30 seconds to get a pack from NYC.
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 03:02 AM	#83
Flavius_abx Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: NY Posts: 5	I have 2.60C on a D875PBZ... with Corsair TwinX LL 3200 set at 2-3-2-6. I too have seen CPU-Z and Sandra report my PAT off. But my cachemem latency is 108ns. Does this mean my PAT is actually on? I am running stock everything (except my the GPU). Thanks!
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 10:51 AM	#84
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	Show us a pic.
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 11:05 AM	#85
apco25 Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 6	How can this be? OK, I tested my 875 with cachem26. I looked at the latency and see that I get 265??? worst case (Lower right hand corner result). So, 265/3.029 = 87.4876ns! is this correct? According to the above, PAT must be on... -apco25
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 01:30 PM	#87
30+MrGAS Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: San Carlos Ca. Posts: 6	according to the logistics guy my PAT is working with the "0" setting....gee thanks Intel. sure looks better when you see enabled.... I'll just trust Big Toe and the rest of you that my 3dmark2001 results are about 500 points higher with good 'ol PAT. never have overclocked any 'puter ,this is all magic to me. nice to see that my D875PBZ w/3.0 and 2x512 corsair twinx pc3200 set at 2,,3,2,6 or 2.3.3.7. or 2,3,3,8, will just speed on down the road. great reading,this forum,but i dont have big enough cahonies to do much changing with out one of you fellas living next door... __________________ Get My NR2003 Rides Here.
(Offline)

07-05-2003, 01:43 PM	#88
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	Sounds like you have all the changes you can make. You also made a good choice in motherboards. Enjoy.
(Offline)

07-06-2003, 10:44 AM	#89
Ralf Hutter Computer Love Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sunny SoCal Posts: 1,174	I'm just barely setting up my 875PBZ + 2.4C. Here's my PAT results: 1)ctiaw gives me "(0) Reserved" just like everyone else. 2)Cachemem gives me 102.5 so apparently PAT is enabled. BTW - I have a BIOS question about this board that I'm going to post in the BIOS forum. If you 875PBZ guys could look at it I'd sure appreciate it! __________________ #1 Rig: P4 2.4C, Intel 875PBZ, Scythe Ninja + 5V Nexus 120mm, 2 x 512MB Mushkin Level II PC3200 Dual Pack RAM, 160GB Samsung SP1614C , Seasonic SuperSilencer 400W PSU, 5-volted 120mm Nexus case fan, Antec SLK3700BQE case. #2 Rig: P4 3.4C, Intel 875PBZ, SI-120 + 6V Nexus 120mm, 2 x 1024MB Mushkin HP3200 RAM, Sapphire 9600Pro-Ultimate passively cooled, 160GB Samsung SP1614C, Antec NeoHE 430 PSU, 5-volted 120mm Nexus case fan, Antec P150 case. Test Rig: P4 2.4C, Intel 875PBZ, all other hardware changes on a regular basis.
(Offline)

07-06-2003, 01:18 PM	#90
Sandog Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,980	Hey guys I am beginning to think none of us have PAT enabled and are getting screwed. My reason for thinking this is I ran Sandra last nite. I ran Memory bench with several different settings in my bios. I compared these to the results of the mem test to a P4 3.0 512MB board and I only barely beat it when I had the fastest mem settings and was in burn in mode +4%. That ain't right. And like everybody else Sandra said no PAT enabled.
(Offline)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode