Got my new Core 2 Duo 3ghz, Having some problems

[plainman007]

Ctal >

SPD Panel Read out is as follows :Slot #1 DDR2
Module Size = 1024 Mbytes Correction = None
Max Bandwidth = PC2-5300 (333Mhz)
Manufacturer = Transcend Information
Part No = JM667QLJ-1G
Serial No = 0007B16C Week/Year 47/07
Timings Table :
Frequency = 200Mhz 266Mhz 333Mhz
CAS# Latency = 3.0 4.0 5.0
RAS# to CAS# = 3 4 5
RAS# Precharge= 3 4 5
tRAS = 9 12 15
tRC = 12 16 20
Command Rate = <<GREYED OUT>>
Voltage = 1.8V 1.8V 1.8V

[k0NG0]

Originally Posted by plainman007

Just out of curiousity ,,,how many posts must one complete to be able to post images ?

Not sure to be honest. Could be 100. Could also be you need to be a member for at least 90 days.

You can still post images using a free image host and the [img]-tag. Just not attachments, apparently.

[plainman007]

Ive anyway typed it all out manually.
Wud have been much more easier to just post an image as it puts the values in their right perspective.

[ctal]

Well, it looks like you are running at the memory's rated specifications (333Mhz = DDR2-667, 5-5-5-15). I wouldn't play with the timings any further. To run at latencies that are faster than spec (for instance, 4-4-4-15), it is commonly necessary to raise the memory voltage somewhat. I'm not sure that your mobo would provide that capability, because Intel boards usually do not provide much in the way of overclocking-related functionality. Also, I looked at the data sheet for the memory at the Transcend website, and it does not provide a spec on maximum voltage, just the 1.8 volt nominal. So I would not feel comfortable raising the voltage even if you could.

If in the future you want to upgrade your memory, I'd suggest looking at DDR2-800, which your board also supports, which today is commonly available at lower (faster) latencies, even though it runs at a faster clock rate (400MHz instead of 333). Of course, better performing memory will cost more.

But I'm not at all sure that memory is the cause of the slowness you are sensing. The only other thought I can offer is what I previously said about keeping in mind that the time required to open programs is usually driven by hard-drive performance.

Regards,
-- Al

[plainman007]

I have fully defragmented my hard drives.
Performance is the same.
I have 2 1gb chips of ddr2-800. Will this give better performance compared to the 3 gb of 667mhz chips which are now running. Or will the difference be marginal only.

[ctal]

XP certainly doesn't need 3gB for most purposes. I would say that if the DDR2-800 has rated timings (latencies) that are better (4-4-4 or less), you'd probably see a significant improvement, with both the clock rate and the timings being faster. If it's 5-5-5, there would probably be a marginal improvement, and if it's greater (slower) than 5-5-5, I wouldn't do it.

What I meant to imply with my statement about hard drives is that you shouldn't judge cpu/mobo/memory performance by how fast programs open. How many rpm (5400, 7200, 10000) and gB is your hard drive (generally, larger hd size = newer = greater data density = faster).

Regards,
-- Al

[plainman007]

Mine are all sata 250 gb drives. Seagate. 7200rpm. Brand new. Each drive has only about 30 gb occupied. Cause i know that as the drive gets fuller it gets slower. But mines almost empty.

[zman88]

You may have stated it earlier in this thread,but what defrag program are you using?

[plainman007]

Windows Defragmenter.

[zman88]

Not saying it is your problem,but you might want to try a different defrag program like PerfectDisc . I'd say alot if not most ppl here don't use windows defrag. Search the forum and you'll find a better explanation than I could give you.

[ctal]

Yes, I use Perfect Disk, and I've been very pleased with it. But I think that if he's only got 30gB used out of 250gB capacity, XP's built-in defragmenter will be adequate. It doesn't consolidate free-space particularly, but with that little used it will tend to keep most files near the faster front part of the drive.

What drove me away from XP's defragmenter, some years ago, was defragmenting drives that contain large video files (many gB each). It would often spend a lot of time moving the fragments that comprised each file (or even entire files that were not fragmented) from one part of the drive to another, then moving them back to where they started, with nothing having been accomplished. A really brilliant design.

Regards,
-- Al

[zman88]

Have you done any tweaking to the "services" and "start up" programs? And what AV are you using? An AV program like Norton can slow down your system also.

[plainman007]

Hi, Ctal i think your online now. Can you help me plz. I tried the faster memory setting on my other system which is running the new sticks of 800Mhz ram and im faced with the same 3 beeps problem. I removed the silver battery for about 30 mins and still i get the 3 beep noise. How do i restart into bios plz ? Can you tell me where the jumper might be for the 945gnt motherboard. Thanks a ton. And i promise ill never ever reset the memory timings at all.

[ctal]

Was the system unplugged from the ac outlet while the battery was removed? It should have been, or else removing the battery would not accomplish anything. Meanwhile, I'll try to find the manual for the mobo, and see what it says about the jumper.

-- Al

[plainman007]

Ctal Hi and Thanks So Much. Yes i had the entire socket plug out for 30 mins or so. Still it remembers the old settings and is giving the 3 beep code. Ill wait up here for your feedback. Thanks again.