new system ?'s

[kdogg]

I have rebuilt my entire system, only thing that is the same is the motherboard and the processor (A7V133 and 900mhz Athlon) The rest of the sytem includes 256 of PC133 Micron memory, a SCSI Ultra 160 10K IBM drive (18.3gigs) and Adaptec 29160 controller, a 46 gig 75 GXP (for storage), a 300 watt PS, and an all aluminum case, including two case fans and a Volcano II. The system runs great but I have a few questions about "fine tuning"

First I realize that common PCI bus is only able to transfer data at about 133 Mb/s (actually closer to 100mb/s)and the ultra 160 drive and controller are able to send and receive data at 160 Mb/s. so Am i correct in thinking that increasing the FSB will give me more bandwith through the PCI slots? if not what is the best way to improve the PCI slots performance to keep up with my drive?

Temps dont seem to bad, Right now im running the CPU at 1080 (9x120) and CPU temp is at 51-52C no matter what load its under, and the Motherboard is at 34C. Are these temps ok?

Finally I am looking to benchmark the sytem to find out if everything is performing properly, So far i have only used www.pcpitstop.com, which actually said that the ATA100 drive was outperforming the SCSI drive (???) I'm sure you guys have some better (and more accurate) software for the HDD's, CPU, and overall system performance, If anyone could throw up some links I would appreciate it.

I am trying to eliminate bottlenecks and ensure my system is running at its full potential. I am still a newbie so any tips would be appreciated!!

 

[Stick_e_Mouse]

Yes, your temps are OK.
You can get some better than average benchmarking software <A HREF="http://www.pcmag.com/category/0,2999,s=1477,00.asp" target="_new">here</A>.

<font color=blue>Your mouse moved. WINDOWS NT must restart for changes to take affect. Restart Now?[OK]</font color=blue>

 

[Crashman]

There are no drives that can supply more than 133MB/s. In fact, I don't believe there are any that can even do half that. I'm speaking of continuous transfer, not cache burst. Overclocking in order to raise PCI throughput is a bad idea with SCSI cards.

Cast not thine pearls before the swine

 

[kdogg]

Well if overclocking the bus with a SCSI card is a bad idea should I O'clock through the multiplier? Maybe run the bus at 8x133 I believe running the bus at anything over 120 will drop the pci bus speed back down, while keeping the high fsb to the memory.

 

[peach]

<font color=blue>Crash is right (of course) - the ATA100 is nowhere near nor even half of 100mb nor is the SCSI near 160 in continous throughput. I felt a glorious moment when I tweaked my IDE RAID system to 42mb/s. I am curious as to why you went SCSI - are you acting as a server in any way? Anyway 😉 <A HREF="http://www.sisoftware.demon.co.uk/sandra/" target="_new">Syssoft Sandra</A> should do you the trick for benchmarking for drives (and your cpu/memory etc.).

😎 <i><font color=blue>on company time....</i>

 

[kdogg]

Well there are a few reasons why I went SCSI, one it was time for a new drive, and the IBM ultrastar offers some pretty nice seek times ;-) Another reason is I think this will be a good HD setup that will provide great performance for a while to come. While new ata100 drives are coming out none of them really top the overal performance of a SCSI drive. I chose the adaptec 29160 becasue it operates in both 32 and 64 bit slots, so if we ever do see a 64 bit slot I will be ready!! I figure this drive will suffice for a while I swap out mobo's and processors every 6 months.