|
Intel P4 vs AMD
|
|
Senior Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 11:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
Ok, quick question here.
My next system I plan on building, will be based of that X2 3800+ CPU. But, looking at the specs posted by Distorted's CPU-Z shots....I am confused.
I am looking at: Core Speed = 995.5 Mhz?? Core multiplyer = 5x, and Core Voltage is only 1.1v? Is that acccurate? I thought that CPU was 2.0Ghz per core as seen here: (those specs seem awfully low, and I've yet to see an AMD core run on such a low voltage before)
Processor: AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-core
Model Number: 3800+
Frequency (MHz): 2000
L2 Cache Size: 512KB x2
Socket: 939
Edit: If my math is correct, the multiplyer should be 10x X FSB of 200mhz to equal 2.0Ghz core speed???
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 11:23
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. January 2006 @ 11:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
I thought so too, 2x 2.0Ghz.
Mysterious, but no, go for the 3800+ X2. Fantastic CPU.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 11:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Next time Darthnip
mrpsycho left here and went to DVD hounds and started contacting me through the webmaster email, I go hit with 7 emmails last night and they were all like the posts here. He won't be emailing anymore though.
I saw those specs on distorded X2 and I see his problem, he has the clock multiplier set to 5.X when it should be set to 10X expecially since he's running his memory at default. He's underclocking it.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 11:41
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 11:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Donald
It seems I was even lucky to get one at all, much less that cheap. Dell wanted over $700 for their Northwood 3.4GHz CPU. The Pentium D 830 is right on pricewise and performancewise with the 3800+ X2; $335 and $322 respectively (that's with the comparison Sandra bench and prices at Newegg). Intel offers a lower performance processor and both Intel and AMD offer better. I could have bought a respectable processor in either brand for little more than I paid for the CPU I got. I went over that with Sophocles. Then I would have had to have a new mobo, case, power supply and possibly some other goodies. I'm just doing an upgrade for now. As I mentioned earlier, I want to see the new offerings over the next year before committing. Now they're talking quad-core CPUs and even better memory offerings. ;)
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 12:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sophocles,
Since Distorded's PC is an HP with an OEM (locked) board, there's not much he can do about it. He's factory underclocked. That sounds bad, locked and underclocked. ;)
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
11. January 2006 @ 12:07 |
Link to this message
|
|
"mrpsycho left here and went to DVD hounds and started contacting me through the webmaster email, I go hit with 7 emmails last night and they were all like the posts here. He won't be emailing anymore though"
Oh god, I can imagine it. I don't like to speak ill of people, but what a prat.
And yes, that X2 is seriously underclocked, and would probably barely outperform a P4 2000. Oops!
I think memory should be the next area to get worked on, as in a year we've made a performance type leap equivalent to 1Ghz and graphics power has increased massively, but memory hasn't changed much at all. Since Vista will support upwards of 128GB of RAM, and I see any more than 4 slots unlikely, in the not too distant future we'd have 32GB memory modules, so surely it's reasonable to ask for 2GB sticks soon?
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
brobear
Unless you can set it to manual the CPU determines the clock multiplier and the motherboard responds automatically. I think that the motherboard is sending CPU-Z the wrong information. I checked his bench mark a few pages back and that's about what you would expect from an X2 3800 at defults speeds.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 13:01 |
Link to this message
|
Sophocles
That's what I didn't quite understand. I'd looked at his Sandra bench and it's actually a little better than the one stored for comparison. I pointed that out to Distorded. I can't understand how he could be doing it with a seriously underclocked system. You're right, the CPU-Z reading looks suspect here.
For a good comparison, he should have used something like the selections I have in this screenshot. The stock Sandra comparison of his CPU and since he wants to compare to Intel, the comparable items. I noticed the 830 Intel is the closest in price and performance. I'm not sure what the companies are saying, or the forums, I was just doing a comparison from Sandra and online sales. The old style of going 3800 AMD is comparable to 3.8GHz Intel just doesn't seem to work here.
_________________________
_________________________
Note in the example above the 830 and 3800 are most comparable. The one in Distorded's bench is outdoing the 840 I have selected in the Sandra comparisons.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 13:16
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 13:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
Duplicate
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 14:18
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 13:33 |
Link to this message
|
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 13:33
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 13:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
I just threw in the 840 as the next Intel step up. Pricewise the 830 is about $10-$15 more than the X2 3800 (which I just pointed out a post or so back). I just put in the one below and the one above in the Intel series. I didn't even check the cost on an 840.
|
|
Distorded
Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
To Everyone,
If you look closley at my CPU-Z specs at the bottom it shows core 1 and a drop down box for core 2. It reads each core seperatly. So that when you combime them it equals 2.0 ghz with a 10x multiplier. remember its two cores not one. That old single core stuff is oldskoll. j/k \
Brobear:
I did do the the test you recomended you must have missed it. I think it is on the previous page.
Morph: Those specs are correct but multiply the voltage by TWO.
Sammorris:
I do have four RAM slots that support up to four gb of it.
If anyone wants me to repost the CPU-Z specs with core one and core two let me know.
Here is the first one for now.
|
|
Distorded
Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 15:15 |
Link to this message
|
Brobear I thought that I had posted the test you recomended but I guess not, sorry. So here it is in all its glory.
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 16:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
Looks like someone needs to tell SiSoft to upgrade their Sandra bench comparisons. Your 3800 smoked the one they had for comparison. Wonder how that happened with a locked board? HP must have figured out how to up the performance somehow. ;) I already pointed out the stock comparisons and yours is beating the 840 instead of comparing to the 830 and stock 3800 on the Sandra benches. In fact, that bench you have is slightly superior to the AMD Athlon 64 4000+ X2 that Sandra has for comparison. That makes it even more interesting as to what HP did with that stock board.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 16:27 |
Link to this message
|
Distorded
That's wrong, each core should hit 2000 Mhz. I have an Opteron 175 which has a clock multiplier of 2.2 Ghz, just above yours. My clock multiplier is at 10 times 270 which brings it to 2.7 Ghz for each core.
Look at my scores and my clock multiplier times the HT clock.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 16:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Your CPU benchmark speed is right, but the info of 5 times 199. somehing that equals 995 per core is wrong. Your benchmark speeds however are right!
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 16:32
|
|
Distorded
Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 16:49 |
Link to this message
|
|
where do I get this Central Brand Identifier?
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:03 |
Link to this message
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 17:07
|
|
Distorded
Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
I think I figured out why my CPU-Z scores came back the way they did. Take a look at this img.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Distorded
I think that your system is working fine but your bios is feeding back the wrong info. If it ain't broken then don't fix it. LOL
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:17 |
Link to this message
|
Lets take a look at the Processor page along with that.
Quote:
If it ain't broken then don't fix it. LOL
I definitely agree. It would probably slow it down. ;)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 17:19
|
|
Distorded
Member
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
This is looking more like it picks up more. Also I was reading about cool and quiet and have heard that this will cause CPU-Z to give back false readings.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:23 |
Link to this message
|
Below is the same image on my system that you gave with a similar processor, can you see the difference?
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 17:24
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
Oh Sophocles... what was happening with that link? LOL
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. January 2006 @ 17:26
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
brobear
Suspended permanently
|
11. January 2006 @ 17:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
If the HP system is messing with CPU-Z, then does that mean that it could be causing the abnormally high performance readings on Sandra?
|
