New Processor

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I recently bought a new processor (just today, as a matter of fact) and after I put it in, the system screen shows my processor as 1.67GHz. THis worried me a bit as I bought an AMD 2800. I know that the processor will perform lower than what it is designated at, but should mine be displaying at so low a GHz?

[Mad78]

If yours is showing that i wonder how much a Athlon 3200 will show. This all worries me.

[Krytos]

Well, I decided to check out what my system said:

Computer:

AMD Athlon 64 Processor

3000+

380 MHz

1.00 GB of RAM

 

380 MHz! Can that be right! Well, I'm pretty sure it's because the CPU speed varies depending on load - that's what your/my CPU is running at while it was doing. And just to check, I played some Doom III for an hour or four to make sure my CPU was still putting out the power it was meant to, and it ran fine (on medium with anti-aliasing at 4x, 800x600 full graphics)

 

So I wouldn't worry about it.

[Mad78]

BTW GAT how much id you have before changing processors?

[mawshiye]

AMD 2800 means that your processor is the equivalent of a 2800 MHz Pentium. The only difference is that the Athlon processors cycle about 2 times for every one cycle of the Pentium. The Athlon doesn't have more power per cycle than the Pentium (therefore the 1.6GHz), but it cycles many more times than a Pentium will.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Well, I figured it out.

 

Krytos: If you's is displaying (in your system menu) that it's only 380 MHz, you should get that checked. What is displayed there is the processing power of your CPU. A Pentium 3.0 GHz actually performs at around 2.2GHz. What is diplayed there will not change based on what you are doing, or have been doing. It is a set number. Mine was displaying so low 9and possibly yours as well) because the settings in the BIOS were not set for the correct FSB speed for the processor. My processor's FSB is 333, so the speed in the BIOS should be roughly half that, so 166. THis also effects what you processor displays at (mine should say 2800+, but was showing 2000+. THis means there is a problem).

 

Mad78:

Post 1: Well, as long as the BIOS is correctly configured, and your RAM is PC 3200, an Athelon 3200 will display as such, though the GHz will show as 2200.

 

Post 2: I upgraded from an Athelon 1700+ (14.67 GHZ) to an Athelon 2800+ (2083 GHZ). You might not want to get a 3200, if that is what you were planning on. You'll pay far more than I did for my 2800+, but only get 120 MHz more in power. The same can be said for the 6b-bit processors. Thier GHz never break the 2.6 marck, and you'll pay through the nose just to use more than a gig of RAM. Just stick with AMD though. My processor will outperform a 3.0GHz Intel, though my GHz is lower.

 

mawshiye: I'm afraid you've gotten confused about the AMD naming system, as I did myself. the numbers (i.e. Athelon 2800) are only model names. An AMD 2800 actually has less GHz than an Intel 2.8 GHz processor, though in the end it performs better (I'm not sure how Intel gets away with it, since their 2.8 GHz processor puts out around 1.7 GHz, significantly less). The AMDs do have more power than the Intels. The fact that it was displaying as a 1.6GHz was, as I stated above, due to the BIOS settings. Now that I have changed that, it reads as a 2.08 GHz processor.

 

For reference on AMD Athelon (not 64, but the same ratios apply), go here: http://139.95.253.214/SRVS/CGI-BIN/WEBCGI.EXE/,/?St=28,E=0000000000172547234,K=3365,Sxi=15,Case=obj(3821)

[the_mask]

Oh, I was just typing something about the FSB settings, but I see that you figured it out yourself

 

Have fun with your new Athlon cpu

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I will, once I buy a gig of new RAM. My old RAM (512 meg of which I just bought ) is only PC2100, so I have to run my 2800+ at the speed of a 2200+... I have to go out a buy a gig of PC3200 ram before I can truely enjoy it.

[Mad78]

Just wondering... how would an Athlon 64 3000+ perform or should I get a 2800+.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

64 bit processors do have slightly better performance than thier 32 bit counterparts, but not enough to really make htem worth the extra money, unless you plan on using over a gig of RAM. I would suggest getting a regular Athelon, either a 2800+ or higher.

[the_mask]

*cough * they are called Athlon processors

 

Ah yes, those pc3200 bars are really fun to have, although I had no problems with animating or modelling in 3dsmax with just 512MB of them

Maybe you can convince the one who sold you the 2100 one to take it back, so you could buy the other one. Otherwise you can still set up one of these 'new, barely used, ...' offers at eBay

 

I think I should add, that the 64bit cpus will only perform better in a 64bit environment, like the appropriate XP version, that is also running 64bit programs... yep, currently almost everything you encounter is still 16-32 bit, so you can just as well buy a normal and cheaper Athlon

 

A few weeks ago I would've even advised against that, because of the upcoming PCIexpress wave, but since they built the first series of those in a way, that will at best match the speed of current structures (like AGP), that's not a problem anymore for a long while.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Oops, didn't mean to type Athelon, just goes more smoothely on the keyboard.

 

I did take my 2100 RAM back (bought it at Future Shop, though I won't do that again, it costs way too much.) I'm currently running on 512 of the PC2100 until my RAM comes in tomorrow. I got a gig of PC 3200 for only $50 CDN more. (the 512 of PC2100 cost me $174, two sticks of 512 PC3200 is only $240).

 

I would have gotten a 64-bit processor, just to be "future proof", but the performance difference isn't that big, and I don't want to spend more money on XP 64.

[mawshiye]

mawshiye: I'm afraid you've gotten confused about the AMD naming system, as I did myself. the numbers (i.e. Athelon 2800) are only model names. An AMD 2800 actually has less GHz than an Intel 2.8 GHz processor, though in the end it performs better (I'm not sure how Intel gets away with it, since their 2.8 GHz processor puts out around 1.7 GHz, significantly less). The AMDs do have more power than the Intels. The fact that it was displaying as a 1.6GHz was, as I stated above, due to the BIOS settings. Now that I have changed that, it reads as a 2.08 GHz processor.

 

 

I should have known. I was told that by Future Shop They dont know anything. Of course, they were trying to sell me a computer and the Athlon was more expensive than the pentium...

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

There are some things that Future SHop knows lots about, like TVs and stereos, but when it comes to computers, you're better to trust a place that specializes.

 

Either way, an Athlon that has lower GHz than a Pentium 4 will usually perform better. My processor can outperform a Pentium 4, 3.2 GHz, and mine is only 2.0 GHz.

[Mad78]

Are you sure a 2800 is sufficent. I mean for Doom 3 they recommend 3,2 Ghz.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Doom 3 and other games tend to over-exadureate. I was running it on 1024x768 with full graphics on my 1700+, with 1Gig of RAM. In the end I find that your RAM and video card make the differnece. And remember that the numbers in the Athlon names don't indicate their GHz. There is no Athlon processor that performs above around 2.4 GHz, and that would be one of the 64-bit processors. AMDs run faster than Intels, so a 2800+ (which is about 2.08 GHz) runns at or above the speed of an Intel Pentium 4 3.0 GHz.

 

That, and gaming companies are in cahoots with hardware companies.

[Mad78]

Thanks that confirm the config I had chosen:

Radeon 9800 pro

Athlon 2800+

1Gig RAM

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

That is a great configuration. just make sure your RAM is PC3200. You can go one step down and get the same GHz out of your processor, but the 3200 is faster, and save you buying new RAM if you decide to get an even faster processor.

[Mad78]

do you think this would do the trick?

2x DDR 512MB DDR400 (PC3200)

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

That is more than enogh. the 3200 is actually faster than you need. If wanted to save even more money go for the DDR333, though I'd go for the 400.

[Mad78]

Thanks for the help. I think I finally have a final config.

 

BTW could you resize your avatar. Because sometimes the site doesn't and... well its rather large or simply send it to me and I can resize it for you.

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I chagne it every time I get promoted so there really isn't much point in resizing it yet. I noticed that the forums don't do it automatically some times. It will do it if you refresh the page though.

[Mad78]

Cool! Maybe I should too.

Have you seen the minimum requierment for Half life2?

 

1.2 Ghz

256 RAm

DirectX 7 graphic card

I found it rather astonishing but now look at the recommended

2.4 Ghz

512 RAM

DirectX 9 graphic card

Sound a bit more convincing

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I don't think you can even find something as old as a DX 7 graphics car anymore, though I know that some of the GeForce and low-end Radeon cards only support DirectX 8.

 

I don't know if I'll buy HL 2. I've been looking at the shots for the new CS, and, well, it looks like the old one with slightly updated map textures. The lighting is still second-rate, and the buildings are still geometric (no curves, only angles, and quite visable ones at that). From what I'v seen, the graphics aren't even next-generation, thier below those of Far Cry. And on top of that, the huge delay in it release...

 

It will have to be a very good game for me to buy it... I'll let my friends shell out the money and I'll buy it if I like it.

[Mad78]

Wise you are young commodore. Same conduct I may have.