| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
FSB is 800. It works for me.
I looked up the FSB of a AMD 3500+ and guess what? it's 800 as well...
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Set
Xandrosianding
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kona0197 wrote: | FSB is 800. It works for me.
I looked up the FSB of a AMD 3500+ and guess what? it's 800 as well... |
Well I don't know what you use your pc to that an AMD 3500+ isn't fast enough for. I've played Crysis, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock and many other new and hardware intensive games with a rig that is based off this cpu, with high settings.
//Set
_________________
Set has left this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doctore
Xandrosianschwing
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 2697
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We were talking about the Althlon 3500+ not the Athlon 64 3500+
Set: My PC is fast enough. It plays all the games I like to play.
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bryantrv
Xandrosianschwing
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2898
Location: DeLand, Florida US
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
An observation- my main box is now an Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (dual core) which actually has a clock speed of 2300 Mhz, 2 gigs ram, SATA HD. My wifes system is a Sempron 3000+ (single core)- actuall clock speed of 1600 Mhz with 1 gig ram, SATA drive.
I do have a lot more going on in my box- MySql, Postgreql, Apache and Tomcat, as well as Spamassassin and ClamAV, but the wifes computer doesn't seem that much slower than mine- I spent $200 on hers, a bit over $400 on mine (a bit over $500 including WinXP OEM).
The OS difference is that hers is running Debian Lenny, mine Debian Etch (WinXP under VMWare server). Lenny does seem to be a bit faster than Etch, which is counter to the Windows way of newer OS's running more slowly- pretty much every benchmark has Vista as being slower than XP- sometimes a *lot* slower- all of that DRM stuff apparently takes some cpu cycles, though there could well be other differences.
My big beef with Vista is that I just do not see Nine Billion Dollars worth of OS- I mean where did the money go?
_________________
--
Chris Bryant
http://www.kindofpeckish.com
http://opensourcemachine.org
http://bryantrv.com
http://rx4rv.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Set
Xandrosianding
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kona0197 wrote: | We were talking about the Althlon 3500+ not the Athlon 64 3500+
Set: My PC is fast enough. It plays all the games I like to play. |
I were talking about the Athlon 64 3500+, afaik the 32-bit series only ran up to 3200+.
//Set
_________________
Set has left this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do a Google search. They went higher. 
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Set
Xandrosianding
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kona0197 wrote: | | Do a Google search. They went higher. |
Link me to it. Or are you unable to back up your claims?
//Set
_________________
Set has left this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK I was a bit mis-informed. You were right - the Athlon only went up to 3200+.
Be that as it may I'm still happy with what I have and if I really wanted to I could step up to a Core 2 Duo for cheap.
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Set
Xandrosianding
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What exactly are you argumenting for?
| Quote: | Obviously Vista wasn't meant to run on your setup. It runs fine on today's newer dual core setups.
Install Vista on what hardware it was made for and you will see a difference. |
| Quote: | Oh and Set: Dual Core does make a difference...
|
| Quote: | | A question for Set: If dual core doesn't matter why is it my machine is so slow even with 2 gigs of high speed ram and a single core Celeron 420? |
| Quote: |
Be that as it may I'm still happy with what I have and if I really wanted to I could step up to a Core 2 Duo for cheap. |
//Set
_________________
Set has left this forum.
Last edited by Set on Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dual core IS better for Vista. But a single core works for me.
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doctore
Xandrosianschwing
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 2697
Location: Finland
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kona0197
Xandrosianding
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 876
Location: Albany, OR
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anybody that runs Vista will tell you that you need at least 2 GB of RAM to run Vista.
I have 2 GB and Vista still isn't happy.
AS far as Dual-Core goes it makes sense that Dual Core would be better for any OS not just Vista.
_________________
AMD Athlon 64 3200+ - 2 GHz | 3 GB DDR | 250 GB HDD | Nvidia Gforce 7900 GT Graphics | DVD Burner | Windows 7 - No fate but what we make... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Set
Xandrosianding
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kona0197 wrote: | Anybody that runs Vista will tell you that you need at least 2 GB of RAM to run Vista.
I have 2 GB and Vista still isn't happy.
AS far as Dual-Core goes it makes sense that Dual Core would be better for any OS not just Vista. |
Use XP instead heh. Vista is a bloated piece of junk.
//Set
_________________
Set has left this forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doctore
Xandrosianschwing
Joined: 13 Jun 2006
Posts: 2697
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | ...Dual Core would be better for any OS... |
Not really true. "Windows 2000/XP Professional/Vista" supports dualcore/CPU.
But "Windows 95/98/ME/XP Home" and most applications doesnt.
_________________
Linux User #432929
Visit our sites :
http://www.pcds.fi/
http://www.djn.fi/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
