The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

Either way, you mentioned the TDP, I'm explaining that the TDP of processors isn't an absolute figure of how much power they use, and as for puting down AMD chipsets and not the processors, you can't have one without the other, so it may just as well be the processor at fault.

 

sammorris,

That's a bit like blaming the battery for the car not starting, because you killed it trying to start a car that's out of gas! LOL!! Our electric bills haven't gone up at all since we added an AMD 64x2 to the stable. In fact they have been a little lower! Everything is set at the default settings with cool and quiet enabled. I was especially interested in this past months electric bill because with all the time off Russell's been having because of lack of work, the computer is used about 6 hours a day more than before. Our KW/h rate is actually down a bit from last year! It's like the energy claims on marked on refrigerators. They hold true, as long as you never open the refrigerator door! ROFL!!

I have an eMachine here right now, with a 64x2 5600+ in it and the PSU is a 250w Bestec. The claimed CineBench for that CPU is 257w, which is balony! There's no way the crappy stock 250w Bestec PSU could ever meet that high a demand! It would go up in smoke first! He brought it to me because he wants to add a high dollar video card and he knew there wasn't enough power for it. A Thermaltake W0093RU 500W ATX 12V version 2.0 Power Supply like mine, cured that! Made the machine a lot quieter too! Now he can install his 8800GTS (G92) and not worry about power!

CineBench's numbers are faulty Mate! They can't be right or the 5600+ wouldn't run as it was built! Since it does run, that means CineBench's figures have to be wrong!

Respectfully,
Russ

 

My Comp seems to be running slow. It takes 45 secs at times to open notepad, and that long 4 VLC also. Other prog seem to take longer to. Does the BIOS have anything to do with that. Hears a short liist as to the BRD
Motherboard ID 08/23/2006-C51MCP51-6A61HJ19C-00
BIOS Version V.M2GT3-PTD A03 08-23-2006
Motherboard Name Jetway
CPU Type DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 3000 MHz (15 x 200) 6000+
MEM Corsair CMX1024-6400 5-5-5-12 800MHz


Front Side Bus Properties
Bus Type AMD Hammer
Real Clock 200 MHz
Effective Clock 200 MHz
HyperTransport Clock 1000 MHz

Memory Bus Properties
Bus Type Dual DDR2 SDRAM
Bus Width 128-bit
DRAM:FSB Ratio CPU/8
Real Clock 377 MHz (DDR)
Effective Clock 753 MHz
Bandwidth 12055 MB/s

Motherboard Manufacturer: Jetway Information Co., Ltd.
Product Information: http://www.jetway.com.tw/jw/motherboard_list.asp
BIOS Download http://www.jetway.com.tw/jw/download.asp

Motherboard Name Jetway M2GT3 Series
CPU Type DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 3000 MHz (15 x 200) 6000+
Award BIOS Message V.M2GT3-PTD A03 08-23-2006

Is it a possibility that it could be WindowsXP W/SP3

 

200mhz? That should be much higher than that. Did you mean 3200mhz?

 

No thats what EVEREST Ultimate Edition reports
is their another way to check

 

Open CPUZ. It should report it being less than usual, due to cool'n'quiet, but not as low as 200mhz.

 

CPU-Z shows 200.9 MHz
CORE SPEED 3014.
Multiplier x15.0
HT Link 1004.7
so is it possible that its 200x15=3000
Pretty sure I've got Cool & Quiet disabled in Bios

 

i was looking at windows server 2008 today for my server and i noticed that it can be adapted for use as a workstation/desktop use. so i read more about it and found out that it has much better performance than vista and when tweaked has almost all of the same features. so i downloaded it and set it up and was impressed. it was so much smother than vista and games performed just as good as xp and better when i played tf2. im am going to play around with it some more and i will most likely switch it to my main os. i would recommend you guys try it out. here are some benchmarks

http://www.win2008workstation.com/w...-should-i-use-a-server-os-for-my-workstation/

program used to set it up

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/2008/07/17/windows-server-2008-workstation-converter/

 

krj15489 ! Which ver os Server R U using 32 or 64

 

That's fine then, it's the FSB not the CPU speed...

 

thanks to who ever came up with this TDP topic, cause i was going to ask does CPU really use the watt that it indicates, now it's clearer now.

Anyways, i've read through some of the post and you guys are comparing old AMD cpu to the newer and smaller chipset Intel CPU, don't you think it's a bit unfair for AMD?

 

The 6000+ is a recent AMD CPU, I don't see what's wrong with comparing it to an equivalent performing Intel CPU. The report I looked at not only compares power usage, but total energy required to complete a job. Because not only do AMD CPUs use more power, but are also slower, they use far more energy to do the same job.
These two graphs represent 1: the amount of energy used over the entire period (so load time when it was rendering, and idle time while it waited for the rest of the CPUs to finish) and 2: just the amount of energy used to produce the render.




Because the eight-core config has such a vast idle power consumption, overall it finishes last in the first test, but since it finishes rendering in no time at all, it scores very well when it is at load.

 

hmm, that is true, AMD's new Deneb duel-core is still not as good as Intels, and they usaully use more power than Intels. But man, it's been so long now, AMD still not entirely on track

 

It is indeed a shame, but there you go, Intel were behind from when the Athlon XP came out to when the Core 2 Duo came out, which was what, three years? Three years from when the Core 2 Duo came out is a good 9-10 months from now, so we'll see if AMD can pull anything out of the bag by then...

 

so far the rumors about the new Deneb CPU, is, quite good. Although it won't take back the performance crown but they mangae to take a big step, I think it's the first time they'll have quad cores that can overclock over 3GHz mark. Or should i say they can put up a fight against Intels lowest Nehalem CPU

 

Unless that's a noticeably faster architecture though, a 3.2Ghz Phenom is still only a 3.0Ghz Core 2 Quad, and that's the old 65nm version. A 3.4Ghz 45nm Core 2 Quad leaves the AMDs standing.

 

I've heard from a very close source that the 45nm Core 2 Quads are quite fast.

 

Lol, well they would be at 4Ghz... ;-)

 

It was able to reduce what used to be a 7 to 8 hour encode to 4 hours and 22 minutes, and that was what I was looking for.

 

since we're talking about CPU, i would like to ask a question.

How fast or what is the performance difference between the up coming 4core Nehalem and current Core2Quad? because if the performance difference is not huge like 30%+ then what is the point of buying a newer mobo chipset and and new CPU,oh yes it supports upto 8-threads...so what, games can't even utilize all the threads, it can't even fully use all four cores yet. I would rather get an Q9450 instead and stick to LGA775.

In other words, give me a good reason why people should buy Nehalem CPU.