Disappointed with my X2 3800+

[kasey01]

After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

 

[fbrdphreak]

Did you install the proper CPU driver & Windows fix?

I for one would appreciate if someone wrote up a quick little "what to do when you get your dual core chip" guide. I'm planning on reformatting for my Opty 170, but the proper drivers & updates w/links would be appreciated!

 

[kasey01]

Yes, I downloaded and installed the driver from AMD's website and the windows xp patch for dual core processors. I'm pretty sure I did it properly.

 

[Hacp]

Exactly what I have been saying . In everyday tasks, you will not notice much of a difference. IMO, a faster hard drive will show much more improvement in terms of responsiveness.

 

[kasey01]

Even a faster hard drive is not going to be that much of an improvement although it may be more noticeable than a cpu upgrade IMO. My brother has a WD Raptor 74GB in his S939 machine and I wasn't really that impressed. He even complains about the amount of time it takes to load games even though he has the faster hard drive.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I for one notice a difference in every day tasks but I upgraded from an XP 2400+ at an overclocked X2 4400+ at 2750, LOL

 

[kasey01]

Hacp, maybe you're right. My hard drive might be holding me back a bit.

 

[linkinpark342]

I myself notice a huge difference that i appreciate much. i went from a P4 2.4 to the +3800 and i'm very happy with the lack of "lag" between commands or something like that. I dunno, its more smooth in the sense that the os doesn't freeze up every time you hit a button or something like that.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: kasey01
Hacp, maybe you're right. My hard drive might be holding me back a bit.

I recommend having at least a 2nd HDD too. For myself, dual-core or even 2 physical CPU systems aren't nearly as impressive when trying to multitask but having all the I/O on 1 HDD.

I was sandbagging it on adding my RAID5 setup to my X2 build, but after trying to do the same things I was doing on my dual opteron system, but with just 1 250GB SATA2 deathstar, I quickly found the small effort involved with adding the RAID5 was time well spent. Particularly in comparison to how much time was being lost with the 1 HDD bottlenecking things.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: kasey01
Hacp, maybe you're right. My hard drive might be holding me back a bit.

I recommend having at least a 2nd HDD too. For myself, dual-core or even 2 physical CPU systems aren't nearly as impressive when trying to multitask but having all the I/O on 1 HDD.

I was sandbagging it on adding my RAID5 setup to my X2 build, but after trying to do the same things I was doing on my dual opteron system, but with just 1 250GB SATA2 deathstar, I quickly found the small effort involved with adding the RAID5 was time well spent. Particularly in comparison to how much time was being lost with the 1 HDD bottlenecking things.

So I've got two WD 80GB SATA 7200RPM (1.5Gbps). Would it be better to run those in Raid 0 as much main drive and then have my 400GB Seagate as the storage? I thought I had heard that Raid doesn't do much for normal usage

 

[kasey01]

I do have a second hard although not a RAID. I think there was an article on AT a while back that basically concluded that RAID doesn't do much more normal desktop use.

 

[LTC8K6]

Unless you do something that would use a second core, you aren't going to notice much difference between the 2 chips.

Do you think you could have played a game smoothly and burned a disc at the same time with the 2800+?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: kasey01
I do have a second hard although not a RAID. I think there was an article on AT a while back that basically concluded that RAID doesn't do much more normal desktop use.

I am not suggesting my RAID5 improves performance because it is RAID, it improves performance by providing another place for I/O heavy tasks e.g. my newsgroup stuff can go to the RAID HDDs, while@the same time I use the boot drive for that DVD back-up. I tried that with the 1 HDD=thrashing hard trying to do both@once.

I have RAID5 for protecting my data, if a HDD goes, I just throw in the hot swap and auto rebuild the array.

 

[fbrdphreak]

While that makes sense for your uses, I'd imagine most people don't do such disk intensive activities at the same time

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: kasey01
Hacp, maybe you're right. My hard drive might be holding me back a bit.

I recommend having at least a 2nd HDD too. For myself, dual-core or even 2 physical CPU systems aren't nearly as impressive when trying to multitask but having all the I/O on 1 HDD.

I was sandbagging it on adding my RAID5 setup to my X2 build, but after trying to do the same things I was doing on my dual opteron system, but with just 1 250GB SATA2 deathstar, I quickly found the small effort involved with adding the RAID5 was time well spent. Particularly in comparison to how much time was being lost with the 1 HDD bottlenecking things.

So I've got two WD 80GB SATA 7200RPM (1.5Gbps). Would it be better to run those in Raid 0 as much main drive and then have my 400GB Seagate as the storage? I thought I had heard that Raid doesn't do much for normal usage

To me RAID0 is useless, RAID is for trying to help me protect my data. When capturing and converting tons of home vids, I put some serious hours into it. If a HDD went before I was finished authoring and burning it to DVD I'd be pretty bummed. RAID5 makes certain that doesn't happen to me, unless I have a catastrophic failure that is remote in proabability.

I just find being able to send 1 I/O heavy thing to the RAID, and another to the boot, keeps things snappy and smooth, where it wasn't with just 1 HDD despite having 2 cores to handle things.

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
To me RAID0 is useless, RAID is for trying to help me protect my data. When capturing and converting tons of home vids, I put some serious hours into it. If a HDD went before I was finished authoring and burning it to DVD I'd be pretty bummed. RAID5 makes certain that doesn't happen to me, unless I have a catastrophic failure that is remote in proabability.

I just find being able to send 1 I/O heavy thing to the RAID, and another to the boot, keeps things snappy and smooth, where it wasn't with just 1 HDD despite having 2 cores to handle things.

I think I'm following you now. So your point is just that having two HDD's to send I/O intensive stuff to is the big advantage here. In your case, RAID5 allows you to have high capacity with high redundancy; but your point in this discussion is having more than one route for I/O to go than just a main drive.

I know if I did a lot of DVD encoding, I would want to do the same. And perhaps I shall, as I have a 400GB drive I was going to use for main and an 80GB for other stuff

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

I am soooo glad I read your comment. You seem to be the exact same computer user as I am. I also have a 2800+ @ 2.2Ghz with 1Gb RAM, and I think I would be in the very same situation as you: dissapointed.

I think I'll keep my rig until M2, then. Good luck.

Originally posted by: linkinpark342
I myself notice a huge difference that i appreciate much. i went from a P4 2.4 to the +3800 and i'm very happy with the lack of "lag" between commands or something like that. I dunno, its more smooth in the sense that the os doesn't freeze up every time you hit a button or something like that.

Well... I think that was the improvement for jumping to the AMD64 plataform overall; maybe if you had a 3000+ before your X2 you'd feel the same as the OP.

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Do you think you could have played a game smoothly and burned a disc at the same time with the 2800+?

Yeah... quite easily. Burning CD's doesn't use more than 5% of the processor. I do it oftenly, playing WC3, Hitman: Contracts, AoM and... other games.

Now, say... you where making a full scan with your AV, and moving a 2gb file, while encoding a video, and ripping music, and checking a heavy flash web page, and playing Battlefield, and playing MP3 while watching a DVD... then... uhm... yeah, you could notice some improvement.

 

[forumposter32]

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

My comment about this is I'm enraged at the ignorance some people show when recommending dual core CPUs. The problem first is the availability of multi-threaded software. And, I read we'll only be seeing lots of multi-threaded software in 2 to 3 years. Only someone who doesn't know how to build a system or replace the motherboard and CPU should even consider a dual core right now. And the performance in UT2004 for the X2 3800+ at 136 fps doesn't impress me when a socket 754 3700+ (which you can now get at tigerdirect.com or .ca or newegg in combos that cost much less) gives you 158 fps.
That would give you a real speed boost from a 2800+.

All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.

What's so wrong about saving your money now and getting socket M2 later? Or even waiting for quad cores. Cripes, by the time we see enough multi-threaded software out there, quad cores will be out by then anyway. And we're talking only end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. Seems like far away but it's not. 2 and a half years. I bet you a socket 754 3700+ will give you enough performance for 2 and a half years especially with the Geforce 8 coming out next summer. Add 2 GB of RAM with fast timings and you're all set for smoking performance!

For those who feel like you're insulting their religion for not recommending dual cores, take a pill (or a large one if you need).

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: forumposter32


For those who feel like you're insulting their religion for not recommending dual cores, take a pill (or a large one if you need).

You should suggest an enema, too!!

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah... quite easily. Burning CD's doesn't use more than 5% of the processor.

I didn't say CD's, and I didn't ask you.

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6

Yeah... quite easily. Burning CD's doesn't use more than 5% of the processor.

I didn't say CD's, and I didn't ask you.

Funny.

 

[Hyperlite]

Originally posted by: forumposter32

Originally posted by: kasey01
After seeing all the posts about how smoother my computer would run with an AMD dual core processor, I decided to purchase the X2 3800+ to replace my socket 754 athlon 64 2800+ newcastle. I'm sure the X2 3800+ will encode video faster, but I haven't really noticed that much of a difference overall. I was expecting the difference to be a little more noticeable just from using my computer for everyday tasks. (i.e. surfing web, listening to music, playing CS Source, etc.). I guessed I expected to be a little more wowed. Any comments or suggestions?

My comment about this is I'm enraged at the ignorance some people show when recommending dual core CPUs. The problem first is the availability of multi-threaded software. And, I read we'll only be seeing lots of multi-threaded software in 2 to 3 years. Only someone who doesn't know how to build a system or replace the motherboard and CPU should even consider a dual core right now. And the performance in UT2004 for the X2 3800+ at 136 fps doesn't impress me when a socket 754 3700+ (which you can now get at tigerdirect.com or .ca or newegg in combos that cost much less) gives you 158 fps.
That would give you a real speed boost from a 2800+.

All the rest of that stuff about having orgasms while they're watching their machines multitask is just crap to me. If I thought getting an X2 would make me horny, I'd get one. But as far as best bang for the buck is concerned, it's not. And I don't recommend them.
What's so wrong about saving your money now and getting socket M2 later? Or even waiting for quad cores. Cripes, by the time we see enough multi-threaded software out there, quad cores will be out by then anyway. And we're talking only end of 2007 or beginning of 2008. Seems like far away but it's not. 2 and a half years. I bet you a socket 754 3700+ will give you enough performance for 2 and a half years especially with the Geforce 8 coming out next summer. Add 2 GB of RAM with fast timings and you're all set for smoking performance!

For those who feel like you're insulting their religion for not recommending dual cores, take a pill (or a large one if you need).

You, Sir, are a freak.

Further more, you obviously don't understand the purpose of a dual core processor. I apologize to the OP if he was recommended an X2 and will never be able to see the performance benefits while doing certian things. The majority of us here will absolutly not recommend a dual core processor if one is not willing to overclock and will not be doing things that will take advantage of the added parallel processing power. We do not recommend X2's because they exist. We will recommend them if they will meet a consumer's needs.

 

[kasey01]

Should I try to overclock my X2 3800+ taking into consideration the motherboard and RAM I have? Will I see noticeable gains? Do I need an aftermarket cooler to overclock?

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'd be more worried about your PSU than anything else if you plan to overclock. If you want, just see how high you can get it stable without raising vcore.

 

[kmmatney]

It sounds like you should definately overclock, to get better performance in single threaded apps at the very least. The Athlon X2 3800+ should be able to get to 2.4 GHz, same as the 4800+ X2. The benchmarks I've read show a significant performance gain.