|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: For your information (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
Hey thanks for the info and for taking the time to read, rate, and comment on this review.
Vic
|
Jan 10 '06
3:11 pm PST
|
|
For your information (Reply to this comment)
by dragon1
Intel P4 cpu's also have "Enhanced Virus Protection" only they call it "NX". Not being a Intel user and retired, I read a lot.
I have used nothing but AMD cpu's since late 80's for my homebuilts.
Michael L Hereid Sr
|
Jan 10 '06
1:28 pm PST
|
|
Re: Re: Benchmark Scores Updated (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
No I did not drop back... I actually had a good increase in performance and speed. I think I placed the scores in the wrong order in the review.
Vic
PS. I am kinda jealous of your 4400
|
Sep 29 '05
6:37 am PDT
|
|
Benchmark Scores Updated (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
Hey everyone,
I just updated the benchmark scores for this CPU. Please let me know what you think. Once again thank you for stopping by to read, rate, and comment.
Vic
|
Sep 10 '05
5:01 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chuckle.. (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
Thats some interesting info. I haven't tried water cooling yet. You said "home made:" maybe I should give it a try. Well I wanted to try it but did not have the time to put much thought into it. I am also planning to get a little wireless Internet server up and running soon, but not yet. I also want to put my HP OfficeJet 7310 on a wireless network also to get rid of all the cables that fills up my desk now.
Vic
|
Aug 24 '05
7:55 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Chuckle.. (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
Wow its amazing that you got yours to 3gigs. The highest I got was about 2.5 but wouldn't stay stable. So I ran it at 2.3 at 47 deg. I have overclocked my Athlon 4000 only 3% so far to see the changes and stability. I will keep increasing it step by step to monitor the changes. I mean, I spent so much on this and I don't want to loose it to overheating. I have the ThermalTake Silent Tower (HSF) but I don't think I will be able to keep the cpu cool for very long. Do you recommend any HSF that you think will keep the temp down a lot?
I sold my 2500 to my boss who really needed an upgrade from is old compaq. I built him a new system and I think he just fell in love... again.
Thank you for reading, rating, and all the info.
Vic
|
Aug 21 '05
1:22 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Chuckle.. (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
You guess it write Alex, I did overclock my 2500 . But not to 3000 , to 3200 . I got great performance out of it but then I got tired and wanted more speed. Hey thank you for reading, rating, and commenting. But what I meant in that sentence was that this AMD Athlon 64 4000 is noticably faster than the 2500 overclocked to 3200 .
Vic
|
Aug 18 '05
3:35 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
Wow great advice. I will look in to it right away. Thank you for all of this wonderful information. You have just cut my searching time down to zero. I will keep you posted on my findings.
Vic
|
Aug 18 '05
12:33 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by paulphoto,  in Computer Hardware
I believe there are a few linux benchmark software available. You may want to look at these sites, see if they are of any interest to you:
http://www.unix.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=49
http://www.sapdb.org/7.4/sap_db_downloads.htm
I personally have not tried them. So please take this as-is.
Several years ago, benchmark has stirred up quite a heat between Linux and Windows server platform, a result conducted by Mindcraft.
For a CPU test/benchmark, I believe a straightforward way to see how well the CPU performs on Linux is to recompile a Linux kernel. The test is albeit similar to the process that Windows-based software application stresses the CPU for Whetstone or Dhrystone scores, for floating-point or integer. The procedure for recompiling the kernel maybe a bit complicated at first, but I believe the process is more direct since it requires no third-party software to waste CPU time and the result is even more accurate to compare between different CPUs.
I personally do not incline too much towards benchmarks; I use them for indicative only. As such, I often feel that my benchmark results are for comparing apple to orange (even when performing on the same operating system).
Having used both Linux and Windows side by side, I realize the value and importance of each of them; I need them both!
I believe the Athlon 64 4000+ is a great CPU under Linux environment.
Since you have WinXP 64-bit beta (and this awesome 64-bit CPU), you may want to try testing the CPU's arithmetic capabilities using ScienceMark software (64-bit), downloadable here:
http://www.sciencemark.org/frame.php?frame=40
You can probably test it using ScienceMark 32-bit also...might be interesting to see how well each behaves, at least just for the fun of it.
Good luck, and have fun with this wonderful CPU!
|
Aug 18 '05
12:13 pm PDT
|
|
Re: ... (Reply to this comment)
by vchand
I totally agree with you on that. There should be a limit to how long one can wait. I mean I was doing the same thing with this. I waited so long for the price to go down, but it never did so I just got tired of waiting and went ahead and purchased it. Ah well... Whats done is done... can't change it.
Well, the benchmark scores I provided were from my Windows XP Pro 32-Bit OS. I did not get a chance to try out the beta version of Windows XP 64-Bit yet. I will post those benchmarks as well. I am trying to find a software for my Linux OS to benchmark my system. Haven't had any luck yet. Or maybe I am no looking too well (I am new to Linux). I would suspect that the scores would be a little different between different Operating Systems, but just have to see for myself.
Also, you mentioned this CPU has an FSB (Front-side Bus) of 2000MHz. Is it actually 1000MHz? I believe the Athlon 64 has a point-to-point hyper-transport link at 1000MHz (1Ghz), which is a toss-coin term "FSB". But since it's got its own local dual-channel memory controller, this link can become 2x1000MHz, with a combined of a dual-channel memory bus supporting 128-bit with the compatible RAM cards. I think its base hypertransport is 1000MHz. Compared to Intel's 800MHz FSB, Athlon 64's 1000MHz FSB can boast quite an incredible high bandwidth!
Yes you are right, I meant 1000MHz x 2. I should have clarified that.
This also leads to my next question about the RAM that you initially had problem with. I believe this CPU probably requires a PC3200 DDR400. Was it the one you had problem with?
Yes, I had just transfered my PC2100 memory modules from my old system to this. I new it required PC3200 but did not pay too much attention to it when I was upgrading. I took out the PC2100 and replaced them with some new PC3200 and the system works fine.
A very nice review, and an awesome CPU!
Indeed it is an awesome CPU; I think this CPU will keep me from upgrading, for a little while anyways...
BTW, thank you for reading, rating, and commenting.
Vic
|
Aug 18 '05
7:57 am PDT
|
|
... (Reply to this comment)
by paulphoto, in Computer Hardware
When I was in college in the early 90's, our department had a desktop PC with Pentium 286 -- it was incredibly fast! I said to my colleagues and to my professors that I wanted to get a set for my own use at home. They told me to wait for the 386 which should arrive soon. When it finally came out, I decided to wait for the 486. In the end, I never did get my dream desktop PC; and more than 4 years flashed by. It had worked out OK, since I always could use my school PCs in our department. I guess my point is there should be a limit on how you (or I) wait for a new technology to come; because in the end, technology will not pause for me to enjoy it. In my case, I guess did not really regret not getting the Pentium 286, 386 or 486 compared the current processors. Early this year, I bought an LCD monitor for $350. About two months later, it came down to $299. But within those two months I have enjoyed using it very much. I suppose if you had waited a little longer, another powerful high-end Athlon 64 came out...and you would want it...
A couple of questions. Your benchmark scores, were they conducted on WinXP 32-bit or 64-bit? With a 64-bit CPU, I believe benchmark scores will be much different than that done on a 32-bit operating system, as I have recently discovered that on my system with a 64-bit CPU.
Also, you mentioned this CPU has an FSB (Front-side Bus) of 2000MHz. Is it actually 1000MHz? I believe the Athlon 64 has a point-to-point hyper-transport link at 1000MHz (1Ghz), which is a toss-coin term "FSB". But since it's got its own local dual-channel memory controller, this link can become 2x1000MHz, with a combined of a dual-channel memory bus supporting 128-bit with the compatible RAM cards. I think its base hypertransport is 1000MHz. Compared to Intel's 800MHz FSB, Athlon 64's 1000MHz FSB can boast quite an incredible high bandwidth!
This also leads to my next question about the RAM that you initially had problem with. I believe this CPU probably requires a PC3200 DDR400. Was it the one you had problem with?
A very nice review, and an awesome CPU!
|
Aug 17 '05
3:16 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
