Athlon 64 3800+ Vs Athlon 64 X2 4800

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies are
2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with these
CPU's?

"Victek" wrote in
:

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual
core Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant
performance increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual
frequencies are 2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have
experience with these CPU's?

I did this a year or 2 ago. IMHO, ALL Windoze systems (XP and newer)
should be dual core. I do know all my systems are dual core (even the
Sempron 2100! It makes windoze much more responsive, and when a program
goes wacky, you still have the second core to fix things with.

Also, more and more programs are multi core aware, letting you do twice
as much (as apposed to 2 things as fast).

I'm not sure what you are going to have to pay to get a 4800+. I bought
mine back when the price wasn't bad, and have never regretted it.


--
_______________________________________________
/ David Simpson \
| |
| http://www.nyx.net/~dsimpson |
|We got to go to the crappy town where I'm a hero.|
\_______________________________________________/

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:13:42 -0700, Victek wrote:

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies
are 2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with
these CPU's?

I upgraded from a 3200+ single core to a 3800+ X2 a while back. It was a
huge improvement for my systems.


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

On Mar 23, 9:13 pm, "Victek" wrote:
I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies are
2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with these
CPU's?


I upgraded one of my servers to an Athlon 64X2 5600+ and the
performance
has been outstanding! With a 64-bit OS (RHEL4) and 64-bit applications
like
Oracle 10g, it's amazing. I installed tomcat and, while it took my
office
computers 30 seconds to start, that puppy was up and running in about
3.5 seconds. YMMV.

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies
are
2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with these
CPU's?


I upgraded one of my servers to an Athlon 64X2 5600+ and the
performance
has been outstanding! With a 64-bit OS (RHEL4) and 64-bit applications
like
Oracle 10g, it's amazing. I installed tomcat and, while it took my
office
computers 30 seconds to start, that puppy was up and running in about
3.5 seconds. YMMV.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder if I
will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

"Victek" wrote in message
...

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies
are
2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with
these
CPU's?


I upgraded one of my servers to an Athlon 64X2 5600+ and the
performance
has been outstanding! With a 64-bit OS (RHEL4) and 64-bit applications
like
Oracle 10g, it's amazing. I installed tomcat and, while it took my
office
computers 30 seconds to start, that puppy was up and running in about
3.5 seconds. YMMV.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder if
I will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

You should not need to. I've changed CPU's memory and video cards with Vista
and had no issues.

I'm considering upgrading my single core Athlon 64 3800+ to a dual core
Athlon X2 4800. The 4800 in the name suggests a significant
performance
increase, but I wonder if there really is since the actual frequencies
are
2.4 Ghz and 2.5 Ghz respectively? Does anyone have experience with
these
CPU's?


I upgraded one of my servers to an Athlon 64X2 5600+ and the
performance
has been outstanding! With a 64-bit OS (RHEL4) and 64-bit applications
like
Oracle 10g, it's amazing. I installed tomcat and, while it took my
office
computers 30 seconds to start, that puppy was up and running in about
3.5 seconds. YMMV.

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder if
I will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

You should not need to. I've changed CPU's memory and video cards with
Vista and had no issues.
I believe you're correct that Vista will not require a repair to boot up,
but will it detect and support the second core? Have you checked that when
you've changed CPU's?

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:03:14 -0700, Victek wrote:

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder if
I will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

You should not need to. I've changed CPU's memory and video cards with
Vista and had no issues.
I believe you're correct that Vista will not require a repair to boot up,
but will it detect and support the second core? Have you checked that when
you've changed CPU's?

Well the answer is 'No, you won't have to reinstall'. With W2k you
would have to do a repair from the install CD but as far as I'm aware
you don't need to with either XP or Vista. Even if you do it will boot
but task manager will only show one CPU and a repair will fix it, but
as I said I don't think even that is necessary.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

"Rodney Pont" wrote in message
news:atcfzvasbuvgflfgrzfygqhx.kh3bas0.pminews@ouse .infohitsystems.ltd.uk...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:03:14 -0700, Victek wrote:

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder
if
I will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

You should not need to. I've changed CPU's memory and video cards with
Vista and had no issues.
I believe you're correct that Vista will not require a repair to boot up,
but will it detect and support the second core? Have you checked that
when
you've changed CPU's?

Well the answer is 'No, you won't have to reinstall'. With W2k you
would have to do a repair from the install CD but as far as I'm aware
you don't need to with either XP or Vista. Even if you do it will boot
but task manager will only show one CPU and a repair will fix it, but
as I said I don't think even that is necessary.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

If for some reason Vista boots and only detects one cpu core it is a simple
matter to have it redetect on boot up. The boot tab in system configuration
has a "boot up" option, click on "advanced" and you will see the option to
"detect HAL" Click it and close the applet out and reboot. Go back into
system config and check advanced options and it should read "2 CPU's"

Thanks to everyone who replied. I'm running 32 bit Vista and I wonder
if
I will need to reinstall if I switch the CPU to a dual core?

You should not need to. I've changed CPU's memory and video cards with
Vista and had no issues.
I believe you're correct that Vista will not require a repair to boot up,
but will it detect and support the second core? Have you checked that
when
you've changed CPU's?

Well the answer is 'No, you won't have to reinstall'. With W2k you
would have to do a repair from the install CD but as far as I'm aware
you don't need to with either XP or Vista. Even if you do it will boot
but task manager will only show one CPU and a repair will fix it, but
as I said I don't think even that is necessary.

--
Regards - Rodney Pont
The from address exists but is mostly dumped,
please send any emails to the address below
e-mail ngpsm4 (at) infohitsystems (dot) ltd (dot) uk

If for some reason Vista boots and only detects one cpu core it is a
simple matter to have it redetect on boot up. The boot tab in system
configuration has a "boot up" option, click on "advanced" and you will see
the option to "detect HAL" Click it and close the applet out and reboot.
Go back into system config and check advanced options and it should read
"2 CPU's"

Excellent - thanks!