64x2 6000

[tony pac]

I have Dell E521 which has a AMD 64x 2 5000 ,would that be able to use AMD
64x 2 6000,I know mobo has socket AM2,and would that be a significant
performance gain? Thanks

 

[Wes Newell]

I have Dell E521 which has a AMD 64x 2 5000 ,would that be able to use AMD
64x 2 6000,I know mobo has socket AM2,and would that be a significant
performance gain? Thanks

Only about a 15% CPU performance gain from 2.6Ghz to 3.0GHz. You can
probably get about the same by overclocking the CPU you have now. Setting
your FSB to 233 would give you 3.03GHZ with your current CPU.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Only about a 15% CPU performance gain from 2.6Ghz to 3.0GHz. You can
probably get about the same by overclocking the CPU you have now.
Setting your FSB to 233 would give you 3.03GHZ with your current CPU.

It's a Dell, I'm pretty sure they don't have any overclocking capability.
Replacing the X2 5000 with an X2 6000 is probably doable, I'd check the
Dell Website to see if they offer the X2 6000 in that model, if they do
then you know that the board can handle it. However I wouldn't bother,
15% isn't enough of a difference to be worth doing anything.

How much RAM do you have?, if you have less than 2G you'll want to add
more. If you have 2G or more then you won't see any difference unless you
use some particularly memory hungry applications.

 

[dave]

I currently am using a 3500+ AM2 X1. What kind of increase would I get
upgrading to a 4000 X2?

Thanks.
Dave Feustel

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

I currently am using a 3500+ AM2 X1. What kind of increase would I get
upgrading to a 4000 X2?

Thanks.
Dave Feustel

It depends on your usage. The 3500+ is 2.2GHz with a 1/2M cache. The X2
4000+ is 2GHz with dual cores with 1M caches. On most single threaded
applications it would be a wash. There are a few very cache sensitive
programs that can run almost twice as fast with the bigger cache, but
those are the exception, most programs will only run a little faster with
the bigger cache, but that would be offset by the lower clock speed.
Having dual cores nearly doubles the throughput of the system but you'll
only see that if you are running multiple CPU intensive applications at
the same time or if you are running multithreaded applications. If I were
you I'd either do nothing or get an X2 5600 (I'd avoid the 6000 because
it consumes 125W, the 5600 is only 89W), the 4000 is to small a step to
bother with unless you can take advantage of the second core. There is a
big round of price cuts due in the next few days, you should wait a
couple of weeks before doing anything so they new prices have a chance to
show up in the channel.

 

[dave]

It depends on your usage. The 3500+ is 2.2GHz with a 1/2M cache. The X2
4000+ is 2GHz with dual cores with 1M caches. On most single threaded
applications it would be a wash. There are a few very cache sensitive
programs that can run almost twice as fast with the bigger cache, but
those are the exception, most programs will only run a little faster with
the bigger cache, but that would be offset by the lower clock speed.
Having dual cores nearly doubles the throughput of the system but you'll
only see that if you are running multiple CPU intensive applications at
the same time or if you are running multithreaded applications. If I were
you I'd either do nothing or get an X2 5600 (I'd avoid the 6000 because
it consumes 125W, the 5600 is only 89W), the 4000 is to small a step to
bother with unless you can take advantage of the second core. There is a
big round of price cuts due in the next few days, you should wait a
couple of weeks before doing anything so they new prices have a chance to
show up in the channel.

I run 64-bit OpenBSD. I would switch to smp version of 64-bit OpenBSD with an
X2 chip. I run KDE Konqueror and Mplayer 24-7, plus tin and email and sometimes
big makes (Trolltech Qt, etc) that can take several hours. I will run more of
those big makes when I have more cpu horsepower. I have been waiting for the
price decreases. I have also been thinking about waiting for 2- or 4-core
Barcelona cpus too.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

I run 64-bit OpenBSD. I would switch to smp version of 64-bit OpenBSD
with an X2 chip. I run KDE Konqueror and Mplayer 24-7, plus tin and
email and sometimes big makes (Trolltech Qt, etc) that can take several
hours. I will run more of those big makes when I have more cpu
horsepower. I have been waiting for the price decreases. I have also
been thinking about waiting for 2- or 4-core Barcelona cpus too.

If your makes are taking hours then an upgrade to a dual core is
absolutely worth it, make -j 2 will cut the time in half.

 

[dave]

If your makes are taking hours then an upgrade to a dual core is
absolutely worth it, make -j 2 will cut the time in half.

Qt and KDE take the longest and I've never actually succeeded in building KDE.
I gave up on KDE because it seemed to be just too much for my system.
Building MPI takes quite a bit of time, but it succeeds.
Rebuilding the OpenBSD kernel, libraries, and userland takes a fair amount
of time too.

 

[Wes Newell]

Fry's has the X2 6000+ with MB on sale for $229 til Tuesday here. Heck of
a deal I guess.

http://shopping.dallasnews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=2519&adid=4369364&subid=15739445

 

[David]

I currently am using a 3500+ AM2 X1. What kind of increase would I get
upgrading to a 4000 X2?

The AMD 64 x2 4000+ can be almost twice as quick as a the older AMD Athlon
3500+, depending on what software you are running. See,
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php

David

 

[dave]

The AMD 64 x2 4000+ can be almost twice as quick as a the older AMD Athlon
3500+, depending on what software you are running. See,
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php

I looked at the cpu benchmark, which is for Windows platforms.
I'm running 64-bit OpenBSD, so I have to be able to compile source for any program I
want to run on my computer.

But an interesting site nontheless. Thanks for the pointer.

Dave

 

[root]

Fry's has the X2 6000+ with MB on sale for $229 til Tuesday here. Heck of
a deal I guess.

http://shopping.dallasnews.com/ROP/ads.aspx?advid=2519&adid=4369364&\

subid=15739445

I suspect that Fry's is trying to clear out all their ECS mobos, not the
6000+ chips.

This might be a good deal IF the 6000+ is worth $229 alone. Because, if
I bought one of these combos, I would use another mainboard; anything else
but ECS.

At work, we have a 32-processor cluster. It once had ECS boards in the
boxes too. The cluster ran simulations for days, or at least, they TRIED
TO. The boxes wouldn't run for more than 4-6 hours without crashing
randomly. I started swapping parts out on one system [CPU, 3x512M memory,
P/S, HDD] with no love. Finally, I tried an Asus mainboard... BINGO!
stable as a rock. Eventually, all 32 were replaced likewise. The ECS
boards had some unreliable components onboard. I suspect that is why
their boards are among the cheapest pricewise too. Moral here is: save
yourself headaches and use another vendors mobo.

 

[Wes Newell]

subid=15739445

I suspect that Fry's is trying to clear out all their ECS mobos, not the
6000+ chips.

This might be a good deal IF the 6000+ is worth $229 alone. Because, if
I bought one of these combos, I would use another mainboard; anything else
but ECS.

You can't buy a 6000+ for $229. Maybe in a feew more months, but before
the 9th when AMD lowered the price a bunch, thye were selling for about
$400.

At work, we have a 32-processor cluster. It once had ECS boards in the
boxes too. The cluster ran simulations for days, or at least, they
TRIED TO. The boxes wouldn't run for more than 4-6 hours without
crashing randomly. I started swapping parts out on one system [CPU,
3x512M memory, P/S, HDD] with no love. Finally, I tried an Asus
mainboard... BINGO! stable as a rock. Eventually, all 32 were replaced
likewise. The ECS boards had some unreliable components onboard. I
suspect that is why their boards are among the cheapest pricewise too.
Moral here is: save yourself headaches and use another vendors mobo.

I've used 100's of MB's. ECS's failure rates are no higher than any other
board manufacturer. The reason they are cheap is because they sell a great
volume and usually just have basic boards with nothing fancy. They used
to OEM many boards. Wouldn't surprise me if they made MB's for Asus at one
time. ECS made the K7S5A and it was one of the most popular boards ever
made. I used one in my machine at work back when it first came out around
2001. I quit in 2002, but they are still using that same machine today.
And I know this because my brother is now using it.
I've just gave my other brother an ECS 755-A2 that's been running for a
couple of years, and I've got an ECS Nforce3-A board I've been using for
about a year. They are all solid boards. I've used about every board brand
ever made and there isn't much if any quality difference in any of them.

 

[Ed]

boards had some unreliable components onboard. I suspect that is why
their boards are among the cheapest pricewise too. Moral here is: save
yourself headaches and use another vendors mobo.

Totally agree, ECS is one the worst boards you can buy, anyone who is
serious about stability knows to just stay away from them, they are more
trouble then they are worth, save a few dollars now and pay dearly
later!

Our favorite brand is Asus, they just run and keep on running, you get
what you pay for.

Ed