Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with AMD

Old computer upgrade...

mzurer — Mon, 18 May 2009 18:17:40 -0800

Decrepit PC RAM question - I am trying to figure out what kind of SDRAM is supported by my K7VZA Rev 1.0 motherboard. The manual states:
The mainboard accommodates PC 100/133 SDRAM (Synchronous DRAM) or VCM (Virtual Channel Memory) up to 1.5 GB using three 3.3V unbuffered DIMM modules. The mainboard attains the highest reliability by supporting ECC (Error Checking and Correction) memory protection, enabling the mainboard to achieve superior data integrity and fault tolerance with respect to memory errors while running applications.

-and later-

Install the Memory Modules
For this mainboard, you must use 168-pin 3.3V non-buffered Dual In-line Memory Modules (DIMMs). The memory chips must be standard or registered SDRAM (Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory).

---

So that sounds like I can use ECC registered SDRAM DIMMS, right? For whatever reason, those are actually pretty cheap on eBay. But Crucial points me toward non-ecc, non-registered, which are not substantially more expensive but more than I want to spend on this dinosaur.

Is it possible the ECC is only for onboard cache and not installed RAM? There is some BIOS setting for RAM ECC on POST, so I actually think it does support it.

And if it doesn't really support registered RAM in all configurations, then the DIMMS won't work at all, right?

For bonus, what's the distinction between high and low-density for PC133 SDRAM? And will high density work? Crucial said something about max module being 256, but the sellers on eBay tend to just say low or high not Nx256 or anything...

QL-60? T3200? Laptop processors make no sense!

antifuse — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:36:08 -0800

Yet another laptop question - somebody please explain the difference between the processors for me? So, my current laptop (a Dell Inspiron 700m) is reaching its last legs, and I'm looking to get a new one. I used to stay up to speed on all the latest processor and video card news, but since I stopped building my own desktops, I've seriously fallen out of the loop. I've tried searching extensively here on AskMe, as well as on Google, and had little luck trying to figure things out.

What I've found is that the main makers have finally given up on the megahertz myth, which is good, but also makes it impossible for me to determine even superficially which processors are better - for example, Intel now has dual core and core2 duo processors? What's the difference? I can't tell how a T3200 processor compares to a P8400 processor. And then AMD has the X2 QL-60, TK-57, and TL-60... Is Turion better than Athlon? It's all a jumble. Really, the best I can hope for is to base it on price... But even then it might be hit or miss.

As for my needs - I'm not planning any hardcore gaming or 3d modeling work, though I'd love to be ABLE to play some of the more recent games... But mostly, I do a lot of photo editing (Photoshop CS3 and Bibble Pro for RAW conversion), and I occasionally do some video conversion (from Divx to MP4 for viewing on my iPod) and I'd appreciate processing power that can handle that. The reason I'm upgrading my laptop is that I've noticed it can't really deal very well with RAW conversions for my D300, and audio is very often out of sync when doing the video conversions.

I'm not overly concerned with power consumption of the processor - I'm happy if that's a part of the processor that I pick, but mostly I just don't want it to set my lap on fire when I'm using it.

As a bonus, anybody who can give me a quick rundown of the various mobile video chipsets, I'd greatly appreciate that as well. :)

AMD vs Intel

edbyford — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:28:28 -0800

AMD or Intel? (2008 Edition) I'm about to buy a new computer for my parents (so web browsing, photo viewing and editing, movies sometimes and old games) so not high power, but able to multitask well and last them a good few years.

I've decided I want to go the Ubuntu/XP dual boot method.

Anyway, I've decided I like everything about the components in these two systems, but it's been ages since I asked this question: should I go AMD or Intel?

Does the fact that it is an Athlon 64 mean that I will have to run a 64 bit OS and programs on it? For my 'rents, I basically need the most compatible CPU, no?

Thanks in advance
Ed

Building a system on the new AMD 780G chipset....video question...

joshgray — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:47:17 -0800

I’m building my first desktop system in many many years now and getting back up to speed on all the hot topics is taking a while. I’m leaning towards getting the GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H which is based on the 780G northbridge so it has the integrated graphics with the hybrid crossfire feature (and also is miniATX size and has audio optical out, HDMI…). Review here and here continued...
My question is, if I add in one of the $50 low end radeon video cards to utilize the hybrid crossfire, and the performance in gaming is not really what I want – is there anything preventing me from nixing integrated graphics entirely and putting in one of the mid-level cards in the ~$200 range from a performance standpoint? Not totally understanding the details of the NB and SB, and cache and piplines.......i just don’t want to hurt myself by not looking at other boards.

I’m building this machine to be both a home theatre pc able to play bluray, as well as able games at playable framerates with pretty decent settings.

The cpu I’m looking at is either going to be the new 4850e (low power, but only 2.2ghz) or whichever 65w I can find a good deal on in something like 5200 2.7ghz

What is slowing my connection speed?

jaronson — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 12:00:17 -0800

I have a machine running Windows 98 SE on a cable internet connection. Why am I recently getting connection speeds of 91 kbps (or less!)? (Measured at CNET's Bandwidth Meter) This is an old(!) Compaq MV520 running an AMD-K6 (I think). Would a deteriorating hard drive or processor affect connection speeds?

6400 "Black Edition" the end of the line?

nervestaple — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 15:32:30 -0800

I have a Dell Inspiron 531 desktop that came with an Athlon X2 64 5600+ processor. I have heard that the last in this line of processors (and the last socket AM2) will be the 6400 - did I lock myself into a dead-end CPU upgrade path? Or will I be able to upgrade in the future to AMD's next line of processors, whatever it is?

Burn baby!

zackola — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:43:48 -0800

Will I fry this chip? Recently installed a Athlon X2 4200 to replace an older socket 939 single core Athlon. What is a good operating temperature for it? I'm not looking for maximums, that is easy to find. I want to know what is safe/good. At rest temp in Windows XP is around 46C. Turn on the UT3 beta demo and it will get closer to 60C. Running Prime95 for 10 minutes or so heats it up to 65C. Throughout this, everything has seemed stable. I'm using SpeedFan 4.33 for reporting the temps and not overclocking anything. My motherboard is a Asus A8N-E if it makes a difference. Stock heatsink/cooler and a fairly airy case. Thanks for any opinions!

How do I run an XP3200+ at its rated speed?!

6am — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:27:44 -0800

How do I run my AMD Athlon XP 3200+ at the actual rated speed and not have it overheat ridiculously? I've had this CPU for a few years now - but have been having severe issues in running it reliably at the speeds it's rated to run at. It overheats like a mother, and so I've resorted to running it at 2500+ speed, which it's very stable at.

Although I don't have the model number to hand, I have a very decent and quiet socket A cooler which I simply cannot get it to stay cool with at 3200 speed. I have uninstalled, cleaned and reinstalled it several times.

Initially I wondered if I had been sold a slower CPU, but have checked the label - it IS a 3200 as far as I can tell, and I am not overloading the die with paste either - just a consistent, light, all-over coating.

I have tried two different CPU coolers - I initially had a Thermaltake Volcano which was OK, no problems, but the sound it made was that of a Volcano - and I use this PC to write music. So I really could do without having a windtunnel in the room.

My biggest issue is that having an older system, I don't have the four point mounting brackets around the Heatsink. If I did, I would just go out and buy a Big Typhoon and have done with it. At this point, I may just go buy another Volcano.

Do you have any suggestions for quiet (or not so quiet, fuck it), still (or ebay) purchaseable, non-4 point mounted Heatsink and fan combos that would keep it cool, or other general advice that could help me "upgrade"?

Luvyaluvyaluvya.

Which CPU to extend the life of a AMD 939 Socket Motherboard?

zaphod — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 22:52:30 -0800

Upgrading AMD Processor for 939 motherboard. Athlon 64 X2 4200+ or Opteron 170? I have a GIGABYTE GA-K8NXP-SLI 939 socket motherboard with a AMD Athlon 64 3200+ processor. This is a half decent rig that I assembled myself a few years ago. AMD stopped making processors for the 939 socket so the choice available to upgrade to is limited.

Based on what the motherboard supports, and what is available in the stores my options appear to be either:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ for $87
AMD Opteron 170 Denmark 2.0GHz for $117.
Both of which are dual-core processor. My existing processor is a AMD64 3200+ single core Venice 2.0Ghz.

The Opteron has 1MB L2 cache versus 512KB for the 4200+ which I think gives the Opteron the edge. And the Opteron comes in a retail kit with fan+heatsink, while the 4200+ is an OEM without a fan. However, the 4200+ is margially faster at 2.2GHz versus 2.0Ghz.

Will I notice a difference over my old 3200+ running at 2.0GHz if I get the Opteron? Or should I get the 4200+ and reuse my existing fan+heatsink, or purchase a new fan+heatsink (which will increase the price)?

What do you think and why?

Help me keep my motherboard running (Debian) for another year. :)

64-bit n00b, doesn't want to be a b00b.

bartleby — Thu, 03 May 2007 09:48:32 -0800

Getting new laptop with x64 processor...should I get 32-bit Vista, or 64-bit? Does it matter? How about 64-bit XP? New laptop purchase candidate has AMDx64 processor.
But my only knowledge of 64-bit computing is that it seems to provoke headaches.

I’ve gone through the 64-bit threads here, but many of them are a year or more old, so I don’t know if the situation has improved.. I wouldn’t bother asking, but considering that my last 3 computer purchases were basically free (recycling –No! Upgrading!- older machines to Linux), I’m fretting over spending $$$ on the wrong thing.

It’s just a ‘very-portable’ home/biz laptop that’s maxed out at 2gb RAM. So no bonuses for 64-bit’s higher RAM ceiling. Not for gaming, no overclocked CAD/video editing workstation, etc. Simply wanted a small notebook with Vista. It just so happened that the form factor I liked comes with a 64-bit processor.

Okay, you early adopters who might have gone through this already, a couple questions:

1) This will be my first Vista machine AND my first x64 processor. Will I have more or less problems with running a 64-bit OS on a 64 bit processor than I would running 32-bit version of the same OS on the same machine? Would I even notice any gain from x64, given that I’m only on 2gb RAM anyway? Does the x86 emulation or whatever lets it run in 32-bit mode suck and slow things down? Trying to pick which flavor of Vista will run smoother…

2) I ask because I would like to get Vista Ultimate, but the OEM for this only offers it in 64-bit, even though their Premium & Business offerings are 32-bit. I need to join a domain, so it’s Business at the least; but I am also interested in the Media Center stuff in Ultimate. If I’m stuck with a crap 64-bit Ultimate or a functioning 32-bit Business, I’m going to have to go with Business. No difference? Ultimate. Who owns either or both and can tell me about it?

3) Sort of eliminating the above question; if anyone has an OEM Vista Ultimate DVD: did it come with both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions on it, like I hear that the retail version does? If so, then we’re done: I’ll have the option to try both. for what works better. If not, repeat question 1.

4) I’m going to set up this machine with an XP partition to boot from for the times when Vista isn’t my friend. And I just so happen to have an unused XP Pro 64bit install package lying around doing nothing but being shrinkwrapped & legit. (I ended up with this as a gift from someone who tried XPx64 on a few machines in 2005 and gave up in tears.) “Why not save a couple hundred dollars and use it instead of buying XP again”, I say to myself “- they must have improved it since it came out”. But maybe it still sucks? Is XP x64 going to give me a whole other set of headaches, making it worth going out and buying a retail XP 32-bit copy for my dual-booting to safety needs? Expensive!

5) Bonus Question: Who was Casper the Ghost before he died?

Thanks for all your help, everybuggy.

Energy efficient microprocessors for PCs?

nyterrant — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:00:31 -0800

What are the most energy-efficient microprocessors currently available in mass-market PCs/laptops? I would like to know the names of the most energy-efficient microprocessors currently available (either as a standard feature or as an optional upgrade). For the time being, I'm only interested in processors available to consumers through the mass market, and not in processors that could theoretically be used in custom boxes.

Why so many interrupts.

SpecialK — Sat, 23 Sep 2006 21:01:09 -0800

I'm seeing a large number of interrupts on one processor of an AMD Opteron SMP system. Is this normal? It seems excessive to have 2000 interrupts on Proc 0 of an AMD SMP system. The system is built with 2x Opteron 270 (Italy core) dual core chips, for a total of four cores.

Here's the output of mpstat -P ALL:



09:49:54 PM  CPU   %user   %nice %system %iowait    %irq   %soft   %idle    intr/s

09:49:54 PM  all   85.58    0.00   12.53    0.08    0.07    1.17    0.57   4025.49

09:49:54 PM    0   87.05    0.00    8.37    0.04    0.24    3.71    0.59   2969.66

09:49:54 PM    1   82.22    0.00   16.79    0.03    0.01    0.31    0.64     10.81

09:49:54 PM    2   86.44    0.00   12.55    0.08    0.01    0.33    0.59    520.02

09:49:54 PM    3   86.61    0.00   12.41    0.16    0.01    0.33    0.47    525.01

The far right column is interrupts per second. I'm spending far too many proc cycles on interrupt handling for my taste.
The server new, it's been running excessively loaded all day, and I'm getting a number of segfaults on the standard distro RPM build of Apache. I'm wondering if I might've gotten a bum proc, because I've never seen Apache segfault continuously before. Ideas?

Where to find benchmarks between Core 2 Duo and Turion 64 X2?

EvilKenji — Sun, 20 Aug 2006 07:50:01 -0800

Where can i find benchmarks between AMD Turion 64 X2 and the Intel Core duo / Core 2 duo? The Intel Core 2 Duo is now a desktop processor as well; I am mostly interested in benchmarks for laptops. I found benchmarks for the Core duo vs Core 2 duo, but benchmarks with any of the Turion series are rare. I'm mostly interested in 3d performance and gaming, as well as battery life as a secondary interest.

I understand that intel has a near monopoly on the laptop market and because of this websites like tomshardware barely mention the Turion, let alone benchmark it. I've been googling like mad, but i've only been finding benchmarks for the X2's predecessor. Please help me find benchmarks between the Core duo and the Turion 64 X2.

AMD or Intel, Now or later?

tdreyer1 — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:16:46 -0800

I'm trying to choose a new processor, and don't know which one to buy. I am currently in the process of building a new computer for myself, and I'd like it to be my 'Dream Computer.' Pretty much I want to waste a lot of my hard earned money and make a really good computer. I've had enough experiance and can figure everything out, except the processors. I want a very fast chip (the faster the better) for gaming and video editing (more gaming), but I don't know enough about the architecture to be comfortable with picking one myself. Now, to boil it down to what I'm looking for: what is AMD's best chip, Intel's best chip, and which is better? Also, I hear that Intel is coming out with a new desktop chip soon. Should I wait for it, or buy a 'top of the line' right now? If you want, I also need a motherboard to go with it, so any suggestions would definately be appriciated. My end goal with this computer is to have it cost no more than $3000. Thanks!

Help me navigate the mess of computer processor names.

mathowie — Tue, 28 Feb 2006 11:16:14 -0800

I'm somewhat of a professional computer guy but even I am totally mystified by the current state of Intel and AMD processors. Can someone hip to the latest explain why chips are suddenly only going 1.8Ghz again, which chips from Intel are powerful enough for HD playback, and what, if any, good a 64 bit processor does for today? I was helping a friend go computer shopping the other day and I was blown away by the mess of chip names, speeds, and prices.

Pentium chips were easy -- you just picked the fastest Ghz and highest numbered chip (like a P4, 3.5Ghz). Now I see "core duos" and all sorts of weird number schemes that serve as names and Intel's entire chip line is a mystery. AMD's is pretty much the same.

I thought processor speeds were breaking 3Ghz well over a year ago? Why when I shop for a ~$1k PC, the chip is only a 1.8Ghz? Some of the AMD stuff is 64bit, but there's not 64bit WinXP right? Is there any benefit today?

Are the core duos really like having a virtual second processor of equal speed? If I see a core duo 2Ghz chip, is that supposed to act like 2x2Ghz chips to the OS?

Finally, what if I want to decode 1080i HD video content on a PC. What's the minimum Intel chip I'd need? Do any of the new intel-based Macs make the grade?

I ask that last one because my old 3200XP AMD chip can only do 480p, and chokes on 720p or 1080i. My 2Ghz G5 iMac can do 720p, but not 1080i. I was hoping my next mac or PC was capable of 1080i playback.

Can AMD Motherboard be powered by G3 powersupply?

Napierzaza — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 08:51:54 -0800

Here's a technical question. Will this motherboard work with a G3 (Mac) power supply? Gigabyte GA-6VTXD Also in the motherboard is an AMD Athlon 900Mhz. Is that fast? What's the comparison to Intel chips? I've never really understood the conversion. I thought it would be neat to use an old, unwanted G3 case for something like this. Also will a 900MHz AMD chip make a good Debian computer?

Looking for a new AMD motherboard with good Linux support.

odinsdream — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 19:23:15 -0800

Please recommend a motherboard for an AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor that is completely supported by Linux. I recently purchased an MSI RS482M4/RX480M4 Series motherboard and a new AMD chip. Unfortunately, I didn't do my research well enough, and I'm having a difficult time getting Linux to recognize the onboard USB and Realtek NIC.

I could spend weeks working on fixing this problem by researching the intricacies of the board, but honestly, I'm not that attached - so what I'd like are some personal recommendations for boards that support this processor (and the RAM) that have excellent support from the Linux community for any onboard chipsets they include.

I'd like the board to have TV-Out with onboard video, and at least two free PCI slots. If there's an online resource for picking out such a board, that would be wonderful.

AMD or Intel?

b1tr0t — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:40:48 -0800

To get the best performance per dollar, do I want an Intel Pentium D or an AMD Athlon 64 X2 for my new DB+Compute server? I am contemplating building a machine for a project that involves numerical computations on large data sets. The code is written in perl, the database is MySQL, and the whole thing runs on Linux. The current code isn't parallel aware, but it would be trivial to divide the data set in half, and run two compute processes (or more), so I think a dual core CPU will get me more cycles per dollar.

Nearly all of the benchmark sites are geared towards gamers, photoshop and video users. I don't care about any of these things, so the results don't help me much.

If I get an AMD, it would be the Athlon 4400+, which is the first X2 CPU that has dual 1MB cache. I can't tell if an Intel 840 EE is comparable to the 4400+, or an 820. Obviously, if the 840 EE is on par with the 4400+, then the AMD part is the best value. I'm tempted to get an Intel 820 or 830, but would prefer not to get locked into a series of much slower processors.

My code isn't 64-bit aware, nor do I need more than 4GB RAM, so Intel's allegedly poor implementation of AMD64 shouldn't be a problem, nor should AMD's superior instruction set be an advantage.

Is my CPU dead?

DyRE — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:38:16 -0800

While in the middle of doing my taxes the other day, my monitor went to displaying a weird character over and over over the entire screen. The computer wouldn't respond at all, so I shut it off manually via the power switch on the back. Since then, whenever I've attempted to start it up, the fans come on, the hard drive clicks a couple times, as usual, and then nothing. The fans keep whirring but there's no beep, no usual startup process, and nothing ever gets displayed to the monitor. Now, I'm actually quite sure the video card is dead. The damned cooling fan fell off it. What I'm wondering is CPU dead as well and is the motherboard okay? I would think the computer would at least try to boot up, even without a working video card. I feel kinda silly asking because I used to know my way around this kind of stuff but have become rusty over the past few years. I just want to know the CPU is actually kaput before buying another one or if there's perhaps something I've missed. I realise this might be kinda vague, so if any more details are required, let me know.

The CPU is (was?) an AMD Athlon XP 2700+. The motherboard is a Chaintech Apogee 7VJL Deluxe. The video card was a nVIDIA GeForce 4 Ti 4400.

Are AMD CPUs prone to overheating?

knave — Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:45:02 -0800

Are AMD CPUs prone to overheating? I have had one in the past (Athlon XP 2000+) whose temperature was uncontrollable, until it finally died. Now I have one (AMD XP 2600+ Barton) that is hitting 88C according to MBM5 (CPU diode temp). The computer shut down earlier today, probably because it has a thermal sensor that kills it before 90C, which is the temperature AMD claims will kill their CPUs.

I have not overclocked it. This computer is 2 years old and has worked fine the whole time. Using the stock heat sink and fan. What should I do?

Great CPU, or the greatest cpu?

grabbingsand — Tue, 04 May 2004 10:49:31 -0800

AMD or Intel? I'm calling on the collective to abandon corporate loyalties and reveal unto me a true assessment. Even the mighty Tom has no clear answer. For the home-user who wants to avoid obsolescence for the next 18 months, which of these two companies' processing products offers the best bang for my buck? Or more specifically, for my $180 or less? [MI] I need to upgrade. I know that only so much of my current system is salvageable (the GeForce 4 5200 video card is new, the CD-RW can be re-used, possibly the harddrive as a secondary), so this means a new case, new primary harddrive, new motherboard, and a new processor. I've been researching for months as I've been saving my nickels and dimes. My head is spinning with cache sizes and front-side busses. "Intel has a higher running speed, but AMD is more efficient and therefore faster." AAAAAH.....!!!

I'm making my purchase in about two or three weeks. My budget is about $180 for the CPU, though I'd like to pay less. Any assistance will be appreciated.