destroyah3034

Was just checking. Thanks for the quick reply.

Just wondering about the above. Any input would be appreciated.

Hello there insideout, Sorry about the huge delay in replying, just the instant message for the new post was barely received today on the 22nd. Anyways about your questions: 1st: About the usage of the CPU being 100%, it depends on what your running at that time, considering that the proc is dual core you should see on task manager, on the performance screen two cpu meters and two cpu graphs, not just one, otherwise your cpu or cpu driver is not installed correctly. 2nd: Depending on how many programs are running in the background will determine how many processes are displayed on the processes screen of task manager. I think that a clean install of XP PRO SP2 usually has a normal range of 16-30+ish, (really depends on what options you have installed); once you install software onto your system that number may grow and may slow down your system a bit, depending on what the program is doing. 3rd: Low latency situations? It just means applications that benefit from getting as much information from point A to point B in as little time as is possible. Hence, if you look at ram latency, I get a latency of 41 nanoseconds in PC Wizard 2006, you can find this program at www.cpuid.org. Anyways, the lower the latency, the quicker your proc, whether it be AMD or Intel, will get the data it needs to run whatever it is your running. That's why games usually run better on AMD procs by an order of almost 10-15% or more depending on the game or other factors which are too numerous to list. Note: The value in ns above was benched using DDR548 ram at 2.5-4-4-8 2T Mushkin DDR550 dual channel ram. If you still don't understand, just post back and I will check soon. By the way, that Sony pc is nice, just needs a better graphics card like a 7800GT. They're selling quite well on Newegg.com for about 279-340 USD. Other than that, that system is pretty good.

I'm sure it sits just a couple degrees above ambient. Thanks for the reply.

Personally, I didn't want to sound like an AMD fanboy, it's just that I've had such good experiences from their procs in the past many years since my old Pentium 166 with MMX tech just couldn't work with what I needed to do, though the proc itself still works, the motherboard died after eight and a half years of heavy service in which it ran win95, then win98 se, then experimented with QNX, Knoppix, Debian, then a couple months of WinXP pro with only 64mb of ram ;^) Still, if you take proper care of the system, i.e. good ventilation around where you will have the system, and give it good maintenance then you should get a good experience out of it. Then Pentium D 830 should give you a good experience from what I have seen playing around with some systems of some buddies of mine. It's cheaper than the A64 dual core procs, just make sure you get a good cooling system to go with it, to keep it from throttling and lowering it's lifetime expectancy. What I will say that favors the Intel, is that the OS will seem a bit smoother when multi-tasking. In the end the choice is yours. By the way AMC11890, why do you have that proc underclocked with a 6600GT in your system? Wouldn't that lead to a worser bottleneck?

Pentium D procs are dual core, and each core has a dedicated cache of 1mb each. The problem with the Intel design of dual cores is that each core shares the Front Side Bus, and there is a penalty in latency because of this. AMD's design is a bit different, both have separate caches differing between the models, as 512kb and 1mb each core, but the cores can communicate directly through the crossbar interface (in other words, a mini, super-high speed bus between the caches on the proc so that the cores don't have to wait for the Front Side Bus to supply the needed information). Hence, why I say that AMD's A64 architecture is superior for low latency situations, like gaming.

If your talking about the mobile parts, the Celeron M has 1mb of cache while the dothan core Pentium M has 2mb of cache. This is the reason they can beat the higher clocked P4's in everything except for pure ram bandwidth. The Turion 64 models differ in cache as well, there are the parts with only 512kb of L2 cache and there are the parts with 1mb of cache. When you look at the benchies, usually the Pentium M's have less memory bandwidth than the P4's, just like the fact that the AMD proc's are starved of high memory bandwidth, but they make up for this with their low latencies because of the onboard memory controller on the processor die itself (for AMD's anyways).

The reasons the Intel chips are getting such a bad rap lately, are: 1. They run too hot. 2. They need extreme cooling to stay stable. 3. They cost to much for the performance that you get. AMD's these days are cheaper and cooler running, and as a bonus can actually run stably on their stock heatsinks. FPU performance is also much better on AMD's, and so they really shine on mathematic heavy apps and games.

Well if its genuine, then I am a bit surprised that AMD would bring out a Sempron 939-pin part so early. This should have happened sometime in the second or third quarter of 2006.

I can understand that HP could have access to some weirdly clocked Semprons, but that still doesn't change the fact that Socket 939-pin Semprons don't exist yet. They are only available in either Socket 462 aka. Athlon XP or in Socket 754 aka. A64 Clawhammer, NewCastle, Venice (one model available on Newegg.com). There are no 939-pin Semprons yet.

So true. Celerons are only good for cooking eggs on

Then it would be an Athlon 64, correct? There are no Sempron 939-pin procs, just 754-pin Semprons. If it is an Athlon 64 939-pin proc, then it could be the Winchester or Venice, since there are no 3200+ San Diego Cores. In that case it would be a pretty quick processor. The on-die memory controller would slaughter most P4's of higher denominations because games like low latencies, not to mention the Celeron's aren't really made for high-end games.

Hello, You are right that their architecture is quite different. AMD's are usually more efficient at games because of their shorter pipelines, in this case about 10 pipes. The Intel P4's of the Prescott and above variety have about 31 pipes and are more efficient at video editing. Because AMD proc's today have such a short pipeline, they can can be clocked slower and still beat the Intel proc's in most everyday tasks. The reason Intel has to jack up the speed of their proc's is to keep the proc fed because of all the pipes that it has. That is also the reason Intel put so much cache memory on the proc and AMD can get away with about half of what Intel puts in their procs, and hence can keep the prices down on the mid- and low-end models. The higher end models are still pretty pricey. The Sempron cannot be compared to a celeron of the speed of the sempron's model number, only because the architecture's differs quite a lot. Though, I dare say that the Sempron will royally own the Celeron with ease in games and other tasks that stress memory bandwidth and FPU performance. One question of my own, is this Sempron 3200+ the socket 754 variety or the socket A (462) variety? Good luck with that PC.

Hey there, I get this most of the time, it only fluctuates about 8 Kb/s. :::.. Download Stats ..::: Connection is:: 2860 Kbps about 2.9 Mbps (tested with 2992 kB) Download Speed is:: 349 kB/s Tested From:: https://testmy.net/ (server2) Test Time:: Sat Oct 15 2005 08:19:44 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time) Bottom Line:: 51X faster than 56K 1MB download in 2.93 sec Diagnosis: May need help : running at only 67.04 % of your hosts average (verizon.net) Validation Link:: https://testmy.net/stats/id-TN6V5B1WG