Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD 6000+ 3.1 GHZ way slower than my old AMD 5600+ 2.8 GHZ.. Why??

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2008 3:26:23 PM


I saw AMD came out with a 3.1 GHZ 6000+ at 89W so I went
and bought it. I sold my old 5600+ 2.8 GHZ on ebay the same
day. Now my machine is way slower! :pfff: 

I noticed the 3.1GHZ 6000+ only has 1/2 the L2 cache. Can this
really slow the system down that much and wipe out the 300mhz
gain???

I am using 4GB DDR2-6400 memory and I notice CPU-Z reports the
memory freq as only 388.3 MHZ. Could the 6000+ have some weird
clock multiple that is causing my memory to not run at 800mhz???

My PC is a Dell and I use the Integrated Video because it has sharper
text than any of the PCI-Express cards I have tried. So any drop in
memory speed really makes the graphics appear slower..

So in short XP is not as "snappy" as it was with the 5600+. Where
is causing this? I'm ready just to re-buy a 5600+ again and ditch
the 6000+. My Dell only takes 89W Max CPUS and my guess is that an
AMD 2.6GHZ Quad core will be slower than a 2.8GHZ 5600+ for me since
I am a single tasker running XP and only do Firefox and OpenOffice tasks.

Thanks so much. I know there is a smart techie out there who can
help me figure this out!


Tom

a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 30, 2008 4:11:13 PM

Does BIOS recognize the cpu correctly? so it actually supports it, you never know with dell...

and how are the temps? so it's not slowing down because of heat for trying not to fry itself.

disable cool'n'quiet to see if it makes a difference, there have been some cases where cool'n'quiet has caused weird slowdowns.

Surely you see two cores in windows task manager??
November 30, 2008 4:29:18 PM

I'd bet you need a bios update for the new cpu to be recongnized properly.

You probably cant manually adjust the ram in a Dell bios.

I doubt Dell even has a bios update, or ever will have for your PC.

Theres another reason I build my own PCs.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 30, 2008 4:39:17 PM

Dell blows :( 

sorry man

thats basically end of story with them :( 
November 30, 2008 4:45:54 PM

Shouldnt the HT link be higher? Can you manually adjust the ram at all in Bios?
November 30, 2008 5:01:12 PM

Tom92602 said:

I noticed the 3.1GHZ 6000+ only has 1/2 the L2 cache. Can this
really slow the system down that much and wipe out the 300mhz
gain???

I am using 4GB DDR2-6400 memory and I notice CPU-Z reports the
memory freq as only 388.3 MHZ. Could the 6000+ have some weird
clock multiple that is causing my memory to not run at 800mhz???


Both of these could be causing performance slowdowns, plus the brisbane has slightly higher latency when it comes to the L2 cache. I'm guessing if you overclock the CPU 100Mhz the ram should go back up to 400Mhz. The 6000+ shouldn't be significantly slower though, I would've thought it would be roughly on the same level or maybe slightly faster.

roadrunner197069 said:
Shouldnt the HT link be higher? Can you manually adjust the ram at all in Bios?


HT link looks fine @ 1Ghz
November 30, 2008 5:02:48 PM

HT is fine, ram is fine too, you double the number to get the proper result. If you just work on it then less cache could well make it slower. So basically it's running fine as far as I can tell. Maybe try reinstalling the dual core timing fix for windows that's all I can suggest.
November 30, 2008 5:04:17 PM

lol you upgraded the CPU in a dell....

wow that bios isnt meant for that.
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2008 5:08:22 PM

macer1 said:
lol you upgraded the CPU in a dell....

wow that bios isnt meant for that.

It looks ok... maybe its your PSU :kaola: 

roadrunner197069 said:
Shouldnt the HT link be higher? Can you manually adjust the ram at all in Bios?


HT link speed doesn't affect performance significantly

Tom92602 said:
I updated my BIOS months ago to the latest BIOS and CPU-Z shows it as
3.1 GHZ.


Here is a photo of my stats:
http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc161/Tom92602/?acti...


hmm... might be the cache... you gaming?

also your using the 65nm version of the 6000+, if you didn't notice...
November 30, 2008 5:12:12 PM

Aye think he said 89w not 89nm.
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2008 5:16:32 PM

6000+ 65nm =3.1 ghz to make up for difference in cache due to no 1mibx2 L2 cache available on the Am2 65nm platform
November 30, 2008 5:21:28 PM

Hey I love my Optiplex 740. I got rid of a noisy, poor case quality
Alienware and love the 740 as a replacement. It is dead quiet, a
solid case, nice multi-media keyboard, and I replaced the drive
with a 10,000 RPM Velociraptor. It's the nicest computer I ever had.
November 30, 2008 5:22:23 PM

I can only guess, like the others here, but in my opinion, those two CPUs should not have a noticeable perf. difference. To wipe out a couple possibilities, you should probably reinstall windows. Unfortunately, this will prevent you from making any accurate subjective speed comparisons. Your new system will run faster simply for having been reinstalled.

Another note - even if you were somehow able to notice the subtle speed difference between those two CPUs, you should never be able to notice the effect on your video card. I think you're not - what you call a slow down for your graphics is a memory related problem.

The first poster had some great ideas, I hope you tried those. You might also consider disconnecting *every* un-needed USB device, any extra HDDs, and any un-needed PCI cards. In other words, reduce the power requirements as much as possible. If this has any effect, your PSU may be the problem.

Remember. the TDP of a CPU ... that is, the 89 Watts for your CPU ... is NOT the energy used by your CPU. It is a reference to the greatest amount of heat your system should be able to dissipate while running that CPU at full speed. It is also a rough estimate.

Post your dell computer model number. Maybe it will help.
November 30, 2008 5:29:52 PM

I disabled the "cool'n'quiet" since day 1. And I just rebooted and
checked that it was still disabled. It is..

Here are 2 more CPU stat Screen shots:

http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc161/Tom92602/?acti...

http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc161/Tom92602/?acti...

Notice the rams says: 388 MHZ.
I swear it said 400 MHZ when I had the 5600+

And there are NO bios settings to change the memory or cpu speeds.

So it looks like the 2 MB of L2 cache make a HUGE difference for
single taskers like me who use XP, Firefox and OpenOffice. ???
November 30, 2008 5:46:02 PM


The 5600+ I used to have was 89W
The 6000+ I have now is also 89W

I doubt this could be a Power Supply Problem.
Since I am using the integrated video, the memory running at a slower
MHZ due to the weird CPU multiple could cause the video to slow. I'm sure
of it... Ram was at 400MHZ, now at 388MHZ.
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 30, 2008 5:47:25 PM

In your add/remove programs you should have something like

Windows Driver Package - Advanced Micro Devices (AmdK8) Processor

Uninstall it, and then re-install it. You can get it from AMD's website. Normally going from a Windsor to a Brisbane core shouldn't cause any problem, but you may as well try and re-install the CPU driver. You may also have to update the BIOS to support the Brisbane core properly. Just so you know there is an 89W version of the Windsor core 6000, but it's been phased out and while it was available last month it has disappeared from many e-tailers since.

http://cgi.ebay.com/AMD-Athlon64-X2-6000-89W-Windsor-3-...
a b à CPUs
a b } Memory
November 30, 2008 5:50:07 PM

As for your memory speed AMD CPUs use a memory divider to get the CPU speed. At 3.1GHz your CPU uses a memory divider of 8 so 3100MHz/8 = 387.5MHz, while your 5600 used a divider of 7 so 2800MHz/7 = 400MHz.
November 30, 2008 6:02:40 PM

Thanks megamanx00!

This explains a lot.. Since I use integrated video, memory speed is crucial.
So the 5600+ with double L2 cache and a faster clock for the memory
speed is what make it faster so much snappier.

Given these numbers, is it a given that an AMD 6400+ running at 3.2GHZ
would also give me a "400MHZ" memory clock speed???

Since I am not using any PCI cards and I am using the integrated video
maybe my system can handle the 125W AMD 6400+??? It's only 36W more.


November 30, 2008 6:06:56 PM

You should have never gotten rid of your 5600+

My 6000+ 90nm will run the RAM at DDR2-750 speeds instead of 800. I would have to overclock your FSB to 214 to run my RAM at DDR2-800 speeds. Plus I have more L2 cache.

That is because of the memory divider so you are probably looking at the same problem I have with my 6000+
Which in my case is not a big deal. It works fine.

Also:

The L2 cache in the Brisbane (65nm) core has higher latency compared to that in Windsor, i.e. it will be even slower than its 90nm counterparts on a clock to clock basis.

But this should not make a huge difference.
November 30, 2008 6:14:32 PM

Thanks Caamsa.. See my note just before yours..

Is it a slam dunk deal that a AMD 6400+ at 3.2GHZ would run
my ram at DDR2-800 speeds again???

I am thinking maybe my dell can handle the 125W since I am not
using any of the PCI slots and it's just another 36W watts.

My dell has a 305W power supply. Looks like I'll be ebay-ing another
CPU....

The AMD 6400+ is getting scarce these days.. newegg doesn't even have
it...
November 30, 2008 6:16:37 PM

Tom92602 said:
The 5600+ I used to have was 89W
The 6000+ I have now is also 89W

I doubt this could be a Power Supply Problem.
Since I am using the integrated video, the memory running at a slower
MHZ due to the weird CPU multiple could cause the video to slow. I'm sure
of it... Ram was at 400MHZ, now at 388MHZ.


Something else is going on here though. 12MHZ of RAM speed and half the L2 cache won't have a visible affect on your computers video performance. You said you were using integrated video which does access the RAM, but 12MHZ won't make it go from smooth to stutter. To figure out what is wrong I suggest you take some advice. mattc and megamanx00 both posted some things you should try. My advice, start with the easy troubleshooting tips. Rather then dismiss the though of a power issue do what mattc suggested. If that doesn't fix your problem then reinstall your AMD driver per megamans instructions.

Check the smart values for your HDD. You said the snappiness was gone and it could be that there is a problem with your hard drive that is causing the slowness.

If all else fails reinstall windows. When you change hardware and there are problems you should reinstall windows before blaming your hardware.
November 30, 2008 6:48:21 PM

Just because the wattage matches dont mean you can use them in your board.

First thing to do is get on Dells website and see if your new CPU is listed as compatible with your mobo. It probably aint.

And dont go get a different CPU until you confirm on Dells website that it is compatible.
a c 125 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b } Memory
November 30, 2008 7:29:15 PM

Tom92602 said:
Thanks Caamsa.. See my note just before yours..

Is it a slam dunk deal that a AMD 6400+ at 3.2GHZ would run
my ram at DDR2-800 speeds again???

I am thinking maybe my dell can handle the 125W since I am not
using any of the PCI slots and it's just another 36W watts.

My dell has a 305W power supply. Looks like I'll be ebay-ing another
CPU....

The AMD 6400+ is getting scarce these days.. newegg doesn't even have
it...

The max wattage for the cpu is because of the boards own cpu voltage system, not the system PSU in most cases. I would NOT recommend installing a higher cpu if Dell does not show support for it.

While both CPU's are rated at 89, they do not actually have to take 89 dead on one may be 89 while the other is 75. Intel rates almost ALL of its dual cores at 65 watts even tho a e2180 takes allot less then a e6700.

The lower cache and added latency may well be the issue(Those cpus are sensitive to those things), but make sure you reinstall the amd driver to be sure before wasting money on yet another cpu.
November 30, 2008 7:42:28 PM

I don't get how it's noticeably slower

The old winscore cores will be their bersbane equlivent a 6000b vs a 6000w the winscore would be faster but i would think that they should be about equal

L2 catche can be a problem but it should be fine if that's all your running
And i know that the bersbane cores suffer from a slighly longer start up time but it shouldn't be very noticeable you didn't like buy your 6000 off of somewhere cuz it could be some overclockers crappy seconds where he already nearly fried it.
November 30, 2008 8:04:53 PM

#1 problem integrated graphics.

if you think your images/screen look's better on integrated then please inform all photoshop users of this.


#2 NEVER replace the CPU on ANY crap box. the Bios is DESIGNED for what comes in it, not what you decide to add on or change.
January 22, 2009 2:24:00 PM

I also upgraded from the x2 5600+ 2.8 to the 6000+ 3.1. I am a gamer and noticed the difference in speed with my pc games and basic programs. It does make a difference. I am thinking if you are running windows 32 bit you should not be running 4 gigs of ram. It is not necessary. You would see a little bit of a performance drop. I would go with 3 gigs of the 6400 single channel ddr 2. But again if you are not a gamer I would go back to the bigger cache.
I am running a asus motherboard with 2 bfg 8800 gt oc 512 mb each in sli, amd 6000+, 3 gigs of ocz 6400 800mz ddr 2 and antec 850 watt psu.
I did not Flash the bios yet so my new cpu is showing model unknown in my system properties but is showing the correct clock speed and recognized it as an amd cpu.
Did you upgrade anything else?
SF_415_ANT
January 22, 2009 5:53:12 PM

What's with people spending $50 on 300Mhz....
!