1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Strange or not? AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ vs. 5000+

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Raw, Feb 12, 2012.

  1. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    I know this is way old technology and I don't want to really bore all of you, but there may be a few guys on here that are familiar with the old AMD stuff and have a moment.

    Strange or not?
    I just bought a used Athlon 64 X2 5000 (CU),512Kx2,rev.F2,89W,SocketAM2 and it seems that it is a lot slower feeling than my AMD Athlon 64 4800+ Brisbane, Dual Core, Rev.: G2 Stepping, 0AMD4800IAA5DO - CAAFG - 0818BPNW - W400771E80328.
    And the 5000 won't overclock any more than 3% without crashing the machine upon boot while the 4800 easily does 10%.
    I use the required 1301 BIOS on a Asus M2N4-SLI mobo.
    Not that it matters but I run SLI Mode with 2 8800GT's and the machine does great in games like Black Ops and MW3 (with the 4800)

    Is it the smaller 512Kb x 2 L2 cache that makes it feel so slow compared to the 1Mb x 2 for the 4800?
     
  2. Jetster

    Jetster

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,399 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Location:
    Oregon
    There is not much difference between the two. The 5000 is 2.6 and the 4800 is 2.5 . It may just "feel" different. Bench test them but the cash shouldn't make any diff

    If you check Toms Hardware CPU charts it should show any weak point between the two
     
    Raw says thanks.
  3. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    The 4800+ is 2.4, not 2.5. ;)
    The reason I didn't mention benchmarks is because I don't think they tell much when cpus are so closely related.
    Seat of the pants feel makes more sense to me in this case.
    And I can tell you there is a real noticable difference, so much so that I had to mention it here.
    The 4800+ is smooth as silk for such old tech. The 5000...not so smooth as silk, seems it struggles in games.
     
  4. Jetster

    Jetster

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,399 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Location:
    Oregon
    Then keep the 4800
     
    Raw says thanks.
  5. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    There is some good advise...lol.
    I think I'll keep them both as they are complete machines and both work good. Just one is faster than the other and I was curious as to why that might be.
    But thanks for your adequate input none the less.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  6. Jetster

    Jetster

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,399 (2.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,250
    Location:
    Oregon
    Im on a roll

    If there two separate machines maybe something else is causing it. I did notice on Toms CPU chart that in some test the 4800 was ahead
     
    Raw says thanks.
  7. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    The machines are identical in every way, same everything right down to the power supplies.
    And I swapped the cpus between the machines just to verify this.

    I don't know, I am reading over on another site (http://www.penstarsys.com/reviews/cpu/amd/x2_6000_am2/x2_6000_3.htm) and it looks like the L2 cache may indeed make a difference, in SOME games.
    That may be what's going on here. As much as I don't like benchmarks in an instance like this, what else do I have to try to understand what's going on?
    The link provides a comparison of cache sizes of 2 cpus, different cache sizes.
    Now I have to dig around are find out if Black Ops and MW3 like cache more than speed.

    Anyways, it's early morning here and not much else to do but tinker and read.
    Damn, I could go outside and shovel some snow now that I looked out the window.
    :toast:
     
  8. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (6.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    What I don't get is that they are both Brisbanes... ??

    EDIT:
    Ahh hah! The 5000+ is a 90W chip and the 4800+ is 65W. Maybe you don't have adequate cooling for the 5000+ ? Oh and just metioning the 4800+ is 2x512k
     
    Raw says thanks.
  9. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    The 5000+ is a Windsor, not a Brisbane...I believe.

    About the cooling, I don't know. I use Xigmatech Dark Knights on both machines and each has 5 case fans (120mm). Seems they should be cool enough but I'll check that out. I didn't give that a thought just because.

    Thanks JR.
    :toast:
     
    JrRacinFan says thanks.
  10. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (6.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    That's the reason right there. The 4800+ is "newer" tech. 90nm vs 65nm.
     
    brandonwh64 says thanks.
  11. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    I guess I better go back to bed for a while. It's just too early.
    I could have sworn the 4800+ was L2 2 x 1MB...I'm losing my mind.
    I didn't take my mybrainsaphloppin medicine either yet.
    :roll:
     
  12. JrRacinFan

    JrRacinFan Served 5k and counting ...

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    19,414 (6.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    4,483
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Don't make me laugh so early here in the States, I end up with a headache :p but yeah you are just experiencing heat/wattage overhead from the die shrink.
     
    Raw says thanks.
  13. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,781 (9.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,239
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    Jr is right, Winsor was older than brisbane. The brisbane ultimitly will be the better chip
     
    JrRacinFan and Raw say thanks.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  14. Melvis

    Melvis

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,594 (1.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    531
    Location:
    Australia
    Run some benchmarks your self see if there is any real difference?
     
  15. robal

    robal

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    485 (0.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    111
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    JrRacinFan says thanks.
  16. Raw

    Raw

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    524 (0.38/day)
    Thanks Received:
    112
    CAUTION

    Went to the techarp site and got a virus!!!
    Lol...now that's funny.
    I'm serious, my system detected a virus and it was Trojan:JS/BlacoleRef.G which is SEVERE and was caught by MSE.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2012
  17. xBruce88x

    xBruce88x

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    2,460 (1.30/day)
    Thanks Received:
    646
  18. robal

    robal

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    485 (0.21/day)
    Thanks Received:
    111
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    Sorry about keeping it off-topic.
    I went to TechARP again (also got MSE) and I can't find the trojan..

    Did you click any dodgy ad perhaps ?
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page