AM2 5200 to 6400 upgrade?

I have a system based on an AMD 5200+ processor (2 X 2.6MHz). System
hard drive is 2 36GB Raptors in RAID 0, 4GB Corsair 6400C4 memory, and a
BFG 8800 GTS OC (640MB) video card. I'm considering upgrading the
processor to the AM2 6400 (2 X 3.2MHz). That's a 20% increase in clock
speed, but I'm curious if it would translate into a worthwhile upgrade
in real performance.

I'm running Vista 64, and the Windows Experience Index shows the
processor as being the weak link in the system, scoring a 5.1 - Memory,
graphics and hard drive all score the max of 5.9. I realize this isn't
the best benchmark to use, but it's probably a good indicator or how the
system performs under Vista.

Thanks for any help-

Fitz
--
Your body is a temple boy,
You ought to treat it well
But you trash the place and rent it out
Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees

"Fitz" <akfitz@gci.net> wrote in message
news:13plii73ud7t0e2@corp.supernews.com...
>I have a system based on an AMD 5200+ processor (2 X 2.6MHz). System hard
>drive is 2 36GB Raptors in RAID 0, 4GB Corsair 6400C4 memory, and a BFG
>8800 GTS OC (640MB) video card. I'm considering upgrading the processor to
>the AM2 6400 (2 X 3.2MHz). That's a 20% increase in clock speed, but I'm
>curious if it would translate into a worthwhile upgrade in real
>performance.
>
> I'm running Vista 64, and the Windows Experience Index shows the processor
> as being the weak link in the system, scoring a 5.1 - Memory, graphics and
> hard drive all score the max of 5.9. I realize this isn't the best
> benchmark to use, but it's probably a good indicator or how the system
> performs under Vista.
>
> Thanks for any help-
>
> Fitz
> --
> Your body is a temple boy,
> You ought to treat it well
> But you trash the place and rent it out
> Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees



You have the makings of a very fast system with a very fast processor, hard
drives and plenty of RAM.
I think the real bottleneck in your system is simply running Vista. If you
were to run XP you would get that 20% difference without forking out for a
faster cpu that is still being held back by a bloated still unoptimized OS.
--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us

Jan Alter wrote:
> "Fitz" <akfitz@gci.net> wrote in message
> news:13plii73ud7t0e2@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have a system based on an AMD 5200+ processor (2 X 2.6MHz). System hard
>> drive is 2 36GB Raptors in RAID 0, 4GB Corsair 6400C4 memory, and a BFG
>> 8800 GTS OC (640MB) video card. I'm considering upgrading the processor to
>> the AM2 6400 (2 X 3.2MHz). That's a 20% increase in clock speed, but I'm
>> curious if it would translate into a worthwhile upgrade in real
>> performance.
>>
>> I'm running Vista 64, and the Windows Experience Index shows the processor
>> as being the weak link in the system, scoring a 5.1 - Memory, graphics and
>> hard drive all score the max of 5.9. I realize this isn't the best
>> benchmark to use, but it's probably a good indicator or how the system
>> performs under Vista.
>>
>> Thanks for any help-
>>
>> Fitz
>> --
>> Your body is a temple boy,
>> You ought to treat it well
>> But you trash the place and rent it out
>> Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees
>
>
>
> You have the makings of a very fast system with a very fast processor, hard
> drives and plenty of RAM.
> I think the real bottleneck in your system is simply running Vista. If you
> were to run XP you would get that 20% difference without forking out for a
> faster cpu that is still being held back by a bloated still unoptimized OS.

XP wouldn't be able to use all the ram - unless he uses a 64 bit
version. 32-bit version memory usage = 4GB RAM - 640MB video memory.

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:15:50 +0900, spodosaurus wrote:

> Jan Alter wrote:
>>> drive is 2 36GB Raptors in RAID 0, 4GB Corsair 6400C4 memory, and a BFG

> XP wouldn't be able to use all the ram - unless he uses a 64 bit
> version. 32-bit version memory usage = 4GB RAM - 640MB video memory.

Unless I missed something, that's what he has is 4 Gig RAM. That should
work with XP.

Steve

SteveSch <THISEMAIL@IS_FAKE.COM> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:15:50 +0900, spodosaurus wrote:
> > Jan Alter wrote:
> >>> drive is 2 36GB Raptors in RAID 0, 4GB Corsair 6400C4 memory, and a BFG
> > XP wouldn't be able to use all the ram - unless he uses a 64 bit
> > version. 32-bit version memory usage = 4GB RAM - 640MB video memory.
>
> Unless I missed something, that's what he has is 4 Gig RAM. That should
> work with XP.

I think Ari was referring to address space. A 32-bit OS can only
address up to 4 GiB of memory at a time. The OP has 4 GiB of main
memory, *plus* 640 MiB of video memory.

Brolin

I really wasn't looking at changing OS. My question was more about
hardware, and whether a 20% increase in clock speed would translate
roughly into a 20% increase in performance if all the other factors
(harddrive, memory, graphics) were already capable of supporting it. If
the single factor holding back optimal performance is the processor, is
moving up to the 6400 from the 5200 a worthwhile move, or am I better
off staying with what I have and moving to a quad-core or Intel based
system in the future?

Thanks
--
Your body is a temple boy,
You ought to treat it well
But you trash the place and rent it out
Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees

Brolin Empey wrote:

> I think Ari was referring to address space. A 32-bit OS can only
> address up to 4 GiB of memory at a time. The OP has 4 GiB of main
> memory, *plus* 640 MiB of video memory.

If we are talking about 32-bit OSes in general, they can. Microsoft uses
pae to go beyond 4G. But for various reasons, they have crippled the pae
kernel in xp and vista, so the address space above 4G cannot be used

"Fitz" <akfitz@gci.net> wrote in message
news:13pqclceu85lvf9@corp.supernews.com...
>I really wasn't looking at changing OS. My question was more about
>hardware, and whether a 20% increase in clock speed would translate roughly
>into a 20% increase in performance if all the other factors (harddrive,
>memory, graphics) were already capable of supporting it. If the single
>factor holding back optimal performance is the processor, is moving up to
>the 6400 from the 5200 a worthwhile move, or am I better off staying with
>what I have and moving to a quad-core or Intel based system in the future?
>
> Thanks
> --
> Your body is a temple boy,
> You ought to treat it well
> But you trash the place and rent it out
> Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees
>

I would conjecture that it would be speeded up, but I don't know if it would
corrolate to a 20% increase. You might try Tom's Hardware for some
comparative benchmark tests with processors and specific processes that the
tests are run.
--
Jan Alter
bearpuf@verizon.net
or
jalter@phila.k12.pa.us

"Jan Alter" <bearpuf@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:esjnj.6278$v86.3685@trnddc08...
>
>
> "Fitz" <akfitz@gci.net> wrote in message
> news:13pqclceu85lvf9@corp.supernews.com...
>>I really wasn't looking at changing OS. My question was more about
>>hardware, and whether a 20% increase in clock speed would translate
>>roughly into a 20% increase in performance if all the other factors
>>(harddrive, memory, graphics) were already capable of supporting it. If
>>the single factor holding back optimal performance is the processor, is
>>moving up to the 6400 from the 5200 a worthwhile move, or am I better off
>>staying with what I have and moving to a quad-core or Intel based system
>>in the future?
>>
>> Thanks
>> --
>> Your body is a temple boy,
>> You ought to treat it well
>> But you trash the place and rent it out
>> Like it's some cheap motel - The Badlees
>>
>
> I would conjecture that it would be speeded up, but I don't know if it
> would corrolate to a 20% increase. You might try Tom's Hardware for some
> comparative benchmark tests with processors and specific processes that
> the tests are run.
> --

FWIW, just my 2 cents: The cpu constitutes only a fraction of system
performance. For sake of discussion lets say 25%. Three other factors are
the memory speed (actual - not rated), hard drive speed, and video speed.
In reality this is a crude approximation.

If this is close to reality, I'd guess you'd see at best a 5% performance
improvement by increasing cpu clock speed by 20%. (25% X 20%)

That said, you would also realize a 7.8% increase in memory speed. This is
because the 5200 has an odd (13x) multiplier which results in memory running
at 742 Mhz rather than 800Mhz. The 6400 has a 16x multiplier results in
800Mhz memory.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/328

So in my primitive analysis you'd realize a 6.95% improvement (Cpu =
1.2 X .25 + memory = 1.078 x .25 + video = 1 x .25 + HDD = 1 x .25 -1)

Before anybody jumps all over me, remember that this is for illustration
only. Real life experience WILL be different --- but similar.

Fitz wrote:
> I really wasn't looking at changing OS. My question was more about
> hardware, and whether a 20% increase in clock speed would translate
> roughly into a 20% increase in performance if all the other factors
> (harddrive, memory, graphics) were already capable of supporting it. If
> the single factor holding back optimal performance is the processor, is
> moving up to the 6400 from the 5200 a worthwhile move, or am I better
> off staying with what I have and moving to a quad-core or Intel based
> system in the future?
>
> Thanks

Not while running Vista. That's what we are trying to tell you.

Bob