AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core

I'm going to upgrade my Computer to AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core, I saw Windows Vista Running on this today, and it runs like lightning Running my Rig with is at 5Ghz and 3GB of RAM it will smoke the living daylights out of my present 3.62Ghz Pentium 4 Has anyone else upgraded to this yet ?

 

I'm considering this as my graphics, apparently its the worlds fastest graphics http://ati.amd.com/products/mobilityradeonx1900/ for Notebooks. and http://ati.amd.com/products/radeonx1900/aiwx1900/index.html for Desktops

 

Hi DVD+R.

Yep. AMD X2 4200+ on ASUS M2N-E with 2 GB RAM here, bought a few days ago. Also nVidia 7600 GS 512 MB. My previous rig was XP2000+ on 1,67 GHz with 512 MB and ATI 9250, so no need to make any comparations here. X2s really act as dual CPU, so you can assign different processes to each CPU. Haven't tried Vista yet, but I plan to install it in dual boot with XP pro in a day or two. I will post my impressions when I do that.

 

I've got both a Core 2 Duo and an X2. The Core 2 Duo is definitely the faster and more robust of the two, but the X2 is good as well. I had an ATI X1600 Pro 512MB RAM video on the X2 and had constant problems. Got an 8800 GTS for the Core 2 Duo and put my older 7600 GT KO in the X2 machine and there's no more problems with the X2. I gave ATI a chance, but nVidia cards are just much better IMO/IME.

If you're not looking for the absolute best and just want something that will run everyday stuff quickly and reliably, the X2 is a fine choice. If you want the fastest and the best, get the Core 2 Duo. Even the lower end models will be faster than a lot of the X2's, although you would probably want to check tomshardware.com for specific comparisons.

 

Have upgraded my dual core AMD 4800 to E6700 C2D, the change is just short of amazing, way faster. Consider the core2duo CPU with 965 chipset, its a good deal and way faster in almost each and every app.

 

I have an x2 AMD and yes,it's nice.Although it heats more that i would like.Basically,for me there is no reason to upgrade to anything faster for many years.Plenty of power that i rarely use and the limiting factor now becomes the hard disk.I can multitask,but the HD is struggling to keep up.I think it's a good buy,although current intel cpus are faster.

 

In a word,,,,,"YES".

In building my first system for Vista, I wanted the best bang for the buck, so to speak. I opted for the 3800+ version of the chip, just to keep the price down to a reasonable level.

I also opted for the MSI K9N Platinum mobo with everything a kid could want, except on-board graphics.
I don't game or do graphics editing, so again I opted for a low cost (128meg) video card in the form of a "Win Fast PX360-TD (GForce PCX-5750).

My good friend and Software Guru helped me set up Vista Ultimate on the new system and his comment to me was "WOW, this thing really ROCKS!!"
From him, that's a glowing testimonial.

The mobo has six SATA II ports on it and I installed a Maxtor SATA II , 200 gig drive. Read/Write speeds are phenomenal. I can do a Ghost 2003 backup of C: with Vista installed, in just about 5 minutes, with minimal compression.

I wish you all the best.

The Doctor

 

does it work fast with a 3800?
im thinking of buying a cheap dual core pc powered by an amd 3800 but didnt know how fast it would be with vista
lodore

 

Like lightning or as they used to say in England when I lived there "Like **** off a shovel"

 

i aint sure about the one in question,

but i have a AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile, and damn, its fast !!

 

Well, I promised that I'll be posting a comment after instaling Vista on my hardware listed in post #4, and I am doing it. I know that it's not a highest-possible-end hardware, so I'll make a quick comparation with XP on same machine in dual boot. I don't find Vista (32 Ult) any slower than XP (Pro). In fact, startup time is faster with same resident apps installed on both (so is shutdown), and I didn't tweaked Vista yet, so out-of-the-box. Also, I haven't compared any resource demanding operations (on-demand scanning, video editing, Photoshop multiple layer mingling) but regular "swimming" (copying, watching video, Mp3s, offline-online browsing) is a breeze. I am not used to that window pop-up animation as I am not using it in XP, so that personally gave me an impression of a delay (it's an eye-candy alright). It may be too early to make any final conclusions as I've been trying Vista just for a few days, but this OS might not end up like Win Me. No revolutionary features there, only the new mask, but pretty stable for an offspring, and I had no problems WHATSOEVER with hardware. And yeah, the installation was surprisingly quick - less than 30 mins from booting from DVD to standing still. 8Gb on HD (that's hillarious but not really an issue). If I remember anything else significant, I'll add it in this post.

Cheers.

 

microsoft have fixed some issues e.g. the sleep mode now works and awakes in about two seconds.
it is still an expensive service pack for XP thou.
but if you buying a new pc you might as well get vista with it
lodore