Hi,

So i got a new budget gaming rig recently

AM2 x2 3800+
Asus M2N-E (570ultra)
2x 512 mb ddr2 @ 500mhz
X1800XL 256mb

I am running Xp SP2, downloaded the AMD Driver and the windows fix and I notice the system performes in a more "slugish" manner on bootup. It is also slower for other aplications like opening firefox or live messenger at startup. I find this odd considering my old Pentium 4b 2.4 @ 3.0 ghz seems to experience less lag and stutering while dealing with applications. Another thing I have in mind is the hard drive on the new rig is a 160gig with 8mb cache and the one on the old rig is a 250gb with 16mb cache, could that be causing the stuttering? Off topic slightly, since ime a complete newb to AMD's and I have no clue how they work or how to overclock them, does the slower memory greatly hinder the performance? I know everybody says AM2 should be coupled with ddr2@800mhz, but why? Anyways, if someone has a similar pentium 4 and a similar x2 processor could you tell me which one stutters less and if/or you have some essential tweaks/tips.

Thank you for your time

More sluggish on bootup after you installed the AMD driver and Windows fix? So after windows is loaded the sluggishness is gone? That is strange. I use the AMD X2 driver and AMD Optomizer on five of my machines without issue. I do not use the windows patch with my AMD 4800x2 and I have no issues. You might try a windows repair with the windows CD.

Three things to consider:
1. Make sure Cool & Quiet is disabled.
2. Remember; an 2X +3800 is really two +3200's and only a few programs really make use of two cores at this time, even XP/SP2 was not designed with dual core in mind. It was only patched to work with them. Vista and future software will change that.
3. Your CPU has proven to be a good OCer, so… OC it!

Thanks alot guys Great replies. But I was wondering if my slow ram would make the processor difficult to overclock...?

This is normal. Lots of programs and services are starting up when Windows starts.. CPU usage will be up around 100% for a short while, making programs like firefox take awhile to open.

as far as overclocking, most 3800 x2 seem to make 2400Mhz easily, mine is running like that, it will go higher but 2400 seems to be a bit of a sweet spot, i dropped the ram divider to 166 and bus to 800.

with the 20% overclock to get to 2400 the ram ends up at 400 (200ddr) and the bus to 960, yes its a little under the 1000 but the difference is not a great deal,

2400 is the same speed as an standard 4600 x2 as well!

Where do you come up with this stuff? 8O
The NT kernel has been designed for use with multiple CPUs in mind. This also applies to dual core as well since it is two CPUs. Perhaps a driver patch was issued for specific processors, but that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with multiple CPU support. NOTHING will change in Vista with regard to this since the NT kernel was already designed with multiple CPUs in mind.

You're wrong. The OS sees it as two processors. The difference between dual core and dual CPU is the potential to remove a FSB bottleneck as the two cores can "talk" to eachother and access the same cache without using up other system resources when running a multi-threaded application. The NT kernal will attempt to load-ballance your system across multiple processors, but this doesn't make single-threaded applications any faster wether it's dual-core or dual-cpu or 100 quad-core whatevers, it just allows you to run more single-threaded applications before running out of processing power (if CPU0 is running superpi and you open firefox it should run on CPU1 without being slowed by CPU0 running at 100%).

With a dual CPU (or pentium D because it's a sucky hack-job with no performance advatages over dual-cpu) system running a multi-threaded application, CPU0 could potentially sit idle for some period of time while waiting for CPU1 to send the information CPU0 is waiting for over the FSB to the RAM and back to the cache of CPU0. This is slow and will also slow down any other hardware in the system that is trying to use the RAM or the processor and both processors are quite possibly idle while this is taking place. With dual core the cache for both cores are on the same chip (or they share one physical cache which should make sharing information between cores faster, but still only one core can access it at a time so it depends on what you're doing if it's faster or slower, and either way the difference is small because they are...) connected to the cores by a much, much faster bus leaving the rest of the system free to use the RAM and send more information to the cache while the cores collaborate on crunching numbers.

In summurry: Dual-cores can talk to eachother faster without interrrupting the rest of the system so they can potentially run multi-threaded processes much faster then dual-cpu systems. They can also be potentially loaded down with multi-threaded processes without slowing IO performance. No performance difference for running multiple single-threaded applications.

It still really depends on running an application that can and is coded to take advantage of the capabilities.

yeah, pretty sure that's how it works. Correct me if I'm wrong

...on five of my machines...

I am currently kneeling and bowing.

No, just use a RAM divider and OC until your back up to stock ram speed.

For your booting problems download a program from microsoft called bootvis

here is the link... it works like a bomb,

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak [...] tVis.shtml

I had issuse with the same kind of setup to yours with booting this little prog halved my booting time

Hey Bro,
Check out the 2 following links below. They are AWSOME for the info they provide AND I used them myself with my rig and they work.

So as far as the AMD driver and hotfix you said you tried and found that it's not working, take a GOOD look at how the guy in this forum article set it up and compare it with how you did it....maybe you left something out.

As for the OC questions, check out this article by an AUSSIE that wrote to this forum. This dude knows what he's talking bout. I read it and found it LOADED with info, links, bios settings ..... THE WORKS

Hope this helps man

amd driver link http://www.xtremesystems.org/forum [...] hp?t=81429

And to your OC question http://i4memory.com/showthread.php?t=327

Antec P180 Performance Case
SeaSonic S12 600 PSU
Asus A8N32 SLI X-16 S-939 (bios 1103 V02.58 )
RealTek 97 Onboard
AMD 64 X2 4800+ Toledo Core (AMD v 1.3.1.0/MS hotfix/ Dual Optimizer)
2 gigs Corsair 3500LL Pro @ 437Mhz 2-3-2-6-1T
2- BFG 7900 GT OC in SLI (NV 91.31)
WD RAPTOR 74.3 gig HDD / XP & Apps
Maxtor SATA II 250 Gig /Gaming / Movies / MP3's
Maxtor SATA II 250 Gig /backup (unplugged)
Sony CDrom 52X
Plextor 708-A DVD/CD rom
Razer DiamondBack Optical mouse
Logitech Z-5500 Dolby Digital 5.1 THX 500watts

Hmm...Slo boot huh?

My 3800+ (on ddr, 939) takes around 8-10sec to get in to windows (i have modded a few things to boot faster however). As opposed to my pent D 3.0 which takes just a little longer 12-15. I blame the hd more then the cpu in this case though. raptor 160gb vs 250gb 16mb cache. My windows screen literally flashes, then disappears. =) But both are still fairly clean setups. (both now have anti-v on them...which adds a few seconds)

I had a huge set-back to my start-up time a while back on my 3500 though. I had two hd's on the same ide cable. Then another time i had it on cable select...and another time where i didn't have it set as master (ie slave). Any of those *can* add to your boot time. I'd imagine, in that case, that has more to do with your bios then anything else.

My bag, this line from the Microsoft HotFix article at first glance led me to my conclusion.

"Because Windows XP was not originally designed to support performance states on multiprocessor configurations, changes are required to correctly realize this support on multiprocessor systems. Windows XP Service Pack 2 includes the required changes to the kernel power manager. These changes make sure that Windows XP correctly functions on multiprocessor systems with processor performance states. "

But on second glance I see they are referring to processor state stepping.

Though I do remember reading somewhere XP Home (not pro) didn’t originally support Dual-Core.