Can we get a screenshot?In CPU-z it shows up as a X2 3200+. Any suggestions? I installed all of the drivers for the motherboard and also a cpu driver that came with the motherboard.
You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core...
Or better yet, just post the chip's OPN
You've posted some seriously "flawed" crap in the past but I think this is your new best one .... in case you didnt know (which seems apparent), neither AMD nor Intel do the approach as you suggest:
- Intel takes two single core units and slaps them together
- AMD, when making dualcore chips, fabs them all at once
The singlecore chips are purely single-core ... none of this disabled core crap -- that's because it would be obscenely expensive (and thermally wasteful) to do anything else. As I've said in the past ... please refrain from posts like this as they only serve to obfuscate an already technical subject
^lemonlime post #3"There are several revisions of the venice core out there right now, including E3, E4 and E6. When I wrote the guide, E6 single cores were pretty sparse. Now, there is even a Manchester dual core with one core disabled circulating around "
I hope you know that your wrong.......not ALL 64s are dual core, only the X2s. The normal 64s are just single core, there is no other disabled core. Do you know how much the company would lose spending all that money probucing all dual core 64s but selling half of them as single? That would be stupid. Thats why they run the company, and not you. And i will say i have never removed the IHS off a 64, and i take it you havent either, but you wont find 2 cores. And if you do, its an X2, and not just a normal 64. AMD would be losing ALOT of money if they did that. And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am, whether anyone else does or not.
Think before you post.
Oh and by the way, posting something that someone typed in another forum isnt proof at all. For all we know, you could have posted that in that forum, or maybe its just someone like you who doesnt know.
yea, the earth is flat. umm no its true because i know im right.And i dont have to PROVE that im right, becuz i know i am,
i never said they were, only the E6's, which is probably his processor.I dont know why it would show up like that, and he hasnt even posted a screen of it yet, so who knows. But i know for a fact that not all 64s are dual core.
incorrect, see the posts above.The only dual core 64s is the X2 series. Its as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.
model name has nothing to do with how many cores show up. recognizing two cores would have to do with task manager, and how many cores show up there.And besides, if it did show up as an X2, that would mean that it reconized the other core which means its not disabled. duhhh.
i never said they were, only the E6's, which is probably his processor.
its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol
I dont EDIT videos, but i do transfer them from my camera to my pc and convert them to AVI. but thats besides the point, and yes my 1 gig is enough for everything i do. My memory bandwidth is 4.2gb/s. And if i run my fsb at 220mhz, my bandwidth goes to 4.5-4.6gb/s.
Dude.......there is no dual core AMD 64 Athlon unless its an X2. CPU-z makes mistakes dude. Do you have the latest version of it? If not, that may be why.
point of making it dual core and disabling 1 core is...?
Okay all I'll try to get a picture (or have him post one). Lol about this disabled core stuff. The only thing that people disable are graphics card pipelines
How should i know why you care about my memory, you were the one asking about it. And yea, bandwidth does effect the performance in pretty much everything. Comparing my 4.2gb/s to my old 2.9gb/s its way faster, windows only takes 15-20 seconds to load, where as 2.9gb/s it would take almost a minute if not longer. And if you ask me 4.2gb/s is very good considering its PC3200, rated at 3.2gb/s.
What a noob. I feel sorry for ppl like you.
its because they produce all their cpus as dual cores and just disable another core... at least thats what id guess, i know they do it but i dont know why it would show up as an X2 proc. lol
HAHA! That is just about the stupidist thing i have ever heard! Im putting that in my signature.