Just found out I never saw how good my old CPU was

[Aldakoopa]

My old computer was just a Dell with a 2.7GHz Sempron I got a long time ago. After a few years, I "upgraded" the processor to a 3.0GHz Athlon 64 x2 6000+ for more power when gaming to squeeze a little more life out of it. The main reason for this is I was playing GTA IV , which just barely did work on the Sempron because it was only single-core and under the minimum speed (that was a tough old CPU though ).

Now, if I didn't have the OEM mobo and could unlock cores and overclock it, there may have been a chance that I wouldn't have even needed to buy that Athlon in the first place, but it didn't really cost that much. The new CPU worked and the mobo recognised it and even said "dual core", so I didn't think much of it even though I didn't really notice much of a performance increase.

I was just transferring over files I wanted to keep before tearing it down for parts, and I noticed while looking at what the processor was reported as was a 2.8GHz Athlon 64 x2 6000+ "Dual Core" Cores: 1 Threads: 1

Whaaaaaaaaaaaat? How did I not notice THAT? (Actually, I didn't know as much about what I was looking at back then, so that's how I didn't notice.)

So, I can only assume the OEM BIOS was limiting the speed to 2.8GHz and the amount of cores to 1. I'm looking for a real board now to overclock with, although I know not to expect much, but I am going to build a temporary computer for my girlfriend with it when I'm done. Just to think that after "upgrading" the processor, all I really got was a 100MHz increase and nothing more upsets me, but what's more upsetting is the fact that I pretty much threw the Sempron to the side and lost it, and when I found it again half the pins were bent. I really wish I could play with that processor too, while I'm at it.

But, as soon as I find a motherboard it's time to play with the Athlon.

 

[wingman99]

Wow one core that was some bad news, are sure it's not the CPU causing the problem.

 

[moz_21]

If it was Windows XP you may had had to reinstall to get it to recognize the new CPU. Something about the SMP kernel in the OS isn't installed with a single core; I don't remember anymore. There may have been work arounds.

 

[Automata]

Moz_21 is right. If the original install had a single core, it did not install the SMP kernel. A reinstall will fix it.

 

[Aldakoopa]

Moz_21 is right. If the original install had a single core, it did not install the SMP kernel. A reinstall will fix it.

It was XP, and I didn't have a disk. The HDD has been formatted and I'm going to install Linux on it for now.

 

[Aldakoopa]

Alright, finally got the computer put together with this CPU in it. I installed Linux, nothing else yet though. I have yet to get fully accustomed to Linux. I put it in a PC Chips A11G board, doesn't seem too great but if it will work then that's all I need. The layout of the BIOS of this board is a little confusing, and I don't think either the board or CPU has much, if any, overclocking potential anyway. I don't have any temperature monitoring programs or anything installed on the computer... gotta figure out what works on Linux first anyway, but the BIOS was reporting the CPU temperature at 51C, which seems high, especially since I don't think it would be under much stress in BIOS anyway. I'm going to try re-applying thermal paste and re-seating the heatsink this evening. I'm using the original heatsink from my FX-4100, since I'm assuming it should have a little better fan than the 7-year-old heatsink that was on it, and it also has a copper core to the heatsink whereas the original heatsink was solid aluminum. I remember it always ran pretty toasty in my old computer anyway, but that was apparently only on a single core.