Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

3400+ AMD Sempron processor


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 raifordgirl

raifordgirl

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:48 PM

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:15 PM

Hi, I'm not very knowledgeable about the internal workings of a computer although I've increased my RAM all by myself. :thumbsup: My question is; is this a good processor and, if I need to, how difficult would it be to upgrade? Thanks for any help you can give me and if I haven't given enough info just let me know. I have a 140 GB hard drive and 1 GB ram although I'm preparing to upgrade RAM once again to 2 GB because the computer seems slow at times. As with another post I have seen my CPU usage up to 100% and can not figure out what could be causing that as I do not believe it's my printer since I wasn't using it at the time.

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,746 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:01:48 PM

Posted 22 December 2008 - 01:51 PM

Hi :thumbsup:.

<<My question is; is this a good processor...>>

Compared to when...and what?

Any processor which works (most do) is a functional item.

Just remember that today's fastest processors...will be on sale at greatly reduced prices within a year.

If your system runs fine with this processor, it's a "good" processor.

If your system cannot do something that you want done...and a newer processor would give you the capability of doing that...then the newer processor is a "better" processor.

And...IMO, it matters if the CPU is in a desktop or a laptop, since I believe desktops are (historically) supportive of the newest processors sooner than laptops (I have nothing concrete to base that on, that's just the way I've always thought of it).

In any case, the best thing that a user can do to improve system speed performance...is to increase the RAM to the system's max under XP. Vista systems are capable of utilizing more RAM than XP, so a system may have 1 max RAM amount for XP and a different one for Vista.

Louis

#3 raifordgirl

raifordgirl
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 10 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:02:48 PM

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:18 PM

I have DSL and it just seems as though the computer isn't quite as fast as it once was. The OS is Vista Home Basic and I guess I was just curious as to whether the additional GB of RAM I'm going to install would give me the added speed that I'm looking for. Not very patient I guess. :thumbsup:

Edited by raifordgirl, 22 December 2008 - 06:18 PM.


#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 55,746 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX
  • Local time:01:48 PM

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:28 PM

Thanks :thumbsup:, I assumed that you were running XP.

1GB of RAM with Vista is, IMO, just asking for trouble...Vista utilizes more RAM than XP does and the general rule seems to be a minimum of 2GB of RAM for routine performance.

So, although I was wrong about the O/S, the assertion about additional RAM still is pertinent :huh:.

If it were me, I would install the maximum amount of RAM which the system will support. You can find out what that amount is by looking in your system owner's manual or looking it up at either the manufacturer's website. If the system is custom-built (assembled by someone other than Dell, HP, eMachines, etc.), then the motherboard manual or motherboard specs will tell you the maximum memory which can be installed.

Louis

#5 funnytim

funnytim

  • Members
  • 624 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:11:48 AM

Posted 26 December 2008 - 04:59 AM

1GB of RAM with Vista is, IMO, just asking for trouble...Vista utilizes more RAM than XP does and the general rule seems to be a minimum of 2GB of RAM for routine performance.

Actually I disagree with that...my other system is running Vista Ultimate with 1GB Ram. It's not that much slower (if at all) compared to my other system with 2GB ram, and running same OS. It's for family use + some light gaming.

Then again the 1GB system has a Athlon 5000+ CPU, while the 2GB system is a 3800+ ..


if I need to, how difficult would it (CPU) be to upgrade?

I built my first computer a while ago (hamluis knows) and installing the CPU isn't diffucult at all. All you need to do is remove the heatsink (the CPU cooling system), change CPUs, re-apply the silicon for transfering heat, then install the heatsink back.

Also if you do decide to change the CPU make sure you check the motherboard manual to make sure it supports that CPU. You don't want to buy a CPU, then find out later it's unsupported!

As with another post I have seen my CPU usage up to 100% and can not figure out what could be causing that as I do not believe it's my printer since I wasn't using it at the time.

It might be some background apps such as antivirus...maybe check task manager to see what it is?

#6 dpunisher

dpunisher

  • BC Advisor
  • 2,234 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South TX
  • Local time:01:48 PM

Posted 26 December 2008 - 10:08 AM

Random stuff:

1 gig of RAM is pushing it with Vista. If you are conscientious about monitoring/disabling random startup programs and processes then 1gig can get you by, otherwise 2gig is minimum. I am just surfing the net, and Vista is eating 820meg of my 4gigs. As far as gaming, the reason I upgraded to 4gig from 2gig is because Crysis was stuttering since it ate up my 2gig of RAM. RAM is cheap.

A 3400 Sempron is going to be slow with Vista. If your wallet can afford it, and your motherboard supports it, go with at least a low end dual core. From what I have worked on, a dual core, with plenty of RAM, makes Vista tolerable. Vista, by default, has so many threads going it just seems to slug out single core CPUs.

Like funnytim said, use taskmanager and find out what is going on. In just about every system I work on with a complaint of "its slow", I find massive amounts of garbage processes sitting there eating CPU and memory. Google is your friend, find out what is needed and what's not.

The above is just an opinion of course.

I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)

3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users