AMD CPU Compatibility Help

[MetallicaItalia]

I have a 2 year old HP Pavilion a6110n desktop that was pretty middle of the road when I purchased it. I've added the max RAM (4GB) and given it a nice 9800 GTX+ GPU. This is my current processor.
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Brisbane 2.3GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor
(http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103221)
Here are the exact Mobo specs
HP and Compaq Desktop PCs- Motherboard Specifications, M2N68-LA (Narra) (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&dlc=de&cc=de&docname=c00906129)

What I gather is that I'm basically limited to something that is 89w and though I understand AM2+'s and AM3's are still compatible with AM2 sockets, I don't seem to see any of these types that run under 89w.

I've basically concluded that I'm limited to the AMD 64 X2 5800 3Ghz which is 65nm and runs 89w (is this dangerous for a mobo that recommends 89w MAX?)

Newegg.com - AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ Brisbane 3.0GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103274)

I have all the RAM my mobo can support and I'm not ready to build a new rig, I was just looking for some more processing power so I could render some 3D animations more quickly.

This doesn't seem like much of an upgrade to me however. The price is only $60 but is it even worth it for the difference in these two CPU's?. Are there any quad core CPU's I could run in a mobo that is only designed to support 89w?

Not sure how hot my PC typically gets but I do know my GPU idle temps anywhere between 45 C and 62 C.

Thanks for the help.

Edit: User Response from another forum

Phenoms require AM2+ or AM3 support, and that motherboard only has a AM2 socket. Sorry, you are limited to what HP's BIOS and the motherboard will support, which as you said is at most a Athlon 64 X2 with Dual Core technology up to 5600+ (up to 89 watt).

Make sure your BIOS is up to date BEFORE you uninstall your current CPU, as often the latest BIOS contains the microcode supporting the fastest CPU.

Released: 2007-11-09
Version: 5.13

Hopefully it supports the Windsor core (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103771) with its double the size L2 over the Brisbane (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103234), because that will have a lot more impact than just an extra 0.5GHz. If that BIOS won't support 3GHZ, it won't run the 5800+, or it will run at the 5600+ speed. Keep in mind that is an OEM chip, so a manufaturer's spec heatsink/fan+ thermal compound will not come with it.

You may have to supply your own as your current HSF may not be enough cooling for the faster CPU...I do not know.

Hopefully you have a 450W PSU.
As for the temps., I would personally go with Arctic Silver 5 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835100007), as opposed to the OEM compound that comes with the retail kit...if you go the retail kit.


My response:

I have a 500W PSU and I was hoping the current fan and heatsink would be adequate. How would I go about determining whether not not my mobo supports Windsor or whether or not the most current BIOS support 3GHZ? If both of these happen to be supported then which would produce more performance increase, the 5600 Windsor or 3GHZ 5800 (65nm)? I would assume the bigger cache would be more effective than .7 GHZ. Does the fact that the Windsor's manufacturing tech is 90nm rather than 65nm which is my current raise compatibility issues?

I also read there were some problems with Asus M2N68-LA 5.13 BIOS such as increasing HD seek time more than 100%. Seems many people are looking to downgrade.
M2N68-LA Motherboard BIOS Update (http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/softwareDownloadIndex?softwareitem=pv-55442-1&lc=en&dlc=en&cc=de&product=3436818&os=2093&lang=en)
Nothing is listed here about added processor support.

So the basic question is which of these 3 is compatible and which of the compatible CPU's is most powerful?
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600 Brisbane 2.9GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core Processor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103234)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5800+ Brisbane 3.0GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103274)

AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ Windsor 2.8GHz 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket AM2 89W Dual-Core Processor (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103771)

[jlreich]

The second 5600+ with the extra cache is what I would pick. I agree the double cache is more important than 100MHz. I would even try the 5800 since HP says up to a 5600 only.

[MetallicaItalia]

That would seem to be the best option, I just need to find out if my mobo supports Windsor, 90 nm manufacturing tech, and if my current HS and fan would be adequate for the 89w.

Unfortunately I do not know how to determine any of these things. I'm a bit of a hardware nub.

[mjc]

The first and third should be fine...and I'm with JL, pick the Windsor core (#3) for the cache. If you had a lower power PSU, then I'd say the Brisbane core...but at 500 W you've got the power to handle the extra 24W.

[MetallicaItalia]

So the 5800+ isn't likely compatible? I did some more research and learned that the 90nm is old technology, uses more electricity, produces more heat, and is more likely to do possible damage to my rig. Is this enough of a concern for me? Or would I be wise to get a better fan? I have no CPU temp readings but I can at least say that my GPU temps are 45C on a good day 62C on a bad day idle.

[jlreich]

Actually I forgot that the Windsor is 90nm. :o I would go with the Brisbane. I know the Brisbane is newer but I had forgot the Windsor is that old. Time flies. :eek: I would pick the 65nm over the extra cache. There are other improvements over the Windsor other than 65nm.

You should be able to see your CPU temps in the BIOS if nothing else.

[MetallicaItalia]

What's so advantageous about the Brisbane over Windsor besides 65nm? I would think something that is only .1 Ghz lower with twice the L2 cache would be much faster and more desirable, is this wrong to assume?

[jlreich]

Ever noticed how fast computer technology moves? That even after just six months something is better and cheaper?

In general that what we are talking about. You can't really compare an older CPU to a newer one based on clock speed and cache alone. You have to consider the improvements they have made to the internal architecture. When it comes to that even a single stepping revision to the same core can make a noticeable difference.

And I would actually pick the Brisbane just for the fact of 65nm over 90nm. Considering the smaller 65nm fab tech you can fit in quite a few more transistors into the same size die than with 90nm tech, while using less power and running cooler. ;)

45nm is now the standard with 32nm coming soon. If you have a smaller tech available to you, use it.

Honestly I thought 90nm was dead. I mean come on, my old P4 Prescott s478 was 90nm. :eek:

[MetallicaItalia]

I see well thank you very much for the help. I forgot to mention I need the extra power for Computer Graphics rendering and I'm not ready to buy a new mobo just yet.

I have one more question which is whether or not the 5800+ would be compatible. I know my mobo is listed to support up to 5600+ (89w). But the 5800+ is still 89w so I'm a bit confused.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103274

[jlreich]

Well, it isn't just about the wattage. It has more to do with what the BIOS supports as far as the actual CPU goes. If the BIOS and/or chipset does not support the CPU then it may run fine, it may run but very poorly with wrong settings, or it will more likely not run at all.

If the BIOS doesn't have the updated microcode for the CPU it won't know how to interact with it.

This is important for even new computers. Whenever I build a new system, or want to update the CPU on an existing system, I double check to make sure of what BIOS version supports the CPU I want to use, or if it supports it at all.

For instance I would like to upgrade my E6750 to a Q9550 or Q9650. In order to do this I would first have to flash the BIOS from the current F3 to F6 beta BIOS or it won't work in my system. If they had decided to stop updating the BIOS at F5 I would be out of luck. ;) When I bought the board the E/Q 8xxx and 9xxx series were not out yet. Fortunately my board is only a year old and I expect BIOS updates as needed for at least another year. Actually if I do upgrade I will be set until I decide to rebuild, so it won't matter anyway.

[saphalline]

A 30% boost in raw CPU power is nothing to sneeze at, but...

If it were me, I'd cut my losses and start over. The reason being that $60 worth of Brisbane is no match for current CPU's from both Intel and AMD. Phenom's beat the old Athlon 64 X2's by about 7% at the same clock speed, and Phenom II's beat Phenom's by about 11% at the same clock speed! :eek: Core 2 Quad's based on Penryn trade blows with Phenom II's, and Core i7 demolishes everything in its path!

To put all this into perspective, a Pentium Dual-Core (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116072) would slip past an old Brisbane any day, and it would do it at 45nm with just 65W!

The time to upgrade that old thing would have been when Phenom was released and pushed the prices of A64 X2's into the gutter. Now? It's a bit lame. If that's all you have and all you're going to have for quite some time, yeah, go ahead and slap in a faster Brisbane. But if it were me, I'd see that the price vs performance ratio is too old to be a smart buy. That $60 would be better spent on a 640GB HDD, or a romantic dinner, or into the "new computer fund" for future replacement. Don't spend $60 on a crutch for an aging OEM system.

[MetallicaItalia]

Well I'm not hurting too badly for cash at the moment. I just don't want to invest too much time in it at the moment. What I have is more than adequate for gaming and even CG I'm just looking for some extra power for faster render speeds. I won't be building a new rig until around 2011 after I get my undergrad. Hopefully, at this point 500GB SSD's won't be $600.

[saphalline]

That HP you have now already has grey hair, as far as computers age. You won't be getting a new box until 2011!? :eek: That seems a bit self abusive! :p

I guarantee you that your HP will be a drain on your productivity before 2010 ends! If you really are a gamer and CG artist, that is. You might want to explore your options over the next 6 months or so. An A64 X2 4400+ is not yet ancient, but it will be a limiting factor for both gaming and CG programs by this time next year.

I would say you have a far more important problem looming ahead of you than just this one.

[MetallicaItalia]

Yeah I would imagine so. I'm going to a state school for a BFA in computer animation and unfortunately we use Lightwave. My rig has a 9800 GTX+ Superclocked and 4GB (max mobo supports for vista 32 bit) of RAM so it's not cutting edge but it handles current games easily over 30 FPS at 1440 X 900 with settings maxed.

I really don't run into any problems on this build I just wish I could get some faster render times. I won't submit anything without some radiosity and AA. At this point all of my work is submitted at 640 X 480 which is never a problem. I plan to attend SCAD for game design and I'd want something more powerful by then.

If I upgrade this CPU to 5600 i really won't be able to add anything else to it except for newer video cards in which case I'm only limited by their physical size. My 9800 GTX+ is longer than the mobo and barely fits in the case haha. AT this point, the latest and greatest GPU's are still only 10.5" like my 9800 so I could get a GeForce GTX 295 and stay pretty sharp through 2011. Of course I only have one PCIE slot so I can't be running more than one. The only other thing I could think of would be to upgrade to 64-bit and get 8GB or ram. I'm told I would face a lot of software compatibility issues with 64-bit however. (I'm not too familiar with this) So for gaming which is only casual because I don't have time for any more and CG work at 640 X 480, I was hoping this would serve me well until 2011 haha.

Thanks once again for all your help guys especially your info jlreich.

[saphalline]

As long as that HP stays running, it might do you well until then. Personally, I wouldn't be happy with the performance. But then again, I currently have an OC'ed Q9550 and I'm still drooling over Core i7 :p so take that with a grain of salt.

By 2011, your A64 X2 will be holding you back, with or without this upgrade. So if this upgrade is all you can get until 2011, you might as well do it. Like I said, +30% is nothing to sneeze at...