I have my new box up and running and just now noticed that when I go to my computer and then properties that box you first see with all the system info i.e. System, registered to, Computer that under computer I see this:
Computer:
     AMD Athlon(tm) 64X2 Dual
     Core Processor 3800+
     1.00GHz

I thought this was a 64X2 Dual Core, 3800+
2.0GHz? You know a clock speed of 2.0GHz?
At least that is what was on the box the processor came in.
What am I not understanding here?

Thanks,
Micheál

I'm not sure myself but I would like to know on this subject,,,

Windows isn't the most reliable source for this so use something like :

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

to see what your CPU is doing (or any other freeware bench/info tool like Everest or Sandra)

Mine says:

AMD 64 X2 Dual

Core Processor 4800+

2.86 GHZ  2.00 GB Ram

This means I have two cores running at 2.86.  I OCed my FSB to squeeze a little more power out of my machine.  I had it running at 3 GHZ X2 but it was unstable.

Make sure your machine is setup right.  Check the multiplier and the FSB.

Okay here's the deal I have the AMD Cool and Quiet software installed
which slows down the CPU to save power when the system isn't
being stressed. I ran the software program from the ASUS
folder while I was running a render in poser and had PSP10
running as well as another app. I saw the  CPU jump up to
2.0GHz when there was a full load going and both cores were
being used. When idle it just sits at 1.0 GHz.

Same thing when I open CPU-Z. Kinda cool to watch!

Thanks all!!

I disable the Cool and Quiet because some say it is better that way.

I think AMD processors, whe say XXXX+ thouse XXXX don't mean the CPU speed, I think AMD want to say that its procesor runs as quick as a XXXX processor, although the real speed processor is another.

I think AMD processors, whe say XXXX+ thouse XXXX don't mean the CPU speed, I think AMD want to say that its procesor runs as quick as a XXXX processor, although the real speed processor is another.

seal, sandra sisoft is a cool program for testing your sled. google it.

I believe adh3d is (more or less) correct above. I bought an AMD 64 3500+ which advertised itself as a 2.21 Ghz.   

Ie, its something to do with competing with Intel in terms of marketing.

Its not entirely marketing though, AMDs A64s actually do give the same performance as an equivalent intel of the same rating. ie an athlon 64 3500 gives you close to the performance an intel running at 3.5 GHz would. Even better the damn things overclock like crazy, my 3500+ is supposed to run at 2.2 GHz, but i use it at 2.8 GHz on air cooling without any problem. Thats an AMD 4400+ for the price of a 3500+ !

Too bad intel's core 2 duo/quadros tromp them in the multicore version...

I've seen reviews of the latest quad-core processors from Intel, and they're not quite as good as they seem. 1: They're two twin-core chips in one package, each pair with their own cache, and the load/cache balancing isn't good. 2: Few programs take advantage of the extra cores, which may be, in part, a problem with Windows. 3: The programs which do get an advantage are multi-core-capable, CPU-intensive, graphics programs. Not the games market it's being pitched at by the adverts. I really don't want to spend money on new hardware like that until I know how it works with Poser 7. What's interesting is that AMD are working on the idea of graphics processors on the main die, which are very good at some sorts of math. It's a year or two down the line, Poser 8 territory, perhaps, and the same sort of specialised market that those really expensive ATI cards are sold for. But I can remember when the floating point math processor was a seperate chip. There's always something new.

Quote - Its not entirely marketing though, AMDs A64s actually do give the same performance as an equivalent intel of the same rating. ie an athlon 64 3500 gives you close to the performance an intel running at 3.5 GHz would.

It's equivalent of Intel Pentium 4, not intel in general.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 at 1.8GHz is faster than AMD A64 4200+ at 2.2GHz since it's different architecture than Pentium 4 which has pretty inefficient architecture.

I thought it was pretty clear from my post that I was comparing single core to single core, and multi core to multi core... and the only single core archi from Intel in recent years has been the P4s. I guess maybe xeons could be considered a different CPU, but they are also clobbered by their opteron equivalents... and I did say Intel were killing them in the multicore deptt didnt I ?

As for 4 cores, Of course 4 cores arent as big a jump as 2 cores, that's just how SMP works. But 4 cores with 2 pairs of cores sharing a cache is still a lot better then 4 individual CPUs, which is all that was possible before they came up with the core 2 quadro. And who knows they may make a fully shared cache version in the near future, they are just getting started with multi cores after all...So i for one am quite excited by it, but i admit that its partly because I use other apps besides Poser that would indeed make good use of them.

A small point. The really important bit is how fast they process instructions, not how fast the clock runs.
   Intel have always used a four-phase clock, divide the clock by four to get instruction speed.
   AMD and PowerPC chips have a two-phase clock, divide by two.

That's how Macs always used to out run Wintels.

So I 'm trying to figure out what I just picked up a core 2 duo processor e6600 2.4 4mb l2 cache 1066 mhz fsb...is this a good one to have?  Thanks, Marque

@marque: that sure is a good CPU. Just below the absolute top, which means you get a lot of CPU power for the buck. As it stands right now, that CPU is faster than any of the AMD dual core CPUs.

Quad core CPUs are nice, but not on Windows XP - WinXP only supports 2 cores/CPUs. You need Linux or Win2003Server (or maybe Vista - don't now the specs of Vista by heart) to make use of all four cores.

Was going to get the next one up but my credit was $58 short and they don't let you use cash to make up the difference...oh well. Thinking of getting Vista when it comes out but not sure when. Think I will wait and see what it supports as far as programs first.