AMD 8650 boot speed issues.

AMD's CPU has an intelligent system.

It is to automatically reduce the main frequency to save power when the workload is not very much, or to extend the life of the CPU (basically useless, who saves that electricity bill, but people are designed like that, the CPU life seems to be 5 years, overclocking, 3 years, 5 years, how many things have been updated on the computer?? Still use that? ）

What's the tune of it: BIOS

There is also the possibility that you boot up too many startup items. But you said that the main frequency of the boot is pretty much the one I said.

Type these words and give them to me.

Slow boot to help the CPU is not hungry... You have too many startup items, your hard drive is taking too long to read... Use 360 to get rid of unnecessary startup items.

It is AMD's cool and quiet technology that automatically reduces the clock to between energy consumption when the CPU load is not large. If you play a game or open a big software, its frequency will automatically increase.

This CPU is AMD's triple-core processor, 2M L2 cache, interface. Performance is in the same class as Intel E7200. The cost performance is quite high.

1.It's slow because you have too many boot items in your system to turn off unnecessary items.

Patch all the vulnerabilities and clean up the system junk with a thorough antivirus.

2.The main frequency is this U automatic downclocking It will come back when you use it normally.

3.To be honest, this U has no good features, it's just a very ordinary triple-core CPU from AMD, but the architecture is slightly newer, and the power consumption of this U is also relatively large, 95W

This problem is not many people can tell you Generally, people say that reducing the boot startup items can speed up the boot In fact, this has nothing to do with the number of scroll bars Those who don't know will only spread false rumors Many people think that there are too many boot loading software Not like this Reduce boot startup items Just let the computer enter the desktop when the system loads less software So that the hard disk has to load fewer files It's a little faster I've tried Even if the boot startup items are loaded and one is not added The number of scroll bars when booting up will not change It's just that after entering the desktop, you can operate it very quickly, so it can be said that such optimization is useless, so there is no need to remove the boot startup item, just let him load it, and we can open it again after loading, and we can hurry up As for the problem of scrollbars, I will tell you the method I saw in the book.

1. See what mode the hard disk is in the self-test, DMA mode is normal, PIO mode is extremely slow. If it is PIO mode, please go to the BIOS and load the default value, and then turn it on and see, it should change back to DMA.

2. Check whether the optical drive is connected to the slave disk. If it is, it will slow down the boot speed significantly. This is because the system detects the master disk and then the slave disk when it starts, and if the master disk is empty, it will take a few seconds here.

Please turn off the device and connect the optical drive back to the main disk. You can also use the hardware without moving, that is, you can set the main disk to "none" in the IDE attribute where the optical drive is located. Some optical drives are set in the slave tray when they leave the factory, if you have never noticed it, then please pay attention to it now!

3. The hard disk (parallel port) should use an 80-core data cable, and do not use a 40-core optical drive cable instead. The speed of the optical drive line can only reach DMA33, while the speed of the hard disk can reach DMA100 or DMA133.

4. The new generation of motherboards has added SATA hard disk interface. The user's hard disk is generally only one. This means that there will always be an IDE port or SATA port that is idle.

The system detects each hard drive interface every time it is turned on. If there is no interface to connect the device, it will take a few seconds to detect. Therefore, this type of motherboard starts to roll the scroll bar a few more times (such as Intel 865 and later motherboards).

We should turn off the idle IDE or SATA channel in the Device Manager, and we can reach the ideal state of rolling one and a half times when we start. If your hard drive is a high-speed, high-density hard drive, then the progress bar will pass in less than a lap.

Install a Optimization Master and click on Boot Optimization.

Eliminate viruses and Trojan horses to see if there is a problem with your system.

The AMD Phenom X3 8650 is equivalent to Intel's 4-core i3.

AMD Phenom is one of the product families that uses the K10 microarchitecture. The Phenom series includes the Phenom X4 (9000 series), Phenom X3 (8000 series) and Future Phenom FX series.

The first products were launched in November 2007, and the first Phenom and Barcelona B2-core quad-core processors were affected by the TLB bug. As a result, AMD released B3 core products in March 2008 to address the TLB vulnerability and improve processor performance.

On January 8, 2009, AMD launched the Phenom II X4 series processors, the Phenom II X4 940 and the Phenom II X4 920, with a 45nm process.

It's the level of the Intel Celeron E1400, and that 3 cores are really useless.

His opponent is the Intel E1400 or E2160, which is 108,000 miles away from the E5200.

Upstairs, you have to think about the principle that in fact you can open the core, and the question of whether you want it or not, all 3-core processors can open the core, but why didn't anyone open the core at that time? Because the performance is so poor, it's useless to open the core, and it's in vain.

8th floor, you take a look, superpi, have you tried it, the powerful intel is the most suitable for doing this, you run that and you will know how slow your CPU is dual-core is actually quite good you look at the scud-like e8600 superpi can even cut off all of your own q series The only thing that can match it is your own i7975 But how much power consumption is about this Pentium D915 The speed of millions of bits can have 47 seconds Your fastest has more than 50 seconds.

Number of cores Parameter Three cores.

Thermal design power consumption parameter 95W

Production process parameter 65 nm.

Frequency: 2300MHz

Socket type parameter socket am2+

L2 Cache Parameter correction 512KB*3

L3 cache parameter error correction 2048

The main problem is that the production process is now basically 45nm CPU, 65nm no one is equipped with 2010 is almost 32nm CPU, and the rest does not need to be seen than just looking at the production process to know whether it is good or bad.

It's all 45nm and then compared.

8650 play games with a good graphics card, basically any game can run, the new generation of amd5000+ uses 45nm, you can crack open four cores, buy two cores, open four cores, 8450 three cores, open four cores. There is no comparison between the two.

5200+ is just a high frequency reading map,If you open more8650 is stronger than 5200,No matter how you say it, there is one more core,There is no comparison at all。

I'm using amd8650 graphics card is 4670 I copied the CPU Play Call of Duty 6 more than 100 frames This CPU is very good This U is mid-to-high-end Don't talk nonsense if others haven't used it This U is very good.

Top dog. This CPU is a pterodactyl triple core, although it's a little old, but the performance is okay, at least it's better than the dual core.

The requirement is not MHZ), that only refers to single-core, dual-core and triple-core can not be so compared.

If 240 is low, then this one is worse. It's definitely better than 5000+. Better than 5200.

The Pterodactyl triple-core CPU belongs to the mid-range high-rise U Compared with 240, it is still 8650 higher After all, it is 3-core.

The gameplay is much stronger than 5200, after all, one dual-core and one three-core.

If your system is above vista, it will be stronger than 5200! Because XP does not support multi-threading at all for triple cores, dual cores also have to be patched. Theoretically speaking, the U of the same process may be faster to play games with a higher frequency, more cores, and an advantage in multitasking.

It's a bit wrong for you to say that Street Fighter 4 can't be played, you want to say Crysis, first get your graphics card to HD4850 or GF9800 or above, don't keep talking about your own U garbage, my u is 5000+, all satisfy me! Not to mention 8650

The performance is good, but because the main frequency is lower than 240 and 5200, it is not as good as 240 and 5200 to run a single task, but because it is a triple core, it is stronger than the previous two to run multitasking. Overall performance: AMD8650> AMD240> AMD5200> Crysis.

The latter two games have high requirements for the graphics card, the graphics card is not good, and the CPU is useless no matter how good it is.

You're a low-end tri-core. Definitely stronger than 5000+. It's better than 5200. A little bit..

The triple-core CPU, which used to be a rival of the same level as the E5300, has now been eliminated.

The main frequency is too low, and it is now positioned as an entry-level triple-core. In most cases, it is not as good as the X2 240 with a higher frequency and L2, and 3 cores will have a certain advantage in multi-threaded situations.

= In the case of non-multi-threaded tasks, the same architecture of course depends on the main frequency, K10 is not higher than K8 in terms of execution efficiency, and the advantages of shared L3 are obvious in multi-threaded tasks. Since L3 is a shared cache between cores, it is still a question of whether so many cores are used in a single-threaded task.

At this stage, it is not recommended to match 8650, although it is a triple core, but the main frequency is low, default.

The key is that it is AMD's previous generation product, and the heat generation and power consumption are relatively large, 65nm process.

It is recommended to use the new 45nm process Athlon-II dual-core or Phenom II triple-core and quad-core products, which have higher frequency, higher performance, lower heat generation and power consumption, and stronger overclocking ability than the previous generation. Good.

P's!If you haven't used it, don't scare.

Both the AMD 8650 and the 8450 are 3-core processors, and the AMD 240 is dual-core.

What's the use of your dual-core main frequency 2,4GHz,3 cores as long as there are not super cool amd3 cores that are higher than dual cores?What software card?Slow processing speed?

How fast I use it...

It's not as good as Intel's dual-core NB?

With the same machine, 3 cores are definitely faster than dual cores.

5200+ is long outdated. Any large-scale task, 8*** will throw off the dual-core .........

If you haven't made a comparison, don't talk too much!

I've used 8450 to open 14 missions at most, QQ doesn't count!

You use 240, 250, 5200+ to open 14 to see ......

AMD's triple core is a brain-dead product.

The performance can only be compared to Intel's mid-range dual-core.

**There are no obvious advantages in terms either. And the so-called three-core is the four-core shield to a core, since it has been bought, if you have to say it, it is considered to be in the middle The point is cost-effective.

There is no other way to go.

The main frequency is too low to open the core, which can only be considered poor.

Garbage in garbage. I simply don't bother to say. 3 cores, followed by 4 cores, shielding a u....

At the moment, there is no good U for the 8650. Tell him to try it for himself. Play big 3D games at the same time.

Isn't that obvious? The U5000 out of 5200 belongs to the premium brand. The gaming performance is absolutely flying.

To put it simply, HD240 independent display is paired with the same photo. 8650...Every now and then it gets stuck.

I've used both. In the U sex price, 5200+ will never belong to the obsolescence. If you pursue.

If it's not mainstream, I don't have anything to say. After all, I hit most of the 5200 U very much.

High scores. If you pick it up yourself, the seller will definitely say that the higher the data, the better. Actually, for.

Catch up with the fashionable 秂 I surrendered.

It can't be the same, one is dual-core, the other is triple-core, and the performance is definitely good for three cores.

Generally, as long as the dual core, such as the Athlon 245, is cheaper.

The other three cores and four cores depend on how the economy is, and if there is no problem in the economy, there will be three cores and four cores.

The X2 245 should be AM3, so I recommend the X2 245, and the X3 8650 is a more entry-level 3-core.

The Athlon 245 is dual-core. However, with the new architecture, it will not lose to 8650 in general processing

The 8650 also has a large calorific value, although it is a three-core one. But it may not be practical enough for 245.

So choosing 245 now is the best option. Even if you upgrade later, you are not afraid. It's fine if the motherboard supports AM3.