Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a  
4400+ dual core Athlon CPU.
 
My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
 
I would also like to upgrade my OS to Windows XP64, but I'm having  
trouble finding 64-bit drivers for everything.
 
Has anyone seen any benchmarks for the dual core X2 under XP vs XP64?
 
James

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-uA@bright.net...
> Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a 4400+  
> dual core Athlon CPU.
>
> My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
>
> I would also like to upgrade my OS to Windows XP64, but I'm having trouble  
> finding 64-bit drivers for everything.
>
> Has anyone seen any benchmarks for the dual core X2 under XP vs XP64?
>
> James
 
I have seen benchmarks posted on the web, but don't recall where. Try  
Google.
 
It really depends on the application as to whether it is worth it. For most  
desktop uses, it is not worth it because most applications cannot exploit  
dual processors.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message  
news:_didneASLsyK_ibfRVn-sg@comcast.com...
> "James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
> news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-uA@bright.net...
>> Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a  
>> 4400+ dual core Athlon CPU.
>>
>> My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
>>
>> I would also like to upgrade my OS to Windows XP64, but I'm having  
>> trouble finding 64-bit drivers for everything.
>>
>> Has anyone seen any benchmarks for the dual core X2 under XP vs XP64?
>>
>> James
>
> I have seen benchmarks posted on the web, but don't recall where. Try  
> Google.
>
> It really depends on the application as to whether it is worth it. For  
> most desktop uses, it is not worth it because most applications cannot  
> exploit dual processors.
>
 
Yes, but it's kind of nice to burn a CD/DVD and surf the web at the same  
time.  Each core has it's own workload, hoohay!
And, these dual cores, except for games, are ripping up benchmarks.
 
john

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"name" <vze4j6mv@verizon.net> wrote in message  
news:mVJue.6429$PZ6.5045@trndny08...
> Yes, but it's kind of nice to burn a CD/DVD and surf the web at the same  
> time.  Each core has it's own workload, hoohay!
> And, these dual cores, except for games, are ripping up benchmarks.
>
> john
My AMD64 3500+ can burn a CD/DVD and I surf the web at the same time without  
any noticeable loss of speed. There are no rational arguments that will  
convince a geek that the dual core X2 is not absolutely necessary for their  
personal happiness and eternal salvation.
 
But please don't insult my intelligence and try to convince me that more  
than a handful of all PC users will noticeably benefit enough to justify the  
price of a dual core CPU with today's software applications . It makes me  
very angry when you insult my intelligence.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

What processor do you have now in your A8N-E board?
 
Are you happy with the A8N-E board?
 
Any OC'ing on the board.
 
There are no reviews of this A8N-E anywhere which is so odd for a mainstream  
board, especially a name brand like ASUS.  I've read in forums that many  
people are happy with the A8N-E.
There are so many reviews of the DFI Ultra D.  DFI must send them out to  
everyone to review.
 
I just bought one today but am waiting for an XP-90 cooler I ordered over  
the internet.  I have a FX53 chip to put in it.
 
 
"James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-uA@bright.net...
> Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a 4400+  
> dual core Athlon CPU.
>
> My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
>
> I would also like to upgrade my OS to Windows XP64, but I'm having trouble  
> finding 64-bit drivers for everything.
>
> Has anyone seen any benchmarks for the dual core X2 under XP vs XP64?
>
> James

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Wookie" <Tom@comcast.net> wrote in message  
news:XZudncd53O_c5CbfRVn-jw@comcast.com...
> What processor do you have now in your A8N-E board?
>
> Are you happy with the A8N-E board?
>
> Any OC'ing on the board.
>
> There are no reviews of this A8N-E anywhere which is so odd for a  
> mainstream board, especially a name brand like ASUS.  I've read in forums  
> that many people are happy with the A8N-E.
> There are so many reviews of the DFI Ultra D.  DFI must send them out to  
> everyone to review.
>
> I just bought one today but am waiting for an XP-90 cooler I ordered over  
> the internet.  I have a FX53 chip to put in it.
>
>
There are now 4 different versions of the Asus A8N series (E, SLI, SLI  
Deluxe, and SLI Platinum) so it is a little redundant to include them all in  
reviews.
 
The A8N-E uses the same OC bios and software as the others and is reportedly  
fairly good. I don't OC because my  3500+ has lots of power and I don't have  
time to mess with it. Maybe in few years I will crank it up before upgrading  
to a faster system.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

James <anonymous@nowhere.no> schrieb
 
> Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a
> 4400+ dual core Athlon CPU.
>
> My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
When it comes to price/performance ratio the powerchips are always bad
compared to the mainstreamchips.
 
The question is; do you really need this power?
 
If Yes, then take it, if No then wait until you need it. In a year dualcore
CPUs are quite familiar, and you can get the same CPU maybe for half the
price.
 
> I would also like to upgrade my OS to Windows XP64, but I'm having
> trouble finding 64-bit drivers for everything.
Have you more than 4 Gb memory? If not XP64 gives you no real advance, only
trouble to get all of your hardware working, cause its too new.
 
> Has anyone seen any benchmarks for the dual core X2 under XP vs XP64?
No, but on a standard home-PC I don´t believe that there is much difference.
 
Conclusion, you do not really need always the newest and hotest on the
hardware market, if you are not a real poweruser or have to much money or
you like it  very much to play the beta tester for the industry.
 
Tschüß
Chris

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Christoph Spies" <chspies@freenet.de> wrote in message  
news:42bbbe2b$0$8092$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de...
> James <anonymous@nowhere.no> schrieb
>
>> Well, I have the 1005 BIOS now and I'm thinking about upgrading to a
>> 4400+ dual core Athlon CPU.
>>
>> My question is, is the performance increase worth the $650 for the chip?
> When it comes to price/performance ratio the powerchips are always bad
> compared to the mainstreamchips.
>
It is not just a question of power. It is also a question of which software  
can take advantage of two processors at once. Right now, there are not many  
desktop applications that can do that, and frankly, I don't think that will  
change too much in the near future. The dual core CPU's are better suited to  
servers where multiple CPU intensive applications are running at one time.
 
But if you are a multi-media or design professional that spends all day  
working with a multi-threaded application like Adobe Photoshop or certain  
CAD applications, then it may be worth it to have a dual core system. Many  
of these type users already have (or least tried) dual processor systems, so  
they know whether there is a benefit for their workload to have 2 CPU's  
available at one time.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Wookie wrote:
 
> What processor do you have now in your A8N-E board?
 
Athlon 3500 Venice
 
> Are you happy with the A8N-E board?
 
I've owned many Asus MBs over the years and I really like the A8N-E. So
far it has been a rock solid performer. I am especially impressed with
how stable it has been compared with other Asus MBs I have owned.
 
> Any OC'ing on the board.
 
No. My past experience with this has shown me that running on the edge
of the envelope risks instability...and I like stability IOW, the
slight performance gains aren't worth the risk of lockups. Not that I
don't like blazingly fast computers - that is why I bought the A8N-E -
but for me it must operate reliably at the same time.
 
> There are no reviews of this A8N-E anywhere which is so odd for a mainstream  
> board, especially a name brand like ASUS.  I've read in forums that many  
> people are happy with the A8N-E.
 
You can add one more to that list.
 
> I just bought one today but am waiting for an XP-90 cooler I ordered over  
> the internet.  I have a FX53 chip to put in it.
 
I think you will be very happy with your choices... As for  me, well, I  
think I'm going to spring for the Athlon 4400 Toledo. I know it is $650  
minimum at this time, but I'm a big kid who likes to blow his hard  
earned cash on cutting edge toys. No good reason other than that.
 
James )

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Mark A wrote:
 
> It is not just a question of power. It is also a question of which software  
> can take advantage of two processors at once. Right now, there are not many  
> desktop applications that can do that, and frankly, I don't think that will  
> change too much in the near future. The dual core CPU's are better suited to  
> servers where multiple CPU intensive applications are running at one time.
 
Are you absolutely positive that the dual core CPUs are only an  
advantage to applications that are designed to use them? If so, then the  
extra CPU core just sits there and does nothing otherwise?
 
James

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
news:vOqdnbqDFN91SibfRVn-3w@bright.net...
>
> Are you absolutely positive that the dual core CPUs are only an advantage  
> to applications that are designed to use them? If so, then the extra CPU  
> core just sits there and does nothing otherwise?
>
> James
>
Yes. The extra CPU core just sits there unless you are running two  
applications at once, or a single multi-threaded application. It is very  
hard to design multi-threaded applications since the programmer has to split  
the workload into two (or more) pieces and then reassemble the results back  
into a single result. There is extra overhead inherent in this type of  
application design (reassembling the pieces into a single result), so it is  
not used unless the tasks are fairly intensive.
 
For most desktop users, given a fixed amount of money to spend, they would  
see much better performance with a single faster CPU, than a multi-core CPU.  
As I said previously, there are some exceptions with a some professional  
multi-media and design applications specifically designed for with  
multi-threading.
 
If you Google this subject, you can find reviews that back up what I said.  
Some applications (like Office) may actually slower with dual-core CPU's.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
news:vOqdnbqDFN91SibfRVn-3w@bright.net...
> Mark A wrote:
>
>> It is not just a question of power. It is also a question of which  
>> software can take advantage of two processors at once. Right now, there  
>> are not many desktop applications that can do that, and frankly, I don't  
>> think that will change too much in the near future. The dual core CPU's  
>> are better suited to servers where multiple CPU intensive applications  
>> are running at one time.
>
> Are you absolutely positive that the dual core CPUs are only an advantage  
> to applications that are designed to use them? If so, then the extra CPU  
> core just sits there and does nothing otherwise?
>
> James
>
In the same manner that software has to be "aware" to take advantage of  
hyperthreading on an
Intel proc?  Even though there is no improvement in most applications with  
hyperthreading enabled, Intel would have you believe it is the greatest  
thing that ever happened to computing. People foolish believe the hype and  
spend their hard earned dollars on an Intel HT proc...so sad.
 
However, it is much easier to port apps to take advantage of dual core than  
it is to make it aware of hyperthreading...add this to the huge superiority  
that AMD has with the hypertransport bus (which has nothing to do with  
hyperthreading), and AMD is a better choice.  In the long run, apps such as  
video editing software, CADD programs, and other processor intensive  
software will directly benefit from the dual core technology.  The server  
argument is no longer a valid one; Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is  
based on Server 2003 x64 code, it will benefit the user running it on a  
consumer dual core platform.   The same will be true of Longhorn when it is  
released.
 
In short, don't count dual core out...it's just getting started.
 
Bobby

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message  
news:Za6dnbFyPpPfQSbfRVn-gg@comcast.com...
> "James" <anonymous@nowhere.no> wrote in message  
> news:vOqdnbqDFN91SibfRVn-3w@bright.net...
>>
>> Are you absolutely positive that the dual core CPUs are only an  
>> advantage to applications that are designed to use them? If so, then  
>> the extra CPU core just sits there and does nothing otherwise?
>>
>> James
>>
> Yes. The extra CPU core just sits there unless you are running two  
> applications at once, or a single multi-threaded application. It is very  
> hard to design multi-threaded applications since the programmer has to  
> split the workload into two (or more) pieces and then reassemble the  
> results back into a single result. There is extra overhead inherent in  
> this type of application design (reassembling the pieces into a single  
> result), so it is not used unless the tasks are fairly intensive.
Not quite.
The system will still do it's own 'housekeeping' on the second processor.  
So IDE I/O, software RAID calculations etc., will give a slight advantage  
over a single processor. The biggest gain in this form, is when you have a  
single application that likes to hog 100% processor time, when you will  
still see the a fast keyboard response with the dual core system. Software  
RAID, and file compression (if using a compressed drive on XP), are two  
things that give more gain. However these all come at a slight 'cost' from  
the more complex kernel.
 
> For most desktop users, given a fixed amount of money to spend, they  
> would see much better performance with a single faster CPU, than a  
> multi-core CPU. As I said previously, there are some exceptions with a  
> some professional multi-media and design applications specifically  
> designed for with multi-threading.
The 'rule of thumb', is that when using non multithreaded applications,  
you will see between 20%, and 40% performance gain, unless the application  
is unusual, and is almost entirely 'memory based', when you will see a  
slight loss because of the extra kernel overhead. Unfortunately, some  
Windows applications are this way inclined... The biggest gain though  
comes with multiple applications (which is a thing very rarely 'done' in  
Windows - how often do you leave an application 'processing' a major  
mathematical task, while you run something else? - generally Windows users  
'task jump', running just one task at a time, but with several 'active'),  
or with a properly written MP application.
 
> If you Google this subject, you can find reviews that back up what I  
> said. Some applications (like Office) may actually slower with dual-core  
> CPU's.
Though, they still respond better to user input.
Generally, unless running an MP application, expect small gains, rather  
than large ones.
 
Best Wishes

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote in message  
news:c3Rue.14834$tG.1859@trnddc05...
> In the same manner that software has to be "aware" to take advantage of  
> hyperthreading on an
> Intel proc?  Even though there is no improvement in most applications with  
> hyperthreading enabled, Intel would have you believe it is the greatest  
> thing that ever happened to computing. People foolish believe the hype and  
> spend their hard earned dollars on an Intel HT proc...so sad.
>
> However, it is much easier to port apps to take advantage of dual core  
> than it is to make it aware of hyperthreading...add this to the huge  
> superiority that AMD has with the hypertransport bus (which has nothing to  
> do with hyperthreading), and AMD is a better choice.  In the long run,  
> apps such as video editing software, CADD programs, and other processor  
> intensive software will directly benefit from the dual core technology.  
> The server argument is no longer a valid one; Windows XP Professional x64  
> Edition is based on Server 2003 x64 code, it will benefit the user running  
> it on a consumer dual core platform.   The same will be true of Longhorn  
> when it is released.
>
> In short, don't count dual core out...it's just getting started.
>
> Bobby
>
The reasons why servers are more appropriate for dual core CPU's is because  
servers (especially application servers and database servers) typically  
handle multiple client requests at one time, and each one can be handled by  
a separate CPU without having to multi-thread any one individual client  
request (which most applications cannot do). This is the same reason why  
many servers typically have 2, 4, ,8 (or even more) completely separate  
CPU's. I am not talking about file or print servers, which can usually  
operate fine with one CPU because they are I/O bound and not CPU bound.
 
I agree that there is nothing special about the OS, since Windows XP can  
multi-task quite well. It is just that desktop systems do not usually have a  
large number of CPU intensive simultaneous processes executing at once.
 
For a given expenditure on CPU chips, 99% of desktop users will benefit more  
with a faster CPU (and larger cache) than a dual core CPU.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> The 'rule of thumb', is that when using non multithreaded applications,  
> you will see between 20%, and 40% performance gain, unless the application  
> is unusual, and is almost entirely 'memory based', when you will see a  
> slight loss because of the extra kernel overhead. Unfortunately, some  
> Windows applications are this way inclined... The biggest gain though  
> comes with multiple applications (which is a thing very rarely 'done' in  
> Windows - how often do you leave an application 'processing' a major  
> mathematical task, while you run something else? - generally Windows users  
> 'task jump', running just one task at a time, but with several 'active'),  
> or with a properly written MP application.
>
 
Based on benchmarks I have seen, the 20-40% increase in performance of non  
multi-threaded applications with dual core is not accurate. Some  
applications actually run slower on a dual core CPU than on a single  
processor with the same speed. Remember that if you have two processors,  
they have to share the system memory, and sometimes the CPU cache (depending  
on the CPU design).
 
Bottom line is that for a given amount of money spent on a CPU, 99% of  
desktop users will see much better performance with a faster CPU (and more  
cache) than a slower multi-core CPU.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

In article <kYidnUR819og8SbfRVn-rg@comcast.com>, nobody@nowhere.com (Mark  
A) wrote:
 
 
>  There are no rational arguments  
> that will convince a geek that the dual core X2 is not absolutely  
> necessary for their personal happiness and eternal salvation.
 
Now that's really true and rational :-)
 
I am fighting it because I know my 3500+ is perfectly adequate for my  
needs!
 
John
 
Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

"John Hollingsworth" <jwh@cix.co.uk> wrote in message  
news:memo.20050624115724.2292A@jwh.compulink.co.uk...
>
> I am fighting it because I know my 3500+ is perfectly adequate for my
> needs!
>
> John
>
If you want to spend more money on a CPU upgrade, get a faster (and more  
cache) single processor CPU.