Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A8N-E and dual core Athlon X2

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
June 24, 2005 12:45:54 AM

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

More about : a8n dual core athlon

Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 12:45:55 AM

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.
June 24, 2005 12:45:55 AM

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
Related resources
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 5:02:08 AM

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.
June 24, 2005 6:07:14 AM

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
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 6:07:15 AM

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.
June 24, 2005 9:44:12 AM

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 :o )
June 24, 2005 9:47:57 AM

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

Thanks for the 'Review' Mark.

This was a good thread for discussion too. I bet the X2's don't drop much
in price for awhile .. why should they as they will be AMD's top dog and it
has it's own niche so to speak. There will be an FX57 and a A64 4400 ..
4800 ..xx000 to come but I bet for at least for 6 months at least the prices
won't drop much. Intel won't have anything to push it.

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:q7idnYUh0_VyMibfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> "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.
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 1:32:26 PM

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
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 1:32:27 PM

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.
June 24, 2005 1:32:28 PM

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
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 1:32:29 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 2:15:36 PM

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
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 2:15:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 2:26:20 PM

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
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 2:26:21 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 3:10:05 PM

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

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:i_2dnbhW2PKufybfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> "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).
You will see that I mention exactly this.

> 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.
Yes, with a couple of 'exceptions'. With a single processor machine, you
can get the 'delightful' situation, where something like an old DOS
application, polls the keyboard, and uses 100% processor time doing
effectively nothing. You end up having to hit a key, and wait a few
minutes for Windows to eventually respond. With a MP machine this does not
happen, and the response is nearly instantaneous. The same thing happens
unfortunately with some Windows applications (MS is great at writing ones
that do this - try having a network problem while downloading a file). The
MP machine will often benchmark quite poorly, but the responsiveness to
the user, makes it feel faster than the benchmarks imply.

Best Wishes
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 3:10:06 PM

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

"Roger Hamlett" <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hSRue.3856$BD2.3521@newsfe1-
> Yes, with a couple of 'exceptions'. With a single processor machine, you
> can get the 'delightful' situation, where something like an old DOS
> application, polls the keyboard, and uses 100% processor time doing
> effectively nothing. You end up having to hit a key, and wait a few
> minutes for Windows to eventually respond. With a MP machine this does not
> happen, and the response is nearly instantaneous. The same thing happens
> unfortunately with some Windows applications (MS is great at writing ones
> that do this - try having a network problem while downloading a file). The
> MP machine will often benchmark quite poorly, but the responsiveness to
> the user, makes it feel faster than the benchmarks imply.
>
> Best Wishes
Yes, there are some minor cases of multi-threading where the application
hands off work to one of the subsystems (disk, audio, etc), however these
are not long lasting CPU intensive tasks in most situations (especially if
you have a decent MB and separate audio card).

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 3:57:00 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 3:57:01 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 24, 2005 5:10:00 PM

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

> If you want to spend more money on a CPU upgrade, get a faster (and
> more cache) single processor CPU.

No, I'll stick with the 3500+ as I think its a good compromise CPU for my
duties. I always yearned for a 2 x CPU PC on the basis that it may not be
faster but won't slow down!

John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.
June 25, 2005 3:34:25 AM

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

In a word, yes, but read below.

Here's a waffle that covers many of the issues:

Ordinary Programs:
A standard user-world program usually has only 1 thread. CPU's execute
threads - threads are what are scheduled to run. Some standard user programs
are written as single threaded, but under the hood do use multiple threading
unbeknownst to the programmer EG some client database stuff. If a program
has only 1 thread then it can't use more than 1 CPU.

You can see how many threads a process has by starting task manager - Ctrl
Alt Del, Task Manager and on the processes tab, on the view menu, click
Select Columns and Tick Thread Count. Most processes have 2 or 3 threads,
but usually the 2nd and 3rd threads are little to do with the programmer. IE
some underlying subystem has started the thread hidden from the programmer
because they are using database or network functions.

Programs "Yield":
Most programs trundle along and for example need to read or write a disc
file (or network, cd, dvd user, etc). So they ask the OS to do a read or
write and *stall* waiting for the IO to complete. This is one of the usual
ways by which a windows program "yields" - gives up CPU use.

The OS can run multiple programs - by time slicing, and on a dual CPU system
by having 2 CPU's to run 2 threads on at the same time. So in this scenario
2 programs can be active at the same time - both can stall waiting for IO
freeing the CPU to idle or something else. 1 Program that does a lot of IO
can bring a dual cpu system to its knees - these programs are rare (EG
partition format).

Async IO
asynchronous: this is where a program asks for say a disc read to be done
and asks to be informed when the IO is finished, but in the mean time
continues processing rather than stalling. Increasingly common practice - it
used to be rare to find async IO outside a server class app.

The OS is designed to accept IO requests asynchronously - all IO's are run
internally async - and from multiple threads at the same time (think about
32 processors with 32 active threads & dozens ready to run). So for each
disc drive there can be a queue of IO's form. This is where NCQ abilities on
SATA drives kick in - the IO's can be serviced by each drive in the most
efficient order for each drive by that drive.

Disc Bound:
So, if you are running 2 apps each with 1 active thread, but on a system
without NCQ your system *may* not go too well because they (could be /) are
competing for the 1 drive. If the drive had NCQ it may be marginally better
(a few percent). If you had raid, it may be better again.

Multithreading:
Server class apps tend to be strongly multithreaded (EG 10, 20 or more
threads), use asynch IO (IO completion ports the best form in Windows), have
multiple user-request-process threads, use their own memory cache and so on
to acheive performance - they tend to eat RAM to reduce IO's to serve
multiple users and thrive on multiple CPU's. The enemy of server class apps
is IO - IO's have to be coded to be async to free CPU's / processes (IE
threads) to do work for other users or go idle waiting for IO's to finish.

Process Bound:
A process bound app (EG Prime95) will consume all CPU it is given and not
stall. Sometimes the Algorithms in such processes can run in parallel on
split input / output data streams (EG same files, alternating blocks of
data) and so are very good contenders for multithreading...

Process intensive apps that naturally support multithreading are the best to
make 'quick' use of dual CPU's - I can see that many games and encoding
algorithmns fall into this class. However converting any standard program to
a multithreaded program is not trivial. It is a programmers job to make
these changes... Some process intensive tasks just do not lend themselves to
this.

____

If you want the very best user experience, then IMHO Dual CPU's are the bees
knees. I have not yet had the opportunity to use a dual core system (soon),
but expect that to be just as *smooth* as dual CPU. You get a really smoothe
user experience with dual CPU's! :) 

If you are a single program at a time user and that program does not lend
itself to multithreading, then you will get very little benefit.

If the only thing that stops you from doing more faster is the
responsiveness of your system, you run many apps at the same time (and they
are active at the same time) then GET ONE NOW (particularly if you are self
employed, charge by the hour etc. - you will be able to charge 2 hours per
hour :) !

If you use apps that either are or will be soon multithreaded then """""".

HTH.

"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
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 25, 2005 3:34:26 AM

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

"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D 9gqj2$bhi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In a word, yes, but read below.
>
> Here's a waffle that covers many of the issues:
> <big snip>

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. One should also double the system
memory if they have a dual core CPU, which factors into the price equation.
June 25, 2005 3:49:10 AM

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

> Yes, with a couple of 'exceptions'. With a single processor machine, you
> can get the 'delightful' situation, where something like an old DOS
> application, polls the keyboard, and uses 100% processor time doing
> effectively nothing.

I have seen this a lot in apps & 1 dbms ported from MAC's.

These apps are just not suitable to run under windows at all - 1 or 2 CPU's.
They really *need* conversion.
June 25, 2005 3:58:41 AM

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

John, stop kidding youself. You *do* need one *now*!

:) 

So do I.


"John Hollingsworth" <jwh@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:memo.20050624115724.2292A@jwh.compulink.co.uk...
> 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.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 25, 2005 3:58:42 AM

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

In article <d9gs0g$e69$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>, me@spam.com (Mercury) wrote:

:-))


John

Please remove "NO-SPAM" if sending email.
June 25, 2005 4:13:20 AM

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

Have you ever used a dual? You don't need 2x ram, but you do need "enough"
which for a person that will make most use of the system may mean more.

There is absolutely no point in saying 99%... Each user needs to be
evaluated singularly. Each has their own work habits, there own mix of apps.
Sure many will use the same suites, many will be one finger at a time
typists. But in that 99% there will be a lot of users (I reckon 20% or more)
that will benefit 'cos they are not single finger typists and would use more
than one app at a time if their systems could handle it smoothly enough to
make it worth while. This is not just now, but for the last 10 or more
years. My first dual was a dual P100! It was worth every cent in its day.

There are a lot of "power" users out there. There are a lot of smart people
doing jobs that they shouldn't & working below capacity & 6GHz won't fix
that always.

A 3GHz system is more than enough for many today. This is not the issue at
all. 3GHz work throughput just isn't enough for many - it is not necessarily
the CPU% used over 8hrs at work, it is often the lack of responsiveness when
3 things kick in at the same time. Duals flatten this completely.

A dual 3GHz system != 6GHz single by any means. A dual of n/2 is smoother
than a single @n and will be for a long time. They are not as fast, but that
is not the issue - if you need speed get Itanium.


"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:o uCdnSrcu8n5cibfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9gqj2$bhi$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In a word, yes, but read below.
>>
>> Here's a waffle that covers many of the issues:
>> <big snip>
>
> 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. One should also double the system
> memory if they have a dual core CPU, which factors into the price
> equation.
>
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 25, 2005 4:13:21 AM

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

"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D 9gsrv$g9q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Have you ever used a dual? You don't need 2x ram, but you do need "enough"
> which for a person that will make most use of the system may mean more.
>
> There is absolutely no point in saying 99%... Each user needs to be
> evaluated singularly. Each has their own work habits, there own mix of
> apps. Sure many will use the same suites, many will be one finger at a
> time typists. But in that 99% there will be a lot of users (I reckon 20%
> or more) that will benefit 'cos they are not single finger typists and
> would use more than one app at a time if their systems could handle it
> smoothly enough to make it worth while. This is not just now, but for the
> last 10 or more years. My first dual was a dual P100! It was worth every
> cent in its day.
>
> There are a lot of "power" users out there. There are a lot of smart
> people doing jobs that they shouldn't & working below capacity & 6GHz
> won't fix that always.
>
> A 3GHz system is more than enough for many today. This is not the issue at
> all. 3GHz work throughput just isn't enough for many - it is not
> necessarily the CPU% used over 8hrs at work, it is often the lack of
> responsiveness when 3 things kick in at the same time. Duals flatten this
> completely.
>
> A dual 3GHz system != 6GHz single by any means. A dual of n/2 is smoother
> than a single @n and will be for a long time. They are not as fast, but
> that is not the issue - if you need speed get Itanium.
>
>
Why don't you quit this mumbo jumbo and start comparing apples to apples.
Take a fixed amount of money for CPU and memory (combined), and set up two
machines--one with a single processor, and one with a dual core. The single
processor will be much faster because you have a fixed amount of money to
spend (don't forget you will want more memory for the dual core, which needs
to be factored into the price).

Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
when you grow up.
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 25, 2005 4:13:22 AM

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

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:19:50 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
>when you grow up.
>

LOL. This geek has a socket 754. it's cheap, runs fast, and I'm
looking forward to socket m2 or whatever it's called in a year or so.

Hope all the 939 gurus are rushing out to buy their dual channel, dual
video, dual cores ;) 
June 25, 2005 10:48:08 PM

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

duh. currently you are looking at premium pricing for X2. AMD is certainly
right to chage a premium for this new technology.

In a years time X2 will *not* be common place - it will be the norm, and
highly competitive price wise, so will you apply the same formula then and
buy a single on some principle?

In ayears time, those people that have purchased there X2 4400's will have 1
years use out of them. This will equate to > 1 years worth of work
throughput which for an employee that may cost 50, 75, 100, or 200,000 per
annum - an extra few dollars now for a grunty system will *often* be well
worth while.

Please, don't try to lecture on simple things like ROI. Sorry - you didn't
'cos you didn't even consider it. Tch Tch. I do charge by the hour. I slice
and dice large databases, write large s/w packages which take hours to do a
complete image build. The process is highly intensive process wise & disc IO
is heavy to the point of having multiple RAID arrays. Now, I am not alone.
There are very many industry sectors that can make substantial use of such
technology now and at $US616 or so for a chip, that is peanuts.

You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount of
money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an Intel.

If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.

May the All Blacks win tonight!



"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:KtednU6PyMRY0yHfRVn-hw@comcast.com...
>
> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9gsrv$g9q$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Have you ever used a dual? You don't need 2x ram, but you do need
>> "enough" which for a person that will make most use of the system may
>> mean more.
>>
>> There is absolutely no point in saying 99%... Each user needs to be
>> evaluated singularly. Each has their own work habits, there own mix of
>> apps. Sure many will use the same suites, many will be one finger at a
>> time typists. But in that 99% there will be a lot of users (I reckon 20%
>> or more) that will benefit 'cos they are not single finger typists and
>> would use more than one app at a time if their systems could handle it
>> smoothly enough to make it worth while. This is not just now, but for the
>> last 10 or more years. My first dual was a dual P100! It was worth every
>> cent in its day.
>>
>> There are a lot of "power" users out there. There are a lot of smart
>> people doing jobs that they shouldn't & working below capacity & 6GHz
>> won't fix that always.
>>
>> A 3GHz system is more than enough for many today. This is not the issue
>> at all. 3GHz work throughput just isn't enough for many - it is not
>> necessarily the CPU% used over 8hrs at work, it is often the lack of
>> responsiveness when 3 things kick in at the same time. Duals flatten this
>> completely.
>>
>> A dual 3GHz system != 6GHz single by any means. A dual of n/2 is smoother
>> than a single @n and will be for a long time. They are not as fast, but
>> that is not the issue - if you need speed get Itanium.
>>
>>
> Why don't you quit this mumbo jumbo and start comparing apples to apples.
> Take a fixed amount of money for CPU and memory (combined), and set up two
> machines--one with a single processor, and one with a dual core. The
> single processor will be much faster because you have a fixed amount of
> money to spend (don't forget you will want more memory for the dual core,
> which needs to be factored into the price).
>
> Not too many of you geeks are ever going to make it as a financial analyst
> when you grow up.
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 25, 2005 10:48:09 PM

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

"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D 9iu67$mo5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount of
> money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
> CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an Intel.
>
> If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
> benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
> ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.
>
> May the All Blacks win tonight!
>
If you want to spend $616 for a dual core CPU that runs at 2.2GHz with 512
GB L2 cache (each) , that is OK with me. But actually you will need to spend
about $800 because you will need more memory for the dual core processors.
If you don't believe me, ask anyone who uses a dual CPU PC with Windows.

So for about $800 you can get a AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor (San Diego)
running at 2.6GHz with 1GB L2 cache. This will also run cooler (and
therefore quieter) than the dual core.

My point is simple. The vast majority of desktop users will see noticeably
better performance overall with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (or even 53) over
the dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Obviously there are exceptions, but
not as many exceptions as people would like to believe.

Even the $475 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ Processor (San Diego) will probably seem
faster than the dual core 4200+ most of the time.

Don't confuse the issue. I have nothing against spending money on a PC, but
I like to be able to figure out which option is the best bang for the money
(this is called financial analysis).

I also have nothing against multiple CPU's, especially in servers, since I
use 4-way and 8-way servers at work all the time.
June 26, 2005 12:24:24 AM

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

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:58:13 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:D 9iu67$mo5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount of
>> money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
>> CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an Intel.
>>
>> If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
>> benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
>> ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.
>>
>> May the All Blacks win tonight!
>>
>If you want to spend $616 for a dual core CPU that runs at 2.2GHz with 512
>GB L2 cache (each) , that is OK with me. But actually you will need to spend
>about $800 because you will need more memory for the dual core processors.
>If you don't believe me, ask anyone who uses a dual CPU PC with Windows.
>
>So for about $800 you can get a AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor (San Diego)
>running at 2.6GHz with 1GB L2 cache. This will also run cooler (and
>therefore quieter) than the dual core.
>
>My point is simple. The vast majority of desktop users will see noticeably
>better performance overall with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (or even 53) over
>the dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Obviously there are exceptions, but
>not as many exceptions as people would like to believe.
>
>Even the $475 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ Processor (San Diego) will probably seem
>faster than the dual core 4200+ most of the time.
>
>Don't confuse the issue. I have nothing against spending money on a PC, but
>I like to be able to figure out which option is the best bang for the money
>(this is called financial analysis).
>
>I also have nothing against multiple CPU's, especially in servers, since I
>use 4-way and 8-way servers at work all the time.

Hey, Mark,
I followed the thread with interest. There are very valid points on
both sides of the issue, but in general I agree with you.
Your arguments are analogous to the battles I've waged in Usenet for a
few years trying to talk the average user out of spending a lot of
money on RAID-0 setups. I still think they're abject folly, even for
enthusiasts, unless they use their computer for one of the few
purposes that actually benefit from RAID 0.

I mention this because I ultimately lost that fight, and I think
you're bound to lose this one, too. These issues in most cases end up
being decided at a hormonal level rather than a logical one. I'm
almost positive that when dual-cores get down to less than $250, I'm
going to "need" one, too.

Rhetorically yours,
Ron


Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 26, 2005 12:24:25 AM

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

"milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:8uerb1hna43j06dn96h6hclt6orone2pau@4ax.com...
>
> Hey, Mark,
> I followed the thread with interest. There are very valid points on
> both sides of the issue, but in general I agree with you.
> Your arguments are analogous to the battles I've waged in Usenet for a
> few years trying to talk the average user out of spending a lot of
> money on RAID-0 setups. I still think they're abject folly, even for
> enthusiasts, unless they use their computer for one of the few
> purposes that actually benefit from RAID 0.
>
> I mention this because I ultimately lost that fight, and I think
> you're bound to lose this one, too. These issues in most cases end up
> being decided at a hormonal level rather than a logical one. I'm
> almost positive that when dual-cores get down to less than $250, I'm
> going to "need" one, too.
>
> Rhetorically yours,
> Ron
>
I am not going to loose any argument. I offered advise to the person who
asked, and it is up to them to do whatever they want with that advise. I
have no ego in this whatsoever. It's their money and their PC, and this is
still a free country.

The worst thing anyone can do is make decisions on the basis of invalid
information, and I don't think everyone knows that most current desktop
applications will do better with a slightly faster single CPU, rather than 2
slightly slower CPU's.

By the time the dual cores 4200+ is down to $250, maybe there will be more
applications that can exploit dual cores. Buy that time, it might actually
require 2 CPU's to run Windows with all the anti-virus, firewall, and
anti-spam software.
June 26, 2005 2:54:21 PM

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

There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
A dual core CPU will not damage anything.

One of the key points that people are not addressing is that CPU's will not
continue to increase in performance as they have done in the past. The
*great folly* at the moment is that CPU manufacturers are jumping on dual
core to continue this net effect.

It won't work 'cos a dual core or cpu has never been and never will be equal
to a single of 2x (or near) the performance.

For those of us that will benefit from dual core there is no folly - just
bees knees systems. The next challenge is for programmers and program
langage designers to come up with methods that will enable easily more
effective dual core usage. Intel has been very very busy on the HT side of
this, both AMD and Intel need to put a lot of effort in to it as otherwise
the market will come to a shuddering slowdown in about 2 years.

"milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:8uerb1hna43j06dn96h6hclt6orone2pau@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 00:58:13 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:D 9iu67$mo5$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> You do not include enough factors in your consideration "A fixed amount
>>> of
>>> money". Thats a horendously dumb way of spec'ing a system. If you want a
>>> CHEAP system, get one. If you want an expensive system, then get an
>>> Intel.
>>>
>>> If you want to understand better about the factors surrounding who may
>>> benefit, how and why, then read my posts. Until then you are casting an
>>> ill-informed opinion based on wilful ignorance.
>>>
>>> May the All Blacks win tonight!
>>>
>>If you want to spend $616 for a dual core CPU that runs at 2.2GHz with 512
>>GB L2 cache (each) , that is OK with me. But actually you will need to
>>spend
>>about $800 because you will need more memory for the dual core processors.
>>If you don't believe me, ask anyone who uses a dual CPU PC with Windows.
>>
>>So for about $800 you can get a AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 Processor (San Diego)
>>running at 2.6GHz with 1GB L2 cache. This will also run cooler (and
>>therefore quieter) than the dual core.
>>
>>My point is simple. The vast majority of desktop users will see noticeably
>>better performance overall with the AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 (or even 53) over
>>the dual core AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+. Obviously there are exceptions, but
>>not as many exceptions as people would like to believe.
>>
>>Even the $475 AMD Athlon 64 4000+ Processor (San Diego) will probably seem
>>faster than the dual core 4200+ most of the time.
>>
>>Don't confuse the issue. I have nothing against spending money on a PC,
>>but
>>I like to be able to figure out which option is the best bang for the
>>money
>>(this is called financial analysis).
>>
>>I also have nothing against multiple CPU's, especially in servers, since I
>>use 4-way and 8-way servers at work all the time.
>
> Hey, Mark,
> I followed the thread with interest. There are very valid points on
> both sides of the issue, but in general I agree with you.
> Your arguments are analogous to the battles I've waged in Usenet for a
> few years trying to talk the average user out of spending a lot of
> money on RAID-0 setups. I still think they're abject folly, even for
> enthusiasts, unless they use their computer for one of the few
> purposes that actually benefit from RAID 0.
>
> I mention this because I ultimately lost that fight, and I think
> you're bound to lose this one, too. These issues in most cases end up
> being decided at a hormonal level rather than a logical one. I'm
> almost positive that when dual-cores get down to less than $250, I'm
> going to "need" one, too.
>
> Rhetorically yours,
> Ron
>
>
> Ron
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 26, 2005 2:54:22 PM

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

"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D 9kmpr$car$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
> RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
> A dual core CPU will not damage anything.
>

For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw more
power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep the
processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many people,
including myself, do care.
http://www.silentpcreview.com
June 26, 2005 5:40:13 PM

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

Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
noisy here.

I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e), fanless
high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want 12cm fans
front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like a Lian-Li
6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well you get the
idea / know whats involved.

Any recommendations on a case?

"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:D 9kmpr$car$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
>> RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
>> A dual core CPU will not damage anything.
>>
>
> For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw more
> power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep the
> processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many
> people, including myself, do care.
> http://www.silentpcreview.com
>
Anonymous
a b V Motherboard
June 26, 2005 5:40:14 PM

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

"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message news:D 9l0gs$hr$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
> chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
> noisy here.
>
> I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
> A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
> Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e),
> fanless high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want
> 12cm fans front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like
> a Lian-Li 6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well
> you get the idea / know whats involved.
>
> Any recommendations on a case?
>
Here is my system:

Antec 3700-BQE w/Nexus 120 @12V, Seasonic S12-380, Asus A8N-E w/ ZM-NB47J
chip cooler, AMD64 3500+ .90 w/XP-120 & Nexus 120 @12V, 1GB (2 x 512)
Corsair 3200C2PT, 2 x WD 160 GB SATA, Plextor PX-716A, Leadtek 6600GT
w/Zalman VF700 AlCu @5V, Audigy2 ZS, AcoustiPack Std.

I sold the stock Antec 3700-BQE PSU on ebay for about $25 and bought the
much quieter Seasonic S12.

Here is my drive mounting system:
http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=10450

Many people on Slent PC Review forums are getting the brand new Antec P180
case.
June 26, 2005 5:40:14 PM

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

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:40:13 +1200, "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote:

>Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
>chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
>noisy here.
>
>I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
>A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
>Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e), fanless
>high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want 12cm fans
>front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like a Lian-Li
>6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well you get the
>idea / know whats involved.
>
>Any recommendations on a case?

Absolutely -- I just finished building my new system today. I used a
just-released Antec P180. It uses only 120mm fans, and the thing is
whisper quiet to my ear. It confines all the heat from the HDs and
the PSU in a lower compartment thermally isolated from the motherboard
compartment.
And there IS a fanless graphic card if you don't want SLI. I
installed a Giga-byte Radeon X800XL ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
>
>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:D 9kmpr$car$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>> There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
>>> RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
>>> A dual core CPU will not damage anything.
>>>
>>
>> For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw more
>> power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep the
>> processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many
>> people, including myself, do care.
>> http://www.silentpcreview.com
>>
>

Ron
June 26, 2005 5:40:15 PM

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

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 19:36:33 -0600, "Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>"Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message news:D 9l0gs$hr$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
>> chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
>> noisy here.
>>
>> I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
>> A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
>> Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e),
>> fanless high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want
>> 12cm fans front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like
>> a Lian-Li 6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well
>> you get the idea / know whats involved.
>>
>> Any recommendations on a case?
>>
>Here is my system:
>
>Antec 3700-BQE w/Nexus 120 @12V, Seasonic S12-380, Asus A8N-E w/ ZM-NB47J
>chip cooler, AMD64 3500+ .90 w/XP-120 & Nexus 120 @12V, 1GB (2 x 512)
>Corsair 3200C2PT, 2 x WD 160 GB SATA, Plextor PX-716A, Leadtek 6600GT
>w/Zalman VF700 AlCu @5V, Audigy2 ZS, AcoustiPack Std.
>
>I sold the stock Antec 3700-BQE PSU on ebay for about $25 and bought the
>much quieter Seasonic S12.
>
>Here is my drive mounting system:
>http://forums.silentpcreview.com/viewtopic.php?t=10450
>
>Many people on Slent PC Review forums are getting the brand new Antec P180
>case.

That mounting system is pretty slick, but the thick silicon-rubber
grommets and special screws that come with the P180 will do the job
just as well with no effort.
I can't recommend the P180 highly enough. Antec seems to have thought
of everything but using all-aluminum construction. The front is
plastic, the front door and top are aluminum and the side panels are a
layer of plastic sandwiched between two layers of aluminum. The inner
construction of the case, though is 0,8mm steel, so it weighs about 5
Kg more than it needs to. However, that's the ONLY con among dozens
of pros.
Ron
June 26, 2005 11:25:31 PM

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

Mark, Ron.
Thanks for the comments.

Now another wait for the case to come in stock...

Lets hope there is a price drop in the mean time, but I doubt it.

Thanks again.


"milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
news:leksb11dsvvtc5qk1jq53c6blb4j07u605@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:40:13 +1200, "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
>>chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
>>noisy here.
>>
>>I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
>>A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
>>Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e),
>>fanless
>>high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want 12cm
>>fans
>>front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like a Lian-Li
>>6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well you get the
>>idea / know whats involved.
>>
>>Any recommendations on a case?
>
> Absolutely -- I just finished building my new system today. I used a
> just-released Antec P180. It uses only 120mm fans, and the thing is
> whisper quiet to my ear. It confines all the heat from the HDs and
> the PSU in a lower compartment thermally isolated from the motherboard
> compartment.
> And there IS a fanless graphic card if you don't want SLI. I
> installed a Giga-byte Radeon X800XL ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
> heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
> has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
> the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
> Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
>>
>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>>> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:D 9kmpr$car$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>> There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
>>>> RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
>>>> A dual core CPU will not damage anything.
>>>>
>>>
>>> For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw
>>> more
>>> power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep
>>> the
>>> processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many
>>> people, including myself, do care.
>>> http://www.silentpcreview.com
>>>
>>
>
> Ron
June 27, 2005 1:42:51 AM

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

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 19:25:31 +1200, "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote:

>Mark, Ron.
>Thanks for the comments.
>
>Now another wait for the case to come in stock...

Look at shopBLT.com. Mine was $128 -- less expensive than the P160 at
Newegg. I had to wait about ten days for them to get P180s in stock,
but they received about 65 of them about ten days ago. They may have
some left, and the price is sure right.
>
>Lets hope there is a price drop in the mean time, but I doubt it.
>
>Thanks again.
>
>
>"milleron" <millerdot90@SPAMlessosu.edu> wrote in message
>news:leksb11dsvvtc5qk1jq53c6blb4j07u605@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 13:40:13 +1200, "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, I'm in the same boat. Around here the noisiest things are birds
>>>chirping and the sound of the wind. Most peoples definition of quiet are
>>>noisy here.
>>>
>>>I haven't finished my shopping list for the new system yet, but X2, Asus
>>>A8N-E, replace the northbridge fan, XP120 heatsink with a very quiet fan,
>>>Cool n Quiet, fanless graphics (if there is such a thing for PCI-e),
>>>fanless
>>>high efficiency PSU, but I am stuck deciding on the case as I want 12cm
>>>fans
>>>front and rear that can be throttled right back - something like a Lian-Li
>>>6070 but a little bigger, quiet mountings for the HDD's. Well you get the
>>>idea / know whats involved.
>>>
>>>Any recommendations on a case?
>>
>> Absolutely -- I just finished building my new system today. I used a
>> just-released Antec P180. It uses only 120mm fans, and the thing is
>> whisper quiet to my ear. It confines all the heat from the HDs and
>> the PSU in a lower compartment thermally isolated from the motherboard
>> compartment.
>> And there IS a fanless graphic card if you don't want SLI. I
>> installed a Giga-byte Radeon X800XL ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
>> heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
>> has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
>> the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
>> Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
>>>
>>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>>news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
>>>> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:D 9kmpr$car$1@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>>>>> There's a slight difference in the analogy your draw.
>>>>> RAID 0 will result in loss of data.
>>>>> A dual core CPU will not damage anything.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For some of us, it is not that simple. A dual core machine will draw
>>>> more
>>>> power and disapate more heat, and will require a noiser system to keep
>>>> the
>>>> processor cool. Some people don't care about these things, but many
>>>> people, including myself, do care.
>>>> http://www.silentpcreview.com
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Ron
>

Ron
!