A8N-E and dual core Athlon X2

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
40 answers Last reply
More about dual core athlon
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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)
  7. 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.
    >
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:d9gqj2$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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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:OuCdnSrcu8n5cibfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    > "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    > news:d9gqj2$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.
    >
    >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:d9gsrv$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.
  28. 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 ;)
  29. 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:d9gsrv$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.
    >
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:d9iu67$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.
  31. 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:d9iu67$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
  32. 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.
  33. 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:d9iu67$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
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:d9kmpr$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
  35. 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:d9kmpr$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
    >
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message news:d9l0gs$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.
  37. 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 ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
    heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
    has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
    the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
    Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
    >
    >"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    >> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:d9kmpr$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
  38. 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:d9l0gs$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
  39. 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 ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
    > heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
    > has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
    > the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
    > Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
    >>
    >>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    >>> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:d9kmpr$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
  40. 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 ($283 @ newegg) that comes with a
    >> heat-pipe cooler and no fan. It works marvelously well. My system
    >> has but one fan aside from the case fans, and that's the 120mm one on
    >> the XP120. My exhaust temps are just 2°C warmer than the intake. On
    >> Asus Probe and nVidia Monitor, the CPU runs 25-30°C
    >>>
    >>>"Mark A" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:RtydnakYUZ4aciDfRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    >>>> "Mercury" <me@spam.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:d9kmpr$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
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Dual Core Motherboards