No, not Via but something more responsive like SIS. Toms stress test never got the answer of why was the DivX encoding so slow when other apps were running on the AMD system and why the encoding went superfast when running it alone as single thread. I'm pretty sure that other chipset mobo will surely expose other results. Maybe at the cost of performance of the other applications running. That is what I want to discuss here. I never used Nforce 3 or 4 chipset, that may change things, did anyone compared that with A64 SIS chipsets? What about AMD single opteron chipsets? I know VIA is still laggy so I discard that option.
Toms stress test never got the answer of why was the DivX encoding so slow when other apps were running on the AMD system and why the encoding went superfast when running it alone as single thread. I'm pretty sure that other chipset mobo will surely expose other results. Maybe at the cost of performance of the other applications running. That is what I want to discuss here.
Look at the 33 page thread named "Stress Test MKII" - You will find all the answers.
<A HREF="http://snipurl.com/fxwr" target="_new">Welcome to the House of Horrors, welcome to the House of a 1000 Corpses</A>
LOL didn't know about the whole discussion, how could I miss that!! and it's more than 33 pages (actually more than 90) ;-) Well, loaded all pages and searching for "chipset" there's no discussion about the fact that changing chipset should have other results but anyway thanks.
Don't look for chipset - that's not the reason for the low performance in encoding. Look for "priority" that's the reason the X2 had low performance in encoding... also read the stuff about the number of threads or processes - and how much slower the PDEE was at the other tasks while its encoding was 'hogging' cpu time even though it was set at low priority.
PS: I don't remember where (Anandtech or Techreport I think), but I read a bench a couple months ago of the sis chipset compared to nForce and Via - it's a good chipset (in quality/performance of the 3, it's a close 2nd to nforce, IMO), but it has a 'cheap' reputation, so it gets the cheap treatment by mobo mfgs.
<font color=blue>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside the dog its too dark to read.
-- Groucho Marx</font color=blue>
Default is 10 per page, but yes it is not based on the chipset at all. Windows assigns priority to applications and DivX gets set to the least priortity by default. The P-EE has HT truned on so it detects as 4 CPUs. Tom's test ran... 4 applications (yes they talored the test for Intel's system) and this basically over-rides Windows priorities because it makes Windows think there are other cores to run the application, so it changes the priority to a higher one on its own core.
But if you also read through all 800+ posts you would see Tom's choice of Divx and XMPEG was a bit odd. DivX is not as big a player as it used to be a year ago, do to the drastic reduction of the prices of DVD and DVD recorders. Also XMPEG is really a beta program rittled with issues and bug and very hard to use. There are many other applications that are much better and more stable and ditching Divx all together for something like DVD Shrink is even better yet. Like I said Tom's Hardware hand picked all the applications to favour the P-EE as much as possible. FarCry is about the least stressfull of the modern games for the P-EE. Out of all the games he could pick it was that? Why not a game that is more responsive to CPU and not graphics cards like UT 2004, HL2, Doom3...