James

I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.

I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601) will
accomodate this cpu..?

The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
technology another year before upgrading.

Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?

-james

old man

I could be wrong but I dont think any win32 bit system has been optimised
for dual core let alone 4 core.
And how many Apps are optimised for dual core, not many

"James" <anonymous> wrote in message
news:N-OdnS3TWaJBdtDanZ2dnUVZ_q-jnZ2d@bright.net...
>I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.
>
> I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601) will
> accomodate this cpu..?
>
> The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
> would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
> technology another year before upgrading.
>
> Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?
>
> -james

Man-wai Chang ToDie

old man wrote:
> I could be wrong but I dont think any win32 bit system has been optimised
> for dual core let alone 4 core.
> And how many Apps are optimised for dual core, not many

Adobe Photoshop and Premiere? But then most users don't need to run
them. And I have yet to see DirectX games that claim to be supporting
multiple CPU cores...

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.23.9
^ ^ 10:12:01 up 1 day 17:07 0 users load average: 1.11 1.07 1.01
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

~misfit~

Somewhere on teh interweb Man-wai Chang ToDie typed:
> old man wrote:
>> I could be wrong but I dont think any win32 bit system has been
>> optimised for dual core let alone 4 core.
>> And how many Apps are optimised for dual core, not many
>
> Adobe Photoshop and Premiere? But then most users don't need to run
> them. And I have yet to see DirectX games that claim to be supporting
> multiple CPU cores...

Crysis.
--
TTFN,

Shaun.

Paul

James wrote:
> I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.
>
> I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601)
> will accomodate this cpu..?
>
> The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
> would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
> technology another year before upgrading.
>
> Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?
>
> -james

The supported motherboard list is pretty short right now. (Manual line wrap
for a stupid news server).

http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/c...r.aspx?type=0&
name=Phenom%209600%20(HD9600WCJ4BGD)%2C2.3GHz%2C95 W%2CSocketAM2%2B%2CQuad-Core&SLanguage=en-us

So some people here did their own testing.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=166792

If you have software that can harness four cores, then why not.
Try Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX SP1, as it uses four cores.
The description here (no picture) describes one core as
pegged, and the others averaging lesser amounts.

http://www.fsx.co.za/showthread.php?t=1504

This is Supreme Command running on four cores. Not all threads
are doing the same amount of work, which is not surprising.

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==

Both games seem to share the pattern. The thing is, if you have
"helper threads" running in a program, they'll have to synchronize
once in a while, as everything feeds into the displaying of frames
at some point. So perhaps seeing that pattern should not be
a surprise.

For multimedia applications, where a task can be split into equal pieces
and worked on by a set of cores, you see a better speedup characteristic.
The Cinebench benchmark, for example, shows good scaling.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/7/

The enthusiast sites have to struggle, to show the benefits of multi-core
processors. It takes the latest software to get the best effects, so the
budget for the project is going to involve more than buying the processors.

Paul

Bill

In article <474e26ae@news2.actrix.gen.nz>, misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au
says...
> Somewhere on teh interweb Man-wai Chang ToDie typed:
> > old man wrote:
> >> I could be wrong but I dont think any win32 bit system has been
> >> optimised for dual core let alone 4 core.
> >> And how many Apps are optimised for dual core, not many
> >
> > Adobe Photoshop and Premiere? But then most users don't need to run
> > them. And I have yet to see DirectX games that claim to be supporting
> > multiple CPU cores...
>
> Crysis.
>

Unreal Tournament 3

Bill

Man-wai Chang ToDie

>> Crysis.
> Unreal Tournament 3

How could you know that? From the manual?

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.23.9
^ ^ 21:45:01 up 2 days 4:40 0 users load average: 1.00 1.01 1.00
? ? (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...ub_addressesa/

James

Thanks Paul. From the information that you linked, I've concluded that
waiting for the BIOSs to get de-bugged would be wise. Perhaps the price will
go down by then also. I also need to run some of those benchmark programs on
my current system and compare my results. Ultimately, I'm looking for a
significant increase in overall performance to justify my costs. At first
glance - performance gains considered - it doesn't appear to be a good
investment at $260 per device.

-James

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message:

> James wrote:
>> I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.
>>
>> I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601)
>> will accomodate this cpu..?
>>
>> The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
>> would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
>> technology another year before upgrading.
>>
>> Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?
>>
>> -james
>
> The supported motherboard list is pretty short right now. (Manual line
> wrap
> for a stupid news server).
>
> http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/c...r.aspx?type=0&
>
> name=Phenom%209600%20(HD9600WCJ4BGD)%2C2.3GHz%2C95 W%2CSocketAM2%2B%2CQuad-Core&SLanguage=en-us
>
> So some people here did their own testing.
>
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=166792
>
> If you have software that can harness four cores, then why not.
> Try Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX SP1, as it uses four cores.
> The description here (no picture) describes one core as
> pegged, and the others averaging lesser amounts.
>
> http://www.fsx.co.za/showthread.php?t=1504
>
> This is Supreme Command running on four cores. Not all threads
> are doing the same amount of work, which is not surprising.
>
> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
>
> Both games seem to share the pattern. The thing is, if you have
> "helper threads" running in a program, they'll have to synchronize
> once in a while, as everything feeds into the displaying of frames
> at some point. So perhaps seeing that pattern should not be
> a surprise.
>
> For multimedia applications, where a task can be split into equal pieces
> and worked on by a set of cores, you see a better speedup characteristic.
> The Cinebench benchmark, for example, shows good scaling.
>
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/7/
>
> The enthusiast sites have to struggle, to show the benefits of multi-core
> processors. It takes the latest software to get the best effects, so the
> budget for the project is going to involve more than buying the
> processors.
>
> Paul

James

Thanks Paul. From the information that you linked, I've concluded that
waiting for the BIOSs to get de-bugged would be wise. Perhaps the price will
go down by then also. I also need to run some of those benchmark programs on
my current system and compare my results. Ultimately, I'm looking for a
significant increase in overall performance to justify my costs. At first
glance - performance gains considered - it doesn't appear to be a good
investment at $260 per device.

-James

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message:

> James wrote:
>> I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.
>>
>> I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601)
>> will accomodate this cpu..?
>>
>> The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
>> would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
>> technology another year before upgrading.
>>
>> Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?
>>
>> -james
>
> The supported motherboard list is pretty short right now. (Manual line
> wrap
> for a stupid news server).
>
> http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/c...r.aspx?type=0&
>
> name=Phenom%209600%20(HD9600WCJ4BGD)%2C2.3GHz%2C95 W%2CSocketAM2%2B%2CQuad-Core&SLanguage=en-us
>
> So some people here did their own testing.
>
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=166792
>
> If you have software that can harness four cores, then why not.
> Try Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX SP1, as it uses four cores.
> The description here (no picture) describes one core as
> pegged, and the others averaging lesser amounts.
>
> http://www.fsx.co.za/showthread.php?t=1504
>
> This is Supreme Command running on four cores. Not all threads
> are doing the same amount of work, which is not surprising.
>
> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
>
> Both games seem to share the pattern. The thing is, if you have
> "helper threads" running in a program, they'll have to synchronize
> once in a while, as everything feeds into the displaying of frames
> at some point. So perhaps seeing that pattern should not be
> a surprise.
>
> For multimedia applications, where a task can be split into equal pieces
> and worked on by a set of cores, you see a better speedup characteristic.
> The Cinebench benchmark, for example, shows good scaling.
>
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/7/
>
> The enthusiast sites have to struggle, to show the benefits of multi-core
> processors. It takes the latest software to get the best effects, so the
> budget for the project is going to involve more than buying the
> processors.
>
> Paul

James

Thanks Paul. From the information that you linked, I've concluded that
waiting for the BIOSs to get de-bugged would be wise. Perhaps the price will
go down by then also. I also need to run some of those benchmark programs on
my current system and compare my results. Ultimately, I'm looking for a
significant increase in overall performance to justify my costs. At first
glance - performance gains considered - it doesn't appear to be a good
investment at $260 per device.

-James

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message:

> James wrote:
>> I have 2 AM2 systems. The M2N-E & M2A-VM HDMI.
>>
>> I guess my first question would be if the current BIOSs (1202 & 1601)
>> will accomodate this cpu..?
>>
>> The big question: Is it worth the $260 per machine to upgrade? My reason
>> would be for overall performance. The alternative would be to give the
>> technology another year before upgrading.
>>
>> Also, will Vista 32bit Business edition utilize the 4 cpu cores?
>>
>> -james
>
> The supported motherboard list is pretty short right now. (Manual line
> wrap
> for a stupid news server).
>
> http://support.asus.com/cpusupport/c...r.aspx?type=0&
>
> name=Phenom%209600%20(HD9600WCJ4BGD)%2C2.3GHz%2C95 W%2CSocketAM2%2B%2CQuad-Core&SLanguage=en-us
>
> So some people here did their own testing.
>
> http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=166792
>
> If you have software that can harness four cores, then why not.
> Try Microsoft Flight Simulator FSX SP1, as it uses four cores.
> The description here (no picture) describes one core as
> pegged, and the others averaging lesser amounts.
>
> http://www.fsx.co.za/showthread.php?t=1504
>
> This is Supreme Command running on four cores. Not all threads
> are doing the same amount of work, which is not surprising.
>
> http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/articl...50aHVzaWFzdA==
>
> Both games seem to share the pattern. The thing is, if you have
> "helper threads" running in a program, they'll have to synchronize
> once in a while, as everything feeds into the displaying of frames
> at some point. So perhaps seeing that pattern should not be
> a surprise.
>
> For multimedia applications, where a task can be split into equal pieces
> and worked on by a set of cores, you see a better speedup characteristic.
> The Cinebench benchmark, for example, shows good scaling.
>
> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/597/7/
>
> The enthusiast sites have to struggle, to show the benefits of multi-core
> processors. It takes the latest software to get the best effects, so the
> budget for the project is going to involve more than buying the
> processors.
>
> Paul