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

"James" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

"Mark A" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:_didneASLsyK_ibfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "James" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> 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

"name" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ctCdnQNHSa1dyibfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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

My FX-53 burns CD's/DVD's and surf's the web like a rocket. If I was
into CAD or doing intensive video/graphics editing I might consider a
dual core cpu but only after my current processor proved to be inadequate.

Mark A wrote:

>"name" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>
>
>
>

--
**********************************************************************************************************************************
David F. Mishiwiec Sr.

"It is possible to support the members of our armed services while opposing the foreign policy that has them placed in harms way."
**********************************************************************************************************************************

"Wookie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:XZudncd53O_c5CbfRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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.

James <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

"Christoph Spies" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:42bbbe2b$0$8092$(E-Mail Removed)...
> James <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.

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 )