DK wrote:
> In article <je7nu8$h25$(E-Mail Removed)>, "SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> "DK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:je74hd$phs$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <je5ps8$4js$(E-Mail Removed)>, "SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mine has the 6MB L3, and the 7Zip score is 8.6MB/sec. using 4/4 CPU threads.
>> I
>>>> watch all 4 cores in Task Manager and
>>>> they are like synchronized swimmers at the Olympics.
>>>> I love the decompression rate of 135MB/sec.
>>> What version of 7Zip do you have? The old 4.6 beta only
>>> uses 33% of the 4 cores and they are definitely not sybchronized.
>>>
>> 4.65. It doesn't say Beta, so I assume it's the standard released version.
>> Which reminded me to check for an update.
>> I'll let you know how 9.20 goes once I install and test with it.
>
> Even more weird. 4.65 is what I had before and it was definitely not
> using all cores. I now tried 9.2 and in it I can at least see options that
> Paul said he had in 4.60. In the 9.2m it has "Number of CPU threads"
> but bor some reason only 1 and 2 shows in the pulldown list. The CPU
> utiization with 2 threads is 40% and consequently the compression
> rate is a little faster but nowhere near yours. And we have identical
> MB and RAM, same OS (XP SP3, right?) and very similar albeit
> not identical CPU.

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at your BIOS screen recently ?

First, you should have "full screen logo" disabled, in case the
motherboard presents an image instead of text. (A couple of my
motherboards default to presenting the full screen logo, so this
has to be disabled.)

Next, I'd want to check the BIOS declaration of the processor identity.
Is the processor mis-identified, or is the model information and
frequency right ?

Either 7ZIP is only offering "1" and "2" as options, because the program
can only handle two threads of execution. (Some algorithms can't be
"divide and conquer" indefinitely.) Or, the program might be offering
those options, because it thinks the processor only has two cores.
And it might get that information from the operating system.
I understand as well, from watching Linux boot screens (dmesg), that
the BIOS passes information about the number of cores in some kind
of table. So it might be possible for the BIOS to mis-inform the OS.
This wouldn't be a problem, if the OS also had its own identification
procedures. So it's a matter of whether the OS places all its trust in BIOS
tables, or whether it also does some of its own detection.

For example, when I boot Linux in a virtual machine on my PC, Linux
complains that the BIOS table "reports one core" which is correct,
but "the core number is 1 instead of 0", implying the virtual BIOS
isn't passing "core0" as the identity of the virtual processor. That's
how I know that at least with Linux, Linux is inspecting some info
from a BIOS table, and in that case, did not like what it saw. Linux
didn't crash or anything, and the message was more of a warning than
an error. It didn't actually affect the operation of the OS.

Paul

In article <je8gr4$gfq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Just out of curiosity, have you looked at your BIOS screen recently ?

Sure. More than I initially planned to, in fact

>First, you should have "full screen logo" disabled, in case the
>motherboard presents an image instead of text.

Hate this and disable right away.

>Next, I'd want to check the BIOS declaration of the processor identity.
>Is the processor mis-identified, or is the model information and
>frequency right ?

All seems to be perfectly correct.

>Either 7ZIP is only offering "1" and "2" as options, because the program
>can only handle two threads of execution. (Some algorithms can't be
>"divide and conquer" indefinitely.) Or, the program might be offering
>those options, because it thinks the processor only has two cores.

Specificaly, this is how it looks:

Number of CPU threads: [pulldown list] /4

In the pulldown, the only choice is 1 or 2, so I take it that 7ZFM,
like all other programs and OS, sees 4 cores but for some reason
offers to use only two.

Various programs happily see four cores here. Prime95 benchmarks
are very much along the line of what's listed in, say, Wikipedia, and
Passmark CPU scores, according to its "PerformanceTest" suit, are
nothing out of the ordinary among the tested systems with the same
CPU and OS (3236 in my case with a range of ~3100-3300 for XP
and ~3700-4000 for Win7). My Passmark RAM scores are also not
hugely out of the line among those with 4 Gb.

As suggested at some point in one of the ASUS forums, I'm tried
running the CPU with VCORE = 1.235 V (over 0.1V below default). Also
disabled C'n'Q. None made any noticeable difference so far. The system
is stable, with Prime95 running on all 4 cores continuously. (Before
you think of it: I do close it before running any performance tests :-))

Haven't fooled around with RAM settings yet because in BIOS they
look different from what I am used to and 3/4 of options I don't even
recognize.

Dima

In article <je83vb$ou4$(E-Mail Removed)>, "SC Tom" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I installed 9.20 and ran the benchmark on it. Pretty much the same as before-
> 8.7MB/s and all 4 cores synchronized
>within 3 or 4% of each other. It would start at ~60%, then ramp up to 100% and
> stay there until the next pass. Memory
>used was 851MB (forgot to mention that on the last reply).

Now THAT I find incredibly perplexing! We have very similar setups
and yet not only the test results vary widely but also a particular program
runs on them in the most utterly different ways. Crazy.

>Is that possibly what you did that took 18.5 minutes?

No, I've done this test many times now with three different versions
and in all cases it was the 7z.

I will restore pristine XP SP2 image over weekend to see if it's
the OS issue in some way, shape or form. My CPUZ report is
expectedly very similar to yours save for the type of CPU and
video (I really will have to buy something; the intergated one
here totally blows - it work about as well as Radeon 7500 ten
years ago).

Dima

DK wrote:

> In article <g0ANq.92441$_(E-Mail Removed)2>, Darklight
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>you should have looked at cpu passmark
>>
>>cpu passmark
>>for $109.95 £85.52 JBO solutions phenom x4 840 3.2 ghz rank 190
>>for $109.99 £96.99 Ebuyer phenom x4 960T 3.0 ghz rank 160
>>for $109.99 £83.99 overclockers uk amd FX-4100 x4 3.6 ghz rank 141
>>
>>Phenoms AM3
>>FX AM3+
>
> I thought that AM3 offers more choices of inexpansive mobos and CPUs.
> Also, I got the 840 for $86. I like keeping things frugal.
>
>>second question whats your PSU
>
> Nexus Value 430. I bought it for its inaudible fan. Has been rock solid in
> the previous setup and all voltages in the current are as expected and
> stable.
>
> Dima

here read this:

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/A...nom_II_X4_840/

On 05/01/2012 4:10 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>
> "DK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:je4rj6$bv0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <je4mec$qqf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> This CPU driver is for WinXP. I would expect Vista or Win7 to
>>> already have this driver as a hidden built-in. It took a
>>> number of steps on the AMD driver download page to find this.
>>> It wasn't that easy.
>>>
>>> http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/dyna...08-1432-4756-a
>>>
>>> afa-4d9dc646342f&ItemID=173&lang=us
>>
>> Thanks, Paul!
>>
>> I did install something called "CPU driver" off Asus DVD. Will go back
>> and see what happens if I don't install it or install an updated version.
>>
>>> AMD Phenom II X4 840 3,735 (Passmark)
>>>
>>> AMD Sempron 2200+ 336 (Passmark)
>>>
>>> So according to that, the ratio is supposed to be 10x.
>>> And for that to be true, the benchmark would have to
>>> be able to run on multiple cores.
>>
>> Yeah, that's the numbers I was looking at when planning an update.
>> Sounds like this is exactly what I would see if I get my 2.5-3X boost
>> for a single core and multiply it by 3-4X. But then, at work
>> I have Core i7 950 and its Passmark is value 6,365. I just tested
>> DivX encoding on it using the same test as done for my Phenom
>> home system. At home I was getting ~ 40 FPS (versus around 15 with
>> the Sempron), while at work it is around 125 FPS - considerably
>> more than what the 1.7X difference in Passmark scores would
>> suggest.
>>
>> As the other reply points out, I guess I simply did not appreciate the
>> fact that CPU clock frequency in modern processors seems to have hit
>> a wall and that the main inroads into increasing computing speed is
>> now in SMP scaling.
>>
>> I also haven't realized that Cool'n'Quiet can get in the way of things -
>> will investigate this further. Does it work on a per core basis or does
>> it look at the whole chip?
>>
>
> I was following this since I upgraded from an Athlon 64 x2 4800+
> (2.5GHz) on an Asus M2NPV-VM MB (4GB RAM) to a Phenom II x2 555 Black
> Edition (3.2 GHz) on a M4N68T-M V2 (4GB RAM). I have noticed quite a
> difference in speed, and when I used the Asus unlocker to open two more
> cores, I noticed a real difference in most applications I use (some, no
> change at all, but that's mostly older small-footprint apps that weren't
> too slow anyhow). Windows now has it listed as a Phenom II x4 B55. In
> Device Manger, open each core and update the driver. Let it go to the MS
> site to get it.

You were indeed lucky to be able to unlock not just one, but two whole
cores on your X2. I had a Phenom X3 prior to this one (X6), and when I
used the Asus unlocker to get just a single additional core, it locked
up. It was indeed a bad core and not just a core locked out for
marketing purposes, it could not be unlocked.

> The link that Paul provided points to a driver for XP
> SP2, and is dated 2009. I'm afraid that driver would be
> counterproductive on a XP SP3 system with a processor manufactured after
> 2009. I may be wrong, but I got better results with the MS driver (which
> I normally don't use for driver updates). The "CPU driver" on the MB DVD
> is nothing more than Cool 'n Quiet. If you run the setup again, it will
> ask if you're sure you want to uninstall it? I left it on mine. I don't
> find that it interferes with what I do.

When you use the Core Unlocker (i.e. Unleashed mode) it's been suggested
that you should not use CnQ in combination of Unleashing. You should
also disable Turbo Core (if available on your processor), and C1E
support, while unleashed.

Yousuf Khan

On 05/01/2012 11:27 AM, DK wrote:
> Wanting more raw computing power, I went from Sempron 2200+
> in ASUS Asus A7V400-MX (socket A) to Phenom II 4X 840 in Asus
> M4N68T-M V2 (socket AM3).
>
> I must say I am quite disappointed. I was hoping for about 10X speed
> boost even with applications that can only use a single core. After all,
> more than six years separate the two (expected boost suggested
> by Moore's law would be 64X). The real life tests show nothing
> of this sort! Not even close to 10X.

<snip>

Slightly on a tangent, I've been disappointed with all of my CPU
upgrades after my first one. My first processor was an 8088-10MHz on a
PC-XT clone. My first processor upgrade went from that, straight to a
386DX-25MHz! It felt like I just strapped a rocket to my machine --
everything felt faster, even the typing! Every other processor upgrade
since then has felt somewhat unworthwhile. I never noticed the
performance in day-to-day work.

Even though my current processor is probably literally at least a 1000
times faster than that first processor, they all seem to just barely be
noticeable from the previous processors, in my opinion. And I'm not one
to upgrade every year either, I usually wait about 3 years between
processor upgrades. So 386/25 was still the biggest kick in the pants
ever, even after all of this time.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:4f0e230b$(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 05/01/2012 4:10 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "DK" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:je4rj6$bv0$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <je4mec$qqf$(E-Mail Removed)>, Paul <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This CPU driver is for WinXP. I would expect Vista or Win7 to
>>>> already have this driver as a hidden built-in. It took a
>>>> number of steps on the AMD driver download page to find this.
>>>> It wasn't that easy.
>>>>
>>>> http://support.amd.com/us/Pages/dyna...08-1432-4756-a
>>>>
>>>> afa-4d9dc646342f&ItemID=173&lang=us
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul!
>>>
>>> I did install something called "CPU driver" off Asus DVD. Will go back
>>> and see what happens if I don't install it or install an updated version.
>>>
>>>> AMD Phenom II X4 840 3,735 (Passmark)
>>>>
>>>> AMD Sempron 2200+ 336 (Passmark)
>>>>
>>>> So according to that, the ratio is supposed to be 10x.
>>>> And for that to be true, the benchmark would have to
>>>> be able to run on multiple cores.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that's the numbers I was looking at when planning an update.
>>> Sounds like this is exactly what I would see if I get my 2.5-3X boost
>>> for a single core and multiply it by 3-4X. But then, at work
>>> I have Core i7 950 and its Passmark is value 6,365. I just tested
>>> DivX encoding on it using the same test as done for my Phenom
>>> home system. At home I was getting ~ 40 FPS (versus around 15 with
>>> the Sempron), while at work it is around 125 FPS - considerably
>>> more than what the 1.7X difference in Passmark scores would
>>> suggest.
>>>
>>> As the other reply points out, I guess I simply did not appreciate the
>>> fact that CPU clock frequency in modern processors seems to have hit
>>> a wall and that the main inroads into increasing computing speed is
>>> now in SMP scaling.
>>>
>>> I also haven't realized that Cool'n'Quiet can get in the way of things -
>>> will investigate this further. Does it work on a per core basis or does
>>> it look at the whole chip?
>>>
>>
>> I was following this since I upgraded from an Athlon 64 x2 4800+
>> (2.5GHz) on an Asus M2NPV-VM MB (4GB RAM) to a Phenom II x2 555 Black
>> Edition (3.2 GHz) on a M4N68T-M V2 (4GB RAM). I have noticed quite a
>> difference in speed, and when I used the Asus unlocker to open two more
>> cores, I noticed a real difference in most applications I use (some, no
>> change at all, but that's mostly older small-footprint apps that weren't
>> too slow anyhow). Windows now has it listed as a Phenom II x4 B55. In
>> Device Manger, open each core and update the driver. Let it go to the MS
>> site to get it.
>
> You were indeed lucky to be able to unlock not just one, but two whole cores on your X2. I had a Phenom X3 prior to
> this one (X6), and when I used the Asus unlocker to get just a single additional core, it locked up. It was indeed a
> bad core and not just a core locked out for marketing purposes, it could not be unlocked.
>
>> The link that Paul provided points to a driver for XP
>> SP2, and is dated 2009. I'm afraid that driver would be
>> counterproductive on a XP SP3 system with a processor manufactured after
>> 2009. I may be wrong, but I got better results with the MS driver (which
>> I normally don't use for driver updates). The "CPU driver" on the MB DVD
>> is nothing more than Cool 'n Quiet. If you run the setup again, it will
>> ask if you're sure you want to uninstall it? I left it on mine. I don't
>> find that it interferes with what I do.
>
> When you use the Core Unlocker (i.e. Unleashed mode) it's been suggested that you should not use CnQ in combination of
> Unleashing. You should also disable Turbo Core (if available on your processor), and C1E support, while unleashed.
>
> Yousuf Khan

As it turns out, I'm not running the software, but it is enabled in BIOS. Seems to work just fine that way. I don't have
Turbo mode enabled- I figure it's not going to give me that much of a boost for what I run anyway.

I haven't seen too many failures on the Phenom II x2 CPU's. I believe there were more instances of non-working extra
cores on the x4's. If I have a problem with any of them, I can always turn one or two cores off. Until that time, I'll
enjoy what I have. I'm glad I upgraded my PSU a while back since the 4 cores double the power requirement.
--
SC Tom

On 12/01/2012 7:51 AM, geoff wrote:
> In 1985, I had an IBM XT and used it to run an assembler for Motorola
> 6809 code. It took about 20 minutes to complete. A few years later, my
> company bought us Compaq Deskpro 40 machines. BIGGGGGGGGG DIFFERENCE!
> The assembler took about 30 seconds.
>
> However, I've never experienced that kind of upgrade joy since.

Yeah, I know what you mean, things were going so fast, you almost felt
that maybe it didn't work right or something. These days, you might see
something go from 30 seconds down to 15 seconds, it'll feel like a nice
boost for a little while, but after two days you'll already be used to it.

I think it took me months to get over how much faster the new system was
over the older one.

Yousuf Khan

geoff wrote:
> In 1985, I had an IBM XT and used it to run an assembler for Motorola
> 6809 code. It took about 20 minutes to complete. A few years later,
> my company bought us Compaq Deskpro 40 machines. BIGGGGGGGGG
> DIFFERENCE! The assembler took about 30 seconds.
>
> However, I've never experienced that kind of upgrade joy since.
>

My first computer was based on the intel 8008, made with hardware hauled out of
the dumpster where I worked. I then designed and wire-wrapped a processor board
for the 8080 chip. Now that was an increase!