Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?

Thanks,
Lynn

"Lynn" <(E-Mail Removed)> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>


Ehmm, they announced the CPUs just the last days.... Wait a little more time
and you will see. For now you can tell that all 939 boards will be able to
use the AMD Dual CORE CPUs with a bios update if the manufacturer will
programm one.

Frank

Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?

Bobby

"Lynn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Does any of the ASUS motherboards support dual AMD64 cpus ?
>
> Thanks,
> Lynn
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?

I would prefer two physical cpus.

Lynn

Lynn wrote:
>>Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>
> I would prefer two physical cpus.

There should be little difference between two physical CPUs and a Dual
Core (Except availability) in many ways. Of course, a board with 2
sockets has the potential for 4 cores are 8 DIMMs...

I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.

One of the best configurations you could have would be a couple of
nForce4 Pros with a couple of socket 939/940s. I guess that all depends
on what you want to do.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:14:54 -0500, "Lynn" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> Do you mean two physical CPUs or a dual core processor?
>
>I would prefer two physical cpus.
>
>Lynn

So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
That's four very fast CPUs!

How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?

(hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?

And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
wait until Longhorn becomes available?

Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> That's four very fast CPUs!

Yeah.

> How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?

Depends what you're doing.

But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.

> (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?

Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)

> And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> wait until Longhorn becomes available?

Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
over 4 CPUS.

You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

"Ben Pope" <benpope81@_REMOVE_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114460705.fb71aa6cc69ff7ca8ab2bd6f6753be18@teranews...
> Lady Margaret Thatcher wrote:
> > So let's say you have a dual-core per CPU, dual physical CPU system.
> > That's four very fast CPUs!
>
> Yeah.
>
> > How much memory would be needed to keep a system list that busy?
>
> Depends what you're doing.
>
> But ideally, 2 DIMMS per socket. 4 DIMMS.
>
> > (hate to ask this but ) Does anyone really need a four CPU core
> > system, unless you are very heavy into video or Photoshop?
>

feast on this rack full of dual AMD-64's http://tinyurl.com/5uhd9
closeup of a (different) motherboard http://tinyurl.com/amv4t pulled from a
similar rack.
these systems all ran linux but don't tell SCO


--
=======================================================================
Beemer Biker (E-Mail Removed)
http://TipsForTheComputingImpaired.com
http://ResearchRiders.org Ask about my 99'R1100RT
=======================================================================

> Good for multitasking... If the operations are highly threaded, then
> great, provided they don't rely on each other too much. (Although AMDs
> architecture minimises the latency, even for inter-socket communication)
>
> > And, can Windows XP utilize all four CPU cores? Would you need to
> > wait until Longhorn becomes available?
>
> Windows NT 4 could utilise 4 CPUs ok. By the time you went to 8, given
> the architectures back then, and the OS, you gained practically nothing
> over 4 CPUS.
>
> You might require a Server/Professional licence for XP though. I'm not
> sure what Windows licencing is with respect to Dual Core CPUs.
>
> Ben
> --
> A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
> Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
> I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

> I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.

Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
for $289

The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
are $360 each

The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
are $529 each

Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???

Lynn

Lynn wrote:
>>I can't find any Dual Socket boards for AMD64, by Asus.
>
>
> Found an ASUS 940 dual opteron MB http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/k8ndl.html
> for $289
>
> The 2.0 GHZ Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron246.html
> are $360 each
>
> The 2.2 GHz Opteron CPUs http://shop.store.yahoo.com/directron/opteron248.html
> are $529 each
>
> Arent the Athlon AMD64 cpus suppose to be faster than the Opterons ? I think
> that the Athlon already goes to 2.4 GHz ???

I think that the original Opterons were 133*6 = 800MHz Hypertransport.
Athlon64s are 200FSB * 5 = 100MHz Hypertransport.

In terms of speed, yeah, the Athlon64s outperform the Opterons.

I think they are bringing the Opterons up to date though.

You can see a comparison of the Opterons here, including dual core:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...l?redir=CPOS14

The Opterons have more coherant Hypertransport links for multiprocessor
inter-communication.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...