Computer Help Forums

Computer Help Forum > TechieHQ Office > Newsgroup Archive > PC Hardware > Re: Best configuration for a twin-processor board

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Re: Best configuration for a twin-processor board

 
 
kony
Guest

Posts: n/a
Thanked:


 
      Jul 9th, 05, 6:18 AM
On 8 Jul 2005 21:42:59 -0700, wrote:

>My PC has an Azza 810-DTC twin-processor motherboard. It is a 100-FSB
>board that can take a 133-FSB 370-pin processor due to a CPU-Booster
>card present in its Slot-I. Working on Windows XP, I am using a 400-MHz
>370-pin Celeron processor with 384-MB 100-FSB RAM on this board, but
>now I wish to upgrade the processor. I can use either (a) one 1000-MHz
>133-FSB 370-pin Coppermine-EB non-Taulatine Pentium III processor or
>(b) two 800-MHz 100-FSB Pentium III processors (one 370-pin and one
>Slot-I) on the board. Which of these two configurations will have a
>higher overall processing speed?
>
>Thanks,
>Gyan


What will you be running on the system, the most demanding
tasks?

For typical desktop use, the faster configuration would
usually be the 1000MHz P3 w/133FSB. For a host-processing
intensive server, the pair of P3 800 MHz may be faster.
Are you certain that you will be able to run the two 800MHz
CPUs in the configuration you describe?

Frankly, I would not upgrade that motherboard unless you can
get the CPUs very cheaply. Since you are concerned about
the performance benefits, clearly the best performance would
come from even the cheapest of modern technology. That is,
unless you have a LOT of memory you need to reuse.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard Urban
Guest

Posts: n/a
Thanked:


 
      Jul 9th, 05, 3:53 PM
A program has to be written to utilize two CPU's. If it is not, you don't
really get any added benefit by running a dual CPU M/B.

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

Quote from: George Ankner
"If you knew as much as you thought you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!"

<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> >What will you be running on the system, the most
>>demanding tasks?

>
> I use it as a desktop PC, not as a server. The most demanding tasks
> that I perform on it are capturing video from a camcorder to the
> hard-disk, searching for files on the hard-disks without using indexing
> service, and running many programs and opening numerous folder and
> explorer windows simultaneously.
>
>>For typical desktop use, the faster configuration
>>would usually be the 1000MHz P3 w/133FSB. For a
>>host-processing intensive server, the pair of P3 800
>>MHz may be faster.

>
> Would you explain why the 1000 MHz P3 w/133FSB will be better than the
> pair of 800 MHz P3 w/100FSB for typical desktop use? In a typical
> desktop use, when performing a task that requires intensive processor
> activity such as capturing real time video from a camcorder, will the
> PC not distribute the processing load on both the CPU's while the pair
> of 800-MHz processors is used, making it faster than while a single
> 1000 MHz processor is used in the same condition?
>
>>Are you certain that you will be able to run the two
>>800MHz CPUs in the configuration you describe?

>
> The board is built for that, so I am 90% sure.
>
>>Frankly, I would not upgrade that motherboard
>>unless you can get the CPUs very cheaply. Since you
>>are concerned about the performance benefits,
>>clearly the best performance would come from even
>>the cheapest of modern technology. That is,
>>unless you have a LOT of memory you need to reuse.

>
> I am thinking of upgrading because it will cost 1/3rd of changing the
> current cabinet, motherboard, RAM and processor combination; and it is
> better to keep a running system than to sell it at 20% of its original
> cost, even if we have decided to buy a new one.
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kony
Guest

Posts: n/a
Thanked:


 
      Jul 9th, 05, 4:33 PM
On 9 Jul 2005 06:43:31 -0700, wrote:

>>What will you be running on the system, the most
>>demanding tasks?

>
>I use it as a desktop PC, not as a server. The most demanding tasks
>that I perform on it are capturing video from a camcorder to the
>hard-disk, searching for files on the hard-disks without using indexing
>service, and running many programs and opening numerous folder and
>explorer windows simultaneously.


It sounds like you mostly need a new hard drive, not the
CPU. Capturing vide, searching, running the programs does
not in itself tax cpu much except particular programs. You
make no mention of any that are the particular problem so it
would see HDD is primary need and perhaps memory secondary.

Even so, in those uses a single CPU is usually faster when a
higher speed as the 1GHz is. If you had programs running in
the background at high priority it would help more to have 2
CPU.



>
>>For typical desktop use, the faster configuration
>>would usually be the 1000MHz P3 w/133FSB. For a
>>host-processing intensive server, the pair of P3 800
>>MHz may be faster.

>
>Would you explain why the 1000 MHz P3 w/133FSB will be better than the
>pair of 800 MHz P3 w/100FSB for typical desktop use?


Your described uses aren't so CPU intensive *as mentioned*,
and most apps are optimized for dual CPU, do not have
multilple threads at high CPU utilization particularly with
software someone finds manageable on a 400MHz system (or at
least DID find manageable up until now).


>In a typical
>desktop use, when performing a task that requires intensive processor
>activity such as capturing real time video from a camcorder, will the
>PC not distribute the processing load on both the CPU's while the pair
>of 800-MHz processors is used, making it faster than while a single
>1000 MHz processor is used in the same condition?
>
>>Are you certain that you will be able to run the two
>>800MHz CPUs in the configuration you describe?

>
>The board is built for that, so I am 90% sure.


Built for using a slocket in that config? Not necessarily.
It may work but I'd wonder about it more unless you have
specific evidence that it will in that exact configuration.


>
>>Frankly, I would not upgrade that motherboard
>>unless you can get the CPUs very cheaply. Since you
>>are concerned about the performance benefits,
>>clearly the best performance would come from even
>>the cheapest of modern technology. That is,
>>unless you have a LOT of memory you need to reuse.

>
>I am thinking of upgrading because it will cost 1/3rd of changing the
>current cabinet,


Cabinet change isn't always necessary.
However, if your power supply isn't sufficient that may need
changed, but it might regardless as either described upgrade
would require more power from a now-aged power supply.



>motherboard, RAM and processor combination;


Yes of course you will need to replace the parts that are
SLOW. It is a necessary thing to get signifiacant benefit.
Don't get me wrong, a 1GHz CPU will be sufficient for what
you've described as use of the system, but then you'll be
looking at replacing it all again eventually and could've
been running a faster system in the interim, delaying that
later upgrade more. Newer systems aren't just about
performance but there's the reliability factor, the newer
features such as USB2, firewire, SATA, AGP8X or PCI Express,
Gigabit Ethernet, ATA133?, etc.


>and it is
>better to keep a running system


How long will it run?
It's expected lifespan is about up. It could keep running
for a few more years, but may not. Azza is not a
particularly quality board either, though I admit I've never
seen their dual CPU boards.



>than to sell it at 20% of its original
>cost, even if we have decided to buy a new one.


Depreciation is irrelevant. Of course it's near worthless
for exactly the reason you and I mentioned- that it's slow
and it's lifespan is about up, in addition to it being
"used" in general which is certainly depreciation. That
it's resale value is so low is in itself another reason not
to upgrade it.

Regardless, I'd get the 1GHz CPU if it can be done cheaply.
If the hard drive is more than 3-4 years old I'd replace
that too.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Which of the following linux PC configuration is best Pen PC Hardware 0 May 30th, 10 9:48 PM
[SOLVED] Re: Multiple hard disks - what's the best configuration? DevilsPGD PC Hardware 2 Nov 23rd, 07 4:08 AM
Re: Best memory configuration Ralph Wade Phillips DIY Computers 0 Dec 31st, 05 11:07 PM
"Best" IDE Configuration? Lordy PC Hardware 9 Nov 4th, 04 2:19 AM
[SOLVED] Asrock Asus Board K7S8X Board: K7S8XE on board sound Shepİ PC Hardware 0 Dec 11th, 03 3:27 AM