Best configuration for a twin-processor board



letterzone@yahoo.com
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
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

kony
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
On 8 Jul 2005 21:42:59 -0700, letterzone@yahoo.com 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.

Damo
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
I think soon your only upgrade option will be a new PC so do it sooner
rather than later. But, asssuming that card doesn't actually allow the bus
to run at 133MHz (it only allows 133MHz FSB processors to run on the slower
100MHz bus), get rid of the card and use the two slower 800MHz processors.
Damo

<letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120884179.160996.40470@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>

Fred
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
letterzone@yahoo.com <letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote:

> My PC has an Azza 810-DTC twin-processor motherboard.

Outrageous.

> what is pupic hair ??

It could be worse; you could have got a cold instead.

> 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.

Deceitful.

> I dont ever go out..please help me!

Do you have any friends you can talk to about it, letterzone@yahoo.com?
Scratch that. Stupid question.

> 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.

You can wish all you want, I doubt you'll get it.

> 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.

I am not so sure you can use either.

> Which of these two configurations will have a higher overall processing
> speed?

Which of these two configurations will have a higher overall processing
speed? Are your for real?

> Thanks, Gyan.

You can repay me by sucking my cock.

letterzone@yahoo.com
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
>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.

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
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!"

<letterzone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120916611.592373.41630@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.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.
>

kony
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
On 9 Jul 2005 06:43:31 -0700, letterzone@yahoo.com 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.


Best configuration for a twin-processor board