Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
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.
>
> DIVX encoding using VirtualDub and DivX 5 codec became
> faster by only about 3X. OK, this may also have something to do
> with the video card change (does it? - I don't really know; went
> from dedicated nVIDIA Quadro FX 3000, 256 MB to integrated
> nVIDIA GeForce 7025, 512 MB - not sure what is supposed to be
> better; I need occasional hardware stereo so Quadro will be
> going back into the slot).
>
> To make sure it's not GPU, I also tested using a program that does
> no graphics (multiparametric fitting anf FFT; essentially raw numbers
> crunching). Alas, a fairly common task that took 23 min on the
> 6.5 years old cheap system now took 9 min - only ~2.5X faster.
>
> Granted, programs that can use SMP run correspondingly faster
> (about 3.3X over just using a single core) but still... Are my results
> observations fairly typical? If not, what gives? This $200 upgrade
> pales in comparison with the $160 upgrade 6.5 years ago when I
> went from dual Celerons 366 in ABit BP6 to the Sempron 2200+.
> There, the speed boost was of near cosmic proportions.
>
> Any comments? Thanks!
>
> - Dima
While DivX encoding is running, arrange a copy of CPU-Z running
at the same time, and verify the CPU clock value is correct.
Using Cool N' Quiet, the processor will switch to the low multiplier
when the system is quiet. When busy, the processor should be
running at the high multiplier. And this should be reflected
in the core clock speed value listed in the main panel of CPUZ.
You can try disabling Cool N' Quiet, which should leave the
processor at the high multiplier.
Depending on the OS used, a "cpu driver" may be required.
I'm not sure where to get the best information on that now.
This CPU driver is for WinXP. I would expect Vista or Win7 to
already have this driver as a hidden built-in. It took a
number of steps on the AMD driver download page to find this.
It wasn't that easy.
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
DK wrote:
>
> I also haven't realized that Cool'n'Quiet can get in the way of things -
> will investigate this further. Does it work on a per core basis or does
> it look at the whole chip?
>
> - Dima
As far as I know, it applies to the whole chip. You never know
though, they could change that. It just makes it more of a pain
for the CPU cores to use shared resources, if done that way.
In this article, it implies application to the whole chip.
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
On 1/5/2012 1:53 PM, DK wrote:
> In article<je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul<nospam@needed.com> 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.
The CPU driver usually is there to take advantage of newer power-saving
modes, and stuff. Even with a generic CPU driver (afterall, these are
all just x86 processors, no matter what), I doubt that performance will
be affected all that much. Power consumption on the other hand might
become significantly better though.
>> 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.
I wouldn't base too much importance on synthetic benchmarks. Synthetic
benchmarks typically measure individual component performances to the
exclusion of other components, such as RAM speed vs. CPU speed vs. I/O
speed, etc. Real-world benchmarks involve real applications, and real
applications are a combination of CPU/RAM/IO. Even if the CPU part is
10x faster, doesn't mean that the RAM is, and certainly not the disk.
> 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.
The DivX codec uses an Intel compiler that's purpose built to exclude
non-Intel hardware. It does this by turning off most modern instruction
sets such as SSE on non-Intel processors, even if the non-Intel
processors have those instruction sets available. It was the subject of
an anti-trust suit between Intel and AMD, which Intel lost and was
forced to pay AMD $1.2B. Intel used the compilers to gain unfair
advantages in benchmarking suites.
> 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 think CnQ and other clock-throttling technologies are there to save
power, but they dynamically scale speed of the processors to the
workload needed. I can't see CnQ would interfere with ultimate
performance by more than a few percent (I'm guessing less than 5%,
probably less than 3%).
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> I think CnQ and other clock-throttling technologies are there to save
> power, but they dynamically scale speed of the processors to the
> workload needed. I can't see CnQ would interfere with ultimate
> performance by more than a few percent (I'm guessing less than 5%,
> probably less than 3%).
>
> Yousuf Khan
I've run into a couple cases of "stuck multiplier" problems in
the newsgroups. The sad thing in one case, was the problem
resolved itself, and the OP couldn't say exactly what
step fixed it (changing too many things at the same time,
to be sure). So it does happen, that a user finds
their CPU stays at the low multiplier, and they don't
know why.
You can achieve that result artificially, by using a power
schema. For example, the RMClock utility, will install it's
own power schema (that's in addition to the ones already
there like "Always On" option). If a user cranked the
multiplier values down in their RMClock schema and left
the RMClock schema selected in the Power Options control panel,
that could give a "stuck multiplier" effect. I occasionally
run into people, who get a machine from a relative, which
is hacked to bits, and full of surprises. Like the
guy with a funny multiplier problem, which was resolved
when he pulled the Athlon processor, and found a jumper
wire stuffed into the socket holes (wire mod). I didn't
even suggest he look there, but he managed to find it.
So there are ways to mess it up, given enough effort. It
just depends on how clever the previous owner was.
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
"DK" <dk@noemail.thankstospam.net> wrote in message news:je4rj6$bv0$1@news.albasani.net...
> In article <je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> 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. 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.
My Passmarks are: B55 3,857 (left as a stock x2 555 = 1,993)
Athlon 64 4800+ 1,312
I have no way to scientifically prove it, but the system runs a lot faster than the 3-times difference in Passmark
scores.
I haven't done any DIVX editing, but I've done a few home movies and movie editing with Microsoft Movie Maker, and found
that processing and saving the movies is at least 5 or 6x faster than with my old MB/CPU combo. Movies that used to take
3/4 to an hour to process are now done in 5-10 minutes.
Part of your problem may be the onboard video. I found it to be clunky and slow, and I took my Nvidia GT 240 out of my
old system and use it with this one. Tremendous improvement in hard-core video-intensive games like Modern Warfare
(which was unplayable on the onboard 7025) , and in overall PC speed.
Some other things to look at are your RAM timing speeds, whether they're set up as ganged or unganged, etc. You can find
your current settings using CPU-Z and go from there.
Overall, I am very satisfied with this upgrade. Plus the fact that I got the MB, CPU and 4GB of G-Skill DDR3-1333 Ripjaw
RAM for $170 including shipping (Black Friday sale from Newegg).
--
SC Tom
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
SC Tom wrote:
>
> "DK" <dk@noemail.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
> news:je4rj6$bv0$1@news.albasani.net...
>> In article <je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> 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. 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.
<<snipped>>
There was an extremely long thread on this topic a while back,
but I haven't been tracking it. The Version 4 update is mentioned here.
You have to go to the end of the thread, to get the latest experiences
with that stuff. I don't know if the original poster in that thread,
continues to update the first post with the "answer" or not (last update
stamp says 2007).
It could be the current AMD driver, checks the update status of the
OS before installing anything, so just about any behavior in 2011 is
possible. It really depends on whether AMD felt like deferring to
Microsoft or not. AMD is always playing cleanup it seems (like
getting Bulldozer support - patch listed by Microsoft, then
withdrawn).
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:je560r$qkp$1@dont-email.me...
> SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "DK" <dk@noemail.thankstospam.net> wrote in message news:je4rj6$bv0$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> In article <je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> 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. 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.
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> There was an extremely long thread on this topic a while back,
> but I haven't been tracking it. The Version 4 update is mentioned here.
>
> http://forum.notebookreview.com/sage...em-do-you.html
>
> You have to go to the end of the thread, to get the latest experiences
> with that stuff. I don't know if the original poster in that thread,
> continues to update the first post with the "answer" or not (last update
> stamp says 2007).
>
> It could be the current AMD driver, checks the update status of the
> OS before installing anything, so just about any behavior in 2011 is
> possible. It really depends on whether AMD felt like deferring to
> Microsoft or not. AMD is always playing cleanup it seems (like
> getting Bulldozer support - patch listed by Microsoft, then
> withdrawn).
>
As usual, you go above and beyond in your research, and I for one appreciate it.
I read a few of the 64 pages of the article, including the version 4 patch and the other articles toward the end of the
article. They all mention SP2, including the version 4 patch. Also intimated in the article is that it was all included
in SP3, and that everything was taken care of with it also. Don't know about that since some people still have
multi-core problems.
Also, since the article seems to deal more with dual core than with 3 or more, I don't know how much of it would be
appropriate to 3+ cores. Some of the optimizing tips might be useful; if I get brave, I may try some of them. Kinda
scary playing with the boot.ini. If I do decide to mess around with it, I'll be sure to have a new image of my drive
before starting on it :-)
And even though the AMD driver file from your earlier link says "Updated 2009", the setup file inside the zip is dated
9/7/2007. I think I'll leave mine alone for now; it's working fine for me :-)
--
SC Tom
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
On 05/01/2012 4:10 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>
> "DK" <dk@noemail.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
> news:je4rj6$bv0$1@news.albasani.net...
>> In article <je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> 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.
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840
"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4f0e230b$1@news.bnb-lp.com...
> On 05/01/2012 4:10 PM, SC Tom wrote:
>>
>> "DK" <dk@noemail.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:je4rj6$bv0$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> In article <je4mec$qqf$1@dont-email.me>, Paul <nospam@needed.com> 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
Re: Disappointing upgrade: Sempron 2200+ --> Phenom II 4X 840 
Linear Mode
