3.2 GHz Athlon Power: Dual Boards From ASUS and MSI – THG.RU

<!–#set var="article_header" value="3.2 GHz Athlon Power:
Dual Boards From ASUS and MSI” –>

Ready For The Mass Market? Dual Athlon Boards

In principle, two processors are better than one. This fact is in line with the approach we’ve often taken: that you can never have too much performance. Even an Athlon XP 2000+, which is already quite powerful, quickly reaches its limit when dealing with certain applications. This is confirmed by the shop-talk among hardware fans, who like to have their films converted to DVDs in a matter of minutes. In other words, we need more computing power! It should be mentioned here that the restricted distribution of dual CPU systems can only be attributed to a lack of software support. Admittedly, the search for perfect software which uses the full capacity of two processors is like looking for a needle in a haystack. So, where are the multi-threading applications we’ve been hearing about?

Even among the heaps of modern PC games, the aging Quake III stands out because it actually supports dual CPU operation, albeit in a rudimentary way. On the other hand, using a program for converting DVD films to space-saving MPEG-4 format is a classic killer application – Xmpeg or Flask Mpeg uses 100% capacity of both CPUs.

Testing basis: Two Athlon MP 1900+’s.

And don’t forget, two processors mean prestige – even the BIOS logon is enough to get you noticed among your friends.

Ready For The Mass Market? Dual Athlon Boards, Continued

To get to the point, both the Athlon MP and the Athlon XP currently available on the market are suited for dual operation. The old Athlon with its Thunderbird core (distinguishable by its ceramic case) and all Duron models (with Spitfire and Morgan core) do not function in dual operation.

The Asus A7M266-D for running dual AMD Athlon MPs/XPs.

The MSI K7D Master supports the use of two Athlon processors.

Both boards have special electrical connections: AUX12 and P6.

Special Accessories: USB 2.0

USB 2.0 using the PCI card included.

Both boards are supplied with special additional cards that include four USB 2.0 ports. A special feature of the MSI card is that it has an internal USB port. Asus, too, has its peculiarities: the USB card can operate in one of the 64-bit PCI slots.

Asus includes a USB card complying with the new 2.0 standard. Special feature: it fits in one of the 64-bit PCI slots.

Test Configuration and Special Features

Dual Benchmarks in Windows 2000

Because of the automatic resource management integrated into Windows XP, we have used Windows 2000 to test the dual boards in question – the only reason being that Windows XP optimizes the running of applications in the background. That means that we cannot exactly calculate benchmarks with these nuances.

All told, we ran 13 different benchmarking tests to present a multi-faceted and balanced picture of the performance of the two dual systems. In addition, this shows the suitability of each piece of software for multiprocessor use.

We determined OpenGL performance with the Quake III Arena benchmark. The various MPEG encoding benchmarks make for a comprehensive testing scenario: using Lame MP3 encoder, a 178-MB WAV file is coded in “MPEG-1 Layer 3 Format.” The settings for this are as follows: variable bit rate from 0 to 256 KBit and optimum quality. We also examined the encoding of an MPEG-4 file from a commercial DVD. For some time now, we have also been using Newtek’s Lightwave professional package, version 7b, to calculate rendering performance. The compilation of the latest Linux kernel has long been part of the standard repertoire. Sysmark-Benchmark 2001 is used to determine the office performance in dual operation. The main feature of this dual test is rendering performance. We used 3D Studio Max 4.2 and Cinema 4D XL R7 to test it.

OpenGL-Performance: Quake 3 Arena

We were not able to activate the MP mode of Quake 3 in Windows 2000 SP2. Result: the benchmark caused a system crash. For this reason, we only calculated the time-demo runs in single mode. As you can see from the chart, the data overhead in dual operation results in a drop in frame rate.

MP3-Audio-Encoding: MP3 Maker

With the help of MP3 Maker, a 178-MB sound file in WAV format is converted in Windows 2000 into MPEG 1 Layer 3 format (variable bit rate and high-quality mode). The chart clearly demonstrates that both boards have a speed advantage of just less than 13% in dual mode.

MPEG-4-Video-Encoding: Xmpeg 4.2a und Divx 4.12

The encoding of MPEG 4 videos runs exactly 80% faster with two processors – the systems reach a maximum frame rate of 54 frames per second.

SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro Benchmarks: CPU and Multimedia

It becomes obvious in the SiSoft Sandra 2002 Pro benchmark that dual operation affects CPU and multimedia performance. However, these results are to be taken with a grain of salt, as we already know. The benchmark suite is only really relevant for overclocking fans who want to prove the relative improvement in performance of a particular CPU.

3D-Rendering: Newtek Lightwave 7b

Using a second CPU really pays off in the Lightwave benchmark: rendering only takes about half the time.

3D-Rendering II: 3D Studio Max 4.2

The 3D Studio Max benchmark yields astonishing results: the second CPU only results in a 7% gain. In all likelihood, optimizing the software for AMD Athlon could achieve significantly better results.

3D-Rendering III: Cinema 4D XL R6

In the old version of Cinema 4D XL, both dual systems beat single systems, particularly in rendering.

3D-Rendering IV: Cinema 4D XL R7

Cinema 4D XL R7 with radiosity scenes is a new benchmark. Using two processors, rendering is almost 40% faster, compared to single-processor operation.

Office-Performance: Sysmark 2001

The benchmark chart clearly shows that dual CPU systems offer hardly any improvement compared to single operation in the office test.

Linux Compilation: SuSE Linux 7.3 / Kernel 2.4.13

Compiling the Linux kernel is faster with one CPU than in dual operation. In addition, the Asus board is faster than MSI’s counterpart.

The Memory Problem: Nothing Works Without Special Modules

Various DDR-SDRAM modules: above, a normal module; below, what is known as a “registered” memory.

To pre-empt unstable operating performance, dual Athlon boards should always be equipped with what are known as “registered” memory modules. Asus and MSI specify 4 GB as the maximum level of operating memory. It’s a little different in practice: with “registered” memory, you can only expand up to 3.5 GB – if a conventional module is used, 3 GB is the maximum.

Summary: Dualie Has Its Benefits, and Not

An abstract analysis looks like this: more is not less – but it is not always better. Anyone who wants one of the boards that we tested for switching over to two CPUs later should save their money instead. Even the argument that dual boards can create a powerful graphics or CAD workstation is not very convincing.

In the end, even professional CAD/CAE/CAM applications do not permanently access two CPUs. The reason is that multiprocessor support is a far cry from consistent, balanced utilization of both CPUs. And that brings us once again to the beginning of our discussion.

For AMD, the MPX chipset is one more advance into the professional marketplace, a feat that is anything but simple. In the end user sector, a dual board for AMD Athlon is only going to be attractive to enthusiasts and people who work with animation and rendering programs. In fact, anyone who regularly runs several applications in Windows 2000 or XP at the same time may also benefit from two processors.

Looking back on the history of the past five years, we see that Intel tried to establish its dual platforms on the market with Pentium II/III – but without a huge amount of success. For AMD, this second Dual CPU platform is more of a niche within the niche, but nothing more.

Software support is a sore point in dual CPU operation. Very few applications work perfectly with two processors. What good is the best dual platform if the software isn’t there to take full advantage of it? Lightwave from Newtek offers a convincing example of this: on average, a single Pentium 4 is just as fast in this application as a dual Athlon system. The reason is that Intel has had the software optimized for the Pentium 4. So, if you want to take a leap into the dualie world, give it a try, but be aware of the limitations and software issues involved. If you are already a committed dualie then, you’ll no doubt welcome AMD’s new developments in this segment of the marketplace because, you can never have enough performance.