Of course with Vista, if you run the default extra stuff, you do waste a lot of cycles. I tend to run XP instead.

That depends on your views. If you happen to like the "extra stuff", then the cycles are not "wasted" at all.

---

Darn your good. Ok, bumped the CPU to 3200 and the memory was at something like 667 or there about. The memory is now up to 800. I jumped it to 1066 at first but the system was not stable. So now we have a BOINC benchmark of 2606 floating point MIPS per CPU and 8125 integer MIPS per CPU. I suspect I'll have to play with the voltages to get the memory up to the full 1066. Kind of strange as the motherboard should handle 1066 memory right out of box.

OK -- the MSI 790 chipset boards have gotten mixed reviews regarding performance and overclocking. With the right BIOS you should be able to change the multiplier (not the FSB) from the default 15 to 17 or 17.5 - in effect running the 940 from 3GHz x 4 CPU's to 3.5GHz x 4 CPU's. That's a 15% performance boost.

Regarding the 1066 memory, it is quite likely the motherboard is detecting it as 800 memory. For the 1066 performance to play, you need to make sure the memory voltage is bumped from a default of 1.8v to 2.1v, and then push the speed from 400 to 533. Timings (if they can be controlled) should be 5-5-5-18 for the OCX memory. Again, I'm not sure how much of this can be controlled by the MSI BIOS.

Regarding the performance, that definitely seems like less than the 940 should be doing -- it's barely quicker than my 9850 overclocked to 2.8GHz.

Oh, one more thing, the newer Windows (Windows 7) looks to be a bit faster than Vista. Of course with Vista, if you run the default extra stuff, you do waste a lot of cycles. I tend to run XP instead.

---

@ kwalk

I'm little confused..

You have the MSI K9A2 Platinum ?

I'm interested also to the board.. but it have only a bus up to 2600 MHz..

The X4 940 have 3000 MHz..

So the max. for this boards would be the X4 9950 ?

---

kwalk:
On your BOINC benchmarks, what version of BOINC did you use? Was it x86 or x86_64?

I hope I can do a good job explaining this. The CPU bus max on this motherboard is 600Mhz but you can adjust the ratio for the CPU. So, I left the CPU bus at the 200Mhz default but pushed the ratio to 17. 17x200=3400Mhz. So right now the CPU is running at 3400Mhz.

@ kwalk

I'm little confused..

You have the MSI K9A2 Platinum ?

I'm interested also to the board.. but it have only a bus up to 2600 MHz..

The X4 940 have 3000 MHz..

So the max. for this boards would be the X4 9950 ?

---

I am using the 6.4.5 version x86_64 with no tweaks of any kind to BOINC. There may be better ways of doing a benchmark but for now all I am doing is selecting the "Advanced" menu and running CPU benchmarks from there. Now that I have the CPU up to 3400Mhz the benchmarks are 2767 floating point MIPS per CPU and 8597 integer MIPS per CPU. Hey, how does that look BerryAZ? Better?

kwalk:
On your BOINC benchmarks, what version of BOINC did you use? Was it x86 or x86_64?

---

I hope I can do a good job explaining this. The CPU bus max on this motherboard is 600Mhz but you can adjust the ratio for the CPU. So, I left the CPU bus at the 200Mhz default but pushed the ratio to 17. 17x200=3400Mhz. So right now the CPU is running at 3400Mhz.

@ kwalk

I'm little confused..

You have the MSI K9A2 Platinum ?

I'm interested also to the board.. but it have only a bus up to 2600 MHz..

The X4 940 have 3000 MHz..

So the max. for this boards would be the X4 9950 ?

Thanks a lot!

Ahh.. O.K., the stock FSB is 200 MHz.. the stock multi of the CPU is 15 [X4 940]..

I have also few AMDs.. but to now I have only experiences with Intel-CPUs.. overclocking and so on.. (FSB/multi/RAM..)

The Intel overclocking work fine only with rise the FSB.. stock multi..
The RAM rise also with this..

AMD is not so easy.. I hear about..

The max. in BIOS is 600 MHz.. but not possible to let run, I guess.. ;-)
For example the max. for my Intel D975XBX2-mobo (stock 266 MHz) is ~ 380 MHz.. (load Windows) stable ~ 350.. (BOINC 24/7) I don't know what was the max you can choose in BIOS..


So from your experiences you can recommend your mobo for the X4 940 ?
And BIOS/Windows show you the right speed?

Because to now, I can see on the MSI homepage that this mobo will only support max. Phenom.. [V. 1] ..not Phenom II. ..

But I don't know, which BIOS will be on the mobo if I would buy today this mobo.. it's not a very new released.. maybe with the new X4 940 I can't start the system and need an 'old' CPU for start and make BIOS update?

Which BIOS version you had on the mobo as you bought it?

---

The K9A2 has a fair amount of adjustments but I seem to have a bug on the board or in the BIOS that will not let me run the memory over 800Mhz. Each time I try to set it to 1066Mhz the BIOS has a checksum error at boot up and the settings go back to default. I think the BIOS was at 1.5 when I got it and I flashed it to the current 1.6. If your looking for a stable system and don't need to do a lot of overclocking then it is a good board. It is not the best I have seen for doing a lot of overclocking. Right now the BIOS and Vista both report the CPU running at 3.4GHz and the BOINC benchmarks seem to agree. I hear a version of the 940 is coming out later this year that will only work with the AM3 boards but this one out now works fine with the AM2+ boards. Just guessing here but even with older BIOS I would think the defaults would let it boot with the 940 then you could flash to the newer BIOS. I can tell you that version 1.6 does not know what to call the 940. It shows and UNKNOWN CPU. I hope that the next version of the BIOS will take care of that.

Thanks a lot!

Ahh.. O.K., the stock FSB is 200 MHz.. the stock multi of the CPU is 15 [X4 940]..

I have also few AMDs.. but to now I have only experiences with Intel-CPUs.. overclocking and so on.. (FSB/multi/RAM..)

The Intel overclocking work fine only with rise the FSB.. stock multi..
The RAM rise also with this..

AMD is not so easy.. I hear about..

The max. in BIOS is 600 MHz.. but not possible to let run, I guess.. ;-)
For example the max. for my Intel D975XBX2-mobo (stock 266 MHz) is ~ 380 MHz.. (load Windows) stable ~ 350.. (BOINC 24/7) I don't know what was the max you can choose in BIOS..


So from your experiences you can recommend your mobo for the X4 940 ?
And BIOS/Windows show you the right speed?

Because to now, I can see on the MSI homepage that this mobo will only support max. Phenom.. [V. 1] ..not Phenom II. ..

But I don't know, which BIOS will be on the mobo if I would buy today this mobo.. it's not a very new released.. maybe with the new X4 940 I can't start the system and need an 'old' CPU for start and make BIOS update?

Which BIOS version you had on the mobo as you bought it?

---

Fair point -- I was talking more in terms of background performance applications (ie BOINC) -- you run the bells and whistles -- if the work for you, that's the trade you make. The thing is, Vista tends to be inefficient at providing those extra goodies. Win 7 seems to be better at it.

Of course with Vista, if you run the default extra stuff, you do waste a lot of cycles. I tend to run XP instead.

That depends on your views. If you happen to like the "extra stuff", then the cycles are not "wasted" at all.

---

Fair point -- I was talking more in terms of background performance applications (ie BOINC) -- you run the bells and whistles -- if the work for you, that's the trade you make. The thing is, Vista tends to be inefficient at providing those extra goodies. Win 7 seems to be better at it.

I should hope a successor is better than the predecessor. Vista is far more efficient with available RAM and much more secure than XP. Win7 will be more efficient with its use of resources than Vista.

---

Thanks -- pushing the CPU to 17x should be easy -- even without changing voltages -- the various newer Black Edition AMD's seem to easily cope with about that much bump up. Once you push past that, you are getting into sketchy territory - as often enough you need to push the voltage, and once you do that, you need better cooling. There are some folks who have reported as much as 19x or even 20x -- but with voltage pushes and high end cooling. I just can't see doing that myself. For that matter, the 940 is a 125 watt CPU, so if you push voltage, you need to have a motherboard that tolerates the higher draw as well.

Regarding memory, the deal is this, the standard voltage for DDR2 memory is 1.8v. That's what the motherboard provides by default. If you look at the specifications for ALL the faster DDR2 memory (1000, 1066, etc.) they ALL are 'pushed' and require, at a minimum 2.0 volts (sometimes up to 2.3 volts). In effect, they are manufacture certified to be 'overclocked' and run that way -- BUT in most situations, the motherboards won't do it automatically. First you need to bump the voltage (and if the voltage can't be set at the motherboard BIOS level, then the manufacturer of the board shouldn't even suggest they support 1066 memory with Phenom chips). And then you get to manually 'overclock' the memory. So what it amounts to is that decent motherboards can handle 1066 memory, but only with some help.

I've typically gone 'low budget' - and run the 9600 and 9850 at a couple of multipliers up. (by the way, it looks like AMD is phasing out the 9600 black edition. Sad thing -- a bargain quad at $110 with a very nice heatsink/fan and a 95W power rating). That is likely to push me to the 125w 9850 black edition for mid range systems -- it runs about 10% faster than the 9600 and costs $35 more.

I figure that the three best price/performance Phenoms are three unclocked versions that come with decent heatsinks (9600BE, 9850BE and the 940). The 9950 looks like it is a bargain at only $10 more than the 9850BE, but that version is the one 140W CPU which means fewer motherboards, and it doesn't include a heatsink. The 125W version of the 9950 costs yet another $10 -- and so with a decent heatsink it runs close the $200 -- I figure at that point, the 940 comes into play.

Darn your good. Ok, bumped the CPU to 3200 and the memory was at something like 667 or there about. The memory is now up to 800. I jumped it to 1066 at first but the system was not stable. So now we have a BOINC benchmark of 2606 floating point MIPS per CPU and 8125 integer MIPS per CPU. I suspect I'll have to play with the voltages to get the memory up to the full 1066. Kind of strange as the motherboard should handle 1066 memory right out of box.

---

As to far more efficient -- do you mean Vista 64? If so, I'll agree there and by now, issues with the 64 'bitness' of the OS are pretty much dealt with at the hardware level. So certainly, if you load up a system with 4G or more memory, you do see the payoff. But Vista 32 isn't (from what I've seen) more efficient at memory handling than XP.

I should hope a successor is better than the predecessor. Vista is far more efficient with available RAM and much more secure than XP. Win7 will be more efficient with its use of resources than Vista.

---

I should hope a successor is better than the predecessor. Vista is far more efficient with available RAM and much more secure than XP. Win7 will be more efficient with its use of resources than Vista.

Yes, true, however..here's the paradox of sorts that happens. Yes it becomes more efficient and "smarter" with the memory management, but then they add a ton more "bells and whistles", which end up having a larger memory footprint than the predecessor, kind of defeating the purpose of making it more efficient in the first place.

That's just how I see it.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Well, it seems that what Microsoft plans to do with the next version is to address this on two fronts -- first to 'clean up' -- at least the standard product baseline so its not too gussied up with 'neat' but semi-useless stuff -- and then to have the extras in the premium versions. Then to clean up the memory handling of all the feature elements so that you don't need 4G or 8G of memory for most of the features. I expect they plan to make the network file transfer aspects a lot more efficient as well as they really got nailed for that with the original Vista releases, (SP1 is better at this but still slower than XP.

Then again, folks who require Vista Ultimate for all the bells and whistles are likely willing to pay the extra $250 or so to upgrade the CPU, memory and video anyway.

Yes, true, however..here's the paradox of sorts that happens. Yes it becomes more efficient and "smarter" with the memory management, but then they add a ton more "bells and whistles", which end up having a larger memory footprint than the predecessor, kind of defeating the purpose of making it more efficient in the first place.

That's just how I see it.

---

Back to the topic of the Phenom II..

I was curious if there was an "official" release date for AM3, since we all knew it was "right around the corner" supposedly, and found this:

The processors series phenom II X4 8xx will, for example, have only 4 MB cache in the third level.

* Phenom II X4 945 Black edition - > 3.0 GHz, 8 MB, Deneb, Socket AM3, April 2009;
* Phenom II X4 940 Black edition - > 3.0 GHz, 8 MB, Deneb, Socket AM2+, on January, 2009;
* Phenom II X4 925 - > 2.8 GHz, 8 MB, Deneb, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Phenom II X4 920 - > 2.8 GHz, 8 MB, Deneb, Socket AM2+, 8 January, 2009;
* Phenom II X4 910 - > 2.6 GHz, 8 MB, Deneb, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Phenom II X4 810 - > 2.6 GHz, 6 MB, Deneb, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Phenom II X4 805 - > 2.5 GHz, 6 MB, Deneb, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Phenom OF II X3 720 Black Of edition - > 2.8 GHz, 7.5 MB., Heka, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Phenom II X3 710 - > 2.6 GHz, 7.5 MB, Heka, Socket AM3, February 2009;
* Athlon X4 615 - > 2.7 GHz, 2 MB, Propus, Socket AM3, April 2009;
* Athlon X4 605 - > 2.5 GHz, 2 MB, Propus, Socket AM3, April 2009;
* Athlon X3 420 - > 2.8 GHz, 1.5 MB, Rana, Socket AM3, April 2009;
* Athlon X3 410 - > 2.6 GHz, 1.5 MB., Rana, Socket AM3, April 2009;
* Athlon X2 240 - > 2.8 GHz, 2 MB, Regor, Socket AM3, June 2009;
* Athlon X2 235 - > 2.7 GHz, 2 MB, Regor, Socket AM3, June 2009.

Elder processors socket AM3 will appear only during April 2009 : four core Phenom II X4 945 (3.0 GHz) Black edition. During February 2009 , the elder processor socket AM3 will be considered as the four core Phenom II X4 925 (2.8 GHz) . During April AMD will release the processors series athlon X4 6xx (Propus) and Athlon X3 4xx (Rana).

From other things I have read and found, AM3's will drop right onto AM2+ boards, but the DDR3 support will only be there if the particular chipsets on the boards can get the ability "turned on" with a BIOS update. Also, the 'Deneb' core will not have DDR3 turned on in the IMC until the first official release of AM3. I read something about two pins in the socket that need to be "shorted" with a BIOS update, "unless AMD 'fuses' these two pins", meaning a software "hack" can't enable DDR3.

Google is a handy critter for things like this.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I should hope a successor is better than the predecessor. Vista is far more efficient with available RAM and much more secure than XP. Win7 will be more efficient with its use of resources than Vista.

As to far more efficient -- do you mean Vista 64? If so, I'll agree there and by now, issues with the 64 'bitness' of the OS are pretty much dealt with at the hardware level. So certainly, if you load up a system with 4G or more memory, you do see the payoff. But Vista 32 isn't (from what I've seen) more efficient at memory handling than XP.

It would seem our experiences have been different. The Vista 32 that I've played with, while limited to a total of 4GB (3.5GB for all practical purposes) is still quite adept at managing the memory better than XP. At least Vista 32 uses SuperFetch to take advantage of the extra RAM that the OS and programs are not using. XP doesn't have SuperFetch and therefore leaves any extra RAM sitting around, useless but taking up electricity anyway.

---

Well, it seems that what Microsoft plans to do with the next version is to address this on two fronts -- first to 'clean up' -- at least the standard product baseline so its not too gussied up with 'neat' but semi-useless stuff -- and then to have the extras in the premium versions. Then to clean up the memory handling of all the feature elements so that you don't need 4G or 8G of memory for most of the features. I expect they plan to make the network file transfer aspects a lot more efficient as well as they really got nailed for that with the original Vista releases, (SP1 is better at this but still slower than XP.

Then again, folks who require Vista Ultimate for all the bells and whistles are likely willing to pay the extra $250 or so to upgrade the CPU, memory and video anyway.

I had Vista 32 Home Premium running on an Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHz CPU (no HT), 533MHz FSB and 2GB of DDR 400 RAM (started out with only 1GB, but I upped it to 2 because RAM is so cheap). This system was "new" circa 2001/2002. While the system wasn't as snappy as when it had XP Pro on it, it still ran very well. The whole idea that Vista needs 4-8GB of RAM to function well is a false one based upon my own experiences.

I liken this experience to the time I put Windows 2000 on a Pentium III 533MHz CPU with 128MB of RAM. It didn't run as snappy as when it had Windows 98SE on it, but the advanced features of Windows 2000 made it an important upgrade.

---

I've been reading up a bit on this as well. I think the deal here will be until the motherboards released include DDR3 support (or in some cases perhaps simply a BIOS update) the AM3 chips will not make as much sense as something like the 940.

DDR3 memory runs at lower voltage (1.5V versus the 1.8v for DDR2 800 and 2.1V for DDR2 1066) and from what I've seen current boards for the AMD processors really default to 1.8V and don't even autodetect DDR2 1066 memory. It is possible the BIOS updates will take care of this, but there might be something of a chicken and egg issue -- that is, in order to flash the BIOS you need to boot (ie with DDR2 memory and perhaps an older CPU anyway).

I suspect that sometime later in the year boards that support the AM3 and its built in memory controller function and perhaps the triple channel memory handling that the i7 boards support will find their way to market. I find it sort of interesting the the DDR3 memory modules, while faster get there in part with much higher latency -- CAS 7 to CAS 9 versus CAS 5.

Back to the topic of the Phenom II..

I was curious if there was an "official" release date for AM3, since we all knew it was "right around the corner" supposedlyFrom other things I have read and found, AM3's will drop right onto AM2+ boards, but the DDR3 support will only be there if the particular chipsets on the boards can get the ability "turned on" with a BIOS update. Also, the 'Deneb' core will not have DDR3 turned on in the IMC until the first official release of AM3. I read something about two pins in the socket that need to be "shorted" with a BIOS update, "unless AMD 'fuses' these two pins", meaning a software "hack" can't enable DDR3.

---

OK -- I think it is quite much a case of personal preference -- also while I do test out the newer OS versions, I tend to hang back a bit (as do my clients -- so its a good match). Heck, I am still in the process of clearing out client Win 2K systems -- to Win XP. For some of my clients in part the issue is they still have legacy applications running -- XP is better for that than Vista.

That being said, at least from early looks, Win 7 seems to have the potential of 'cake and eat it too' in it. That is, not only will the nice bells and whistles that some (many??) folks like in Vista be available, but they will be available running more efficiently. Microsoft won't be reducing the hardware recommendations from Vista's -- but a given system relatively close to the edge (such as that system you had running with Home Premium, would be appreciably faster.

Then again, with Windows 7, expect a much more effective push to 64 bit than with Vista 32 - which ran into software and hardware manufacturer resistance -- I think that will have faded a lot. The timing of a Win 7 release might be good as well -- I figure that by the end of this year and early next year, companies will be in a bit of 'bounce back' mode and looking to invest again in workstation and OS upgrades after a 'hold' mode that has extended in many companies for 2 to 4 years by then.

I had Vista 32 Home Premium running on an Intel Pentium 4 2.53GHz CPU (no HT), 533MHz FSB and 2GB of DDR 400 RAM (started out with only 1GB, but I upped it to 2 because RAM is so cheap). This system was "new" circa 2001/2002. While the system wasn't as snappy as when it had XP Pro on it, it still ran very well. The whole idea that Vista needs 4-8GB of RAM to function well is a false one based upon my own experiences.

I liken this experience to the time I put Windows 2000 on a Pentium III 533MHz CPU with 128MB of RAM. It didn't run as snappy as when it had Windows 98SE on it, but the advanced features of Windows 2000 made it an important upgrade.

---

(or in some cases perhaps simply a BIOS update) the AM3 chips will not make as much sense as something like the 940)

DDR3 has a different socket than DDR2......
A Bios update will not get you there.......

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."