XP on a Dual Core Machine

Richard Andrew x64

Does anyone know if Windows XP will actually perform better on a dual core machine than on a uniprocessor one? ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Dan Neely

multitasking is smoother since you've got two thread/processes running at once, if you're loading your system heavily with multiple apps, or a single multithreaded one, it will be able to do alot more work in a given ammount of time. A single threaded app will see little gain by itself (basically just the difference from not having to share CPU time with background tasks).

Chris Austin

I don't know about "better" but I have to say that I find it more responsive on my dual core ~2ghz box than on my single core 3ghz system. I have found VS 2003 and 2005 to be a bit perkier as well. I don't know how well that will translate to video games or other apps. As far as raw performance goes I'd bet that Toms Hardware[^] has a few good benchmarks. Cheers Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton

Shog9 0

It helps. But a fast harddrive seems to help more.

Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...

Richard Andrew x64

I had read some benchmarks that showed a single core system outperforming a dual core system, so I was unsure whether it's worth the expense. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Dario Solera

I have an Athlon64 X2 3800+ with 2 GB of DDR400 RAM (dual channel). I usually have *many* applications open, and they run much better than on my old PC (Athlon XP 1900+) and even than on a 3GHz P4. Recently I'm playing some videogames and I always keep Outlook running. Sometimes my backup software starts automatically and I don't notice it at all. Conclusion: dual core is far better than single core for the most applications. In a few months videogames will support multi-core systems (for example Cal of Duty 2 already supports them). If you have to buy a new PC, go for dual-core. ___________________________________ Tozzi is right: Gaia is getting rid of us. My Blog [ITA]

Richard Andrew x64

Thanks for the input. That really makes me feel better about paying for the dual core. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

El Corazon

Troposphere wrote:

Does anyone know if Windows XP will actually perform better on a dual core machine than on a uniprocessor one?

Always be wary of any comparison direct between dual core and single core as a whole. On any single threaded, minimal OS load, comparison a single core "can" outperform a dual core. When you treat the benchmark to multiple applications running or multithreaded programs, suddenly dual-core does much better. How you are comparing them matters more. If what you really need to run is a very intense single threaded software package and that is all you care about, then "maybe" dual core systems won't help you. The "maybe" is because even that software package gets a boost because everything else XP was doing (pull open your task manager), all moves over to the other processor and your own very important thread gets 100% of a single core. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

dandy72

> I don't know about "better" but I have to say that I find it more responsive on my dual core From my experience, "responsiveness" is where having a dual-core box is the most noticeable. I have a knack for getting machines to stall, burp, hiccup, fart, and generally just stop responding for one reason or another, but my office machine had always been rock solid for me. I have newer single-core machines at home that can't touch it in terms of responsiveness. Based on my experience alone, my next machine will absolutely, positively be dual-core.

Doctor Nick

Just like anything else, more is better:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.

LongRange Shooter

A developer would definitely see differences in the dual processor environment. Your games may get a small percentile of performance improvements (even if they are single thread) since kernel tasks and memory management would move the the second processor. XP Professional has tons of improvements to fully utilize dual processor environments. I'm a gamer and my last system I built just died last night (just as I was about to join the Assasins Cult in Oblivion) and I'm getting a throw-away video card just so that I can put the extra bucks into the fastest AMD X2 processor my wife will let me buy. It is worth it.

Dan Neely

theRealCondor wrote:

so that I can put the extra bucks into the fastest AMD X2 processor my wife will let me buy. It is worth it.

A 3800+ (2gig $300) will run at 2.5-2.6gig with a $200 h2o kit and high quality ram. Much cheaper than paying $1k for a stock 2.6gig chip.

El Corazon

but it is still cheaper to grab a 2.2 dual core at $460 or a 2.4 dual core at $540. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

Dan Neely

Yes and no. 2.0dual and h20 is ~$500, and as I said will get ~$1k performance. The 2.4's only advantages are bigger cache and being able to use cheaper memory. My ram topped out at 250mhz so to run at 2600* I had to apply a divider to it, which dropped it down to ~220. Lesson learned, and I'm half considering buying 2 gig of faster ram once I get my refund. I'd've probably gotten the better ram except my current machine was an emergency purchase when the old one died, and I just bought most components off a hardocp system guide since I hadn't researched out what I was planning to buy 4mo in the future.

El Corazon

True, but you can always overclock later if you want to.... if you plan for an overclock and max it out, you leave no room for growth. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)

code frog 0

Simply, yes!

The enemy's gate is down. :cool: Welcome to CP in your language. Post the unicode version in My CP Blog[^] now. People who don't understand how awesome Firefox is have never used CPhog. The act of using CPhog alone doesn't make Firefox cool. It opens your eyes to the possibilities and then you start looking for other things like CPhog and your eyes are suddenly open to all sorts of useful things all through Firefox. - (Self Quote)

Alex Korchemniy

Talking about a fast harddrive. Check out this video of a machine booting with a solid state hd: Gigabyte iRam video[^] Alex Korchemniy

Giles

Yes, works very nicely. Even better if you get a dual CPU - dual core - 4 way box. Sweet.

Richard Andrew x64

How many CPU's can XP use? I thought 2 was the max. ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸

Giles

Yes, 2 CPU sockets. Unlimited cores. Currently say with AMD Opterons you can get 2 cores per CPU - so XP can run what is effectivey a 4 way machine - 4 full threads, not those hald arsed hyper threading things that more often that not actually slow a machine down. Next year Intel and AMD come out with Quad core CPU's. XP is fine with them too. So next year you effectively will be able to see 8 processors in the task manager, on a dual socket quad core box. -- modified at 13:38 Wednesday 19th April, 2006 XP-64 also optimises for AMD's Opteron NUMA memory arcitecture fully - adding extra optimisation for where the banks of memory are relative to the CPU, and where the thread/process running has most of its data stored. Superb for things like databases, but still very useful for everything else.