XP on a Dual Core Machine
-
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,¸
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)
-
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
> 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.
-
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,¸
Just like anything else, more is better:) ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
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,¸
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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)
-
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)
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.
-
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.
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)
-
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,¸
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)
-
It helps. But a fast harddrive seems to help more.
Now taking suggestions for the next release of CPhog...
Talking about a fast harddrive. Check out this video of a machine booting with a solid state hd: Gigabyte iRam video[^] Alex Korchemniy
-
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,¸
-
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,¸
-
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,¸
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.
-
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.
What you say is music to my ears if it's true. But I have to admit I'm having a hard time believing that MS would allow you such a benefit without forcing you to buy their server OS. Do you have a link that talks about this? 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,¸
-
What you say is music to my ears if it's true. But I have to admit I'm having a hard time believing that MS would allow you such a benefit without forcing you to buy their server OS. Do you have a link that talks about this? 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,¸
Its true. We do it at work. http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx[^] Not everyone is so nice. e.g. Oracle. http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24629[^] All MS OS's and servers are licenced on a per socket basis, and not per core. Giles
"Je pense, donc je mange." - Rene Descartes 1689 - Just before his mother put his tea on the table. Shameless Plug - Distributed Database Transactions in .NET using COM+
