A Windows Vista forum. Vista Banter

Welcome to Vista Banter.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support.

Go Back   Home » Vista Banter forum » Microsoft Windows Vista » Hardware and Windows Vista
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices)

Single vs Dual Core Performance



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 06:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
dev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

/black clouds/ said:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to
Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are
noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this
question is for those who were previously running XP with the same
hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades
then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are
really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487


Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz, 2998 Mhz, 1 Core(s), 2 Logical
Processor(s)
1GB RAM
Video card is an NVidia 5200, and Aero runs well
XP is on one drive (PATA), Vista on another (SATA)

I do no gaming.
Browsing, word processing, financial programs, etc. 'feel' equally
responsive on either O/S. They're peppy.

For my needs, there is little need for dual-core. A beefier video card
might prove cost effective, but spending on AGP technology is a poor
investment in a PCI-E era, which the MB doesn't support.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 07:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
neverforget
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

I have have dual core processor and am running Vista with the exact same
hardware that I was running XP on. I would never go back to XP, because
Vista is very much faster.

Ron

"black clouds" wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487

  #13 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 07:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

All I'm trying to see is if there is any truth to Vista being able to handle
duo processors better then XP. It may be a stupid question for you, but it's
not for me. I may have written poorly, but perhaps not.

I'm not talking about upgrading any system. Nor am I suggesting Vista is a
poor OS. On the contrary, if Vista is able to handle duo processors more
efficently then XP, I see it as a plus and another reason (among many) to
upgrade to Vista if one is running a dual processor under XP. Unlike some, I
don't like having to sit around waiting for programs to open or information
to be processed. It's one thing if it happens once or twice a day, it's
another matter if one is multitasking and has to put up with it all the time.
I like to see things responding quickly and efficiently so I can get on with
other things.

I'm not talking about running out and buying a dual core I already have one.
However I would like to know why I (and others) have seen a significant
improvement to system performance while others have not. Richard told me he
wouldn't use Vista if it ran like a "dog," well that's obvious, I'm not
suggesting he's stupid, but it doesn't mean he's seen any significant
improvement either. Of course even without any improvement to performance
there are still plenty of other reasons to upgrade. Performance isn't
everything, but it is important. I'm sure you wouldn't put up with a system
slow down now would you?

Christopher Null suggests that Vista does significantly improve the
performance of dual core systems over XP, I want something to confirm that,
before I put my neck out on the line and suggest the same thing to others. I
saw improved performance by switching to Vista but was it really due to Vista
being able to make better use of my dual processor or was it some other
factor? Are there others who can confirm or deny that Vista is able to better
utilize dual core processors then XP.

Perhaps you will say, "Of course it can, dual cores were not a factor when
XP came out." Well let's confirm it with facts. I want to hear about the
experience single core users are having. Have they seen any major performance
improvement under Vista or is it running pretty much the same as under XP,
because if so, that may explain why dual core users are seeing significant
improvement. Obviously well there is little Microsoft was able to do to
improve performance over XP in regards to a single processor, they have made
improvements were they could, taking advantage of other newer technology.

It would certainly help me understand why I saw a major jump in performance
by simply installing a new OS, while others have not seen the same thing. Or
do you have so other suggestion or perhaps you can show me there is no
difference between Vista and XP's handling of dual processors. After all,
that's what I'm here for, looking for answers.

"Mike Hall - MS MVP" wrote:

Any upgrade like that will improve performance, but it may not show directly
in the things that you want to see improved.. where applications are more
reliant on CPU performance than RAM, sure you will see an improvement..
whether it is as much as you would have hoped is another ball park.. if you
are just looking for lightning fast boot ups et al, then fit the meanest,
fastest, most expensive parts you can afford or that can be bought..


"black clouds" wrote in message
...
Thanks for your reply Richard but you don't actually answer my question.
Are
you using a single core processor or Duo core and if you are using a
single
core have you noticed SIGNIFICANT improvement to system performance?

I do not think Vista is a dog. The difference in performance on my laptop
with a duo Intel processor (T2400) is night and day.

When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very
disappointed.
There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous
laptop
with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new
system
and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
machine.
Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing
power
over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
expect to see much improvement in performance over XP? (That doesn't mean
it's a dog, just that performance will be pretty much the same.)
The article I provided a link too says pretty much the same thing:
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487 I want to know how true it is?

So, as much as I appreciate your comments, you haven't answered the
question. I don't know what kind of processor you are using and telling me
Vista isn't a dog doesn't mean anything. Have you noticed any significant
improvement in overall performance over XP and what kind of processor are
you
using?

For my part I wouldn't go back to XP for anything. I have some minor
software issues with Macromedia Fireworks 8 that are a little annoying,
but
I'll put up with it. My computer has taken off since installing Vista,
it's
awesome, but should I be telling friends it's due to the fact I'm using a
dual processor, that's what I want to know. Let's get some feedback from
those who are using single core processors.


"Richard Urban" wrote:

Memory dims. A person who upgrades soon forgets how Windows XP use to
run.

A better question would be asked of those who dual boot.

I dual boot so, obviously, the exact same hardware is used no matter
which
operating system I use.

I have found that now I boot into Windows XP every 2-3 days - just to
update
the antivirus and anti spyware programs. I then immediately reboot and
use
Vista.

I set my computer up from scratch with Windows XP on the second partition
so
that when I was totally satisfied with Vista I would eventually delete
the
XP partition and claim the space for my D: partition. I am very close to
carrying out that option.

So, I guess that must answer your question. If Vista were a dog I would
be
doing just the opposite.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User


"black clouds" wrote in message
...
I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista
or
is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who
were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
RAM
or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
Null
of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487




--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/




  #14 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 07:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

That's a great answer, thanks Dev.

"dev" wrote:

/black clouds/ said:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed
any significant improvement in performance after upgrading to
Windows Vista or is it only those with Dual Core processors that are
noticing significant improvements to performance? (Please, this
question is for those who were previously running XP with the same
hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or made other hardware upgrades
then it's hard to determine if your performance improvements are
really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher
Null of interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487


Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz, 2998 Mhz, 1 Core(s), 2 Logical
Processor(s)
1GB RAM
Video card is an NVidia 5200, and Aero runs well
XP is on one drive (PATA), Vista on another (SATA)

I do no gaming.
Browsing, word processing, financial programs, etc. 'feel' equally
responsive on either O/S. They're peppy.

For my needs, there is little need for dual-core. A beefier video card
might prove cost effective, but spending on AGP technology is a poor
investment in a PCI-E era, which the MB doesn't support.

  #15 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 07:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
black clouds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

Thanks neverforget, I feel the same way.

"neverforget" wrote:

I have have dual core processor and am running Vista with the exact same
hardware that I was running XP on. I would never go back to XP, because
Vista is very much faster.

Ron

"black clouds" wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487

  #16 (permalink)  
Old March 24th 07, 07:36 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Paul Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,377
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

On my Tablet PC (Toshiba Protégé M200), Windows Vista seems faster, I've not
actually benchmarked it, but booting up, getting a useable system doing
normal every day things on it seems faster. I'm still dual booting on it
and booting XP is a pain, it just feels slow in comparison.

This is with a 1.8Ghz Pentium M (that's single core) and 1GB of RAM.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*


"black clouds" wrote in message
...
I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or
is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM
or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null
of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487


  #17 (permalink)  
Old March 25th 07, 10:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance


On 24-Mar-2007, =?Utf-8?B?YmxhY2sgY2xvdWRz?=
wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or
is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your
RAM or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your
performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null
of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487


I have a Intel 3.4 Prescott with 2GB of memory and Vista is faster and XP on
my setup. Your could be different than mine do to your hardware setup.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old March 27th 07, 12:11 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 775
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:11:00 -0700, black clouds

When I first got my laptop a year ago, with XP pro, I was very disappointed.
There seemed to be little improvement in performance over my previous laptop
with a Pentium M 715. That was the case right out of the box, on a new system
and nothing installed. But the moment I installed Vista there was such a
difference in overall performance it was hard to believe it was the same
machine.


Now there are those who are telling me it’s due to the fact I’m using dual
processor and Vista is better able to take advantage of dual processing power
over XP. Does that mean those who are using single core processors shouldn’t
expect to see much improvement in performance over XP?


I think your assessment is correct - building this year's PCs on Vista
with 512M RAM and 1G RAM, they feel about the same (1G) or a bit
slower (512M) than XP PCs built with similar specs late last year with
512M RAM. Vista feels a bit slower or similar, but certainly not
massively faster than XP, and Celeron and Pentium 4 of similar clock
speed feel much the same as well.

So I think it's better use of the dual cores that is working for you.



--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

  #19 (permalink)  
Old April 7th 07, 04:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Charles_GLV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

I don't know if this can help with your question, but I have an Intel Core 2
Duo 6300 running at 1.86 Ghz, 1Gb of RAM, and I used to have XP, running
really fast. I installed Vista Ultimate a few weeks ago, and I can tell you
that my computer is slightly slower with Vista... So I'm buying a new Video
Card and 1Gb of RAM to improve it...or at least so it can run as fast as it
was with XP....
  #20 (permalink)  
Old April 7th 07, 07:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
redass13
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Single vs Dual Core Performance

I have noticed a difference on my system. I am running a dual core pentuim d
3ghz cpu, in a triple boot system. I still run xp since some of my hardware
is a little dated (printer for one). But, my vista runs faster than the xp
but my linux is still the fastest.

"black clouds" wrote:

I'd like to know if anyone using a single core processor has noticed any
significant improvement in performance after upgrading to Windows Vista or is
it only those with Dual Core processors that are noticing significant
improvements to performance? (Please, this question is for those who were
previously running XP with the same hardware, if you’ve increase your RAM or
made other hardware upgrades then it's hard to determine if your performance
improvements are really due to the new OS.) Thanks

Relating to this issue you may also find this article by Christopher Null of
interest: http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC6
Copyright ©2004-2024 Vista Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.