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. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I am sorry to be so late with this answer but have only just come across the section. I dual boot with a single core Pentium 4. My impression is that Vista is no faster (could be slower) but it seems more stable. I am thinking of going to a nesw motheroard and processor but cannot decide which. "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 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
"Asker24" wrote:
I am sorry to be so late with this answer but have only just come across the section. I dual boot with a single core Pentium 4. My impression is that Vista is no faster (could be slower) but it seems more stable. I am thinking of going to a nesw motheroard and processor but cannot decide which. I just built my "Dream Machine" using the EVGA 122CK AN68 680i SLI motherboard with a low cost Intel E6300 Dual CPU overclocked to 2.9GHz and 2GB OCZ 800MHz memory, a WD 74GB 10,000 RPM Raptor and a WD 500GB 7,2000 both SATA with 16MB buffers, and a EVGA 7600GT 256MB video card and the Antec TX1050B case with 500W PS for a total cost of $1,150. My Vista performance ratings are 5.7, 5.9, 5.9, 5.0 and 5.9, it's very fast with lots of upgrade possibilities such as switching to a Quad CPU. Read the specs for that MB, it has connectors for 6 SATA, 2 ATA and 1 floppy drive, 10 USB, 2 Firewire and 1 COM ports and fairly decent audio. For an additional $250 I added a Viewsonic VX2035wm 20.5" widescreen and the 7600GT video is an excellent low cost choice for a Vista business machine but if you want a fantastic "gamer" machine consider one or even two (using SLI) of the newer 8800 cards cards. |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Thank you so much for that information, especially the performance numbers.
I have 2GB RAM with the Pentium 4/ASUS P4C800 motherboard and an NVIDIA GeForce 5500 card. With that setup my performance numbers with Vista Home Premium are 3.5, 4.4, 3.7, 2.6 5.3. I have a total of 780 GB of drive space including a very cool internal "mobile rack" that lets me move oher hard drives in and out. For the video I just bought a 24"display that I run side-by-side with a 19"screen. I am not interested in gaming but do just about everything else. Like you, I build my own systems. You have persuaded me that I should get on with the upgrade, especially as I will be 80 in a couple of weeks. The clock is running :-) Where do you buy your components? "I.P. Nichols" wrote: "Asker24" wrote: I am sorry to be so late with this answer but have only just come across the section. I dual boot with a single core Pentium 4. My impression is that Vista is no faster (could be slower) but it seems more stable. I am thinking of going to a nesw motheroard and processor but cannot decide which. I just built my "Dream Machine" using the EVGA 122CK AN68 680i SLI motherboard with a low cost Intel E6300 Dual CPU overclocked to 2.9GHz and 2GB OCZ 800MHz memory, a WD 74GB 10,000 RPM Raptor and a WD 500GB 7,2000 both SATA with 16MB buffers, and a EVGA 7600GT 256MB video card and the Antec TX1050B case with 500W PS for a total cost of $1,150. My Vista performance ratings are 5.7, 5.9, 5.9, 5.0 and 5.9, it's very fast with lots of upgrade possibilities such as switching to a Quad CPU. Read the specs for that MB, it has connectors for 6 SATA, 2 ATA and 1 floppy drive, 10 USB, 2 Firewire and 1 COM ports and fairly decent audio. For an additional $250 I added a Viewsonic VX2035wm 20.5" widescreen and the 7600GT video is an excellent low cost choice for a Vista business machine but if you want a fantastic "gamer" machine consider one or even two (using SLI) of the newer 8800 cards cards. |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
"Asker24" wrote: Like you, I build my own systems. You have persuaded me that I should get on with the upgrade, especially as I will be 80 in a couple of weeks. The clock is running :-) Yeah you better get on with it, I'm only 77 ;-) Where do you buy your components? Mostly from ZipZoomFly, NewEgg is also a good supplier but they must charge 7% tax in my state. Good luck... |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
After running an AMD 4000 in XP for nine months, then shifting over to a dual
boot with Vista 64 bit Home prem I can say the move with the single core was a little painful. Vista preformed slower in some aspects than XP(gaming, moving files oh and the huge footpront it has, had to get an extra gb of ram to be the same as XP), however superfect does speed up IE and outlook etc when booting them in Vista and conpare that to XP, there is a huge difference in startup times. Moving to dual core made little or no diffenerence to my XP build, games ran a little faster but program start-up is still slow compared. Dual Core in Vista makes it perform like a dream! Games are tons smoother, I can easily unpack and watch Video at the same time (should this be required!). My guess is as Vista supports multiple cores natively, it does outperform XP, even with XPs updated driver. I rarely boot into xp now and as support for devices are starting to catch up a bit with Vista (Such as my sony mp3 player drivers), I dont suppose I will much. Not only that, but when I boot into XP, it wipes my Vista restore points! "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 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I have a dual core Dell Laptop that I bought last September (EN1705 - core
duo 1.83ghz, 2gb RAM, 100GB 7200RPM Drive, Geforce 7900 GS.) I ran XP on it for over 4 months, until Vista went RTM, at which point I put a fresh install of Vista on it. If you compare a fresh install of XP (no clutter) to a fresh install of Vista (no clutter), then XP feels more responsive to me. It's not a big deal. The people who say they are installing Vista and noticing huge performance improvements are probably running XP installs that are suffering from months (or years) of 'Winrot'. Of course a fresh install of Vista is going to feel faster than an XP install that has been around the block a few times and has dozens and dozens of applications installed and a system notification area that looks like a christmas tree. Microsoft went to great lengths to increase performance in Vista, but no matter how much hardware you throw at it, it's not going to smoke XP. Super Fetch may pre-cache stuff into RAM (if you have enough), and make it 'feel' faster. I/O priorities may help Multimedia apps run without stutters when the system is under a heavy load. But the fact is, you can't add new features without impacting performance. Every new generation of Operating systems requires more resources to run, and performs more slowly than the previous generation, given the same hardware. I love Vista; I have it installed on my laptop and both home PCs. Sure it tends to run slower in some ways, but that's the price of progress. I accepted similar performance hits when I started using Windows 3.1. I remember a huge performance hit when I upgraded to Win95. (486 DX66 with 8mb of RAM.) Same thing when going to 98, and then to XP. This is no different. -- Adam Breidenbaugh Senior Network Administrator Armellini Industries Inc. "black clouds" wrote: 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/ |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
Dual Core is much faster at running programs then a single core. I say this
based on the following: 1. I went from XP S2 using a P4 2.2 GHz, 2 Gigabyte of memory on a MSI Ultra AR (478 socket) motherboard to, a 2.4 Ghz Core 2 dual (775 socket) Intel mother board also using 2 Gbytes of memory. Front bus speed on XP system was 667. Front bus speed on Intel with Vista is 800. Did I notice and see improvement. "YES." I then added 2 additional GHz of memory and a 7950 GT 512 PCIe (BFG nVidia) Graphics card and now my system screems. So, I'm sure a P4 with all kinds of help (memory, graphics, fast FSB) could not and would not equal a Core2 Dual I hope this answers your question. Aanother note, the OS Vista takes much longer to load because of its file size. "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 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
OK so how do you dual boot?? Is that an option when you install Vista, to
keep XP running? I just bought it and have a dual core unit but I want to make sure I dont screw any thing up when I install the Vista. Any sugestions? "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 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
"ellisfaith" wrote:
OK so how do you dual boot?? Is that an option when you install Vista, to keep XP running? I just bought it and have a dual core unit but I want to make sure I dont screw any thing up when I install the Vista. Any sugestions? If you want to end up with Vista as you OS then the best thing to do on a new machine is bite the bullet and stick the Vista DVD in your drive tell it to format the drive and then do a new Vista install. With a dual CPU and 2GB memory Vista is a real pleasure and I just build a new machine to run it. You should be aware there are some giggly problems with Vista in a dual boot setup, the worst is every time you boot into XP it will destroy all of Vista's restore points and other files that can be useful if the wheels come off Vista and that's why I suggest you not do it. There are commercial dual boot systems that allow hiding Vista when booting into XP. I have a lot of experience with dual booting Vista with XP installed as the primary OS and it's real easy and almost fool proof (what's that old saying, make it fool proof and mother nature will create a better fool). Create a new 20+ GB partition and using Vista's Custom Install menu select the new partition, use the short format routine and then install Vista. The dual boot system will be installed and you can use VistaBootPro 3.1 to manage it. If you are going to setup a dual boot then first read the forum at this url. http://www.pro-networks.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=185 |
|
|||
Single vs Dual Core Performance
I just did a clean install of Vista overtop of my XP Pro yesterday. I didnt
upgrade any hardware and I definitely noticed an incease in performance. I'd realisticall say 20% faster. I'll be upgrading to the quad core as soon as the price comes down from lunar levels, so i'll keep you posted. "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 |