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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old April 8th 07, 04:14 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Asker24
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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

  #22 (permalink)  
Old April 8th 07, 11:33 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
I.P. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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.

  #23 (permalink)  
Old April 8th 07, 03:00 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Asker24
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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.


  #24 (permalink)  
Old April 8th 07, 06:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
I.P. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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...

  #25 (permalink)  
Old April 8th 07, 10:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Howiepoohs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default 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

  #26 (permalink)  
Old April 10th 07, 05:56 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Adam Breidenbaugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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/




  #27 (permalink)  
Old April 12th 07, 03:20 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
wlb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default 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

  #28 (permalink)  
Old April 13th 07, 09:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
ellisfaith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default 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



  #29 (permalink)  
Old April 14th 07, 12:51 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
I.P. Nichols
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default 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




  #30 (permalink)  
Old April 14th 07, 07:08 AM posted to microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 507
Default 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

 




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 08:08 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.