Single vs Dual Core Performance

Thought I'd have my 2 cents....I was running xp pro 32bit under my dual core
syste (pentium D 830, 1gb ram dual channel), and have upgraded to vista
ultimate 64bit...am noticing no difference, possibly slightly slower when
watching video files, however this may be due to tha lack of ram (they say
you should double your ram when upgrading to 64bit edition). as my graphics
card is fine.
Although strangely, I swear the longer I run this os, the faster it gets,
mind you, I installed a Ram optimizer, as I kept getting hold ups where
programs would stop responding.

"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
>

There is absoloutly to comparison between the two,dual core will ripe single
core apart ,many times over,going to daul will allow you to answer that
question for yourself,ZOOM,ZOOM,go to daul

"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
>

your ram optimizer maybe causing you problems.
vista is much more efficient in memory management.







"Icemaestro" <> wrote in message news:1427207E-2C05-4826-92B7-...
Thought I'd have my 2 cents....I was running xp pro 32bit under my dual core
syste (pentium D 830, 1gb ram dual channel), and have upgraded to vista
ultimate 64bit...am noticing no difference, possibly slightly slower when
watching video files, however this may be due to tha lack of ram (they say
you should double your ram when upgrading to 64bit edition). as my graphics
card is fine.
Although strangely, I swear the longer I run this os, the faster it gets,
mind you, I installed a Ram optimizer, as I kept getting hold ups where
programs would stop responding.

"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
>

Most of the performance improvement is due to the extra processing power; at
best there are only small improvements in system stability over XP. Once
again MS has fallen short of what they should have done.

"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
>

Yes I was using a single core and moved to dual core--single processor
systems have never worked well and now with the industry phasing out the use
of single core people will see just how poorly performing their single core
processors were--no matter how fast they were running.

"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
>

"black clouds" wrote:

> 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?

I have a single-core system (Pentium 4) and have just upgraded from XP Pro
to Vista Ultimate. There is something fluid about Vista that certainly gives
a feeling of immediate responsiveness, but I can't say I have noticed any
significant difference in the speed of my machine. Even if it hasn't really
sped up, it certainly hasn't suddenly gotten any slower.

When I use RC1 5600 Vista Ultimate x64 on my Turion 64 X2 TL-60 (2.0GHz)
Notebook, the performance suffers greatly compared to XP Pro, it is probably
since I only have 895 MB RAM since the ATI Xpress 1150 video chipset takes
128 shared memory, although according to stats from Vista Itself it says it
has 319 MB ram but gives me a score of only 2.5 for video performance and
even using 982 MB of Ready Boost. It takes a long time to open windows, and
move/copy files. And this is with the Areo Glass Turned OFF! Also I am not
even trying to run any kind of Memory Intensive Applications, such as
Photoshop or Adobe Reader, Just 3 Explorer Windows, Firefox 1.5.9 with 13
tabs, and IE with 8 tabs. (granted those eatup a lot of memory but it is
still just as slow with out them.) My Windows stop responding fairly often
but the good thing is that they don't get stuck that way like they do in XP.
They will respond when enough memory becomes available. Dual booting is a
pain and I stopped bothering the last time I did a "Clean XP install". I
wonder if this is just a problem with the Pre-Release Version I am using.
However when I tried to do an XP system restore the other day, I was
unable to boot at all! Using the Disable Auto Restart on System Failure I was
able to read the BSOD Error that said that I should do a CHKDSK /F or Scan
for Viruses. However before I thought to see the BSOD message I tried using
my OEM XP Pro Disk, and the Repair Command Line Option. I did the chkdsk
fixboot and FixMBR neither of which solved my problem. However I was able to
use the Vista DVD to Repair my Vista x64 on my (technically, first partition,
(under XP I switched the labels so C: was actually partion 2 according to
XP)) but I still can't boot without using the DVD, doing a Repair and having
it reboot from the HDD. I can't save the Repair to the HDD. I need a way to
reinstall XP without losing my files and registered programs, ex. those found
under Add/Remove Programs. (I really don't want to have to install them all
again.) Does anyone have any Ideas? My Display would crash and turn off but
leave the power everything else on. (even though no keyboard commands would
work and I couldn't see anything anyway) Sometimes I would get a grey/white
or light blue screen with black strips running vertically at fixed intervals
accross the screen (same unresponsive ness as the powerless screen), Other
times have gotten the BSOD Graphics Processor Stuck in a Thread Error. I am
sending it in for repairs but I want to save my data first. Also I have
troubling accessing certain Vista files due to "Access Denied" errors an I am
unable to take ownership even though I am part of the Administrators Group.
BAH! What's a guy to do?

Any help would be appreciated.

"tripbeetle" wrote:

> "black clouds" wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> I have a single-core system (Pentium 4) and have just upgraded from XP Pro
> to Vista Ultimate. There is something fluid about Vista that certainly gives
> a feeling of immediate responsiveness, but I can't say I have noticed any
> significant difference in the speed of my machine. Even if it hasn't really
> sped up, it certainly hasn't suddenly gotten any slower.

Please upgrade to the released version of Vista. It makes no sense
to trouble shoot RC1 which has expired.

On Wed, 2 May 2007 15:52:01 -0700, Arkenstone007
<> wrote:

>When I use RC1 5600 Vista Ultimate x64 on my Turion 64 X2 TL-60 (2.0GHz)
>Notebook
--

Barb Bowman
MS Windows-MVP
Expert Zone & Vista Community Columnist
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/

On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:31:17 -0500, "mikeyhsd" <>

>your ram optimizer maybe causing you problems.
>vista is much more efficient in memory management.

Also, the recent speedup may be due to the indexer settling down.



>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
I'm on a ten-year lunch break
>------------------------- ---- --- -- - - - -