Dual vs. single core CPUs and Windows Home editions

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:14 am

I am considering upgrading to 64 bit hard even though I'm staying with 32 bit software for now mainly for a performance increase.

I currently have and plan to stay with Windows XP Home, and if I do upgrade to Vista, plan to go with Home Premium.

If I recall correctly XP Home and probably Vista Home will not take advantage of multiple CPUs.

With that in mind, is there any point in buying a dual core CPU or are these enough different from multiple CPUs that even Windows Home will take full advantage of them.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:48 am

a little not-really-on-topic remark:

if I bought a new PC now, I would take a C2D and XP64...

...just my two cents...

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:41 am

I have a core2duo now but used to have an athlon64 single core and the difference between the two on windows XP home is definately noticeable.

I have a habit of running 3 or 4 programs at the same time, quite intensive programs sometimes and although the athlon could cope it did have quite a long of lag when moving between programs. The core2duo on the other hand is still barely using 40% of the cpu power available to it when running the same programs.

Both cores are definately used by XP home but rarely do I get one core to run full power let alone both.

I'm not sure how well the athlon XPx2's work but I'm willing to bet that they are pretty good so my answer (eventually

) is yeah, get a dual core cpu, they work great.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 12:43 pm

Kaeru Gaman wrote:if I bought a new PC now, I would take a C2D and XP64...

Not me, even if I go with 64 bit hard hardware and a dual core processor, I'm staying with 32 bit Windows.

Besides not needing the added features in XP Pro, right now there isn't enough 64 bit software to justify switching.

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:17 pm

Well I have a CoreDuo 32 bit 2 CPU Cores Processor in my iMac and I must say Dualcore is definitely something useful especially when dealing with non game realted software like compiling in the background or video rendering. The biggest advantage however is that the system stays responsive even when some process uses huge amounts of cpu time. That's definitely worth it if you do use such tasks often.

However as you might have guesses I'm running OS X and/or Linux both of which are years ahead concerning process scheduling and smp support (Isn't that much of a suprise since their Kernels are much more often updated and Linux runs on heavy multy processor servers for quite a long time )
Note: I heard form a friend that he was suprised WinXP home used his Dual Core processor, I think it only limits you to less or equal to 4 cores. And no seperated processor smp.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:39 pm

One thought I had is that these dual core CPUs may still look like a single CPU to the OS and that the use of both cores is handled internaly where as separate CPUs would be seen as multiple CPUs and require external control to use spread processes to all the CPUs.

Derek · Post by **Derek** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 1:53 pm

Tipperton wrote:One thought I had is that these dual core CPUs may still look like a single CPU to the OS and that the use of both cores is handled internaly where as separate CPUs would be seen as multiple CPUs and require external control to use spread processes to all the CPUs.

No, the OS thinks there are two cpu's. If I bring up the device manager and check under CPU's there are two listed.

Kaeru Gaman · Post by **Kaeru Gaman** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:23 pm

Tipperton wrote:... right now there isn't enough 64 bit software to justify switching.

that's not wrong, but when there is enough software, XP64 may be not longer avaliable,
and I will only go to Vista when Hell freezes....

----------------------------------------------------------
[OT]

Nik wrote:Well I have a CoreDuo 32 bit 2 CPU Cores Processor in my iMac ....

I'm interested in MAC... what GPU does it have?
[/OT]

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:16 pm

Mine is an old Version which has only a Core Duo and ATI X1400, the current ones have Core 2 Duos, check this page:
http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects ... &nclm=iMac -- for the iMacs

http://store.apple.com/Apple/WebObjects/germanstore/ -- for Laptops, Minis and MacPros

GeoTrail · Post by **GeoTrail** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:41 pm

The problem with 64 bit software is that they use almost twice as much memory as a 32 bit software.

And dual-cores are great if the software supports it, like video editing software. Some games will have problems with a dual core CPU, like GTA San Andreas. The game goes literally at double speed. But that can be fixed by selecting one core in the task manager.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:19 pm

Kaeru Gaman wrote:but when there is enough software, XP64 may be not longer avaliable

Good point, so I'll just buy XP64 now while its still available for when I need/want it, in the future.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:and I will only go to Vista when Hell freezes....

I might upgrade to Vista, but not until at least service pack 1 is available...

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:19 pm

Even for single threaded applications there is still a lot of advantage when running more the one program at once (which for people like us is probably quite normal).

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:22 pm

Nik wrote:Even for single threaded applications there is still a lot of advantage when running more the one program at once (which for people like us is probably quite normal).

At work I usually have half a dozen or more programs running...

At home I may have that many from time to time but it's not all that frequent, usually more like two or three...

My main goal, if I upgrade, is better game performance, I've begun to notice that some of the newer games play "jerky" at times even with reduced resolution (if they let you, DarkStar One wouldn't go lower than 1024 x 768) and graphics quality.

Most games do allow you to lower the resolution, I usually play games at 800 x 600 or even 640 x 480, at those resolutions I can use the highest quality graphics and still have high frame rates. With my vision, high quality graphics at high resolution doesn't do much for me.

fsw · Post by **fsw** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:13 pm

Tipperton wrote:
Kaeru Gaman wrote:but when there is enough software, XP64 may be not longer avaliable
Good point, so I'll just buy XP64 now while its still available for when I need/want it, in the future.

Kaeru Gaman wrote:and I will only go to Vista when Hell freezes....
I might upgrade to Vista, but not until at least service pack 1 is available...

Before you go with XP64 check out if you get 64bit drivers for your hardware.

Tipperton · Post by **Tipperton** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:05 pm

fsw wrote:
Tipperton wrote:Before you go with XP64 check out if you get 64bit drivers for your hardware.

Ouch!

Pity dual core didn't come out before 64 bit, then I could go dual core and stay with 32 bit hardware and software.

Seems kind of crazy to buy 64 bit hardware and only be able to run 32 bit software on it....