Single vs Dual Core Performance

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

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
 
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
 
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.
 
I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).

Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User
 
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
 
Scary, isn't it.. yesterdays top systems are today's budget line.. I don't
care if my video card only stumps up 3.7 on the Vista scale.. and the fact
that I keep looking for something really cheap that will at least show a 4
is totally immaterial.. :)


Richard Urban said:
I have a single core processor (Athlon XP 3200). You said "on the same
hardware". If I switched my hardware to be dual core that would not be the
same hardware (CPU, M/B and RAM).

Of course dual core will be faster - even a low to medium processor and 2
gig of the appropriate RAM will beat out what I have now.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User
Click to expand...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
 
Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance on
your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP.

I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance
improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself)
who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista, while
others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all
linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage of
dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are switching
would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single core
would see as much of a change.

That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as
driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single
core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to
Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the
improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my computer,
I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement;
was that only because I have a dual processor?
 
I used to run XP in classic mode on a single core.. it performed better that
way.. for me, Vista runs as well or better even running the full Vista
graphics on exactly the same machine.. I quit booting into my Vista
installation long ago because there is no point other than to update it, and
I don't even have XP wireless card drivers installed such that I could even
do that anymore..


black clouds said:
Thanks again Richard, but that's still only half the question. You still
haven't told me if you've noticed a significant overall system performance
on
your single core with Vista or does it run pretty much the same as XP.

I want to know if single core users are seeing much of a performance
improvement over XP. You'll notice there are a lot of people (like myself)
who say their system is screaming now that they've switched to Vista,
while
others aren't seeing much improvement. I want to know if this is at all
linked to dual cores. That is, Vista may be far better in taking advantage
of
dual core technology then XP meaning people with dual cores who are
switching
would notice a sudden increase in performance while those using single
core
would see as much of a change.

That's what the article suggests. I know there are other factors, such as
driver issues, but I was curious to see if anyone out there using a single
core has noticed SIGNIFICANT performance improvement since switching to
Vista, obviously if they did hardware upgrades, I couldn't be sure if the
improvement was due to switching to Vista, while in the case of my
computer,
I know all that I changed was the OS, and I saw a significant improvement;
was that only because I have a dual processor?
Click to expand...

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
 
I don't know if you read the article but it claims that a duo core system
under Vista can expect a 5 to 30 percent improvement in performance while
single core systems may actually see a slight slow down under some
circumstances. I'm curious as to how true this is. Are there users who have
found otherwise?
 
I thought that I stated as much when I said I boot into Windows XP every 2-3
days just to do maintenance and then immediately reboot into Vista to do any
work. If XP were better/faster - it would be the other way around.

I am extremely happy with Vista, even on my single core processor.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban MVP
Microsoft Windows Shell/User
 
/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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
That's a great answer, thanks Dev.

dev said:
/black clouds/ said:


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.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks neverforget, I feel the same way.

neverforget said:
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
Click to expand...
 
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*
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...

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.


--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Click to expand...
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
 
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....
 
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.
 
Back
Top