Dual vs Quad core XP vs Vista

About Truespace Archives

These pages are a copy of the official truespace forums prior to their removal somewhere around 2011.

They are retained here for archive purposes only.

Dual vs Quad core XP vs Vista // Hardware

1  2  |  

Post by CdeB // Sep 24, 2007, 11:49pm

CdeB
Total Posts: 160
If I am not successfull in getting our old family P3 working in the next week or so, it will be a new computer.


Apologies, for naive questions...


Reading general computer magazines the recommendation is to get a high Mhz dual core rather than a quad core as most software won't exploit it and then dual core is a better performance for the price.


Obviously, trueSpace does exploit multicores and since the most powerful machine I have access to currently is a P4 3.2 MHz I can only go up in performance whether Dual or Quad. My wife is adament we should get the best we can afford.


I have read the other threads here so I am up on the difference..My problem is that to go quad core there is a price hike so advice from other Europeans would be helpful. The US is always a step ahead...and if I was living there !Quad would be a no-brainer. So is it worth it top push for quad, especially for true Space use? I suspect most will not have made the dual to quad step but probably the P4 to quad step (like Shike). And given the rest of the family will not be using multithreading software, will a lower GHz quad core give a worse performance than a higher Ghz Dual core. If os I probably ought to go with a fast dual core. I guess however, there are other enhancements that come with the newer chips?. Also in terms of onboard memory the selection seems to be in number and price order 2 Mb 4Mb or 8 Mb again experience would be welcome.



I also have to choose an operating system and I am still favouring XP (not so easy to get onto a new machine from many vendors). I am not in the computer trade or IT world but friends that are are noticing big performance knocks with Vista and in the work environment are uninstalling Vista in favour of XP and waiting (they say) for at least the first service Pack!!


Thoughts and opinions, but most of all experience is very welcome


CdeB

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 25, 2007, 1:12am

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
Something to keep in mind is that you can't take advantage of more than 2 GB Ram unless you go with a 64-bit OS. I've had Vista x64 since it came out and so far no real problems. Just check and make sure that working drivers are available for all the hardware pieces you plan to buy.


I'm not sure you need to trade more cores for less GHz. You can get the cheaper quad and overclock it. :) Anything running over 3 GHz is pretty sweet for rendering and running todays apps.


-Jack.

Post by RichLevy // Sep 25, 2007, 1:23am

RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
pic
I am using a

6600 with 4Gb ram (3 is seen with Windows Vista 32 bit)


As Jack says, this is the low end of quad cpu cpu's, it is light years better than the computer I was using before this...


Windows Vista works with almost everything I ask it too, what it does not, I use on the Windows XP system.


HP sells my system for in the 1000.00 USD range.


Rich

Post by parva // Sep 25, 2007, 1:28am

parva
Total Posts: 822
pic
Quad Core is great if you want to render faster. Generally you can't have enough cores :D
For the operating system, well this is a matter of choice but I still go with windows xp. It doesn't need that much power as windows vista (ram) and is smaller in size and less ressource consuming.
I never understand why operating system needs more and more power, I just need the basic operating system and those fancy eye candy bonbon stuff is nonsense.
Ahja 2gig are still good enough at least as long as you don't work with x-million polygon scenes.

Post by CdeB // Sep 25, 2007, 5:40am

CdeB
Total Posts: 160
Thanks for the input so far guys.


I think I may have a problem re. 4 GB vs 2 GB in terms of overall cost but because of Vista's demands a 2 GB system may sit more comfortably with a XP pro system.


Prices and what you get for them change pretty often so, I hope by the time I am ready to buy, something nice has moved into my pricing sights at the moment I am struggling to get a quad core and the right amount of memory plus good graphics card.

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 25, 2007, 6:16am

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
If it helps you any, dual-core is working just fine for me. Quad core wasn't in my budget either. I got the low end C2D chip @ 1.8 GHz for about $170 then over clocked it up to 3.3 GHz, instead of paying $1000 for just the quad core chip or the 2.4 GHz C2D chip....


That maybe be the more cost effective solution because AMD and Intel are ramping up for another series of advancements in CPU technology.

Post by Improv // Sep 25, 2007, 7:53am

Improv
Total Posts: 0
Something to keep in mind is that you can't take advantage of more than 2 GB Ram unless you go with a 64-bit OS.

-Jack.


Are you 110% sure? I thought that both Vista 32 and 64 bit could handle more than 2 GB ram? I figured that that was one of the few selling points of Vista 32?

Or is it just Vista 64? If that's true, Vista 32 is jsut a glorified xp.



Hmmm...anyone?

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 25, 2007, 3:47pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
If it's a 32-bit OS then you are limited on the amount of memory that is physically addressable. 32-bit applications can only access 2GB no matter how much RAM you have installed.

Rich says Vista is only recognizing 3GB of his ram, so it looks like 3 GB is the actual limit for Vista 32bit. That's probably because the total address space is 4GB but that 1GB is reserved for physical (and virtual) system hardware addressing.

The 32 bit memory addressing issues also show up when working with video files that exceed 2 GB.

Also if you have a 64-bit CPU why only use half of the register width when processing?

Another consideration to keep in mind that while the 64 bit windows can run 32 bit apps, 32 bit windows cannot run 64 bit apps. So as software moves to 64 bit, you will no longer be able to run the latest versions of your apps on the 32-bit windows.

Post by Improv // Sep 25, 2007, 6:37pm

Improv
Total Posts: 0
Thanks for clearing that up some. There's so much mis-information floating around that it's sometimes hard to know what's what. Lot's of folks think that Vista (all versions) does more than 2GB ram.


I got a new Athlon X2 4200 2 GB ram a month ago. I also use my pc for digital audio (Cubase SX, etc) and Vista is crap for pro audio recording right now because the drivers aren't there yet. So I bought a copy of XP Home and installed that instead. Since the Vista Home Premium is only 32 bit, it can't use more than 2 GB ram. And right now, there is no use in getting Vista 64 for me because the software and drivers that I want to use aren't 64 bit yet. More memory on Vista 64, fewer apps and drivers.


Pick yer poison! :rolleyes:


I'll just stick with xp home for the next while and see what happens.

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 25, 2007, 7:15pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
I don't know that it's fewer apps, since 32-bit apps run fine on the 64bit OS. But you're right about the drivers. Definitely make sure that the software and hardware you need to use is working on that platform before jumping in.


Problem with drivers and Vista is that Microsoft changed the driver model, so the manufacturers have to learn a completely new driver model and re-write their drivers. That takes time...

Post by Improv // Sep 25, 2007, 7:25pm

Improv
Total Posts: 0
I don't know that it's fewer apps, since 32-bit apps run fine on the 64bit OS.


I should have said 'native 64 bit software versions.'



But you're right about the drivers. Definitely make sure that the software and hardware you need to use is working on that platform before jumping in.



In my case, the motherboard went south and quit working. I had to get a new pc asap, and I couldn't find a new computer around here that didn't come with Vista. I went to tigerdirect.com and bought xp home.



Problem with drivers and Vista is that Microsoft changed the driver model, so the manufacturers have to learn a completely new driver model and re-write their drivers. That takes time...


That's why I got xp home-I can wait!


But even when the drivers come, Vista code needs to be improved. Vista home premium is a slug compared to xp home on the same computer.


YMMV (your mileage may vary).












Noli illigitimi carborundum

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 25, 2007, 7:40pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
I agree, Vista is definitely slower. As far as games go, part of that may be because of the way it interfaces DX9. It'll be interesting to see if apps written for DX10 show better performance. That's another consideration as well, DX10 apps won't run on XP.


So hopefully you backed up your license and install disks so you can put Vista back when you need it. ;)


The interesting discussion is if you decided to go 64-bit, do you get XP x64 or Vista x64. Then you have speed of XP vs. the future proofing of Vista. The risk there is that XP x64 was always a niche operating system and not well supported and now the focus is on the future with Vista, so it might become harder to get quality drivers for XP x64 than Vista x64. For me it was an easy choice because I didn't want to have to re-install my OS in a year or two.


BTW, you mentioned audio. Realtek just released new drivers for XP and Vista today. So might be worth a look. :)

Post by Improv // Sep 26, 2007, 6:36am

Improv
Total Posts: 0
So hopefully you backed up your license and install disks so you can put Vista back when you need it. ;)


Of course.



The interesting discussion is if you decided to go 64-bit, do you get XP x64 or Vista x64. Then you have speed of XP vs. the future proofing of Vista. The risk there is that XP x64 was always a niche operating system and not well supported and now the focus is on the future with Vista, so it might become harder to get quality drivers for XP x64 than Vista x64. For me it was an easy choice because I didn't want to have to re-install my OS in a year or two.



I wouldn't be surprised if ms abandons xp64 as soon as Vista 64 is fully ready with everything it needs and accepted. I can just see them promoting the hell out of Vista64 and saying "XP64? Nevr heard of it!" ;)


BTW, you mentioned audio. Realtek just released new drivers for XP and Vista today. So might be worth a look. :)[/QUOTE]


Realtek? That's a total joke even for hobby level digital recording. There are too many pops and crackles etc in the output because the DACs aren't low latency/high quality. Minimum audio card quality for anything half serious is something like a Midiman Delta Audiophile 2496 card. And no,creative cards don't cut it. Anyway this is a TS forum, not a music/recording forum.












Noli illigitimi carborundum

Post by scapino // Sep 26, 2007, 6:36am

scapino
Total Posts: 101
pic
I dont find Vista slower. Maybe a VERY few FPS slower (3 or 4 fps), but that is made up for with the games (HL2, DOOM3, ect) running smoother. No more pauses for sound and texture thrashing like it used to do on XP. Probably because of the extra system ram Vista gives to your Vid cards memory. I have a 128 meg NV6600GT, and Vista gives it 380 megs of system ram to work with. XP and prior did not add any system ram to the video card.


Do make sure you have the most recent Vid drivers. Vista as shipped had NO OpenGL driver support, so any OGL game was running in emulation...VERY slow.


Kurt

Post by Improv // Sep 26, 2007, 6:45am

Improv
Total Posts: 0
Yes, I'm well aware of all that. I've been using computers and since 1984, thank you very much. The fact that you don't find it slower says more about your low demands on the computer. Or that you aren't very observant.


Plus I am not the least bit interested in children's video games.


I really love it when some clown figures that because they don't notice a problem that the OP's observation/tech problem doesn't exist.

Good for you, you don't find Vista slower. But I find Vista slower for what ***I** do. So please spare me the 'I don't see any problem.' jive.





I dont find Vista slower. Maybe a VERY few FPS slower (3 or 4 fps), but that is made up for with the games (HL2, DOOM3, ect) running smoother. No more pauses for sound and texture thrashing like it used to do on XP. Probably because of the extra system ram Vista gives to your Vid cards memory. I have a 128 meg NV6600GT, and Vista gives it 380 megs of system ram to work with. XP and prior did not add any system ram to the video card.


Do make sure you have the most recent Vid drivers. Vista as shipped had NO OpenGL driver support, so any OGL game was running in emulation...VERY slow.


Kurt












Noli illigitimi carborundum

Post by splinters // Sep 26, 2007, 7:13am

splinters
Total Posts: 4148
pic
Sorry, usually keep out of these types of replies but I really saw nothing wrong with scapino's reply there. It was merely helpful and perhaps he did not realise that you were more 'experienced' with computers.

As for children's video games, if you mean Doom, HL, Bioshock et al then I have to disagree, not least because they carry a mature rating but also because they are very influential and I get a lot of fun from playing them when I am not working. They certainly don't permeate into my children's material either.


Vista is much slower that XP I am finding and I read recently that Microsoft are happy to offer Business Vista owners a free 'downgrade' to XP so they must have conceded that fact too.

Post by parva // Sep 26, 2007, 7:22am

parva
Total Posts: 822
pic
...I am finding and I read recently that Microsoft are happy to offer Business Vista owners a free 'downgrade' to XP so they must have conceded that fact too.


:D hehe, yes I read that too, really funny *g*


btw. what's with Linux, anyone interested to run truespace on Linux?http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/ugly/ulgy.gif

Post by Improv // Sep 26, 2007, 7:23am

Improv
Total Posts: 0
Sorry, usually keep out of these types of replies but I really saw nothing wrong with scapino's reply there.


Merely your opinion-thanks for sharing...



As for children's video games, if you mean Doom, HL, Bioshock et al then I have to disagree, not least because they carry a mature rating but also because they are very influential and I get a lot of fun from playing them when I am not working. They certainly don't permeate into my children's material either.



You're right. I should have said: 'Childish video games that do nothing but waste time.' Merely my opinion, I can't help it nor do I care if your opinion differs. :rolleyes:


On the internet, EVERYONE has an opinion and don't hesitate to give it. And all of those opinions ultimately mean nothing-including yours and mine.


Try turning off the teacher-preacher mode (if possible0 when not in school! :rolleyes:












Noli illigitimi carborundum

Post by Norm // Sep 26, 2007, 7:47am

Norm
Total Posts: 862
pic
You can dual boot a machine. If you have a license for xp on this old machine and you plan on shutting it down, you can install xp on the new machine as well.

I agree with your wife; get best you can afford.
Remember the graphics card becomes very important now. They can be more expensive than the cpu, so they deserve as much attention and detail as you can get before purchase.
Motherboard determines max speed of data travell, so make sure mb can push the graphics card and of course computer memory. I say a good duo cpu with exceptional graphics card is better than a quad with not-so-exceptional graphics card. With VPU capability on graphics cards, you should almost consider it as important as cpu. Then the question of AMD-ATI configurations. Some say AMD is hotter than Intel and deserves a voice in the decision :)

I keep mentioning power-supply when discussing new hardware. There was a time when power-supply was not so important. These days and indeed down the road, all these high performance video cards, hard-disks, multiple monitored monsters need to be fed. A good power supply can be used in next machine too, rather than the throw-away units that ship with many mass-produced models. I suggest buying a real good power supply from online retailer. If your machine begins to exibit strain and dimming lights, new power supply will usually fix it right up.

I just wish to add that standing policy of forum is common respect for each other's opinions. Is a shame when a thread becomes very much off-topic and begins to display signs of disrespect for other forum users. Hopefully cooler heads prevail and we are not subjected to much of it. :o

If I am not successfull in getting our old family P3 working in the next week or so, it will be a new computer.

Apologies, for naive questions...

Reading general computer magazines the recommendation is to get a high Mhz dual core rather than a quad core as most software won't exploit it and then dual core is a better performance for the price.

Obviously, trueSpace does exploit multicores and since the most powerful machine I have access to currently is a P4 3.2 MHz I can only go up in performance whether Dual or Quad. My wife is adament we should get the best we can afford.

I have read the other threads here so I am up on the difference..My problem is that to go quad core there is a price hike so advice from other Europeans would be helpful. The US is always a step ahead...and if I was living there !Quad would be a no-brainer. So is it worth it top push for quad, especially for true Space use? I suspect most will not have made the dual to quad step but probably the P4 to quad step (like Shike). And given the rest of the family will not be using multithreading software, will a lower GHz quad core give a worse performance than a higher Ghz Dual core. If os I probably ought to go with a fast dual core. I guess however, there are other enhancements that come with the newer chips?. Also in terms of onboard memory the selection seems to be in number and price order 2 Mb 4Mb or 8 Mb again experience would be welcome.


I also have to choose an operating system and I am still favouring XP (not so easy to get onto a new machine from many vendors). I am not in the computer trade or IT world but friends that are are noticing big performance knocks with Vista and in the work environment are uninstalling Vista in favour of XP and waiting (they say) for at least the first service Pack!!

Thoughts and opinions, but most of all experience is very welcome

CdeB

Post by RichLevy // Sep 26, 2007, 9:56am

RichLevy
Total Posts: 1140
pic
From my very unofficial observations :D I would say Vista 32bit is slower. The thing that bugs me is the memory requirement. It takes in the area of 1.2-1.4 gigs just to sit there idle... hehehe


Rich

Post by CdeB // Sep 26, 2007, 10:43pm

CdeB
Total Posts: 160
Thanks for all the input plus and minus vista, and thanks Norm for stilling the waters and the all round advice.


I was unaware that Vista can feed a graphics card memory...this is interesting considering one of the options I have would be a professional card (Quadro- with 128 MB -half what I have on my current GeForce card)


I have found I can buy the computer through the small company my wife and I have. I then found the machine of my dreams a Dell 9200 with Quad core 2 Gb of RAM and a good graphics card. Then I called them and they have taken it off the market. Meanwhile I did find operating as a small business and not as a home consumer I got a lot of help and even discount not available on the net. So now I am swinging between 2 alternatives. I may check DELL USA as there is always a delay between what our American cousins get and what we in Europe get. The gap is usually several months. This will let me look into future options...when I have got the specs of the two alternatives I will post them here for comments the quote was sent home and I am now at work.


They are basically and XPS system (more expensive) with Quad core and some kind of 8000 GeForce card or or a Precision system with either 2 dual core Xeons or a a Quad core Xeon. They recommend the 2 dual core's over the single quad core due to heat issues...The package offers a seemingly lower specified but 'professional' 128 Mb Quadro card (hence my interest that Vista can feed the graphics card memory...). Unfortunately, having a GeForce card in the precision machine (my ideal) is not an option. I was told that the precisions are built to a higher overall specification than the 'Consumer machines' so (in Europe at least) they won't ship them with high end 'gaming' type cards -which obviously work well for trueSpace's realtime environments.




Will be back with full specs.


Thanks again,


Chris

Post by Jack Edwards // Sep 26, 2007, 11:01pm

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
Best deal will likely be to buy the parts you want and put it together yourself ;)


If you were here in the US, using Newegg would be a no-brainer. But maybe one of the forum members in your area could indicate a good online vendor for your area.

Post by trueBlue // Oct 7, 2007, 5:33pm

trueBlue
Total Posts: 1761
pic
I just had an interesting discovery. Technician informed me that my motherboard as well as others do not except XP as an OS as in Dual boot. In another word only supports Vista. True or False?

Post by Jack Edwards // Oct 8, 2007, 4:13am

Jack Edwards
Total Posts: 4062
pic
Sounds like bull**** to me. ;)

Post by JPSofCA // Oct 14, 2007, 2:14pm

JPSofCA
Total Posts: 300
pic
Is anyone running any 64-Bit Windows with a Core2 Quad Q6600? If so, how satisfied are you with it?

Post by Improv // Oct 14, 2007, 2:28pm

Improv
Total Posts: 0
TrueSpace isn't 64 bit yet, is it? Until then, 64 bit windows wouldn't give you a huge performance increase.

Post by Nigel // Nov 26, 2007, 11:07am

Nigel
Total Posts: 1
Hi folks,

I just noticed the next gen. Xeons (Harpertown) are available, and the 2.4GHz model is much the same price as the (v.cheap) 2.4GHz Core 2 quad. Someone earlier mentioned that some components used by trueSpace are not yet fully threaded. How about the primary trueSpace engines -- can they use all available cores? On a dual quad Xeon, is it possible to set core affinities so that trueSpace will use say 4 of the 8 cores, leaving the other 4 cores available for long running (days) fluid dynamics simulations?

exciting times!

Nigel

Post by jamesmc // Dec 16, 2007, 12:04pm

jamesmc
Total Posts: 2566
From test renders of the same scene in another 3D software, Quad Cores running on Vista appear to be on average, 30 percent faster than 32 Bit Windows XP doing the same render.

I suppose one could set up a scene in trueSpace, set a baseline and then have people with different OS and machines run it - then display the render times and the stats for their machines and OS.

Wouldn't have to be a complex scene, just some complicated shaders that require a lot of ray tracing or whatever the term is.

Post by Shike // Dec 31, 2007, 6:48am

Shike
Total Posts: 511
pic
Took me long enough but I've finally installed VistaUltimate 64-bit. :o

(the trigger was the game Crysis... looked ok in XP dx9 but awesome in dx10 on Vista ;) )


Still a newbie in Vista but like most people I had a couple of problems:


Having XPprof on a raid, getting new hardrive and installing VistaU64(retail dvd) by booting from Vista DVD.

Worked fine, but I'm not getting the dual boot menu.

Instead I have to enter bios and choose which disk to boot from.

(got a slight panic attack before discovering that since I thought my XP installation was lost! ;) )

Not sure if the reason are the raid disks or if dualboot doesn't work when combining 32bit and 64bit OS ?


Also, guess it was good to wait this long, since almost all my external hardware now had available vista64 drivers, printer, wacom tablet, trackir4, logitechG25....

except for my scanner....have to boot XP to use it :(


Have to complain about Microsoft ( of course :rolleyes: ):

WHY did they even make 32bit Vista!? :mad:

This would have been the perfect opportunity to move over to 64bit OS, since it can run both 32 and 64 bit software, and the hardware/software manufacturers would be more inclined to quickly follow.

Some of my friends and collegues have (against my recommendation) tried to upgrade their old computers that run slow even with XP...and of course Vista runs extremely badly...forcing them to downgrade to XP again.

IMHO, Vista requires the Intel Core2 (or AMD equivalent) chip (or better), that supports 64bit, and more than 2Gb memory...since Vista as previously noted EATS memory like it was tasty candy....and then the 64bit OS should be the obvious(and only) choise :p


But so far I'm happy with Vista64, sure...it's confusing...annoying...and flashy, but I have to admit that I kinda like the Aero interface, and since you guys already posted explanations about how to run trueSpace in admin-mode...I didn't have any problems there either.

(still get slightly weird graphic behaviour in Workspace... but I think I've read about that in another thread...will look for it later.)

And my hardware setup gives me a Vista Performance Index of 5.4

(5.9 on everything except memory which is 5.4)

Aaah, Crysis on VeryHigh settings...why travel in real-life when you can visit tropical islands....though the travel agency didn't mention that everyone on the island would try to kill me ;)


BTW Really looking forward to the 64bit version of trueSpace :D

Post by hemulin // Dec 31, 2007, 7:23am

hemulin
Total Posts: 1058
pic
Worked fine, but I'm not getting the dual boot menu.
Instead I have to enter bios and choose which disk to boot from.
(got a slight panic attack before discovering that since I thought my XP installation was lost! ;) )
Not sure if the reason are the raid disks or if dualboot doesn't work when combining 32bit and 64bit OS ?


You should be able to edit your boot.ini and add in your xp partition info.

1) Go into xp. Start-->Run-->msconfig-->boot.ini
2) Write down the last line (should be something like "multi(0)disk(0)partition(1)WINDOWS="Microsoft.........)
3) Go into Vista and run the equivalent of msconfig (vista users will have to tell you how if its different)
4) Paste the line you just copied into your vista boot.ini
5) You should now have a boot menu appear that has both vista and xp showing.

This should work, although I haven't tried it under these circumstances.
Awportals.com is a privately held community resource website dedicated to Active Worlds.
Copyright (c) Mark Randall 2006 - 2021. All Rights Reserved.
Awportals.com   ·   ProLibraries Live   ·   Twitter   ·   LinkedIn