Prev: Hardware problem - RAM or MOBO?
Next: Molex to Sata power cable
From: Bioboffin on 22 Nov 2009 12:16

"Ron" <rmoore85(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:o-WdnSr6CKaD8pXWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
> For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
> strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
> Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
> was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit Win
> 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.
>
> As it sits, I have the following major components:
>
> Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
> Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
> Antec Sonata 2 case
>
> Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:
>
> Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
> WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
> 4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks
>
> Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to get
> the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
> Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
> 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
> other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit Ultimate?
> This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No significant
> upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until it's time to
> build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated to audio,
> graphic, photo workflow, etc.)
>
> Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7 seems
to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than Vista or XP.
Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather more moot point.

--

John

From: Paul on 22 Nov 2009 18:10
Bioboffin wrote:
>
> "Ron" <rmoore85(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:o-WdnSr6CKaD8pXWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>> For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
>> strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
>> a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
>> 32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
>> 64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.
>>
>> As it sits, I have the following major components:
>>
>> Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
>> Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
>> Antec Sonata 2 case
>>
>> Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:
>>
>> Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
>> WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
>> 4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks
>>
>> Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
>> get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
>> Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to
>> run 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit?
>> From the other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with
>> 32-bit Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine.
>> No significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU,
>> until it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines
>> dedicated to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)
>>
>> Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.
>
> I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7
> seems to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than
> Vista or XP. Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather
> more moot point.
>

I understand that one of the optimizations that exist in Vista or later,
is better handling of NUMA. There is a cost associated with moving a
process from Core1 to Core3, like cache coherency traffic (stuff in
one L2 cache, needing to move to the other L2 cache, on a demand
basis). A good OS design would realize moving from Core1 to Core2,
costs less than moving something from Core1 to Core3.

Intel Core2 Quad

Two silicon die
within IC package

Core1 Core3
Core2 Core4
L2 L2
| |
+----+----+
|
|
FSB (external)

This article makes it sound like this was just invented for Windows 7,
but I remember similar things being said when Vista came out, and how
Vista was better in that regard than WinXP.

http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/64plusLP

Vista is mentioned here.

http://developer.amd.com/pages/1162007106.aspx

Paul
From: Ron on 22 Nov 2009 20:55
Bioboffin wrote:
>
> "Ron" <rmoore85(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:o-WdnSr6CKaD8pXWnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com...
>> For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
>> strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
>> a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
>> 32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
>> 64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.
>>
>> As it sits, I have the following major components:
>>
>> Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
>> Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
>> Antec Sonata 2 case
>>
>> Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:
>>
>> Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
>> WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
>> 4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks
>>
>> Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
>> get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
>> Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to
>> run 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit?
>> From the other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with
>> 32-bit Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine.
>> No significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU,
>> until it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines
>> dedicated to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)
>>
>> Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.
>
> I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7
> seems to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than
> Vista or XP. Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather
> more moot point.
>
That's been a part of the quandary. None of my current apps seem like
they will run significantly better with four cores. Photoshop CS2 put
the biggest demands on a P4 2.53Mhz 478 (2.5GB RAM) and it's always run
very well. If I were more inclined to multi-tasking, four might help,
but I can't see it at the moment. Fwiw, I'm not a gamer and don't do
video authoring either!

Thanks for the feedback.

Ron
From: Fishface on 22 Nov 2009 21:02
Paul wrote:
> Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x) - this is important if you expect
> to be able to play with Windows 7 "WinXP Mode", which is a virtual copy
> of WinXP. An additional benefit of working virtualization, is a lot more
> virtual OSes may actually boot properly in a tool like VPC2007 (a problem
> I'm having right now).

I got my Window 7 64-bit machine up now. I went to Fry's and bought
a new motherboard for it, and it is actually a Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P!
No sense wasting a good XP copy that is legally married to my Gigabyte
GA-P35-DS3L. My upgrade copy can upgrade my Windows 2000 upgrade
disk on which Microsoft basically screwed me out of a rebate (no rebate
if you are upgrading an OEM NT install-- only mentioned on the *inside*).
The x64 install didn't ask for previous media, anyway, and I installed it on
a new empty drive.

The Virtual XP mode is pretty slow. It uses the AHCI Uniprocessor PC HAL.
I have given it 2GB of RAM. I just ran the SuperPi Mod 1.4 1M test, and
my Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400) finished in a pedestrian 89 seconds. I'm
not sure to which dinosaur that is equivalent, but I didn't realize that VMs
were so slow.

It turns out that there was a 64-bit driver for my 16-year-old Laserjet 4,
after all.

I haven't installed everything, but I've had a few glitches with my 32-bit
software. The DVD-lab 1.33 demux.aux crashes after each MPEG-2
demultiplexing, but does not crash the main app, and the files created
seem to be fine. This happens even if I set the compatibility mode of
DVD-lab to XP. A minor annoyance. The microphone setup app for
Battlefield 2 wouldn't run, either. I haven't searched for a solution yet.

I actually hate the new Start Menu. I liked having organized folders on the
top level Start Menu and now I have to settle for a toolbar on the Task Bar
taking up space, but I can put other folders inside and they display as
a cascading sub-menu. I see there are Start Menu replacements available
that I may eventually adopt. I might just have been happier with Vista 64
with more XP-type options.

I also hate the Search function. I was most happy with the one in Window
2000. I don't want to wait for it to search inside files in non-indexed locations
unless I say so, and it's not convenient to continually alter the default behavior.

I miss Outlook Express for news. It was just better than this Window Live Mail.
What idiot decided to use an hardly readable typeface and make the *Author*
field bold or not for unread or read messages instead of the Subject?! And
no more "Block Sender?" I'm getting rid of that ASAP-- I will try Thunderbird
first. If that is not to my liking, I guess I can always use OE in Virtual XP.

Anyway, there's a bit of a learning curve, but I guess not so much for Vista users.
I am enjoying all the memory I could reasonably afford to stuff in, though.
From: Paul on 22 Nov 2009 22:27
Fishface wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>> Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x) - this is important if you expect
>> to be able to play with Windows 7 "WinXP Mode", which is a virtual copy
>> of WinXP. An additional benefit of working virtualization, is a lot more
>> virtual OSes may actually boot properly in a tool like VPC2007 (a problem
>> I'm having right now).
>
> I got my Window 7 64-bit machine up now. I went to Fry's and bought
> a new motherboard for it, and it is actually a Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P!
> No sense wasting a good XP copy that is legally married to my Gigabyte
> GA-P35-DS3L. My upgrade copy can upgrade my Windows 2000 upgrade
> disk on which Microsoft basically screwed me out of a rebate (no rebate
> if you are upgrading an OEM NT install-- only mentioned on the *inside*).
> The x64 install didn't ask for previous media, anyway, and I installed
> it on
> a new empty drive.
>
> The Virtual XP mode is pretty slow. It uses the AHCI Uniprocessor PC HAL.
> I have given it 2GB of RAM. I just ran the SuperPi Mod 1.4 1M test, and
> my Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400) finished in a pedestrian 89 seconds. I'm
> not sure to which dinosaur that is equivalent, but I didn't realize that
> VMs
> were so slow.
>
<<snip>>

SuperPI 23.375 sec, 1 million digits, Core2 2.6GHz (native, in WinXP)

SuperPI 24.986 sec, 1 million digits, same processor (WinXP running VPC2007, Win2K guest OS)

My virtual results show hardly any slowdown at all.

Paul
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Hardware problem - RAM or MOBO?
Next: Molex to Sata power cable