Windows, CPUs, and performance

[Offler]

Two years ago many common users recomended me to leave Windows 98 for many reasons. It was too old, its support was ending, and because it was terrible os.

Well. I think that Windows XP is terrible and i have my own reasons for this - especially its requirements which are used for features which i do not require. But those people just forget about that everything goes old and Microsoft will not support any operating system forever.

Since 2000 there was no major move on computer marked. Nowadays most computers are based on Pentium 4 processor with DDR memory, and users are in majority using Windows XP on them. While XP system is supporting up to 2 Processors, or two threads it is little bit wasting. Pentium 4 processors always offered high frequency, but low performance - even when we are comparing it to Pentium III Tualatin family.

Memory bandwith has been extended dramatically last years but its effects to system performance are not so remarkable as with graphic cards.

The real dual processing came last years with Athlon X2 and DualCore processors. Here can be windows XP used with best results, when its ability of dualprocessing is fully used. P4 cores cannot be compared with this performance and their functionality belongs to uniprocessor solutions and its hyperthreading feature is recomended to be disabled...

Therefore mainstream computers based on P4 core are best performing with uniprocessor OS - Windows 9x, Dualcore processors are best performing with Windows 2000 and XP, and for quad core is most useful Vista.

I think that only support by OS devepoper is not the only reason why to use the system, also age is not so big problem. Windows 2000 is also 8 years old and its derivation (winXP) is still being used. The real reason why to use or not to use an operating system is construction of computer and its ability of multiprocessing, or uniprocessing.

[GrofLuigi]

I agree with most of the points with you. Furthermore, I'm not so convinced that Vista is better for quadcore or higher than XP - I have not seen any fact-based proof of this - only assumptions. Even if we set aside that on most benchmarcks it shows lower performance.

GL

[awergh]

isnt core 2 duo based on Pentium III rather then Pentium 4

[Offler]

As long i know DualCore processors are now mainly based on Pentium III architecture. Thats why i am searching for Core1 processor. Uniprocessing for next generation of Win9x based systems? Maybe, and maybe not...

Right now i think that Windows 2000 and good Dualcore processor is best solution. Althought few applications are intended for multiprocessing - mostly server applications. If we are talking about pc games these are multithreaded, but their performance is still mostly depending on graphic card.

I have here Tualatin-S and SDram. I see that i need little bit faster memory, but only in TES:Oblivion. Games which are using standard "Level loading" and are not loading next area after few steps are unable to fill whole memory bandwidth.

Mostly data streams are between 133mb/s and lower even throught AGP slot, and i may say that Harddisks are not slowing down my performance. (swapfile is located in ramdisk).

If we are talking about vista... It is only OS on market which is supporting more than two cores as long i know. But there are few apps for this hw potential. Just like with 64bit...

Technological roof for these days is Vista 64 bit with Intels Q6700, and with NV8800 GTX, with turbomemory (flash memory in pci slot acting as swapdisk). I dont know which aplications do have 64 bit engine optimized for quad core... and i really dont know why my computer (tv tuner, some games, mostly writing) will need this performance.

32 bit and singlethreading, and uniprocesing is still standard and no sw developers anounced compatibility only for dualcore or higher. I guess how many common users will sell their P4 based machines with XP, while these computers are quite reliable and are performing well. I think that only benefit from this generation is DDR memory, but if those people have weak graphics and other equipment...

Tualatins were always performing better than P4 family, but intel recognized that marked is searching for higher Ghz, no matter their efficiency.

[rainyd]

isnt core 2 duo based on Pentium III rather then Pentium 4

Yes, definitely this is a combination of the Pentium III + Pentium-M in advanced technology process - 65 and right now 45 nm (with tweaks and improvements of course).