finally got my system up - almost! woooohoooo baby

running WS2003 R2 SP2 EE with all updates etc... on a Quad Core @ 2.66GHz. Appears to be the same speed as my 3.0GHz P4 I guess however I want to know, will Windows XP/WS2003 take advantage of the quad core? How can I make it do that? How fast is it really compared to a P4 3.0GHz?

Thanks

Well... XP will automatically adjust threads accordingly to cores, or you can manually do that, which in most cases, not recommended.

To give a comparison, I basically started folding the same day on my E4400/XP and my P4 3ghz/Linux on folding.

E4400@ 3ghz - Core0 45 WU done Core 1 45 WU done = 90 WU
P4 3ghz HT (northwood) - 29 WU done

This was from the beginning week of November.

So that should give you an idea how powerful a quad can be in that perspective.

Thanks.

So I take it Windows Server 2003, Vista and XP will detect the quads and use it as properly as it can?

will it make things faster?

Depends on what you mean by faster.

If you use applications/programs that take advantage of 4 cores, then you would see a difference.

But as far as single core apps/programs, it should run as fast like a reg single core, so don't expect too much.

hmmm. so really whats the point on quad? Cos there arent many apps that deal with quad.... pretty much then I would be running a P4 2.66GHz.... from the quad :-/

Its just a way of future proofing things. Since there are quads out there, software apps will slowly follow.. kinda like, whats the point in upgrading to Vista 64 bit?

But still.. it should make things more fluid or smooth. Like for example, playing a game, and your anti-virus program decides to scan your system, it should run smoother. Or if you want to do 2 things that are single core based, or more. You do gain an advantage, whether you over look it or not.

cool.
Now I am debating....

should I install 64bit? I don't have 64 bit apps but I am a software developer...and there are tools like .NET 64bit/SQL 64bit..... would I still be able to install 32bit drivers for NIC's/Soundcards etc.... unless otherwise specified?

Well, you can run more apps at the same time without degrading system performance, this has always been the big argument in the PC world, OS and apps generally do not do explicit multi-tasking, this is changing slowly, games in particular are starting to see performance gains for multiple cores (of interest to most of us) and some programs do use multiple sockets/cores, so again a benefit if you use those apps.

Outside that you could set up a computer cluster and start doing some scientific calculations, there's a real nice Julia set generator and some other more boring stuff.

I have a QX6700 and 2 DVD burners on my system, and dual-boot XP and Vista 64. Typically I'll run 2 instances of DVDShrink to rip movies and 2 instances of Nero to burn them, while playing NWN or some other game. No lag in either OS, although Vista 64 tends to load all 4 cores equally whereas XP usually has one core goofing off around half the load of the other 3.

I think Vista should get more popular once the service pack is out next month (supposedly).

Gotta agree with Grimmy and Jstall - you'll know once you come across apps that can use the multiple cores.

Since you mentioned Win2k3, server level apps usually understand multi-core systems. examples are sql, exchange, stuff like that.

My home cpu example is the ability to encode multiple movie streams simultaneously while playing WOW, which admittedly isn't a very intensive game. Dropped my decode times by more than 50%, can do 2 at once - and each stream encodes faster than one single processor used before. It's helped my 'folding' apps as well, though folding@home isn't one of my current boincs.

Sorry Grimmy - but was a boincsynergy member before I discovered toms (or ***).

http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-3241.jpg

Heh... no worries Its all for a good cause no matter what team your in.

If you are comparing web browsing then no you won't notice a difference.

Encode some movies, play Supreme Commander.. do something that actually does something.

It's not going to load things faster, that still has to come from the Hard Drive.

cnumartyr:

What kind of case and HSF are you using to reach 3.89 GHz?

Daily is 3.6 GHz, 3.89 GHz is a benchmark OC, but it's a CM 690 and Thermalright Ultra 120X, feel free to check my configuration.