I just finished building my mom's new PC (Q6600 3.0GHz,vista 64) and ran the wprime 32m benchmark and got 13.666 seconds vs. the 14.5 seconds I got in XP32 using the exact same cpu at the exact same clockspeed. This is vista with aero enabled too. The only difference in hardware is the 8GB of ram in vista vs. 3.5GB in XP.
I thought switching to vista would make you lose performance not gain it!!!
Imagine 2 figther pilots, 1 from world war II and another from the 21st century? which one do you think would fly a p52 mustang better in battle? Which one would fare better ina tomcat?
The point being is that vista was designed for newer hardware thus performs better then xp in newer higher powered machines, despite performing worse on slower ones.
BTW for some stupid reason vista haters always down aero as a resource hog. It off loads windows to the GPU which frees up CPU time. Even with intergrated graphics I notice it improves performance rather then hindering it in my laptop.
A fresh install can do wonders too. Was XP newely installed when you ran the benchmark? Lol I'm still betting that vista is just better then xp in your machine. last edit I swear.
The extra RAM would help. And, addressing capacity aside, there are (arguable) advantages to running (32 bit software) in 64 bits rather than in 32. For example, certain common message types can be run in pairs as long as they are short enough for the tags needed to differentiate the pair from each other. Or that data can be moved in larger chunks, which can make a difference in certain measurements.
And a /agree to the comment regarding the age of the installation. MSFT OSs are notoriously bad at garbage collection. A fresh install, or at least a good thorough defrag and registry clean up can make a difference.
Not to mention the fact that Vista is vastly better at allocating tasks to cores than XP. Xp tends to load one core till it hits 100% then start on the next core. Vista loads each core evenly. So in the end if it can use multicore tech it will run much betetr on Vista.
Oh and don't believe the rumors. Recent patches have helped Vista to catch up to XP and even do better in some areas.
I just did a fresh install and have only 55 processes running compared to 75 when I first installed a year ago. And it loads/runs much faster and smoother too than my old XP install on my old machine.
heheh ok, Im thinking he meant using unmatched ram forced it into single channel, unless theyve come out with 750 MB ram. Some mobos wont even let you fill all your slots without going into single channel
I think what WR meant is this. with 4GB of ram the system would run in dual channel mode because the ram divides nicely by 2. but in a 32bit enviroment there is only 3.5 GB of ram available, since it's not and even number. the system automatically goes into single channel mode.
I don't think it's how it works but would like some clarification. WR where did you read this?
What are you people talking about? All addresses inside the 32-bit address range are usable by the hardware (although the upper end of the range is reserved for specific hardware memory maps), just not the operating system. The OS has zero effect on dual/single channel mode. You can have 2x512MB and 2x1GB sticks of RAM and guess what, that's dual channel but not an even number!
My reference to Vista is only that thats why hes getting the full *gigs, as Im also assuming its a 64bit OS, where 8gigs can be used. The only things thatd drop him into single would be mobo underpowered, or an uneven ram stick usage, thus my question
Dual channel is a physical property of the motherboard, and as such is completely OS independent. If you have matching modules in the correct slots, the memory runs in dual channel, irregardless of how much the OS can address.