Slow Core 2 On XP

Hi, I just switched back to windows xp and followed the instructions on how to optimized both cores. After doing so my cpu score in 3dmark06 is actually lower. and superpi took 1.9seconds as opposed to 1.3 in vista. I get .53 frames cpu test in vista and only .48 in xp running both stock options with latest extreme g driver.
Any way to actually test if ur computer is set up right to run xp dual core?

 

i found that too, after doing the optimizations that my system "felt" slower, but i did not test it, it just felt different from other times that i had done it.

sorry i do not know of a way to check, other then running benchmarks

perhaps try a multi threaded benchmark, but i dont know any by heart, sorry


Cheers,

 

3DMark scores can easily vary by 20 points or more between each run thru with the same hardware and software config, so don't fret about that. Even if you get a lower score in this benchmark, you could very well be getting improved dual core performance in XP.

Superpi in 1.9 seconds is some kind of record unless you only did 32k digits, maybe you ought sell your computer for a few million dollars instead of worrying about your score. How about a 1M or 2M digit report?

 

Have you noticed the computer performing slower in XP?

You cannot always rely on benchmarks but something you can try to do is to encode a video file in xp and vista and see how long it takes in both.

 

My mistake, superpi is one minute 9 seconds from the before one min and 2 or 3 seconds. and the graphic card performance went up in xp a little bit even though vista had newer driver. The Cpu however, dropped more than 10 percent on all the benchies I did.

 

Newer drivers don't mean better performance, as a matter of fact it is expected that you get lower GPU performance in Vista compared to XP until drivers for Vista mature.

 

yep, thats y i switched to xp, needed that extra frame for oblivion.

 

btw, there seems to always be a temp difference of 2-5C between the two cores while in vista its all the same. Donnt kno if this makes any difference.

 

what edition of XP do you have, I have heard that XP Home does not support Dual core(only uses 1 core)...

correct me if I am wrong.

 

No, I got the xp pro. I am sure both cores r running otherwise the computer would b much slower. Its just not at where it should be.

 

Benchmarks run on different operating systems aren't comparable. Vista is known to surpass XP on certain benchmarks.

 

Just as some benchmarks run faster under Linux than under Windows. A benchmark on the same hardware only serves to show the differences between the operating systems, rather than a hardware issue or anything like that. Perhaps XP has some services that take more CPU power, a bad memory management scheme, lots of things it could be. But it's almost certainly not a hardware fault. Use whatever system does what you need it to do the best.

 

True, I was just expecting increase in performance across the board, but I guess i'll have to live with better gaming performance. And why is there the difference in core temps? No one seem to have addressed that yet. 2-5C

 

Probably because XP wasn't designed with dual-core in mind and handles it differently. Despite XP's many advantages over Vista, Vista was designed in the mulit-core, multi-processor era, and was designed with that in mind. XP wasn't, and it was simply patched and added later on (requiring your dual-core hotfix).

 

yea, i did get the update, seems like two cores r working not well. how bout the temp difference???

 

See my previous post. The temperature is what I was referring to. Your dual core processor is working fine in Windows XP, and worrying about a few lost seconds in Super Pi or a few degrees of temperature variation is too much worrying. You've still got a cutting edge, fast processor that should be capable of doing everything you want it to and then some.

 

kk, I see, didnt quite catch that you were referring to the temperature. From general observation seems like core2 is working harder than core 1. oh, well. thank.