BH,

What you fail to state is the % of memory in use while running the program. If your memory isn’t 100% utilized adding more isn’t going to speed anything up. My guess is that this a processor speed difference you are seeing 4 cores vs 2 cores seems like it should halve the time to me. HTH :cheers:

You could just upgrade the motherboard or CPU if your socket on your board now will accept a dual or 4 core CPU. This will be cheaper than buying a completely new machine. May even have to upgrade your power supply if it not at least 350w at the moment.

Windows XP shows it’s tooth length here imo, processor differences aside.

Prehistoric shark, Sabertooth tiger, T-Rex?

However since it already has the SSD hard drive I’m wondering if any excess RAM requirements are using the SSD and subsequently adding 2 gig more RAM wouldn’t show significant impact on the 8 second time processing.

Doesn’t sound like paging is impacting at all and even if it did, the fact you have an SSD mitigates that to a substantial degree. That is if you don’t mind the thought that a lot of paging may be wearing the SSD a bit more than normal.

Like cc, I would go for the cheap processor upgrade if possible first. 2.2 is pretty slow for CPU intensive tasks. My elderly Q6600 quad core (2.4Ghz) gets pummeled by my 2.93 and 3.16 Ghz core two duo systems when the processors work on some lengthy project. Memory limits are never an issue unless I’m multitasking quite heavily.

More memory ALWAYS improves performance up to the limit for the OS, in this case 4GB.
In this case I suspect the limits are hardware and software, so additional memory won’t make a lot of difference. Your dual core CPU will always be slower than the quad core because newer CPUs are more efficient. Windows XP is a lot slower than Window 7 on the same hardware – again newer software is generally more efficient than older software.

cheers, Paul

Paul, do you use XP and 7 together on a daily basis? What you state I have not found to be true in any way, using both on dual cores, 6-cores, etc. Take a look at this article if you need more than observed proof. Granted it’s four years old, there is no real point anymore in continuing to compare the modern with XP anymore, but trust me, its every bit as good and fast.

AS to newer software being more efficient than older software; that car just went off a cliff! Maybe the little apps for touch devices are efficient because they have to be but software for desktop systems has gone ever to more bloat and excess as a general rule. Why? Because it can, programmers/engineers can be sloppy because in general, it can be written for more forgiving hardware.

At least we can mostly agree on the memory part, the lone caveat or question being, by how much? A GTX 690 video card will improve my gaming performance too, but, only if I go from a 1080P screen to 2 Catleap monitors!

I our real world environment we have upgraded from XP SP3 to Win7 Enterprise SP1 with the same apps, the difference in performance was astounding. This is over several thousand machines of varying age so it’s not a one off.

cheers, Paul

Indeed, I would have abandoned XP long ago if it had actual inferior performance. All my tests, which only account for a couple dozen systems, involve long CPU-intensive tasks and gaming (FRAPS). One might argue that’s because Win 7 supports DirectX11 and XP is stuck at 9 or something along those lines, but not in any way, shape or form, that XP is slower on the same hardware with commensurate drivers.

You would have to be much more clear in what you mean by Enterprise performance because I don’t think of intra-system performance as much as I do inter-system performance in that case. Good for enterprise inter-system performance if that’s so, however, that is not at issue here.

I did not notice if anyone asked if the XP PC is 32 Bit. I suspect it is. The approx. limit for a 32 Bit PC is 3.5 Gb of Ram. In that case the 4 Gb proposed by the OP is the upper limit of the OS. This PC will likely never be as fast as the newer PC unless, as Clive mentions, a major overhaul is performed.

Ah I see Paul did mention the 4 Gb limit. Sorry to have rehashed that.

Hey all,

I have a desktop computer that has:
Windows XP Home
Intel 2.2 ghz core duo processor
Nvidea graphics card
2 gig RAM
SSD operating system/programs drive (50% full)
7200 rpm data drive (25% full)

I just purchased a new Dell Inspiron laptop that has:
Windows 8
Intel 2.2 ghz quad core
AMD Radeon graphics
8 gig of RAM
5400 rpm hard drive (10% full)

Those are the specs. Here is the question:
I ran the same 3D CNC toolpathing program file on both machines. It took 8 seconds to process on the 2.2 ghz core duo desktop and 4 seconds to run on the new Dell 2.2 ghz quad core laptop.
I had been planning on adding 2 gig more RAM to the desktop PC. However since it already has the SSD hard drive I’m wondering if any excess RAM requirements are using the SSD and subsequently adding 2 gig more RAM wouldn’t show significant impact on the 8 second time processing.
I’m also considering replacing the 2.2 ghz core duo Desktop with a machine about equivalent to the new Dell laptop. I would go with SSD for both Windows/ program drive and data drive this time.
So more RAM or new desktop?
Any suggestions on which route to go?
Thanks,
BH

Hi! I’m sort of jumping from A to Z here, but….
Two gigs of ram on the desktop, with XP is the sweet spot. XP will only see about 3 gigs anyway, so adding more will gain you very little if anything.
Sounds like the SSD is doing its thing.
You have a dual core CPU, but unless you tell Windows how many cores you have, it will, by default, only use one.
You actually have to go into setup and tell Windows how many cores you want it to use. I’ll post that process next.
I’m hoping that your XP is also upgraded to SP3.

As for the new laptop, there is actually a whole library of things to do to Win-8 to make it run efficiently, even setting the number of cores you have, mentioned above. OK, here’s that tweak.

Shorten the Boot Time in XP, Vista & Windows 7 & 8

Go to the start button, choose run, then type msconfig and press Ok.
On the system configuration window, choose the “Boot.INI” tab.

Check “No Gui Boot”, then lower the timeout to a more manageable time.
I choose 3 seconds in stead of 30. (windows won’t accept a lower number than 3)

Next choose advanced options.
This is where you can choose how many processors you have.
Most modern PC’s are duo core (2 processors) with some quad core (4 processors)
then choose OK. The Windows default is only 1 core.

Now choose apply and OK, reboot and you should see a marked decrease in boot time,
And Run-Time efficiency.

To be able to run MSCONFIG and do the above on Win-8, you really do need to install the “Classic Shell” program, which restores the START button and the RUN box.
After spending about 8 months on the Windows 8 forum, as a moderator, I’m pretty familiar with everything it takes to make Win-8 user friendly. I do have Win-8 installed on a second HD and I have it looking and acting very much like my XP.

So, in conclusion, Keep XP and fix Win-8 and you should be fine.

Cheers Mate!
The Doctor 😎

1.) The NUMPROC checkbox and number are used in debugging situations to limit the number of CPUs that will be available to Windows NOT to maximize the number. During the first part of the boot process using more than one CPU does no good so only one will be used. But after that Windows will automatically take advantage of all CPUs.

2.) MaxMem is another setting used for debugging to limit the amount of RAM Windows uses. Just leave it alone. Windows will use all that it is able to within Windows architectural and hardware limits. NOTE: 32-bit Windows will only see about 3 to 3.5 GB of RAM depending on the system. This is a 32-bit limit.

Joe

I’m pretty sure that was a one-off, especially if you ever try to repeat and can or cannot. Usually the confusion is about XP Home not being able to run more than one processor, regardless of cores, the latter of which is not a problem, though I’m not sure about hyperthreading. Mine all see all cores up to 6 and I’m sure more wouldn’t be a problem. I even have an odd 3-core AMD processor and that is enumerated perfectly as well.

Windows XP will see and utilize all your processor cores, but it will not be nearly as efficient as later operating systems.
…So it is not necessary, and it’s a waist of time, to make advanced configurations in windows XP regarding core utilization.

Sure you can add more memory (up to the max) and an SSD to the mix, but Windows XP just wasn’t coded for it.
You’ll get noticeable improvement, but it won’t exactly be stellar. Most people will defeat their own efforts by not clean installing too.

Your best bet for a more responsive system would be to dump Windows XP altogether.

…and that’s where and why I posted the link to the article from 4 years ago. Vista and Win 7 were smoked by XP in raw performance, but through more efficient utilization of cores, hence, the more cores, the more efficient, I’m sure Win 7 has closed that gap by now and is every bit as good as XP. With merely two cores though it’s probably still a choice between that little extra bit of work done or better multitask performance. I certainly see that difference in my dual core systems that are not purposed for multitask function.

I’m not so sure at all of any difference in my 6-core systems since they are all purposed a bit differently and a bit hard to compare directly. The Win 7 systems are certainly no slouches though! They have successfully shed 95% or more of the Vista heritage.

So more RAM or new desktop?

XP Home can only support one processor, so 50% of your dual core processor is not accessible. Adding a quad core processor is pointless since 75% will not be accessible. XP Home is not a secure operating system since anyone can access the administrator account. A password protected administrator account is available through Safe Mode, but that’s too inconvenient and can easily be hacked. The problem is the operating system, not the hardware, although more RAM might be nice, depending on what the computer is used for. If you are in love with the XP operating system, consider replacing your XP Home with XP Professional. You can get a brand new full retail version on ebay for less than $100. It will have far superior security than XP Home and will take full advantage of your dual core processor. But, since the XP operating system basically expires next year, I vote for the new desktop.

It would also help if your software was written for multi-cores, most are not. Those that are not can be assigned to a specific core using affinity settings so you can divide up the single threaded application workload between cores if you so choose and it will indeed help. Use Task Manager, Process Explorer or other monitors to confirm this if you wish to. Genreally, 2GB of RAM is considered the sweet spot, or the most bang for the buck, as they usually must be installed in pairs, to the next 2GB you install will not be as much as an improvement as you might have seen going from say two 256MB (512MB) up to the 2GB total. Yes, some boards will use the upper regions to cache board drivers and other things so you will only gain between 1.2 and 1.6 GB of usable memory when adding another 2GB, but it is still worth it if the cost does not keep food from your table. XP could use it if you disable all caching in your board setup but that is not advisable as the board hardware will or could slow or stall.