Re: XP64 usefull for me?
Hi, Nice Bike.
> So you say that putting the swapfile in a partition of it's own will
> boost performance? I will try that! I always was under the impression
> that putting swapfiles on drivers OTHER then the systemdrive would
> boost performance. And with games more so, never put the swapfile on
> the same drive as the gamefiles.
One of the great ongoing "religious battles". ;^}
My opinion: If you have multiple hard drives, put the swap file on a
different physical drive - a different spindle. Since a hard drive's heads
are permanently fixed together as a unit, they can't read data from track
100 and swap to track 5000 at the same time; the whole "gang" has to move
from 100 to 5000 - and then back again to continue reading from 100. But if
the swap file is on a second HD, then reading from track 100 on HD0 and
writing to track 5000 on HD1 can be happening simultaneously. Multiply that
by a few thousand read/writes an hour and you should see some speed gains.
But putting the swap file ANYWHERE on the same HD (the same spindle) as the
OS is not likely to gain much speed. So it doesn't help to have the swap
file is in Drive X: if Drive X: is just another partition on the same
physical drive (same spindle, same gang of heads). If you have only a
single physical drive, then any speed gain is going to be minimal, no matter
where you put the swap file.
I'm no gamer and I'm not sure just how they use the drives, but I would
guess that you should try to put the swap file on a physical drive other
than the one that has the game's executable files and data - and still
separate from the systemdrive.
Still one of the best articles on this subject is the one written by MVP
Alex Nichol, who died in 2005. The article was written for WinXP, but the
ideas apply to Vista, too: Virtual Memory in Windows XP;
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm (While you are there, be sure to
explore that
www.aumha.org website; LOTS of good information there.)
RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@grandecom.net
Microsoft Windows MVP
(Running Windows Live Mail beta 2 in Vista Ultimate x64)
"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
news:sgchi3tsmecu5115r1ei5alro49udg1qgd@4ax.com...
> I did read what Charlie said about the directory structure, I replied
> to him saying that I already have to cut the large amounts of files
> into smaller sub-directories. I'm not familiar to this newsgroup, but
> is he the resident expert here?
>
> So you say that putting the swapfile in a partition of it's own will
> boost performance? I will try that! I always was under the impression
> that putting swapfiles on drivers OTHER then the systemdrive would
> boost performance. And with games more so, never put the swapfile on
> the same drive as the gamefiles.
> I'm not sure if buying more RAM for an older system is such a good
> idea. I was thinking of upgrading, then I will put in 4GB RAM.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
>
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:33:29 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>
>>I can't predict what figure you would get with your HD, but I strongly
>>assume something in the vicinity of 80, as I remember, I had 88 and that
>>was
>>pretty much the same Seagate drive.
>>
>>It's not the CPU that's your problem, rather amount of RAM and the thing
>>with the HD. They are real bottlenecks.
>>
>>But check out what Charlie said about the directory structure - if he
>>takes
>>the time to mention this, you will be surprised!
>>
>>And the extra HD! Delete all partitions on that drive and first create one
>>small Primary Partition (some 10 GB?) where you can put the swapfile,
>>leave
>>some swapfile space on the system drive!
>>
>>I bet you will see a real boost from those two easy steps alone!
>>
>>
>>Tony. . .
>>
>>
>>"Nice Bike" <nowhere@alpha.net> wrote in message
>>news:vm6hi3pbsukflv3irfn00bh2l9djdr4g35@4ax.com...
>>> Humm, I'm putting WIN XP64 aside for now.
>>> I have an Athlon 64 3000+ @2GHz with 1GB RAM and SATA I, obvious to
>>> obsolete for x64.
>>> This 'older' system serves me well for now, it's just the large amount
>>> of file accessing that's the problem.
>>> I actually do have a smaller HD for the swapfile.
>>> Talking about HD speed, I get 50-60 MB/sec with my current SATA II
>>> drives on the SATA I controllers, what would be the speed increase if
>>> I upgrade the mainboard with SATA II controllers?
>>> The most new games run very choppy on this system, but I don't do
>>> allot of gaming. I was thinking of getting, eventually, a dual core
>>> CPU AMD, with appropriate mainboard.
>>> Would Vista 64 run better then XP64 on such a system?
>>>
>>> Thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:29:34 +0100, "Tony Sperling"
>>> <tony.sperling@db<REMOVE>mail.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, to be blunt - on that system I very much doubt that x64 would do
>>>>much
>>>>of a difference. One observation I could make is that motherboards these
>>>>days are not very expensive. Memory too, at the moment is down-right
>>>>cheap.
>>>>Whichever way you turn, that will help a lot. I'd say, you need 2GB of
>>>>dual-channel memory and definitely have your HD on a compatible
>>>>controller.
>>>>You might also try and invest in a smaller, really fast HD to carry your
>>>>swap-file.
>>>>
>>>>As it is, the system does not seem to bee well suited for present-day
>>>>heavy-duty work. And I'm not criticising the quality. I have one six
>>>>year
>>>>old machine with an Athlon XP 2400+ and 1GB memory. It gives me full
>>>>pleasure with it's speed and stability, but I wouldn't use it for any
>>>>heavy
>>>>stuff.
>>>>
>>>>The 64bit instruction might actually be slower since it is only used to
>>>>access more memory than the 32bit OS can address, it is certainly not
>>>>faster - the data-path that comes along will be the important part.
>>>>Compare
>>>>with a motorway, if all the lanes are full to beginn with, doubling the
>>>>width with more lanes will allow you to travel faster. If the lanes are
>>>>not
>>>>filled, having more lanes does not shorten the traveling time. So, from
>>>>that
>>>>point - your system might be struggling from over-work, which the 64bit
>>>>OS
>>>>would help speeding up, but the 64bit OS would be bogged down from the
>>>>hardware bottlenecks of that system. So, you would be having a one step
>>>>forward/ one step back situation!
>>>>
>>>>Even so, experience tells us that putting XP x64 on an older system in
>>>>an
>>>>attempt to upgrade it, is a bad idea. If your workload demands it, buy a
>>>>new
>>>>machine targeting on that OS and you will most likely be very happy with
>>>>the
>>>>result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Tony. . .