Re: Windows XP 64-bit Video Games
Well, there are many misconceptions over CPU speed and 64bit dual-cores -
what you have is exactly the same as if you had a multi processor board with
two separate processors, but your processors are both crammed into one
housing. They each run at their rated speed (1.8, in your case) but this
doesn't mean you'll get 3.6Ghz if they run together sharing a process.
This is all about work-load. If you compare with a single processor CPU
running at 1.8, you will only see a performance benefit from a dual-core if
the single is running at full load more than half the time. Have you ever
had a game stop, or halt when some automatic update is kicking in? This
won't be happening with a dual-core with sufficient memory!
Same thing with the 64bit v. 32bit issue, this has nothing to do with
processing speed. This is like a highway, if you want to go from point A to
point B at a time when the highway is full, the journey will take a certain
amount of time - extending the highway by doubling the number of lanes will
allow you to travel the distance faster at that specific time. But if you
make the comparison at a time when the highway is not filled up doubling the
lanes will not have any impact at all on your traveling speed.
Unless your applications are written and compiled to take advantage of
multiple processors, they are passing on the task of scheduling to the OS.
Primarily for caching reasons, the Windows Scheduler passes jobs on to one
core untill it considers it may run a risk of having to reschedule the jobs
(wich would be an obvious waste).
XP x64 is not written on the XP code-base - it is written on the Server
code-base and therefore have a few tricks up it's sleave that XP doesn't.
When I try and figure how things are behaving here, I have a distinct
feeling that the XP x64 system is running faster, but I cannot run any
bechmark to prove the point. If there are any differences, they are small,
what it does is that it maximizes the things that are already good - but
this is precisely what a good product does - it makes you feel good about
it.
I am not familiar with the dv6000, I read a review that said it wasn't
breaking any speed records but was good for the desktop, I don't know. For
running games on a notebook, I probably wouldn't go to the expenses of
having a 64bit OS. On the other hand, it really is good and I'm sure you
will like it, if all your hardware has 64bit drivers available, (watch out
for the HP specific keyboard shortcuts, touch-pad and buttons!) but I doubt
it, that you'll think it paid off in the end? If you think the machine is
slow now, you'll probably think it's a little less slow.
One other point, most games does direct hardware programming, this requires
them to make function calls that are behaving like a driver would and so,
they have to be compiled for 64bit compatibility. Most games don't do this,
yet. Make sure that the games you are using are compatible, or you'll be
plenty sorry!
Tony. . .
"samoukos" <sammojohn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1195032437.960063.215880@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 , 03:02, "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperl...@dbREMOVEmail.dk>
> wrote:
>> XP x64 has noticably better Virtual Memory performance, and it may run
>> heavy
>> processes more easily. But - I agree, if it is slow it will probably not
>> help that much.
>>
>> Tony. . .
>
> Yea but my processor is 1.8Ghz each...the XP32 i think only uses the
> one processor...wont the XP64 use both properly and make them
> faster....i can see a big difference between the Ubuntu Linux 32bit
> and the Ubuntu Linux 64bit.....should do the same for windows shouldnt
> it????
>