XP Home edition vs. XP Pro

[Lewie 7]

Well my wife managed to find me a copy of XP pro, and we also discussed something she remembered from her IT classes of a couple years back, that the first, early Home edition of XP, which I think is the 32 bit version, didn't have support for multiple core CPU's. And that XP Pro did?

 

Now considering that I've had a bit less than stellar frame rates on my computer when running OFF with Gregion 3.1 recording, would going to XP Pro give that big a boost in frame rates? Oddly enough my Gigabyte's motherboard tuner shows both cores activated and running and I get a slight increase in FPS when I up the PCI-e's front side frequency. But I'm curious as I don't run large resolutions.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

As far as I am aware, there is absolutely No difference between the two, when it comes to frame rates, or speed.

[Von Paulus 8]

As far as I am aware, there is absolutely No difference between the two, when it comes to frame rates, or speed.

+1

[MigBuster 2,879]

Well my wife managed to find me a copy of XP pro, and we also discussed something she remembered from her IT classes of a couple years back, that the first, early Home edition of XP, which I think is the 32 bit version, didn't have support for multiple core CPU's. And that XP Pro did?

 

 

 

No thats wrong

 

XP home 32 supported 1 Processor , whereas XP Pro supported multiple Processors- and this may have just been an MS licensing thing.

 

Although XP Home only supports 1 Processor, that Processor can have as many cores as required - so long story short - it will support multi core.

Edited July 7, 2011 by MigBuster

[xclusiv8 35]

You wont see any difference in frames at all.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Lewie, if you really want to crank up your OFF performance, get a copy of XP Pro 64-bit. That OS is beyond fast, has no hinkyness what-so-ever, and is cheap to snag on eBay and other places. I have been running it for the past couple of years and it rocks.

 

.

[xclusiv8 35]

.

 

Lewie, if you really want to crank up your OFF performance, get a copy of XP Pro 64-bit. That OS is beyond fast, has no hinkyness what-so-ever, and is cheap to snag on eBay and other places. I have been running it for the past couple of years and it rocks.

 

.

 

Isn't OF 32bit software? In that case it would not help the performance at all.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Isn't OF 32bit software? In that case it would not help the performance at all.

 

Have to say, I thought that too

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Not quite true Xclusiv8 and Widowmaker. What a 64-bit OS does is allow your system to use and quickly read up to 8GB of RAM. So by installing all 8GB of said RAM, and tweaking your Windows page file, (or disabling it entirely), you will indeed see a very noticable performance increase when running 32-bit sims such as OFF.

 

.

[xclusiv8 35]

.

 

Not quite true Xclusiv8 and Widowmaker. What a 64-bit OS does is allow your system to use and quickly read up to 8GB of RAM. So by installing all 8GB of said RAM, and tweaking your Windows page file, (or disabling it entirely), you will indeed see a very noticable performance increase when running 32-bit sims such as OFF.

 

.

 

That is not true. 32bit software can't access your 8gb of ram. It can only use 2gb. Some software can be tweaked so it can access a max of 4gb but that does not include all software. Photoshop for example can only use 3gb with the tweak on a 32bit OS. Even on a 64bit OS the 32bit software does not have access to the 8gb of ram. Well it has access but the software cant use it nor se it. So in the end it's pointless.

Then again not many games use more than 1gb of ram and i doubt OFF does that. But dont take my word for it i havent actually measured the amount of ram it uses up. If i would have to guess i would say no more than 800mb.

Edited July 9, 2011 by xclusiv8

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Well, I can tell you from my own experience that doing nothing more than switching from XP Pro 32 to XP Pro 64 and going to 8GB of RAM gave OFF a very large performance boost on my system. FPS nearly doubled, and I was able to push the sliders to 5-4-4-5-5 with everything staying nice and smooth. So there is something about the 64-bit OS and more RAM that is affecting OFF.

 

.

[Lewie 7]

.

 

Well, I can tell you from my own experience that doing nothing more than switching from XP Pro 32 to XP Pro 64 and going to 8GB of RAM gave OFF a very large performance boost on my system. FPS nearly doubled, and I was able to push the sliders to 5-4-4-5-5 with everything staying nice and smooth. So there is something about the 64-bit OS and more RAM that is affecting OFF.

 

.

 

Seems to be a bit of an impasse of agreement here. I'd like to keep my recordings from dropping into the low teens, FPS wise, if I can help it.

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

I may be talking out of turn here, but my thinking is that even if OFF can't access the extra RAM, it might still benefit from the 64 bit OS because other applications, as well as the OS, can access the extra RAM, meaning your machine can run more efficiently and thus better frame rates.

[UK_Widowmaker 571]

Well, I'm on W7 64...but onluy have 4GB RAM at the moment...So, if you're correct Lou...slamming some more in should make a big enough difference to warrant it?

[almccoyjr 7]

Xp Pro 64 can indeed "make" 32 bit apps run "faster", but not directly.

 

FSX can utilize up to, but no more than 4gb of system ram when run in a 64 bit OS and FSX is a 32 bit app.

 

I also run a couple hydraulic/servo system apps that are 32 bit, but also can utilize up to 4gb of ram in 64 OS when compiling accel/decel timing relationships.

 

Page file will be accessed quicker in a 64 OS because of the amount of memory that can be utilized and the efficiency/sophistication of the 64 bit drivers that are developed for hardware. XP 64 drivers were not completely developed. That's one reason I left XP 64; Thrustmaster never had a driver for the Cougar Hotas that would work in XP Pro 64. A well written 64 bit specific driver in a 64 bit OS will outperform the its 32 bit counterpart in a 32 bit OS. It simply has more resources to draw on.

 

XP Home "leaked" memory more so than XP 64, but XP 64 still "leaked". It handles processes better than XP Home and that leads to more available system memory.

 

The OS in and of itself doesn't equate to "faster", "better" gaming unless the game/app is written to take advantage of the 64 bit operating environment.

 

You can have a "perfectly" fluid game at 35fps and one that has micro stutters at 60fps. It strictly depends on where those intense rendering scenes occur and how the hardware handles them.

 

Just some thoughts and experiences.

 

plug_nickel

 

ps: check the availability of XP 64 drivers for all of your hardware before committing.

[RAF_Louvert 101]

.

 

Thank you for the additional information Plug-nickel, very helpful Sir.

 

Widowmaker, I cannot say for certain that your system will respond the way mine did, but for the price of another memory stick or two it might well be worth a shot. Here are my system specifications, just to keep everything in context:

 

CPU: Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0ghz Wolfdale 6mb 1333fsb 45nm with Arctic Cooler

Memory: 8gb DDR2 PC2-6400 800mhz

Mobo: ASUS P5QL Pro

Hard Drive: a pair of Western Digital 640 GB Caviar Black SATA with paging file moved to second drive

Opti Drive: LG 22X DVD+/RW Dual Layer SATA Rewrite

Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 9800 GTX+ 512mb

PS: Diablo 900 Watt

Windows XP Pro 64-bit OS

LG W2240T 21.5" flat screen LCD monitor, set at 1920 x 1082 32 bit HQ

 

CPU is OC'd to 3.80 and memory is OC'd to 890, with a mild OC of the vid card as well. I can run OFF with the sliders at 5-4-4-5-5 and keep a solid 45 to 60 FPS with no white jaggies of any kind.

 

.