New Window 7 build

For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit
Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit
Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No
significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until
it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated
to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

Ron wrote:
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit
Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit
Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No
significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until
it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated
to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

Should have mentioned I'll add another HD after the initial setup, but
not for RAID. I back up to my server.

Ron

Ron wrote:
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit
Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit
Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No
significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until
it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated
to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

First, when buying Intel processors, you should find as much info as
you can about the feature set.

The various processor families are here.

http://ark.intel.com

The reason for visiting there, is to make sure you buy a processor that
"has all the tick marks". What are the important tick marks ? Let's
look in the Core 2 Duo section for example.

http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollecti...familyID=26547

Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x) - this is important if you expect
to be able to play with Windows 7 "WinXP Mode", which is a virtual copy
of WinXP. An additional benefit of working virtualization, is a lot more
virtual OSes may actually boot properly in a tool like VPC2007 (a problem
I'm having right now).

Hyperthreading (a don't care)

Turbo Boost (a don't care)

The latter two are associated with the feature set of Core i5 or Core i7 processors
and don't affect the ability to try things. If you have them, that's fine,
but they're not drop-dead issues.

Another place to look, is processorfinder.intel.com, which will list other
features not on the ark.intel.com site. This is the entry for your
E8500 dual core.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/det...px?sSpec=SLB9K

# Dual Core (two cores on a single silicon die)
# Enhanced Intel Speedstep Technology (save power when idle, by dropping clock speed)
# Intel EM64T (supports a 64 bit OS! Important!)
# Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x, for "WinXP mode" in Win7)
# Enhanced Halt State (C1E) (save a little more power)
# Execute Disable Bit (makes life harder for malware)
# Intel Thermal Monitor 2 (limit temp via reduced operating speed)

Notes:

These parts have Intel Trusted Execution Technology (Intel TXT) enabled. (part of TPM ?)

These parts have PROCHOT enabled. (these two are for overheating)
These parts have THERMTRIP enabled.

These parts have PECI enabled. (digital temperature readout on processor)

These parts have Extended Stop Grant State (C2E) enabled. (three items for power saving)
These parts have Deep Sleep State (C3E) enabled.
These parts have Deeper Sleep State (C4E) enabled.

So, out of the above, we want VT-x and EM64T for sure. The rest
is window dressing.

*******

OK, so what other selection criteria are there ? How about performance ?

Performance = Number_of_cores * (clock_rate * instructions_per_clock)

Performance scales on applications that are multithreaded. Multimedia applications
such as video editing, movie rendering, or even Photoshop, tend to do more
"divide and conquer" on the work they do. In such cases, "Number_of_cores"
may help. Photoshop may split a picture into four pieces, and run a
filter on each piece, on a different core.

Other kinds of programs tend to run on a single core, in which case it
doesn't matter whether you bought a dual or a quad core.

Performance scaling also comes from being able to run a large number of
programs at the same time. For example, I could run a copy
of SuperPI, compress a movie, and still be able to get responsiveness from
that copy of Photoshop I was using. If you multitask on your computer a lot,
with demanding stuff running in the background all the time, then a quad
core processor is for you.

Now, based on the above, "clock_rate" is always good to have. "Clock_rate"
helps all kinds of programs. "Number_of_cores" depends more on what you're doing.
If you've been using computers for a long time, you probably have a good idea
what you like to do. If all you do is Microsoft Word, email, web surfing,
you could likely survive with a dual core processor quite nicely.

*******

Next, on to "32 bit" versus "64 bit" computing.

Why do we want 64 bit computing ?

At the present time, the only thing 64 bit computing is good for, is
for being able to use all the RAM we stuff in the motherboard. Say
I stick 4x2GB of RAM in your computer, using the four slots on your
motherboard. To be able to use all of it, I'd want a 64 bit OS.

There is currently no other good reason for a 64 bit OS on a desktop.

As a matter of fact, let's discuss performance. The Intel Core family
of processors, got some of its performance boost from fusing instructions
together.

http://anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2711&p=3

"macro fusion will allow x86 instructions (before the decode stage)
to be fused together and sent down as a single instruction"

When the Intel processor runs in 64 bit mode, one of the fusion
features can no longer be efficiently used. This means there could
be a 10% difference in performance (slower in 64 bit mode).
AMD processors have less of a difference between 32 bit and 64 bit modes,
maintaining the same efficiency in either mode. So if you're worried about
efficiency, you may be better off staying at 32 bits.

*******

The features are relatively independent of one another. You can
run a 32 bit OS or a 64 bit OS (as long as "EM64T" appears in
the feature list). You can run various forms of virtualization,
if you have VT-x at a minimum. That seems to be important for
certain versions of Windows 7 (WinXP mode is not available in
all of them). Two cores or four cores, depends on what you do
with the computer. Your software vendors won't go out of their
way to tell you whether they make good use of quads. You could
buy a quad, as "future proofing", mainly because it may not
be that easy to tell when you're going to get a big boost
from it. If you spend all day shrinking movies, then yes,
it'll be a good purchase for you.

I can probably "feel the difference" between running a Windows
OS on a single core, versus a dual core. Feeling a difference
between dual and quad core, is less likely. The main reason
for buying a quad core, is if you believe eventually compilers
will make better use of multiple cores. Buying one is a form
of future proofing.

Paul

Paul wrote:
Ron wrote:
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

Big snip


I can probably "feel the difference" between running a Windows
OS on a single core, versus a dual core. Feeling a difference
between dual and quad core, is less likely. The main reason
for buying a quad core, is if you believe eventually compilers
will make better use of multiple cores. Buying one is a form
of future proofing.

Paul

Many thanks for the heads up on CPUs. Since I already have the 32-bit OS
and most of my familiar s/w is the same, I had a feeling I'd probably
stay there. The CPU is another story. You've given me some excellent
ways to make a reasoned decision, and I'll go through these later tonight.

Ron

Ron wrote:
Paul wrote:
Ron wrote:
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

Big snip


I can probably "feel the difference" between running a Windows
OS on a single core, versus a dual core. Feeling a difference
between dual and quad core, is less likely. The main reason
for buying a quad core, is if you believe eventually compilers
will make better use of multiple cores. Buying one is a form
of future proofing.

Paul

Many thanks for the heads up on CPUs. Since I already have the 32-bit OS
and most of my familiar s/w is the same, I had a feeling I'd probably
stay there. The CPU is another story. You've given me some excellent
ways to make a reasoned decision, and I'll go through these later tonight.

Ron

Paul,

I've read through everything you provided and found it easy to
understand and follow. I believe I'll stay with the E8500 and not fret
about 64-bit processing. I don't have any real plans for anything as
intensive as video authoring, so the two cores should be fine. I may
eventually upgrade from CS2 to CS(x), but as a semi-retired pro, I'm
rarely under deadlines.

Again, many thanks for the clear and thoughtful references you gave me.
Now my only decisions include final conclusions about Win 7 Ultimate
(which may be overkill). Even though I own this version of the OS, it
came to me free as a Technet subscriber, so nuking it in favor of Win 7
Professional is an easy option.

-best

Ron

"Ron" wrote in message
news
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was a
Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so 32-bit
was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the 64-bit Win
7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to get
the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to run
64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit? From the
other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with 32-bit Ultimate?
This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine. No significant
upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU, until it's time to
build another primary. (I already have machines dedicated to audio,
graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7 seems
to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than Vista or XP.
Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather more moot point.

--

John

Bioboffin wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
news
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to
run 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit?
From the other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with
32-bit Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine.
No significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU,
until it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines
dedicated to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7
seems to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than
Vista or XP. Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather
more moot point.


I understand that one of the optimizations that exist in Vista or later,
is better handling of NUMA. There is a cost associated with moving a
process from Core1 to Core3, like cache coherency traffic (stuff in
one L2 cache, needing to move to the other L2 cache, on a demand
basis). A good OS design would realize moving from Core1 to Core2,
costs less than moving something from Core1 to Core3.

Intel Core2 Quad

Two silicon die
within IC package

Core1 Core3
Core2 Core4
L2 L2
| |
+----+----+
|
|
FSB (external)

This article makes it sound like this was just invented for Windows 7,
but I remember similar things being said when Vista came out, and how
Vista was better in that regard than WinXP.

http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/64plusLP

Vista is mentioned here.

http://developer.amd.com/pages/1162007106.aspx

Paul

Bioboffin wrote:

"Ron" wrote in message
news
For the first time in quite a while, I'm assembling a primary desktop
strictly to run Win 7 Ultimate (32-bit). I acquired the OS when I was
a Technet subscriber and hadn't worked with 64-bit systems much, so
32-bit was my first choice. After reflection, I may eventually go the
64-bit Win 7 Professional route, but that's not on the plate yet.

As it sits, I have the following major components:

Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P mobo (Intel P45 chip)
Powercolor AX 3650 1GBD2-V2 Radeon HD 3650 1GB video card.
Antec Sonata 2 case

Sometime in the next few days, I'm getting these components:

Intel Core2 Duo E8500 Wolfdale CPU
WD Caviar WD1001FALS 1TB Sata drive
4Gb (2x2GB) G.Skill PC2 8500 sticks

Here's my thought: Instead the Core Duo E8500, would it make sense to
get the E8400 Quad core on the possibility of switching over to 64-bit
Professional. I guess what I'm really asking is a) is it possible to
run 64-bit Win 7 on the Core Duo without a serious performance hit?
From the other direction, will the Quad core run efficiently with
32-bit Ultimate? This is going to be what i call a "6-year" machine.
No significant upgrades, other than more memory with a 64-bit CPU,
until it's time to build another primary. (I already have machines
dedicated to audio, graphic, photo workflow, etc.)

Any thoughts? All input appreciated as to the new build.

I have found quad core to run significantly faster with Windows 7. W7
seems to have optimised the multiprocessor threads rather better than
Vista or XP. Whether or not your applications will benefit is a rather
more moot point.

That's been a part of the quandary. None of my current apps seem like
they will run significantly better with four cores. Photoshop CS2 put
the biggest demands on a P4 2.53Mhz 478 (2.5GB RAM) and it's always run
very well. If I were more inclined to multi-tasking, four might help,
but I can't see it at the moment. Fwiw, I'm not a gamer and don't do
video authoring either!

Thanks for the feedback.

Ron

Paul wrote:
Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x) - this is important if you expect
to be able to play with Windows 7 "WinXP Mode", which is a virtual copy
of WinXP. An additional benefit of working virtualization, is a lot more
virtual OSes may actually boot properly in a tool like VPC2007 (a problem
I'm having right now).

I got my Window 7 64-bit machine up now. I went to Fry's and bought
a new motherboard for it, and it is actually a Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P!
No sense wasting a good XP copy that is legally married to my Gigabyte
GA-P35-DS3L. My upgrade copy can upgrade my Windows 2000 upgrade
disk on which Microsoft basically screwed me out of a rebate (no rebate
if you are upgrading an OEM NT install-- only mentioned on the *inside*).
The x64 install didn't ask for previous media, anyway, and I installed it on
a new empty drive.

The Virtual XP mode is pretty slow. It uses the AHCI Uniprocessor PC HAL.
I have given it 2GB of RAM. I just ran the SuperPi Mod 1.4 1M test, and
my Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400) finished in a pedestrian 89 seconds. I'm
not sure to which dinosaur that is equivalent, but I didn't realize that VMs
were so slow.

It turns out that there was a 64-bit driver for my 16-year-old Laserjet 4,
after all.

I haven't installed everything, but I've had a few glitches with my 32-bit
software. The DVD-lab 1.33 demux.aux crashes after each MPEG-2
demultiplexing, but does not crash the main app, and the files created
seem to be fine. This happens even if I set the compatibility mode of
DVD-lab to XP. A minor annoyance. The microphone setup app for
Battlefield 2 wouldn't run, either. I haven't searched for a solution yet.

I actually hate the new Start Menu. I liked having organized folders on the
top level Start Menu and now I have to settle for a toolbar on the Task Bar
taking up space, but I can put other folders inside and they display as
a cascading sub-menu. I see there are Start Menu replacements available
that I may eventually adopt. I might just have been happier with Vista 64
with more XP-type options.

I also hate the Search function. I was most happy with the one in Window
2000. I don't want to wait for it to search inside files in non-indexed locations
unless I say so, and it's not convenient to continually alter the default behavior.

I miss Outlook Express for news. It was just better than this Window Live Mail.
What idiot decided to use an hardly readable typeface and make the *Author*
field bold or not for unread or read messages instead of the Subject?! And
no more "Block Sender?" I'm getting rid of that ASAP-- I will try Thunderbird
first. If that is not to my liking, I guess I can always use OE in Virtual XP.

Anyway, there's a bit of a learning curve, but I guess not so much for Vista users.
I am enjoying all the memory I could reasonably afford to stuff in, though.

Fishface wrote:
Paul wrote:
Intel Virtualization Technology (VT-x) - this is important if you expect
to be able to play with Windows 7 "WinXP Mode", which is a virtual copy
of WinXP. An additional benefit of working virtualization, is a lot more
virtual OSes may actually boot properly in a tool like VPC2007 (a problem
I'm having right now).

I got my Window 7 64-bit machine up now. I went to Fry's and bought
a new motherboard for it, and it is actually a Gigabyte GA EP45-UD3P!
No sense wasting a good XP copy that is legally married to my Gigabyte
GA-P35-DS3L. My upgrade copy can upgrade my Windows 2000 upgrade
disk on which Microsoft basically screwed me out of a rebate (no rebate
if you are upgrading an OEM NT install-- only mentioned on the *inside*).
The x64 install didn't ask for previous media, anyway, and I installed
it on
a new empty drive.

The Virtual XP mode is pretty slow. It uses the AHCI Uniprocessor PC HAL.
I have given it 2GB of RAM. I just ran the SuperPi Mod 1.4 1M test, and
my Q9550 @ 3.4 GHz (8.5 x 400) finished in a pedestrian 89 seconds. I'm
not sure to which dinosaur that is equivalent, but I didn't realize that
VMs
were so slow.

snip

SuperPI 23.375 sec, 1 million digits, Core2 2.6GHz (native, in WinXP)

SuperPI 24.986 sec, 1 million digits, same processor (WinXP running VPC2007, Win2K guest OS)

My virtual results show hardly any slowdown at all.

Paul