Rl'Halsinor
Explorer
John Crichton said:... is coming on Friday.
Review to come.
Now this should prove to be interesting; look forward on reading your review.
PC Gaming & Dual Core Processors?
- Thread starter Rl'Halsinor
- Start date
Now this should prove to be interesting; look forward on reading your review.
Mycanid
First Post
XCorvis said:
I have a Dual Core Athlon 64 X2 4600+ and it is going on an Asus board ... I installed the patch. The machine works fine. It is beautiful and solid. I have no complaints with it whatsoever.
I also installed the amd patch on the other dual core amd cpu machines in the office. No problems. But to be honest I have not noticed such a major performance bump.
It is true, however, that some machines do not take the patch well. In that case, just boot to safe mode and uninstall the patch.
TwistedBishop
First Post
drothgery said:
What's your opinion on the dual-core patching question?
TwistedBishop said:
I'd never even heard of said patches before today. Having said that, the machines I use at work are dual Xeon servers than run Windows Server 2003 x64; server operating systems have always been designed to be multi-core aware. Moreover, I'm not responsible for OS updates on those machines. And my home PC is a Core 2 Duo notebook that runs Vista x64, so any AMD patches would be irrelevant.
I run one of my machines with a Manchester AMD dual core and I use XP x64 and I have never had any issues at all. I love the dual core and would recommend anyone to go dual (or quad !) core.Kaodi said:
As for 64 bit dual core capable software - my lil app went that way a long time ago... Its starting to happen and no doubt will become more common as Vista 64 bit becomes common. Its the 3Gb RAM limit that will push it though not the CPU core requirements.
Rl'Halsinor
Explorer
Redrobes said:
How much RAM do you have installed? I know someone who has the same cpu, Vista 64 and 2 gigs of memory (PC 3200) and he has had no issues with lag in gaming or other applications.
I have 4Gb which is the limit of my motherboard. If you want to use > 2Gb in XP then you need to use the /PAE switch in the boot.ini and that gets you to 3Gb. If you want to go higher in Windows then you have to go to 64 bit processor, OS and application. 64 bit windows gives a max currently at 64Gb which should be enough for most people right now ! I know i'm a bit weird, but I regularly allocate more than 3Gb which is why I went to a 64 bit OS. One problem is that when you go over 4Gb then it starts to page out. Paging out a few gig just kills it so though you don't run out of memory very often, if you do, your practically dead so the idea of virtual ram is a non starter. As you get more and more memory you have to limit what your doing instead of letting it just go beyond your hardware.Rl'Halsinor said:
Rl'Halsinor
Explorer
Redrobes said:
One thing I have noticed in my reading in various forums in the 'net is that the 32 bit version of Vista will not recognize no more than 3 Gigs even though a person may have 4 gigs in their motherboard. I think a number of people thought, oh its Vista therefore I can take advantage of 4 Gigs, but I think it is that Vista in a 32 bit application is just that -- 32 bits.
Then again I could be totally wrong.
Similar Threads
